I am so sick of this.

[LittlePinky82]

Spartan1989

Just because a man is in a position of power gives no one the right to attack him. Personaly i Dont like Bush's politics either but he has done good for our country and it doesn't make him any less of a human than you or I. Would you rather have fidel castro as our president? Be thankful to God about where you are born instead of complaining about it. Would you rather be in North Korea, where proclaiming the name of the Lord is illegal? People should stop and think how blessed they are to be living in America.

You should read the first amendment again. I do have the right to "attack" him. He has not done ANY good with our country. He has killed more people, including our own citizen's, made us more hated in the world, made things worse in the middle east and our economy just for starters. I am going to complain about it because that is my right as an American. That is a blessing and not a curse and for you to claim I don't have the right to complain is irresponsible and immature.  

[LittlePinky82]

Tangled Up In Blue

LittlePinky82

And Bush allowed 9/11 to happen on HIS watch. HE allowed over 3,000 people to die and didn't try to stop it! And it happend on purpose. If they really did nothing on 9/11 NORAD would have come in and stopped the plane's like they were supposed to but they didn't.

Now now, remember Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. It's worth noting that NORAD, among others, was engaged in a series of war games on the morning of September 11th, 2001, which may have significantly impaired their ability to respond to a real attack. Moreover, in June of that year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had enacted new Department of Defense procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The new regulations required that the Secretary of Defense personally approve any 'potentially lethal support'—i.e. shooting down planes—thus rendering field commanders unable to react quickly to a threat such as the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers. That September 11th happened was, to my mind, the result not of a malicious plot but of a tragic confluence of ineptitude and poor policy.

Spartan1989

Just because a man is in a position of power gives no one the right to attack him.

Nonsense. The right to criticize the government, and by extension the people who run it, is central to what a democracy is. Freedom of speech isn't that useful if we can't direct it toward the people in power—indeed, that would be quite the opposite of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Would you rather have fidel castro as our president? Be thankful to God about where you are born instead of complaining about it. Would you rather be in North Korea, where proclaiming the name of the Lord is illegal? People should stop and think how blessed they are to be living in America.

Indeed, we're quite lucky; however, that's a false dilemma you're proposing there. It's not a choice between Bush or Castro, or between the U.S. and North Korea. There are many, many other politicians in this country that would be a better president than Bush, and the U.S. isn't the only free country in the world. And I take issue with the idea that, since the U.S. is better off than many other countries in the world, then we should all just shut up about its failings. No. We have a great country here, but it could be better, and it's my prerogative to say as much.

You are very wrong. 9/11 happened for a purpose. I also remember reading they fired an FAA guy and installed a new guy who knew nothing about the FAA just a few months before 9/11 happened. This was all planned and has been planned for months. It's even in the PNAC plans to call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and what do the neocons call 9/11? The "new Pearl Harbor." What a coincidence! I do agree however with your second part of your post. While we are lucky we are also lucky that we CAN speak out against our government and we can tell our feelings and we can tell the truth. Well while we still can unless Bush pulls a Lincoln. And yes we could be like in the 90's with Clinton when we had a surplus in our budget, economy growing, we were a lot safer and the people who did crimes against our country were punished (gee nobody has been tried and punished for 9/11 yet have they? Oops) and we had a lot more friends in the world.  

[LittlePinky82]

Spartan1989

Tangled Up In Blue

LittlePinky82

And Bush allowed 9/11 to happen on HIS watch. HE allowed over 3,000 people to die and didn't try to stop it! And it happend on purpose. If they really did nothing on 9/11 NORAD would have come in and stopped the plane's like they were supposed to but they didn't.

Now now, remember Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. It's worth noting that NORAD, among others, was engaged in a series of war games on the morning of September 11th, 2001, which may have significantly impaired their ability to respond to a real attack. Moreover, in June of that year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had enacted new Department of Defense procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The new regulations required that the Secretary of Defense personally approve any 'potentially lethal support'—i.e. shooting down planes—thus rendering field commanders unable to react quickly to a threat such as the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers. That September 11th happened was, to my mind, the result not of a malicious plot but of a tragic confluence of ineptitude and poor policy.

Spartan1989

Just because a man is in a position of power gives no one the right to attack him.

Nonsense. The right to criticize the government, and by extension the people who run it, is central to what a democracy is. Freedom of speech isn't that useful if we can't direct it toward the people in power—indeed, that would be quite the opposite of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Would you rather have fidel castro as our president? Be thankful to God about where you are born instead of complaining about it. Would you rather be in North Korea, where proclaiming the name of the Lord is illegal? People should stop and think how blessed they are to be living in America.

Indeed, we're quite lucky; however, that's a false dilemma you're proposing there. It's not a choice between Bush or Castro, or between the U.S. and North Korea. There are many, many other politicians in this country that would be a better president than Bush, and the U.S. isn't the only free country in the world. And I take issue with the idea that, since the U.S. is better off than many other countries in the world, then we should all just shut up about its failings. No. We have a great country here, but it could be better, and it's my prerogative to say as much.

Atackking Bush and calling him a murderous b*****d is not patriotic and is not Christian like either. Yes, we all do have theright to criticize and as patriot's we should criticize, BUT NOT ATTACK A PERSON. and as for the castro vs. bush and the US Vs. North Korea, I am just using it as an example of how blessed we are to be living in a nation that lets us believe so freely.

and maybe you missed the point where i said i didnt agree with Bush's politics either...

And who are you to tell someone that they are patrotic or not? Remember our founding fathers were concerned traitors to Britian but yet they are considered the most patrotic out there because of what they and millions others did for our country. How dare you call me unpatrotic! When you are critizing Bill Clinton are YOU unpatrotic? I don't think so! And Bush IS a muderous b*****d. I'm called as a Christian to tell the truth and not lie and I'm NEVER going to stop lying about George W. Bush. And this nation also lets us SPEAK FREELY! I don't care if you disagree with Bush's politics. For someone who disagrees with him so much you're so busy defending him and ATTACKING me and other people. Hello pot meets kettle. rolleyes  

[Tarrou]

LittlePinky82

You are very wrong. 9/11 happened for a purpose. I also remember reading they fired an FAA guy and installed a new guy who knew nothing about the FAA just a few months before 9/11 happened. This was all planned and has been planned for months. It's even in the PNAC plans to call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and what do the neocons call 9/11? The "new Pearl Harbor." What a coincidence!

And who might that be? Which 'guy' are we talking about here? It certainly wasn't the FAA Administrator, since the last one, James Garvey served from 1997 to 2002, a period of time not commensurate with your conspiracy theory. I'm going to need more than just 'an FAA guy'.
As to the Project for the New American Century, the fact that they wrote about a new Pearl Harbor does not prove that they or anyone in their ideological thrall actually carried one out. What you're suggesting is based purely off circumstantial evidence, and very weak circumstantial evidence at that.
Again, I'm of the opinion that 9/11 was the result of gross governmental incompetence, the like of which we've seen again and again with Bush's administration. Personally, I doubt that that lot's got enough brains between them to pull of a conspiracy of any sort.

Spartan: Let me just say that it's a short jump from not being allowed to verbally attack the president to not being allowed to criticize, at all, His Grand and Infallible Strategies for Defending the Homeland, Amen.  

[Spartan1989]

LittlePinky82

Spartan1989

Tangled Up In Blue

LittlePinky82

And Bush allowed 9/11 to happen on HIS watch. HE allowed over 3,000 people to die and didn't try to stop it! And it happend on purpose. If they really did nothing on 9/11 NORAD would have come in and stopped the plane's like they were supposed to but they didn't.

Now now, remember Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. It's worth noting that NORAD, among others, was engaged in a series of war games on the morning of September 11th, 2001, which may have significantly impaired their ability to respond to a real attack. Moreover, in June of that year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had enacted new Department of Defense procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The new regulations required that the Secretary of Defense personally approve any 'potentially lethal support'—i.e. shooting down planes—thus rendering field commanders unable to react quickly to a threat such as the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers. That September 11th happened was, to my mind, the result not of a malicious plot but of a tragic confluence of ineptitude and poor policy.

Spartan1989

Just because a man is in a position of power gives no one the right to attack him.

Nonsense. The right to criticize the government, and by extension the people who run it, is central to what a democracy is. Freedom of speech isn't that useful if we can't direct it toward the people in power—indeed, that would be quite the opposite of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Would you rather have fidel castro as our president? Be thankful to God about where you are born instead of complaining about it. Would you rather be in North Korea, where proclaiming the name of the Lord is illegal? People should stop and think how blessed they are to be living in America.

Indeed, we're quite lucky; however, that's a false dilemma you're proposing there. It's not a choice between Bush or Castro, or between the U.S. and North Korea. There are many, many other politicians in this country that would be a better president than Bush, and the U.S. isn't the only free country in the world. And I take issue with the idea that, since the U.S. is better off than many other countries in the world, then we should all just shut up about its failings. No. We have a great country here, but it could be better, and it's my prerogative to say as much.

Atackking Bush and calling him a murderous b*****d is not patriotic and is not Christian like either. Yes, we all do have theright to criticize and as patriot's we should criticize, BUT NOT ATTACK A PERSON. and as for the castro vs. bush and the US Vs. North Korea, I am just using it as an example of how blessed we are to be living in a nation that lets us believe so freely.

and maybe you missed the point where i said i didnt agree with Bush's politics either...

And who are you to tell someone that they are patrotic or not? Remember our founding fathers were concerned traitors to Britian but yet they are considered the most patrotic out there because of what they and millions others did for our country. How dare you call me unpatrotic! When you are critizing Bill Clinton are YOU unpatrotic? I don't think so! And Bush IS a muderous b*****d. I'm called as a Christian to tell the truth and not lie and I'm NEVER going to stop lying about George W. Bush. And this nation also lets us SPEAK FREELY! I don't care if you disagree with Bush's politics. For someone who disagrees with him so much you're so busy defending him and ATTACKING me and other people. Hello pot meets kettle. rolleyes

Actualy you misunderstood. I never called you un patriotic at all. I said patriots HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE. And yes under the first Amendment we do have the right of freedom of speech but as a Christians we are told not to personaly attack anyone.

Where have i attacked you also. I am just telling you what the bible says about personaly attacking anyone. ANd i would like for you to show me where i have attacked anyone. I am sorry i hurt your feelings but scripture is scripture.

If you are claiming to be a believer i am going to help you from stumbling. I am going to love u like a sister in the Lord and i will correct you just like Paul corrected peter, with love. I am sorry I offended you  

[LittlePinky82]

Tangled Up In Blue

LittlePinky82

You are very wrong. 9/11 happened for a purpose. I also remember reading they fired an FAA guy and installed a new guy who knew nothing about the FAA just a few months before 9/11 happened. This was all planned and has been planned for months. It's even in the PNAC plans to call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and what do the neocons call 9/11? The "new Pearl Harbor." What a coincidence!

And who might that be? Which 'guy' are we talking about here? It certainly wasn't the FAA Administrator, since the last one, James Garvey served from 1997 to 2002, a period of time not commensurate with your conspiracy theory. I'm going to need more than just 'an FAA guy'.
As to the Project for the New American Century, the fact that they wrote about a new Pearl Harbor does not prove that they or anyone in their ideological thrall actually carried one out. What you're suggesting is based purely off circumstantial evidence, and very weak circumstantial evidence at that.
Again, I'm of the opinion that 9/11 was the result of gross governmental incompetence, the like of which we've seen again and again with Bush's administration. Personally, I doubt that that lot's got enough brains between them to pull of a conspiracy of any sort.

Spartan: Let me just say that it's a short jump from not being allowed to verbally attack the president to not being allowed to criticize, at all, His Grand and Infallible Strategies for Defending the Homeland, Amen.

And what do the neocons call 9/11? Why the "New Pearl Harbor." Coincidence? No. It's to play with our minds. Now there is a new report from the Washington Post that the 9/11 panel may have been deceieved by people on the Pentagon. You can read about it in the EDPolitics section of Gaia and then look for the post made by Jade talking about this. 9/11 was more then gross governmental incompetence. If that was true NORAD would have been there right away to bring down those plane's instead of going into the WTC. And sorry I don't recall anything else about the FAA person. I read about this a couple of years ago and there's so much information in my head sometimes I forget things. You can probably search for it on one of the 9/11 truth websites.  

[LittlePinky82]

Spartan1989

LittlePinky82

Spartan1989

Tangled Up In Blue

LittlePinky82

And Bush allowed 9/11 to happen on HIS watch. HE allowed over 3,000 people to die and didn't try to stop it! And it happend on purpose. If they really did nothing on 9/11 NORAD would have come in and stopped the plane's like they were supposed to but they didn't.

Now now, remember Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. It's worth noting that NORAD, among others, was engaged in a series of war games on the morning of September 11th, 2001, which may have significantly impaired their ability to respond to a real attack. Moreover, in June of that year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had enacted new Department of Defense procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The new regulations required that the Secretary of Defense personally approve any 'potentially lethal support'—i.e. shooting down planes—thus rendering field commanders unable to react quickly to a threat such as the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers. That September 11th happened was, to my mind, the result not of a malicious plot but of a tragic confluence of ineptitude and poor policy.

Spartan1989

Just because a man is in a position of power gives no one the right to attack him.

Nonsense. The right to criticize the government, and by extension the people who run it, is central to what a democracy is. Freedom of speech isn't that useful if we can't direct it toward the people in power—indeed, that would be quite the opposite of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Would you rather have fidel castro as our president? Be thankful to God about where you are born instead of complaining about it. Would you rather be in North Korea, where proclaiming the name of the Lord is illegal? People should stop and think how blessed they are to be living in America.

Indeed, we're quite lucky; however, that's a false dilemma you're proposing there. It's not a choice between Bush or Castro, or between the U.S. and North Korea. There are many, many other politicians in this country that would be a better president than Bush, and the U.S. isn't the only free country in the world. And I take issue with the idea that, since the U.S. is better off than many other countries in the world, then we should all just shut up about its failings. No. We have a great country here, but it could be better, and it's my prerogative to say as much.

Atackking Bush and calling him a murderous b*****d is not patriotic and is not Christian like either. Yes, we all do have theright to criticize and as patriot's we should criticize, BUT NOT ATTACK A PERSON. and as for the castro vs. bush and the US Vs. North Korea, I am just using it as an example of how blessed we are to be living in a nation that lets us believe so freely.

and maybe you missed the point where i said i didnt agree with Bush's politics either...

And who are you to tell someone that they are patrotic or not? Remember our founding fathers were concerned traitors to Britian but yet they are considered the most patrotic out there because of what they and millions others did for our country. How dare you call me unpatrotic! When you are critizing Bill Clinton are YOU unpatrotic? I don't think so! And Bush IS a muderous b*****d. I'm called as a Christian to tell the truth and not lie and I'm NEVER going to stop lying about George W. Bush. And this nation also lets us SPEAK FREELY! I don't care if you disagree with Bush's politics. For someone who disagrees with him so much you're so busy defending him and ATTACKING me and other people. Hello pot meets kettle. rolleyes

Actualy you misunderstood. I never called you un patriotic at all. I said patriots HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE. And yes under the first Amendment we do have the right of freedom of speech but as a Christians we are told not to personaly attack anyone.

Where have i attacked you also. I am just telling you what the bible says about personaly attacking anyone. ANd i would like for you to show me where i have attacked anyone. I am sorry i hurt your feelings but scripture is scripture.

If you are claiming to be a believer i am going to help you from stumbling. I am going to love u like a sister in the Lord and i will correct you just like Paul corrected peter, with love. I am sorry I offended you

And yes I do remember you calling me unpatriotic or I wouldn't have said that. And your definition of attack and mine are two different things. My definition is critizing where as yours is obviously not. You are taking it too personally. Now I personally do not hate Bush since I do not know him but I do hate what he has done and his actions and deeds. You are attacking ME and other posters here who are liberals and/or who are critical of George W Bush and his administration. And for you to hide behind scriputre is immature and irresponsible. And you keeping me from stumbling isn't what you are doing. You are critizing me for using my first amendment right as an American citizen. And if you don't like it then it's not my problem. You don't have to participate. On edit thank you for the apology however.  

[Spartan1989]

please show me where i called u un patriotic and attacked other liberals. Back up your claims with proof. Calling George W. Bush a Bast*** is an attack. And as for "Hiding" behind scripture being immature, I feel that is an attack. Christians should always refer to scripture.

Colosians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."

let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Matthew 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

and bas**** is not a very kind word. Would u call your grandmother one to her face? or would u say it infront of Christ?

Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."  

[ShakouMari-na]

-whistles- I haven't read all of this the whole way through, but I think we all need to calm downnn.

Back to the origional post:

People have and are entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe them, and you really can ignore it a lot of times. I am personally a Bush supporter, but I understand that other people may not be.  

[Siren of Saturn]

Tangled Up In Blue

Firstly, being a liberal (or for that matter, being a conservative who disagrees with Dubya, i.e. William F. Buckley) does not mean that someone is in need of 'help'. If you want to convince them of your position, that's fine; but to say that you want to 'help' them implies that there is something wrong with them and that it needs to be fixed, which is certainly not the case. As for debating them, I'd recommend reading the paper every day. That ought to give you enough of a handle on current events to at least make a competent argument.

Dizzy: Please note that unemployment has not gotten at all better during Bush's time as president. (See below.) While it's true that unemployment has been falling since about 2004, it's still higher than it was when Bush took office. And yes, there are downsides to every president's tenure in the Oval Office, but there's a case to be made that Bush's has had more downsides than average, although I won't go into detail on that topic here.

Unemployment statistics, 1992 to present. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Holy crap! That is once of the nicest liberal comments ever. I wish all democrats were like you! smile thank you for at least respecting one of your fellow brothers in Christ!  

[Sergeant Johnson]

LittlePinky82

thrashmetaljunkie

.x.Becki.x.

I just quit MPL because of all the crap going on in there. MySpoonIsTooBig made a thread titled "ATTN: BUSH LOVERS" and wanted people who supported bush to post reasons why he is a good president or whatever. And all of a sudden, this girl posts all this stuff about how she's mexican, lesbien, and all this other stuff and how she hates bush. I don't know how to respond to these people! I really need help! I want to help them change, but they want nothing to do with it.

Remember, we were giving freewill to do as we chose, some people may not want to hear it, you cant just shove your beliefs down some ones throat, it dosent ork that way. I understand you want to help these people, but keep in mind that people will only hear the truth, if they want to hear the truth. So dont get discouraged. BUT, you have planted the seed of the Lord in their hearts, regardless if they seemed to have cared or not, it IS there, and perhaps, God will work in their lives, and they will come to see the truth, but you can take comfort in knowing that, even though you may have not completely changed them, you gave it a start. a small 1, but its started.

And I'm always going to tell the truth about Bush. That he's a murdering b*****d who has done more harm to my country. And what does someone being a lesbian have to do with the truth? Jesus Christ NEVER talked about gay people PERIOD. Never. And isn't he supposed to be God in the flesh?

Let me put my two cents in...I'am going to address only one issue (cause I don't pay enough attention to politics.) Yes I don't think Jesus ever said anything againts gay people (correct me if I am wrong.) BUT remember Sodom & Gomorrah...yes it is in the Old Testament. But you can't pick and choose what part of the Bible you believe. Its ALL of It or NONE of it...


No God doesn't hate GAY PEOPLE...He does hate their ACTIONS...and they should change their ways...


P.S. I'm a bush supporter...Prove to us that he is a "mudering bas****." And if i left anything out tell me...

In Christ...  

[LittlePinky82]

Spartan1989

please show me where i called u un patriotic and attacked other liberals. Back up your claims with proof. Calling George W. Bush a Bast*** is an attack. And as for "Hiding" behind scripture being immature, I feel that is an attack. Christians should always refer to scripture.

Colosians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."

let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Matthew 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

and bas**** is not a very kind word. Would u call your grandmother one to her face? or would u say it infront of Christ?

Psalm 19:14: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."

You can scroll up yourself and look through the post. And Bush IS a b*****d. He has killed so many people whether they're American, Afghani or Iraqi. He's killed them. Now he is helping the Israeli government kill people and not doing anything to try to stop it. He is purposley blocking legislation from the UN to call for a cease fire so both sides can stop killing each other. That in my book is a b*****d. And you are hiding behind scripture using it to attack other people. You can use it all you like but you are using it in a negative sense. And I wouldn't say it in front of my grandmother or Christ because they haven't acted that way now have they? Of course you don't know my grandmother so you can only go by my own words. He's a murderous thief who deserves to rot in the Hague for the rest of his dying days and then let his karma and God take care of the judgement for his eternal life. He has hurt so many people for only money. I do refer to scripture when appropriate and this isn't about scripture. This is about whether or not I can say what I feel and last time I checked I still have that right (for now anyways).  

[LittlePinky82]

ShakouMari-na

-whistles- I haven't read all of this the whole way through, but I think we all need to calm downnn.

Back to the origional post:

People have and are entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe them, and you really can ignore it a lot of times. I am personally a Bush supporter, but I understand that other people may not be.

Why would you be a Bush supporter? He's lied to you, he's lied to God, he's broken his oath of office and is now a domestic enemy of the Constitution of this republic, he has stolen two offices now while one minute proclaiming to preach about democracy so he's a hypocrite to you, he has made your country more poor, he has killed so many of your fellow citizen's whether they're soldiers or from the New Orleans situation from not doing anything to help with the situation. He is possibly spying on you (only they know that one) so how does that make you feel that your own government and the person you support doesn't trust you? Doesn't feel good now does it?  

[LittlePinky82]

Siren of Saturn

Tangled Up In Blue

Firstly, being a liberal (or for that matter, being a conservative who disagrees with Dubya, i.e. William F. Buckley) does not mean that someone is in need of 'help'. If you want to convince them of your position, that's fine; but to say that you want to 'help' them implies that there is something wrong with them and that it needs to be fixed, which is certainly not the case. As for debating them, I'd recommend reading the paper every day. That ought to give you enough of a handle on current events to at least make a competent argument.

Dizzy: Please note that unemployment has not gotten at all better during Bush's time as president. (See below.) While it's true that unemployment has been falling since about 2004, it's still higher than it was when Bush took office. And yes, there are downsides to every president's tenure in the Oval Office, but there's a case to be made that Bush's has had more downsides than average, although I won't go into detail on that topic here.

Unemployment statistics, 1992 to present. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Holy crap! That is once of the nicest liberal comments ever. I wish all democrats were like you! smile thank you for at least respecting one of your fellow brothers in Christ!

Then you don't know many democrats and that's just shameful you don't pay attention to what people are saying and instead you're too busy critizing them and attacking us for using our first amendment right. When you are critizing Bill Clinton and the democrats are you an America hater? Answer that one.  

[LittlePinky82]

dumb dumb dumb

Let me put my two cents in...I'am going to address only one issue (cause I don't pay enough attention to politics.) Yes I don't think Jesus ever said anything againts gay people (correct me if I am wrong.) BUT remember Sodom & Gomorrah...yes it is in the Old Testament. But you can't pick and choose what part of the Bible you believe. Its ALL of It or NONE of it...


No God doesn't hate GAY PEOPLE...He does hate their ACTIONS...and they should change their ways...


P.S. I'm a bush supporter...Prove to us that he is a "mudering bas****." And if i left anything out tell me...

In Christ...

As you said that IS the OLD TESTAMENT and the old testament is OF THE JEWS. Last time I looked I'm not a Jew whether by religion or whatever. I'm a CHRISTian. Not a Jew. And as a CHRISTian I follow Jesus who is the head of the church and throughout all the gospel books Jesus NEVER talked about gay people period either way. Now does that mean he didn't have any feelings about them? Who knows but it's not in the known Protestant Bible. Could he had said something about them? Who knows but it isn't recorded to us for whatever purporse whether by God's own doing or by man's but since it's not there we can't know and we can't read God's mind no matter how hard people try to proclaim they can. And for you to quote to Soddom and Gomorah means you didn't get the story. The whole purpose of that wasn't because of gay people. Notice how there were lots of other factors and it was mostly because of their attitudes towards each other and other outsiders as well. They were just bad people in general. The Bible makes more references to straight people then it EVER does gay people and if Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of Christianity, doesn't talk about gay people then I'm not and neither should anybody else. Plus last time I checked there was a seperation of church and state. And gee who was it who sent the military off to Iraq based on lies? Why doy George W Bush! He has killed them. Funny because when Clinton went to Kosovo no matter what your feelings on that was not one soldier died compared to Bush and Iraq over 2500 soldiers have died for LIES. So how can you be a supporter of someone who has lied to you, to God while proclaiming to be more holy then me as a liberal and who has violated his oath of office and doesn't trust you and is possibly spying on you this very moment? And no that is not paranoia speaking (I'm not paranoid).