A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

I wish Breathed alowed the strips to be put online.

Me too. What paper are they in again? Can one just google the paper and get the strip?

hobit, I didn't get your last post.

Three way watching today on CNN. Wolf Blitzer, Pat Robertson, and Dick Chenney. I must admit that Robertson weaseled out of Wolf's challenge just like all politicians, and Chenney did some waffling, didn't he.

I'm assuming that all here know Pat, Wolf, and Chenney.

I repeat: Leave our Constitution alone!

jkv, the way the American people poll on these questions depends almost totally on the wording of the question and how it is asked.

You'd have to see the strip to understand, I guess. Unfortunately "Opus" is rather pointedly not available online until a week after it is published. Ah wel...back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

It is protocol on A2K when posting so-called "surveys" or "polls" that one provide a link to verify the results. When they do not, we can all assume they have been made up.

All the news that fits . . .

Lightwizard - if you'll go back a page, you'll see that if the numbers are from a site that kjv is responsible for, or if s/he has posted it herself elsewhere, s/he is not allowed to post a link to it here (see Phoenix's post).

Odd.

And we all thought only LOTR was going to be the outstanding fantasy of the decade.

The only record we have of Jesus is the Bible. We have a record of his life and his words. If Christians started here, I would be happy.

For starters. The Jesus of the Bible preached and lived a life of love. He associated with "sinners" and accepted everyone. He taught that you should not judge others. (Luke 6:37 , Matt 9:10-11).

Your posts, and those of many "Christians" are quite the opposite. You talk of hating homosexuals and you make constant judgements of people.

The words of Christ challenged his followers to be "righteous" themselves. The Christians job was never to attack the actions. (Luke 11:39).

Jesus spoke of "selling you possessions and giving to the poor". He and the early Christians were socialists. They believed that wealth should be shared. (Matt 19:21, Acts 2:38).

You attack anyone who wants to help the poor, you support those who want to allow the wealthy to keep more and more wealth.

It seems that todays "Christians" aren't interested in following Christ at all. They only pick out the passages of the Bible that allow them to justify their hatred and greed.

I would go on, but I want to stay somewhat on target. I have deep respect for those who strive to live like Christ. They strive to live lives of compassion, self-control and forgiveness.

Your posts are filled with hatred and judgement. They are nothing like Christ.

It is sad that people hear your the hatred in your words and think they represent Christ..

I read it hobitbob, and I thought immediately of this thread. Hi-sterical

Littlek...you remain my hero.

ebrown, I agree with you completely. It is good to remember that it was the religious people who hated Jesus and wanted him killed, not the "sinners." I am positive that if He were living today instead of 2000 years ago, the same thing would happen.

Let me get this straight. If a person is an editor for a certain web site, then that person cannot post a link to that site, because it is considered spam. Ok. I understand that, and I fully agree.

I think it's not just being an editor, Letty. Take a look at Frank's comment about this.

It's not just Spam, it's Spam in disquise of a Ham -- and not the one in the Bible.

the policy definitely has egg on its face.

Lord have mercy. I do remember this. I posted a thread some time back about the book "Girl in a Swing" --someone responded, and when I checked the link, he had a web site called Erotica, of which he was the editor. Frankly, it alarmed me somewhat.

Bethie, I understand what Frank is saying, but I have confidence in the managers and their rules. Well, sometimes I just don't understand things, I guess.

Too often the "od-ed" piece is a Blog from the person's own site. This is patently against the TOS and if tolerated could start all sorts of abuse. It's not a ligitimate link -- it's promoting one's own site and making it look like it is a contribution to the discussion. It's really as transparant as Saran Wrap and far less useful.

(Especially if that person's site is fishing for contributions or selling a service or product).