"The Living Dead" Yes, perfect!

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.)

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.

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.

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?

� 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

in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Because from here on, you'll be told exactly what to do and when, and probably how you're supposed to feel about it.

Told what amount of money it is 'seemly' for you to earn, how much you MUST surrender to maintain the lifestyles of others, and how much you may be permitted to keep - if you promise to spend it properly. Told how much energy it is politically correct for you to use (please drive an approved vehicle) and what modern conveniences it is more 'green' to do without. Told not to think too much: 'The science is settled. The debate is over.' Told what medical tests and procedures it will be proper for you to receive and which (so very sorry) it would be better for society as a whole for you to forego, because there is only so much to go around. Told for your own good what to eat and taxed extra on the improper items you choose. (Unless, apparently, you receive food stamps, in which case limiting your choice would be unnecessarily judgmental.)

Perhaps some will see all this as gentle correction from a benevolent parent, but this micromanagement sneaking in incrementally cloaked in a smily face will not really make me feel better about being told what to do.

of why dems are so critical of the right. You just throw stuff out there that has no basis. Given that I have looked at all available text that would fall into the category you speak of and have found nothing to back up your claim, the fact that Obama typically meticulously chooses his words before he says them, and your obvious unwillingness or inability to provide some kind of documentation to support your claim, I have to come to the conclusion that what you have said is false. If this is incorrect, then by all means, please feel free to prove me wrong.

The dems were just recently accused of character assassination after stating facts. And then here you come along with this garbage, which is basically the same thing that has been done by the pubs since before the election. At least you're consistent.

and down right vulgar (hence the expletives tonight). You're right.. the only time they have anything going here is when we come over. They have nothing constructive to talk about when they aren't looking down their noses at conservatives who question their statements or bashing Bush. It's a big yawnfest

That's why I'm using the moniker leftist/lib basher. The best way to rile them up is to call them by what they call themselves. Oh, wait a minute. They're progressives now. They'll be progressives until we call them that then they'll say we're calling them names and change it again. Yes, they have tender widdle feelings.

MT: See, THAT'S what I am talkin' about! SM boring and lame! I am telling you, you are lame girl.

American Girl: Did they just wish me dead? ....RIP is a term usually reserved for the dead, right?

They degenerate debate to name calling, calling us evil, and then wishing us dead....all the while preaching to us about how evil and intolerant we are....the irony is bewildering but not unexpected.

MT: Don't forget when they told Nan she was old and would die soon SM and wished for her to burn in hell. That was an especial highlight of the nature of how they "never" say anything hateful.

(No name, but I admit it was me, completely frustrated and having sunk to their level): I know it's difficult but close your eyes and try to FOCUS for a second or two. Take a deep breath. You can do it. The poster was directly responding in kind to YOUR post in which YOU wrote: you're boring me to death.... Now feel free to twist and mangle that any way that makes you look like poor little AG who is always picked on, but YOU are the one who started this. The person was wishing you a peaceful trip while on the destination YOU indicated you were headed.

Nameless Troll: Not true. I don't wish anyone dead. I don't harbor that kind of hatred inside me. Sorry to bust your bubble.

These were just a FEW in an entire thread of insults (including one from Nan calling the person a slimy bottom dweller.) Not ONE post in this entire thread added anything of intelligence to any debate (including my own).

Does anyone reading this SERIOUSLY think the poster wished AG dead? When I read it, I see it as a very sarcastic response to a very sarcastic post. I believe it�s shortly after this point in time (when those three were getting exactly what they gave, after repeated threats and "chances" and "strikes" by them to the poster or else they would tell the Monitor) that they all three posted that they wouldn�t be coming back here any more. Those posts are gone now, and as we can see, one of them is already denying ever saying she was leaving. (To those of you who actually did read these posts and know they were there, please continue to rely on the accuracy of your memory because it�s correct.)

Now, when the day comes that AG recalls someone on this board "wishing her dead," are you going to believe that that is what the person REALLY wished, given the entire context of these posts?

MSNBC ran a ticker headline Friday identifying dead bodies, debris, human waste and chemicals as prominent contents of the toxic flood waters. It�s no surprise, and curiously fitting, that the national media all week has been awash with the cultural equivalent: noxious, vile proclamations by the America�s foremost moral pretenders, atrocity addicts, all-purpose grifters and incendiary race hustlers: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney, and Maxine Waters � with auditions from aspiring race-mongering demagogues Kanye West and Michael Eric Dyson.

Each of these self-congratulatory progressive activists has labored to exploit the New Orleans catastrophe as an onslaught against black America. Collectively they possess moral authority equivalent to the two scammers who used an amputated finger in an attempted shakedown of Wendys. Let�s be clear about the lineage these bottom feeders are part of. The opportunistic race-based ghouls who have made New Orleans their haunt are not different from David Duke, in either kind or degree. The activists now working overtime to incite race hatred � doing so in the name of �justice� and �civil rights� � deserve the same accolades and mantles as the klansmen who terrorized blacks, Jews, Catholics, and white civil rights workers in another decade.

Like the vulgar, hate-driven white racists who read aloud from Bibles in church the morning after lynching, burning and raping, these morally bankrupt representatives of today�s civil rights elite represent the last gasp of a morally unregenerate worldview. And like the Klan of yore, they (and their enablers Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Cohen, and Hillary Clinton) grow more desperate and deranged as the moderate American mainstream rejects their quest to rip open the nation�s past racial wounds for temporary partisan advantage.

Efforts to turn New Orleans into the cultural equivalent of Rwanda are repugnant to everything about America than makes moral sense. Lincoln spoke of the better angels of human nature, implying the existence of something very much worse. Every schoolboy knows the proper counterpart is demon. The moral scammers now inciting race hatred in the wake of the Louisiana nightmare will fail. And the movement they represent will ultimately fail, because it is more than wrong or simply false, it is cancerously self-canceling. The body politic will cast off this disease and will do so to preserve its well being, vitality, and wholeness.

But the end of this fight is not near. The mainstream media is highlighting the preposterous claims of America�s hate apostles because the MSM sees an opportunity not simply to negate the past two presidential elections, but to reverse the general trend away from the cultural corrections (anti-welfare state, pro-national defense) that Reagan�s 1980 victory represented. The American left has been licking its chops for years, hoping for the political equivalent of a perfect storm: the ideal convergence of forces that would yield a return to normalcy for expanding the gutter of identity politics and apologizing to the world at large for everything American. The left longs for a return of Carter�s malaise because that will reinforce the left�s longstanding antagonism toward the resurgence of personal responsibility and national pride since 9-11.

The unconscionable quest to exploit the human misery of New Orleans sickens me more than I can say. I was with my family at a Florida hospice, attending to my mother as she lay dying from cancer, when Katrina came ashore, wreaking human and physical loss only miles away. We were all aware that our personal loss would be shared by many hurricane victims, and that the American people would do what we always do: rally to help the wounded, the sick, and the bereaved. It never occurred to us � not even remotely � on August 25, the day mom passed away, that leaders of this nation�s so-called progressive community would even consider using a natural tragedy as an occasion to further their now familiar By Any Means Necessary campaign against this country and its traditions.

Then again, neither did I expect that there would be 250 demonstrations on American campuses against the United States responding militarily to the September 11 attacks, as David Horowitz has so aptly described. Na�vete dies hard, but there�s a positive side. It�s extremely hard to resuscitate.