What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Posted By: Like NOT TAXING CHURCHES? on 2009-04-07
In Reply to: And special rights for - Patty
Talk about special privileges.
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
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.
Average is 90.
Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.
You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.
People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.
This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.
Special about Obama's Neighbors on now
Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).
Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?
I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw
Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.
Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL
There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln
The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.
Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore. 
Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.
So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.
You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.
I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.
The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.
By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.
From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.
I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.
Compassion goes both ways.
My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Not worried. O's request for a special prosecutor to investigate
DOJ regarding the pub party's umpteenth chapter in dogging this group will undoubtedly uncover both sides to this story...can you say voter suppression? How about election results challenges ala 2000 and 2004? Third time isn't always the charm.
Ok - still confused
I'm reading all these posts to the original poster and I am just lost. I have no idea what all this means and don't know what it has to do with politics. Guess I am just dense tonight.
You got me confused with sam. I really
nm
I'm a little confused.
I watched Bush's blurb last night. Can someone clearly explain to me how what he is proposing will get us out of trouble? I'm being sincere, I just don't get it.
I'm a little confused...
what happened? I'm sorry I haven't been watching the news lately... :(
I'm confused . . .
You respond to one divisive post with your own divisive post, but you agree with me? I am an independent who has actually voted for Republican, Democrat and third-party candidates, so I am certainly not closed minded. I am just bored reading the same arguments over and over and over.
ok, am way too confused
too many posts, too late in the day, not enough caffeine, think I better take a break from this. My apologies if I offended you. I just have very strong beliefs and I get defensive when people bash me and I defend myself and they turn around and say its all my fault.
Anyway...again apologies if I offended you and many apologies if I've been replying to the wrong person.
I'm Confused SM
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight . . .
* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're
'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become
the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter
registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12
years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State
Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become
chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee,
spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a
state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving
on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000
people, then you're qualified to become the country's second
highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while
raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches,
you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left
your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're
a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education,
including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the
fiber of society. |
|
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with
no other option in sex education in your state's school system
while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very
responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position
in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner
city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's
values don't represent America 's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one
DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to
vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated
the secession of Alaska from the USA , your family is extremely
admirable.
OK, much clearer now. |
|
I think you are a little confused sm
It's not about giving part of my money to you, it's about fairness in taxes. Right now, GW Bush gives a great deep tax cut to people making over $250K and he is just going to take that tax break and apply it to those making less and who are now struggling with their salaries trying to pay for gas etc. A lot of the time, the rich aren't even asking for the greater tax break... GW just applied it across the board. They will still be rich but the middle class needs a break. This isn't about welfare. It's about working families like you and your husband. You will not get a handout. You will still pay taxes but you will not pay a inordinate amount that is out of proportion to your income. That's all it is.
I'm confused...
in your original post you were talking about minimum wage earners and then you say you paid them very well - which is it? Not trying to argue, just trying to understand who thinks minimum wage is paying very well?
I'm confused. Her? Him? Who?
nm
I think you are confused.
You contradict yourself in your own post.
you must be confused
My previous post said PEOPLE were to blame for not living within their means. Nobody forced them to take out loans they knew darn good and well they would never be able to pay back.
It really burns me that I am going to pay for THEIR stupidity. I live within my means. Everyone else should too.
I seriously don't think you mean to say that they were forced into taking these loans out. If that's what you meant, you must be delusional.
I am NOT confused.
I did not say they were forced to take them out--I said that lenders were forced to give them out. Had that not happened, this mess would not have happened. It does NOT just affect the people who live outside their means, it affects the whole economy; therefore, I hold those responsible for forcing the loans to be given more responsible than those greedy enough to take them! If you see it differently, perhaps you are delusional.
you are confused
America is very unusual in that if you are born here you are a citizen. Most other countries are NOT like that! You are a citizen of the country of your parents! Please look this UP!
Oh, I am NOT confused, but I would be if I
nm
I think you have me confused
with another poster. I have 3 kids, all teens. My husband and I both work 2 jobs. The last vacation we had that was more than a day's drive from our home ---- oh yeah, never. We live in the midwest and have never even seen the ocean.
I disagree about the minimum wage hike being the answer. The problem is the huge percentage of the population that has zero work ethic. Even if you raised the minimum wage, those with the entitlement personality would still only work to get enough for their immediate gratification. They won't do the math and see that if they stayed in this higher-minimum-wage job for an entire year they would finally get ahead of the game. They only want to get ahead of the game on somebody else's blood, sweat and tears. I don't feel sorry for them if they are not willing to work.
It's not fair for the young teen who is busting his butt at McDonald's or some other minimum wage job to sock it away for college or his first car to get let go because the minimum wage was raised.
I'm glad you want to help people - I do too. It's just not the right solution to the problem. Dear.
I don't think they are the ones who are confused, here.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible. 135? Really? I would think that'd help you keep posters and their messages straight.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible. 135? Really? I would think that'd help you keep other posters and their messages straight.
I'm doing okay, just a little confused (LOL
I'm starting to get some rather worrisome, more classic symptoms of my cystic fibrosis, so I might not be around as much for a while again.)
As far as JTBB, I hope she's okay, but I doubt that anything could hold her back. Same with "m". And I'm glad. You and those two are my favorites on this board, and if there weren't polite, decent, "follow the Golden Rule" type on this board, I'd have no reason at all to visit here.
Don't know if you'll be seeing me in the next few days. If not, I hope you have a great week. You're definitely a class act. 
By the way, you're welcome, but the way I see it, it wasn't even a compliment, it was merely the truth!
Poor kid, he is confused, isn't he?
This is exactly what I mean when I say America is very confused.nm
z
These people are obviously confused
The U.S. is not Israel. Shouldn't they should be demonstrating in Jerusalem. 
I'm confused. Who do you hate more...
nm
I'm confused - can somebody explain
Okay, I don't have a fancy law degree. Did sit on jury duty for a week some years ago, but this I don't understand. I thought there was something about rumors and gossip was not a legal basis in a case, but today I heard this (on a more liberal station), that there is an investigation into what Governor Sarah Palin did to her ex-brother-in-law, and the lawyers on Obama's side are having people testify under oath to what they've heard as rumor and gossip and it will be included in the investigation.
Can they do that? Like I say I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought rumors and gossip were not allowed in testimonies.
Hey, i think you have me confused with that other poster!
I was being sarcastic about conforming. I see what Bush has gotten us. I'm on your side!
sorry, my little brain got confused by all the
If my grandma, mother, etc died today, I wouldn't say any of those things because I would be with my family grieving the loss. Obviously, Obama doesn't care that much or he'd be there with his family.
|
