Hello Mike,
You know that I oppose the sin, but love the sinners. I realize that people are involved in the issue, and do try not to offend, but I know it's going to happen.
As for the "live and let live" comment, I should let things go, but.... are you ready listen to one more shrink story before you take in your shingle?
This is a true story, doc. When I was really young, and even really more foolish that I am now, I had a bad relationship with a boyfriend. Let's just say his real girlfriend was cocaine, and not me. Anyway, I was too ignorant to get out of the picture- thought I could change him. After one wild weekend of partying, I found out through a friend that he had all KINDS of fun with some girl that wasn't me while I was out of town. The other guy who told me, and intended to burst my bubble, said, "Oh well, live and let live," when I questioned him about things.
So in my mind, "Live and let live" means do what you want, how you want, and to heck with other people's feelings any vows, any moral code whatsover. Now, that's just between you and me, and that's what I think when I hear that term. It's sounds so cool and 60'ish, but I can't help but think that while some are having their fun, and living, that their is often a price to pay later.
Thanks Mike for your comments. Thanks also for being a really reasonable person on here, even though we don't agree on all things. You really seem to have your feet on the ground while others go flying by.
Have a great weekend. I'd like to join in on the discussions, blogs, 'cause they're really hopping, but it's so time consuming.  With graduations this weekend, and other things, I have to take care of first things first.
God bless you Mike.
Mary Ann

Sorry no disrespect intended ,but I noticed you quickly pounded on a line "live and let live"comment  and the front page headline about the gay parade.....Why did I notice this ?You usually give your point of view (usually with a reference)  leave it at that, unless you and the other poster are making headway..That is why you are held in high regard by other posters (left or right).
Perhaps I was envious, because I did not weigh in with my opinion.
BTW I use that "live and let live " slogan all the the time...That's the reason I took notice.
OK , I will hang up my shingle and start my going out of business sale. 
maryann never change,be who you are.

Whatcha mean, Mike?  I thought I had mellowed out so much this last year to a kinder, more compassionate Mary Ann. 
Okay, let me sit here on your couch for a bit, doc.
"I don't return petty insults and deal with what the poster states. Do you know how much time I wasted here in years past trading insults with every Tom, Dick, and Harriet?  Too much!  Some guy named Mike told me to knock it off, so I took his advice, and tried to do better. I also try to avoid putting forth my opinion as fact. (How much is this costing me per hour????)
I might say things that are "offensive" to others, but I see those things as truth and can back them up with evidence, logic, or just a good reason, IMO!  Yes, I am a Catholic, but I don't initiate "God" arguments too much on the threads because too many people then disrespect God. If they bring Him up, I'll defend Him toof and nail.
Then I gets tired, and I have to take a break. That's something else I learned from the Mike guy.
The way I see it, if we constantly worry about offending people with our convictions, soon, we'll be in a world that we don't recognize.
I'm very passionate about some issues, and sometimes I might go overboard, but I can usually climb back in the boat and agree to disagree with most people."
Hey doc, can you put this on my account, on account of I don't have any money????"
Go easy on me Mike, I am a work in progress!

I heard Scalia say that on 60 minutes........ he jokingly said, "when you have a large Italian family ,it is mandatory that one has to sacrifice to be a priest"........
maryann let me put on my amateur psychologist hat........ I have noticed a less tolerant Maryann on the threads and I just thought you are getting tired of  "if it feels good; do it attitude"...... I detect that from your posts to others.... I may be entirely wrong, because we all have our days, but you are usually more tolerant that I am.....LOL

Yep, even though I'd like to see it, I think another Scalia would be very difficult to pull off. Did you know his son is a priest?

maryann
I used the Supreme Court as a tactical maneuver Obama should've picked up on ,since McCain said he would nominate Supreme Court judges like Roberts and Alito. He should have emphasize that in campaign speeches ,because 55% of the electorate are women; that block normally votes for the Democrat, because of  Roe v Wade(not the only reason).  I ws just wondering why he was holding back.

Hello maryann and thank you for your input.
A Supreme Court judge like Scalia is highly unlikely, even if John McCain gets elected. Remember John McCain was on the committee of "The gang of 14" to prevent controversial nominees to even make it to the floor. It looks like the Democrats will pick up six seats in the Senate so the “Gang of 14" would not have to be used unless, Obama wants a far left liberal judge.
I still think the economy, health care; the war in Iraq and Social Security will be the main topics. So far in the Democratic primaries, the economy has been number one topic.
IMO to pray/ not to pray in school is a dead issue, because that issue is irrelevant to Congress.
As you well know, there are a couple cases pertaining to the rights of the unborn scheduled for Supreme Court hearings in the near future.
But Senate seats and the presidential election is not until November 4,2008 and a lot of things can happen between now and then, but we will have to respectfully disagree on the type of Supreme Court judges we need for this new multicultural country we now live in. Don't get me wrong, the United States Constitution is still our guide.
BTW that last 40 years included 12 years of GOP control;at least eight years.

I agree Mike, the Supremes and their replacment is a top issue. I could be wrong, but we might disagree on the best people for the job.
IMO, we need at least one more Scalia-like guy or gal, then maybe the country can make up for some moral ground we've lost in the last 40 years, such as taking prayer to GOD out of schools and allowing abortion-on-demand for all 9 months of pregnancy.

Hello Ernie ,thank you for commenting.

I agree the healthcare issue will be an important issue, because according to a Gallup poll, 63% of Americans want universal health care. All government employees basically have universal healthcare, and we taxpayers pay for 70% of it. So much for the representatives calling it socialized medicine. I do believe we need to take gradual steps toward a single-payer system, if the private sector insurance companies will not come together to insure more people and make their premiums more affordable. We lead all industrial nations in preventable deaths due to a lack of insurance (20,000 per year). Right now, we don't have a healthcare system we have a healthcare industry, because insurance companies are profit driven causing them to disallow expensive recommended health procedures. $.30 out of every dollar that we pay on health care insurance goes into CEO pay and other administration fees. We have market-based prescription drugs, keeping their cost unnecessarily higher.
First of all, I don't complain about four dollars a gallon, because I get the bigger picture of remaining on fossil fuel. I know you are in the oil related industry and it's only natural that you would try to protect that industry ,but Exxon, Shell,& Valero would just readjust their baffle plates and feed points and would still be the leader in any alternative fuel we decide on. The oil companies are not in any hurry to build a new refinery, because they are expensive, unsafe, and they can read the handwriting on the wall. The future is not fossil fuels.
I've got nothing against nuclear power, and it should be a small part of our alternative fuel answer, but until an actual solution for the waste is put in place, we should not go forward with building numerous plants because as they say in the industry "you can't keep loading the front end ,if the back end can't take it."
First we should make Social Security solvent, and then give employees a gradual option to opt out for a private sector account if they wish. We could start with 2% and gradually increase that ;as we look at the social security inflow versus the outflow.
We don't disagree with a lot, but it was interesting to see another perspective.
BTW Drilling in ANWR is dead, as the Senate rejected the GOP oil drilling plan  today.

Those AARP folks have been pretty adamant about getting me to join their ranks over the last couple of years but so far I've resisted. Guess it's just the rebel in me not wanting to make the tacit admission that I'm getting older.
Otherwise you make a lot  of good points though, Mike. Still, I think most of us here know what the issues are, the concerns we have are more about what the solutions may be and who's the candidate that can implement workable answers without continuing to bankrupt the country and/or tax its citizens into the oblivion.
Health care will be an issue in 2009 in spite of what Rockefeller has to say about it. It's an issue now and regardless whether the next administration addresses the problem or not, it will continue to be an issue for them. I don't believe the answer is in government regulation of the industry - except perhaps to make affordable health insurance available through all employers. Of course one has to define "affordable" in that scenario but the facts are that many employers; particularly small retail stores, fast food  industries and small businesses in general don't have group medical coverage available to their employees at a cost significantly less than an individual policy. Second, no matter how cheap the premiums are there will always be a segment of the population who simply choose not to be covered because their priorities lie elsewhere.
Energy - which is to say "the economy" - will also continue to be an issue on the front lines and one that frustrates me no end. Sen. Hutchinson, in her op/ed piece on Saturday is 100% dead-on correct in that to secure our energy needs, in the short term at the very least, we must open up ANWR, the outer continental shelf and both coasts. Latest estimates on the reserves in ANWR are not a panacaea for our energy needs but will likely only make up for the North Slope production decline since the 1980's. Still it would get us back to producing approximately 25% of our own energy requirements and reduce our dependence on OPEC and the other oil-producing entities. Similarly we have *got* to get off of this "not-in-my-backyard" mentality regarding offshore drilling off the California and east coasts - and yes, the Florida coast. We also have another huge production discovery developing in N. Dak that needs to be developed.
The only arguments against drilling in ANWR are environmental as are those prohibiting drilling off our coastlines - although aesthetics may figure into the equation as well but that's simply cutting off our collective nose to spite our face. Has anyone taken a cruise in the Caribbean lately? All those drilling and production platforms hardly mar the scenery and I've yet to see Holiday, Royal Caribbean or Disney sailing through a massive oil slick. Environmental regulations here are extremely strict (and rightly so) and the drilling and production industries adhere to them. Yes, accidents happen but they are few and far between and mitigation measures are swift and efficient.
The oil business is a dirty one but I challenge any industry to match it's environmental record over the past ten years. Petroleum has been on the North Slope for forty years and the polar bears, the caribou and the natives still exist and still roam free. ANWR is an area the size of S. Carolina. To develop the resources there would require incursion on an area approximately the size of a metropolitan airport - Bush Intercontinental for example. I think we can afford the minor impact and I believe if we choose not to we hardly have one iota of room to complain about $4/gal.
Finally, to address the alleged global warming epidemic (add the appropriate sarcastic tone), I agree that we must continue on the road to developing alternative energy sources but none of the currently known sources alone can come close to replacing petroleum and even collectively at full current production capability will hardly make a dent in our total energy consumption. It will be years, possibly decades before a viable and economically feasible alternative or alternatives are developed. In the meantime we can use the technology and the capability we have or we can continue to be at the mercy of Chavez, Ahmajinedad, and their ilk - and continue to pay $4 or much more for a gallon of gasoline.
Nuclear power is the one clean, available, safe and economically viable alternative we have available NOW to meet a large portion of our energy needs apart from transportation. We have to use it as well and we have to start NOW. Building a nuclear power plant is not something that occurs overnight so we can continue to argue about it or we can get busy bulding them to replace existing out-dated plants. Again, the choice is ours but ignoring the alternatives we have NOW while we continue to "bet on the come" is going to get us nowhere but broke.
Cutting SS and Medicare/Medicaid benefits may well be a necessity but Obama's plan is probably the best short-term fix. (And this hurts me for two reasons: First, I'm getting close to retirement and second, I've been chasing the SS earnings ceiling for years and just made it to the other side last year.) We need to significantly raise the SS earnings maximum. There are those who would argue that those making in excess of $100K/yr. comprise the segment that will need SS the least but the fact remains that regardless whether they "need" it or not, those who have not paid SS taxes on their excessive earnings above the cap over the years will still collect their SS checks and take advantage of Medicare/Medicaid when it's available to them. In the insurance industry it is well known that those who have insurance subsidize those who do not. SS is no different. The one dictum that must accompany legislation to remove the earnings cap though must be to keep SS  funds inviolate from those drunken sailors we call congress from appropriating them for more pork barrel projects.
Obama is also 100% dead-on correct in his quote. Our leaders simply have to stop telling and selling us everything we WANT to hear and start telling and doing those things we must hear if we are to survive as a nation - let alone the leader of the free world.
Now don't go getting all excited, Mike. I said he was right in what he said. Didn't say he was the man to git 'er done.
Ernie