And the comments toward Elizabeth...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-30
In Reply to: You're the one adding nothing to the convo on this - board -- just rude comments. nm
Hasselbeck weren't rude??
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
Elizabeth is just as bad!
.
Elizabeth Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards is "not that fond" of Obama's health care plan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2117818/posts
Then Obama says at one of his speeches that going to be partnering up with her and they're going to be "figuring all this out". I thought he already had a plan? Now he's got to figure it out? - Go figure!
remind me of Elizabeth Hasselbeck
on 'The View'.
You against the world.
Actually I think Queen Elizabeth loved the Corgis...
and Princess Anne loved the horses. However...I don't believe Princess Anne barrel raced and my Corgis are not nearly as fat as the Queen's. lol. No royalty here.
Have a good evening as well.
Elizabeth not withstanding....the view is right up there with Maher...
can't stomach either of them. Why is it that the left just want to ridicule, ridicule, ridicule, attack, attack, attack? This has absolutely nothing to do with politics....oh, what am I thinking. That IS the politics of the left. Nothing substantive to say, just ridicule DE jour.
Jon Stewart interviews Elizabeth Warren...
...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get," and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.
It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html
Jon Stewart interviews Elizabeth Warren...
...overseer of the TARP Program. Though it's pretty funny, it's also very informative and explained in a way that most people can "get" (in a Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview kind of way), and I highly recommend it to those who are interested.
It's a two-part video, and I believe it's worth watching, though, unfortunately, some people will probably criticize it without even bothering to watch it in its entirety).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/elizabeth-warren-makes-jo_n_187635.html
comments (sm)
PK, I agree with some things you say, certainly not all, but you talk about the righer Bush goes the lefter you go. My question is this, do you think it's healthy to let ONE PERSON change your whole ideology? I think that's way too much influence for one person to have on your life. I don't think it's healthy. You are most likely a wonderful person, but like many on the left you have let the fear of Bush really cloud your view. I don't think he's the greatest president we have ever had, but he's certainly on the scoundrel that you and others here make him out to be. I think the problem with leftward thinking as a whole is that it basically says I, as an upper middle-class taxpayer, have to take care of everyone's woes even if their woes are self-inflicted, criminally obtained, or the result of being just plain lazy. Really, in the end when I stand before God I'm only going to have to answer for myself. I do give to others, so I'm not a selfish hog, but I don't think its right for the government to tell me I have to take care of someone else who is capable taking care of themselves. I'm for helping the truly downtrodden, incapacitated, and mentally disabled, but social programs as a whole are sham and downright theft. I don't want that for Iraq or America. I think it's far time that Americans start taking responsibility for themselves and get over the victim mentality and expecting the nanny state to do everything for us.
Anyway, your post was enlightening, and really the first non-angry post I've ever read from you.
Comments
Didn't realize it was a nasty attack, thought I was addressing a point you made about videos being truth and the written word not the truth. Thinking back on the history of propanda films in this country as well as others I disagreed and was trying to use logic.....and some humor.
As far as cut and paste, unless the board administrator says we can no longer do this I will probably continue to do it on the LIBERAL board, especially if it provides documentation for a point I am trying to make. Researchers and newspapers do it often. That said, here's another cut and paste quote, but don't know who said it:
The US has become the new Webster's definition of irony: Even though most Americans, most American lawmakers, and most American military commanders had long protested the usefulness of their presence in Iraq, ironically they still considered their own government a democracy.
This reminds me of Cheney commenting that basically he didn't care what the American people thought of the war or what they wanted. I thought we were supposed to be his boss.....
Thank you for your comments....... sm
You proved my point right here.
"As far as the "man on the street" interviews, it's obvious there are a lot of people in the United States who are ill informed and/or just ignorant, to the point it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Otherwise, they would have known Obama's views on choice and Iraq..."
These are the very people who put Obama in office. These are the people who saw a charismatic young leader, just as the uninformed or misled people in other countries who do not know our issues and/or who have only been allowed to see what their governments want them to see on television.
I don't think France feels too "friendly" towards America/Bush right now, and it hasn't been too long ago that Mexico was rising up stating that Texas was still theirs and they planned on taking it back.
I do enjoy a good debate and hope that you or anyone else takes what I say here personally. I think we all have America's best interests at heart based on our own opinions but just come at it from different backgrounds/situations. Have a blessed day!
Most of these comments.......
are just about 5 years old or older.......Saddam lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I'm sure he wanted his neighbors to think he had truckloads of weapons. BUT, when the CIA could find no evidence of WMDs - their information was quashed and our govt outed a CIA agent in retribution (Valerie Plame) which is treason. It took years for the real truth of the matter to come to light........maybe that's why Clinton didn't rush on in there and hang Saddam......Iraq had nothing to do with 911 - now look at the cluster in Afghanistan that got left to simmer in the meantime.............sheesh......I blame Bush - it wasn't about WMDs (or they wouldn't have hidden the fact there were none) - it was about OIL.
Here are some comments about this
Some comments I read are:
"It can’t be understated what an insult this is to the American People, Sovereign (whether any individual Citizen understands this, flees from the responsibility for this or would change this) over their nation and its government. It is a betrayal, and may, indeed, be treasonous.
It is appropriate that Obama has, in bowing to a foreign potentate in this picture, shown his @ss to the American People; an act that would have been a capital offense had his position been reversed. It would have been inappropriate for him to genuflect before the British monarch, no matter how many neo-Tories there may be among us.
This particular potentate has, among his titles, acknowledgment of his status as keeper of the Holy Places of Islam, and thus singling out Abdullah of the Saudis for such a sign of respect should disturb, deeply, any American left who understands the United States and its history.
It strains credibility to believe someone representing State didn’t tell Obama what constituted a proper stance. He much have overruled that advice, and singled out this particular potentate for this gesture."
Another poster wrote -
I’ve read elsewhere that some people attempt to rationalize this bow-to-the-Saudi-King by Barack Obama as Obama somehow participating in “another country’s protocol” — which is rubbish given the Office that Barack Obama holds (the President of the United States of America bows to no other country, no ruler, to no one — this represents our nation, the U.S.A., as a sovereign nation subservient to no one else, no ruler, no other nation, our nation as a republic unto itself).
These were quotes taken from the second link down on this website.
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?sid=1121
mccaffrey comments
Then we have General (or whatever his designation) Barry McCaffrey stating we should send our sons and daughters to war cause the country needs them..On Countdown with Olbermann, he stated the govt must ask the people to send their sons and daughters..I have an answer for him..NO, not my son, not my daughter..I could see if this was a legitimate war (are any wars really truly legitimate..cant we resolve our crises without murder and mayhem..geez) but the Iraq war?? Heck no..never..Bush, you and your idiotic murderous administration got us into this, send your daughters to Iraq.
More inappropriate comments.sm
Your neocon party rhetoric is disturbing.
Politician comments
This is one thread I can't help posting to. First, I want to say that I absolutely hate the new p.c. term "clearly." Clearly this, clearly that from news anchors, talk show hosts, you name it.
As for the comment by Michelle Obama, if she is proud of her country "for the first time" then she's running a little late in my opinion. I've been a Democrat all my life but no more. The color of the candidate's skin has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, I don't care if he is pea green with orange stripes. Obama scares the bejeezers out of me!! Read about him and listen to him and learn. I'll not be voting for him. I would not have voted for Hillary. Why? Doesn't matter if she's a woman or not. I have no respect for her. I certainly don't admire her for standing by her man.
As for McCain, his stupid comment I think speaks for itself and doesn't show a lot of intelligence. Secondly, he is too old. While I admire his military service, I think if we like the condition of our country now, we'll enjoy more of the same and worse under his leadership.
Listen to both politicians. They both want to give amnesty to illegal aliens and I am dead set against it. Reagan (and I'm no fan of his either) tried that and now we have at least twice as many to deal with as we did then. It is purely political, get the votes whereever they can.
Then there's the matter of our country being sold off to foreign investors one piece at a time and the huge national debt to China. What happens when they call in their mortgage? Will they demand, California, Texas and maybe Alaska or will they just take over the whole danged country?
As for voting in this election????? I probably will just stay home for the first time since I've been old enough to vote. We don't even have a candidate to vote for that is the lesser of the evils in my opinion. I think the last good leader we had was Harry Truman, "walk softly and carry a big stick."
Exactly! I see no comments from the Pubs.
nm
So did you have any intelligent comments about what you saw...
Or were you just posting to spew your schtick?
Yeah, we get it. You don't like conservatives.
Was that your point? Because that's old news and adds nothing to the convo.
With these comments - see message
I would rate you no different than Rush Limbaugh. He's such a pig, and your comment about what she wore shows me you have no idea of any of the substance of her debate.
The only thing you have correct is that she smiled and she looked sharp. Very much Vice Presidential. Play back the tape and you will not see one wink or smirk.
Biden on the other hand. He seems so uncomfortable the look on his face was so painful almost like he had hemorrhoids or a severe case of intestinal gas. Everytime she came back with a fact he had a blank look on his face and then he'd say something and snap his head towards her as if he thought he could intimidate her. She was intelligent enough not to take the bait and she does not get intimidated. Good for her! She showed me she can stand up to anyone.
Biden told at least 10 lies tonight. Wonder how he's going to explain that away (I'm sure he will find a way).
Gov. Palin was described as brilliant, and had a level of skill we haven't seen since President Regan. They said she explained things so articulately and in a fashion everyone understood.
What she has shown me tonight is she understands the economy and how to get things done and she and John McCain will be fighting for us. Not more of the same with O'No/Biden.
Her comments are not hateful, considering
the general consensus is that Palin has hurt McCain more than his connection to Bush. By the way, MrsM never said she hated Palin, but she obviously has a strong opinion about her, and MrsM did not personally attack by namecalling anyone else on here for their opinion. And yet another example of twisting someone's words to suit their own agenda. McPalin has taught you well, Grasshopper.
Same comments made over and over
nn
Your comments are expected, ...the next
poster was correct...useless to talk to any Obama supporter sometimes at all. Why should I type out ad nauseum all of Obama's statements, when you don't remember them at all, and them blame me for "obviously not remembering." cheap shot, yet again.
You should really listen to Rush sometime. You might learn something and expand your mind. But wait, liberals think with their hearts, not their minds.
Cancel that. Just carry on with your own, bigoted opinions.
I would like to hear some comments
members of the 9/11 victims on this issue.
This is exactly the type of comments we don't need.
Discuss issues but don't post snide remarks. Simple as that. Worship has no place on this board.
Try following the trail of comments you are
Your ignorance is showing. If you notice the SUBJECT line I was responding to, you would understand. Try reading EVERYTHING before you spout off. You make yourself look very foolish.
Thanks. Here are just a couple comments
It is true. People can disagree without getting nasty. I think everyone gets in a dander when they feel they are being attacked for their beliefs/opinions.
I did vote for him and fully supported him while he was running against Hillary. All I knew was (to me) she was one of the worst people to run for office. She had no clue, road on the coattails of her husband. Everything good he did she claimed it as hers, but everything bad he did she had nothing to do with. Her lies were so blatant and then when she came out and told the public the reason she was staying in (in case something (too horrible to mention) happened to Obama, she'd be right there and even brought up JFK's name (or maybe it was RFK - one of the Kennedy's)). I just thought that was the worst worst worst ever. She may have been thinking and hoping for it but to actually say it just truly made me realize how much more I disliked her and the thought of her getting in literally made me nauseous. I also voted for Obama in the primaries because I said enough of the Clintons, they destroyed what little faith I had in the democratic party back then (I voted for Bill the first time but not the second) and all their crooked deals and illegal doings going on while they were in there, there was no way in you know where I wanted any of that crowd back (who knew Obama was going to bring them all back - Arrrrggggg - that's my word of frustration). After the primary's ended I started reading and hearing more and more about Obama's plans and speeches, etc. I thought to myself, well listening to his voice give speeches would be much better than listening to McCain with his "my friends" every other sentence he speaks, but then listening to Obama it got to a point where I'd just be counting how many uh, uh, umm, er, uh, uh. I even had some bets with friends who would get the closest number would buy the other a beer. HA HA. Anyway...I do say give the guy a chance, but I know that a lot of dems would be all over McCains back if he had gotten elected.
What I am seeing and hearing and reading is not very hopeful. I listen to the economist who know what's going on and have the solutions. It looks like a pretty dim future and I'm not blinded like a lot are with Obama's speeches. I want to know the truth and I'm not getting it from them (go figure).
What I don't like is that Obama is no different than all the other politicians out there. He lied to us during his campaign just like all the other presidents lied to us about what they would do. He kept boasting about change but he's not bringing change. He keeps spewing this hope message. Well its now time to put hope to work and stop talking about it as though he is still campaigning.
However, I respect anyone who has a difference of opinions. They (like me) are entitled to the way they feel. Like my mom used to say to me, I may disagree with you, but I respect you and people can have conversations without getting nasty.
Well..........your comments speak for themselves........
As per one of your earlier posts: "People in this country don't care if another attack happens on our soil, just as long as a democrat is sitting in office." What do you call that? How do you know what people care about? Seems as though you are only interested in your own "thoughts" and "feelings."
I agree with 'm',especially with her comments
about the animal kingdom.
When we say 'You live like an animal,' we mean this as an insult.
as an insult.
His comments were very clearly understood....can you
nm
Sorry, my comments were not meant s/m
to bring up all the Obama bashing that went on before the election. I am well aware of THAT. I meant to be honest and say what I think AFTER the election. I am not interested in delving up the no b/c, lack of experience, his being "Muslim" (which I DO NOT believe) or any of the other things Republicans used to bash him. I stand on what he is or is not doing now that he has had 6 months to show what he is going to do. Maybe his stimulus WILL work, I don't know. I don't think so but time will tell. Still, I do not regret for one minute not voting for McCain/Palin, if anything I think they would have been worse. Now that's just my opinion.
As a matter-of-fact, now that you mention it, I feel Obama is rather two-faced seeing as he, a smoker himself, goes against those who suffer the same addiction as he does. Puppet? Yeah.
I'm always happy to discuss politics but I will only discuss issues. I've been away from this board for quite some time as I got tired of reading the same old anti-Obama, pro-Mccain rhetoric. There are plenty of issues to discuss and neither the Republican nor the Democrat parties will look out for those in the middle class. Soooooo if this board can only discuss issues they discussed before the election, then I don't care to participate. Obama is our president, like it or not, and nothing is likely to change that for at least the next 4 years.
I hadn't heard about Ben's comments either..sm
And one place I read that happened 5 years ago.
Your comments were straightforward and clear.
I hope anyone reading this will go back and look at the post I quoted from, as well as all your other posts and form their own impressions.
thanks for your comments, totally agree
Just wanted to let you know you had support here. Buchanan IS a racist and I don't think he even realizes it. I find his article extremely offensive and I'm not even black.
Yes, and did you hear the comments about Lieberman...
"We wrote him off a long time ago." "He will find it very difficult from now on." Geez. And they call themselves the Democratic party (I am talking about the DNC, the power brokers..who seem to speak for everyone tho)
Ron Paul's comments on the bailout. sm
Dr. No is still working for us in Congress.
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Your comments about dropping "ing,"
"dude", and "six pack joes" were condescending and elitist. You infer that these people are inferior in your view, that their intelligence is lacking simply because they drop the "ing." I guess you know your are pointing fingers at the entire southern tier of this country and in most rural areas. Are you saying no one from those areas is "fit" to be VP?
And to answer your question, YES, I would be very comfortable with her running this country. How could she possibly do worse than all those experienced "pleasant speaking no drop the 'ing'" folks up there in Washington? Look where we are right now! In a mell of a hess, right??
I know what she ISN'T. She did not go to a racist church for 20 years, she has not been linked to home grown terrorist, and she is NOT a socialist. Obama IS. Does his history, 20 years in a church that preaches black liberation theology and economic parity worry YOU at all? I suppose not, if you want to live in a socialist country.
I would much rather hear "dude" and people dropping the "ing" than a socialist society. What about his global poverty program and wanting a set percentage of our tax dollars going to combat povery all over the world...can't we take care of America first? We already give millions in aid...we have to earmark our tax dollars to go overseas? In the interest of globalization? You go ahead and vote for "citizen of the world" Obama. I myself will vote for "Country First" McCain, and the only one of the 4 who has a clue what life is like in the real world, Sarah Palin.
Have a good day now! :)
i've seen plenty of comments
regarding religion... obama and mccain.... seen it a bit more with obama with good reason, when you hear what his pastor of 20 years has said.
Poster below is right...your comments here are ugly.
Funny how you don't think Mrs. M comments above are hateful..nm
Biden's Comments on Abortion...
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/cthomas_1028/
Quote: |
Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke about his views on abortion in an interview with The News Journal of Delaware earlier this month. He told his home state’s newspaper “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.”
We saw a similar argument come from Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she charged that the Catholic Church has been “bipolar” over the centuries when it comes to abortion. She was rebuked by her bishop and now Biden has experienced the same response from his bishop, who answered him in a Letter to the Editor.
No one forces anyone into faith, but when one embraces it, one should be held accountable according to the tenets of that faith.
Biden and Pelosi are free to believe whatever they wish, of course. But they are not free to misstate doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The church hierarchy is in charge of doctrine. If one doesn’t agree with those doctrines, one is free to leave that church. Using religion to attract the votes of faithful Catholics while denying church teachings is an affront. Serious Catholics will judge those who do such things accordingly. |
Here is the letter to the editor.
http://www.delawareonline.com/.....04/OPINION
Quote: |
In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.
This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life. The Church received the tradition opposing abortion from Judaism. In the Greco-Roman world, early Christians were identifiable by their rejection of the common practices of abortion and infanticide.
The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.
It was also the position of Protestant reformers without exception. It was the teaching of Pope John XXIII as well as Pope John Paul II. It is the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of the Church, including me as shepherd of this diocese.
Some ancient and medieval theologians did see a difference between early abortions and ones that occurred later in term because with the limited medical knowledge of the time they did not know then what we scientifically know now: that a fetus is a living human being from conception.
Nevertheless, they universally condemned all abortions.
Of course, we now know that a fetus is a living human being from the very start. Thus, abortions take innocent human lives no matter when they occur. Since there is no gradation in the Church’s teaching on abortion, there is no way the medically obsolete division of pregnancy into three trimesters by Roe v. Wade can have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Taking an innocent life in the womb is wrong at any stage of pregnancy.
The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as God-given rights. Life is listed first, and it is the principal function of the state to protect the lives of citizens. This understanding of the state’s primary obligation to protect human life is also fundamental to Catholic social doctrine to which the senator points. Without life all other rights are meaningless.
This Sunday, all the parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington will pray the Litany of St. Thomas More, martyr and patron saint of statesmen, politicians and lawyers. We will ask St. Thomas More to intercede so all statesmen and politicians may be courageous and effective in their defense and promotion of the sanctity of human life. We hope Sen. Biden will carefully listen to the Church’s 2,000 years of testimony on abortion and that he will join in the defense and promotion of the sanctity of life.
Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Wilmington |
Racist comments....wouldn't that be how someone
::
My quick explanations of my comments --
I did not blindly follow Obama. I did not vote for Obama because he is black. Actually, my vote may have been more of a vote against McCain than for Obama.
Next, to the points that I can address quickly - he is now not going to raise taxes on the "rich" because of the current economic condition, but that he is still intending on giving tax breaks to the middle class families.
He also said during the campaign that he is going to bring the troops home, but it has to be in a safe manner. You cannot just say that they are pulling out on a certain day - that would be crazy and extremely dangerous for our soldiers. It has to be arranged. He had a timeline in the beginning - people just jumped on what he said and took things out of context and listen to what words they want to hear, not every word.
I for one will support him as long as he is doing a good job and then I will be the first to stand up and say I should not have voted for him if things go bad. And the whole point of sending them to other countries, we all agreed in the beginning that we need to get Osama Bin Laden, so why not do it now? I think he needs to be gone and I think we need to do whatever it takes to get him. I, however, think that Obama's point of view is the same as mine, we should not be in Iraq wasting our time when that is not where the problem is...
When I say "love him or hate him", I mean that nobody is lukewarm for his policies. It seems as if everyone is either gungho behind him or gungho against him. That has been proven time and time again just on this board, not to mention other places out in public that I have been. The people who are for him are for him and the people that area against him cannot be objective to sit down and listen to his whole speech or his whole idea.
I'm still appalled by the comments she made s/m
regarding John Edwards' deceased son. I am still amazed that people actually take her seriously, if they do. I don't consider her a conservative, by my definition but then I don't even consider her to be much of a human either.
I wish your comments could go into a time capsule.
Then, in 4 years, when the entire country is scratching their collective heads wondering, what in h*** were we thinking, we can point to you and all remember.
Ooooooooh. I forgot. We used to believe him.
And then we can all have a good laugh and elect a decent president in 2012.
But ignorance is bliss. So, by all means, continue to be your blissful self.
we should report these 3 comments to the moderator,
this is a reason for a ban!
I agree totaly with your comments
That's part of the problem with government. They start out as a politician "for the people" and after less than a year, wind up as a "lifetime politician," spewing garbage that they think the American people want to hear, and never follow through. Greed spoils the broth all the time.
why does Pugmon then post my comments as her own?..nm
nm
Watch it with the "Medicare" comments
Most Medicare recipients (myself included) do not go to the ER for non-emergencies. We have plenty of time in the daytime to go to the doctor's office. We don't want to wait around in an ER for hours as we get older by the minute. Are you sure you didn't mean MEDICAID??? Recently I went to the ER on a Saturday because I thought I was having a heart attack. I will say this for the ER personnel, the moment they saw me and my condition they plowed through the giganic collection of what I would bet were illegals and their squalling kids to take me right in. Ask any ER person what cloggs the ER and they'll likely all tell you the same thing.
How about your derisive comments to anything Christian?
Yours IS the most hateful voice on here. Bar none.
Comments from the Blogs of Eternal Stench. SM
Here's what Randi's listeners contend:
--- That Bush waited too long to tour the damaged region,
--- That he'll need to bomb Iceland, or some other helpless country, to deflect attention from the disaster,
--- That Cheney's only concern was with Gulf oil rig damage (followed by cracks about his heart condition),
--- Why didn't the administration have sandbags ready in time? One poster suggests the President be locked up for this supposed offense.
--- National Guard troops were unavailable because they're all in Iraq,
--- Bush cut funding for New Orleans levee system, therefore the storm damage is his fault,
--- The President was more worried about playing golf than lining up donor aid for victims.
Al Franken's fill-in Rachel Maddow sounded quite similar, with some debate tactics thrown into the mix. Without callers with which to spar, debate belongs in quotes, she's only taking on herself.
Conservatives take callers and blog reader messages from across the ideological spectrum, while lefty hosts often don't, especially at Air America. Why is that?
Some of Maddow's Bay Area-shaped conspiratorial mindset:
--- Bush is responsible for the resulting flood damage, because local officials had long warned the feds this type of event was inevitable,
--- Bush knew the pumping system was inadequate but did nothing to fix it,
--- Louisiana National Guard troops have been begging to return home from Iraq, but are ignored. This led to a supposed lack of soldiers to protect New Orleans.
Note the many similarities between Maddow's show and Randi's website comments.
A key difference: Maddow falsely ties together facts that don't fit, while Randi's posters are purely emotional.
If you go to an auto wrecking yard and put a thousand random car parts together, will you create a racecar, or a hunk of junk? Maddow thinks she has one ready for the Autobahn.
Her tactics are just like those of extreme-right John Birch Society conspiracy theorists, slanted to the leftward fringe.
For instance, you'll never hear her explain the potential timetable for such levee upgrades, whether Bush actually supported them or not. Could they really have been ready in time to prevent this?
What evidence is there to support her claims these improvements were opposed by the Bush Administration because the very same funds were needed for the war effort?
Has there been an accusation from any Louisiana public official that having National Guard troops in Iraq has somehow impeded Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts?
On Wednesday, 1600 police officers were redirected to the city to restore law and order. So where's the shortage?
If the warning signs of a catastrophic collapse in New Orleans were so clear, why haven't Air America's hosts been talking about the subject for the last 18 months?
Perhaps most importantly, could even the costliest upgrades have protected the city from a Category Five hurricane's near-direct hit? Especially during a major power failure?
Maddow didn't address any of these inconvenient points during the hour I heard.
Even better, Rachel, why don't you explain how you have any moral authority to criticize Bush, or anyone else, while you've sat silent for over a month on the sleazy scandal affecting your company.
It was the one where $875,000 in taxpayer funding meant for a Bronx-based community center apparently went to your network's coffers.
I'm sure you've heard about it by now, haven't you, Rachel?
UPDATE: Shawn Wasson, an alert radio employee and noted blogger at Bare Knuckle Politics, captured the audio and posted it here.
Hurricane relief efforts in the blogosphere are being centered around Hugh Hewitt's site. Check here for the latest, it's a substantial movement, with a great deal of activity today.
Orielly, post memorial day comments...sm
*While most of us were celebrating the heroism of those who have died defending America, some Afghanis were rioting and some Iraqis were killing civilians. In Kabul, a traffic accident led to rioting by young men who hate America. And in Iraq, a CBS news team was bombed by terrorists. The chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq will never end, because there will always be people who hate Americans and we are an occupying force in those countries. So what should the USA do? Well, the first thing is to be realistic. If we could go back to the fall of 2001, right after 9/11, you'd still have to invade Afghanistan. No way could the USA allow Al Qaeda to remain there. But Iraq should be a lesson learned - we cannot ever again put American boots on the ground in a hostile Arab country. There were other ways of removing Saddam. That being said, the John Murtha solution of cutting-and-running would lead to greater conflicts down the road as Iran would dominate the gulf. Also over the weekend, Congressman Murtha, who continues to duck The Factor, spoke harshly about the investigation of Marines who may have murdered some Iraqi civilians. What is Murtha's intent? Is this an 'I-told-you-so' because he opposes the war? Murtha should answer that question because 95% of the military is performing heroically overseas. In the chaos of war perspective and fair play are vitally important.*
I think the Iraqi citizen murder allegations should be checked into. I also think ORielly made some other valid points like the lesson learned (what we already knew before and they are just figuring out) on putting boots on the ground in Iraq. What do you think?
Same sentiment and type of comments are noted on
nm
|
