I suppose that you feel rather proud of yourself for stating your opinion about Christians. I am a Christian and I have heard or read or have been told very similar things - and that's O.K. because God has given you the right to be the way you are. Your believe system will not change the fact that everyone will stand before Jesus someday. You can discount that all you want, but it will happen and, when it does, I wonder what kind of words will pour out of your month then???

When anyone - no matter how mean, bad or corrupt they were - no matter how many evil sins they committed - asks Jesus to forgive them of their sins - and they sincerely mean it will all of their heart - that is exactly what He will do. That means that EVERY sin - no matter how vile it was - that person committed will be forgiven and will never be remembered by God. God will give that person a "clean slat" - without any marks on it. That person must accept this without any question and, also, must forgive himself for the sins he had committed. Therefore, there should be nothing that would/could prevent him from marring.

The correct answer probably is - - "Since they have been here since the beginning of Time, they'll probably be here until the end." Even the Bible has commented on them. In Ecclesiastes 10:2 you will read: "A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left." In modern times, there is Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. who is a board-certified clinical psychiatrist who has examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases in over 40 years and he has written a book titled ""The Liberal Mind". In his book he writes: "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." What more can be said, expect, "Now I think I have a better understanding of why liberals are the way they are. How sad!!"

Apparently BoJester has only been watching CNN and the other liberal news outlets that always have problems reporting the t***h. Then, again, and additional problem could come from consuming an overabundance of the Washington DC cool aid the liberals are always creating. It will be interesting to read his/her justification of the Republican victory of the Senate and increased control of the House in November. Do you suppose Bush will be blamed in some fashion?

Apparently many of those who v**ed twice for "Lead from Behind" where still waiting for all of those "free-bees" they thought that they were to get the first time. Do you suppose that they would v**e for him if there was a third time????

Dear MOM8052, I like your type of politics whereby you, apparently, v**e for the person - not the party. I would like to point out two observations that I have observed. (1) The Democrat Party of today is not the same as it was when Jack Kennedy ran for president on the Democrat ticket as they have gone so far Left. In fact, I don't think that Mr. Kennedy would even be allowed to run as a Democrat today because he would be too conservative for today's Democrat Party!! Just "Google" some of his speaks and the speak he made when he accepted the office of President. You will see a vast difference between where he stood and where the Democrat Party stands today!! (2) There are those who will v**e Democrat - or Republican - no matter who is on the respective ticket. I have meet people who are just like my late father-in-law who was born an raised deep in Mississippi. He was born a Democrat, raised a Democrat, lived a Democrat and would only v**e Democrat - even if he didn't like the Democrat nominee. Being that I am basically a conservative - but I v**e for the person, not the party, the relationship between my father-in-law and I was not overly "warm". One p**********l e******n period, I asked him who he'd v**e for if Jesus Christ was on the Republican ticket and Satan as on the Democrat ticket. He just glared at me and stomped out of the room. Wrong question, I guest.

Dear MOM8052, I like your type of politics whereby you, apparently, v**e for the person - not the party. I would like to point out two observations that I have observed. (1) The Democrat Party of today is not the same as it was when Jack Kennedy ran for president on the Democrat ticket as they have gone so far Left. In fact, I don't think that Mr. Kennedy would even be allowed to run as a Democrat today because he would be too conservative for today's Democrat Party!! Just "Google" some of his speaks and the speak he made when he accepted the office of President. You will see a vast difference between where he stood and where the Democrat Party stands today!! (2) There are those who will v**e Democrat - or Republican - no matter who is on the respective ticket. I have meet people who are just like my late father-in-law who was born an raised deep in Mississippi. He was born a Democrat, raised a Democrat, lived a Democrat and would only v**e Democrat - even if he didn't like the Democrat nominee. Being that I am basically a conservative - but I v**e for the person, not the party, the relationship between my father-in-law and I was not overly "warm". One p**********l e******n period, I asked him who he'd v**e for if Jesus Christ was on the Republican ticket and Satan as on the Democrat ticket. He just glared at me and stomped out of the room. Wrong question, I guest.

It is quite event that you do not have a true understanding of Bill O'Reilly trying to convey or haven't paid close attention to what he is trying to point out. Your liberal basis is showing through loudly. But, that's understandable in the U.S. that we are living in today when it is considered that the vast majority of all school students - grade school, high school and college - are being taught by liberal teachers. I know because my wife and I had a difficult time keeping our children on the right track of always viewing both sides and, then, determining which is best for them. Of course, due to the fact that we were and are conservative, most of them view things from a conservative point of view. Except for the oldest son, who v**ed once for Obama in '08, regretted his v**e within 24 months and didn't v**e at all in the last e******n. Which can be understood. Anyway, if you could possibly really "listen" to Bill O'Reilly - and not just "hear" him - surely you would have a better understanding the he is very concerned about the poor condition of life the black community must endure and believes that everyone - including white people - should do wh**ever to help improve their lively hood.

The media is guilty of perpetuating this "lie" in order to continue to sell their "time". This action feeds the distrust that the Black Community has regarding the legal system and you can't blame them for the distrust because the media refuses to tell the t***h like was exposed in the "Afterburner" clip. What do you think would be the opinion or understanding of the Black Community, regarding this trail, if the t***h had been revealed? The main difference between the Black Community and the White [or other colored] Community is that God chose to give us the color of skin that we have. Otherwise, we are all pretty much the same - with different likes, dislikes, opinions, tastes, attitudes, beliefs and so on. I just wish that there was a way to show them [the Black Community] that the media has purposely lied to them and to reveal to them the t***h so that it would give them a better understanding of what really happened during that tragic situation. It would also give them a better "day-to-day" life to know that they can't believe more then 10% of what the media tells Them. And we all need to do that!!!

It is not really important as to where Obama was or was not born. The most important question regards where his father was born. His father??? Yes, because according Article II of the United States Constitution - toward the end - you will read: "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President." and,because they had to, the writers of the Constitution eliminated themselves from this require. Then, in 1874, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a natural born citizen is one who is born to natural born citizens [ie: natural born parents]. Mr. Obama's mother was born in the United States, but his father was born in Kenya - possibly a British subject, and, therefore, not a natural citizen of the United States. This fact alone should disqualify Mr. Obama from being President and this fact was discovered towards the end of his first term. QUESTION - why hasn't some of those so-called Republican "Power Houses" in Washington DC done something about this??? Could it be that they may be fearful of Obama and his Chicago-style political machine?

Interesting thought!!! Why not check the v****g record of those countries in the UN and, for those who constantly v**e against the United States should be threaten with lose of their US dollars if they don't change their v****g. Another interesting thought!!! Why not have the UN move to another country and this may help reduce the number of foreign spies that are running loose in the US, and New York City wouldn't have to be concerned about all of the illegal driving and parking habits it has to endure from these foreigners who feel that they don't really have to obey our traffic laws.

First, you need to ask which "accomplishments" are you referring to? The "Negative" accomplishments or the "Positive" accomplishments? Since the "Negative" accomplishments are so vast in comparison and create such a massive "over-shadow", it would be with extreme difficulty for anyone to point out any possible "Positive" accomplishment and then thank him for it or them, if there were a "them". This would be understandable question for anyone who knows "which way is UP" and, of course, for those who are still searching, they probably wouldn't be able to ascertain the dept of the question or even think about asking it.

Your "creative "book cooking" comment is just one of the various ways that Obama uses to keep his "still trying to find out which way is up" followers happy and on-board.

Since you referred to me as a "hick or red-neck hillbilly", it is proof that I did offend you but your ego won't allow you to accept my apology - which is your right. In regards to your "name calling" of me, I am sure that I don't have to inform you that I am not related to you in any fashion - and wouldn't want to be. Your comment regarding doing "things" to cows came directly from the depths of the gutter and, therefore, I will not waste my time responding to a person with you mind-set. I sincerely hope that you can find some honest fulfillment in life. It would be of a great benefit to you.

Apparently, my remarks must have hit a nerve and caused you to feel "offended". If my remarks were offensive to you, I do humbly apologize for that. However, I, of course, am not aware of rather or not you have come to realize the "t***h" and "facts" are either often offensive or painful or hurtful or wh**ever negative you can think of - - but, they are still the "t***h" and the "facts" - and all you can do is deal with it/them the best way you can. Regarding your comment about cows, apparently you are a "city" person whose understanding of cows is limited to knowing that they are the source of the milk you enjoy. Did you know that they can be very loving, like to be patted and talked to, and have the same "gas" problems you have?