I'm in favor of choice
Posted By: ExMQMT on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm - sam
So, yes, I want the deck stacked on my side, lol! If you aren't in favor of an abortion, then please don't have one. You can make that choice all by yourself.
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
So you favor the choice to deny a living child...
independent of the mother...who manages to survive an abortion...medical care that it needs to survive. You condone infanticide.
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
.
Do yourself a favor
don't ever get a job as a seer...because you're totally off base with your analogy.
All in favor, say "I"
Give it a rest. We got more important fish to fry.
I'm just more likely to get upset when it's not in my favor :)...sm
If it's not an honest mistake, it's shameful either way.
Who all is in favor of a polygraph?
I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph. This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not. LOL! Kind of like our own political BS detector.
Is anyone actually in favor of the bail out?
I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts. It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too. I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts. However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out. If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester).
Are there any average Americans out there that are for this?
Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.
It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Well, I'm not in favor of bailing out
people who bit off more mortgage than they can chew. Assuming they could read, they should have read the fine print. If they agreed to buy a house for a price, then they owe that amount of money plus interest. That's the way it's always been. I think the governmennt is focusing on these "bad loans" to take the spotlight off the real people...those who bought a house they could afford, have made their payments and now many are faced with losing their homes because of losing their jobs. Those are the ones who get my sympathy.
So you're in favor of this?
You actually think that this bloated thing they're calling a stimulus plan ought to be passed in the House version? Do you really believe that this is the time and place to push through every piece of pork and catering to special interest groups and call it stimulus? Why not just call it the liberal Democrat wish list and let it go as that? This not the time to cater to special interests when our country is sinking economically. I had every hope that Obama would come up with a legitimate stimulus plan, but this is a tragic joke.
He does favor sex education for kindergartners...
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
My question is, what part of sex education is age-appropriate for a 5-year-old? Can't we just let them be kids? Sigh.
And if the lipstick pig thing is a joke...it is in poor taste. In all honesty, I don't believe he actually meant to compare Sarah Palin to a pig. However, it was a poor choice of words. And if you look at the crowd he was talking to, THEY thought he was talking about Sarah Palin. That is why they stood up and had a big laugh over it.
In politics, sadly, perception is everything...and most people perceive he was taking a low blow shot at Palin.
I would favor a federal sales tax if
there were no exemptions whatsoever. If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime. No exceptions regarding where the money comes from. Tax welfare benefits too. Social Security is already taxed for some recipients. Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life. Some took advantage of that and some didn't. Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.
In my usual long-winded way, t hat's what I think.
I am not in favor of a federal sales tax....
as much as I am in favor of a flat percentage income tax. For the sake of argument...let's say 10%. No deductions, no nothing. Flat 10%. I don't care if you make a dollar or 10 million dollars. Everyone pays the same amount. Cut back the IRS because if you pay a flat tax you don't need them and the incessant forms and reams of laws. Cutting back on the IRS would save millions in and of itself. Then every American pays the same tax. THAT is equality. Everyone gets the same shake. You make less, you pay less. You make more, you pay more. They should also abolish the death tax. IF the feds have already taxed all your money, they should not tax it AGAIN just because you die. That is unfair to the heirs you worked to provide for. Just my opinion.
DO OUR COUNTRY A FAVOR, show the BC!!!
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
Doesn't look like ALL the people are in favor of it. sm
Not even all Dems support it and looks like their support is dropping as well.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.
Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.
Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
Total climbing in favor of impeachment sm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm
nm
Oh well. Looks like libs have fallen back into favor.
is how we stage our revolutions. This one is long overdue and while lamenting this cruel turn of events, you might want to ask yourself why all this is happening. Could it be that W, his cronies and right-wing fringers have overplayed their hand and the voters are fed up with lies, deception, misinformation, politics of fear, division and the culture war, and yet the McCain camp keeps right on keepin' on. When you do a poor job, you get fired. That's the way it works. Change is what they want and change is what they are going to get. We are getting ready to write a new chapter in our history that will move us far beyond that mentality and will thrust us onto the threshold of the post post-911 era. I can't wait to get started and thank God I have managed to live long enough to watch it all unfold.
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
Undecided voter score of 98% in favor of
x
One more reason why I favor federal sales tax....sm
Our retirees are being taxed on money on which they have already paid taxes.
And yes, there should be no exemptions. People are going to buy cars, appliances, take vacations, remodel their homes, etc., so the federal sales tax should apply to everything. Food.....I'm still not too sure about that as I believe that food is a basic necessity of life.
The conservative way....but that's fallen out of favor this cycle....you'd all rather pay out
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda
Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08
The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.
The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.
Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.
The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.
EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.
Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.
But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.
The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.
© 2005 The Washington Post
Company
Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha
On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).
The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.
But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.
Here are some excerpts.
John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:
Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.
I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.
John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:
The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?
Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:
My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?
C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.
Poll MSNBC 87% in favor of impeachment for Bush.sm
Really popular guy - 283,513 polled 87% said yes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Obama has already said he is in favor of draft - see link inside
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13_prn.shtml
So your in favor of a creep who tazered a child to be allowed
She put a stop to this creep being able to abuse his position as a cop who tazered a 10-year old child and put fear into a family with death threats.
She had the proper and legal authority to fire him. She should have also fired the person who didn't fire him.
If you think its okay to let thugs run around the streets in cop uniforms yielding badges and guns tazering children and threatening death to people your a real piece of work.
The liberal media is biased in favor of Obama.....
Half this country believe in this so called savior, and I hold the media 90% responsible, and the ill-informed people will and are following blindly.
God help us.
I would favor community service. We are talking about military (sm)
x
19 Republicans vote in favor of amnesty for those who kill our soldiers.
In the Senate today, 19 Senators voted that it was okay for the Iraqi government to give amnesty to anyone known to have attacked, killed or injured American soldiers, and every single one of them was a Republican. I guess this is an example of how Republicans *support* the troops. The only one that truly surprises me is McCain. He must have lost his mind since he began pandering to those who believe they are Bush's *base.*
Vote Summary:
Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )
Vote Number: 178 Vote Date: June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Vote Counts: YEAs 79
NAYs: 19
Not Voting: 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position
NAYs ---19
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting--- 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shelby (R-AL)
YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/20/19-gop-senators-vote-agai_n_23445.html
Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.
Choice
The three posters chose not to post anymore. No one ran them off.
Pro-Choice
I am pro-choice and here is why. My dad was a big city cop before Roe v. Wade. He told me true stories of woman dying from botched illegal abortions. Many times, they found women who had bled to death because they tried to abort the babies themselves with coat hangers. Other times, they found women dead from sepsis. This was in the days before ambulances when the cops answered all the medical calls.
He was anti-abortion but seeing all these dead young woman haunted him. He saw a lot of awful, gruesome stuff where he worked and eventually became somewhat hardened to it, but these cases he could never forget.
I am not pro-abortion but it is going to happen. It can either be legal and somewhat safe, or illegal and dangerous.
my choice
would be change with demonstrated ability to appreciate the complexity of situations and the willingness to listen to all views on the subject. precisely why I am an ardent Obama supporter.
Again, for those of you who are pro-choice...
and against hunting, fishing, etc, could you please explain the difference between killing something for food or because it is a menace to livestock as opposed to killing a child because it's not the right time for a baby, oops I got pregnant by "accident", oops I don't want children, etc. Again, it is rather ironic that one can be selective in their definition of killing.
whose choice?
seriously, where do you draw the line? i mean a 2-year-old is not old enough to make a "choice" of life or death, so you think it's okay to rid of them too?
choice
I do not think there is a person on here who is in favor of 3rd trimester abortion, etc. The thing is folks, that if abortion is abolished, it not only effects those who haven't learned of birth control use (and I don't feel sorry for them) but those in real need such as rape victims, maternal distress, etc. That is the trouble here, you can't do away with abortions entirely, though a lot of people have abused it. We don't need women resorting to butchers as they did in the past. Look, if someone is wanting one, they are going to have it, legal or not. We have to make it the same as any other medical procedure in this country.. you see your doctor, you make arrangements for the procedure to be done in the hospital through a referral.
what choice
When Obama wins, the repubs will no choice but to accept that fact. I cant wait to get out of the Bush admin and have a change. The last eight years has sunk our country.
There is another choice.....sm
for president. Check out Chuck Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Warning: He is VERY conservative, so all you liberals need not look. ;o)
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Actually under O you will have no choice
The dems are talking about a draft. O has already starting talking about it being a requirment for college students. Yes REQUIRE, not option.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-new-youth-corp-requirement.html
Going to war is your choice...not ours.
Those who choose to elect war-mongers should be the ones sent to battle. Those who choose to elect peace-loving Presidents should not be forced to serve. That is why there are conscientious objectors.
I think you summed it up when you described the lack of intelligence involved in being the first to enlist.
I don't think we will have any choice. (sm)
As you said, people will do whatever they have to feed thier families. I also think before it's over with, we'll have to get a board for gardening on this site...LOL.
Bad choice, but he had to do it (sm)
IMHO, Obama made a deal with the Clintons in order to get elected and now it's pay up time. Look at all the Clintonites he's got surrounding him - the positions have changed, but all the faces are the same. All we need is Madeline Albright in there somewhere.
It is my choice, and I don't believe it.
Scare tactics are a dime a dozen in religion.
No, I think the choice was hers...(sm)
but that's the point. She had the choice of either having the baby or not, as opposed to being forced into having the baby, which is exactly what outlawing abortion would do.
What exactly do you think Pro Choice is?
Pro Choice means you believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body - exactly how do you figure Obama is not Pro Choice?
And he is not saying that women are going to be required to abort their unborn - he is saying they are going to have the right!
That's your choice
and God gives you that right.
Christianity is very much based on fact just as it is on faith. The faith comes from having faith that Jesus' death was sufficient for all. The facts have been shown through archeology and even science.
If the Bible was scrutinized the way other ancient literature has been, it would be found to be true and consistent within itself, but because there is preconceived notions held by those who scrutinize, such as the "fact" that miracles cannot happen, it is believed to be incorrect, myth if you will.
I used to be just like you. I used to think that Christians were rude Bible-thumping bigots who tried to take the corner on Heaven. But when I finally dropped my bias and read the Bible as I would any other book and once I let people actually speak their peace to me, I came to the logical conclusion that Jesus was real, He was the Godman, and He was the Lord. Reading the Bible through you cannot help but notice the consistency and fluidness that runs through it. The OT is the story of the promise God made, and the NT is God fulfilling that promise.
I was not raised in a church, I was not taught about Jesus by my parents. I was not forced to go to Sunday School and I was not forced to be baptized. I made a decision. A decision has to be made with your mind, your emotion and your spirit. It's a three part deal. Many people make emotional decisions and once the emotion is gone, so is the decision. Many people make logical decisions, but the decision is never personal for them, so neither is the relationship with God. Many times the spirit tries to guide someone to the decision, but the person feels logically or emotionally that they cannot.
I may come off as brash because I don't take the "we are all on the same path route" as some do. I would be wrong in doing so, and I would be denying what my Lord explicitly said. To do so would have serious repercussions for me. Therefore, I choose to do what He says and have people not like me, rather than do what people would have me do and deny the One who died for me.
And that is your choice
You choose that belief; I don't. If you want to lead a life ruled entirely by Biblical law, maybe you could all band together and buy an island or something and call it Christganistan. This is a secular country, founded to get away from the idea that there is one true way to live one's life.
The more the so-called tolerant Christians write here, the less difference I see between Radical Islam and Fundamental Christian. It's two sides of the same coin, and it saddens me that this country, founded on principles of individual choice, has seemingly regressed in that regard.
It is NOT a choice.
You keep on with this ridiculous choice bit, but homosexuality is not a choice anymore than being blond or tall or having blue eyes is a choice. It is what the individual is born as.
|
