The liberals support what the Nazi's did. They defend their actions with their "humanistic" views.

Liberals support and defend all those who killed Jews, all while denying that they do.

Liberals and Arabs go hand in hand...they both hate Jews, and they both deny the Holocaust.

Uh, yeah the uh, uh...tax breaks were set to expire...uh, that was the original GOP plan, and to boot the fact is that president Barack Hussein Obama wants to extend the tax breaks for everyone BUT the top 2% of earners.

Can you do simple known facts?

Obviously that is YOUR belief.

It is not difficult to look around and see that other Christians do not give the 10 commandments the same value that you do. Obviously that means they (10 commandments) can be and are, interpreted according to individual perspective.



Which is much easier to do when Christians determine for themselves what value (and validity) should be assigned to the 10 commandemnts.



Kill and murder are not the same thing - that explains many ways in which that commandment can be interpreted.

How many people did Hitler kill or murder with his own hands?

How many Christians did it take to deny the 10 commandments and kill all those millions of innocent people?

Yet you declare that Hitler was the monster and a non-Christian.
Furthermore, by your own admission, no sin is worse than another, they all end with the same result.

So what difference does it make to any Christian how many sins another Christian has their hands? Obviously Christians are not holding those OTHER Christians responsible for the murders they committed, it is only Hitler that is being judged and condemmed.

Accoding to Hitler murder was not what was taking place, becuase his interpretation of scripture was that Jesus had (basically) declared war against the Jews - and Hitler took up the holy war as did millions of other Christians who followed him.

ONCE AGAIN we can see how easy it is to interpret the 10 commandments. Some think killing is an acceptible act because killing an enemy of god is an act or war and that is clearly different than murdering.

Of course you will not understand that because it doesn't agree with what YOU believe. You HAVE to think your belief is the only true belief to hold, otherwise your own sin would make you every bit the monster you think Hitler was.

Sorry, I can't sympathise with your situation.

Let’s see what was in Dawkins’ speech that I could argue with:

Well, it seems Pope Ratzinger blamed Hitlerism on atheists so Richard responded,
- Hitler was a Roman Catholic, who never renounced his baptism.

That’s true: and
- So if the Catholic church gets to account for their membership with baptismal records, then they can claim Hitler as well.

Can’t argue with that.

Then there’s more information which proves the Catholic Church supported Hitler:
>>>When Hitler escaped assassination in 1939 the Cardinal Arch Bishop of Munich ordered a special Te Duem in Munich Cathedral to thank Devine Providence in the name of the Archdiocese for the Fuhrer’s fortunate escape <<<

Well so far nothing to argue with. Then Dawkins reads a speech by Hitler (1922) in which Hitler states:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and savior as a fighter”
The speech goes on to explain how Hitler was just picking up where Jesus left off. That Jesus recognized Jewas for what they were and “summoned men to fight against them”. And that the blood Jesus shed was not as a sacrificial lamb rather, it was His cause, to fight the Jews and throw them out of the temple, for which he was crucified.

So Dawkins is attempting to defend atheists WITH FACTS against the Pope’s remarks – can’t argue with facts.
- As for Hitler, I suppose some Christians would argue with Hitler’s perspective BUT to be fair, Christian have almost as many beliefs as there are people who claim to be Christian – so why would anything Hitler claimed or did in the name of his beliefs be ‘contrary’ to Christianity?

Then Dawkins refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine (a doctrine many other Christians have also adopted) of ‘original sin’, as “The disgusting theory that leads them to presume that it was Godlessness that led Hitler and Stalin to be the monsters they were.”

Is it a disgusting theory? Yes, especially when considering all the factual doctrine that is behind it and how it’s taught to very young children. Basically what children learn from that doctrine is that “we are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus.” Yep, disgusting. Further: “What a revolting, depraved, inhuman theory to base your life on.”

I think that last statement also included the idea that children are so indoctrinated by such psychological mind games. And since it’s done ‘on purpose’, it certainly element of being a “revolting, depraved, inhuman, theory.

“Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity”
And then goes to explain why:

- Of children whom he has allowed to be raped and whose minds he
encourages to be infected with guilt
- Of gay people – who are now the Churches object of bigotry
which used to be reserved only for Jews before 1962.
- Of women, barred from priesthood as though a penis was an
essential tool for pastoral duties
- Of truth with lies that condoms do not protect from AIDS,
especially in Africa.
- Of the poorest people, condemning them to inflated families
they cannot afford to feed which keeps them in perpetua poverty.

Mmm – sounds like Dawkins made some pretty good calls and backed up his words with facts. What’s to argue?

Shakira! Clinton! Bono! Gearing Up to Fight Global Poverty and Disease
21 hours ago

What do Shakira, Annie Lennox, Bono, Sir Bob Geldof and Antonio Banderas have in common? They are all goodwill ambassadors, or, really, foot soldiers in a battle that most Americans aren't aware has been fought since the turn of this century.

Starting Monday, those celebs -- along with almost 150 heads of state, former heads of state and a cross section of the globe's most impressive leaders -- hope to change that, focusing attention on a campaign that parts of the world are relying on to shape their future. These luminaries will attend (or, in the case of Bono and Lennox, both ultra-involved but unavailable this week, throw their name and reputation behind) the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit, addressing an ambitious agenda the United Nations set up 10 years ago to halt the spread of global poverty and disease. The 15-year plan involves a package of objectives known to wonky development types as the MDGs -- Millennium Development Goals.

Bono, Global Development GoalsThe United States is among the 189 countries that signed on (though, during the Bush years, the government balked at continuing the commitment) to the MDGs, which were intended to radically overhaul how wealthy countries view development, how commitments are made by donor countries, and how commitments are made by recipient countries to meet expectations based on that help. "We must not fail the billions who look to the international community to fulfill the promise of the Millennium Declaration for a better world," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a report titled "Keeping the Promise," issued in advance of the summit. "Our world possesses the knowledge and the resources to achieve the MDGs," Ban said. He called not meeting the goals "an unacceptable failure, moral and practical."

Below is an advance look at what, exactly, the goals are, what progress is being made (we're faltering on some, terribly behind on others, grudgingly successful with a few) and what happens this week when those leaders and celebrities descend on Manhattan to focus poverty reduction, lifting up women and girls globally, changing the lives of children, and halting or radically reducing disease infection rates.

"When the MDGs were formulated in 2000, some criticized them as not ambitious enough, and some that they were pie in sky," Olav Kjørven, assistant secretary-general of the United Nations Development Programme, told a group of journalists gathered last week in the offices of the United Nations Foundation for a three-day intensive immersion, a study plan to bring the conduits of information up to speed on what they'll hear about this week. "The MDGs can actually be achieved. If we put our minds to this it will not even cost that much money. And create huge dividends in terms of a future for all."

What are the goals? Here's the list:

MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. (The goal was to halve the number of people living on less than $1.25/day by 2015.)

MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

MDG - 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women.

MDG - 4: Reduce Child Mortality

MDG - 5: Improve maternal health

MDG - 6: Combat HIV/AIDS Malaria, TB, and other diseases

MDG - 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

MDG 8: Global Partnership for Development

While all of these goals were meant to be a package, some have surged ahead while others have proven intractable. "The value of the MDGs is that they are a coherent set of objectives," said Robert C. Orr, assistant secretary-general for planning and policy coordination since 2004. Nonetheless, he said that "we have to be steely-eyed" as to why some are succeeding and others not. Maternal and children's health are among those lagging, and "there is an echo effect if a mother dies in the process of giving birth: One can assume the family from which she comes, the extended family can be affected in many ways."

This focus on women and children, and by extension families, will be a theme repeated throughout the week. Canada, which hosted the G8/G20 summit in June, has put infant and maternal health front and center. The United States, with its broad-reaching Global Health Initiative, has focused on the importance of maternal and infant health as a foreign policy goal. Also, in June, a massive three-day Women Deliver conference gave the needs of this group a broader platform, with the oft-repeated assertion that "no woman should die giving birth."

Asked why, after 10 years, women and children are only now moving into the forefront of the MDG package, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute (as well as a Columbia University professor and adviser to the U.N. secretary-general), said plainly: "There is no mystery to any of this. Politicians like to pick and choose, so they picked AIDS, TB and malaria. And with [The Gates Foundation], they picked immunizations, and those areas got funding. The basic point is that if you put resources in, in a sensible way, you get big results. . . . This year mother/child health is high on list."

"I personally don't like the idea of one" point of emphasis, Sachs continued, saying that "it's hard to focus on eight [goals], but actually we need eight and they are all important."

The problem, he said, is that for the journalists who must spread the information to the public, it's a complicated, sprawling picture to cover, with many interconnections. Maintaining women's health, for example, requires infrastructure. "We need to be able to do several things," he said. "Life demands food and safe delivery and roads and power and hospitals."

An example of the integrated effort needed to achieve the MDGs will be launched by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week during the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual event also being held in New York. A "Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves," a public-private partnership to be lead by the United Nations Foundation, will aim to put an end to the 2 million deaths that occur each year from toxic smoke from open fires and open cookstoves in developing countries.

That's just one of dozens of smaller initiatives being put forth these days. Non-profits and non-governmental organizations are tacking on their own plans to the MDG Goals Summit. Another will be launched this week by ONE (the advocacy organization founded by Bono): No Child Born With HIV by 2015, an effort to stop mother-to-infant transmissions (totally preventable yet currently occurring at a rate of about 1,000 infections per day).

Greg Adams of Oxfam told reporters last week that President Barack Obama has chosen to focus on the MDGs, and he pointed out again and again that achieving these goals is a question of "security, prosperity and values." Nearly 90 percent of Americans polled believe that achieving these goals is the right thing to do, and "we want Obama to clarify the mission," he added, noting that aid is a tool, not an end in and of itself.

In the words of Shakira: "Making poverty history: It's completely nonsense that every few seconds a kid dies from avoidable causes. That 50 percent of the worldwide population earns less than $2 a day."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/19/shakira-clinton-bono-gearing-up-to-fight-global-poverty-and-d/?icid=main|main|dl1|sec1_lnk3|171698



You know until you read that there are people in the world without clean drinking water and safe sanitation, you tend to take things for granted.

What I find ironic about this whole thing, is that the ENTIRE bill became about DADT. Not about the DREAM Act that was attached or about the millions of illegal immigrants that could have benefited from that Act. No, it had become about a significantly smaller (strictly American)population of homosexuals.

The closer we get to equality, the greater the fear that is invoked.
We need only look as close as the Civil Rights era to see how it works.

.the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the Earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose” (Matthew 27:51-52).

certainly a hanged body in such conditions could actually burst upon falling


and my parents were expected to support us financially, but what good would that financial support do us without also showing us love?


that is not a contradiction,, to me at least..the sacrifices werent the means to reach God, they were strictly the symbolic measure which was to be ACCOMPANIED by obeying Gods commands

it must have been awhile since you were last in, now EVERY ship the last all male ship just went away, has both men and women. And trust me I do understand your annoyance with pregnant women in the military. We were undermanned severely and we got three new females in my division within 2 months all 3 were pregnant and gone...leaving us undermanned and under-billeted because they were filling the billet(at least on paper) so we were now 'fully' manned with the same amount of bodies we had to begin with. work days were 18+hrs a day....deployment wasn't fun. But that is not the issue here. The issues is gays in the military honestly most gay guys I know(i have a few friends) say that the military is the last place they would go and the ones that say they'ed want to go said they probably wouldn't even tell if they were allowed. This is a political issue and I believe it should be put to a vote...but how about the soliers,sailors,marines,coasties, and airman vote on it? you know the ones it would most effect.

but you dont get booted out of the service if your found out to be in a heterosexual relationship...thus the need to repeal the "dont ask dont tell", why force one segment of the population to hide who and what they are just so they can serve their country?

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.