I don't understand your post.

Are you saying Protestants should be against anything a Catholic does.

Are your good words about the Roman Catholic church as a whole, or just the splinter sect that the Gibson family seems to belong to.

Are you saying because of the movie you joined that sect?

Is it an old school Catholic to oppose the Pope in Rome?

People interested in knowing more about the "traditional Catholics" could start at this Wikipedia link.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic

Marv

What do you think the public response would be if Texas started executing mothers who had had abortions?

If abortion is premeditated murder and the death penalty is proper, isn't this the correct thing to have done?

Marv

Grace,

It seems that you are hoping to have a good, Christian marriage at some point; however, nothing from your message indicates that you, nor your fiancee, nor your "friends" are Christians other than you call people Christians.

As Christians, why would you and your fiancee be living together?
You clearly don't have a good relationship with him, why are you continuing?
Many people put on their best behavior before marriage, but have the blind faith that things will get better after marriage...they won't.  You stay with him, you can expect the hitting to continue and grow.  Maybe you'll survive, maybe you won't.

I would recommend you call your parents, go home for awhile, leave this guy forever.  He is 32 and behaving worse than I would accept from my 11 year old son.  You can't change him, accept it and leave.
Find a good pastor for some counciling, first up, are you really a Christian, or just someone in a "Christian" culture?  What is a Christian?  How does a Christian woman live her life?

Commit your life to Jesus and to living the life you find in the Bible.  Don't settle for less or you will have less.

When you are really ready God will provide the person for you, it's clearly not the guy you are with now.

Marv

Hi,

Look, all the information anyone here has on Wendy is what you just provided, does she like you....well, it sounds like it based on what you say.  Should she, from what you say, I would say no.

You say you are too celibate, what in the world is that?  Sex is exclusively for marriage.   See that period at the end of the sentence, it is the end of the story.

If you ever expect to have the relationship you really want with this girl, you better work on yourself.  Quit taking shortcuts.

Have you given your life to Jesus?
What does that mean to you?
Why, if you have, does it sound as though your hope for you and this girl is decidely non-Christian.  Sounds like you have already been sexual with at least one other woman.  Have you been checked for sexually transmitted diseases?  Don't assume anything.  

You want steak, and you expect her to settle for dogfood.

Now go, and sin no more.

Marv

I didn't say to allow abortions, I didn't say anything about convenience.

I did say that all the proposals I have heard want to treat the child as less than a full human, and that that is where most people seem to be.

I am asking why people think that is the correct response.

I did also mention that getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade is a fairy tale, maybe that is where you get that I support abortion.

Marv

Hi,

If you study Roe v Wade, it was a 7-2 verdict.  5 Republican Justices and 2 Democrat for, 1 Republican and 1 Democrat against.

The Justices searched every tradition and common law for when life was considered to begin as well as the Constitution itself.  That's why you see the breakdown of trimesters.  In the end, the justices ruled based on what they could find, not what they couldn't find.  That is the very definition of conservative.

Now, in order to overturn Roe v Wade, people have been told that we need conservative Republican Justices, the very same type of justices that provided the initial ruling.

Anyone that thinks overturning Roe v Wade is going to happen due to the "right" appointments is, in my opinion, bordering on delusional maybe past.  Bush said no litmus test, the probable Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary is already saying no  etc.

Now a lot of people say they want abortion outlawed, but the basis would have to be that we recognize legally the child as a full human.  Most proposals never do much of anything to the mother, more to the doctor for penalties.  Well if the child is granted full rights, then abortion is premeditated murder, I can't see it any other way, otherwise you would have to say the child is a human being, but a lesser human being, something that certainly exists in practice for minorities, but not in the law.  The mother and the doctor must be subject to the same penalties as other murderers, including the death penalty in states where it applies.  If you do not subject the mother and the doctor to the same penalties then other murderers can and will argue under equal protection of the law, that the penalties on them can't be any more severe than it is for abortion.  Premeditated murder=premeditated murder.  If you are not going to penalize the mother for premeditated murder, then you have to let all murderers go.

In all abortions, even when justified for saving the mother's life, an investigation, including an autopsy will be needed.

Miscarriages will need to be investigated to see if a murder has occurred.  

I would also put forward that pregnancy tests on women leaving the country will be necessary in order to protect the children.  We wouldn't want people flying  or driving out of the country in order to get away with murder.

Parent should also get the child deduction on income taxes based on conception, not birth.

I really think many people want to make abortion illegal and do nothing except maybe drag someone into court to make an example once in awhile.  I would like to hear their explanation for why this is the correct thing to do.

Marv

I don't know why all the fighting over the election, I've heard at least two tv "evangalists" agree that the world will end in 2007.  "Send your cards, letters, and gifts..."

Marv

Hi,

The National Security Archive is documents that have been obtained through the freedom of information act.  They aren't partisan, they have other things like how the Johnson administration lied to get us more involved in Vietnam.  How Ollie North knew about drug smuggling to fund Sandinistas etc.  

That's the beauty of the site.  It's not some spin room to distort things.

Marv

Oh, I almost forgot, I wonder how different history would have been if we hadn't invaded Russia at the end of WWI.  It certainly colored our relationship with them for many years.  They never did trust us after our quick switch.   If I remember correctly, the rational was that the Russian people would be so overjoyed at seeing liberators bringing them democracy they would throw down their weapons, throw roses and kiss our troops.

Too bad Bush was sleeping that day in history class.

Marv

As for changing alliances, the very people who were instrumental in keeping Saddam in power, in arming him, in protecting him are the people in the current administration.  His violations were significantly fewer when we invaded than when we funded and armed him.   He was using gas almost daily when Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq to help normalize relations.  We gave him Billions$, we even retrofitted helicopters for him because pilots were getting sick applying "insecticides."

Please explain to people in the Middle East why it was okay when Saddam killed them with poison gas during the Reagan years, but he had to be immediately removed years later when he hadn't attacked anyone for years.  A couple of Bible verses would go a long way.

Here we are now voting on leaving the very same bunch in power, and the rational is they are good Christians.  Please explain to the Kurds and the Iranians why these same good Christians had no real moral problem with Saddam gassing their families.  And I'm not talking after the Gulf War, before that.  Since we had already been at war with him, we had misgivings about his gas after the war.

By the way, reports say at least one of the companies that provided poison gas to Saddam was a US company, anyone got any info on that company being prosecuted?  I can't find it.

If there were no UN resoulutions, it was because the US used its power to block them.  Now we send people to lecture the UN on morals.  

You are correct in saying that George W. Bush didn't sell arms to Iraq, you have to go back to George H. W. Bush.  Or you could move across the hall to Cheney's office who was doing business with Iraq until the day he resigned to become Vice-President.

The white house today is full of guys who have been feeding the Middle East trouble for many years, the sooner they are out of there and down the road, the sooner we can start to really make some headway.  Every country in the Middle East has seen these guys before, backroom oil or weapon deals, funding radicals to bring down governments, proping up dirty dictators as long as they are "our" dirty dictator.

We haven't a moral leg to stand on.  The sooner we realize that and repent the better.  I believe the place to start is with a housecleaning in Washington.  I've said before that Kerry wouldn't be my first choice, probably not even second, but that choice was made already.  

I just can't look at my two kids and vote to leave this bunch in the White House.  I don't think Bush would be that bad with a different administration, but that isn't going to happen either.  I fundamentally believe that the current bunch in power significantly raises the chances of all out war in the very near future, not because we've been the moral leader of the world, we've been willing to accept any dirty dead as long as it helps us in the short term.

I know some will bring up abortion, but remember, the Justices that gave you Roe v Wade were 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats with 1 Republican and 1 Democrat against.  Roe v Wade isn't going away with 9 Republican Justices, you could just as well get going on the Constitutional Amendment now.   The majority opinion was based on a conservative interpretation.  

I saw what happened in my state, used to be lots of abortion bills every session as long as the legislature was pretty evenly divided, now Republican supermajority in both houses and a Republican governor and NOTHING, not a thing.  All that changed was instead of "Vote pro-life for the state legislature, it's a matter of life-and-death."  Now it's "Vote for Bush, we can't do anything."   They didn't even try, they just wanted the votes.

I know many of you disagree, that's your perogative.  If Bush wins I can alway tell myself Edwards will be President four years sooner.

I would just ask anyone that wants to support the current administration to read the Saddam Hussein Sourcebook at the National Security Archive.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

It probably won't change your mind, but at least you can know what you support.

Marv

Brotherlove,

What you are talking about is exactly where I believe the neocons are.

There whole plan for the US revolves around this prophetic image of the US as the benevolent dictator of the world.

Marv

Sincereheart,

You're welcome.

I've struggled with who to support this election, neither Presidential candidate has much in the way of credentials as far as I am concerned.

What tips it for me is the guys in the Bush administration who were buddy buddy with Saddam a few years ago while he was using poison gas almost everyday, they accepted him using it on the Kurds as long as he used it against the Iranians too.  We even blocked UN resolutions against it.  

We sold him a lot of those weapons and tools that are now missing.

Leaving those same guys in power to run the War on Terror I just can't abide.  Sends a clear message to the Arabs that we are nothing but terrorists ourselves.  Makes the arguements against the US very believable.

Marv

You guys are so funny!

Start out with tells us why you vote for Kerry, don't just attack Bush, blah, blah, blah.... and then when I do a brief thing like was requested.  Page after page of anti-Kerry.  I never saw any of you say well here's why I support Bush.  Just attack and attack.

Biggest bunch of hypocrits on the net.  Being led down the path to slaughter, blissfully unaware.  Too bad the 3 stooges name is already taken.

Just my opinion.
Marv

I hadn't checked this thread for awhile but thought I would say why I am now a Kerry supporter.

I really thought Edwards was the proper choice so I would have said that he was the best man, but that choice is no longer available.

Kerry is slow to anger.  This is a complicated War we are in, simple direct actions are likely to be simply wrong.  We must consider the effects our actions will have years from now, not just shoot from the hip.  Kerry is clearly more suited to think situations over before taking action.  

Kerry's tax policy is better for the middle class.  The moral strength of our country comes from the middle class.  The Middle Class is in great danger of shrinking.   A US without a large Middle Class is just another third-world country.  

Kerry is willing to cooperate with other countries.  The US must turn from the idea that we are the only superpower and it's our way or the highway.  We aren't going to win anything if it's the US against the World.  Kerry is quite well suited to meet with and negotiate favorable positions for the US even with countries that aren't always our best friends.

Kerry's health care plan is the better of the two.  That isn't saying a lot, but it is better.  It would help where people are loosing their whole life's work to catastrophic health care costs.  It would also help remove some of the fear employers have of hiring someone who might or does have health issues.

That's a nutshell, but you wanted it short.

Marv

Hi,

Mr Shaw has been contradicted by Rumsfeld.

Also, there are photos of at least some of the explosives which were taken after the invasion.

It is very possible, even probable, that explosives left the place by more than one route.  The photo being used to show that explosive were removed has two trucks, an estimated 40 trucks would have been necessary just to remove the explosives, there were also milling machinery and such so a lot of activity was necessary to move everything.

Maybe some were taken before the war, clearly, some have disappeared after the war.

With bombings being the attack of choice by terrorists, doesn't it seem strange that while fighting the "War on Terror" planners didn't seem to much care about explosives?  

Marv