{ED NOTE: If some of the comment number references nearer the bottom of this tread do not seem to match the referenced comment numbers, it is because there has been a very large number of spam attacks on this thread, and a very large number of multiple posts, probably from difficulties with the old software. I've tried to make the thread more readable for all you long-winded commenters. Carry on. --99}
.
.
.
.
.
People seem to be so used to hate speech from the right that it actually passes for moderation and calling them on it is labelled as nasty and extreme.

If he thought everybody was a flamethrower these days then he must be watching FOX news. There are very very few flamethrowing Dems. All the hate talk is coming from Coulter & Co. Why, even Hillary Clinton is saying we need to work with Bush. What could be more lukewarm than that? She's practically a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

Now, that's not to say some of us couldn't throw a few flames. It's just that we believe in the traditional family value of being polite when we can.

That the Repubs would find it good to have someone talk that way to the young brownshirts, er kids, is pathetic. You don't inspire people to hate that way and then expect them not turn into monsters when they're older.

Why do the Republicans hate America's children?

Christ is a riddle. He repaired the ear of the soldier who took him into custody, when Peter chopped it off, on the one hand. On the other, he said, "Think not that I came to bring peace, for I came not to bring peace, but war!"

As Ecclesiastes put it, there's a time for love and a time for hate, a time to heal and a time to kill, a time for peace and a time for war.

On 9-11, we found out what time it is!

As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

If this is a correct analysis, it can be an excuse for war. But it begs a question the evangelicals don't have an answer for. "What will Christ do or say after his return?" Would he say, "You killed to hasten my return, thus you are blessed..."??? Or would he say, "I came back to proclaim the error of your ways."???

I'll leave that to theologians to argue. I know what I think Christ would say.

...Lord Vaughan "On 9-11, we found out what time it is!"

Now we need to find out WHO was behind it.

Well Done! I agree that the the Republicans are so far removed from what Jesus Christ was teaching. That is the main reason I am not a Republican. You can't be a Republican; the stealers, destroyers, and haters of all that are not like them, AND follow the teachings of Christ. Democrats are lovers of all, not just those who fit into their selfish agenda's. I could get into a lengthy comment about it all, but you put it into words beautifully. Thank You.

Lydia, Thank you so much for writing your wise words. Ever since Bush and Co. came into power, I have been as perplexed as you are about my faith. George has made it very confusing to be a Christian...for what Christian would want to be associated with him and all of the death and destruction that he has brought about in the last 5 years. When I'm around my intellectual friends, I find myself apologizing for my beliefs, and when I'm around my Christian friends, I have to defend being a democrat and the very negative feelings that I have for Bush...dare I say Hate? It's pretty hard to separate hate for the actions of this man and his cohorts from hate for the people that have done so much to destroy this country and this planet. I can't help but think that they are bringing about the end times by their very actions...and maybe this is their intention. Thanks again, and please keep writing on Brad Blog. Can't wait to read your book.

It certainly sounds paradoxical that Jesus said He came to bring not peace but a sword, yet He also asked us to turn the other cheek when attacked.

For me, it's another reason not to take the Bible literally. But may we not assume that Christianity would not have survived as long as it has, through all the wars fought in its name and all the non-Christian thoughts and deeds that occur daily, unless Jesus was above all else the ultimate hope of mankind? We just haven't accepted His message of peace yet, and I seriously doubt that a literal interpretation of the Bible will be of much help; those that do interpret it literally seem the most unwilling or unable to follow Christ's teachings.

There is another aspect of the message of Christ that may reveal why the jihad war mentality of fundamentalists who profess christianity seem so at odds with the message.

They have chosen not to get the message in the first place:

"And the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables?

For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them." (Mat 13:10-17)

The science of the study of the meaning of text, whether law, scripture, or poetry, is called hermeneutics, which is to be paired with proper exegesis.

However, even when sound hermeneutics and exegesis are used, extracting meaning that most would agree with is difficult.

This is true of law (e.g. constitutional interpretation), of scripture (e.g. Talmud, Koran, New Testament), and of scientific facts.

Many variations of legal interpretation, scriptural interpretation, and scientific theory abound in our world.

Dredd

I would strongly disagree with one of those. The Koran, New Testament, Torah Bible and so on all awcknowledge God and do not deliberately denounce Christ or reject his teaching.

The Talmud absolutely does and there are constant references written in it that are easily demonizing of Christ, praising of Satan etc. Those are occult books.

"Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.""

"Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah"

There a reason such books go the way of history, they are not fit in any Christian religion and are more the bread and butter of Aethiests. That said, each member or fundamentalist group will take a book and its chapters such as the Bible to such extremes they no longer recognize it.

This is why you have religious Jihad wars, and the game, and make no mistake it is a game keeps going on!

5 years passing and we still have not done anything, or caught the real perpetrators of 911. Instead we have been deceiving ourselves and chasing our tails.

As an independent, I have to strongly disagree with the fact there isn't political flamethrowers on both sides. I see comments from some democrats like Hillary as pure sellout, and others by fire-breathing democrats like Lautenberg as being far too extreme. Or telling the ACLU that they must remove "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill, etc. and going completely out of control with environmental laws.

There is just as much extremism on the left as the right, but only when they are balanced out does that appear. Coulter etc. are bad enough as it is, I just see the right approach to take here is moderation. They will never agree on everything but it encourages folks like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore to go at it for weeks on end, if there is nobody just standing up and saying the way it is. Paul Hackett is my kind of guy to do that, and I liked how he just stood for something and fought all the way to the end.

We need more people like that in government, who aren't willing to compromise, but also aren't willing to put up typical political porn theater. That will be what changes the stakes.

Doug E.

"And by the way, whatever happened to that warehouse of weapons that was 'misplaced?' Does anyone remember what I’m talking about?"

Yes I do. Like most liberals, you have been misled by the liberal media. That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true.

Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears.

Doug #12

I was not advocating for or against any particular set of text which may or may not be called scripture.

My point is that even an enlightened and finely tuned process of hermeneutics and exegesis can lead to variations as to what the text means.

In law we deal with interpretation daily. That is what the discussion of the nominated Supreme Court Justice is all about. What method of hermeneutics and exegesis does he use to interpret the constitution?

The same inquiry is made when pastors of churches are selected.

The Sunni and Shia look at the same Koran but interpret it differently. Baptists and Methodists do the same with the bible text. Lawyers and judges do the same with the constitution.

Neocons and liberals do the same with recent history. The Pharisees and the Sadduccees had the same problem with the Pentateuch.

But when people use a reasonable and unbiased process of hermeneutics and exegesis there is a way to work things out.

As you know the Talmud is a collection of legal interpretations. One of the more favorable versions is the Babylonian Talmud, purportedly written in what is now Iraq.

One of the rules of interpretation developed in that line of jurisprudence, which rule I find to be better than our own, has to do with what we now call stare decisis.

Our modern version is not very clear, and I dare say not many could explain it because it is not very clear.

Our version of stare decisis is even in danger of getting down to raw power ... political power. When one party gets in the law is one way, but then the other party gets in and the law switches back.

The sanhedrin method was more advanced. It required not only more votes by current judges, but more wisdom and reasoning on their part.

In other words past sanhedrin decisions could not be overturned unless there were more votes by the judges of the current sanhedrin, and unless more wisdom was shown as a further reason to overturn that past decision.

Our jurisprudence has not really advanced to that stage yet, and our reasoning for overturning past decisions in the face of the concept of stare decisis is somewhat uncertain.

"Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears." - #13 Ricky

Um...Ricky? Perhaps you've forgotten about the 380 TONS of HIGH EXPLOSIVES (RDX & HDX) stolen/looted from the Al-Qaqaa Nuclear Facility.....

FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, Oct. 28th 2004:

"Qaqaa was a well-known site even before the first Gulf War as a place where Iraqis were doing nuclear research," said Milhollin, who said he learned that in 1989 the Department of Defense had brought three Iraqis from the site to Oregon to train them in HMX detonations. ''It was certainly a leading candidate to be inspected after the first Gulf War and to be secured after the second."

"The location of the explosives at Qaqaa had been so well known to inspectors that they appeared routinely in reports written by ElBaradei to the Security Council."

"the disappearance of the HMX, or ''High-Melting Point Explosive," caused particular alarm because the lightweight substance is twice as powerful as an ordinary plastic explosive and is not easily set off by an accident as other substances are. That makes it the perfect detonator for a nuclear device, or in attacks on large buildings or planes"

"at least three major bombing sites in Iraq tested positive for HMX or RDX"

Ricky Says: "That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true."

Well Little Ricky, because of Chimpy the Sock Monkey's idiocy (with Value Added Idiocy by trolls like YOU and a HUGE assist by a PROPAGANDIST MEDIA OWNED BY REPUGNANTCANS) this story's not the only thing missing it's legs, but it's untold numbers of US Soldiers, Iraqi women and children who are missing legs, arms, feet and THEIR LIVES!!

The reason this story "disappeared" is our Chicken-Shit Media has been cowering from our Idiot King from 9-11 on and has been (up until recently) cancelling any actual reporting in favor of the "Missing White Chick of the Day" fluff....

For God's Sake Ricky, get a clue!!

Ricky might better tell the following people that stories started by the "liberal media" (does anyone believe that crap any more?) will evanesce into nothing because the stories are based on "lies":

Scooter Libby...facing up to 30 years in jail
Dick Cheney...V.P. (For Whom Libby's Bell Tolls)
Judy Miller...out-of-work, discredited journalist
Bob Woodward...journalistic reputation tarnished
Karl Rove...facing renewed scrutiny by Fitzgerald
Valerie Plame...cover blown, career at C.I.A. over
Michael Scanlon...pleaded guilty, helping prosecutor
Jack Abramoff...see Michael Scanlon
Rep. Tom DeLay (Texas)...see Jack Abramoff
Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio)...see Jack Abramoff
Gov. Bob Taft (Ohio)...guilty plea to misdemeanors
Thomas Noe...already indicted for political crimes
Thomas Noe...yet to be indicted for Coingate
Bernadette Noe...soon to be eating dinner alone

All of these folks would love to hear from Ricky, because they aren't aware their problems are just the figment of some liberal's imagination. Misery loves company, you know.

#4
> As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

You are not even close to being correct in your last sentence.

> "What will Christ do or say after his return?"

Judge!

Jesus already came and showed us the way to Heaven. However, much of the Bible is about His second coming. You will only know Jesus when you are born again. God is a God of love but He is also a God of wrath. Too many people overlook the full character of God. God destroyed many a nation and He used other nations to do so.

> war, pestilence, brutality, famine

These are just signs that the "end times" are just "beginning." It is nothing that Christians look at gleefully, it is just the facts.

When Lydia writes "for Christ’s sake" she is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Do I support someone like Pat Robertson? No way! He says some very absurd things!

Do I think the earth is going to end soon? No!

Do I think that most of the leftists and left kook fringe are filled with HATE? Yes.

You guys talk peace but you really have no peace in your hearts.

Paul and the "You guys" diatribe at it again. Claiming freedom from hate as he spews it out to "you guys".

What is next Paul, firing a shotgun into a crowd?

Paul says: "You guys talk peace but you really have no peace in your hearts."

Would Paul say we had "peace in our hearts" if:
(A) If we were IN FAVOR of an unjust WAR against
a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11?

(B) If we were MORE SUPPORTIVE of
a "president" who CHEATED his way into office,
not once, but TWICE?

(C) If our outrage at the MASS KILLINGS of more
than 100,000 Iraqi citizens, over 2,000 US
soldiers and the gruesome MAIMING of
hundreds of thousands more DOESN'T match
Repugnantcan outrage over Clinton's sex
scandal?

(D) If we were LESS bothered by the blatant
conflicts of interest of a fraudulent
'administration' dominated by BIG OIL and
WAR PROFITEERS like CheneyBurton and the
LIES they used to justify the chaos, anarchy,
murder and TORTURE they've inflicted IN OUR
NAME??

Paul, has it occurred to you that we are "filled with HATE" for Chimpy the Sock Monkey and the rest of his puppeteers because we ARE opposed to election fraud? Because we ARE in favor of COMPETENT AND ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP?
Because we ARE extremely disturbed by our Idiot King's having RUINED our national reputation as a Nation of Laws who USED TO OPPOSE torture and 'PRE-EMPTIVE WAR"??

Nice article! Now if you can fix the link for his actual letter in full, it's now posted right here.
(http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/StaffordJonesEmail_111995.htm) I would love to read it also.

Thank you, Slicer. I've fixed that previously incorrect link. Much appreciated!

I am wondering when God is going to destroy this nation, since we have destroyed so many, guess it must be our turn. I believe my God works thru people so perhaps bushco is his tool. I just don't understand the mentality of those that think America has a monopoly on God....wonder what God thinks about that. We are the chosen people, so take that God. We are JerUSAlem. M4 (who also believes God has a sense of humor)

Robert #10

Biblical scholars have looked at the original Greek text and compared it to the King James version to see if the translation was done correctly. In many cases the mistranslation (or undertranslation) of words/phrases makes all the difference in the world. Another thing to look at is the meaning of certain "slang" terms from the historical period.

For instance, the phrase "turn the other cheek" --- (See this discussion by a biblical scholar and former Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace.)

[snip] One of the most misunderstood passages in all of the Bible is Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek. The passage runs this way: "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. And if anyone takes you to court and sues you for your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. If one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two."

... When Jesus says, "Do not resist one who is evil," there is something stronger than simply resist. It's do not resist violently. Jesus is indicating do not resist evil on its own terms. Don't let your opponent dictate the terms of your opposition. If I have a hoe and my opponent has a rifle, I am obviously going to have to get a rifle in order to fight on equal terms, but then my opponent gets a machine gun, so I have to get a machine gun. You have a spiral of violence that is unending.

Jesus is trying to break that spiral of violence. Don't resist one who is evil probably means something like, don't turn into the very thing you hate. Don't become what you oppose. The earliest translation of this is probably in a version of Romans 12 where Paul says, "Do not return evil for evil." [snip]

There is much more information at the link that will shed some light on what that passage in the bible means.

... I'm with you , MERIFOUR ! The psuedo-pious hubris that BushCo. has displayed must vex our Lord mightily , and one must wonder how much more the Father can take , before it's time to take the ' Chris-stains ' to the woodshed ! Perhaps he already has an emissary on the way - is that not a arch-angel on the horizon ? His name is Fitzgerald , Patrick Fitzgerald ( cue 007 theme song ) ! ...

Lord Vaughan #3

You missed the point in Matt 10:34. Read the whole chapter.

The actual quote is this: "Think not that I came to bring peace on the earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Not WAR.) The sword is a metaphor. Just a few verses earlier in the chapter (Matt 10:16) Jesus says this: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

You have to read the entire chapter to understand that Jesus is talking about an invisible sword used to sever ties to people who are not hearing the message.

By not bringing PEACE, he is referring to the agitation which will naturally occur when people's belief systems are challenged.

Thank you Lydia for this excellent blog!

I, too, am looking forward to your book and excited that Brad and Dan Borchers are collaborating with you.

Dredd

That is true too, & makes sense. While the Bible is a good book and so is the Koran for teaching of God and not denouncing him, it frequently is mis-interpreted beyond rational understanding.

With that, the law is also misinterpeted. I don't really follow any book except the Book of Mormon, because in its most base form it has the strongest amount of truth foretold in it. It also has that feeling to me of sacred ancient writing.

By the way, this is what has brought about the Jack Abramoff investigation....

Over 4 lawmakers now included in Jack Abramoff/Safavian probes including Senator Conrad Burns

Doug E.

To #17 --- when I said "For Christ's sake" --- it was a play on words: I was making fun of myself mixing religion with politics.

PLease read more on the true Christ and keep seeking. The God of judgment and wrath is not at all the God of Love. This is based on an anthropomorphic God, that is an archaic concept. The kingdom of heaven is within you. It's not far off into the future, it's here now if we wake up and see it (or put on a new pair of glasses.)

Lydia,

I don't know if it is the "evangelical" movement as such, but you are correct that there is a segment of the Christian movement that believes that we don't have to be responsible for anything other than believing in the return of Christ - no responsibility to the environment, no personal responsibility (as Americans) to the world as a whole, among other things, because when Christ does return, all will be made well again.

Gary North has explained this fundamentalist perspective and its impact on our foreign policy in this article, well worth reading. Scary thing is, he says 20 million Americans ascribe to this philosophy - Christ that's half of California, a force to be reckoned with. This explains the bestseller popularity of the LaHaye "Left Behind" series.

OK, I can't get this link this link thing to work, but here's the URL for the Gary North article

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html

#24 Right on, I can hear the music playing......

#26 That is my understanding exactly ie: the true Christ. We are all in the process of attaining Christ Consciousness, some further ahead than others.
Metaphysics 101. M4......I Am That I Am

Paul said in #17:

"However, much of the Bible is about His second coming."

How is it IF Christ 'comes again' it's only a 'second' coming????

Out of the womb = 1st coming
Out of the grave = 2nd coming
Out of the sky = 3rd coming...no??????

'Splain it to me Loocie...

Thank you, Lydia! I'd love to see you debate mAnn one day

Coulter is no Christian. She's a mean-spirited, intolerant, war-mongering, hypocrite.

Kira #8 & #9 --- You are so wise and correct about the sword being a metaphor. Thank you.

Dear Lydia Cornell,
I just want to show my appreciation on your article on the Brad bog, and to warn you want you are in for!
Sadly there are those who first looked at Ann Coulter and found her superficially attractive, and somehow that bought validity to her message?
In this day and age as I trust you all ready know that "sex sells" and if your sex appeal helps to get an alternative voice to Ann Coulter, then by all means "you go girl"!

PS in no means does this statement makes any offense or takes appreciation away from the likes of Randi Rhodes, Jeanne Garofolo, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Arianna Huffington or last but definitely not least Amy Goodman! All great women with voices for truth and of conscience!
Welcome to the club and probably to the Bill O'Reilly's Black list!

"nothing is ever truly won by force."

World War II was won by force. The holocaust death camps were closed by force. The Japanese military dictatorship was defeated by force. Israel stopped a second holocaust by meeting the Arab agression with force. The communist threat was stopped by a show of force.

War is not a good thing. Unfortunately, there are people and ideologies who can only be defeated by force. Sad, but true.

May The Force be with us. (ala Star Wars) M4 (who is not the first but many times the last...... ) For you know not who I am? In time ALL will be revealed.

From Mark H:

"There are very very few flamethrowing Dems. All the hate talk is coming from Coulter & Co. . . . Why do the Republicans hate America's children?"

You've got to be kidding me. An illogical accusation of hate is a flame is my book.

"Democrats have family values too. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS PRO-ABORTION!

You seriously want us to believe this?

You call yourselves Christians, then spew hatred at the President and all Republicans. For shame!

Unfortunately, Christ was not a moderate nor a "bleeding heart liberal." Christ came with a radical message. Accept the FREE gift of grace or burn in hell. There is nothing peaceful about that.

Fred, #38, i don't think you understand the nuance in the sentence you quoted.

no one is pro-abortion in the sense that you assign to it, i.e., no one wants or promotes abortions. the precise way to describe it is that no Democrat is pro-abortion, but PRO-CHOICE.

to be even more precise, Dems believe in and work for a society in which abortions are safe, legal and rare... rare because there are more options in place, both before and after the situation of considering an abortion, that don't require the government intruding upon or controlling the bodies of its citizens.

those who are pro-choice hope that a woman would NOT choose to have an abortion --- thus the nuance in the sentence you quote --- but grasp the reality that our society is not very supportive of women or children who have already been born.

pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety.

do you see the difference?

obviously, Cornell did not take the time to explain this in her article, as it is self-evident. the term pro-CHOICE has been around for decades, but perhaps that nuance is still not clear, even after all of these years.

hope that clears it up for you.

Evangelical Christians too often can't distinguish between being "Christ-like" and their apparent mission to be like Christ; i.e. to hang themselves up on a cross for everyone to see.

Here's a hint: Jesus didn't complain constantly.

So, let me get this straight. Just so we are all on the same page. Jesus was a pro abortion liberal. Was for punishing people more for stealing cable than raping children, and in fact defended the practice (see the ACLU defend NABLA on Google TODAY!!), and in general voted for things before voting against them all over the place.

No, that is not the Jesus I read about in my Bible. Are you sure your note a Unitarian?

A note on satire, I realize I cannot write an opus to the effect here. One way to tell if someone is waxing political satire is when they say something with a smile and soon after others laugh. Like when Dean said Republicans are mean hateful white people or Theresa Heinz-Kerry said Laura Bush never held a real job (she was a teacher for the one person by now who didn't know). Oh wait, no one laughed after those remarks.

In other words, clean up your own backyards before getting on people about their speech. I can find nothing more infuriating than hearing that because I am a Republican than I am obviously not a Christian.

Oh, and by the way, EVERY democrat I know is pro abortion, I have no idea how you can say the contrary. And I know this because I talk to them, in fact I try to convert them from the dark side. I even got a few to go exercise one of their rights endowed on them by their Creator in that little known document call the Bill of Rights. They went shooting with me. And no death or destruction ensued, imagine that.

So, next time you feel the need to sling some mud, like you must think Jesus would totally be “down” for along with the rest of you liberals at least think about it and have some humor. I know you think your funny with this whole Jesus is a liberal thing. Your just not getting people to laugh somehow. Try calling Stalin, or Lennon (not the one associated with the bugs, er beetles but the other one), or Mao a liberal. Oh wait, that’s not funny, they were. Well, I am sure you can find other people. Henry the 8th? No, not funny. Gimme a minute, I know I can think of a funny real liberal……..

no, we are not on the same page.

I'm afraid Cornell's phone is going to be ringing off the hook! Good work, Ann!.

What is it with these out-of-work actors and has-been actresses going out of their way to prove they are intellectuals and truth seekers?

On the darker side, Ann ought to be careful! I'm sure Gary Coleman's aspiring book about Ann's miniskirts in the Baptist Church will finally prove something!

;-),

Ugh. Seems the storm did screw up my last comment.

Ah, yes, Ms. Cornell, because using Christ's name as part of a bad joke is certainly not "in vain. Thank you for enlightening me....

Actually, Des, we aren't on the same page. According to the "Jesus was liberal" viewpoint, Jesus was also in favor of theft, oppresion of His followers, and dictators.

For those who wonder which Democrats could possibly be "flamethrowers", I suggest this page--http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002069.htm--and also refer them to Memo-gate, Micheal Moore, everything Al Franken ever said or thought, Nina Burleigh of NPR (who said that she hopes Jesse Helms or his grandchildren get AIDS), the lady who expressed her hope that Clarence Thomas dies early of heart disease (and the several magazines which featured him as a dopey-grinning, foot-shuffling Sambo), and pretty nearly anything else ever said by a Democrat.

Likewise, if you don't know any Democrats who are pro-abortion, why do they continually strive to make it easier to obtain abortions? Why do they push to make the rest of the citizens pay for them? Why do ideas such as a 24-hour waiting period or making abortion mills provide information about alternatives to abortion drive them into such a frenzy? They don't want women to have a choice which includes abortion if they feel it necessary, they want women to have abortions. And, for that matter, why won't abortion advocates ever even whisper the name "Margaret Sanger"? There is a reason the first five abortion mills were set up in Harlem, after all. Why do the same people who whine incessantly about the disproportionatly black prison population show never a care in the world about the percentage of black infants murdered?

And Blow Me, I'm Irish, let me ask you, if there was so much election fraud involved, then how come you can't produce a single person that was eligible to vote and didn't because of this supposed fraud? You lost, twice in a row; the first time after such efforts as lying about the times polls closed, handing out cigarettes to homeless people in exchange for votes, and the ever-famous Chicago Necromancy. You lost, you tried to steal the election, you failed. Get over it.

But finally, am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Ms. Cornell claims that Ann Coulter finds death arousing, attacks her faith, calls her a fascist (and no, that "I'm not calling anybody fascist, but she's just like the Nazis" bit didn't fool anybody), compares her to Stalin, implies that she wouldn't exist in a perfect world... and tells us that Ann Coulter "spews hate"?

Was this a comedy piece, ma'am, or were you serious?

Amen Redneck.

You must wait a few days to buy a handgun to protect yourself but hey, feel better knowing that after you are raped you can abort the child after mere minutes of waiting. Even if you are not one of the many (ahem, less than 1%) of women getting abortions because they were raped or their health was at risk by the pregnancy, we will make sure you feel at home during your stay. We will even tell you that it didn't even look like a child, only much smaller and cuter. With little feet and hands, in fact it was sucking its thumb when we ripped it apart with pliers in a "medical" procedure more akin drawing and quartering than anything the Hippocratic Oath ever intended.

Enjoy, we will pay for it and give you a cookie if your good.

Oh, just in case you think I am missing the nuance of the liberal "thought process" allow me to retort.

A woman may have sovereignty over her body, but the person inside her does too. Need a Bible reference for you liberal apostles? Upon Elizabeth hearing Mary’s greeting the baby in her womb “leapt for joy.” Luke 1:41,44. The live child. They don’t turn into kids mere minutes from birth. And you have no right to destroy them before they are born any more than afterwards.

A baby can feel joy, suck its thumb and kick your ribs, but has no civil rights in this country. If that is what you call nuance you are truly sick and deserving of all the things Ann says.

^ Well. It's a good thing the Bible and the Constitution are not the same document. Otherwise we'd all be screwed for working on Sundays.

You "pro-lifers" are such selfish people. Don't you realize the women who are having abortions can't afford their child or don't WANT it? It's cruel to force a child to grow up in a home where they will be unloved or neglected. Yes, people shouldn't be that way --- they should love their children and they should be responsible human beings. But there is idealism and then there is reality. Not all homes are good for children. Some children would be better off being aborted. Hey, I don't like the idea of abortion; I think it's despicable. So you know what? I don't plan on ever having one.

Anyway, great blog Lydia. I find it fascinating that conservatives can be so obsessed with being "good," "righteous" people when in actuality they are the most hateful, selfish ones of them all.

under you premise, since the "child;" you do call it a child, in full acknowledgment that it is a human life, i would not be loved or cared for, therefore outweighing the quality of life to life itself. Soo, every homeless person, orphan, hell any person who is unloved and neglected should have a pair of scissors jammed in the back of their neck to open a hole to insert a tube and have their brains sucked out. Well, this is all according to your standard of saying who should live or die. God is vengeful, ask the Egyptians before the Exodus, you'll find that in the Jewish book of Religeon as well.

DES, thanks for your response.

"pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety."

What if the woman is 36 weeks old and in her mother's womb? We (conservatives) would like for both mother and baby to have choices. You can call it something that sounds nice, like choice, but in reality that little girl has no choice if her mom is so selfish that she would rather have her baby killed than make the sacrifices required to bring her into the world and love her.

"do you see the difference?"

no. no matter what you call it, there is a unique, wonderful little girl, created by God who will never get to see her mom or dad and smile.

Since about 95% of all abortions are performed for birth control purposes, that "poor and downtrodden mothers need abortions" is just a lie. It is really about excusing women who have already made a choice(having sex when they don't want to have a child) who want to escape from the responsibility of that choice. There is no doubt that the child is a human being. The individual DNA combination that defines a person is formed in the first instant after fertilization, and continues to express itself until the death of that individual. If you must use the "f" word(fetus), at least call it a human fetus.