Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists
And Israel loves those suicide bombers. Posted By: CeeCee on 2006-09-01 In Reply to: The question is what's wrong with you? - Liberal Your posts are disquieting. Why do you defend Hezbollah? Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread UN: Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon completely immoral - Liberal Olmert SHOULD rebuff Kofi Annan's call. - CeeCee rules, forum - rules you responded to posts from a YEAR ago.... - this thread is from 9/2006......LOL....nm The question is what's wrong with you? - Liberal And Israel loves those suicide bombers. - CeeCee Why do you defend killing of innocent civilians? - Liberal I cannot argue with someone who thinks as you do. - CeeCee Another lie. - Liberal You have much anger. - CeeCee Anger? No. I can't stop laughing at your posts. - Liberal ok - CeeCee Thoughts on war, immorality and Robert McNamara - Teddy Dereliction of Duty. - CeeCee All the more reason to learn from his arrogance - and not repeat it. nm - Starcat 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 Palin: 'I don’t know' if abortion clinic bombers are 'terrorists' In her interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said that Bill Ayers is “no question” a terrorist because he sought to destroy the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. Palin, however, refused to apply the same label to abortion clinic bombers: Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor? PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly voted against protecting Americans from domestic terrorists carrying out violence at abortion clinics Hmm another suspicious suicide?...sm **Margie Schoedinger died of a gunshot wound to the head in 2003, nine months after filing the suit. The Harris County Medical Examiner's office has ruled the death a suicide.** This is another difference between democrats and republicans. Where is the democratic conspiracy machine when you need them? Are they sure she just wasn't trying suicide? x Suicide is illegal..... but how do you prosecute? sorry, but I find this morbidly funny. If someone wants to end their life, they will. Oregon allows assisted suicide---not compassionate euthanasia. the person being euthanized must be coherent, terminally ill and willing. Why don't women have a right to choose suicide? Why is it a woman can chose to murder an unborn child because it's "her body" - a scientific impossibility... But if that woman decided to kill HERSELF - when it actually IS her body - it's a crime. You promote abortion. The fact that you don't want to admit it proves that somewhere in your dank, shriveled-up little soul, there's at least one ounce of decency that knows what you're professing is wrong. You are pro-abortion. You're just in denial about it. LIke every other "proud Liberal" lunatic. Yes, I heard about the woman who committed suicide... and invoking the poor woman to beat me over the head with is the height of nastiness. But about what I would expect from you. I hardly think it was every Republicans' fault it happened, but you sure wanna blame them. Hmmm...hating a whole group of people...sounds like bigot to me. I suppose you saw the bit about the illegal immigrant in San Francisco who offed a man and his two sons with an AK-47 in a road rage incident? Maybe you would like to talk to his widow and their mother your take on illegals and how they should enjoy the benefits of citizens. If Mayor Newsom hadn't declared San Fran a sanctuary city and told the police not to work with ICE, that particular illegal would have been deported or in jail a long time ago, since he had 3 or 4 felonies and 3 or 4 recent arrests. A citizen, for pete's sake, would have already been in jail a LONG time ago. So please, if you are going to invoke the poor woman who committed suicide to make your point of hatred of Republicans (which has nothing to do with why the woman committed suicide...she committed suicide because she had kept the degree of the problem away from her husband and he had no idea his house was about to be auctioned off...tell the WHOLE story...which is still a horrible situation but not hardly all Republicans' fault...good grief)...anyway, allow me to invoke the illegal who slaughtered three innocent citizens with an AK-47 for no good reason (as if there was a good reason for slaughtering 3 innoncent people)...which EXACTLY illustrates my point. Gavin Newsom, poster child for the far left, has the blood of those three people on his hands tonight because he IS directly responsible, unlike the millions of Republicans in this country you want to charge with that woman's death. I hope Mr. Newsom has sense enough (to use your lovely words) to be embarrassed and SICKENED by that. But I won't hold my breath. You have all that hatred churning around in you for an entire group of people just because they are of a thought process different from yours...you once graced me with the definition of bigot, so right back at you: bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. (your picture should be in Webster next to the definition) You said: "The pubs really can be a cold-blooded, mean-spirited bunch of blankety-blanks, being blind to the misery of all the hoi polloi." "(a mere 12 hours after Bush got his rocks off in the middle of all those laughing pubs)" (wow, you slipped off the highbrow intellectual vocabulary there GW) Those two quotes (there are way too many more to go hunt) meet the definition of bigot as you posted it to me. And you either don't have the sense (as you accuse me) to realize you are the very thing you accuse me of, or you know dang well you are a bigot and don't care. I would guess the former. I don't think you have any idea you are a bigot, and that's just sad. You say I am a bigot because of my stand on immigration...I am NOT against legal immigration and have no problem with immigrants as a whole...a point MS miss the point (your words) that you continue to ignore...so that blows your bigot argument right out of the water. But...sigh...ya can't see the forest for the trees. And no, you did NOT answer my question, because you can't. And that frustrates you, just like it frustrated Obama to be asked the same question by the darling of the left Katie Couric...at least she had the guts to ask, I give her that...and he never DID answer her. Because, like you...he couldn't. You painted yourself into the corner...I didn't put you there. And finally, dear whoeveryouare, hatred is a wasted emotion and hurts the hater much worse than the hatee. See ya! Recession, Suicide and Tips from the Government! This isn't terribly reassuring! Government website now offers 'suicide warning signs' for victims of recession John Byrne Published: Tuesday March 31, 2009 When the government starts warning you not to commit suicide, you know things have gotten bad. The US Department of Health and Human Services now has a webpage for the current recession, "Getting Through Tough Economic Times." Headlined under the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (www.samhsa.gov/economy/), the guide offers tips on "how to deal with the effects financial difficulties can have on your physical and mental health." The site went public Tuesday. The remainder of the story is at:  http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Government_website_offers_suicide_warning_signs_0331.html High Court upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law (It's interesting to note that Roberts was a good, obedient little Justice as he hung on to Scalia's coattails and supported the Bush administration.  I can't help but believe if Alito had been installed now, the decision most certainly would have been 5-4, instead of 6-3.  I thought that Republicans were in favor of states' rights.  Guess not.  In this case, the citizens of the state voted for this law.  We're only one Bush LIFETIME appointment away from the end of freedom of self-determination. High Court upholds Ore. assisted suicide law January 17, 2006 BY GINA HOLLAND ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said.

Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.

Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote.

Scalia said the court's ruling is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position.

Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live.

For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide.

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon.

This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals.

Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.

Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

Her love and kindness for her fellow man certainly shows in her comments on Oklahoma City.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

--Ann Coulter as quoted in the New York Observer, Aug. 20, 2002

RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.'

--Ann Coulter, from an interview with Right Wing News

Why does none of this surprise me?

'US, Israel planned ME war' 13/08/2006 11:06  - (SA)

New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue. The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday. But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings. The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said. If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes. Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear. The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran. US government officials have denied the charges. Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should. There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.

Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.

I know that it happens all the time.  I am sorry that it does.

Why the Israeli attack helps the US by taking on Hamas now and why this time Israel may succeed in Gaza. A well-written perspective on Gaza, Israel, Hamas. This adds more to consider as we all discuss this war.

Why Israel Fights
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 4, 2009

The Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we’re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it’s asserted, will be the same: lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.

Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.

For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.

What’s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes — political, strategic and military — it made in Lebanon. That doesn’t mean it won’t make them all over again. The same prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, today’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.

In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.

And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What’s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn’t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it’s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.

An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.

But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.

But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.

The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.

But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.

With respect to Iran, Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option. But Israel’s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to. 

the U.N. overstepped its bounds?  And what about the United Kingdom that controlled the area in the early 1900s? 

Like it or not nations are formed through civil war.  There are winners and there are losers.  It's really very simple.  The process has not changed for centuries and it will never change.  The strong prevail.  The righteous prevail. The minute we take a liberal viewpoint, that's the exact minute we become weak. 

Yep, they'll be back when all the Lebanese are dead, because all us conservatives are evil like that.    

I have studied U.S./Israel relations extensively.  I fully understand that the protestors do not share my point of view as well as you.  From reading your copious posts I am very clear on where you stand.  I will not be so presumptious as to think I know your biography, but you obviously believe everything wrong in the world has U.S. origins.  I believe you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I will not try to change your mind.  Since liberals in general are so worried about how the rest of the world thinks about us I will bring to your attention that it becomes ever more clear by your stances and views as with those on the extreme left that you all side with terrorism.  You can spin it any way you want, but you come off as supporting terrorists.

When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews. 

You Said:  "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation.  He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."

That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic.  The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic.  You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip.  Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler?  Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia?  Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point.  You intent was to shock and to be controversial.  You wanted to provoke a reaction. 

What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke?  You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic. 

By the way, I am a messianic Jew.  I know a little bit about anti-Semitism.  So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.