jimshiz

Are you saying this to "both sides"? I agree that now is not the time to "blame" anybody. There really isn't any prejudices behind the slowness of support. There really isn't any lack of support. But, "one side" sure is spewing out a lot of blame; it is possible that the "other side" is simply pointing out other possibilities to defend themselves from the totally ridiculous things being said right now.

You failed to list our next President - Dick Cheney !!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/13/canada.weapons/index.html

It is already Patriot Day !!! http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020904-10.html

18 hours !!!

You could register Democrat just so you can have more fun during the primaries voting for the guy who you want to be the opponent of the guy you'll really vote for. Then vote however you want in the general. In Indiana, you don't have to register R or D, but in the primaries you'll simply tell them which one you want to vote in - a few years ago, a block of Ds crossed over to vote for the "weaker" mayoral candidate on the R side and the D ending up winning the general election.

Where I live, the regular price for 13 oz. is $3.29. But, I almost never buy them at that price. I stock up on them when they are "buy one, get one" or "half price". And, on a related not, they changed the recipe for the Nacho Cheese and changed the label to say "Better Tasting" - NOT !!! Why do they insist on changing the recipe? You can't find the original "Taco" flavored that existed back in the 1970s - now they have that stupid "Taco Bell" flavor with Sour Cream. I used to buy small bags of Taco Doritos for 5 cents, then 10 cents back in the 1970s.

I must be retarded then because that is exactly what I am teaching my kids.

If you accept his argument for not teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in a science classroom: Then why doesn't he use the same argument to keep Darwin's Theory of Evolution out of the science classroom?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/parks/2005/0...g-by-sword.html Now she says: "I'll never talk to a reporter again! We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed." Like she hasn't ever done the exact same thing to somebody else. And this just adds evidence to what most of us around here know about her. She's Liberal? Well, that's not it. She's a Bush hater? Maybe! She's STUPID? DING !!! DING !!! DING !!!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45493 "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself..." "All we need is one more liar." - she's talking about Clinton, right?

NO !!! The "poster" (me) was NOT using the quote to imply Ginsburg was on the pro-life side. My point was that you can say and write that "Roe v. Wade" was "bad law" and that would not always be indicative of what your thoughts are on the subject of abortion. So, Roberts wrote that Roe v. Wade was "bad law"; but it is still not crystal clear what he really thinks about abortion. He'll never answer a question about a hypothetical or how he might have ruled on something that has already been decided or even how he might rule on something that will come up. Some might be able to guess what he thinks based on his background. But, think about how that worked out with Sandra Day O'Connor, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036950.cfm "liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz also think Roe was bad law"

More fun with words... BTW - is it Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden?

Seeing how much fun that was, how about a succinct poll?

Don't you mean HOMICIDE "bombers"? Now we can argue about two words!

Corrections due to the fact that you must be taking your lead from the BBC...

Is the current way of determining "unemployment numbers" different now under GWB than it was under previous Presidents; such as Clinton?

In the spirit of "full disclosure": http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...in_explosions_1 I ain't saying anything... just thought it was an interesting article after having remembered CTM's post.

NO !!! I do not sit at God's right hand! I am a sinner; I know it. My point about Jesus even loves you (and me) is me agreeing with your statement "that Jesus embraced the outcasts of the time and saw them as people when others would not". People who live the gay lifestyle are sinners just like you and me. We should all strive to not sin, but we will never fully succeed. Popular opinions are NOT morals. We'll never really know absolute right and absolute wrong. But, at least people like me feel better about doing what we think God says is "right" vs. "wrong" instead of men who think right and wrong changes over time. No, I can not recognize that the Bible was written by mere men. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Some errors might exist due to incorrect translations. This is one of the things we "believers", well, believe.

So, does this mean the vast majority of those here who don't "believe" can continue to bash the Catholic Church but since I try to be "good" I should STFU?

Not exactly what you are looking for, but it might have links... http://uselectionatlas.org/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22po...+state%22+issue Interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268738/

Yes, the Vatican that is made up of humans who are all sinners as well as the next guy; and as well as a sad percentage of people throughout the entire population given the rash of recent stories in the news about sex crimes that are actually committed by men who are not priests. Like the recent one in Idaho where the guy was out on $15K bail; does the judicial system involved in that decision get the same treatment as the Catholic Church from those who will condemn an entire organization due to the behavior or bad decisions of a few; even if some of the few were near or at the top?

Why does it matter if I take everything in the Bible as literal truth? It is pretty clear and uncomplicated that sexual deviancy (hetero and homo) is a sin!