Conservatives are disturbing...

[ToBeMe]

<< Why prayer, and not meditation in schools? >>



Why not let them choose either?

 

[WordSmith2000]

An answer to the bible quotes...
I do not much care for homosexuals as a group. I am not going to cast judgment on them. I let the bible speak for itself:



<< Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. >>


and


<< Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. >>


Why do people insist on saying that Leviticus in 18:22 states that &quot;You shall not lie with a male as with a woman&quot;means that all homosexuality is wrong. They are not reading and quoting enough of the Bible, they are picking and choosing key words for their use, not God's use. In addition to not recognizing the passages following the mention of same-sex acts, they ignore the preceding passages. Let's back up the passage- start at Lev 18:21 &quot;You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself and neither shall any woman give herself to a beast. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things for by all these the nations I am going to drive out before you become defiled &quot; There it is in all of its worth and glory. These sentences are again addressing paganistic people, rituals that do not worship God, but the creature and are turning themselves over to lust in a religious setting.
It does not address the loving, committed, monogamous relationship of two people.
So the verse is taken out of context by those attempting to condemn homosexuality outright. The verses prior to the prohibition of same sex activities are concerning pagan religions and practices. The verses following the prohibition of same sex activities are concerning pagan religions and people. The entire section of Leviticus is addressing paganistic religious practices, not homosexuality within the confines of a monogamous relationship between two people.
Jesus Christ tells people to reject the rules in Leviticus later in the bible. Sorry I cannot give you the actual quote.


<< Romans 1:27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. >>


In Chapter 1 18-32 Paul writes &quot;For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossipers, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.&quot;
Now that was quite a mouthful, so we should proceed through that slowly and focusing on what is being said, why it is being said, to whom, etc.. again, we need to use the outline described above for Leviticus.
First who is the letter written to? The church in Rome. Why was is written? The letter describes a group of people who had literally turned from knowledge of the true and living God and had turned to idols (&quot;Claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.&quot. Thus, it is important to reread verses 18-32 and everywhere the words &quot;they, them, and their&quot; is used substitute the words: &quot;THE PAGANS&quot; - without doing do one does not come away with a clear and precise understanding of the writing. Without understanding the context, misunderstanding and erroneous interpretation will result. One cannot ignore the historical context in which each of the books was written and fully understand the social, religious, cultural aspects of each group addressed. If one knows the historical facts then one can accurately extract the timeless and universal truths, otherwise one comes away with no useful information.
These sexual acts (some homosexual and some heterosexual) were being performed by pagan people in their pagan temples and with their pagan priests and priestesses. These were part of their religious ceremonial rituals. Sexual acts in religious settings was very common in the ancient world and the priests were both male and female. As Biblical Christians we cannot conceive of sex acts being part of worship. Sex is meant to be reserved as the intimate expression between two people in a bound relationship. The sex acts described above were performed in open defiance to God. Both heterosexual and homosexual acts were performed in open defiance to the rules that the Bible and Christ had laid down.
In Romans 1 nearly everyone who was participating in these sex acts were heterosexual - why? - because the vast majority of people on earth are heterosexual and these sex acts were not to show love, but were motivated from depraved minds acting out of lust (&quot;Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts&quot. Sex had been separated from love, responsibility, and commitment and was merely a social activity - this is a carry over from the Greek culture. Lust comes from Satan - Love comes from God.
Romans 1 does not paint a picture of people who were naturally homosexual engaging in loving consensual sex rather they were heterosexual who &quot;abandoned&quot; their nature (heterosexuality) for perverse pagan sex acts.
The verses support the fact they were heterosexuals acting out of defiance by stating the woman EXCHANGED natural relations for unnatural and men ABANDONED natural relations with women and were INFLAMED with LUST (not love) for one another. As a homosexual, it is natural to engage in love and sex with the same gender, but it would be unnatural for a heterosexual to do so. These men and women were heterosexual who were engaging in unnatural (for them) acts in paganistic settings.
All of the passages just cited also assume that the translation from original language was correct. If you do a search on this, you find that the meaning of the passages used in Leviticus are unclear, but the writings of Paul are completely misinterpreted by the people of today:
Here in 1 Cor 6:9-10 Paul writes &quot;Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 1nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God&quot;
Again, first to whom was this addressed? It was addressed to the local church in Corinth. Corinth was filled with many pagan temples dedicated to the many gods and goddesses of the time. It is said that the major temple had over 10,000 priest-prostitutes. What Paul addressed here is similar to that he addressed in Romans Chapter 1.
The verses &quot;Do you not know the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God&quot;. Are believers in Jesus Christ ever referred to as &quot;the wicked&quot;? NO!!!, Strong's Concordence has over three pages of references to wicked or wickedness - in each passage the words are being used to describe those that have rejected the truth of God's Word and His Son. This passage is not addressing Christians rather it is addressing unbelievers. Regardless of what one does or does not do if they reject Jesus Christ they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
In many Bibles the verse is translated as homosexual offenders or homosexuals. The original Greek word in the letter was MALAKOI. It is related to the word MALAKOS which literally means &quot;soft&quot;. Our current word, malleable comes from malakos, and means bendable. The Greek word MALAKOS is used three other times in the New Testament: twice in Matt 11:8 and once in Luke 7:25. The word MALAKOI cannot be found in any text written before 1 Corinthians (note Matthew and Luke were both written after 1 Corinthians even though they are placed prior to it in the Bible.
Translators have a difficult time knowing what Paul was trying to convey with the word MALAKOI since he coined the word himself and it had no prior usage. When comparing its usage to that in the other three Bible books we find that the word was used to describe soft or fine clothing. Speculation is that the word was used by Paul to mean effeminate; however, not all gay men are effeminate and not all effeminate men are gay. We can use the meaning of malleable, or bendable, or spineless. This would describe a person who is unable to stand up for his own beliefs. The Greek Interlinear Bible uses the word &quot;voluptuous&quot; to mean one who behaves in a provocative or sexually loose manner, which brings us back to prostitute. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament presents the passage actually meaning &quot;....neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor abusers of themselves as women, nor abusers of themselves with men.&quot; If one then goes to the Strong's Concordance and looks up each of these terms we find that : fornicators - literally means on who prostitutes himself; idolators means idolator; adulterer means adulterer; abusers of themselves as women literally means one who is soft and without a backbone, spineless; and abusers of themselves with men literally means male prostitute.
Two words Paul could have used were PHILERASTIS and PEDERASTIS to convey the meaning of men who engage in sexual acts with other men for pleasure. These were used to mean homosexuals, many times in reference to the devotees of the pagan deity Eros (from which we get the word erotic). Also notice the similarity of pederastis to the modern word pedophilia. As history tells us, it was common for high ranking men in Roman society to engage in sexual acts with boys. As disgusting (and I believe sinful) as that behavior is, Paul did not choose that word to convey his message. So what could be more abominable to God then pedophilia - paganism, the worshipping of a deity other than the One True God, so as not to confuse other sexual acts with temple sexual acts Paul did not use these words.
Other words that Paul could have used to mean homosexual were CANADI and EXSOLETE; however, again he did not use the commonly used vocabulary.
St. Jerome's Vulgate version of the Bible translates Qadeshen as EFFEMINATI . This word means someone who dons female clothing in order to serve as a temple prostitute. St. Jerome translated Malakoi as MOLLES, which is a synonym for EFFEMINATI and therefore also means temple cult prostitute. St. Jerome finally describes ARSENOKOITAI as a person who uses the services of a malakoi or molles or the &quot;customer&quot; of the temple cult prostitute. Referring back to the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament the phrase &quot;abusers of themselves as women&quot; fits well with St. Jerome's description of a man who dresses in women's clothing and provides sexual services in the temple. Also the phrase &quot;abusers of themselves with men&quot; correlates well with St. Jerome's description of those who partake in the sexual activities of the temple prostitutes who are male.
Thus from several sources it becomes clear that what Paul was referring to in this passage were those people who engage in sexual activity as part of a worship service from a pagan deity.
In summation, it is quite easy to quote passages when you do not know the true meanings. If you research the bible, and really dig into the historical significance of what is written, you find a much different viewpoint on life today.
Most of this text was taken from here:
H0m0s for Christ (JUST A JOKE!!!)

 

[Raspewtin]

<< This is especially apparant here... with people here resembling religious fanatics in some posts... >>



well here some people are more vocal than others but the majority is not moving right in this country, if anything it will move left (most people would rather pay down the debt then have a tax break; multiple polls show this). Some people need to get it through their thick skulls that being conservative has nothing to do with decreased spending, and that being Republican does not equal being conservative. Then there are those who think they are conservative, but rather just want the tax break and to keep as much cash in their pockets as possible (which is understandable). These people can easily move left or right on social issues. (that segment doesn't give a dam about social issues as long as they can keep as much of their hard-earned money in their own hands as possible) they will go for whatever party takes the least money from them, regardless of idealogy. IMO there is a silver lining to everything. Many of Bush's rediculously conservative programs will (1) never see the light of day now (2) erode and weaken his party (heck he already lost the Senate for the Republicans; that's a first) (3) and probably do plenty of long-term damage to the political clout of conservatives (this is happening as we speak which is a good thing IMO). I think after Bush the Republicans will be forced to come to the middle to recover. Too little too late Also I think we will have a higher voter turnout next time and we will have to thank Bush since it will mainly be to get him out of office.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

*cough*Kettle...black...pot...kettle...black*cough*

What's wrong with people having the RIGHT to pray in school? Last time I checked it was the INTOLERANT liberals saying I couldn't pray at school if I wanted to.

I don't believe in public funding of faith organizations, but if you think we can have tax payer money going to crap like abortions, meanwhile opposing every conservative attempt at funding, you're d@mn right I'll be pissed.

Homosexuality as a sin is not an extreme view.

I'll take all of the above over the liberal socialist views...

 

[Raspewtin]

<< Homosexuality as a sin is not an extreme view >>



lol. i'd love to hear what you consider an extreme view of homosexuality.

 

[Doboji]

amazing simply amazing....

Well if we ever institute prayer in schools.... I'm moving to canada...

-Max

 

[Optimus]

Raspewtin:

An extreme view of homosexual sex is discrimination, hatred, andger, etc.

Simply considering it a sin - the same as heterosexual sex outside marriage, is not extreme. In fact, it should be completely meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe the same way.

What do you care what I think is a &quot;sin&quot;?

 

[Optimus]

Doboji - Here in Canada we have an entire seperate school system for public vs Catholic schools. You get prayer, religion class etc in Catholic schools, but nothing religious at all in Public schools. The choice is entirely up to the parents/students about where to go.

Personally, I think mandatory prayer in schools is a bad idea.

 

[shiner]

<< Personally, I think mandatory prayer in schools is a bad idea. >>



Nobody is talking about making it mandantory. We are talking about simply allowing it to take place in a school. What is so wrong about that?

 

[351Cleveland]

Doboji-

Please be careful when throwing your blanket statements around. You catch MANY conservatives (I would argue most) that do NOT fit your &quot;extremist&quot; position.

Homosexuality being a sin isnt a social view... it is a religious vie... please understand the difference. I do not spurn sinner. I treat them as any other person. Their sins are not of my concern. Some sins are a matter of lifestyle (for example, homosexuality), and are not considered by myself as things that should inhibit my ability to relate to a person as a human being. My first words upon meeting a homosexual are not, &quot;You SINNER!&quot;

Conservatives are not extremists and do not advocate the things you have posted. Much of which you posted has been spun and dried by the press. Conservatives do not advocate school prayer, but the do oppose the dismissal of God from schools outright. Liberals want such groups as Youth for Christ and Fellowship of Christian Athletes (both volunteer, non-required, private groups who happen to meet in a school building bacuse that is where their target audience spends most of their time, but they are NOT school funded) banned because God is mentioned. Difference between wanting those groups to have the ability to meet and FORCING peopel to pray... BIG difference.

Conservatives do not want to fund faith-based organizations because they are faith based. They want to fund organizations that help the community, it just happens to be that most of these organizations were started by churches and other religious institutions. They do NOT want to restrict funding to a group that helps the community just because has a religious affiliation. If you look at the law as it has been proposed, one of the requirements to qualify for this funding is that institutions receiving the funds cannot restrict who receives benefits based on religion (or lack of). Habitat for Humanity is an excellent example of a group founded by a reigious institution, but which provides benefits (homes) for those who need them regardless of religious affiliation (or lack of).

As far as abortioin is concerned... I won't go near that. That is purely a political view, as most (at least in the Methodist tradition) pastors will counsel someone who is considering an abortion, but will not tell them what to do or tell them they will &quot;burn in hell for it.&quot; I personally think it is a way to escape responsibility for ones actions (except in rare cases). I would like to see abortion ended, but I do not necessarily want government to do it. I would prefer that peoples' sense of responsibility and compassion stomp it out.

What is extremeist is the view of many liberals that religion should be abolished from any public facility. I agree that using a public facility to coral converts is probably over the line, but for a teenage organization to be banned from school property because they hapeen togather for the purpose of religious fellowship is absurd. IMHO of course.

 

[Optimus]

Well, by allowing do you mean allowing the teacher to lead a prayer to start class? That I'm not in agreement with. But I also don't think that the schools can or should stop children voluntarily praying on thier own time (i.e. at recess, etc).

A class could start the day/period with a &quot;Silent moment&quot;, in which the kids could either pray silently or just meditate, think, whatever.

Basically, a non-religous student should be able to go through the day not having to pray or having to unwillingly sit through a group prayer. (He can walk away at recess, but not walk out of class).

I'm very religous BTW, I just don't think public schools should have prayer as part of the &quot;official day&quot;...

 

[Raspewtin]

<< An extreme view of homosexual sex is discrimination, hatred, andger, etc. >>



i agree



<< Simply considering it a sin - the same as heterosexual sex outside marriage, is not extreme >>



not really. you can't say this in a factual way without doing some research first. Extreme is defined as &quot;Extending far beyond the norm&quot; it's safe to say this point of view extends past the norm of most individuals' thoughts on homosexuality in this country, but how far could only be made certain via research. However it's still pretty safe to say thinking homosexuality is a sin is an extreme view.

 

[Amused]

<< The US has no caste system, no laws preventing the poor from gaining their own wealth, and no laws guaranteeing different rights to different financial classes. >>

<<A caste system is not defined by government laws preventing the rise of classes... it's defined as a social/economic structure that defies class rise. No we do not live in a caste system... yet. But if we continue to reduce &quot;hand up&quot; programs, eventually only the utmost ambitious/lucky people will be able to rise through the classes... at which point you have a quasi-caste system. Unless you feel confident that people will be nice enough to create hand up programs from private funds... I think this defies the nature of human beings. I could go into a long comparison of that type of thinking to the fall of communism but I'll save that for another time.>>

Hands up programs are worthless, and do not create wealth. In fact, they do the opposite by creating dependancy.

Meanwhile, more people create and gain wealth today than ever before. There is NO caste system in the US, and never will be so long as individual liberty remains the standard.

<< It is painfully obvious you have no earthly idea what our Founding Fathers intended when they created the United States. >>

<<Whoa sorry Mr. Constitution... I'm so happy that we have with us today someone who has spoken personally to the founding fathers and understand their every intention. And furthermore... those superbeings you know Ben Franklin and the lot... they knew exactly where society was going to go, and exactly what as needed... the fact that the constitution is amendable was a typo... puleeeze>>

Our Founding Fathers left countless papers, letters, journals and other writings behind that more then explains their intent. Try actually studying history before you make feeble attempts at ridiculing others for knowing more about it than you. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers.

&quot;Where society was going to go&quot;? Where does society go in the absence of appreciable human evolution? Are humans so different today, that the basic standards the Founding Fathers set up in our Constitution can no longer work?

The very basis of the Constitution is an extremely limited central government and a self supporting citizenry with a heavy emphasis on individual liberty.

The most disturbing thing about liberals is their suspicion and dislike of individual liberty. For some reason, it scares them to no end. This makes their agendas anathema to the original intent of our Founding Fathers, and the very basis of our Constitution.

You don't want to amend the Constitution. You want to scrap it, holding on to maybe three or four ideas from it. Sorry, I can't idly sit by and watch that happen.

 

[351Cleveland]

Doboji - exactly waht is it that Bush doesn't have that he needs to be President? The ability to bullsh!t his was around Washington? I think you have gotten so used to that the last 8 years that it has become a required characteristic. Bush is a quiet no-nonsense guy whose objective is to get things done. He doesn't stand around talking about it. He is not the orator (smirk) that Bill was.. and you know what? He doesn't HAVE to be. His job is to ster the country in the direction that is best for the country. Some have differing opinions as to what this direction is, but he is following what he thinks is the right path.

As far as intelligence, what was his GPA at Yale? Could YOU graduate with the same GPA? Why does the President have to be smarter than the average Joe? College was HOW many years ago for him? You think he MIGHT have picked up a few things since then? Regardless, he is a decision-maker. He hired people to do the leg work and figure out the options... then he makes the decision. That is how it is supposed to work. Why is that a problem?

Sorry if this seems a bit like a flame, but it jsut irks me that people who have never met the man have this preconception about his intellect based on college grades and media bull flop. Ask anyone who has been around him for more than 15 minutes, they will all say the same thing: witty, intelligent, great sense of humor, humbled... I could go on, but you get the picture. Ask ANYONE who has met him that doesn't have some type of concern with circulation numbers or copies sold... someone who does not stand to profit from what they tell you, and you will get a whole different picture.

 

[Capn]

&quot;However it's still pretty safe to say thinking homosexuality is a sin is an extreme view. &quot;

I'd have to disagree, I know I've quoted Gallup polls a few times today, please look at this poll result.

Gallup Poll on homosexuality

Seeing as 42% of Americans (in the poll) thought that relations between two people of similar sex should be considered illegal I can hardly agree with the idea that considering it a sin is the highest degree of opinion on the issue.

 

[Doboji]

<< As far as intelligence, what was his GPA at Yale? Could YOU graduate with the same GPA? >>



GPA is a pretty poor assesment of intelligence...



<< Why does the President have to be smarter than the average Joe? >>



I'm shocked you even ask this question... he has to be smarter because his range of intellectual engagement is far beyond that of the average joe... he must know everything about a plethora of issues, and be able to come up with clever creative solutions.



<< The ability to bullsh!t his was around Washington? >>


Exactly.... you want the support of the rest of the government you have to persuade, manipulate, and demand. Otherwise it's like the commanding officer charging blindly into battle while his troops duck in the trenches.



<< it jsut irks me that people who have never met the man have this preconception about his intellect based on college grades and media bull flop. Ask anyone who has been around him for more than 15 minutes, they will all say the same thing: witty, intelligent, great sense of humor, humbled... I could go on, but you get the picture. Ask ANYONE who has met him that doesn't have some type of concern with circulation numbers or copies sold >>



Umm I've met him... see him at least a 2-3 times every month. And my description is

Great sense of humor... incredibly friendly and warm... and reasonably intelligent... like I said he's not a moron.. he's reasonably intelligent... which is not good enough.

-Max

 

[Doboji]

If the gallup polls are correct... I'm in awe... and amazed at the depths our country has fallen to..... further evidence that things like Gay pride month are absolute necessity... people need to wake up and be tolerant... The public opinion in the Gallup poll resembles the trends in pre-WWII nazi germany... amazing!!!

-Max

P.S. Ohhhh say can you seee.... <record scratch> Oh canada! oh canada!... I'm getting the hell outta Nazi US...

 

[Raspewtin]

<< There has also been a shift in attitudes about the legality of homosexuality, with a majority of Americans -- 54% -- now saying that &quot;homosexual relations between consenting adults&quot; should be legal, >>




this is actually what is says. remember that saying 54% saying homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal DOES NOT mean that 46% say homosexual relations between consenting adults is illegal. BTW, that was an excellent poll. thanks a lot for providing. Even with this poll I think it's pretty safe to say it's extreme. Remember extreme doesn't have to mean the farthest edge (it would be cool though if homesexuality being considered a sin was the edge and no one went farther than that), it can also mean just pretty far from the norm.

 

[Capn]

The only trends in that poll (despite the strange plateau from 85-89) are in the direction of greater tolerance and/or acceptance of homosexual behavior, I'm not sure what you're alluding to.

Raspewtin, you're right it's not 54/46 it was 54/42 with the others not responding or no opinion.

Gallup is an awesome site, mostly facts with unbiased reporting of numbers. I think I'm allergic to spin.

 

[BoberFett]

<< Liberals on the other hand are fairly moderate on most issues >>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!












HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!





*catches breath*





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

 

[Optimus]

OK, extreme as in &quot;not the norm&quot; I can see - yeah, most people don't even believe in sin, let alone in particular ones. Heck, my views on sin and things like birth control are probably in agreement with all of 1-2% of the population in general!

 

[ToBeMe]

• Umm I've met him... see him at least a 2-3 times every month. And my description is
  
  Great sense of humor... incredibly friendly and warm... and reasonably intelligent... like I said he's not a moron.. he's reasonably intelligent... which is not good enough.

OK, setting aside the question of whether or not you actually know him as you say you do (&quot;see him 2 - 3 times a month&quot exactly whom out of the candidates from last years election would you have in his place????

Remember, you put knowledge as a very high priority (Normal guy president = dumb as dog doo doo in presidential standards)so academics has to play a part, also, he must be &quot;warm &amp; friendly&quot; according to you..........

 

[isildur]

Well if we ever institute prayer in schools.... I'm moving to canada...

Who exactly is moving for &quot;instituting&quot; prayer in school? Only a few granola folk, if you mean mandatory prayer...(nuts and flakes)

I wouldn't worry about calling UHaul quite yet, this is more than unlikely to ever take place.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< P.S. Ohhhh say can you seee.... <record scratch> Oh canada! oh canada!... I'm getting the hell outta Nazi US... >>



Hey, if you're to INTOLERANT to the way things are here and can't adjust like everyone else seems to be able to do...........Don't Let The Door Hit Ya' In The A$$ On The Way Out!!!!!

 

[Doboji]

Isnt the fact that I sit here and post on the forum all day proof enough that I have a government job? LOL

I'm not saying Bush is the worst president.. but considering the sharp divide our country is currently experiencing, and multiple international crises... I think we would have been better served by someone else.

I'm also not suggesting Al Gore would have been better... he has the intelligent part licked... but he's lacking severely in the warm and friendly category.

We've been screwed this time around... both Conservatives and Liberals... Conservatives especially because despite the fact that we have a conservative president.. his lack of prowess is going to severly limit the effect and implementation of the conservative policies, and later give us liberals an opening to snatch some power.

-Max