Bait bears
Robin Follette’s recent blog, “Yes, I bait bears”, (BDN, Sept. 15) was both disturbing and ill informed. After talking about watching a sow bear from her stand above the bear bait station, whose cubs subsequently tumbled out from where they had been concealed, she writes, “I almost pulled the trigger that evening. I don’t want to intentionally shoot a sow with cubs. I know people do it. I’m not saying it’s wrong; cubs can survive winter without their mothers. Personally, I choose not to do so.”
Cubs need their mothers for more than surviving the winter. Their mother protects them from the predatory male bears and shows them how to forage for food and where to seek shelter. Some orphaned baby bears might be able to figure it out and make it on their own, but many do not.
Saying she does not object to others killing a sow with cubs fails to take into account all of the contact the mother and cubs have. If you watch them long enough, without fear interfering, you will note the natural affection they share, behavioral codes their mother teaches and the way she protects their well being.
The entire ethical issue of bear baiting aside, shame on Follette for using her blog to help justify an inhumane and morally reprehensible practice perpetrated by some bear hunters, killing a mother bear who has dependent cubs, by saying they will be just fine if they lose their mother.
Follette and the BDN missed an opportunity from your high perch to draw the line and take a stand against animal cruelty!
Kathy Pollard
Orono
Better off today than four years ago?
Before President Barack Obama, the price of gas at the pump was $1.70 per gallon. Now it averages above $3.50. Democrats are more interested in developing rifts over religion, sexual orientation, abortion and women’s rights, avoiding the major issues: jobs and economy.
Congress used to negotiate and get things done that represented the people. Now there is no compromise between Republicans and Democrats. The president with full control of Congress passed Obamacare in a very strong partisan manner even though it was highly unpopular with the public. Ask Eric Cantor, John Boehner or Paul Ryan who tried to negotiate with Obama and how it went. If Obama does not agree with you, he shuts you off.
Our country was nowhere near so much in debt as we are today. We felt safe. Today, can you feel safe with Obama cutting the military, lessening our ability to use enhanced methods to glean information from our captured enemies and allowing serious security leaks to occur? How safe do you think people in Arizona, New Mexico and California feel about our borders?
Whatever happened to presidents who could speak and relate to the people? This president speaks only to his cronies and ignores the rest of us. Do you feel full of hope? Are you better off today than four years ago?
My wife and I are not. We need a new president and Congress now.
Howard Cutler
Dixmont
God help Buffalo
Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Malone’s remarks on leaving ( BDN, Aug. 10) are self-justifying.
His new evangelization primarily serves the patriarchy’s priority: celibate male control, when church tradition includes married priests and women Eucharist celebrants and the Gospel calls for equality.
Pastoral care and leadership of parish communities worshiping and building the reign of God are diminished or gone. Now we have remote and unilateral decisions, management constructs joined by labels and rotating clergy and attacks on dissenters.
Malone’s modus operandi is not witnessing the Gospel and reasoning with the faithful but assertions that won’t bear examination, such as that legal recognition of same-sex relationships will undermine traditional marriage.
Preoccupation with imposing homophobic and sexist Vatican views on all Maine people, contrary to the religious freedom and primacy of conscience Vatican II espoused, has justified neglect of today’s social sins: an economy and environment destroyed by greed, endangering the livelihoods and health of billions, and militarism, imperialism, torture and assassinations, paid for by ignoring demands of the common good.
Malone argues that religious liberty means the entire citizenry conforming to the bishops’ dictation regarding contraceptive insurance rather than benefit from the states’ recognition of the common good. So Christian Scientist employers should not be obliged to provide any medical care?
Unfed and fed up with abuses of absolute power, 41,000 have walked. God help Buffalo.
William H. Slavick
Portland
President Johnson?
How many BDN readers know of Gary Johnson? It is time that everyone recognize they have a choice in the 2012 presidential election. Barack Obama (Democrat) and Mitt Romney (Republican) are not the only two candidates in the race. Obama and Romney have been chosen for us.
We no longer, or ever had to, tolerate the establishment. As seen at the National Republican Convention, Maine Ron Paul delegates were pushed aside. The Republican National Committee makes and breaks their own rules. Now is the time for us to break away from these tyrants and restore our constitutional rights. Gov. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president, is our choice and our only true hope. Please let me ask you again: Do you know who Gary Johnson is?
Evan Brown
Vinalhaven
Maine’s healthy future
Clean energy is an important part of what’s powering Maine, providing pollution-free energy that keeps our economy going and our air clean, while creating new jobs building, installing and maintaining wind projects in Maine.
Maine is leading the way in New England on wind power, generating enough electricity to power 100,000 homes. Wind is pollution free. In fact, the wind power installed in Maine will avoid 720,000 metric tons of carbon pollution each year.
Now is the time to build on our progress and set a path forward, but critical clean energy tax credits will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. Maine’s U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should help ensure that Congress extends the renewable energy production tax credit and the offshore wind investment tax credit as soon as possible to ensure a cleaner, healthier future for Mainers.
Will Saunders
Orono
Howard Cutler
Great letter. The Obama campaign cannot run on Divider in Chief’s record as your letter points out. The Dems only have divisive smear tactics that unsurprisingly, the left is genuinely pleased with. Issues be damned for the most political power hungry loser of a president. Nobama is clearly more about looking in a mirror and admiring himself than helping America be the greatest nation on the planet once again.
Please tell us how Romney is going to solve the problems facing our country.He may have told you but he’s left everyone else in the dark and Paul Ryan keeps saying they’ll address certain problems “after they get elected”. They don’t want us to know what they’re going to do because they know their ideas are going to inflict a lot of pain on the poor and what’s left of the middle class.
The biggest problem facing this country is the Divider in Chief Nobama
The funny thing is, Obama isn’t the one calling 47% of the country lazy…
Romney did not call the the 47% lazy he was discussing hois ability in getting their votes but again you prove how the left will always generate falsehoods and lies. Maybe you think they are lazy?
“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Romney said.”These are people who pay no income tax.”
He added that his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”” – Sounds like he is insulting about half of America to me…
show me the word lazy
Really, your defense is that he did not specifically say the word lazy? That is the best you can do? Doesn’t change the fact that he is insulting 47% of the country. The really funny thing is that a good number of those 47% will actually vote for him. Out of the top 10 states that take more money from the Government than they pay back, 9 out of the 10 are reliably Republican states. He is insulting people who would vote for him, and they aren’t smart enough to even realize that he is insulting them!
it is impossible to know where Mittens stands on anything,Sine at one time or another he has been on every side of every issue. Check out Vote smart.org to look at the record of any of these bums.
Peace
Stephen Schweter
Maby if Gov created an incentive to the job creators then less people would have to depend on the Gov to survive?
Gary Johnson 2012 our 3rd choice in this turky shoot,He will be on the ballet in 48 states at present. He is fighting to get on in Oklahoma and wesconsen
Peace to all
Stephen Schweter
The incentive to job creators is demand.
Yes he is.
Where? What speech?
Funny, people can make all kinds of assertions, but when you actually ask them to back up their claims, they go silent…
Bull.
And let me guess, grass is blue too, right?
Only at Boise State football stadium …
Nope.
I would say that it is ignorance coming from people like you that is spoiling this country
Grow up and get a job and contribute
What are you talking about.
I’ve a feeling he’s drinking.
After you, especially the former.
You need to call Alaska and ask Sarah Palin to give you some new material. Divider in Chief,Nobama,Lame Stream Media.You right wingers never come out with any hard facts or numbers, you specialize in making up childish names and dishing out cheapshots because that’s all you’ve got. You morons are pathetic.
Nobama? And if you think, then, that “Rmoney” will improve this nation, be advised that my bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale.
Do the imbeciles on the left have anything besides class warfare. When did success become a bad thing? Wait, unless your Sussman, Soros then billions$$$ are fine. Dems need poor losers as voters, its a big part of the constiuency. All of the trillions spent on the poor has resulted in the Dems perpetuating poverty
Akin from Missouri isn’t creating class warfare on women?
Romney saying he doesn’t care about the 47% isn’t class warfare?
Amazingly the left adores the greatest warrior against women; the Rapist in Chief Clinton. The left has no credibility when it comes to defining what makes a war against women. Monica was the perp and Slick Willy the victim. Thats the left for you.
Again you prove that the left must rely on falsehoods; Romney was talking about votes and getting their votes as he felt they were committed to continuing voting for Dems and handouts.
Umm, according to Akin, was that a legitimate rape? Was it rape at all? Or was it consential? I know it was unpresidential. As was Thomas Jefferson having a long running affair with a slave.
Good of you to deflect
You’re welcome. One good deflect deserves another.
Romney was speaking with dripping disdain about half of the country. You should listen to the entire tape . It might help you to know what you are talking about. Continually repeating misinformation does not cut it.
Come back when you’ve learned to spell half correctly. I tend to discount things TeaPartiers write because most are quite ill-educated. You’ve proved it by doing nothing but repeat the party line. Learn to THINK for yourself,chum.
Im not ur chum. Leftist drivel, class warfare is all you imbeciles on the left have. Im as much a TP as you are a communist
*I’m
*your
*I’m
Honestly, it’s called spell check. It’s not that hard to use.
And, they’re reduced to infantile name calling, with no basis.
and the folks on your side only see grammar… I dont know about you, but i was able to read Ex’s post just fine.
If ex_ungue_leonem can’t even take the time to spell check their comments, I have no reason to think that they’ve taken the time to come to a reasoned opinion. From what I’ve seen from his/her comments, those comments being nothing more that the same conservative talking points we’ve all heard a million times, I’d say that ex_ungue_leonem hasn’t taken the time to come to a reasoned conclusion.
kat
It’s ok. Why don’t you lie down for a bit and let the grown ups talk about the important things? Maybe later we’ll get you some ice cream. Would you like some ice cream?
What’s with the name calling? Talk about someone being a ‘divider’. You best look in the mirror. Not being able to keyboard comes across as being simply uneducated and lazy. It all comes down to your message not being taken seriously. If you speak for the right, then one must conclude that those on the right are uneducated, lazy name callers. Oooo, that’s what I want to be, just like you!
Why get so hung up on grammar? Is this a casual public forum or a Harvard speech writing class?
Even if it is a public form, if I have to judge the validity of a comment, do you honestly think I’m going to take a person “hu talks leik dis” seriously?
Divider in Chief is reversible Mittens number one project and he proved it in Boca Ratan back in May when he was talking to his millionaire friends at a $50,000 a plate get together. If you really think he is going to do anything for us peons you are sadly mistaken. It will be tax reform for the rich at the expense of the rest of us.
You peons are what the Dems perpetuate. Dems have no interest in having people be successful If you’re successful you’ll vote more conservatively and look at the Dems in the rear view. Dems need to maintain their constituency through keeping them poor as peons. Look at Maine or Detroit as perfect examples of Dem control and no positive movement in poverty levels over decades. You imbeciles on the left are gullible enough to believe the Dems that successful people are to blame
I know many D’s who are successful including myself, I ran a business for 20+ years, then bought a business which I ran for 10 years and sold out. I continued to work until I retired so
my friend don’t call me or any D’s imbeciles because you have no idea what you are talking about. I use to lean conservative but always voted for who I though would be best for the country, all people in the country not just the rich. I have seen what the R’s have been trying to do to this country and I don’t like it one bit. They have been bought and owned by the oil companies, other large corporations and the rich, the income tax laws have been changed and manipulated to give tremendous advantages to the rich, I know I’ve seen and lived it.
There are D’s that are owned by the same but most of them will do what is right for the whole country as opposed to the R’s, especially in the last 3 1/2 years. I can’t say that I’ll never vote for a R again, but before I do they will have to make some real changes and start doing things for this country as opposed to doing things for only the rich.
Lets drop this whole Republican Vs. Democrat crap!!!! We are all Americans regaurdless of what we believe, so why dont we focus our attention on the fact of what the candidates are standing for. The fact of the matter is that that both Obama and Romney supported bailouts, although now Romney decided he is against them. Both Romney and Obama stand FOR the Patrioit Act. BOTH Romney and Obama want to decrease privacy for citizens. Romney propsed Wire taps, while Obama says we can indefinatley detain AMERICAN citizens for practically NO reason. Obama once stood against Gay marriage now to say he is a supporter, and Romney is dead against marriage equality. So, what does this leave me to conclude? I will not VOTE for either of these flip-flopping jokers in November, but I will vote GARY JOHNSON, who supports each state and religions RIGHT to chose who can marry within their limits. He also supports immediate appeal of the patriot act. Gary Johnson supports our 2nd amendment rights, and plans to submit a BALANCED budget in his first year in office. Tell me if either of the Reps or Dems can argue with any of these points. The thing is that there needs to be a change, and a drastic one. So please when you vote, dont just except the status quo, research the issues, and know that you DO have a choice to not vote for the lesser of two evils.
Quick correction, Gary Johnson does not believe that same sex marriage should be left for the states to decide. He has stated that he believes that same sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.
I like that.
Yes, you are right. He supports it as a constitutional right. Correct me if I am wrong but doesnt he also beleives that if a religion does not, then they cannot be forced to “do” for lack of a better word the wedding. I think that is more what I meant, but didn’t know how to put it. And thanks for the info :)
As it is and as it always will be, churches aren’t and can’t be forced by the government to “do” a wedding. Notice how the state doesn’t step in when a church refuses to wed people who have previously been divorced or a couple of different religions? I don’t know why people think it would be any different with a gay couple.
A business refusing service to gay people because they’re gay on the other hand? Of course that’s illegal. Just like refusing service to someone because they’re Jewish or Cuban or whatever is illegal. You can’t discriminate.
Yes, that is true, but that was also always the case with same sex marriage.
No one is suggesting that any religion must have a wedding for anyone. The point is that it is a civil marriage. No Church need bless it. Keep any Church out of the State’s business.
Yes, in most of Europe all weddings are civil, performed at the city hall or town hall. Then, if the church chooses, it may “bless” the marriage in a church event that looks like our church wedding ceremonies — but the priest, pastor or rabbi doesn’s sign any legal documents. The government takes care of the legal end of it, and the church does a spiritual or religious “blessing” of the marriage — and that’s as it should be. Priests and pastors shouldn’t act as agents of the government by signing legal wedding documents.
I have a friend who is a Roman Catholic priest. He was telling me the other day that he refused to perform a wedding ceremony for two non-Catholics who just liked the setting of one of the three churches in his parish that he serves. Priests and pastors turn down weddings all of the time. The state has never been able to force any church, priest, pastor, or rabbi to perform any wedding ceremony. That won’t change.
The first smar post I have seen so far on this sight. God Bless U
Gary Johnson 2012 he got my vote, No more D and R bullshit for me.
Peace
Stehen Schweter
Oh now I see where you are coming from, should have read further and not wasted my time above. Rant all you want and vote for Johnson. You live in Maine and Maine will go for President Obama.
Yes, none of that Republican vs. Democrat stuff.
Just Libertarian vs. Republican vs. Democrat vs. Green vs. Some Other Party stuff.
By the way, the British (really) have a party called the Monster Raving Loony Party. Should we add that to the mix?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results. It is beyond time to vote something different then a D or an R Try Libertarian for a change. Read the hydra of conage by Craig Hewlett The D’s and the R’s are just 2 wings of the same bird.
Peace to all
Stephen Schweter
and what would voting Libertarian accomplish….
Peace
I know it’s bad form to answer a question with another but What would voting R or D accomplish?
I believe that the best vote this election would be for all Democrats. If the President were re-elected and he had both houses the country would be better off.
The Republican party has been taken over by extremists and I believe that they are ruining this country.
I can understand your question I think and I do not know your politics, but I see no reason to vote for any Republican after all the destruction that they have wrought.
As Rick Santorum points out, smart people will never vote for the Republicans.
He got that right !
We cant afford another four years of the democrats. They are full of it when they claim to be championing the cause of the lower and middle class. I make about 25k a year, i am also single. The dems want me to hand over even MORE of my paycheck every week? I never seem to see the tax cuts they are supposedly making, I am still being taxed between 17 and 20 percent.
You are mistaken. You should take a look at what you will be taxed under the Republican. If you vote for the Republicans you are voting against your own interests.
You might find this site worth a look.
http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator?source=em12_20120802_sc_tt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=em12_20120802_sc_tt
how about something from an independent source? A source other than Obama’s own website?
How about the link to the Tax Policy Center at the bottom that states ” Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.”
You have made yourself clear. You will not be voting for President Obama under any circumstances. Stop the sham. You are not looking for information. You are looking to support your own prejudices.
You are safe tho because President Obama will carry Maine. Funny how that works.
Hmmm. So I prejudiced because I disagree with the direction this country is going? Gotta love the tolerance from the left.
No, you’re prejudiced because you dismiss any evidence that goes against you “Obama is bad” belief. So, please, enlighten us, what policies has Obama enacted that you disagree with, why you disagree with them, what will Romney do instead, and why would that be better. Because I can tell you right now, “Math” says Romney’s plan won’t work. As you have said, you make 25K a year. Under Romney’s proposed tax plan, you taxes will INCREASE or the national debt will INCREASE. Neither of those sound very “fiscally responsible” to me.
I disagree with the individual mandate portion of the ACA, Obama’s position on Israel, his redistribution of wealth policies, and his support of abortion. There are plenty of other issues I have with him but these are the big four.
Ok, you answered a portion of my question. Now you just need to outline why you disagree with those things, what Romney will do instead, and why those are better. I’d also like for you to address Romney’s tax plan and how it will either increase your taxes or increase the national debt.
Why do I need to justify my personal beliefs? Take abortion for example. 50 years ago everybody KNEW it was wrong to kill babies. Today, there are people out there who believe in whats been termed “post birth abortion”.
As for what Romney will do: He is against the individual mandate but does support certain elements of the ACA. His record has always been Pro-Israel. He supports welfare reform and tax cuts for businesses.
If businesses hire more people and are paying them, they are either no longer collecting or are collecting less welfare, they are also paying taxes. The current administration in seeking to remove the work requirement for welfare recipients removes tax revenue and increases the expense of benefits. Our current policies are not sustainable.
I do not think Romney is the best choice for this country, but if the choices are him vs. Obama, then Romney is by far the lesser of two evils.
Correction. The ACA does not work without the mandate. Another Romney lie.
Correction, Romney said quite clearly in that taped fundraiser that there is no solution to the Israel problem.
Correction, the administration is certainly NOT removing the work requirement workfare.
Another republican lie.
Correction: http://washingtonexaminer.com/gao-confirms-obama-welfare-memo-was-unprecedented-change-to-work-requirement/article/2508553
correction,
see post at top of page from ocrs5012723 cannot believe that you are citing this bs site
put the shoe on the other foot. Earlier you cited Obama’s website, which would be patently biased in favor of him. How is my citing the Washington Examiner any different?
You have been answered with facts at the top of this thread.
1. If you are in favor of expanded healthcare, it needs for everyone to be in the pool.
2. President Obama has been the most supportive president to Israel in our history.
3. That ‘redistribution of wealth’ is once again a complete distortion of the facts
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/rnc-offers-master-class-in-out-of-context-editing-for-anti-obama-video.php?ref=fpb
4. President Obama believes in women having frEE choice over their own bodies.
I see is that it is likely that you are getting your erroneous info from faux news or some other equally wrong source and that it is a waste of my time to give you information, but I will continue to refute your misinformation when I see it.
CIAO.
1. No it doesnt. Look at all the companies that are doing just fine without every American being required to be a “customer”
2.How exactly has obama been Israels biggest supporter in history? His party tried to change its platform to stop recognizing Jerusalem as the historical capital of Israel.
3.Robin Hood in Chief, need I say anymore?
4.I believe in women being in control of their bodies, their OWN bodies. Nobody has a right to kill another human being no matter how small or defenseless. You would think the dems would be all over this, since they are all about “helping those that cant help themselves”.
Lets not be confusing “misinformation” with “difference of opinion”.
Facts
1. A company is not a country… very stupid comparison .
2.When he heard of the change proposed he immediately insisted that it not be done.
3.Not factual
Exactly !
Stop your twist. You are prejudiced. i.e. you hold to your factually wrong view in the face of the actual facts. That makes you prejudiced and small minded too.
As I said, I see where you are coming from. It has nothing to do with right or left. It has to do with accurate information.
“factually wrong”… well it seems that as usual with politics that “fact” is another word for opinion. You see me as “factually wrong” just as I see you as “factually wrong”. We will have to agree to disagree. I dont see myself changing your mind, nor do I see you changing my mind. Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not.
Correction, fact is not another word for opinion.
When Romney complained that 47% (actually 46%, but let’s not quibble) of Americans pay no income taxes, and that they are lazy freeloaders, who was he talking about? Many of that 46% are in the military, and both the Republicans and Democrats voted to give them tax breaks. Some are young (I had a SS# and wages when I was in high school and college, but didn’t earn enough to pay income tax). Many worked all of their adult lives but are now retired, like my three sisters. And many pay payroll taxes but no income tax, because they are working at Walmart or McDonalds or some other low-paying job. And they’re paying sales taxes and plenty of other taxes. Does that make them all lazy? Romney thinks so, because he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
He never said lazy and he was talking about votes
Here’s what he said: ” There are 47% who believe that they are victims, who believe that the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement, and the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
So okay, he didn’t actually use the word “lazy.” He used a lot more words to say the same thing.
He said that my retired sisters, and my nephew who works for Target, think they are victims. He said they feel entitled to government hand-outs, that they aren’t taking presonal responsibility, that they don’t care about their lives! That’s such baloney!
He said that about our military men and women who are in that 46% (not 47), retirees who have worked their entire lives, low-income people who are working hard for low wages, students, etc.
Two-thirds of the people who don’t pay income tax do pay payroll tax. They are working, many are working hard, but for low wages, like my nephew at Target. And they’re paying sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and often property taxes and excise taxes.
Romney doesn’t know any real people — he doesn’t know any people who aren’t millionares or aren’t on his payroll. He’s clueless, and unqualified for the presidency.
Howard Cutler–
Presidents don’t set gas prices.
ACA is unpopular because it it follows the republican model, ensuring exorbitant profits for the insurance companies while neglecting the issues that make health care delivery problematic. One of these days, we will join the rest of the civilized world by valuing the welfare of our citizens above the welfare of multi-national corporations.
Our military is the single largest monster that is destroying our economy. We squander our resources on destruction instead of constructive enterprise. It is not our job to police the world.
Obama does speak to us. I don’t agree with much of his policy but he said this recently–
“my opponent said it was ‘tragic’ to end the
war in Iraq, and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in
Afghanistan. Well I have, and I will. And while my opponent
would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint
Chiefs don’t even want, I will use the money we’re no longer
spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to
work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways.”
Apparently you and your wife aren’t listening.
2008 Candidate Obama repeatedly blamed the failed leadership in Washington for the rise in petrol prices. Why is it different 4 years later?
Most people are against ACA because it is an infringement of freedom and was enacted in the dark of night with little or no understanding of what the Dems passed.
Apparently you listen to the tripe that Nobama will spew to get a vote.
because it was convenient. However educated people knew what was going on.
Convenient and false
very much so, just like it is today
I do find it interesting that it takes so long for a member of Congress and their staff so long to read a document that is supposed to be around 2,000 pages long. I can knock off a 500+ page book in a week with ease in my spare time. I’m going out on a wing but I assume that there are very few in Congress that have only a GED. I’m thinking that they should be able to scrape up enough people with the ability to read and comprehend in a short period of time.
And it was double spaced.
That reading is boring though, they’d rather watch paint dry than read that drivel.
That’s why we have so many lawyers in Washington. They get paid big bucks to write boring and read boring.
The sad thing is nothing they write should be as long as it is. There is quite literally a bunch of crap in it. Stuff that has no pertinence to the bill always gets added as a way for either party to try and sneak something in. Why do they feel the need to attach things to bills that have no bearing on the bill itself? If they would just stop doing that maybe the bill wouldn’t be 2000 pages but 1500.
I take it that this is your opinion after having read it.
Actually the problem would be solved by giving the President the power of the line-item veto. Virtually every one has requested it since Washington, but Congress realizes the power that would be given.
How much time did they have to read before voting? Hours? Try reading something technical and legalese vs. a romance novel and see how long 500 pages take.
Source please.
I read ‘The rise and fall of the third Reich’ in about a week.
I once met the author, Wm L. Shirer — I knew one of his wives.
You want complex problems solved by something that can fit on a bumper sticker? Get real.
Actually, gas prices were just under $4.00 a gallon four years ago. Only after the economy tanked in October of 2008 did gas prices begin to fall.
President Obama has done two things that will ultimately keep gas prices stable: raised the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and, with due concern for the environment, expanded the amount of domestic drilling.
Every time Nobama has more money printed it cheapens the USD increasing the cost at the pump. His fiscal policies added much to the price at the pump.
Define ultimately and his expansion is a joke.
Yeah, and the President (note the title) runs the Treasury too.
You have the office of the president and the fed confused. Now I am all for full auditing of the fed, but you know as well as I do that Mitt is just another bankster. When the gop turned away from Ron Paul they lost all hope of a truly conservative president. Mitt is floundering, and destined to fail.
I would have voted for Ron Paul if he had won the nomination. I dont see Romney as the “solution” to our problems, but as the candidate who will create fewer “new” problems.
You must be very wealthy.
Nope, I make about 25k a year
In the hopes that I might educate you: decisions as to the money supply are made by the Federal Reserve, which by law is independent of any Congressional or Presidential interference; inflation has run at less than 3% since President Obama’s term began; and domestic oil production is at an eight year high.
Stop drinking the Faux News Kool-Aid and join the reality-based community. Either that, or remain as unglued as your moniker suggests.
hope springs eternal…
LOL.
Do you think the need to print more money had anything to do with Obama spending 5 trillion $$$ we didn’t have?
Unequivocally, no. Money spent on deficits is borrowed and does not increase the money supply. It is, in effect, a rearrangement of debts, but not an enlargement of the money supply. Creditors such as Chinese banks hold that debt and are getting precious little interest on it.
Keynes taught us that we should have borrowed more money, in the short term, to further stimulate the economy, and the conservative economist Republicans used to worship, Milton Friedman, would have agreed. He once famously said: “We are all Keynesians now.”
Our debt to GDP ratio is less than it was at the end of WW II; the deficit spending leading up to that war pulled us out of the Great Depression by 1940 and the deficit spending during the war continued a rapid growth in our economy that continued for over 40 years. That growth reduced the debt to GDP ratio to very manageable levels. Issuing new federal reserve notes by the Federal Reserve does increase the money supply; however, this occurred well after the stimulus spending in 2009 and was an attempt to provide for more growth in the face of Republican intransigence on doing anything to spur private sector job growth by, for example, spending money to build infrastructure.
We borrowed from ourselves thereby increasing the money supply
Sadly, you have flaunted your ignorance. An accountant or economist reading what you have just posted would be LOL. If I have $500 and loan you $100, the $500 has not suddenly become $600.
and what happens when you loan more than the $500 or money you dont have?
No entity has loaned the US Government money it doesn’t have. Try buying a T-bill for anything other than cash. Once a Chinese bank buys one billion in T-bills, that is one billion it no longer has to loan or invest elsewhere. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Now your ignorance is showing. We are borrowing from ourselves
The Government is borrowing from a host of entities: American citizens being a minority of the lenders. I am sad that you are ineducable.
Do you understand the difference between a treasury auction and quantative easing? QE creates new money which dilutes the dollar and increases the costs at the pump. How many QE’s have we had during Nobama’s tenure? Last time gas was this high the price per barrel was 45 bucks higher. This administration’s policies are directly related to the higher prices. The decline in the dollar and Nobama’s policies are directly responsible for American’s paying a higher price.
Bull
Ignorance is bliss. Keep worshipping the Waste in Chief as he bankrupts America
Thanks for accepting my point, which began by educating you on the difference between action by the Federal Reserve, over which the President has no control, and action by the President. QE is purely an action by the Federal Reserve. You now implicitly agree that a treasury auction does not increase the money supply.
Whatever, you proved you have no clue and still don’t
Unglued, your fellow posters disagree.
The stench of liberal arrogance continues. Perhaps you need reassurances from fellow members of your posting ilk but the only concern I have about your fellow posters is that they may actually figure out how to get to polling place a miscast a vote to continue the failed leadership of the Loser in Chief
It’s honestly funny watching you try so hard to make it seem like you know what you are talking about. Thank you for providing me a “well, at least I’m not THAT guy” moment.
“ineducable” is that a liberal word? I dont speak liberal
Ineducable: adjective –
Considered incapable of being educated
I think it’s past someone’s bedtime. You should really let the grown ups talk now.
ok grandma. my point was sarcastic as Chenard is the closed minded one. Close mindedness; a disease of the left caused by blind adoration to imbelicle in the WH who is slowly destroying this nation. Good nite
Close minded:
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. I think that description is more fitting for you…
Obama also offered an alternative to buying high-priced gas in the form of high-speed rail projects that were turned down by GOP governors in Florida and Wisconsin. Not only would these projects have created jobs, they would have, when completed, taken millions of cars off the road and saved untold amounts of fuel. But Republicans would rather drill baby drill and force everyone to keep driving.
Kathy Pollard, William Slavick, Will Saunders; good letters.
Howard Cutler: how does the rest of your screed have any influence on increasing fuel prices? The President has virtually no influence on fuel prices. Looks like a “grabber” headline/1st line to attract attention.
Much better off now Howard. Thanx for asking.
Mr. Slavick
Read some of Peter Gnomes writing and you will see why the Catholic church focusses on Gay Marriage. I tis popular, controversial, and makes them superior. Jesus spoke more of divorce yet they are not pushing for that to be illegal. That would clear their pews and their pocketbooks.
Teach what Jesus taught…dont teach what you think he might have thought or meant.
You couldn’t be more “spot on” re. clearing the pews, jersey. Nothing, though, will ever make the Catholic church superior in my eyes, especially as it exists today. It has joined the religious wrong brigade and become unrecognizable, which is why I left and never looked back.
Thank you, Kathy Pollard. Bear baiting is murder, not “sport”. Those who practice it are cowardly scum.
I don’t hunt bear over bait. Don’t particularly care to even try it. Still, it is a legal method to take a bear. If you don’t agree with it, don’t do it. If you think it shouldn’t be allowed, see if you can raise enough support to start the process to bring it to a vote. Calling people who legally harvest a bear over bait “cowardly scum” is a bit childish though.
If you do not wish to participate in this legal activity, then don’t. It will give you more time to protest abortion clinics.
I love it when people point out that gas prices where below 2 dollars when Bush left. It wasn’t because he did something great. The people that points this out apparently do not realize that the only reason they were down was because we were in a recession. So pointing out that gas prices were lower as a way of slamming Obama, is in reality only slamming President Bush. Gas prices were not low because the economy was doing great, they were that low because we were doing terribly.
News Flash! We’re still doing terrible. Better come up with something better than that.
You missed the point. I was pointing out the Irony of people yelling about how cheap gas was when Bush Left. We are certainly doing better then January 2009.
Not really. The country is in much better shape than it was when Bush left office.
Just pointing out the conservative red herring.
Kathy, I said they *can* survive. Some do. I’m not comfortable taking their mother away and choose to not shoot. It’s not my place to tell others what they can and can’t do. We need to make our own decisions, not have others make them for us.
Yes I’ve heard of Gary Johnson and I will be voting for him in 2102. While he was governor of New Mexico he vetoed every spending bill and the citizens loved him.He is only candidate who will reduce our $16 TRILLION debt.Please join me in voting for someone with common sense.
Yes, Gov Johnson and Gov Christie running together to clean up the mess…
Not so fast on praising Christie, while he has a very big mouth and is full of bluster he has not been doing a good, or even an honest job of governing.
Budget analysts and credit rating agencies continue to cast doubt on a “Jersey Comeback.”On Tuesday, Standard & Poor’s became the third credit agency within days to warn that New Jersey’s $31.7 billion budget, which went into effect July 1, is based on overly optimistic revenue projections. It depends on expected revenue growth of nearly 8 percent, more than twice the rate of the previous year.The Christie administration itself is presenting a muted economic forecast to investors, a far cry from the governor’s months of touting the state’s economic “comeback,” a slogan he recently abandoned.
He gets it done, he can only do so much… Plus it is NJ, armpit of the US….
No. He does not get it done. That is the point.
That is your opinion..
my opinion is based on the how New Jersey is doing. .. on what do you base your opinion.
NJ is a S….le, that in it self is hard enough to fix, give him time…
Why should we give Christie time to fix a state when people won’t give the president time to fix the country?
I have been following this and he has been making things worse….. believe what you will
but I see no reason to continue this discussion.
Im voting for Mr Obama because he is left handed….
Me TOO!!! I’m left handed, he’s left handed all’s good!!!
I find it hilarious how the only defense for voting Romney is, are you better off today or whatever stupid talking point they keep repeating. Funny how they can’t specifically articulate what Romney would do that would magically make things so much better. Oh, he’d cut trillions in spending, where? Oh he’d close billions in tax loopholes, which ones? O he’d make America safer, how? He’d increase peace in the middle east, how? He’d lower gas prices, how?
All simply by not being Obama? Hahaha
You have to elect me to find out what I would do and how I would do it.
Sounds like the lady with the hammer ,you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Peace
Stephen Schweter
Much easier to point your finger at someone else than directly address my comment, isn’t it?
Sounds like “Hope and Change”.
More like Mittens’ entire campaign strategy…
Don’t forget giving the rich another 20% tax cut, boy they need it to pay for the 47% oh wait that is going the wrong way I guess the rich might be sucking some wind out of the county. I guess that is ok with reversible Mittens.
‘reversible Mittens’ Great !!!
Slavick should be excommunicated. All he does is falsely rant against the Catholic Church, while claiming to be a Catholic himself. When I saw his name, I stopped reading, because I knew it would just be a bunch of false garbage.
if you don’t read what your alleged opponent writes, how can you be sure you don’t agree with him or her? For you, of course, America is a Catholic nation that must conform to your faith in all matters–just like the Taliban in the Middle East. I suspect that, like the Taliban, you’d really want not just to excommunicate but to execute dissenters from your dogma. But you orthodox Catholics don’t (yet) rule over the rest of us. Why not respect the Constitution?
Thank Heaven this is not a Catholic or any other theocracy. Let’s keep it that way, it’s the American way.
Only LIBERTY can unite us we may use it differently and respect others right as to how they use there liberty as long as in doing so does not infringe on others Liberty.
Peace
Stephen Schweter
Go ahead Pope “he…”. Judge not … Maybe we should stop reading when we see your handle (I would but it’s entertainment).
That would mean you judged him before reading his words. I see, another one of those followers. God Bless you.
Mr. Saunders, with all due respect, yours is one of the most asinine letters I have seen. Why? Because it was written by the Wind Power industry! You can at least show some original thought. Having said that, every claim the wind industry has made to promote itself has been refuted many times over. Wind energy is neither clean nor green.
The “carbon footprint” of the typical industrial wind power project is greater than the possible meager offset of carbon from generating from the wind. Every Megawatt of wind electricity is more than offset by the inefficient keeping warm fossil fuel back up and from inefficient ramping up & down of fossil fuel generators. Like driving in stop & start city traffic causes your auto to plummet in efficiency and spew out more pollutants from inefficient operation, the analogy is true with the necessary interaction between the base load facilities and the fickle unpredictable and unreliable wind power generators. When hydro dams are told to close the gates to shut down generation on a rare windy day, we are ironically reducing a clean renewable power source to make way for expensive wind power.
The PTC must go. The lobbying arm of the industry AWEA in its desperate effort to renew this outlandish giveaway of taxpayers’ money for something that doesn’t work (roughly 25% capacity factor for Maine projects based on FERC data) has essentially said without the PTC the industry would wither away. I say let it.
Wind is such a feckless source of electricity, that it requires far greater subsidies than any other source of electricity per Megawatt Hour. In July 2011, the USEIA published results for 2010 for subsidies per MWH (direct, tax, R & D, and electricity support). The subsidy per MWH is $52.43 for wind; the next highest is $2.78 for nuclear, then 84 cents for hydro, 64 cents for coal, and 63 cents for natural gas.
Support for wind is bad economics, based on poor science, mandated by bad public policy caused by lobbyists influencing politicians pandering to be “green” rather than making sound decisions based on economics.
Howard Cutler, to point to the price of gas is really silly.
Are you too young to have remembered how much gas cost under Bush? Where are you getting this under-$2-a-gallon number? That never happened in Maine.
The TRUTH is that gas was over $4/gallon for much of 2007/2008. Then the global economy took a nosedive, global demand fell, and gas prices dropped.
I really don’t think we should wish for global economic catastrophe again simply to save a couple bucks at the pump.
Since you cannot remember such simple things as gas prices, I really don’t believe you can remember whether you were better or worse off 4 years ago.
Howard Cutler, ~ what we don’t need is a Mitt Romney.
William Slavick, if you don’t like the Church, just don’t be a part of it. In the meantime the Church can require celibacy, priesthood restricted to males only, provide a list of those things it considers sins including homosexuality, witness to the Gospel as it sees fit, etc. For your information there is no precedent for women celebrating the Eucharist with Church approval; and, as far as I know, there is no mention of equality in Scripture and in the teachings of the Church. Finally, you are right, the Church requires obedience to its bishops, not just Bishop Malone. Obedience is a Christian principle found in Scripture. So it sounds to me like you have a problem with the Church and possibly even with God. The solution to your problem is simple: either align yourself with the Church or, drop out of it if you are a member because you will be wasting your time and energy if you think you can change those things that bother you and don’t concern you. Many, many men and women have tried a life-time to change the things you mentioned over the centuries and have failed. In the meantime rest assured Bishop Malone is not acting any different than the other bishops in upholding the Church’s teachings and practices.
Or change it and infuse some sense (facts, those things you hate) into it. Remember the nonsense about left handed people?
If the Church is not faithful to the Gospel, it will cease to have favor with God, it will cease to exist as an instrument of salvation. As Jesus stated: if you wish to follow him, then you must pick up your cross. The cross is a sign of sacrifice, and even one of suffering for some. He is the potter, we are the clay. In other words, it’s up to us to conform to His will, not the other way around where we create a god after our own image.
So if a chuch doesn’t follow your particular interpretation, they are not faithful to the gospel? What if it is your interpretation that is not actually faithful to the gospel?
I am glad you asked the question about interpretation. Being faithful to the Gospel is doing one’s utmost with a sincere heart to determine what God’s will is in order to conform to it. Obviously this does not mean people will necessarily arrive at the same interpretation. For if that were the case, who could be saved except for a few if any person of good will.
So who are you to tell a Church that they are not faithful to the gospel, even if they are “doing one’s utmost with a sincere heart to determine what God’s will is in order to conform to it”?
Oh, did I condemn any church followers for not being faithful to the Gospel? If so, that’s news to me.
You’ve condemned churches that support same sex marriage for having a different interpretation that you.
In the past I’ve spoken out against some church leaders but did not condemn their churches themselves even though I felt they were being led astray for political reasons. In the past those leaders created a false front of representing a large portion of Christians leaders when if fact they were a small contingent. I shed light on this misrepresentation when it occurred, and condemned it as well. Contrary to your assertion I did not condemn churches.
But even then, you are condemning those church leaders for having a different interpretation than you? How can you possibly know for sure that “they were being led astray for political reasons”? Did you ask them? Or did they actually reach a different interpretation than you?
Read again what I said. I condemned their (the church leaders’) willful misrepresentation. Condemning someone in the biblical sense is to pass judgement on their soul, which I don’t feel free to do.
Misrepresentation to you. We get to the original point, how do you know you have the correct interpretation? What if you are the one misrepresenting the bible?
The willful misrepresentation I was referring to was not concerning their biblical interpretation. It was about misrepresenting their number of supporters. This is what I stated to poster crs5512723 a more than 5 hours ago in this regard, which you can check out for yourself:
“In the past those leaders created a false front of representing a large
portion of Christians leaders when in fact they were a small contingent.
I shed light on this misrepresentation when it occurred, and condemned
it as well.”
It’s a pathetic distinction.
whawell, this time I agree with your answer.
Um, okay, whatever. Do you have a response that actually addresses what I said to you though?
My answer is this: The Good News may not be changed or interpreted to accommodate one’s yen. Incidentally, I am not aware of the official church condemning left-handed people. Anyway, what concern are the Church’s teachings to you when its members are free to follow or not to follow its teachings? Oh, is it because it rightfully calls homosexuality a sin? I think that’s your main reason for wanting it to change, which as you know I disagree with as I’ve explained on numerous occasions before.
I’m actually a Catholic, though I of course disagree with my religion on many things. Judge that all you want, but guess what, it’s my choice, not yours. My issue with people like you is that you can’t leave it at making your own choice to believe homosexuality is a sin. You have to go the extra mile and use the law to coerce people into living like you do. That’s wrong and it’s incredibly unAmerica. For an example, I think it’s a sin to be a bigot, but I’m not out there trying to take away the legal rights and protections of bigots. I’m not out there trying to use the law to punish bigots and hinder their standing in society.
Again , you deserve much credit for engaging with this misanthropic poster.
Cheers to you !
Misanthropic? I socialized with various people including strangers on several occasions weekly. And why do I do so? It’s because I enjoy their company. No, I’m not a loner by any means. I also realize the company in this venue has very liberal views, unlike the company in other venues I engage in.
It is your persistent campaign against the gay community that I find misanthropic.
Misanthropy is the general hatred, mistrust or disdain of the human species or human nature. A misanthrope, or misanthropist is someone who holds such view or feeling. The word’s origin is from Greek words μῖσος(misos, “hatred”) and ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos, “man, human”).
Yes, you surely do disagree with the Catholic “religion on many things”, even the essential things that the Church says you must believe in in order to be a faithful Catholic. Putting religion aside, I’ve repeated in the past that homosexuality is not something you are born with. I’ve even shown an indisputable twin study that shows this. So the argument that homosexuals can’t help who they are on account of their genes or hormones given to them at birth doesn’t hold water. I’ve also shown you that state endorsement of homosexual relationships is not a right. You can form whatever relationships you want (because that’s a right) but you can’t force people through the state to approve of your relationships. So I don’t know why this makes me a bigot in your mind when I am willing “to live and let live”, that is, allow you to live as you wish without requiring me and others to endorse your relationships. Bear in mind that simply because someone disagrees with some other person’s lifestyle or actions does not make him a bigot. As the saying goes, condemn the sin but not the sinner.
And you’ve consistently and purposefully misrepresent what others believe (and the positions they hold) and what science says — that’s not honesty and you know it, yet you still do it.
You claim I’m calling you a bigot simply because I disagree with you and that’s not it at all. But that’s all you have. You have to distort the truth because you don’t have truth on your side.
You’ve called me a bigot before in no uncertain terms on many past occasions. But in your last comment when you stated, “I’m not out there trying to take away the legal rights and protections of bigots”, what did you mean by that, if not implying that I am a bigot?
As to what science has to say, I’ve provided you an authoritative source before, in fact a reference to a study on a large sampling of twins that put away the argument that homosexuality is a genetic quality. No, I am not lying or attempting to distort anything.
Read what I write! I said you mischaracterize things when you say that I say something is bigoted simply because I disagree. That’s not true and you know it.
You lie when it comes to science. Plain and simple. That, or you see what you want to see — independent of reality. I noticed yesterday you conveniently ignored me after I provided you with over half a dozen sources proving that gender are sex aren’t the same thing. And what are you going on and on about twins? Who cares? It doesn’t matter whether gays were born that way or not. Being gay isn’t something that can be easily changed. We protect choices in this country all the time. Choices to be a bigot. Choices to be of a certain religion, etc. Gays shouldn’t have to prove they were born gay in order to have their equality.
Sorry, but I did read those sources, just did not have time to respond. All these sources were doing was
defining “gender” to mean cultural characteristics associated with the
sex a person is born with. For example, women wear chapeaus in France; chadors, in Iran. This is far different than the meaning given in the
Maine Human Right Act that basically says one’s gender is defined by
what sex they consider themselves to be. This definition in the Act is not a cultural difference associated with the sex of a person. Rather, it represents a refusal to accept the sex given by nature and the biological characteristics associated with it.
You said the standard was a scientific reference that established a difference between gender and sex. Now you’re saying the standard is the Maine Human Rights Act? You’re changing the rubric in order to be right. That’s dishonest and wrong.
I said sex and gender are different things and you said I was wrong. You demanded scientific evidence to back up what I said and I gave you exactly that. You were wrong and you can’t even admit now. It’s pathetic.
Have some principles. You are constantly proven wrong on here and then you just ignore it and mischaracterize the facts in order to convince yourself that you’re right. It’s irrelevant whether gays are born that way or not. We protect both innate characteristics and choices in this country, period. Born that way, isn’t the issue, so stop trying to muddy the waters.
I have no idea of what you are talking about when you referring to “standard”. Are you talking about the standard definition of gender? If so, there are two standard definitions in my dictionary. One is synonymous with sex. The other refers to the cultural characteristics of each sex. The definition given in the Maine Human Rights Act is non-standard because it is found only in use in a few places and has been in use only in recent years. The question, which I should have phrased a little more precisely was this: Show me the scientific evidence that some males are born like females inside. I know biologically, psychologically, and mentally the sexes are different. But you appeared to have a different view. That was the view that I was challenging you to support with scientific evidence. Instead you furnished me with links that DEFINED gender as cultural traits associated with a particular sex.
Yes, it is relevant whether gays are born gay or not because many supporters of gay marriage use this fact to argue they are being discriminated against because of who they are, that is, born gay. If there is any discrimination, it is not because of who they are but rather what they do.
The standard refers to the conversation we had. You asked for scientific proof, so you created the standard. I gave you loads of scientific evidence and now you’re saying that we need to look to the dictionary instead? That we need to look to the Maine Human Rights Act? You are changing the standard. You don’t get to say that magically you meant something else after the fact, when you very clearly didn’t mean something else.
Further, science doesn’t deny the existence of transgendered and intersexed individuals. I’m getting pretty tired of you just making things up, waiting for someone to prove you wrong, then moving on and just peddling more misinformation. That’s not right. Regardless of your position on these matters, it’s not right to be actively lying or actively presenting your ignorance as facts.
It’s not relevant whether gays are born that way or not. A person saying that being gay is who they are isn’t the same thing as saying they’re born that way — don’t lie. Don’t misrepresent for the purpose of your argument. Being gay isn’t something that a person can flip on and off like a switch. You can’t deny that. You need to realize there is a difference between action and status. You want to argue that being gay is merely an action so you can feel comfortable discriminating. Being gay is a status, having sex is an action. But regardless, again, you don’t have to be born a certain way to be protected by the law.
I don’t believe that homosexuality is a choice, as I did not choose to be attracted to my boyfriend. But even if it was a choice, like you said, it doesn’t matter. If it is o.k. to discriminate against someone for their “chosen” sexual orientation, then it is o.k. to discriminate against someone for their chosen religion.
My whole point is this: YOU ARE NOT BEING DISCRIMINATED. The refusal to endorse homosexuality is not discrimination. Furthermore, the fact you may feel discriminated against is not necessarily discrimination.
No one is asking you to endorse it. All same sex couples want is the same right to marry that is provided to heterosexual couples. I cannot imagine the size of your ego that would lead you to believe that I need, let alone want your approval, or “endorsement” of my relationship. Get over yourself. No one cares about whether or not you approve. We just care about having the same rights as heterosexuals.
The fact that you deny it’s discrimination does not not make it discrimination. If someone is being denied equal rights though they are similarly situated — yes, that’s discrimination.
Look, I am sick and tired of being accused of lying. I have no need of discussing anything with you at this point. It’s just a waste of my time. Think what you want to about me, I don’t really care at this point because you come off to me as someone who is angry and cannot and will not accept anything that does not agree with his world view.
Don’t misrepresent people’s positions. You’re doing again with this comment. You’re lying when you say that I cannot accept that people have a different opinion than me. That’s absolutely not true.
What I won’t accept is something who lies and creates double standards for themselves. It’s only a waste of time for you because I don’t let you get away with not being honest. I don’t let you get away with hypocrisy.
I’m sure it makes you feel better to tell yourself that I’m argumentative simply because it upsets me that someone has a different world view, but that’s absolutely not the case. If it was, I would probably be trying to use the law against you (ironic, given that’s exactly what you are doing to gay people).
1. A single study cannot “put away” any argument. It can be a base line for further research, but until many different studies are done that produce the exact same result, then that individual study is not conclusive “proof” of anything.
2. You are correct that currently, homosexuality is not solely caused by genetics. However, you omit the fact that most of the research done points to a biological cause of some kind. I would consider that glaring omission an attempt to “distort” the truth.
It’s just dishonesty, plain and simple. It’s someone trying to justify their religious beliefs with science and the law. Since science and the law isn’t on his/her side, he/she has to lie and misrepresent the facts.
Yes, let’s give Bishop Malone a break — he’s following the Roman hierarchy.
However, you keep saying “the Church.” There is more than one. I think you mean the Roman Catholic Church.
Nothing about equality in Scripture? “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
— Galatians 3:28 Douay-Rheims Bible (a Roman Catholic translation).
Mary Magdelene was the first witness to the resurrection, and Jesus sent her to tell the other disciples (John 20:11-18). That makes her “the apostle to the apostles,” since an apostle was someone who was a witness to the risen Christ and was given a commission to spread the good news.
So, since a woman was chosen to be the very first of the apostles, why can’t women even be priests today?
Mary Magdelene was not an apostle in the same sense as the twelve. She was not given the faculty of the priesthood for administering sacraments and teaching authoritatively as the bishops do.
At the time of Christ and his apostles there were indeed Jews and Greeks, males and females, slaves and freemen. So what did Christ’s apostle Paul mean by this statement “neither Jew nor Greek…”? It appears he was talking about how stature – achieved or otherwise, as one’s gender for example, which happens to be God-given – is not a determinate for salvation. He was obviously not talking about the importance of making humans equal in the political realm. Otherwise, God would have made every person the same. The context of this statement concerns what lies at the heart of man, his love and dedication to God. Scripture is clear about love. It’s not a mere emotional attachment to something or someone. It is doing God’s will, that is, being a willing and humble servant, regardless of one’s human stature. His point was that God does not judge as man does.
PS: This comment was edited very shortly after being posted to clarify some misleading statements that were unintended.
By being the first witness to the resurrection, and the one chosen to tell the Twelve Disciples, Mary Magdelene is first among the Apostles.
In the last chapter of Romans, Paul also mentions Junia, who he describes as an apostle.
Jesus wasn’t a modern feminist — because he was not a modern man, nor Western — but he did teach women (as in the story of Mary and Martha of Bethany) and discussed religious ideas with various women. Women traveled with him as a part of his group of disciples. He treated women fairly, much better than most men in his day, I suspect. In contrast, Greek women weren’t allowed to go out in public without their husbands.
You say, “she [Mary Magdelene] was not given the faculty of the priesthood that administers sacraments.” Well, none of the men were, either. That came later as the church hierarchy developed, and the men who gained control wanted to keep their all-male control, didn’t they?
A lifetime of study has convinced me that Jesus never stopped being a Jew, and never intended to establish a church. He never even met a Christian. He was trying to reform the Judaism of his day.
The Gospels were written by the second or third generation of Jesus’ followers, people who knew people who had known the Disciples, and they were already busy establishing their place in the hierarchy of the Church they established in Jesus’ name. And they were writing women out of the story as much as possible. But Mary Magdelene was so well known as the first Apostle that, as inconvenient as she was, she couldn’t be written out altogether.
First of all, you are clearly indicating that the twelve apostles, minus
the one who betrayed Jesus, were not faithful servants and messengers
of Christ. If one accepts that notion, then all of Scripture falls apart
including the traditions passed on by the apostles. That interpretation
of course is not a reasonable one, as the apostles willingly gave up
their lives for the sake of Christ, some to the point of torture and
death. And so were perhaps as many as thousands of their immediate followers persecuted.
You write, “you are clearly indicating that the twelve apostles, minus [Judas] were not faithful servants and messengers of Christ.”
No, that’s not at all what I said.
The Eleven were indeed faithful and dedicated yet falible human beings who, each in their own differing ways, did their best to be faithful to what they understood Jesus to have taught.
They were mostly illiterate and Aramaic-speaking. The Disciples had Aramaic and Greek-speaking followers, and they had followers, some of whom were literate enough in Greek to have written the Four Gospels.
The Four Canonical Gospels are clearly based on the traditions of the various Apostles. Each of the Gospels gives a somewhat different view of the ministry of Jesus (although “John” is extremely different from the other three) — just as four different screenplays of “Moby Dick” give us different cinematic interpretations of that book. None of the screenplays is exactly like the book — and none of the Four Canonical Gospels tells us exactly what the ministry of Jesus is like. But the four of them together, especially the first three, along with some literary and historical understanding, give us a reasonably good idea.
The Four Canonical Gospels are testimonies of faith. They are our very best source for our understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus. They’re not perfect; no book is (it’s “The Good Book,” not the perfect book). None of the Gospels is an eyewitness account. But they are based on the traditions of the Disciples, and tell us a great deal that is true and faithful to the best of the ability of the authors.
Let me just leave you with a couple of quotes: ‘You are Peter (“Kepha” in the Aramaic language Jesus spoke), and upon this rock (“kepha”) I will build my CHURCH’ (emphasis in mine here). In connection with this quote here’s a reference for you to read:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
Here’s the other quote given to the apostles at the last supper: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and HE WILL GIVE YOU AN ADVOCATE. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ORPHANED; I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” Jn 14: 15-21
In matters of faith and morals, the apostles who were given the Spirit of truth were indeed infallible.
Thanks for your thoughts, whawell.
As far as we can tell from the biblical and historical evidence, Peter never went to Rome, despite a legend that the Roman Catholic Church likes to endorse. He did, however, go to Jerusalem and to Antioch (according to the Bible), so if anyone in the Christian churches has a good claim to his mantle, it would be the Patriarch of Jerusalem and also the Patriarch of Antioch.
Nobody — apostle, bishop of Rome, or not — is ever infallible.
As you are aware, Jesus didn’t speak English. He spoke Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. What we have are translations of translations.
The word you translate as “church” is “ekklesia.” It literally means “assembly” or “congregation,” and, because it is convenient, Christians generally translate it as “church.” The Athenian assembly, where the politics of the city was debated, was an ekklesia.
The Gospel attributed to John was written by an unknown, literate, well-educated, Greek speaking Christian about 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
On the other hand, John the Apostle was an illiterate, Aramaic-speaking Jewish peasant (Acts 4:13 says John and Peter were “uneducated” — probably 98% of the people in the Roman Empire were unable to read, let alone write).
The Gospel of “John” was written anonymously, as were the other three. The traditional names “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” were added decades later. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but they (at least the first three, less so for the fourth) do reflect a genuine tradition from the Disciples.
I believe the anonymous authors of the Four Canonical Gospels were sincere individuals who wrote, not biographies of Jesus, but testimonies of faith. They are not infallible books, but they are “good books” and our most reliable sources about his life and ministry.
Jesus himself was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish rabbi (teacher), in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, who sought to reform and renew the Judaism of his day. By the time the Gospels were written, however, his Gentile followers were beginning to outnumber his Jewish followers, and the Gospels, written in that context, and by Greek-speaking Gentiles, reflect that growing divide.
Christianity is a religion about Jesus.
Judaism was the religion of Jesus.
Jesus never met any Christians, and, if he was to come back today, probably wouldn’t want to be one.
I was out for a walk on a beautiful fall day and I passed several children playing in their yard and overheard a conversation about how their superhero was better than the other superheros. Comments like Batman can’t fly. Superman can’t climb walls. Spiderman is just a kid. The exchange was becoming quite heated as I passed by. Sounds a lot like many of the comments exchanged here. What would happen if we asked our ‘superheros’ to use their talents in a cooperative effort to help this country rather than suggesting they can do it all by themselves and totally discounting the strengths of their fellow Americans? Are we stuck at the developmental level of a 6 or 7 year old? Sure sounds like it to me.
I have read many of your posts and know you to be a thoughtful, intelligent contributer. I have seen that you follow the issues and have learned much from your informative posts.
However I am surprised to see this one. There is simply no equal equivalency between the parties.
The extreme right obstructionists have taken over the Republican Party. The Democratic Party along with the President has bent over backwards to reach consensus with the Republicans to no avail. There is example after example to support this.
I do not understand how you do not see this. You suggest all that need be done is for everyone play nice and appreciate the other side.
It takes two to tango.
To VeazieDavid:
“Why do I need to justify my personal beliefs? ” – Because that is how a debate occurs. That is how ideas evolve and how we grow as a society.
“50 years ago everybody KNEW it was wrong to kill babies. Today, there are people out there who believe in whats been termed “post birth abortion”.” – The debate is not about if it is wrong to “kill babies”. The debate is over when a fetus can be considered a human life. I’m probably not going to convince you of anything, but what you need to understand is that not everyone views a group of cells that could possibly become a baby as the equivalent of a baby. Personally, I don’t agree with the idea of a late term abortion except in extreme cases. But at the same time, I do not feel that a fetus can be quailifed as a human being until it is viable outside of the uterus.
“He is against the individual mandate but does support certain elements of the ACA. ” – That depends on which day you talk to him
“He supports welfare reform and tax cuts for businesses.” – So does Obama. The difference between Obama and Romeny on the issue of tax cuts for business is that Obama wants to specify that the cuts only apply to businesses that keep jobs in the US. He is holding the Republican party to their claim that the upper class are the “job creators”. Why should we give a business a tax cut to “create jobs” if they aren’t actually going to use that money to create jobs?
“The current administration in seeking to remove the work requirement for welfare recipients “- That is actually false. Fact checkers have rated that claim false multiple times. What Obama actually did was to give more power to the states to determine those requirements and to allow states to try new solutions. Isn’t one of the main talking points of the Republican party “smaller government”?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
I am also still waiting for you to address the Tax Policy Center report stating that Romney’s tax plan will increase the deficit or increase your taxes.
To VeaziDavid:
Correction:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
If you get to ignore Obama’s website because of “bias”, then don’t expect people to take you seriously when you post an article from a conservative newspaper.
To VeazieDavid:
“put the shoe on the other foot. Earlier you cited Obama’s website, which would be patently biased in favor of him. How is my citing the Washington Examiner any different?”
And you promptly dismissed Obama’s website. How is “usegoodsense” dismissal of your source any different? I actuall know the answer to that question, the claim your source is making has been proven false by numerous fact checkers.
To VeazieDavid
Facts concerning President Obama and Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html
More sources:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/obama_has_been_good_for_israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_foreign_policy#Israel
Thanx, wonder where the ‘doubter’ went.