Having the AFI create a special, one-of-a-kind collection of the top movies in film history is hardly a snafu.
You people are pathetic.

At least Obama had the graciousness to acknowledge that potential slight and is making amends. He didn’t dig his heels in like “the Decider” George Bush did in order to pretend he’s not wrong (i.e. Iraq).
As the other poster stated, you chicks are pathetic. If you think Obama should call Bush for any advice then you must be in total agreement with the his ruining of our country.

Michele’s link is a tabloid quality site. Michele’s obvious motive is to find anything negative to print about Obama. The site is also very anti-Gordon Brown.
The results of the Rasmussen poll in the Telegraph are analyzed “one sided interpretations and the power of partisan predispositions among polling analysts”:
tinyurl.com/c568c7

Apparently, the Queen does not care about gifts. She does not seem to be offended about returning the bust of Winston Churchill that the British government loaned George W. Bush:
Read the highlighted part of the above sentence. It is directly from Michele’s cut and past. It was loaned to Bush. It seems appropriate to return something that was on loan to the previous President.
In an unprecedented move, Queen Elizabeth II will give an audience to President Obama and his wife Michelle when they travel to Europe for the first time since Obama won the American presidency. Visiting heads of state normally get an audience with the Queen when they are on a state visit. But sources close to 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British Prime Minister, say the Queen is keen to meet America’s first African American president.
In a time of global economic crisis, it seems cutting back on gift giving to wealthy people would be appropriate. Who pays for the gifts – taxpayers.

Wow. Obama admitted to a mistake.
Something Bush never did.
Who would have thunk?

How about some outrage about AIG deciding to pay out $165 million in bonuses despite receiving $170 billion in taxpayer bailout funds.
Maybe some outrage at the Bush administration for not making sure there were strings on receiving taxpayer money?
AIG knows that if they go under, they will take the US and World economy with them.
Where is your anger Michele?
MzEllen claims to know that God approves her and Michele’s attacks on Obama and Democrats because the Reformed theology says so. They are the chosen ones. I had never heard of Reformed. I am very surprised by the beliefs, many of which directly conflict with what the Bible says.
MzEllen’s Link: tinyurl.com/djq538
THE “FIVE POINTS” OF CALVINISM
2. Unconditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before fore the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will.
His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc.
On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected.
These acts are the result, not the cause God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ.
Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
3. Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.
If Selected By God – Free Will Cannot Resist the Call – But You Have To Be Pre-Selected by God
“By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent. to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’, grace. therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.”
According to the Reformed Theology God has not chosen the majority of the world.

Julie, didn’t you say a few days ago that you don’t have a problem when somebody disagrees with you theologically?
When your (general “your”, not Julie specifically) topic of choice is totally different than the main topic of the post, I think it’s a polite thing to do to take the topic to a place where the author does get to choose the topic.
I offered a couple of days ago to write a post on election on my own blog; an offer that was not taken up by you…it was totally ignored.
I’m glad to do it, but I’d like to you say one way or the other. I don’t have the time this week to put time into an involved post if you’re going to ignore it.
If anybody else would like to see such a post, that’s fine also.

As a baptized and confirmed Catholic, I continually regretted my Church’s violent repression of heresy. As an American, I continually regret that the Catholic church didn’t kill all the Calvinists.

Oh, come on, Frank, we can abide them.

Admitting a mistake and a willingness to learn from it is a sign of maturity. This is surely a good thing about our President. I used to think Michelle was “crazy for God”. Now I’m beginning to think she’s just crazy.

As a baptized and confirmed Catholic, I continually regretted my Church’s violent repression of heresy. As an American, I continually regret that the Catholic church didn’t kill all the Calvinists.
Religiously and politically tolerant.

Color me politically intolerant on torture:
US Torture: Voice from the Black Sites – The New York Review of Books, via Commonweal.

An administration with humility! Admitting mistakes! What a concept!

Michele isn’t “crazy for God,” in the Frankie Schaeffer sense … in fact, she’s not crazy at all.

Moonshadow, most people are politically intolerant of torture. I believe that it’s sin. Period.
My weakness (as with many moms) is my kids and I’ve admitted here that if somebody was endangering one of my children, I cannot honestly say that I would not do what I thought would work to free them from harm. I still say that the best part of me would oppose torture. The “mom” part of me is not so sure.
(understanding ahead of time that there is a high probability of Julie popping in and saying “Ellen says that God told her that it’s okay to torture people” – which is (of course) nothing like what I said.)
That being said, I don’t question the salvation of anybody here who claims the name of Christ and I certainly don’t wish anybody dead.

Given some of our discussions, “That being said, I don’t question the salvation of anybody here who claims the name of Christ and I certainly don’t wish anybody dead,” is refreshing.

Robert, Í am glad to call people who claim the name and the blood of Christ my spiritual siblings, no matter what denomination they come from, or what side of the political aisle they choose.

Moonshadow, I do not think Frankie Schaeffer is crazy and I thought his dad was a great theologian. However, after reading Franlie’s book about his parents, I was very sad because Frankie was and is so angry when it comes to his parents. I often have the same feeling after I read Michelle’s blog (i.e., she seems very angry whenever she has anything to say about the president). I often wonder if she’s not in a blind rage when she writes about the president. “How shall we then live” if we stay angry all the time?

“Your Name”, have you read some of the liberals here?
I try not to mistake passion for anger – sometimes it objectivity seems further away that other times, especially you feel that somebody writes lies about you (general you, not specifically “Your Name”).
But I think read true anger into maybe one or two liberals here. I write with passion, not anger.
I disagree with liberals, but I do not hate them.
I see a difference between when a liberal rants against Sarah Palin (even if I think untruth lies behind the rant) and when a person carries a “personal poison pen” against those they know read.
But perhaps very few hold that position.

You know, there’s a relationship, sometimes, not all the time, between anger and cancer. Sometimes cause, sometimes cure.

I do not have a problem with difference of opinion on Bible verses that Some verses in the Bible are open to different meanings, but others are crystal clear, especially when they are repeated many time.
The Bible says you will go to hell if you do not follow the teachings. It does not matter what brand of Christian someone claims, the Bible is the authority – not a church or a theology.
The Bible is very clear about lie, slander, stealing, murder, treating others the way you want to be treated, including you enemies
Jesus said in Matthew 5
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
what are you doing more than others? God holds Christians to a higher standard. God gave us a tough standard to live by to glorify him.
The higher standard means you “speak kindly” to someone that slanders you.
Jesus said in Matthew 5 – Jesus is making a major point by comparing murder to being angry with others.
Murder
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Jesus said do not waste your talents. gifts for the better
I do not assume to know God’s mind, but I think he would like Michele to use her gifts in a productive way. I do not think God would appreciate Michele’s constant focus on petty trash talk, such as this blog about Obama returning something loaned to Bush.
I think God would be very sad about anyone lying to slander one of his children. God wants people to challenge themselves to be better people – to be transformed – the reason given for treating your enemy nicely.
The man that said he wishes his church had killed Calvinist was not demonstrating Christian behavior. A Christian would ask God for forgiveness and also ask for forgiveness from the people he wished dead.

Busted: The Churchill Flap
Katie Connolly – NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated Mar 2, 2009
Has America’s even- tempered new president already ruffled feathers in the land that spawned Borat and Benny Hill? That’s certainly how the spiky British press responded after the White House sent back to the British Embassy a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush’s Oval Office. Intended as a symbol of transatlantic solidarity, the bust was a loaner from former British prime minister Tony Blair following the September 11 attacks. A bust of Abraham Lincoln—Obama’s historical hero—now sits in its place.
A White House spokesperson says the Churchill bust was removed before Obama’s inauguration as part of the usual changeover operations, adding that every president puts his own stamp on the Oval Office.
But the British press, as is its wont, smells a snub. The Telegraph speculated that British diplomats’ pulse rates would soar, while The Times of London wondered if a shadow had been cast over the special U.S.–U.K. relationship. A spokesperson for the British embassy, though, threw cold tea on the notion, pointing out British politician David Miliband was the first foreign minister to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Maybe it’s no surprise that Obama wouldn’t want Churchill watching over his shoulder. After all, it was Churchill who, in 1952, ordered a crackdown on the Mau Mau rebellion against British colonial rule in Kenya, Obama’s ancestral homeland. Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was labeled a subversive during the uprising and spent months in detention.
Churchill expert Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute thinks the average Briton will be unfazed by the bust’s return, saying that folks across the pond have always been puzzled by American fondness for Churchill. Richard Langworth of the Churchill Center has offered another unidentified piece of Churchilliana that may pique Obama’s interest but has yet to receive a response from the White House. For now, the president will have to content himself with gazing at the holograph copy of the Gettysburg Address in the guest bedroom.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185839

God wants people to challenge themselves to be better people – to be transformed – the reason given for treating your enemy nicely.
Not that I expect or suspect that you would ever turn that statement onto your own behavior…
Not for a second (or less). Not anymore.
Tell me again…(or rather, I’ll ask again, since you refused to answer the other few times I asked for clarification about your accusation of Michele)
Were Cretan always liars and lazy beasts?
Is that statement slander?
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

2 Peter 2
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

MzEllen – My original goal was to convince you and Michele that you were giving a black eye to all Christians – that both of you drive people away from Christ; however, it quickly became apparent that Ellen cannot accept anything – she goes sideways or attacks.
Now my goal is to show that not all Christians will lie and write blogs that are petty and mean. While you want to direct your defensiveness at me, I am not the first and will not be the last that has posted similar comments.
How many people posted comments in agreement Michele’s blog about Obama and Churchill bust that was removed before Obama’s inauguration. How many people posted negative comments about Michele’s blog or defended Obama. There has been people associated with the Reform Church that have criticized the mean pettiness of Michele’s blog.
There is no passion in making a major deal out of a no issue thing. The many lies were sin – the Bible told me so.
MzEllen said, “Since you’re pretty sure that you know what God wants, how are you applying that to yourself here…on this blog…toward Michele and me?”
God wants me to refrain from saying what my sinful self wants to say. How do I know – the Bible told me so.
Reformed Theology agrees with me:
What a world this would be without lying: imagine people telling the truth, all the time. Pretense, posturing, and deception would be gone; all fraud, cheating, and manipulation would disappear. A world without lying would be a world of honesty, faithfulness, and integrity. In such a world, men and women would finally become who they were intended to be: beings who speak the truth as God their Creator speaks the truth.
It pertains to the glory of God that He does not lie. In fact, because telling the truth is inherent in His character, it is impossible for God to lie. We desire to know this God of Truth, to become more like Him by grace in the fellowship of those who share a similar goal. For this reason, we have organized the 6th annual Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology around the theme of God the Truth. A world without lying will be a perfect world, one that we are eager to see established through the grace of God, the blood of Christ and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
Join us as Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Dr. D.A. Carson, and Dr. Diane Langberg share God’s truths from Scripture

Reformedresources has an interesting sermon that includes Obama
Every Last Word by Philip Ryken
God and Ceaser 03/15/09
Can Christians be involved in politics? Are we to obey our government and its laws even when we don’t agree with them? Christ showed both His followers and enemies how they were to respond to political powers
Pray for your leaders. Pray for President Obama. Respect their office because God put them into office.
http://tinyurl.com/cwop49

Why is God so interested in politics – putting particular people in office? Why doesn’t God send the magic birds with the magical food to feed some starving children like he did the Israelites. Come on Christers, answer up. Does this question humiliate you like the rest of the questions I ask? Why don’t you selfish losers pray for God to send the magic birds to drop the magic food? I’ll tell you why. Because we ALL know that God never sent any birds to feed anyone in any desert for 40 years. Don’t we?

Pray for your leaders. Pray for President Obama. Respect their office because God put them into office.
I’ve said here that I do pray for our president.
The fact that Michele links to articles that are in the press…does that mean that we don’t pray? Can you please cite a comment where either Michele and I have said that we don’t pray for President Obama? Or is this just a sideways way of making yet another false accusation?
God wants me to refrain from saying what my sinful self wants to say. How do I know – the Bible told me so.
It’s not working.
I urge you, as a sister in Christ, to reconsider your accusation of slander regarding generalizations.
In ignoring all attempts to follow up with that accusation, in your refusal to recant your statement that all generalizations are lies, and thus are slander and sin, you also accuse Saint Paul of slander via generalizations and (since the quote is part of Holy Scripture) you are calling Scripture a “lie” and “sin”.
How Christian is that?
In refusing to not only back down on one simple mistake, in not even being willing to follow up on a very serious accusation of slander…you show evidence of not being able to admit a mistake…that (I believe) is pride (haughty eyes), which is in the short list of things God hates.
The fact that you cannot consider that you might be wrong? Pride.
The fact that you will not even reconsider even one accusation? Hard heartedness.
The many lies were sin – the Bible told me so. mock me! Saying several times “Ellen says that God told her…”
And yet you say “the Bible told me so”.
If you are treating me the way that you want to be treated, does that mean you want me to mock you for finding God’s will in Scripture?
What do you call it when you mock a person (you question my salvation, so I won’t say “spiritual sibling) for something, and turn around and do it yourself?
In applying your standard to only one side of the political aisle, (the “other side”), you accuse those who disagree with you by a standard that you do not apply to your own side.
Julie, you will be judged by the same ruler that you used. The Bible told me so.
You ignore my plea to reconsider your accusation via generalization.
Again.
My prediction: Julie will post yet another round of Scripture that she applies to those who disagree with her politically, but will ignore my plea to reconsider a false accusation.
Not that I expect or suspect that she will apply her own standard for Michele to herself.

I never said “all generalizations are lies,” It was the motive behind the generalization – to smear.
You ignore the blantant lies that both you and Michele have made.

The truth has nothing to do with “applies to those who disagree with her politically.”
It has to do with Christians not being truthful and making false or misleading statements to sway others.
It has to do with Ellen showing her daughter McCains false ad about Obama and the born alive votes.
The truth is the truth. Toward the end of the campaign, Obama disappointed me with an ad in my state that was misleading. I can acknowledge the truth.
palin made blantant lies from her first day to her last day, but Ellen and Michele cannot acknowledge her lies.

Here’s my surprised look…as Julie once again proves that she refuses to even acknowledge a plea for reconsideration of an accusation.
On the “born alive” bill…it is very sad that you oppose a bill that defines “born alive” as a breathing, delivered infant, when the umbilical cord is cut and the child is breathing and has a heart beat.
That’s pretty basic. Yet Barack Obama didn’t even want bill to go to the floor for a vote.
And another related bill that says a child who is born alive deserves medical care, even if it is palliative.
A bill that was written to prevent babies dying in dirty laundry rooms…
and the people that supported that group are demonized by people like Julie.
Yeah…we’re pretty bad. Bad enough for Julie to call us slanderers and liars
It has to do with Ellen showing her daughter McCains false ad about Obama and the born alive votes.
Nice try – the ad was a very good jumping off point. We read the text of the bills and the minutes of the Senate. We know what Obama said.
Did Obama want Gianna Jesson to die? Not that directly. But he did oppose a bill that would have made a law to prevent it.
Would it have been okay with you, Julie, if Gianna Jesson had died in a dirty laundry room?
Because that’s the issue. Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have mandated medical care, even if it was only palliative, for infants who are born alive.
And you apparently oppose that also. For you, it seems to be okay if an infant is breathing, the cord is cut, the baby is feeling pain…and dying in a pile of dirty laundry.
And you call me a liar because I believe these tiny people deserve to at least die in a bed, or better yet, in somebody’s arms.
but Ellen and Michele cannot acknowledge her lie
I maintain that there is a difference of opinion. I gave my reasoning and you have so little grace and so much pride that even that difference of opinion is demonized.
You will not acknowledge a false accusation concerning generalizations.
That will hang with you for a long, long time.

I never said “all generalizations are lies,” It was the motive behind the generalization – to smear.
You ignore the blantant lies that both you and Michele have made.
No, you said, “generalizations of “all” are never accurate because you have slandered innocent individuals, which is a sin according to the Bible.”
Interestingly, Michele’s generalization of Chicago politicians didn’t include the word “all”. Saint Paul’s generalization of Cretans did include the word “all”.
And you said the intent was to smear. Please name the honest politician in Chicago that Michele wished to smear.

Sooo dramatic Ellen, McCain and other ads were very effective at making people believe your lies. You can refuse to read the fact in the links I provided to Factcheck and Politifact does not make your statement truth. Ironic that you link to Factcheck when it serves your purpose
I am assuming that you have decent reading skills; therefore the hiding behind “it’s my opinion” does not change the fact that you are slandering. The Reformed Theology believes in the truth.
http://tinyurl.com/5cgcb6
The above link is an article in the Chicago Tribune by Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the bill in the state Senate. He said, “none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide,” despite his disagreement with them. “Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
Obama said his voted against the bills was because the measure it purported to outlaw was already illegal (fact) and was crafted just to undermine Roe v. Wade.
The version that passed in 2005 included one extra line – language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.” tinyurl . com / c8423t
You can see yourself as being so caring and make false allegation about what I think or believe, but you are only fooling Ellen. Months ago, others making comments had your number
Michele’s blog, Palin hung in effigy October 27, 2008
yelladawgNC October 28, 2008 11:38 AM
“MzEllen, why do you insist on spreading vicious lies about Obama? How can you purport to care so much about unborn fetuses and so very little about truth?
Here are the facts about the so-called “Born Alive” bill in Illinois:
* At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
* The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
* The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
* Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress — but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]
1. FACT
Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]
2. FACT
Republican Bill Sponsor Said “None Of Those Who Voted Against SB-1082 Favored Infanticide.” Rick Winkel, a Republican former state senator who sponsored the “Born Alive” bill, wrote in a Letter to the Editor, “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” [Chicago Tribune, Winkel LTE, 9/5/08]
3. FACT
The Illinois State Medical Society Opposed The Bill Because It Interfered With The Physician-Patient Relationship And Greatly Expanded Civil Liability For Physicians. “The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” [New York Times, 8/19/08] Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
4. FACT
The 2003 Bill Had The Same Wording As The Federal Measure But Would “Have Had A Different Effect At The State Level…By Undermining Illinois’ Legal Precedents On Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois’ legal precedents on abortion. Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that’s similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/20/08]
recovering ex-Pentecostal October 28, 2008 1:14 PM
“yelladawgNC,
Michele is demonstrably NOT interested in facts. Her ‘mind’ is made u already – and it is antithetical to Christ’s teachings, sadly. I wonder what Michele’s pastor would say about her babblings?”
Minnie October 27, 2008 3:30 PM
Hanging someone in effigy is NEVER excusable. I don’t care if they’re male, female, Republican or Democrat.
However, I do find it curious that you’re blogging about Palin being hung in effigy, but that you’ve never made so much as a peep about the incidents where Obama was hung in effigy in this election.
Michele causing people to say Christians are hypocrites – Driving people away from wanting to know the loving Jesus that repeatedly said do not lie, slander, etc
Gillian October 27, 2008 5:17 PM
“3) Obama is not a Christian (according to McGinty) therefore he is a non-person”
McGinty is a Christian? You’d never know after reading all of her hate-filled, anti-democracy rants flying in the face of the teachings of Christ. You know — that old super liberal, community organizing, rich-despising Jewish guy.
Then again, hypocrisy is no stranger to the modern “religious” American.

“No, you said, “generalizations of “all” are never accurate because you have slandered innocent individuals, which is a sin according to the Bible.”"
If the generalization is done to smear, then it is “all.” A generalization could say everyone in my church group are wonderful. The generalization could be true or the generalization could be a lie, but it does not harm someone’s reputation.
I have read about the Apostle Paul verse that you keep referencing. The are multiple opinions on the verse, which I do not have time to address.
Paul had a direct link to God; therefore it is possible that his “all” was true. Ellen was not chosen to be Jesus’s disciples that wrote the Bible.
If Paul’s “all” was true, it does not provide an excuse to ignore what Jesus clearly stated several times. Paul would be a sinner that should ask God for forgiveness. He should be genuinely sorry.

Obama’s record on abortion hit
Votes on ‘born alive’ measures during Illinois Senate years under attack by conservatives
By Jeremy Manier August 20, 2008
Seldom mentioned in the dust-up is that in 2005 Illinois lawmakers passed a version of the abortion bill that Obama and abortion opponents both support.
The background: Abortions in which the fetus is born with brief signs of life are rare, occurring in some cases when a doctor administers drugs that cause premature labor. Such “induced labor” abortions account for less than 1 percent of abortions in the U.S., according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since 1975, Illinois law has contained explicit protections for babies that might survive an attempted abortion. Abortion opponents say that law did not protect severely premature fetuses, which might survive briefly but could not live for long outside the womb. Other advocates say the law applied to all babies born alive.
On the other hand: Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois’ legal precedents on abortion.
Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that’s similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.
Footnote: This isn’t the first time Obama’s record on “born-alive” legislation has raised questions. His opponent in the 2004 U.S. Senate race, Alan Keyes, said Obama’s support for “infanticide” was the main reason he came from Maryland to challenge Obama for the seat. Keyes lost to Obama in a landslide.
http://tinyurl.com/cc2ocs

Illinois law existing since 1975.
http://tinyurl.com/5h47np
Factcheck:
‘Born Alive’ Baloney September 24, 2008
An abortion survivor claims she would have died if Obama had his way. She’s wrong.
The Pathetic Appeal
The ad makes use of a rhetorical tactic known as a “pathetic appeal,” meaning it employs pathos, an appeal to people’s emotions. Jessen discusses her own history and calls for Obama to recognize her “right to live,” putting an emotional face on a political issue. Other material on the subject, like columns by anti-abortion crusader and BornAliveTruth.org founder Jill Stanek, rely on affecting descriptions of grisly post-abortion scenes.
Calling up strong emotions is often a very effective way of swaying one’s audience. But such ads ask the viewer to feel rather than to think.
Telling a heart-rending story and telling the whole story aren’t always the same thing.
Past time for thinking.

2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS
• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican),Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]
• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]
• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]
Oh Dear. Who Will Tell Dobson That McCain/Palin Are Violating the Abortion Platform? by Steven Waldman
“I don’t want to be in the room when someone breaks it to Dr. Dobson that McCain and Palin have departed from the platform in the last two months in significant ways.
“States should be able to decide that issue,” McCain and Palin said. McCain would make abortion illegal at the Federal level if he were serious about ending abortion”
http://tinyurl.com/6sawop

Julie, you just cut and pasted three pages in a Worddoc!
I don’t have time to address all three pages and this is a 12 hour day for me.

Okay, I’m home after a very long day…
First issue is that I don’t believe that Julie has any desire to interact with an accusation once she has made it, so it hardly seems worth it for me to pick through 3 pages of cut and paste to figure out just what her point it.
Second, am I really supposed to accept a probable accusation of slander (which is Julie’s preferred accusation) because I agree with the 60% of the people who voted for the “Born Alive” bill, not the 40% who voted against it? Please.
Third, I can make my case for supporting the “Born Alive” bill without mentioning Gianna Jessen – I came to my opinion after reading the circumstances that led up to the proposal, from reading the bills and from reading the Senate transcripts. If Julie wishes to continue making accusations of slander because of a difference in opinion…well, my daddy always said, “you can’t blame a dog for being a dog.” And I can’t stop Julie from being Julie.