PsychoKat

Wow, I've been away a couple of days and just now read through this.

Personally I can't condemn the woman as I've seen some do here. To feel so desperate, so completely overwhelmed and so alone, that shooting oneself seems the only way out of the situation would have to be horrible, shoot I had to ####### my finger with a lance when I was in biology to type my blood and it was not easy to cause that tiny bit of harm to myself. I can't imagine the idea of reaching the point desperation overwhelms self preservation but I know it does happen...and its sad when it does.

I do believe she needs some very serious assistance, because she obviously felt she also could not remove herself from the situation with her partner, so much so that again the possibility of killing herself seemed easier than removing herself from the relationship. This is a very serious problem and without help, and help for the remaining children she might continue this type of chain along with her children.

So far as the abortion issue, I myself am pro-choice. Although I myself would never be able live with myself if I were to intentionally abort a baby, I would not hold it against another....I've seen children so badly abused by parents that didnt really want them but kept them because they felt they had to "take responsibilty for their actions" and that equated to keeping a child they didn't want as a penance for having sex. I'd rather think of an unborn child being aborted than a living breathing innocent child trying to figure out how the very people that according to all the world are suppoed to be the ones that love them more than anything, can hurt them so bad.

Now I know this part was pages back but I just had to say something about it. Whenever the subject of abortion comes up religion is brought into it, and personally I have a problem with that for a couple of reasons. For one our laws in the US are are supposed to be separate of religion and for good reason..not everyone holds the same religious values, personally I don't want the law to force me into complying with someone else's religious belief system...considering how strongly people hold to their own personal belief systems I can't imagine anyone would care much for that. What if the majority believed in ritual human sacrifice, would those who were Christains want the law forciing them into performing human sacrifices because the majority held to a belief system that did?

And the other reason is that people don't seem to think through the validity of what they are saying such quotes like the following:

First of all, I'm not talking about Jesus I'm talking about God.

Go back and read the old testament to see how forgiving he was... I hope He doesn't waste his mercy on baby killers.

In the old testiment in Exodus, God ordered Pharaoh to release the Israelites from their slavery and when Pharaoh went against Gods orders he visited 10 plagues on Egypt and the 10th plague was the death of the first born males in all of Egypt.

So taken literally....God was a baby killer. Pharaoh was the one that was offending God here...but innocents were killed for it. So....hmmm that just doesn't work.

PsychoKat, Im sorry for your loss! and hope everything is going okay!

Thank you for your thoughts. I will admit it was a very difficult loss, she was 8 years younger than me and even now for me it still doesn't "feel" right, and it's still quite difficult for her family.

I've been trying to word something to the effect of what she went through brought out good in others, selfless acts out of nothing more than kindness and compassion, even in a politician! but hmm I'm stumped for words now so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you

Actually my husband had a similar experiencing coming here to see me from Canada once. I had been up visiting him and he wanted to come here for a visit so he could spend some time with my daughter. We did have all of our paperwork in order, and we were by then only waiting for the first packet to arrive from Montreal so logically speaking by the it would be incredibly idiotic of us to endanger the process by him not returning.

Although a permanent resident of Canada since he was young, he still holds UK citizenship and as such was eligible for the VWP, if they would allow him in. It took us 2 hours to get through customs that day as they inspected everything in our car and verified every document we presented to them. Eventually they finally decided to let him visit (we think they got tired to listening to me explain all the details of our journey so far and how there was no way in hell we'd screw it up now)....Anyway when they did finally decide to let him come home for a visit they restricted his time to 3 weeks despite the VWP and amended that green slip they put in his passport to show 3 weeks.

You know whenever the subject of Bush comes up it's quite obvious that a good many people have negative opinions of the man and his actions in office.

I myself question the motivations behind some of his action and can't say I would trust him on a one on one basis at this point...but in the midst of negativity I got to thinking about something rather positive about a member of his family so to balance things out I'll share some good

In 2004 I lost my youngest sister to cancer. When she was diagnosed in 2002, she was the "breadwinner of her family of 4, her husband was disabled, not only legally blind, but he also was somewhat crippled after being hit by a truck resulting in a crushed knee. As the cancer and 3 very debilitating rounds of chemotherapy sucked the very life out of her she eventually reached a point where she could no longer work and applied for social security.......and they turned her down (I have to say I was outraged at this) In desperation she turned to the governer of her state...Florida and Jeb Bush to help and he also was outraged at this decision and worked very hard to resolve this quickly.

I can't begin to tell you how grateful our family was for this, you can't even imagine what she felt like when they turned her down, worrying obout her children going hungry as she herself was dying.

So there's some good to balance the bad.

(a tiny bit of oddness to this.....although no relation to the presidential family...my sister's married name was Bush)

PsychoKat said:

Or...maybe members of our government are empathically feeding off of the actions and responses of each other and digressing intellectually back to their grammer school days. Based on this accounting it appears that digression into school yard name calling and such is not one sided

I apologize for the length but on the upside it is humorous in some areas....and maybe a bit scary in others

I agrree about the digression on both sides, I think the dems are more guilty of it though.

I have never seen Bush even respond to these comments! thank goodness.

Well I can't verify any of what is in that article other than the part about Naperville.....cause here I am in Naperville

I do feel it is coming from both sides myself. I have to say for myself, between the one thing that happened here, and his much publicized statement I believe it was at calls for Rumsfield to be relieved of office ..."I am the decider" ..I find things a bit scary

These are QUOTES ripped from an article! and they are TRUE! The statements I cut and pasted are ones that I agree with strongly! you can interpret them however you see fit. It seems anything coming from what you conceive to be from anything resembling the right you start adding words such as neo-con to put a negative conotation to it!

Fish said:" I honestly would like to have a serious discussion, but that is impossible if all that is coming back is a barrage of stereotypes"

Personally I havent seen much of barrage of anything! you refer to Bush as Bushie, you said he was unintelligent, he maybe! I dont know him personally and I'm sure you don't either. So if you would just enlighten me on one thing who the hell put you in charge of JUDGING intelligence! If I started refering to you as Stinky fish I'm sure you would'nt appreciate it much at all! So when you got the Democrats out there calling him school yard names is just ridiculous! The only reason I think they do it is because in some sick way it makes them feel good! Oh and i'm sure all your info comes from ligitimate places only you know about!

READ THE ABOVE erekose

Im sure the sarcasm will be coming shortly!

Or...maybe members of our government are empathically feeding off of the actions and responses of each other and digressing intellectually back to their grammer school days. Based on this accounting it appears that digression into school yard name calling and such is not one sided

I apologize for the length but on the upside it is humorous in some areas....and maybe a bit scary in others

The U.S. news media always makes light of George W. Bush’s tendency to put down others through disparaging comments about their personal appearances or by assigning them silly nicknames. It’s just the “inner frat boy” coming out, we’re told.

So, when U.S. News cited “a top insider” describing how Bush likes to fart in the presence of junior White House staffers as a joke on them, the item was given the boys-will-be-boys title: “Animal House in the West Wing.”

According to U.S. News, Bush was just “a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can’t get enough of fart jokes. He’s also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides.” Bush was described, too, as someone who “loves to cuss [and] gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him.” [u.S. News, Aug. 20, 2006]

But Bush’s behavior could be viewed in a less sympathetic light. Given his famous thin skin whenever he feels slighted, his eagerness to demean others could be interpreted as a sign of his dynastic authority, a modern-day droit du seigneur in which he can humiliate others but they can’t return the favor.

Indeed, this tendency to assert his superior position over others by subjecting them to degrading treatment has been a recurring part of Bush’s persona dating back at least to his days as an “enforcer” on his father’s presidential campaigns.

In 1986, for instance, Bush spotted Wall Street Journal political writer Al Hunt and his wife Judy Woodruff having dinner at a Dallas restaurant with their four-year-old son. Bush was steaming over Hunt’s prediction that Jack Kemp – not then-Vice President George H.W. Bush – would win the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.

Bush stormed up to the table and cursed Hunt out. “You ###### son of a ######,” Bush yelled. “I saw what you wrote. We’re not going to forget this.”

Later in the campaign, when Newsweek ran a cover story with the image of George H.W. Bush on a boat with the headline, “Fighting the Wimp Factor,” a furious George W. Bush enforced a year-long punishment of Newsweek by barring the magazine’s reporters from access to key campaign insiders.

‘Don’t Kill Me’

Sometimes Bush’s sense of entitlement had an even nastier edge.

As Texas governor, Bush would mock people on Death Row. In a famous interview with conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, Bush imitated condemned murderess Carla Faye Tucker’s unsuccessful plea for clemency. “Please don’t kill me,” Bush whimpered through pursed lips, mimicking the woman he had put to death.

In another example of Bush’s put-down humor, the Texas governor lined up with a group of men for a photo and fingered the man next to him. “He’s the ugly one!” Bush laughed, before realizing that the incident was being observed by a reporter. [NYT, Aug. 22, 1999]

Other times, Bush showed how prickly he can be when facing criticism. During a campaign stop in Naperville, Ill., Bush groused to his running mate, ####### Cheney, about what Bush considered negative coverage from New York Times reporter Adam Clymer.

“There’s Adam Clymer – major league ####### – from the New York Times,” Bush said as he was waving to a campaign crowd from a stage in Naperville, Ill.

“Yeah, big time,” responded Cheney. Their voices were picked up on an open microphone.

During a presidential debate in 2000, Bush was back to making light of Texas executions. While arguing against the need for hate-crimes laws, Bush said the three men convicted of the racially motivated murder of James Byrd were already facing the death penalty.

“It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they’re put to death,” Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face. Beyond the inaccuracy of his statement – one of the three killers had received life imprisonment – there was that smirk again when discussing people on Death Row.

Bald Guys

Bush’s demeaning humor carried over into his presidency as he enjoyed razzing people about their looks, often in public when they could do nothing but blush and look down at their feet.

At a press conference at his Crawford ranch on Aug. 24, 2001, Bush called on a Texas reporter who had covered Bush as governor. Bush said the young reporter was “a fine lad, fine lad,” drawing laughter from the national press corps.

The Texas reporter then began to ask his question, “You talked about the need to maintain technological …” But Bush interrupted the reporter to deliver his punch line:

“A little short on hair, but a fine lad. Yeah.”

As Bush joined in the snickering, the young reporter paused and acknowledged meekly, “I am losing some hair.”

Bush’s joy in mocking bald men didn’t stop with reporters.

At a joint White House press conference May 16, 2006, with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Bush slipped in a couple of zingers about Howard’s bald head and supposed homeliness.

Bush joshed, “Somebody said, ‘You and John Howard appear to be so close, don’t you have any differences?’ And I said, ‘yes, he doesn’t have any hair.’”

Getting a round of laughs from reporters, Bush moved on to his next joke: “That’s what I like about John Howard,” Bush said. “He may not be the prettiest person on the block, but when he tells you something you can take it to the bank.”

Howard played the role of gracious guest, smiling and saying nothing in response to the unflattering comments about his physical appearance.

Neck Rub

Besides publicly embarrassing people about their looks – while they are in no position to return the favor – Bush also demonstrates his power by invading personal space, cupping his hand behind a man’s neck or – in the case of German Chancellor Angela Merkel – giving her an unwelcome neck rub at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

In a generally flattering portrait of Bush in the 2003 book, The Right Man, former Bush speechwriter David Frum acknowledged that Bush often used sarcasm to dress down his subordinates as well as his political opponents.

Bush is “impatient and quick to anger; sometimes glib, even dogmatic; often uncurious and as a result ill informed,” Frum wrote. When referring to environmentalists, Bush would call them “green-green lima beans,” according to Frum.

Other times, Bush’s harsh humor has complicated U.S. foreign policy, including the tense relations with North Korea. During a lectern-pounding tirade before Republican leaders in May 2002, Bush insulted North Korea’s diminutive dictator Kim Jong Il by calling him a “pygmy,” Newsweek reported. The slur quickly circulated around the globe.

While many Bush backers find his acid tongue and biting humor refreshing – the sign of a “politically incorrect” politician – some critics contend that Bush’s casual insults fit with a dynastic sense of entitlement toward the presidency and toward those he rules.

Dynasty

The Bushes show no modesty about their extraordinary political dynasty. At family events, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush wear matching caps and wind-breakers emblazoned with the numbers 41 and 43, identifying their presidencies.

George W. Bush also relished the fawning news coverage that followed the 9/11 attacks, complete with suggestions from the likes of NBC’s Tim Russert that Bush’s selection as President might have been divinely inspired.

In a round-table discussion on Dec. 23, 2001, Russert joined New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and First Lady Laura Bush in ruminating about whether divine intervention had put Bush in the White House to handle the crisis.

Russert asked Mrs. Bush if “in an extraordinary way, this is why he was elected.” Mrs. Bush disagreed with Russert’s suggestion that “God picks the President, which he doesn’t.”

This hagiographic treatment of Bush might have been intended to boost his confidence in the face of a national crisis. But the flattery instead seems to have fed an egotism that devoured any remaining self-doubts.

The swelling of Bush’s head was apparent in his interview for Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, .which took a largely flattering look at Bush’s “gut” decision-making but reported some disturbing attitudes within the White House.

“I am the commander, see,” Bush told Woodward. “I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they need to say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

So, Bush had come to see himself as beyond accountability, much as ancient royalty viewed their own powers as unlimited under the divine right of kings. In the traditional droit du seigneur, a nobleman had the right to deflower the bride of a male subject on their first night of marriage.

Now we’re told that George W. Bush has another way of demonstrating his supremacy over subordinates: when new White House aides are brought in to be introduced to the President of the United States, the President farts.

Source

The Ku Klux Klan? Oral Roberts and Bob Jones University?

Oh I want to go to BJU! Taking bets on how long it takes for me to get kicked out.

2-1 odds are on less than 5 minutes

Why don't you all just cut to the chase and go to the source of what we Christians believe? The Bible is the source! Not "The Ku Klux Klan? Oral Roberts and Bob Jones University". That may explain much of your dingy (din-gee not ding-ee) outlook on life and all things Christian. Go to the Creator not the creation.

Apparantly, not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way. Just as there are many factions of Muslims, so are there Christians, from fundamentalists to liberal.

I have to agree with you about interpretation.

Personally I consider this a good example of this.

Christianism or Christian Nationalism is analogous to Islamism.

Heh. Yeah, analogous to Islamism. Minus, you know, the terrorism.

You don't want to deny that there are Christian terrorist who are motivated by what they see as their mission in a similar way as Islamic terrorist are, do you? Or do you think that there's a difference because they are not really Christian.

All I know is that our book doesn't tell us to kill the non-believers.

Anyway, back to the article...

Deuteronomy 13

13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there,

saying,

13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

I suppose it is possible that I myself have misinterpreted this passage, but to me it really does appear that at this point is in fact saying that non-believers should be, even MUST be killed. If I am mistaken my apologies, but if so please take a moment to clarify this for me?

Thanks for the information and link. My x does tend to feed his dog people treats occassionally and he's recently been diagnosed as diabetic so now the people treats he has around contain sugar substitutes so this could be very important and beneficial to him

my opinions is that we do have a problem, just that we do not need bad "solutions". and a lot of solutions being bantered about stem from fear rather than objective look at the situation with an eye for a "win-win" solution.

What kind of "win-win" do you have in mind that doesn't include a reward for those that trample(d) on the law? We've had those "win-win's" before and those got us where we are today.

ORLY?! how many amnesties have been? I only recall the Reagan amnesty.. before that.. well, I wasn't born yet lawl

You were around in Dec 2000, no? Clinton signed that amnesty into law. LIFE Act. Look it up.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a win-win solution to be had. Amnesty has been tried and obviously this was not effective. I honestly believe a guest worker program will not be that effective either, the companies that hire illegal immigrants generally speaking, are motivated by cheap labor with little overhead ie; no insurance, no legal recourse over abuse on the part of those working illegally...basically slave labor in some senses. A guest worker program would eliminate that advantage for those companies, and the cycle will just continue if just left at that. That would be like seeing blood on someone and slapping a bandage over the blood instead of finding the source of the blood and addressing the bleeding wound itself.

The IRCA of 1986 attempted to remedy this aspect of the problem by implimenting laws requiring companies to verify legal eligibility to work and implimenting fines for those companies not adhering to this. Verification methods were for some time in question, then eventually the subject of racism came into play and the law was amended to remove the hiring companies from penalties based on studies that indicated that people who were in fact legal were subject to racial profiling when it came to employment, which was viewed as too costly to civil liberties. For those interested the Congressional report regarding this is available online but it's been sometime since I read it so you'll have to google it yourselves.

Companies can verify legal eligibility to work without racial profiling, so in my opinion this is not a valld defense but simply a ploy to appease those companies intent on circumventing legal requirements to obtain cheap labor. Although there was no reason to question whether I was a legal US citizen when the company I am employed with now hired me, they in fact did do a background check prior to hiring me to confirm I was indeed eligible to be legally employed. I had to provide them with my birth certificate, and social security number, after they had confirmed these were valid and legal they then offered me the job. It can be done and it only took them 2 days to do so.

When the subject of illegal immigration is raised, people are justifiably angered by it, but more often than not that anger is focused on the illegal immigrants almost exclusively where it might be more effective to focus on the companies who hire them. Rather than risk stepping on corporate toes our government is doing a good job of keeping the public anger focused on the illegal immigrants instead of the companies by portraying these companies almost as innocent victims with no choice but to hire illegal workers, but this is a huge mitigating factor in the issue and unless it's addressed everyone might as well throw their hands up in defeat.

So long as those entering the country illegally are able to find a means of survival they will continue to come here if it means the possibility of a better future for them. So long as companies are willing and able to get away with employing them, they will be able to find that means of survival and the process will be sustained. If our government were to strictly enforce laws banning companies from hiring illegal workers, while making the cost to those found doing so, so painfully high that it's no longer worthwhile to even attempt it, this would serve to lower the chance of survival here for anyone coming here illegally and eliminate their hopes of a better future.

Although this might not solve the problem, logically speaking it no doubt would have a major impact on the issue. But so long as our government caters to business, this will not happen.

I do have to add flip side to what I was showing as humorous.

When it comes to legalities, technical wording can have critical conseqences. Technically speaking all legal inhabitants of both North and South America could be termed as Americans. If laws are written that do not specifically designate the United States of America, instead of just America, the use of this term in reference to the USA could have adverse consequences.

So living there makes your opinion more qualified?

You have to ask?

It's Steve. Of course he does. He won't be happy until there's one government running the entire world, and lazy people will get just as much money as people who actually work for a living.

Yeah, that's the impression I get from his/her/its posts. It's easy to be pro-socialist and pro-EU when you don't actually have to put up with it. Reminds me of those neo-liberal college kids who think they have all the answers to the world's problems. "If only people would just get along and let the government take care of them." Hippies.

It does. This was the point I made when this topic came up at ModernWiccan. What the hell else are you going to call people who live in the USA if not Americans?

Exactly. I'm tired of all these PC apologists and appeasers. We are AMERICANS. That's what we're called. Get over it.

I don't consider myself a PC apologist or appeaser, of course we are Americans. What I am, though is someone very analytical in nature who tends to critically examine nearly everything from a technical standpoint *disclaimer below*. At times for me this can prove to be somewhat humorous, which is what I was pointing out here.

This was not based on an attempt at being PC, quite the contrary actually. To do that would involve examining the subject matter from an emotional aspect as opposed to technical. Technically speaking what I said about America is valid fact. But when people discuss emotional issues, they tend not to ensure technical correctness, especially in language, while doing so. This is human nature and at times I find it can be humorous in nature. Sorta like if you've ever heard George Carlin do his routine on oxymorons, finding humor in language that becomes illogical or ironic when taken strictly on a technical basis. (jumbo shrimp anyone?)

*sigh* Ok I'll admit to having an occassional dry and dull sense of humor. For my attempts at stand up comedy (or maybe I should say fall down on my face comedy) I do believe I best keep to my day job in a technical field.

(disclaimer: nearly everything, that all goes out the window in strong personally emotional issues ).

What exactly is wrong with american women?

and native americans are still americans

if i have ancestry with the mi'qmaq tribe in nova scotia does that make me native canadian?

If you have *ancestry* with any tribe, then no. I would say you are a Canadian. Technically, you could be a "native Canadian" though, since you were born there. If your parents, on the other hand, were mi'qmaq; then you would be mi'qmaq.

What I was pointing out is that the tribes of United States have their own governments, their own way of doing things, and they were here first. My personal experience is with the Arapaho and the Shoshone. Many find the term "Native American" insulting. In essence, they are being named after their conquerer.

Imagine that America (US) was attacked and conquered by Elbonia; a bloody, cruel nation, utterly different from ourselves in all cultural matters. Would you happily begin calling yourself an Elbonian, or would you call yourself an American still?

So what should we call them now? First it was Indians, then Native Americans...what's the inoffensive collective term du jour?

I just could't help it, I had to jump in here on a technicality.

America is not just the United states, Canada is part of America so if one is a native of that area they technically speaking are Native Americans. South America...is also America...soooo....well the whole idea of putting a fence at the southern border to protect America is well humorous

I tried to inform the Minutemen of this but they are still wanting to put a fence around America...kinda defeats their purpose I would say

If you want something without a lot of prep work, grab a couple of bags of lettuce-mix salad and add manadarin oranges, dried cherries and sliced almonds. Serve with raspberry viniagrette dressing.

I'll take one of those please!

So let me get this straight. My comments and beliefs gives these certain so-called 'we are for the good of people' VJ members the right to sit here and have a go at my religious beliefs..

Personally I myself would never intentionally set out to offend someone else just for the sake of doing so either.

I have to say though, I myself didn't perceive your post as truedly being concerned or offended over the religious aspect of the avatar, and I consider myself fairly compassionate to others feelings. So I can see where others might not have either....it appeared more as a persosnal issue with the person. Especially considering the next part.

When they started with the can't see it comments....wierd things were going on with his avatar...in fact that also worked against your point. See the avatar wasn't showing for everyone. I myself couldn't see it I just had an x placeholder where it should be so I had no idea what you were talking about. Thus they were a bit baffled by the fact that some people could see it and others couldn't.

The rest...well by then you had stirred things up because it came off as an unprovoked attack. And at that point the thread took a bit of a turn regarding perceptions, welsh mentioned her son has a tshirt people find offensive, and he doesn't find it funny that they do, he just dosn't get why they do, he doesn't see it the same, and we started talking about band tshirts and our kids...thus all the pictures...thread hijack on that.

Now regarding displaying something considered a religous icon, by someone who doesn't proclaim to be a follower of that particular religion. It does happen and not necessarily as an insult to that religion...I know because I myself am guilty of that if you would classify that as being something worthy of guilt.

I love angels, not really the pretty girly flowery angels but for the most part the warrior archangel type angels. I have a beautiful musical I guess you'd call it a figurine of an angel from one of the cemetaries in Lousiana, I have a number of others and I have such a beautiful painting on my wall of this small innocent maybe 2 year old child with tiny airy little white whisps of wings as a cherub. These things are beautiful and I treasure them...but on the other hand I have never been able to blindly accept the existance of something intangible, something that can't be difinitively solidly proven to me.

I respect others beliefs, and that they feel they are on the one path. But for me I see how very many different factions and belief systems there are, and having the scientific analytical mind that I do I myself think...well everyone thinks their way is the one true way, but there are a bunch of ways out there and no solid tangible proof that ONE specific one truely IS THE way. Thats why it's called faith though, those who have faith don't need tangible solid proof, they have faith.

I've also come a bit closer at one point in my life to one that became rather destructive. Although I myself was not involved in the situation, my older sister was the aunt of a "cult" leader by marriage for around 3 -4 years. People believed in him, so much many people died for their beliefs in a face off with members of our government. It's a bit scary.

What's not to understand. Amendment no amendment.

I did not realize one has the freedom to insult the other 84% of the world who believe in a religion.

Need I post examples??

Well frankly I myself haven't been too involved in many of the religious threads, but If I had a picture up that you felt was offensive to your religious beliefs I would talk to you about it rather than just bending to your proclaimation that it was offensive.

I might not view the image in the same light as you, it might mean something important to me personally, the picture itself might not be what is offensive to you, but your perception of my motivation for posting it.

Being bullied into removing it at your demands wouldn't really reasolve the root cause of the problem in those cases, the picture might be gone, but then I would be upset at you for pushing me around, and you'd be upset wih me because you felt I was intentionally offending you. So what would really be different.

At first it was a bit of fun. Asking a legitimate question to get an honest answer. I didn't realize people would jump on and start attacking me.. So when I saw people doing that I raised the bar and was shocked to see how low some would stoop to offend me. Then turn around say I am the #######..

I'll have to sit you down and teach you how to debate things sometime

Personally if I had a picture on display and someone religious told me it honestly offended them, be it Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, I would remove it.. The thing with steve is I know he deliberately set out to use that picture with no disregard for someone else..

Hey as many would know I disagree with a lot of islamic ideals but I have never ever blatantly insulted a muslim buy using something islamic in a derogatory manner.

I myself might not remove it immediately. Reason being the picture itself might not be the problem, as you implicated in one of your earlier posts in the thread, the basis for the offense was not the picture itself but the assumption that it was being used as an affront to your religion, a sorta thumbing ones nose attitude over your belief system.

If that was the root cause of you feeling offended (ie; if someone neutral had it up it woundn't be an issue) then removing the picture really wouldn't solve the problem or make you feel any better about the situation.

So....I would talk about it

How come it took so long to find out about her past? The article does not really explain this.

fema was working on it

LOL

That is not right to say because all I posted initially was a simple question which did not offend or insult or target anyone. Did not give any opinion etc..

Who would have thought this would be going on 156 replies and over 2000 views later. It is not right to sit here and turn it around as if I am one to blame.

The fact is that picture is a religious icon for over 240 million people world wide. So to sit here and say I am in the wrong is ludicrous..

I guess when VJ 'elites' like Meauxna and co throw 'personal' insults in that is different, right??

If your response was to my comment Infidel, you're missing my point. You made it clear that your posts were specifically aimed at one person using religion to try to stir things up. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you dropped the balled and missed your mark...your carry through was false so no one really saw it as you raising a serious issue, instead you carried it off as if just poking at someone.

From your very first post I knew you weren't really concerned about the religious issue in any other manner than to just poke at someone, it didn't come from the heart.

Had I not seen that straight off, then I would have mentioned a couple of things to dig deaper into why you were offended.

1) That no one really knows what Jesus looked like, that picture is art, and it's an artists conception of what he looked like...you never know though, the conception might be so far from what he really looked like thatf he was standing and looking at it he might be offended ....no one knows.

2) Christians are not supposed to worship any graven images, so honestly do you think Jesus would want you defending a (Possibly way out there false) image someone painted as if it were actually him?

I'll have to sit you down and teach you how to debate things sometime

Hence, why I specifically targeted Steve who I have butted heads with from day one..

i'm sure you have made all christians on the board proud tonight with your deception!! good on ya .... maybe try giving direct honesty a shot sometime! although, that may be a bit above your head since you sidestepped my last response in this thread!

Come on now, you don't need to turn it around and turn it into deception.. Irrespective of the motive, the fact is that I made a statement about another person deliberately offending one's beliefs and I was jumped on and attacked. The evidence is posted throughout this topic.

Actually Infidel it wasn't because you made a statement that offended ones beliefs, it was because it was so random, and poorly executed that it didn't offend, instead it just appeared as if you were intentionally and irrationally trying to get someone stirred up. You stirred things up but not for the reason you imagined. Instead of inspiring a heated debate over the subject matter you left people thinking....wonder who pi$$ed in his cheerios today.

The CA Gov's atty was on the news the other day. One of the issues seemed to be related to the car companies creating /promoting a car culture through advertising. Not sure what to think of that one except Id appreciate it if loud roaring stinky cars squealing tires wasn't "cool" any more.

Yep. It's foolishly naive to think that we as consumers completely dictate purchasing trends. If that were the case then car manufacturers wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into advertising.

Ahh but they aim at the vanity factor in consumers and keep upping the ante...that whole keeping up with the Jones's thing.

Now for a moment of personal opinion here:

I grew up in a farm town and remember when 4wd suv's came out and the farmers used them to get out into the muddy fields (and us teens use them at night to go 4 wheeling through those muddy fields)

That's what SUV's are all about SPORT UTILITY

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

Can I tack onto what you said that taking a more expansive view of the situations surrounding one is also important. People have a tendency to get tunnel vision about things especially when the media gets their hands on it.

I think this comes from all the years I spent as an analytical technician....sure enough the one time you didn't look at all aspects of something you'd have a problem.

This is why I love lefties so much. Interestingly enough I actually set you guys up and you fell right into the trap As if i didn't realize that you losers would attack someone for their views and beliefs, especially over some avatar. Come on now...

It was really interesting to see you have a go at a comment stating that the avatar is a religious symbol, which it is. Yet, are quite hypocritical and absolutely criticise the hell out of someone who is pushing religion or disagreeing with bi-sexuals etc..

Mate, that was game, set and match.. B)

PS You are going to have to try better than the cheap comments if your going to offend me for being Christian. You ain't the first and you ain't the last to offend Christians..

Say what??

I'm not good with authority figures...that's for sure, Charles. But believe it or not, my childhood dream was to join the Air Force and be a pilot - contemplated attending the AFA. I was even in CAP (Civil Air Patrol) and a boy scout. My grandfather (Dad's father) was stationed in France during WW1 and got gassed by the Germans - we still have his purple heart. My father served in the Navy and 3 of my brothers all served (2 Army, 1 Air Force), one of them recently came back from volunteering in Iraq. The military would have been a great career but I'm just not cut out for being a 'yessir' kinda guy.

I right there with you on the authority figures !

Believe it or not my mother worked with the CAP during the gulf war...MY MOM!

Me too, Alyx gets a kick out things like that....her mom likes the music she listens too!

Hubby said to make sure I pointed out that when they got on her about the shirt he offered to put a little tag over it that said fck instead

that would probably been fine

Oh yeah they'd have just loved that!

My x gave me a hard copy of that article out of the local paper a couple of days ago.

amazing