About as much as it bothers you that poster boy
Posted By: is a fraud. nm on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: Most are dodging the fact, tho..... - sam
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
What bothers me is ....
that nobody can explain exactly how the woman was COVERT? Everybody and his 3rd cousin knew where she worked, and all she did was push paper at a desk. To me this is much adieu about nothing.
you do not need to tell me what bothers me
rather, you seem to have little tolerance for those different than you.
I'm sorry it bothers you so much to
know there is someone you cannot intimidate. I am by far healthy, wealthy and wise beyond your expectations and it really bothers you, too bad. I wish you could know a fraction of the happiness and love that I have in my life. I wish that for all of your personalities that you post as here. You must really be one miserable person and I hope you have something to thrive on after this election is over.
Thanks, Em! It really bothers me when
years.* Dead giveaway that President Bush was not given a chance from day one. I have mentioned this before on here. Yet we hear repeatedly *give O a chance, he isn't even in the office yet.* Just more of the double standard the liberals have.
I agree, it is CRAZY here! I can't spend as much time here as I would like; I have to work harder than ever these days, MTing doesn't pay very well any more! Besides, there is one poster who monopolizes the board, albeit with many different little catch phrase names. Can't figure out why she spends so much time trying to keep arguments going here; she has told us repeatedly how intelligent and industrious she is. With all her community involvement, world traveling and all the research she does, just can't figure where she ever found the time to be a lowly MT! If you will notice closely, she even argues with herself at times.
Oh well, Thank you again for your post, and do come back and post again!
It bothers me because
people fail to see that there is corruption in both parties. Our country switches back and forth between pub control and crat control. When one party screws up and the people get p!ssed, the other party gets more control. That is the natural way of this. So for someone to come on here and brag that the pubs are losing people and how do you like those apples....I just think it is childish and that person needs a wake up call. There are plenty of crats who have screwed us over as well and no one in the crat party is willing to admit it. All they want to talk about is how the pubs suck and it goes both ways.....the pubs just want to fling poo at crats and not look into the corruption of their own party. I'm tired of it from both sides. If people would wake up and actually listen to what is going in our country, they might get a clue that both parties suck and that maybe we should elect people who aren't puppets to the people who donated to their campaigns. Our government as a whole is corrupt. It is obvious that both pubs and dems have no problem spending our money but now that the crats are in control and the people are seriously ticked off.....all of a sudden the pubs have taken up the cause to stop government spending.
What bothers me about abortion is...
the enormous numbers that need to be performed. In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....
People are careless, that is all. What other conclusion could you draw? If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now.
Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY.
Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?
What bothers you about the facts?
Does it scare you or do you just refuse to see the facts? This country has been borrowing from foreign countries (communist China big time)and the federal reserve to the tune of billions long before and after any republican and long before and after any democrat.
We have not had a surplus since the banking administration was developed a very long time ago.
What really bothers you? The post or that someone
??
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
If it bothers you, don't read'em....I have a job AND a life...
thank you very much. I also have things that are important to me, and the next President of the US and abortion are two of them.
Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious
nm
WARNNG...ANOTHER ABORTION POST....DON'T READ IF IT BOTHERS YOU.
Introductory Notes on Terminology: |
One of the major battlegrounds for this issue concerns the use of language. In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, the verbiage used here is explanatory and precise. This means expressions such as 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are replaced by words that articulate specific positions. This makes certain sentences cumbersome and repetitive, but for the sake of accuracy, sacrifices in eloquence were made.
Perhaps the largest point of contention regarding terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms 'unborn child' and 'unborn baby'. According to Webster's College Dictionary and the International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, the word child can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word baby only from the point of birth onwards.[1] Those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word 'fetus', a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning 'offspring' or 'newly delivered'.[2] Many who use this term in the media and general public are misinformed as to what it means. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines a fetus as:
"the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth." [3] |
In other words, when referring to humans, the word fetus is only applicable from nine weeks after conception until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied it to both before and after this period. [4] [5] Furthermore, the press rarely uses clinical terminology when referring to a pregnant woman ('gravida') or a newborn child ('neonate'). [6] [7]
The term chosen by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is 'preborn human'. This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in plain language. For those who might object to the use of the word 'human', a few medical references are in order. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:
"The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms." [8] |
Likewise, a clinical embryology textbook bears the title Human Life Before Birth, and phrases such as "human in utero" and "human females... in utero" appear in creditable medical textbooks. [9] Moreover, it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not.
* The average length of a full-term pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.[10] [11]
* Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.
Fertilization (2 weeks after LMP)
Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[219] [220] [221]
Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one. (10600 is ShortHand for the number 1 with 600 zeros after it. For comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.) [222] [223] [224] [225]
3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[12] [13]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)
The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[14] [15]
7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)
Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.[17]
![abortion7weeks.gif](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion7weeks.gif") [18]
9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)
More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[19] [20]The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[21]
10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)
All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body.[22] The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.[23]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion11weeks.gif") [24]
12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)
Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.[25]
13 Weeks after Fertilization (15 weeks after LMP):
Ultrasound Video [26] Windows Media Player Real Player
14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)
The preborn human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.[27]
16 Weeks after Fertilization (18 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion16weeks.gif") [28]
18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)
Ultrasound Video [29] Windows Media Player Real Player
The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.[30] [31]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
20 Weeks after Fertilization (22 weeks after LMP):
The preborn human sleeps, awakes and can hear sounds.[32]
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion20weeks.gif")
Ultrasound Video (Heart) [33] Windows Media Player Real Player
24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)
Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it.[34] The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down.[35] If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.[36]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood." (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)
If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.[37]
Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.) [38] [39]
32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion32weeks.gif")
(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)
38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)
Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate.[40] [41] At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."
* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [45] |
The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [46] |
* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]
* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:
"Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another." |
After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:
"[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?" |
The attorney for Roe responded:
"That's correct. That..." |
At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:
"Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?" |
The attorney for Roe stated:
* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [50] |
* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[52] |
* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:
"[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen." [53] |
* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that
"is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born." [54] [55] |
* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]
"WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." [57] |
* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]
* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [60] |
* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]
* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]
* They also:
- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]
- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]
* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:
1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]
2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]
3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]
After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]
* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]
* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77] A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]
* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]
* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]
* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]
* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]
Politics & Taxpayer Funding |
* The Democratic Party is in favor of abortion being generally legal. It supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. It supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions.[85]
* The Republican Party is in favor of abortion being generally illegal. It supports a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life. Since 1995, Republicans have proposed at least 12 amendments of this nature, all of them containing an exception to save the life of the mother.[86] [87]
* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. On their website, the ACLU poses the following rhetorical question:
"What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?" |
And answers:
"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose." [88] |
* The ACLU opposes school vouchers. One of the reasons they give for this stance is:
"School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree." [89] |
It was another poster on a different day.
I don't know who it was, but those *in the know* have pegged him/her as an alcoholic.
Whoever it was, the person was definitely radical, no doubt about that. If you respond with your email address, I will email you and tell you what it was, as well as the alleged *profanity* that Stephen used. Then you can judge for yourself whether it was legitimate or blown out of proportion. 
m-e-o-w did that poster
beat you in a BE-AU-TY contest or something? here kitty, kitty.
I think maybe what poster is trying to say
is that if same sex partners were meant to be in the first place, the body parts would be made to fit as well. Well, they're not, plain and simple. Man and woman were intentionally designed for the body parts to fit for a reason. Man and man and woman and woman were not and no matter how you try to twist that one, they're just not.
This may or may not be what the above poster
was referring to. Not sure because this article refers to Palin being there and not McCain, but maybe the poster meant McCain as a whole and not the ind. Anway here is the link.
www.newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/09/palin-headlining-fundraiser-california-billionaire/
No, just a poster.
nm
Poster is right about something
xx
Very well said by a poster on another
Something is not right about this election.
First, Obama does not defeat Clinton, but is nominated anyway.
Second, ACORN is openly engaged in massive voter registration fraud, and the authorities are doing nothing to stop it.
Third, Obama is awash with millions donated from abroad.
Fourth, the global banking system suddenly collapses, oh, just a month before the election.
Fifth, the Republicans are holding back?!
I think the entire sham is being orchestrated. Are there supranational forces behind the scenes, coordinating the seizure of U.S. banks while propping up a candidate with zero substance? What’s this “change” we keep hearing so much about?
Like another poster said, if this were the other
the liberal news would be all over this and you know it.
like a poster below said
Your last paragraph says volumes. you are willing to give up your freedoms for better economic conditions? When will that stripping away of freedoms end? just remember, you are opening the door to it. Get a handle on it. The economy should not be your only concern. Your freedom should.
And every small business owner I know is worried that they will be forced out.
Sorry, different poster, be that as it may....
Gosh darn, I must have been put in my place by you, huh. I am so enlightened now.
I'm probably not even up to or worthy for additional comment, I feel so gosh darn squashed.
See you on Tuesday. Betcha there's more of us than you.
So you think YOU should be the only poster
racist one at that you have!
YOU ARE SO RIGHT! Above poster is why
this country is going to he!! in a handbasket....too busy yawning and not giving a d**mn about anything but their precious O......
they obviously DO need someone to think for them and O is just their man.
There was a poster on here during
the primaries who waxed about how wonderful with Obama as president it would be to walk out to the mailbox and get another stimulus check like the $600.00 one received previously under the Bush administration, although the poster just knew it was going to be much more than $600.00. Life was exciting just to look forward to another check in the mailbox. Sort of like the woman who said, "Obama gonna pay my mortgage and put gas in my car" entitlement attitude.
I guess that old adage is still true: There's a sucker born every minute.
The only thing Americans are going to get from this porkulus package is higher taxes, more lost jobs, and a day of reckoning, the day Obama gets on TV and finally announces what every clear-thinking American already knows, we are bankrupt, and our biggest debt holder, China, is calling in the debt and taking us over. Well, somebody's got to pay the debt to the biggest debt holder. Considering China's treatment of its own people, just how do you think Americans will be treated?
I can just hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Obamatons when they finally have to say, "He lied to me."  Instead of MT jobs going to India, they will all be in China. Better visit Rosetta Stone, the fastest way to learn Chinese.
Obama is nothing more than a merchant of false hope. At least 49% of our population had the good sense to recognize it.
After Obama throws at least another trillion dollars we don't have at the economic problems, puts some people to work building new roads, institutes another dozen or so failed plans by the top economists of our day, it will become apparent that he has no real answers to our economic problems. Of course, that is because it is not really an economic problem but a spiritual one.
Can anyone doubt God's judgement is upon us?
The other poster did not say anything.......... sm
about Christians hating Muslims. She just said that Islam is being taught in Muslim schools in the US and that those teachings are to hate and annihilate the Christians (infidels). Incidentally, Christians are not the only infidels; anyone who does not profess the Islamic faith is an infidel. Unless you are Muslim yourself, that includes you. I think the other poster is well within her rights to be concerned about a religion whose sole goal in life is to take out as many infidels as possible so that they are assured of their 7 virgins.
Were you educated in a Christian school? I personally don't know of any of the mainstream Christian denominations that teach to hate and condemn specific groups of people. FWIW, I don't hate Muslims. They are, after all, fellow human beings, but I do hate what their religion teaches them to do.
If a certain poster is a liar...
(or if anyone is, from the president right on down)...and of course this is fully documented and there is no question about it...and then they ask us to believe a claim of high personal integrity...well, er, that's asking a little too much. One has to wonder, do they believe their own delusions? Do they really think the house of cards is never going to crash down? Or do they just want us to think it?
Personally I prefer a far less complicated arrangement. You intentionally lie, you are bad and no one should respect you anymore until you learn how to tell the truth.
I don't believe that any poster on this or the other board
wished any poster to die and burn in hell. I remember someone so frustrated with Bush that she once said that Bush will burn in hell. She was frustrated, just like Pat Robertson, who your gang chalks up to freedom of speech.
The comment wasn't aimed at one of you, but yet you have to twist it and turn it into a total LIE before it's fit for you to write.
I, for one, wish you WOULD go back to your board where hatefulness and lies are a way of life.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've caught you in enough lies that i will NEVER believe anything you say.
P.S. I thought you said you were going to Iraq. YEAH... RIGHT... Add THAT to your never-ending list of lies, as well. You don't have the guts to do it any more than you have the guts to tell the truth about anything.
You're putrid. Just go away.
This poster is not slamming. nm
To quote the poster above....
I have a right to be here and you have no right to tell me where I ought to be.
I understand that you have a hardened heart and nothing I can say or do will change that. Anyone who thinks abortion is a valid method of birth control and is okay with that has a hardened heart. But, your right as an American to hold any opinion you want to hold.
But it is my right as an American, and my moral right as a human being to state my opinion. And my opinion is that a developing child has as much right to life as YOU do. And I will continue the struggle. If that offends you...I'm sorry.
Poster is a jerk to say the least. What a
NM
The 50s-60s poster was talking about
nm
Of course not. It's the poster's sarcasm
BDays is on the messenger, not the source of those hideous remarks. She just used sarcasm to express the same slimed feeling we get when we hear this kind of rhetoric coming from the right-wingers.
Poster is not wrong
I remember a year or so ago when this issue was raised, a journalist was interviewing a doctor who performs these abortions and it was not for the reasons you mentioned; it was simply because the mother requested it, did not want the child, and decided to have an abortion. He performed them. He made no apologies for these murders and as one would expect, he had convinced himself it was not murder.
Hey, i think you have me confused with that other poster!
I was being sarcastic about conforming. I see what Bush has gotten us. I'm on your side!
This is like the statement that one poster said- nm
.
No? Poster should just compromise her
--
Funny...........not ONE poster....
Not one Obama poster has had the guts to admit Obama is involved with ACORN, even though he admits to giving them money AND not one Obama supporter has admitted he admitted to hiding money contributions, over 800 thousand dollars, to ACORN to hire more people to participate in voter fraud. Tells you some people will accept anything and for all the wrong reasons........
For the poster who asked for me to
was a Moslem.........
The rag was himself while on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama was talking about his religion and said, " My Muslim faith" and then said when questioned that he "made a mistake".
Is that enough citing for you or do you not believe what he said either?
You blind O lovers need to open your eyes folks!
Blindness will get you nowhere when he has sold your country down the river to the terrorists.
Well, to be honest poster really has no
Always wants facts but when you give them, all you get is a bunch of junk back!
Argument would be if they had something substantial to say in the first place.
Poster is correct
If someone gets on this board and says anything about Obama you don't like, O lovers go ballistic. They want facts, they get facts, and then instead of admitting they weren't aware, they just attack because that's all they got.
I'm not even republican and I can see how close-minded you are. You believe anything said about Obama is a lie, even if the facts are out there. You immediately call the poster a liar without even looking at the source posted, etc.
Please do not try to sound so open minded.....you are not!
Don't worry about the poster below
You stick to your gut instincts. You are right on so many levels. Most of what you say is true and we should all try to buy what is made in this country and discount any companies that have moved our jobs overseas or over the border.
Obama has some wonderful "butterflies and gumdrop" view of thinking he can be everybody's buddy, including Pakistan, which you notice he pronounces much differently than most and that says a lot to me, as well as Venezuela, Brazil, Russian, Cuba; the list goes on and on. Heaven only knows what deals with the devil he will make to get them to like "him" and I can guarantee you he will make this all about him.
The very idea that he tries to portray to the people in this country that 200-250K somehow makes you rich is a very deviant, sneaky, way of trying to mould a picture to the middle class of those "mean old rich folks" who have more than you like that is a terrible thing. How dare someone have something more than you! Isnt' that terrible? Don't you think we should take their money and partake? That way, none of you will have to work hard to achieve anything. Well, we have too many of those in this country that already sit on their duffs and do nothing but wait for the next check. We don't need to further the welfare state we are already in.
Your beliefs are dead on, so you just stick with them.
yea, I'm sure the poster that responded to me . . .
tattled on me, so that explains that :>(
It's obvious why this poster seems to think
government interference in our lives is okay. If she THINKS she falls below the Obama mandate (socialism), she feels secure in thinking it won't be her skin, so she doesn't care. Like so many. They are so sucked in to believing that all these social programs are someone gonna be FREE FOR ALL that she won't be paying any more taxes. Oh, how the ignorant will fall. Shows the true colors of her loyalty or lack thereof for her country. Too bad she isn't grateful she lives in a free society where she is at least free to keep more of her money than in other country and be free to sit her and yammer on ignorantly.
to the poster below about being dense....
My point is proven by your post. You stated that when Obama gets into office, for me to look around and see how many names I can pronounce.. If you are so worried about people of another race running our country...... well you are too late. Did you check out the guy that is in charge of the bailout money? He is from Stow Ohio. He is Muslim. Believe it or not there are other Muslims that are already working in our government. So, maybe you should immediately call for the impeachment of Pres. Bush. After all, this is his administration. Also, Palin is associated with some extremists up there in Alaska. The Alaska Independence Group. She supports them, she has hired people into her adminstration from their group, she has funded them. They are anti-government. They want to separate from the rest of the United States. They don't like the United States. Read up on it, since your so into research. They are very questionable. Some of their beliefs may even be considered borderline possible domestic terrorism. Also, she wants to stretch, by her own standards not the constitution, the powers and roll of the vice president. Thats a little scary, putting someone in there who thinks she can do what she wants in her job instead of being confined by the boundaries of the CONSTITUTION. But you dont seem to have any problems with that. Is it maybe because the color of her skin?
And every poster on this board has the right (sm)
to respond. My personal response is *get over it.* I wonder, after the SC either thows this thing out or determines that Obama is legitimate, what are you going to talk about? Or will the SC be in on this fairytale scam of the century that you guys like to call reality? My guess is there's a reason why most of the posters raising a bunch of crap about the b/c don't use monikers. LOL. I guess I wouldn't want to be identified after that either.
not previous poster but
I actually know several people of mixed race (black/white), who are openly racist against whites. Not saying that Obama is or isn't, but it can happen.
any answers from poster ? what does this mean?
s
I am not the same poster to whom you refer.
If you smell anything, it would be "hypocrisy" not "hypocracy." Misspelled words are underlined in red for a reason!
By the way, the hateful, bitter, low-class spew on this board has been provided courtesy of the red-neck, Bible-thumping, bigoted, right-wing posters. They are the ones who have shown their true colors.
I think what the poster means (sm)
and I'm just taking a guess here, but trickle up poverty would be taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor and this would make us all equally poor. Of course there would be exceptions, such as those in government who can keep voting themselves raises, etc. While I agree that the CEOs of most companies take way too much and could stand a little downsizing, the fact is that these are the same companies that provide jobs for the rest of us.
Let's take a large MTSO for example. If they have to start paying more in taxes (let's say what would equate to 3 cpl), where do you think they're going to make up the extra money? They're either going to cut jobs, cut cpl for their MTs, or ship more jobs over to India. Even if you're getting your "redistribution check" from the government, if you don't have a job or have a job that pays you 4 cpl, you're still going to be poor.
IMHO, the answer is to try to keep more jobs in the US instead of Mexico, China, etc, so more people can actually work. NAFTA needs some serious reworking so that it's actually profitable to keep jobs here rather than ship them overseas - that way, no one would have to be dependent on the government and trickle down or trickle up wouldn't even be an issue because we'd all be employed and making our own way.
I'm not the previous poster but....(sm)
I personally know about a dozen people, friends and relatives, who fit her post.
I know more about Obama than any of them, but they don't give a darn who the real man is behind the facade that he chooses to show the world.
Not to mention the documentary made during the election made that shows Obama voters, who knew/know next to nothing about the man they had just voted for...and didn't care, even when things were pointed out to them.
Some people are so uninformed who voted for Obama. My mother, my sister-in-law included, just to name a few. They only voted the democrat party like they always did...could care less who the real Obama is.....
|
