Admonishment to Bill Gray

someone didn't take his Metamucil

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
For the life of me, I can not understand why you would post such inane and irrelevant tripe on any of these F O R U M S! A forum is a marketplace of ideas and a place for argumentation, discussion and debate, for Pete's sake.

No, my Friend,

I must differ with you. A Forum, especially a Religion Forum -- is for discussion, debate, sharing, learning, growing.

Arguing, fighting, name-calling, etc. -- is for your local beer bar and pool hall.

You type of "arguing" is what kept me away from the Forums and Chat Rooms for years. Who in their right mind wants to waste their time in continuous "spitting contests"?

The TimesDaily Forum is the only one I have ever joined -- for just that reason. I do not have time to waste arguing or joining in "spitting contests."

I joined the TimesDaily Forum three years ago when I saw a discussion titled "What Is A Christian?" and this being the Bible Belt, I wanted to see what my home town Friends had to say about being a Christian.

But, unfortunately, when I signed in -- I found the Forum dominated by a handful of atheists and secularist, bolstered by a few liberals. So, I joined to refute the false teachings -- and here I am.

You asked why I said that you appear to be on the Forums to argue. It is because you seem to take whichever side of a discussion will stir up an argument. I sometimes wonder what you do really believe.

Or, if you are here ONLY to argue. I am not the only one to notice this character flaw; others have mentioned it to you before.

I will stay in a discussion as long as it seems to be productive and/or instructive. But, when it hits the slippery slope into another "spitting contest" -- I will walk away and start or join another discussion.

So, Beter, my Friend -- if it is an argument you seek -- I am not your guy.

But, if you want a constructive dialogue; count me in all the way.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Watch your step Bill. One more offense and B's gonna break out the wet noodle. TREAD LIGHTLY OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
No, my Friend,

As per Princess Bride, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it does.

You certainly are not beternU's friend, at least not to any rational person.

quote:

I must differ with you. A Forum, especially a Religion Forum -- is for discussion, debate, sharing, learning, growing.

But only so long as you agree with what someone else says. Anything else is to be derided in subtle and non-so-subtle ways.

quote:

Arguing, fighting, name-calling, etc. -- is for your local beer bar and pool hall.

You type of "arguing" is what kept me away from the Forums and Chat Rooms for years. Who in their right mind wants to waste their time in continuous "spitting contests"?

The TimesDaily Forum is the only one I have ever joined -- for just that reason. I do not have time to waste arguing or joining in "spitting contests."

You, sir, are a hypocrite of the first order. Countless times I have seen you do these very things. I have seen others call you on them as well and yet you *never* admit to any of it. You are a perfection only in your own mind.

quote:

I joined the TimesDaily Forum three years ago when I saw a discussion titled "What Is A Christian?" and this being the Bible Belt, I wanted to see what my home town Friends had to say about being a Christian.

But, unfortunately, when I signed in -- I found the Forum dominated by a handful of atheists and secularist, bolstered by a few liberals. So, I joined to refute the false teachings -- and here I am.

Because only what Bill teaches is actually correct. No other opinion need be voiced at all.

quote:

You asked why I said that you appear to be on the Forums to argue. It is because you seem to take whichever side of a discussion will stir up an argument. I sometimes wonder what you do really believe.

You have no desire to actually have a discussion about anything. You desire only to pontificate. A discussion requires a give and take, while you give only. The only true creed is yours.

quote:

Or, if you are here ONLY to argue. I am not the only one to notice this character flaw; others have mentioned it to you before.

I will stay in a discussion as long as it seems to be productive and/or instructive. But, when it hits the slippery slope into another "spitting contest" -- I will walk away and start or join another discussion.

So, Beter, my Friend -- if it is an argument you seek -- I am not your guy.

But, if you want a constructive dialogue; count me in all the way.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

You abandon any conversation when you decide that you simply don't want to answer. Many times you then go an create a new thread as an excuse to simply continue your pontificating.

I firmly believe that God does not smile at your posts.



Bill[/QUOTE]

Beternu is definitely not typical of deacons in the churches of Christ, that's for sure.

I wonder how many people who worship with him there would agree with his viewpoint on, well, anything.

Logical--

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Your characterization of Bill's inconsistency and duplicity is dead on!

Bill's posts disputing the doctrines and opinions of others somehow--in his disordered sense of things--do not fall under the definition of "arguing." It is only those views that challenge his dearly-clung-to belief system that constitute "arguing." He thinks that by so labeling the opinions and analyses of others, he can escape his obligation to post substantive replies when he is challenged with arguments he can not meet head-on.

But should you be called upon for contributions to the "Field Guide to Bill Gray," please take care to distinguish clearly between Bill and various members of the weasel family that might also be included. At times, even a skilled taxonomist can have difficulty telling them apart.

Logical, Beter,
Agreed.

Now Bill, in all seriousness, if you think you are on this forum to do God's work, does it not stop and make you pause that you have ruffled so many feathers of FELLOW CHRISTIANS?
If you are trying to be an evangelist, sharing the Word, you perhaps are just not very good at it. Because all I see is that you stir anger and controversy. You have probably 5 negatives to each 1 postive comment on anything you say.
I hate to break it to you, but as a Christian Evangelist, sharing the Good News of Jesus, you're really not very effective. Perhaps your personality might lend better to a different type of ministry- like music- instrumental- no words- or perhaps you could take to the streets and feed the hungry.
Before you come back with scripture that says you are Blessed because you are persecuted because of Jesus' name, let me remind you that we are mostly all Christians- so that card won't work.
Anyway, thought someone ought to point out that as an evangelist and writer, quite frankly, you suck. You don't leave people wanting more, or wanting to follow you, therefore supposedly following Christ.
You leave them angry, and entering into debate with you. When you lose the debate, you close the door and pretend it never happened.
If I were not already a Christian, I would read your posts and replies and probably say "no thanks".

Well said, vp.

I rarely look in religion any more unless its you or someone else I know starting a topic.
Mr Gray's posts are more like a deacon's long Sunday school tirade on the sins of being happy. I skim them, if I read them at all.

However, as long as the TD does not ban Mr Gray, he has the right to post whatever he wants. I have the right not to read it, especially if he continues to violate the 'false witness' commandment.

quote:

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Can I write the forward?

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Can I write the forward?

Yes, but only if you learn to spell it correctly.

Or maybe you could write a preface instead.]

Hey, Mr. Hoob,

Don't you just love it when you can stir up the barn yard and get all the howling in tune?

Yep, it does get the old heart pumping!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Can I write the forward?

Yes, but only if you learn to spell it correctly.

Crap. How embarrassing. I deserved that.

ForWORD.

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:
Now Bill, in all seriousness, if you think you are on this forum to do God's work, does it not stop and make you pause that you have ruffled so many feathers of FELLOW CHRISTIANS?
If you are trying to be an evangelist, sharing the Word, you perhaps are just not very good at it. Because all I see is that you stir anger and controversy. You have probably 5 negatives to each 1 postive comment on anything you say.
I hate to break it to you, but as a Christian Evangelist, sharing the Good News of Jesus, you're really not very effective. Perhaps your personality might lend better to a different type of ministry- like music- instrumental- no words- or perhaps you could take to the streets and feed the hungry.
Before you come back with scripture that says you are Blessed because you are persecuted because of Jesus' name, let me remind you that we are mostly all Christians- so that card won't work.
Anyway, thought someone ought to point out that as an evangelist and writer, quite frankly, you suck. You don't leave people wanting more, or wanting to follow you, therefore supposedly following Christ.
You leave them angry, and entering into debate with you. When you lose the debate, you close the door and pretend it never happened.
If I were not already a Christian, I would read your posts and replies and probably say "no thanks".

vplee, well said. FYI that exact same thing could be written about the person on the opposite end of the spectrum, beternu. That would be the guy who's political and social beliefs are in DIRECT opposition to the beliefs of the religious group that he worships and serves with, and the guy who called another Christian that he disagrees with a weasel (see his previous comment on this thread).

I don't read Bill Gray's posts b/c of serious MEGO and flashbacks to virtually every preacher I was subjected to while growing up, so I don't know if he calls people who disagree with him the kind of names that beternu does, but I know beternu does. I'd much rather be around someone who's wordy and annoying but doesn't act all fake than someone who acts one way on here and then heads over to church building and acts differently.

That is, unless he walks in there and acts arrogantly superior to everyone and shouts his liberal nonsense from the rooftop, calling anyone who disagrees with him a bunch of names. Of course, he might, but I would think we would've heard about that by now. That would last maybe two seconds at a any Church of Christ that I know of. Might be worth it though to head over there one Sunday or Wednesday to check it out. I'll just look for the guy in the Obama shirt with the Pro-Abortion bumper sticker on his car. Should be easy to spot.

Bottom line is both Bill and beternu seem the same to me, just saying different words.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hey, Mr. Hoob,

Don't you just love it when you can stir up the barn yard and get all the howling in tune?

Yep, it does get the old heart pumping!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

The barn yard? You consider Christians who have a different opinion from you to be lower class barn animals? Your fundamental view of Biblical verses, that you decide in advance as to whether they are to be taken literally or metaphorically, can be the only 'correct' worship of God and Jesus?

You really are a pathetic person if making Christians angry gets your heart pumping.

It seems without Gofish and Deepfat to play off of, you have lost all reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Can I write the forward?

Yes, but only if you learn to spell it correctly.

Crap. How embarrassing. I deserved that.

ForWORD.

Dang Sofa, try again. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreword

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:
Now Bill, in all seriousness, if you think you are on this forum to do God's work, does it not stop and make you pause that you have ruffled so many feathers of FELLOW CHRISTIANS?
If you are trying to be an evangelist, sharing the Word, you perhaps are just not very good at it. Because all I see is that you stir anger and controversy. You have probably 5 negatives to each 1 postive comment on anything you say.
I hate to break it to you, but as a Christian Evangelist, sharing the Good News of Jesus, you're really not very effective. Perhaps your personality might lend better to a different type of ministry- like music- instrumental- no words- or perhaps you could take to the streets and feed the hungry.
Before you come back with scripture that says you are Blessed because you are persecuted because of Jesus' name, let me remind you that we are mostly all Christians- so that card won't work.
Anyway, thought someone ought to point out that as an evangelist and writer, quite frankly, you suck. You don't leave people wanting more, or wanting to follow you, therefore supposedly following Christ.
You leave them angry, and entering into debate with you. When you lose the debate, you close the door and pretend it never happened.
If I were not already a Christian, I would read your posts and replies and probably say "no thanks".

vplee, well said. FYI that exact same thing could be written about the person on the opposite end of the spectrum, beternu. That would be the guy who's political and social beliefs are in DIRECT opposition to the beliefs of the religious group that he worships and serves with, and the guy who called another Christian that he disagrees with a weasel (see his previous comment on this thread).

I don't read Bill Gray's posts b/c of serious MEGO and flashbacks to virtually every preacher I was subjected to while growing up, so I don't know if he calls people who disagree with him the kind of names that beternu does, but I know beternu does. I'd much rather be around someone who's wordy and annoying but doesn't act all fake than someone who acts one way on here and then heads over to church building and acts differently.

That is, unless he walks in there and acts arrogantly superior to everyone and shouts his liberal nonsense from the rooftop, calling anyone who disagrees with him a bunch of names. Of course, he might, but I would think we would've heard about that by now. That would last maybe two seconds at a any Church of Christ that I know of. Might be worth it though to head over there one Sunday or Wednesday to check it out. I'll just look for the guy in the Obama shirt with the Pro-Abortion bumper sticker on his car. Should be easy to spot.

Bottom line is both Bill and beternu seem the same to me, just saying different words.

Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

quote:

Bottom line is both Bill and beternu seem the same to me, just saying different words.

No, I don't think so. While Beter and I have occasionally disagreed, he is in no way the liar and the deceiver that BG is. I have found Beter to be thoughtful and honest. Sure we can all get heated in here- the topic is one about which many of us are quite passionate of course. But Beter's good peeps.
Even if he is politically liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:

quote:

Bottom line is both Bill and beternu seem the same to me, just saying different words.

No, I don't think so. While Beter and I have occasionally disagreed, he is in no way the liar and the deceiver that BG is. I have found Beter to be thoughtful and honest. Sure we can all get heated in here- the topic is one about which many of us are quite passionate of course. But Beter's good peeps. Even if he is politically liberal.

THANK YOU, VP! I MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

If anyone decides to develop a "Field Guide to Bill Gray," you should be consulted for major input.

Can I write the forward?

Yes, but only if you learn to spell it correctly.

Crap. How embarrassing. I deserved that.

ForWORD.

Dang Sofa, try again. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreword

Sigh. Please EXCEPT my resigma, resignash . . . OK I quit.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by vplee123:

quote:

Bottom line is both Bill and beternu seem the same to me, just saying different words.

No, I don't think so. While Beter and I have occasionally disagreed, he is in no way the liar and the deceiver that BG is. I have found Beter to be thoughtful and honest. Sure we can all get heated in here- the topic is one about which many of us are quite passionate of course. But Beter's good peeps. Even if he is politically liberal.

THANK YOU, VP! I MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!

What a response from such a "Christian person"! Wow...stir the angry fires more Bill. I'm sure the Christian following is all about making others angry with smirk remarks like this. Honestly sometimes it's so easy to show folks what a true hypocrite is. You really just have to sit back and wait, they do such a good job themselves.

Wow...stir the angry fires more Bill

Yes, that's exactly what he does. Gets people mad as heck, gets proven wrong, then without admitting error, he disappears for a couple days, then BAM :a brand new topic, invitation for FRANs, etc. Brand new cycle for new group of peeps.
But Bill- I am done with you and your lies.
So if you want to battle Catholicism, you will be battling without me- and I can assure you that I remain steadfast in my Faith. You've actually done me a favor-I have taken this opportunity to really examine my faith, and guess what- THANK YOU!!!!!
Now I hope you find some new FRANs to mislead and offend! As for Me, I'm leaving in peace, to love and serve the Lord.

Bill has to go read some Jack Chick tracts and some online Berean Call or whatever it is he loves so much to plagiarize. Then he starts the new topic.

He has no history worthy of speaking, neither secular nor sacred. The world is a Whig History of Puritans landing at Plymouth Rock and then the Republic being founded and then falling apart after WW II due to conspiracies. He does not know, for example, that no Baptist or Puritan taught such rubbish as Triburapture during their formative years in ascendancy in London, during toleration, or in the colonies.
It is a Victorian innovation, formed by a feverish mind of a defrocked C of Ireland cleric in Plymouth, a small cult, and then picked up and idealized by Scofield. Somehow, this silly reference Bible, which contains only his own notes, not ones by any authority save Scofield alone, was rediscovered and picked up by the holy rollers and somehow, how in the world I do not know, joined in with modern Baptists.

His eschatology is as weird as that of the Mormen's Godhead and multiple Gods and the Planet Kolob.

His fervent belief in the eternal efficacy of the magic prayer is the loss of any sense of Christian duty to one's brother, and certainly to "the least of these."

Frankly, he needs on TV alongside John Hagee at the Heresy Hour or whatever that channel shows.

FAMILY GATHERINGS ARE SO GREAT!

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hey, Mr. Hoob,

Don't you just love it when you can stir up the barn yard and get all the howling in tune?

Yep, it does get the old heart pumping!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

The barn yard? You consider Christians who have a different opinion from you to be lower class barn animals? Your fundamental view of Biblical verses, that you decide in advance as to whether they are to be taken literally or metaphorically, can be the only 'correct' worship of God and Jesus?

You really are a pathetic person if making Christians angry gets your heart pumping.

It seems without Gofish and Deepfat to play off of, you have lost all reason.

Ho-ho! You tore your a55 on that one, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hey, Mr. Hoob,

Don't you just love it when you can stir up the barn yard and get all the howling in tune?

Yep, it does get the old heart pumping!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

The barn yard? You consider Christians who have a different opinion from you to be lower class barn animals? Your fundamental view of Biblical verses, that you decide in advance as to whether they are to be taken literally or metaphorically, can be the only 'correct' worship of God and Jesus?

You really are a pathetic person if making Christians angry gets your heart pumping.

It seems without Gofish and Deepfat to play off of, you have lost all reason.

Hi B50,

If it walks like a duck; quacks like a duck -- then, I would imagine you have found a duck!

If you are not a duck; then it obviously does not apply to you.

However, if you have been waddling a wee bit lately; if your voice has begun to change, getting a little quacky -- better take a look in the mirror!

You mentioned Fish and Deep. I am not really convinced that they are not still here. Are you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

So they don't have a doctrinal stance on abortion?

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

So they don't have a doctrinal stance on abortion?

what is your churchs doctrinal stance on appendectomies?

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

So they don't have a doctrinal stance on abortion?

Most, if not all, of the people with whom I worship are, like myself, opposed to abortion on demand. Does it surprise you that I am so opposed? If so, it is because you have assumed that I have embraced every principle that you associate with the liberal view of things.

Got news for you--that just is not so. Issue by issue, I study the facts and take into account the teaching of Scripture and form my beliefs. It is not necessary for me or any other citizen of this land to subscribe to some litany of standardized beliefs in order to be accounted among the "liberals" or the "conservatives." In politics, there is a spectrum of beliefs and opinions. On can be "far left" or "far right" or somewhat "left of center" or "right of center." You pick your position and I'll pick mine, but do not assume that you somehow have specific knowledge of where I stand on issues like abortion.

It would appear that the conservative spouse of former President Bush has found herself somewhere left of the "far right," seeing that she has now publicly taken a pro-choice stand on abortion and has endorsed gay marriage. That puts me, insofar as those issues are concerned, to the right of Laura.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

So they don't have a doctrinal stance on abortion?

Most, if not all, of the people with whom I worship are, like myself, opposed to abortion on demand. Does it surprise you that I am so opposed? If so, it is because you have assumed that I have embraced every principle that you associate with the liberal view of things.

People care a lot more about what you do than they do about what you say. Even if you are in the "far lefe" as you call it.

You can claim to be opposed to abortion, but you support candidates who are fully in support of open, unrestricted abortion on demand and who do things to fund more abortions and relax laws meant to protect unborn life. It appears you've decided that having more innocent babies killed is a small price to pay, or at least an acceptable price, in order to advance your "far lefe" agenda.

If I'm opposed to private land ownership, but I stump for and elect candidates for office who are staunchly pro-land ownership b/c I know they'll support other things that I want, then I can hardly claim to be against private land ownership with any credibility.

You're willing to do things that are pro-abortion in order to get your way on other issues, all the while saying you're not in favor of abortion. That, sir, makes your actions "pro-abortion" regardless of your professed beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beternU:
Uh, Henhouse...

The "religious group that [I] worship and serve with" does not propagate a set of political and social beliefs that its members are required to subscribe to. Thus, your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant. There are numerous persons who worship where I do and who know well, but do not share, my liberal beliefs, but who do not allow that to interfere with my relationship to them in Christ. If you happen to be in some kind of controlling fellowship where all members are expected and directed to adhere to social and political beliefs dictated by some denominational hierarchy, then that is YOUR problem. I am happy to report that I have no such problem.

So they don't have a doctrinal stance on abortion?

Most, if not all, of the people with whom I worship are, like myself, opposed to abortion on demand. Does it surprise you that I am so opposed? If so, it is because you have assumed that I have embraced every principle that you associate with the liberal view of things.

People care a lot more about what you do than they do about what you say. Even if you are in the "far lefe" as you call it.

You can claim to be opposed to abortion, but you support candidates who are fully in support of open, unrestricted abortion on demand and who do things to fund more abortions and relax laws meant to protect unborn life. It appears you've decided that having more innocent babies killed is a small price to pay, or at least an acceptable price, in order to advance your "far lefe" agenda.

quote:

If I'm opposed to private land ownership, but I stump for and elect candidates for office who are staunchly pro-land ownership b/c I know they'll support other things that I want, then I can hardly claim to be against private land ownership with any credibility.

You're willing to do things that are pro-abortion in order to get your way on other issues, all the while saying you're not in favor of abortion. That, sir, makes your actions "pro-abortion" regardless of your professed beliefs.

Horse hockey!

You write from the perspective that one party is all good and moral and another is all foul and corrupt. That is naivete at its extreme.

The Bushist regime launched a war on false pretexts that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of scores (more likely hundreds) of thousands of innocent people, the deaths of thousands of American troops, and the horrible maiming of many others. Estimates are that this macho misadventure produced upwards of a half million refugees. That kind of callous disregard for human life reflects immorality of the first water.

I abhor certain other policies altogether too typical of most Republican administrations, most notably the lack of proper concern for the stewardship of this world created by God and given to mankind to dress and to keep. In 27 years of service in environmental/conservation positions in three federal agencies, I have personally witnessed the deceitful means by which highly-placed Republican officials have schemed to avoid performing their obligations under law to protect the environment. I am pleased to say that in a number of instances, from my mid-level, but strategically useful, positions in the bureaucracy, I was able to manipulate things to frustrate several attempted abominations on the part of right-wing weasels appointed to undeserved positions of influence in such agencies.

As to abortion, it is the Supreme Colurt, not the President, who decides on the Constitutionality of issues like abortion. In the 37 years since Roe V. Wade, and with the great, great majority of Supreme Court appointments made by Republicans and with much pontificating about the sanctity of life by Republican presidents, that decision still stands. Here is the record on Supreme Court nominations and appointments by Republican and Democratic presidents. http://www.supremecourthistory...urtAppointments.htm:

The vast majority of appointments since the late 1960s were by REPUBLICAN presidents, including Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade! It appears not to have mattered for 37 years which party got which justices confirmed. There is such a thing as the judicial principle of stare decisis, which makes it possible, but very, very, very difficult, for a court to overturn a previous decision in a case offering the same fac. The concept of stare decisis is the obligation of the U.S. Supreme Court to honor past precedents. "When George Bush's chief justice appointee John Roberts was questioned before the U.S. Senate, for example, it was widely believed that he does not accept the concept of an implicit constitutional right to privacy, upon which the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) legalizing abortion was based. But he implied that he would uphold Roe despite any personal reservations due to his commitment to stare decisis."
See:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm

That is CHIEF JUSTICE John Roberts, Henhouse! He was appointed by Republican Pro-life President George W. Bush. Do not look for Roberts or any other appointee of any other Republican president to discard stare decisis and overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Clarence Thomas says he does not believe in stare decisis, but he is a lone wolf in that aberrant view.

You see, Henhouse, I do not descend to the realms of oversimplification that infest your thinking. I can abhor Roe v. Wade without falling prey to the simplistic wishful thinking that you embrace. I can vote against a Republican and for a Democrat without pangs of conscience, even if I know that the Democrat holds views contrary to my own on important matters like abortion. I can do this because I know the full story and am not driven by ideological, knee-jerk mantras such as you and other tunnel-visioned tyros typically advance in discussing issues of this type.

Exactly. You can vote for someone who is NOT pro-life, because you believe he/she is overall the better candidate.
However if you vote for a candidate BECAUSE they are pro abortion, you are in the wrong.(if that is your belief on the issue of abortion).

There is some reason to be applied here. You can't just choose one issue, and vote for a candidate because he/she is prolife. Unfortunately, this is only one of SOOO many issues that affect the world. I believe you have to vote with your conscience, for the person who is most on par with your values and politics. It is much more complicated than this. You can vote for a person who is pro choice DESPITE their stance, not because of their stance. I am fortunate, however, because usually the candidates that I am more drawn to are the conservative: thereby usually escaping this moral dilemma. And I am very strongly pro-life. But if there were a better candidate that was pro-choice, I would vote for him. You can't hang your hat on one issue. Just my opinion!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
You're willing to do things that are pro-abortion in order to get your way on other issues, all the while saying you're not in favor of abortion. That, sir, makes your actions "pro-abortion" regardless of your professed beliefs.

You write from the perspective that one party is all good and moral and another is all foul and corrupt. That is naivete at its extreme.

I didn't say anything about parties. We're talking about you and your actions that contradict your stated beliefs. Not parties or candidates. You.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: The Bushist regime launched a war on false pretexts that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of scores (more likely hundreds) of thousands of innocent people, the deaths of thousands of American troops, and the horrible maiming of many others. Estimates are that this macho misadventure produced upwards of a half million refugees. That kind of callous disregard for human life reflects immorality of the first water.

Your version of the story leaves out the heroic acts of our military, the work that our country (the one that you loathe) has done to rescue those enslaved under a murderous regime and to build a better infrastructure for the people we saved, you also left out the rape rooms and torture rooms run by Saddam (you know, your OTHER favorite "Hussein"), etc. Oh, and like most liberals, NO mention of the attack on our country that took place on our soil and claimed thousands of innocent American lives regardless of their political affiliation.

If one listens to your delusional rambling account, they will get the impression that the war on terror was really Satan (the US) storming the throne of God (Saddam) in Paradise (Iraq). But of course all of that is only diversionary cover for you, while you hope people don't put two and two together to figure out that you're not who you claim to be when you drive up to your church.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: As to abortion, it is the Supreme Colurt, not the President, who decides on the Constitutionality of issues like abortion.

Constitutionality, yes, but your man Obama has used the power of his office, as you knew he would when you voted for him, to fund more abortions INCLUDING horrific partial-birth abortions. You made the decision that your liberal agenda was worth it. That's a decision YOU made, in spite of your professed anti-abortion beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:That is CHIEF JUSTICE John Roberts, Henhouse!

More diversion attempts. We're talking about you, not John Roberts. Funny how you say a lot but don't address the core issue.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: You see, Henhouse, I do not descend to the realms of oversimplification that infest your thinking. I can abhor Roe v. Wade without falling prey to the simplistic wishful thinking that you embrace. I can vote against a Republican and for a Democrat without pangs of conscience, even if I know that the Democrat holds views contrary to my own on important matters like abortion. I can do this because I know the full story and am not driven by ideological, knee-jerk mantras such as you and other tunnel-visioned tyros typically advance in discussing issues of this type.

So you're saying I'm right, that it's an acceptable price to you. Got it. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
You're willing to do things that are pro-abortion in order to get your way on other issues, all the while saying you're not in favor of abortion. That, sir, makes your actions "pro-abortion" regardless of your professed beliefs.

You write from the perspective that one party is all good and moral and another is all foul and corrupt. That is naivete at its extreme.

I didn't say anything about parties. We're talking about you and your actions that contradict your stated beliefs. Not parties or candidates.

You might not have said anything about parties, but that nevertheless underlies your position.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: The Bushist regime launched a war on false pretexts that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of scores (more likely hundreds) of thousands of innocent people, the deaths of thousands of American troops, and the horrible maiming of many others. Estimates are that this macho misadventure produced upwards of a half million refugees. That kind of callous disregard for human life reflects immorality of the first water.

Your version of the story leaves out the heroic acts of our military, the work that our country (the one that you loathe) has done to rescue those enslaved under a murderous regime and to build a better infrastructure for the people we saved, you also left out the rape rooms and torture rooms run by Saddam (you know, your OTHER favorite "Hussein"), etc. Oh, and like most liberals, NO mention of the attack on our country that took place on our soil and claimed thousands of innocent American lives regardless of their political affiliation.

My "version" of the war is a correct version. The Bush administration now acknowledges that there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no need for me to mention the heroic actions of those who perished as a result of the false pretenses by the warmongers who sent them to suffer and die. They were heroic, but that is not germane to the matter under discussion, nor are the rape rooms, torture rooms, etc. Regrettable as those are, it is not a part of any standing national obligation of this nation to correct such abuses. If there were such an obligation, then where were we when genocide was underway in the Congo and in Darfur? (not enough oil there?) Your cheap shot assertion that I "loathe" this country is simply a wrong and insulting ad hominem attack that you can not possibly prove and that does nothing to supoort any of the other flawed arguments you are making.

If one listens to your delusional rambling account, they will get the impression that the war on terror was really Satan (the US) storming the throne of God (Saddam) in Paradise (Iraq). But of course all of that is only diversionary cover for you, while you hope people don't put two and two together to figure out that you're not who you claim to be when you drive up to your church.

Your silly God-Satan depiction, above, is so far out and irrelevant as not to warrant any response. The "war on terror" did not occur in Iraq. The terrorists we were ostensibly pursuing in Iraq had roots in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Our entry into Iraq provided a cause celebre' for Muslim terrorists, providing them with a propaganda tool with which to lure in participants who otherwise would have had no reason to take up arms in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: As to abortion, it is the Supreme Court, not the President, who decides on the Constitutionality of issues like abortion.

Constitutionality, yes, but your man Obama has used the power of his office, as you knew he would when you voted for him, to fund more abortions INCLUDING horrific partial-birth abortions. You made the decision that your liberal agenda was worth it. That's a decision YOU made, in spite of your professed anti-abortion beliefs.

He hasn't done that, and if you disagree, then put up the goods to prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:That is CHIEF JUSTICE John Roberts, Henhouse!

More diversion attempts. We're talking about you, not John Roberts. Funny how you say a lot but don't address the core issue.

Funny how YOU can't see the forest for the trees. Right wingers constantly babble about how necessary it is to get appointees to the Supreme Court who will, they hope, reverse Roe v. Wade. I showed you how and why this has not worked and most likely never will work and you chose to ignore what I posted.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU: You see, Henhouse, I do not descend to the realms of oversimplification that infest your thinking. I can abhor Roe v. Wade without falling prey to the simplistic wishful thinking that you embrace. I can vote against a Republican and for a Democrat without pangs of conscience, even if I know that the Democrat holds views contrary to my own on important matters like abortion. I can do this because I know the full story and am not driven by ideological, knee-jerk mantras such as you and other tunnel-visioned tyros typically advance in discussing issues of this type.

So you're saying I'm right, that it's an acceptable price to you. Got it. Thanks.

No. I said what I said and it most assuredly does not equate to your being right about anything!

In some future election, there might emerge a presidential candidate whose views and whose party platform coincide entirely with my views on the great and compelling national and moral issues of our time. I am not holding my breath until that happens, fully realizing that it is merely wishful thinking. In the meantime, you and I must thoughtfully take into account the issues facing this nation and this world and make some kind of reasoned, prayerful, and conscientious choice about to support with our votes. I respect your right to make such a choice and I respect your choice, but I am not obliged to form my choices upon the Procrustean bed of your entrenched ideologies. And I am not some kind of hypocrite, as you callously charge, simply because choices that I might make in good conscience are not the choices that you might make or that might not be the choices of some person or persons who happen to worship where I do. End of story!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
In the meantime, you and I must thoughtfully take into account the issues facing this nation and this world and make some kind of reasoned, prayerful, and conscientious choice about to support with our votes.

As I said, we consider what is to be gained by electing a certain candidate, then weigh the cost of the things we disagree with that candidate about. And as you've said here in way too many words, you've weighed the cost of a radically pro-abortion president and found the cost acceptable considering the overall advancement of your liberal agenda.

It's funny to me that we're both saying the same thing,but you're denying it while also saying it. You must be dizzy.

I place a very high value on innocent life, especially unborn life, and therefore I don't find many other issues worthy of advancing abortion. Especially the grotesque, hideous murder disguised by the left under the name "Partial Birth Abortion".

Counting the cost, you know. Maybe you'll sing that one at church tonight.

OVER 50 MILLION, IN THE U.S. ALONE, HAVE DIED FROM ABORTION SINCE 1973!
AN AVERAGE OF 1.35 MILLION PER YEAR!

quote:

Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
In the meantime, you and I must thoughtfully take into account the issues facing this nation and this world and make some kind of reasoned, prayerful, and conscientious choice about to support with our votes.

As I said, we consider what is to be gained by electing a certain candidate, then weigh the cost of the things we disagree with that candidate about. And as you've said here in way too many words, you've weighed the cost of a radically pro-abortion president and found the cost acceptable considering the overall advancement of your liberal agenda.

It's funny to me that we're both saying the same thing,but you're denying it while also saying it. You must be dizzy.

I place a very high value on innocent life, especially unborn life, and therefore I don't find many other issues worthy of advancing abortion. Especially the grotesque, hideous murder disguised by the left under the name "Partial Birth Abortion".

Counting the cost, you know. Maybe you'll sing that one at church tonight.

Doofusness Incorporated! The inanity of your tactics in this discussion is more than appalling. I showed you why it makes no real difference to have as President a pro-life right wing deep-dyed Baptist or an ex-abortionist. It is the Supreme Court that decides such matters and I showed you why there is little or no chance of that body reversing itself. I am not happy about that situation, but I can do nothing about it by voting for any particular candidate for President and neither can you. I could hve deluded myself with the fond hope that George W. Bush would do something to reverse Roe v. Wade, but not having just fallen off the turnip truck, I passed on that opportunity. And I had no reason to expect that the hapless un-maverick John McCain would have had any better chance to achieve such a reversal. I did what I did, which was to take all relevant factors into account and make an informed choice. That is what voters do in this country. If you want to call me a hypocrite for doing that, then have at it. Single-issue drumbeaters like you are overpriced at a dime a dozen and I do not intend to continue to shine the clear light of reason upon that dense-as-depleted-uranium skull of yours in the vain hope that it will penetrate to the gnarly, shrivelled up little knot of tissue that passes for your brain. I have said all I need to say to comletely clarify where I stand and you have said all you need to say from your crabbed and truncated view of things. I am O U T T A H E R E!

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The inanity of your tactics in this discussion is more than appalling. I showed you why it makes no real difference to have as President a pro-life right wing deep-dyed Baptist or an ex-abortionist. It is the Supreme Court that decides such matters and I showed you why there is little or no chance of that body reversing itself.

Hi Beter,

That is the way it is supposed to work -- an independent Supreme Court, distinct and separate from the politics of Washington DC.

But, unfortunately, that is not the way it works. Obama's packing of the Supreme Court with his Ultra Left Liberal Ladies -- will dearly cost America for decades to come. Do you really believe that these two ladies will not support Obama's Far Left Liberal Socialist policies?

America is on a perilous path judicially -- and spiritually.

I pray that this November we see many of Obama's Congressional bedfellows sent back to the farm.

And, in 2012 -- it's the farm for Obama!

Then, America can begin the healing process of recovering from the Obama years.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
Doofusness Incorporated! The inanity of your tactics in this discussion is more than appalling. I showed you why it makes no real difference to have as President a pro-life right wing deep-dyed Baptist or an ex-abortionist. It is the Supreme Court that decides such matters and I showed you why there is little or no chance of that body reversing itself. I am not happy about that situation, but I can do nothing about it by voting for any particular candidate for President and neither can you. I could hve deluded myself with the fond hope that George W. Bush would do something to reverse Roe v. Wade, but not having just fallen off the turnip truck, I passed on that opportunity. And I had no reason to expect that the hapless un-maverick John McCain would have had any better chance to achieve such a reversal. I did what I did, which was to take all relevant factors into account and make an informed choice. That is what voters do in this country. If you want to call me a hypocrite for doing that, then have at it. Single-issue drumbeaters like you are overpriced at a dime a dozen and I do not intend to continue to shine the clear light of reason upon that dense-as-depleted-uranium skull of yours in the vain hope that it will penetrate to the gnarly, shrivelled up little knot of tissue that passes for your brain. I have said all I need to say to comletely clarify where I stand and you have said all you need to say from your crabbed and truncated view of things. I am O U T T A H E R E!

No matter what anyone tells you, it's perfectly normal to talk that way. You're special, and don't you forget it. Bye bye.

ps - whatever you do, DO NOT READ THESE:

http://www.ontheissues.org/soc...k_obama_abortion.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....abortion/index.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

http://www.naral.org/elections...bamaendorsement.html

quote:

Then, America can begin the healing process of recovering from the Obama years.

Obama is a symptom of how sick America is.
Bill, he really hasn't "done" anything!
WE voted him in there. (a collective we, not implying you or I)
Why do you think that is? Because America's morals esp Christian values are in the toilet. So a socialist who is going to give everybody something for nothing looks attractive. And people were sick of the lies of GW and rebelled against his leadership.

In short, you should stop blaming Obama for everything and being so openly disdainful- look at the world around you. How did he get elected?