Ogden basically feels that

censorship is unconstitutional.  That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools.  However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up.  If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see.  Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models.  Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do.  Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts. 

I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography. 

Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults.  Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.

This is not a personal attack on Obama.  I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography.  I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub.  I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.

• Does anyone else have a problem - Chele
  • What a difference a day makes. - Why just yesterday, shelly and sam were
    • Ha Ha! You nailed that right on the noggin! - sm
    • This post is just ridiculous - Chele
      • that's where you took it, not me. - I believe what I said was
        • Where are you getting that I - Chele
      • No, it might be you who is twisted, sistah! - sm
        • Ya know...we don't allow underage - Chele
      • give it a few years - shelly
        • YEAH! I'm sure we on this board - Can Do That!
          • credible? - shelly
        • Off the deep end a bit, are we? - Thank you for demonstrating exactly WHY
    • Very Very well Stated - MTPockets
    • another thing - shelly
      • So how do you know that pervs are hanging out - at the library...sm
        • amazing - shelly
          • Different stroke for different folks. - Only the narrowest of minds would
            • can you not read? My name isnt Chele - shelly
        • So you are saying that you would not - sm
    • first of all - shelly
      • Sorry Shelly, but the common thread - between the two posts is
        • Nope - shelly
          • Nope yourself. - You do the oversight, govt upholds constitution.
      • Add to this............. sm - m
        • rubber boots - shelly
  • I sure has heck do. I found out days ago - and immediately called my senators
  • I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one... - sm
  • I emailed both my senators........... sm - m
    • Reasoning? Not here. - sm
      • You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden? - Backwards typist
      • Reasoning........... sm - m
        • News flash, m... - SM
          • And the more I learn........... sm - m
            • And the more I see of this type of intolerance.. - sm
              • I am squeezing my Bible right now - shelly
                • I don't know where you live.... - sm
              • Intolerance??? sm - m
            • More like narrow minded people - Who can't make a point
              • The Bible for one.......... sm - m
              • Here, here. - Sign me up for a bit of wicked. nm
        • Perhaps a complete history of this issue - sm
          • How's this for a history........ sm - m
            • Ethics and Legal Ethics - sm
              • And if his moral compass was pointing sm - m
                • But it isn't your decision to make, is it? - sm
          • Here's the links for ya. - Backwards typist
          • Ogden basically feels that - Chele

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

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.

to finally not to worry about how she will put gas in her car and how she will pay her mortage.  I highly doubt Peggy is looking for a free ride.  She's looking for an answer. 

Again, this is all left up to interpretation of how you feel about Peggy's comment.  Typical pubs will bash Peggy because they think they'll have to pay Peggy's mortgage, which is wrong.

There are already programs in place, i.e., welfare, section 8 housing, etc.  Why does the government helping those in need surprise everyone at this point?  I'll tell you why because the republicans have managed to smear Obama's plan and that's all they've got.  The same old plans of Bush is what they have; that's it.  Oh, wait they Governor Palin; yeah she's intelligent enough to fix anything with her overspending and "fixing of the books." 

I don't think the good 'ole USA needs more "fixed books" to suit the suits.  I'm off my soapbox now I guess.

I can't believe how many people on here honestly believe that Barack Obama is going to just let people have free gas and free homes.  That's absurd.     That doesn't grow the economy. 

This is an excellent article.  It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.

Foreign poll favours Democrat but shows hostility to US

Julian Glover

guardian.co.uk, Friday October 17 2008 00.01 BST

The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.

Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.

The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.

People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.

French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.

In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.

But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.

Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.

Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.

Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.

Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.

The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.

In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.

Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.

Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)

q· This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.

Get off my back is about as simple as I can put it.  I never said Laura Bush was drunk, so I don't see why you keep responding to my posts asking me to post a credible link to prove this.

There are "internet rumors" about her being drunk, mostly on liberal sites. 

The link I posted in this thread is for liberal entertainment a "what if it was Hillary idea" so to speak.  What I find ironic and even hypocritical is how you boast on the "TRUTH" in the "you probably are a liberal if..." article on the neocon board, but then come over here and throw your weight around about my post (the thread we're in now - let's not get it confused).

Hope you can understand this better, or even better you are staying on the conservative board so you will not get this response.  Geez Louise.

in a nutshell...  

I think we need change and I'm sure Obama will make mistakes, but McCain might as well said "I totally disrespect women."  By picking Palin with no experience tells me he doesn't really care.  JMO.

way this plays out?  My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything.  I don't like idea at all.  I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything. 

The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out.  We need a split to keep things under control.  Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing.  We need some contrast and balance.  If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him.  But he is way too extreme left for me.  As a conservative.....I don't like that at all. 

I think splitting the country up like that would do much more harm than good.  We would wind up in the same situation as in the middle east....just a bunch of small factions (if you will) and total loss of control.  Not one of these individual factions would be able to fend off foreign threats, much less threats from other factions.  Individual factions would not be able to compete in a global economy.  We have gained the power that we currently have by being a united country, and that would be totally lost.  This would put us back to civil war days and in my opinion would not serve any real purpose other than to appease those who encourage separation of the country now.

antichrist which some believe it could be the O.  I had a study if this in the Book of Daniel, not only in Revelations.  No matter who it is, better be ready.  Some state middle age, 40's and 50's. 

http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html

anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person.  Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields. 

You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured." 

So there are no innocent people in our local prisons?  I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.

What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not.  Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention.  How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists.  We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted.  We were either beheaded or just simply blown up.  Which would you prefer?