Terry Mitchell (1,408) Terry Mitchell SearchWarp Author Since: May 31, 2006

Total Articles by Terry Mitchell on SearchWarp: 140 (view articles)

Total Readership of Terry Mitchell's Articles on SearchWarp: 46,485

Most Recent Article by Terry Mitchell:

Palin’s Disappointing Convention Speech (2 hours 47 minutes ago)

Fans in Terry Mitchell's fan club:
Jennifer Cuddy (1,232)	Garswa Matally (6,055)
Crystal O'Brien (287)	Jane Bullard (1,169)
E. Raymond Rock (2,265)	Melinda McAlindon (771)
Creative Blogger (5,329)	Abigail Richards (6,416)
Asher Ricard (5,209)	Diane Dutton (36)
Avis Ward (8,613)	Lorrie Davids (5,237)
James P Krehbiel (1,391)	Danny Davids (13,298)
Sandra E. Graham (2,091)	April Lorier (5,781)
Marty RicKard (2,456)	Jean Horst (1,036)

Hillary wants McCain to win. Sounds crazy? If Obama wins, he will be running for re-election next time. That will not leave room for Hillary to run. A democrat cannot run to unseat another democrat. You already knew that, Terry, didn't you? If McCain wins, Hillary will have room to challenge him next time. You think she hasn't figured that out? That means a vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary for 2012. The idea that there will be a backlash against Hillary is nonsense.

 

The Clintons want McCain to win. Hillary was playing nice at the convention to protect her ability to run next time.

It is certainly going to be a by far and away tighter race then one might have expected just a few months ago. In a large way, I'm very confused about both parties allegiances and commitment to a presidential win. It's as if the main issues that have been debated over the course of both campaigns, are now somewhat de- emphasized. I don't know what to think now, other than it may be just a matter of who draws the shorter straw.

Hi Terry, very well put. I feel blessed to live in this country and would not change our corrupted government for any other. However, I truly am ready for all of this to be over. God be with the one who leads, more iimportantly, may the one who leads, be with God. Thanks for a well balanced article.

I'll have to bookmark this and comment later. Not ignoring you- we just have so much "quota time" in the hospital that we can use for places like searchwarp.

 

I'll be back-

The Terminator

 

haha..just kidding

Good points, Terry. McCain did a great job of balancing his ticket. But, I disagree with your last paragraph. I think there will be many who vote for McCain based on his VP pick. I think he just picked up those voters who were just not comfortable with him, but were not sure how to cast their vote.

I'm still not comfortable enough with McCain to vote for him. Even though I think Palin was a good choice (although she has failed to publicly condemn her daughter's behavior), McCain is still the one at the top of the ticket. I just can't get past that. The Republicans lost my vote this year by failing to nominate Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. And I still say VP picks generally don't make any difference as far as who wins the presidential election. The only exception I can think of is 1960. If Kennedy had not taken Lyndon Johnson, he probably would have lost Texas -- and consequently the election -- to Nixon.

 

BTW, I hope tonight's installment of the RNC is better than night's. Last night's session was just plain maudlin (that means sickeningly sentimental, for those who are not familiar with that word). We know McCain is a war hero -- enough already!

I also didn't appreciate all the wrapped-in-the-flag, borderline fascist bravado. And why was the pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights, pro-fornication, pro-illegal immigration, tax-and-spend liberal Joe Lieberman even allowed in the buidling, must less speak?

 

It's too bad Ron Paul's rally wasn't televised instead. I believe he has more common sense than everyone in the Excel Center last night combined.

Great article Terry and well presented. One thing though, I'm an older voter (much older) and yet McCain just solidified my vote for him. I only wish he would reverse spots on the ticket with her..This lady is a highly qualified person and if one will study her background, you'll see that she has accomplished much in the 2 years as governor regardless of who didn't want heer to do it. We need people with her outlook and tenacity. And incidentally, I'm too old for her appearance to make a lot of difference.

Terry you do find what people are interested in and that is the mark of a good writer. It really is an interesting article from that perspective. Yet, without trying to be negative toward you and I sincerely mean that, in my opinion I marvel that people find it interesting as to anything these politicians profess or do to get elected, regardless if you write to it or others.  So please forgive me if I respond assertively, it sort of sums up all I have believed about those who vote.

Hi Terry, I agree completely. 

 

I believe the story is pointing out that he only came home because he was at his low and was hungry.  I think the reason we have this story, is like you said--God wants us to come regardless of our initial motives.  He doesn't want us to wait until we get our act together--that will never happen. 

 

I guess we can ask Jesus when we get there if it was true repentance :-)

 

I think we both know that this was not the main point Jesus was trying to make in this story,  Still great thoughts and great conversation :-)

 

God bless--and thank you for the kinds words.

Hi Teryy, interesting perspective and very bold to claim that his repentance was not sincere. Some of the most sincere repenting in the Bible came at a time when the person was at their lowest. A place where the recognized their spiritual poverty.

 

It's true however, that God doesn't care how you come, as long as you come. But the test of true repentance is if the person stays with God even after they are restored.

 

In this story, we do not have the outcome so I suppose your thoughts could be true, but nowehere in the story does it imply that his repentance was not sincere, however I think the key phrase is "he came to his senses".

 

Very good perspective and great food for thought. Thanks for sharing. I will have to chew on this thought for awhile God bless and excellent job! Teresa

and btw..

 

I just know you're going to hate my answer to a Elfreda Erickson in that artivle of mine on the New Cold War! haha! It talks about history repeating itself, and the question of whether or not our current deregulated free market economy will last.

 

Yikes!

Well, I guess I'll have to take a look.

hmm..I don't know. But I still disagree that he would lose if he chose a running mate who was on the border. This would only further complicate people's decisions to vote for Obama. He just might win the broader majority if he did.

Yes, he could win more Democrats and independents by doing that. However, I'm not so sure he get enough of them to make up for the losses from his conservative base.

Jennifer, that sounds like an interesting article. I'll have to check it out when it becomes available.

 

Unfortunately, we have people on both the right and left who act like Stepford Wives and don't think for themselves. They run like packs of wolves and take their queue from others on what to say and how to think. Very sad. These are kinds of conservatives who believe everything Rush Limbaugh says (he doesn't call them Ditto-Heads for nothing, you know) and everything they see and hear on Fox News and the Drudge Report. These are the kinds of liberals who constantly get duped by the gospel of the Hollywood crowd, global warming fanatics, Planned Parenthood, and PETA. I'm planning to address this issue in an article in the very near future. Look for it in the coming distractions.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of my new article ( currently awaiting approval ) called ' The Current Threat of NATO's Conflict of Interests: The New Cold War'.

 

As far as the conservative right goes, are they as united as they were before? I think people are becoming less devoted to a singular party, nowadays. There has been too much exposure in the media discouraging this type of behaviour. People have 'caught on' to Rupert Murdoch's tricks, and have become distrustful of any type of fundamentalism. I think if any party has become more passionate, it is the left.

 

But who knows for sure until election comes? However, I do think Obama just blew it. He should have recognised the power of combining with Hillary, and vice versa. At this moment, even I am questioning my previous assessment of the Democratic party. I just can't believe it.

Just think of the game 'Risk'. We only have so many troops to place in certain areas. If we had come to the aid in Georgia, this would have decreased some our our 'might' in other areas. Do you think it is just a coicnidence that Russia has chosen this time period to attempt to reunite? I don't think so. Let's say, they are in cohoots with China..

 

It wouldn't take very much effort to weaken our military. One more Katrina, and we're done! We are extremely vulnerable at this moment. Until we pull out of Iraq, our homefront is a sitting duck. Do you think our enemies are so stupid? They know damn well, we only have so many areas that we can protect at a certain time.

 

I think we are being "set up".

I agree that Hillary would have been a better pick than Biden. She would have been worth about 4-5 percentage points for him instantly in the polls. I'm not so sure about Kerry, though. People think of him as as yesterday's news.

 

I agree completely with your assessment of the Iraq war's impact on our nation. I  was against it from the start, but few people would listen to me. That's the main reason I refuse to support McCain.  

 

However, you seem to be misjudging the conservative right of the Republican Party. They are very dogmatic in their views and don't necessary care about the same issues that the average Joe does. They will abandon McCain in a heart beat if he selects someone like Lieberman or Tom Ridge. He's very well aware if that and that's why he won't do it. Trust me -- I've been following politics since I was in the second grade. McCain will select Pawlenty or Romney. I'll bet my career as a genuine amateur political analyst on it.

terry that says a lot about the people in indiana/

hmm..I thought that he had..

 

I think the obvious choice would have been Hillary Clinton, if she would have agreed to taking second seat; and I think that would have solidified a 'for sure' win for Obama.

 

If not, I would have hoped for, John Kerry. But again, I do not think that he would have accepted the offer.

 

Either way, it is now going to be a tight race. If McCain, which I thought that he had, officially selected Lieberman, then I disagree that this would cause him to lose the majority conservative right in this campaign. This particular campaign is not exactly red sate/blue state dependent. Many people are "on the border", so to speak.

And this has much to do with the people's disappointments in the way the war in Iraq has played out. People who were "gung ho" about the war against terror in 2004, are not so sure that we have taken the right offensive.

 

The issues that dominated the election in 2004, have shifted. The people are looking for someone who might offer a better solution; i.e., a way out of the war in Iraq.

 

Take Russia, for example..They know we are militarily too weak at this moment. China knows this too. Strategically, they are much more free to do as they please, because they recognise our military's weaknesses. We are spread too thinly.

Can't say I agree with you. Bayh is a corporate DLC lite republican who still supports the war. He really appears to be a wimp with no force in his belly. Besides I understand that the folks in Indiana really don't like him that much. Biden has strong convictions and a man of substance in spite of his speaking gaffes. He will have many ideas to offer Obama. Although their relationship will not be perfect, they will still be closely tied in cooperative effort together. Bayh is not a progressive who can match the need for change. Obama made the right choice. Frankly I am sick of the DLC crowd who watered down our democratic principles. Bayh is one of these. To think that he could still be for the war is unacceptable. I am truly grateful Obama did not pick him.

Okay Skysage, so you don't like Evan Bayh. Fair enough. But you also say "the folks in Indiana don't really like him that much." Really? Why then have they elected him twice as their governor and twice as their U.S. Senator? Have they no one else to choose?

For the first time, I would have to say I agree with you on this one; not that he should have picked Bayh, but I do think he made the wrong choice.

 

On the flip side, I do think that McCain made a very wise choice with Lieberman. In fact, it just might win him the election. Damn it!

Jennifer, who did you want Obama to select?

 

I don't think McCain has selected Lieberman yet, unless you know something the rest of us don't. And I don't believe he will. My guess is that he will end up taking either Tom Pawlenty (governor of Minnesota) or Mitt Romney instead. Lieberman might have a strong appeal to Democrats and independents, but his selection might cause the conservative base of the Republican Party to abandon McCain, i.e., stay home on Election Day. I don't think he's willing to take that chance.

Terry, I sincerely appreciate your opinion however you are addressing exactly the issue I put forth in my latest article "The nitty gritty of it all".  Another one of those Washington crowd insiders who brought this all down upon us, as this candidate continually implies.  I don't see any of them deviating one bit from the course they are on, although I will give you he is probably the lessor evil of all that could be picked and perhaps a few more here or there. Now I will grant you normally experience would be a plus. In the case of government in my opinion that is a reverse. The fact that he was for Hillary says it all.

Hi Terry. We don't eat out much for a whole host of reasons, but when we do, we always worry about the "tip." Is it enough? Will it make the server happy? Or unhappy? Frankly, I think I would be happier paying a more for my meal and only tipping if the service was extraordinary.

 

But you are right about people's changing expectations. I don't know that there is a solution. In some places in Europe, the tip is written right into the bill. How's that for presumption?

 

Dianne

Just so you know, my chronological age is 47. Are you saying poor people got more help when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's than they do now? Get real. Yes, my brothers and I did get free lunches during part of the time we went to school. However, many poor kids today also get free breakfast. That didn't exist when I was growing up, and neither did Head Start. Also, some poor kids today get assistance with school supplies. Didn't get that myself. In fact, I often had to do without. My family did got a few measly food stamps. However, I now see people in grocery stores loading up their carts with more food than I saw in months as a kid -- and they purchase it all with food stamps! You complained earlier about poor kids today not getting the best cuts of meat. Well, when I was a kid, I would have been glad to have gotten ANY cut of meat with most meals. We had many meals in which all we had was a bowl of beans.

 

However, I have to agree with you that being poor is more dangerous now than it was when I was growing up. I grew up in housing projects in which one could leave their doors unlocked at night, believe it or not. That's because only the truly needed lived there and they were just as decent as anyone else. Today, these places are infested with criminals and drug addicts that should be in jail but, thanks to liberal politicians and do-gooders like yourself, are not. Instead, they are allowed to live alongside the truly needy and pose a danger to them.

Well, forgive me for being so argumentative,Terry, but I find it a tad hypocritical of you to condemn government handouts when you claim to have been reared in a housing project. If you had in fact, grown up as poor as you claim, then you and your family would have certainly been provided with a great deal of public welfare that is no longer in existence. For example: do you remember elementary school meal vouchers?

 

And I'm not sure how old you are, but you must admit, that being 'dirt poor' now is by far and away a more dangerous and desperate situation than it was in your day.  

 

I think that you are forgetting.

I applaud your comments and insight. I know there will be people who have become dependent on government entitlements that will think you are an unfeeling person, because if you had your way many, most or all of those entitlements would go away.

 

The truth is you see the abilities and limitations of government very clearly. Governments do not create anything, and it is almost impossible to hold them legally accountable for mismanagement. Governments tax and spend. Like you described, a portion of it is necessary. That portion is a very small part of what governments today do. Does anyone really think the average senator with signature authority to tap the US Treasury knows the value of a dollar? What other job can legally create money out of thin air? Money has to be earned by someone before it has value - just like the gift card you pull off the supermarket shelf has to be paid for before it has value. Until newly printed money is earned by someone, all it does is dilute the value of the existing money in circulation.

 

Just about all of the money in circulation today is borrowed. That is why interest rate decisions by the federal reserve have so much impact on our economy. Many people tell me that the money they receive from their paycheck is not borrowed. I remind them that the company that paid them very likely borrowed that money. They may not have borrowed it, but their employer did. Corporate shareholders are lenders.

 

Less government is better. Our financial system today is very unstable because most of the money in circulation is borrowed. What happens if all the lenders called in their outstanding loans? Theoretically the money would have to be repaid. That will never happen because there is not enough money in circulation to repay it all. The congress would pass this and that legislation, print more play money to pay off the called in debt and therefore dilute the value of a dollar even more. That is the way it works today. That irresponsibility is why the smaller the government the better.

My apologies I butted in because I agree in principal with much of what you stated. I too would like less government and certainly less entitlements, yet there are some who cannot survive without help and some who milk the cow. Too bad those entitlements aren't going for the most part to citizens. I don't see where Terry or you addressed the issues or root causes of our nations woe, that is for average Americans, the have nots? Not that good points were made but in my opinion no reply to the  causes.  What this Congress and all the ones before hand have done or failed to do? TWhat are they. Well Congress can and does control laws that allow Usury, explotatin, harrassement even in the most trying of circumstances. It isn't always people's desire for more that bring on a situation. How about so called Immigration law that they make and implement that abuse Americans and those trying to come legally? This is what average people are upset about. Yet I do not see the upraor from those that have. Like the President stated, they have no problems. People can talk all day long about trade, but it is rarely fair, smaller governments, never happen and all the rest but where the tire meets the road, no answers and those that have no problems, like I said have all the answers that help them but none to solve the real issues at hand. Good job guys but lets hear about that?

Jennifer, it's very commendable that you work in the field of public health. That is indeed a noble line of work.

 

I never said we did not need to be governed. People need to be governed or there would be total anarchy. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. What I meant was that we do not need to have the government manage our finances (among other things) for us. Nor should it take money from one person to give it to another. That is not the government's job. If I want to help the needy, that should be my decision, not the government's. Generosity should be an individual choice. I've found that most liberals are very generous -- with other people's money! They should put their money where their mouth is and give out of their own pockets for a change. And if they want higher taxes, they should make them voluntary and volunteer to pay them themselves. Strangely enough, that is something they almost never do.  Unless someone voluntarily gives away more from their own pockets than I, they have no right to lecture me about generosity.

 

And don't lecture me about the poor either. Have you ever been poor? I have. I grew up dirt poor in the housing projects. My parents were old, uneducated, and had little income. Many times we barely had enough food to eat (want to talk about a poor diet?). On holidays like Christmas, I was grateful just to have a decent meal, let alone presents. If being poor caused people to become drug addicts or criminals, I would surely have been one. However, I have never even tried illegal drugs or alcohol and have never been convicted of even a misdemeanor or fined. How many people can honestly say that? In spite of all my disadvantages growing up, I graduated in the top 10% of my high school class, and I now have a great career, own my home, have a plenty in savings, and have no debts other than a mortgage. If I could do it, others can do it too. It just takes will power. By the way, a lot of the kids I went to school with did do drugs, but about half of them were the rich and middle class kids. Go figure!

Terry, yes "create an atmosphere that will encourage the free market to do so." In my opinion that is and has been a complete failure and  those who have sworn before God to preserve, protect and defend this nation and the constitution fall woefully short. Those who swore to provide for the general good and welfare fall woefully short of even who they profess they believe in and are. It doesnot show in their works, in what they have done or failed to do. Yes you stated their role excellently, that is by protecting the citizens of this land from greed and exploitation, from usury, from harm and from those who would not pay fair wages, steal, connieve, manipulate and take. To protect them from those who have that want more at the expense of others. No not responsible for every individuals actions but not allowing their destuction or crushing them and providing no hope  by allowing the breaking of law, usury and other evils to flourish.  I agree with much of what you said but and that but is signifcant. Our  leaders at every level have failed. It is in freedom, justice and equality for all that we all prosper.  Like I have always stated making money is not an evil thing it is how and what you do with it that creates the problem.  Respectfully,

I'm very glad that you give to charity. But I have devoted my entire career to helping others who are less fortunate--I work in the Public Health sector, and will soon become involved in Health Policy, Employment Law and Civil Rights.

 

But I disagree that we do not need to be governed. We just need to become more aware of government regulations. We need empowerment, and I fear that Americans are becoming too self centered and desensitised to those who 'are not in our back yards'. We have an obligation. Capitalism is based upon the assumption that we are all created equal, and are given equal opportunities in life from the get go. But this is naive. Do you honestly believe that children want to become alcoholics when they grow up, or that they would rather receive food stamps? Do you think that they want the cheapest cuts of meat, and the very cheapest foods: foods that are the most highly processed and unhealthy. Who knows? Maybe it is their poor diet that actually influences their often criminal behaviour and/or decreases their IQ's? Most people do not go out and beg for food because they are just too lazy to work. It is most often the psychologically ill who are homeless. And people do not abuse drugs because they feel good about themselves. These are extraordinary desperate acts.

 

 

Terry,

 

You know someday, your day will come when you will need a helping hand. And until then, I don't think that you have it in you to have empathy for those who are less fortunate. I truly pity you -- for you will fall, and you will fall very hard.

 

I'm sorry. Good bye.

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer ... You still don't get it, do you? Just because I'm against the government's taxpayer-funded charity doesn't mean I'm personally stingy. Didn't you read one of my earlier comments where I said I believe individuals should give away as much as they can to help others?

 

If you give away more than 10% of your gross income to charitable organizations each year, then you have a right to criticize me. Otherwise, hold your peace. It's not what you say, it's what you do -- and I have the copies to my tax returns to prove it!

Jennifer, I've never heard that spin the saying before. But, I have to give you credit, it IS interesting. :-)

You see, I interpret "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and render unto God the things that are God's."  to imply that the people should create their own bargaining system, and especially because the Roman coin had the picture of Caesar on it. It was his answer to whether or not the Jews should pay Roman taxes. If the Jews, in this case, created a new monetary system, then Caesar's coin would then become redundant. Don't forget the Jesus was very much a protester. It would have been a very clever way to free the Jews from being under the control of the Roman empire, wouldn't it?

 

But speaking of taxes: I'm off to work now.

and p.s.

 

If it is extreme capitalism that you prefer, you can always buy yourself a bulletproof car and a couple of bodyguards and go and live in Brazil.

I would say He is both a capitalist and a socialist. A capitalist in that He he is all for people being allowed to make as much money as they can. In the parable of the talents, He praised the two men who doubled their money and condemned the man who failed do so. A socialist in that He wants us (not the government) to take the money we make and given away as much of it as possible to help others. He told to the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give the proceeds to the poor in order to have riches in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Jesus wasn't interested in changing government and/or using it to help the poor. He expects individuals to do that. When people tried to coax him into making a negative remark about the Roman Empire, He said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and render unto God the things that are God's."

 

You are right. empathy and forgiveness are mandatory traits of true Christians. However, tolerance of sin is not. We are to love and empathize with the sinner, but at the same time, hate his or her sin. Jesus forgave the woman who was caught in adultery, but he did not say adultery was okay. The woman ackowledged the fact that what she had done was wrong. Jesus then admonished her to "go and sin no more." Now what if the woman had said, "I don't believe there's anything wrong with adultery, therefore I will continue this behavior"? What do you think Jesus' attitude would have been then?

 

Jesus will forgive anyone who comes to Him in a spirit of contrition, no matter what they have done. He would even forgive Osama Bin Ladin if he repented and asked for forgiveness. We are to follow Jesus' example and "forgive those who trespass against us." God will not forgive us if we do not forgive others, no matter what they have done to us. Even if someone murdered their child, a Christian has no right to withhold forgiveness from that person. I feel sorry people when I hear them say, "I could never forgive so-and-so." They don't realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot with this attitude.

Would you say that Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist? Empathy and forgiveness are mandatory traits of true Christians.

Wow, what's so ironic is that you admit that the world was destroyed because of debauchery. Actually, you didn't get it quite right -- Lot committed his sin of incest with his daughters after only two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, were destoyed because of debauchery. And what was that debauchery? The Bible clearly indicates that it was homosexual behavior. BTW, the world was destroyed by the Great Flood years before that in the time of Noah. That was not due to one specific sin, however.

 

The world will be destroyed one more time --  this time by fire. At that time, all kinds of unrepentant sinners will be cast into the Lake of Fire. That includes murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, fornicators, greedy people, drunkards, drug dealers, gang members, gossipers, and yes, homosexuals. Hey, I didn't make that up -- it comes straight from the Bible. And remember, you're the one who brought up the Bible this time.

 

One other thing -- Jesus obviously did not include homosexuals with those who were marginalized. Since Jesus and God are one, and God hated homosexuality so much that He destroyed two cities because it, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have felt any different about it. Jesus said that He and God are one. If you don't believe that, then you are saying Jesus is liar. Come on now, Jennifer, you don't think that, do you?

It isn't a lie, silly man. You obviously are not aware of just how many gay women and gay men there are in this country. You wouldn't know a gay man or woman from a straight one, with the exception being isolated to only a few: obviously effeminate men and/or obviously masculine women. Actually, I believe that most men and women are inherently bisexual. Only the repressed people refuse not to admit to this. I for one, would very openly admit, that I think Penelope Cruz is very beautiful, just as I might say that Eric Bana really lights my fire.

 

When I was a nanny for two young boys, they had all of this hatred for kids who were different, or who expressed themselves through nonconformity. But I told them, that they should have more pity, because many teens who express themselves in this way come from dysfunctional families, and that they should feel lucky that they had such supportive parents. These kids do not have proper role models in their parents. They need help, not discrimination.

 

The only people that I am prejudice against are those who are clearly prejudice.

It seems that you see the world and all of the people in it as either good or bad; things that are either black or white. But this is not the nature of human beings. We are flawed, and full of contradictions. And we are certainly not created equal, or are given the same set of circumstances that support our success in life. In fact, I have a hell of alot more respect for those who have pulled themselves out of generations of poverty, to actually make it anywhere in this world. Defeating obstacles, to me, is the most true measure of success.

 

And I do believe that very many people are born gay. Some, I do admit, are bent on perversive acts, and are not naturally gay, and it is because of them, that gays have been so cruelly judged. I'm not saying that everyone is wonderful. But, how do you explain all of the very obviously effeminate teen boys, or very obviously masculine girls? Do you think that they'd attract the opposite sex? Should they be destined for a life of loneliness and isolation? Do you know how many teens have commited suicide because of this type of judgement against them? Have you no pity? Jesus himself, spoke most often to these marginalised people, because he knew that they were marginalised, and it was because of this, that he gained so much popularity. He was the first prophet who spoke to and of the poor in spirit. He gave them the benefit of doubt, and unconditional love.

 

But I do not believe that those who are naturally gay, should be forced to suppress this, for it only leads to self hatred and confusion.

 

Lot, in the Old Testament engaged in incest with his two daughters. Very ironic thing to do when the world had just been destroyed because of debauchery.

 

But do not think that I hate you because you harbor different beliefs than I. I only hope that you will open your mind and eyes to the reality of being human. 

 

And p.s. I would not say that my disgust of the likes of people like, Jeffrey Dahmer, constitutes prejudice. I only believe that people like him and/or Ted Bundy only prove that Satan does exist.

 

 

It has nothing to do with gays being "visible, weaker, whatever ..", it has do to with the morale of the other troops. Would you want strange men around while you get dressed, shower, etc. on a regular basis?  If you are a normal woman and not an exhibitionist or otherwise enjoy giving men a cheap thrill, you would probably say no. Well, many heterosexual men feel that way about homosexual men. They don't want them around while they are dressing, showering, etc. It gives them the creeps. The prosepect of this situation might cause a lot of potentially good soldiers not to enlist. What's hard to understand about that?

 

Now, if you're advocating separate living quarters and bathing facilities for gays and heterosexuals (just like there are different living quarters, restrooms, and bathing facilities for men and women), I might agree with you about gays openly serving in the military.

 

You also seem to be making the assumption that being "poor, marginalized, juvenile deliquent" is somehow mutually exclusive from being gay. So, to be gay always means being middle class, upstanding, well-behaved, ... a model citizen, right? There are no bad or low-class gays, right? Weed out (or at least reduce) the riff-raff by letting gays in, right? Sounds like someboby's been taking Hollywood's gay-worshippers a little too seriously, hunh?

 

You say I'd "like to minimize the pool of draftees to only straight people." Well, uh ... yeah. But you seem to be overestimating how much of the population is gay. Have you bought into their lie that they are at least 10% of the population? Trust me, they are no more than 3%, and leaving them out of anything would hardly make a splash.

 

I don't pretend I don't harbor prejudice against gays. I'm very open about it -- the same way I'm open about my prejudice against sex offenders, deadbeats, shoplifters, adulterers, burglars, aggresive drivers, etc. Of course, you're very consistent in that you are not prejudiced against anyone, for any reason, hunh?

 

Yes, I would rather die for my country than lie for a perversion! Hey, I think I'll have that put on a tee-shirt. :-)  Whaddaya think?

Why Russia and what are other signs an article I posted just day or so ago. I think God answers a lot of your questions in that Chapter. Best wishes and good job.

Firstly, as I was implying before: you seem to think that being gay in the military would somehow disrupt the system; as if all gay people were visible, weaker, whatever..and I asked you if you thought it was preferrable to enlist poor, marginalized. juvenile deliquents to gays. 

 

Secondly, you are vehemently opposed to mandatory military service, but you'd like to minimize the pool of draftees to only straight people? Good luck banding an army together on that one. You can't say, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and pretend that you don't harbor prejudice.

 

Thirdly, I would absolutely claim myself to be gay to get out of a draft, if that would disqualify me!

 

What frightens you so much, eh?  You'd rather DIE than make pretend that you're gay for an hour? Good lord!

Do you honestly believe that there are not gay men and women in the military?

 

Honestly, what population do you think comprises the majority of enlistee's? The upper class? No way! It is the poor, marginalized, and very often juvenile deliquents who join the ranks of the enlisted. This is especially true when the economy is bad, or when we are at war. Kids who can afford an education tend not to enlist. It is most often a last resort decision. And it is because of this, that the enlisted ranks harbor a great deal of ex urban gang members.

 

Is that preferrable? How about we just make it mandatory that ALL kids serve a term in the military prior to going to college. Would that be ok with you? For example: your kids?

 

I think you should consider these things before you insist upon discriminatory mandates. Or consider this: claiming yourself to be gay, would certainly be one easy way out of a forced commitment, wouldn't it?

Jennifer, thanks for commenting on my article. I'll attempt to address each of your points.

 

Of course I believe there are gay people in the military. They just have to keep it to themselves, which is a good thing.

 

I agree with your characterization of the majority of enlistees, but what does it have to do with this argument?

 

I'm vehemently opposed to any mandatory military service. Again, I don't see what that has to do with this argument.

 

Yes, claiming oneself to be gay would definitely be an easy way out of military service. But, then again, why would anyone (other than, perhaps, Jack Tripper on Three's Company) want someone to think they were gay if they weren't? To me, that would be much worse than being drafted into the military. Don't you agree?

Wow! I was just waiting to see you write that Obama shouldn't be president because he is African American! I'm with ya on McCain but how can you not feel what Obama is about?! Dude... where are you from?! This moment of Obama becoming president of these United States is history in the making! I kind of thought there were people out in America like you... but I must say... I didn't really believe it until now. May God Bless you and your opinion on life for that is what America is all about. I respect your decision to speak out on what you believe. I'll give you that!

---

Could Baseball Ever Return to Montreal?

---

Anonymous: (21 days 1 hour ago.)

---

My One Problem with Big Pharma

---

Comment by Danny Davids ^(13,298)
Danny Davids (21 days 3 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(4,558)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (22 days 23 hours ago.)


Comment by Terry Mitchell ^(1,408)
Terry Mitchell (22 days 23 hours ago.)

---

Desperate and Cynical Cheaters

---

Anonymous: (23 days 18 hours ago.)

---

The Heartbreak of Stolen Thunder

---

Comment by Jane Bullard ^(1,169)
Jane Bullard (27 days 22 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Ingrid Weir ⁽⁹⁶⁰⁾
Ingrid Weir (27 days 22 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Teresa Ortiz ^(5,740)
Teresa Ortiz (28 days 12 hours ago.)

---

The Perennially Uninformed Strike Again

---

Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(4,558)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (30 days 20 hours ago.)

---

The Perils of Living Above One’s Means

---

henry from nigeria: (31 days 22 hours ago.)

---

Financial Security for All?

---

Comment by Danny Davids ^(13,298)
Danny Davids (35 days 23 hours ago.)

---

The Thankless Status of Being a Valued Customer

---

Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(4,558)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (40 days 1 hour ago.)

---

Will Dobson Defy His Conscience?

---

Anonymous: (40 days 2 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Danny Davids ^(13,298)
Danny Davids (41 days 13 hours ago.)

---

Dane Tyner from Tulsa, OK: (41 days 20 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Jane Bullard ^(1,169)
Jane Bullard (41 days 21 hours ago.)

---

Does God Punish Wickedness with Natural Disasters?

---

Dane Tyner from Tulsa, OK: (46 days ago.)

---

Dane Tyner from Tulsa, OK: (46 days 18 hours ago.)


Comment by Terry Mitchell ^(1,408)
Terry Mitchell (46 days 13 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(4,558)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (46 days 23 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Teresa Ortiz ^(5,740)
Teresa Ortiz (48 days 17 hours ago.)

---

Teresa: (48 days 20 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Avis Ward ^(8,613)
Avis Ward (48 days 19 hours ago.)

---

Comment by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (48 days 19 hours ago.)
Hi Teresa, thank you for taking the time to set that out for me, I do appreciate it!

I'm not religious but I have studied religion and the Bible, and spoken with many people including Christians who believe the Bible to be the word of God, and Christians who take a less literal view of it.

I find the an