I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast")

• Do you think this is reasonable? - sm
  • I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast") - Those tear-gas cannons would - sm
  • I don't know if it is reasonable, but it happens - - Amanda

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I tried to email you and don't think I had a problem, but please check your email to see if you received anything from me.  (Hope so.)

Will be leaving the computer for a bit but will be back later this afternoon.

Have a great day! 

American citizens practing their right to free speech.

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?

I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.

We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia

to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.

I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).

Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.

O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.

The Audacity of FOCA

BY The Editors

October 19-25, 2008 Issue | Posted 10/14/08 at 10:00 AM

As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.

In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?

The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:

• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.

• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.

• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.

• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.

• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.

• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.

• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.

• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.

• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.

For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.

In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.

“Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2

Wow, common sense!!

Since we've never cared enough about the average American to try universal healthcare.  We could probably find out how it works from the Iraqis, though, since part of Bush's war budget was to provide comprehensive universal healthcare to THEM. 

It's sad that some people are okay with paying for Wall Street crooks to get richer and richer. 

We're all about greed, greed, greed.  Even with all the publicity about Bush's bailouts, I just heard on the news that the end-of-year bonuses are still in place for the Wall Street crooks.

Seems to me that when a government runs around and buys up banks, that's FASCISM, so if we move to SOCIALISM (which will never happen and which is a ridiculous statement), that move will be a giant step UP from what we have now.

I'm sick and tired of eight years of greed.  By the looks of things, the majority of Americans are sick of it, as well, which gives me some hope for what is left of humanity.

Obama is right.  "Trickle down" hasn't worked.  It's time to try "trickle UP." 

The Catholic heads are really pushing this issue, as are a lot of other Christian leaders.  Most people don't like either candidate (like me), but they'd rather vote for the one that settles their conscience. 

Add that to the fact that Americans like their guns and McCain has a strong chance.  He's really been coming up in the poles (not sure if it'll be enough, though).

Keep in mind that Reid was actually trying to stop him from getting into the Senate but couldn't find any legal grounds to do so, and it was both pubs and dems doing the investigation into Blago.  Dems don't want him in the senate anymore than the pubs do.  From our point of view, he's a has been and can't win an election.

If you want to talk about those all important votes for the stiumulus package, you might want to check out how long pubs have been holding up Franken in Minnesota with court battles.  How many times do they plan on counting that vote anyway? 

a good rule of thumb to remember is this:  If you're going to try to insult someone's intelligence, then you should at least try to be literate in the process.

Love the definition, BTW.

Not trying to argue, but wouldn't any bill the Congress would submit have to be signed by the president?  (And then, behind everyone's back, the signing statement "magically" appears after the signing, sometime without anyone knowing unless they specifically looked for it.)

For example, Bush signed the "no torture" bill and then later added, basically, "unless I want to."

Why would this bill be any different?  Again, not trying to argue.  I'm just trying to learn the difference between those two examples and what I'm missing here.