And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-21
In Reply to: You just described yourself... - Observer
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
You do not speak for anyone here. There was nothing wrong with her posts. They were honest.nm
12
your nasty posts speak for your state of mind
And, unfortunately, most mentally ill do not realize they are ill. I hope you have a supportive family. Or at least a couple cats.
Posts were removed due to the nastiness. Play nice and posts won't get deleted.
I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.
On a serious note...
....I thank you for your response. While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.
Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future. I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing. Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.
and on that note...
Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
Note to sam
Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
One more note
Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.
If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.
God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
Please note....(sm)
I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm
There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published. I would love to see the entire list.
Note, what I said was
You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment. Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading. You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one. Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you. Military training and just plain common sense.
Please note....(sm)
We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger.
"There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one."
You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war? What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it? That is just completely irrational.
"Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."
Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
Note to gt......off topic
It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers. I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night. Don't know why I get involved in it. My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.
Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.
note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
just a note from factcheck.org
A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
On a lighter note.....sm
Stuff I didn't know about.......
Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html
Agree and just want to add to your note that
that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen. He out-and-out dissed them. So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views. He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did.
Note to mythbuster...(sm)
Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)
You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.
I think the thing to note here...(sm)
is not so much that he had an affair. People do that all the time. I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well. However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out. It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand.
Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around. If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.
More on that note....France, that non...
judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.
And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
Please note that American Woman is not AG
Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing. You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.
The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me.
I read here, but I don't post here. I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up. Have a great day!
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m. Humor is lost on you all...
OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
Please note sources within this article...
http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
Here's a funny for you. Note the date.
James I. Blakslee
"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"
"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"
"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."
"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."
I get a kick out of that.
A note about your socialism comment sm
We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.
On the whole religion note, I just read yesterday
about how McCain people are calling Jewish neighborhoods and making false statements about Obama. They start out saying they are polling or something, and then it gets into their religion - making false statements about Obama. The people that were called from McCain's people were very upset about this, that they would call and say these things. One woman even asked a question about it and the person on the other end of the phone said they wouldn't qualify for the poll if they weren't Jewish or they wouldn't have been called if they didn't live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. I think that is disgusting.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement...
was minimal."
Abscam and the Keating Five
In 1978, the Federal Bureau of Investigation embarked on a sting operation, labeled Abscam, in which agents posed as Middle Eastern businessmen offering bribes to senators and congressmen. The FBI targeted 31 government officials in total during the operation, including state officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Six congressmen, Democrats John Jenrette of South Carolina, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, John Murphy of New York and Frank Thompson of New Jersey, and Republican Richard Kelly of Florida, and one senator, Democrat Harrison Williams of New Jersey, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges in 1981.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania also was indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal."
Kelly initially had the conviction overturned when a judge ruled the sting amounted to illegal entrapment, but in 1984, a higher court sentenced Kelly to 13 months in prison. Kelly was famously caught on videotape packing his pockets with $25,000 in cash, asking the undercover agents, "Does it show?"
But as opposed to Abscam tarnishing Congress, it was the FBI that dealt with much of the long-term scrutiny as investigations into their probe brought up the entrapment issue. After Abscam, there have been no published accounts of efforts to catch lawmakers in the act, rather the focus became investigating wrongdoing after the act.
The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.
The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.
DeConcini and Riegle did not run for re-election in 1994 and were succeeded by Republican Sens. John Kyl and Spencer Abraham.
Looks to me like the Democrats were on the majority wrong end of both of these scandals.
On a lighter note, a bipartisan funny card (sm)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=474735065&m=2086&rr=y&source=ag999
While the "poo" is flying, let's note I did not make my post about whether...sm
I agreed with the stimulus package, because if you read further back on this board, I have been stating my opposition clearly for weeks, and just what I have problems with! This post was about a thinly-veiled, very inflammatory, crude, demeaning, hurtful "comic," and not just for the President, many African-Americans were hurt by this, and wrong is wrong, I am keeping my post specifically to this one point, I am sick of "pubs" or anyone else clouding issues by dragging other irrelevant issues in. The Post really demeaned themselves by publishing this, and they know it!!
You fail to note that the Army Corp of Engineers....
is a federal entity and it was THEIR job to fix the levies, too bad W cut all the funding so he could play Monopoly in Iraq.
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot. I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
I was never on SP's side.... s/m
but I think that it was extremely tasteless of this Canadian comedian to post as
French President Sarkozy and interview her for 5 minutes and making fun of her.
Extremely tasteless.
After all she was the running mate of McCain.
I am a democrat.
I don't think that either side... sm
has much room to talk.
I have seen articles, opinions and links posted, apparently by Republicans, about the issues facing Obama, and the first replies are the childish Dems who come on and say "well, it's Bush's fault that he has this or that to deal with" or some other childish remark.
By the same token, I have seen what I believe to be Democrats posting nasty articles and opinions about Sarah Palin and how she is giving interviews, how she obviously doesn't have the sense to be a major political player or whether she gave the clothes back to the party before going back to Alaska.
I'm with BWT. I think the childishness and catiness that I have seen on this board for the last week or so need to end and let's get to discussing the issues at hand. We won't be able to solve a danged one of them, but we can have a civilized adult discussion and we might even learn a thing or two from each other.
Reach across the aisle, folks. 
We are on the same side
I wanted to post and did not want to respond to an Ann fan, so I posted under your reasonable statement.
no just one side
This problem is not just a dem/repub problem. It is a greedy CEO/Wallstreet problem as well. It is a mass amounts of people went out and bought things they couldnt afford and houses they didnt need and couldnt afford problem. Did the gov make them go out and do that? Who made all these people sign their names on these subprime short arm loans that collapsed? It is their fault too. It is also a welfare problem. You know, those people who would rather pop out kids for a job than work for real.
...and just you on the other side.
...but not LAST night.
Get a job.
No one took Eric's side. sm
 But then, you know that. The rest I won't argue with you about. If you use science against God's Word, what more can I say.
The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm
Disney Cancels Mel Gibson Holocaust Series
The ABC television network has pulled a miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Mel Gibson 's production company, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, quoting an unidentified representative for the network.
Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early on Friday and was reported to have launched into a tirade against Jews, asking the arresting officer if he was a Jew and blaming the Jews for starting all wars.
The actor, who holds strong conservative Catholic religious and political views and whose father is a Holocaust denier, apologized on Saturday.
The incident has raised questions about the future of projects Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, like the ABC television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II, the newspaper said An ABC representative told the paper, without elaborating, it has been two years and the network still has not seen a script, so the project is being pulled.
A spokesperson for ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney Co. , could not be reached for comment.
Disney's movie studio arm still plans to release Gibson 's self-financed Mayan-language movie Apocalypto on Dec. 8, Hollywood's trade papers reported. The Web site Slate.com quoted Walt Disney Studios president Oren Aviv as saying he accepted Gibson 's apology.
Copyright Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
We're on the same side
I am trying to understand where all this animosity is coming from. Why does it bother you so much that the last democratic president and former first lady/candidate/senator are going to be at the convention? How would it look if they weren’t there? Hillary and Obama are basically on the same page when it comes to policy, so I am guessing this is a personality issue for you? During the primaries, her tactics and strategies left a lot to be desired, to be sure, which may have been a mitigating factor as to why Obama was ultimately able to come out on top but, let’s face it, not by much. It will be extremely important that the party get past its in-fighting and focus on the task at hand of winning the election in November.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are and will remain influential party leaders for a some time to come. It appears that it is her die-hard base supporters that are acting like children. They are the ones who prolonging the division and ill-will which you are expressing here. Both the Clintons have been selected by the Democratic National Convention Committee to speak in Denver for good reason. The DNC recognizes just how pivotal their roles will be in bringing the party back together. This group of HRC’s supporters who are planning to disrupt the convention and demand a roll-call are not very likely to succeed in this effort. This serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is in nobody’s best interests.
Hillary will eventually “crawl back into her hole,” as you so eloquently put it, and return to her position as a junior senator, but not until she has done her job of trying to encourage party unity. I suspect that she still has much to contribute in that capacity and in roles yet undefined in terms of advancing party policies. Try not to take what the newscasters say as gospel. They relish in scandal and controversy. Do not give them the satisfaction. It should come as no surprise that the Clintons are disappointed in the primary results, but that does not mean that they are supposed to fade on off into the sunset. It is not their time to pass...not just yet.
Bill Clinton, a racist? Where is this coming from? Fox News? He does not hide behind mansion walls in the ghetto. His foundation continues to advance the cause of civil and human rights, both here and abroad. It is unfair to write HRC off as a disgrace to women who needs to “just go away,” based on this one less than stellar chapter in her political career. She is much more than that, just as Bill Clinton is much than the "impeached president" you so casually dismiss. I am wondering if you hated him this much while he was in office, or did this arise out of the recent primary process?
In any case, if Obama is defeated, HRC will not be responsible. It will be this divisive in-fighting within the party members that will be the reason. We are between the primaries and the convention. The entire campaign still lies ahead of us. Just give it a little more time. You will see Hillary and Bill come around as party loyalists who will play perhaps the most key roles of all in party unification. This is not just their job. It is up to all democrats to come together this fall and keep their eyes on the prize. Perpetuating this kind of division does nothing to advance that cause. Is this hatred really worth harboring to the extent that, in the end, we will be facing 4 or 8 more years of a republican regime? Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself this riled up, and ask yourself what I ask you now….where is this really coming from? I think I know the answer, but I am more interested in hearing yours at the moment.
Disrespect is nothing new on your side...
and it is not just directed at me, and to suggest so is being dishonest at best. You tolerate no opinion other than your own, want to discuss only issues that you are pro and do not tolerate discussion of any other viewpoint, and for people who call themselves Democrats that is a very undemocratic attitude. You hate an entire group of people (all Republicans...well I should say anyone who is not Democrat) for no reason other than that. Two sides? That's rich! There have never been 2 sides.
As to domination of the board....there are about 6 or 8 of you guys to 1 of mine. lol. Talk about blinders.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
"Woe to the other side who does not
recognize it." What I saw was very scary, an individual who has not clue one about what is going on in this country or out of it. Very scared, indeed. Woe, indeed. You make this election sound like a football game. This is our country, our children's future that is at stake. And no, I didn't find her very knowledgeable in the least, just mouthing words and throwing something someone told her to say. We will see, but I pray to God these two do not get elected.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Another side of the coin.....
I respect your beliefs and am very happy you found your niche in life and saved your marriage. Kudos to you! I myself do not question Obama's morals - and I can't say that I question McCain's either. But, Bush got into the white house based on deceptive strategies aimed at leading the populace to believe he was on the moral high ground. (I see the same strategy being used in McCain's campaign). In view of what has transpired over the last 8 years, my faith in the pubs moral high ground has been trampled beyond repair. I believe torture of other human beings to be reprehensible and not advocated by any religion, but it continues and McCain supported it - even though he himself was tortured as a POW. The sex scandals - Larry Craig (airport bathrooms - it was illegal - otherwise, I don't care who he has sex with), Mark Foley (Repub House Representative - Once known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages) and now the scandal surrounding the Department of the Interior on charges of getting into bed with big oil (literally and figuratively) drug abuse, etc. I find the whole thing ridiculous to base your campaign on "personality" and moral high ground. I am not saying that Dems did not have their issues with sex scandals - as we all know.
I believe Jesus Christ was once a very highly evolved human being and no longer has to incarnate as a human as he has reached perfection. I believe Buddha was a very highly evolved human being who no longer has to incarnate for the same reason. I believe that Ghandi and Mother Theresa were highly evolved. I believe that energy never disappears, it only changes form. I believe in life after death. I believe that love is the most important thing in life. Humans are not perfect. I do not believe that sex is sin. Dolphins have sex for pleasure and I am not equating humans to aquatic life - but Dolphins are highly intelligent. Do you think God judges them for indulging in pleasure? I believe that exploiting the vulnerable for sex is morally wrong (children, women....that's as far as I'll go on that). Sex between 2 consenting adults is not wrong.
I believe that every religion has it's place on earth and I am in no way authorized or vetted to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. They are all right. Paganism, Wiccan, the Jewish faith, Catholic, Muslim, etc., etc. We, as humans, have the right to decide what is right for us in that regard.
I think all religions know the difference between right and wrong and stealing from others, torturing others, even JUDGING others is morally wrong. You can boil it down to not having ANYTHING to do with religion.
And to believe that whoever is in the white house holds your moral values as a primary reason for decisions that are made is naive. I think the last 8 years proves that and for that reason, I fear more of the same. I am willing to cross party lines just to see if this disaster of a country can be repaired.
The other side of the coin....
Karl Rove would be working to get any Republican elected. That is what he does. He is not a member of the campaign and it is a free country...he can advocate anyone he wants.
If Obama was serious about change he would not have picked a senator who has been in the senate over 30 years. That is not change. That is also more of the same.
James Johnson, of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame, who used to be an economic advisor to Obama...after he came under scrutiny for possible fraud, he left the OBama campaign with his tail between his legs. Don't see much difference in the two.
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
I'm just going to explain our side...
please don't start a war about this.
We are taught in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. We believe in the holy sanctity of marriage. Therefore it is violating the laws of God when homosexuals marry.
Again, it is not the homosexuals that we "hate" or "despise". It is the sin of homosexuality.
I do believe homosexuals are born that way. We are all born into sinful natures. Remember, in God's eyes, all sins are equal. We all have natural tendencies, and that includes homosexuality. I was born a compulsive liar. Since as far back as I can remember I have lied about anything and everything. Now that I am a Christian, that doesn't change. But with the help of Christ I am changing that and I have put away my sinful nature of lying. In the same sense, when a homosexual comes to know the true Christ, He will give them new desires and help them to withstand the temptation to go back to their old ways.
I know most of you won't understand this, but I just wanted to give you our viewpoint. True Christians do not hate homosexuals, or blacks, or immigrants, or abortionists, or anyone else. We just hate the sin, because sin separates us from God.
We want a president who is going to keep the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman. Marriage came from God, and it is a holy matrimony.
Please don't flame, I'm just trying to explain in a way that maybe you can understand. I see it from your side too. Before I became a Christian I didn't understand the big deal either. But now I do and I see the big picture. If God had meant for man and man or woman and woman to be together, he would have given us the "parts" to be able to do so.
|
