I respect your views
Posted By: Rep on 2005-10-18
In Reply to: One more thing: - Libby
eventhough I don't mirror all of them. I am a Republican but I tend to me more libertarian in my views. I think privacy rights are a big issue, but my views part ways with yours when it comes to abortion. I also really disagree with you about the Terri Schiavo case. I don't agree with euthanasia in any form. I don't think feeding Terri was a heroic measure, but that's not the point. When when we as mere humans start judging whether innocent people should live or die or not I think we've crossed a huge moral boundary, and Roe versus Wade was that boundary. The morals in this country have been riding a snowball to hades since that time. I see things from a spiritual perspective. I believe that everything that happens has spiritual consequences, and every decision we make has spiritual consequences...that's just the way I believe, and yes, Libby you have every right to state your views, and I will fight for your right to say them to the death...I hope you would do as much for me.
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
I respect your views, as well.
That's what makes America so great. The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise). And I would certainly fight to the death for your freedom of speech to say whatever you believe. 
I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose as much as I firmly DON'T believe in partial birth abortions. That's my opinion. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it my opinion.
As such, I don't feel I have the right to force my opinion on someone who might feel differently. I believe this is a privacy issue, based on an individual's religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof if that is the case) and not an issue that should be overturned because one Supreme Court Judge believes her religious views should be imposed on an entire nation. Harriet Miers answered a questionnaire (I believe) in 1989, wherein not only did she say she's against Roe v. Wade, but she also promised to use the *influence* of her elected office to ban abortion. If she has, in the past, promised to use the influence of her elected office to effect such a ban, why wouldn't she do the same with an appointed office? The only solid *qualification* she has is her anti-choice religious views, which happen to coincide with those of Bush's *base.* America has a lot of brilliant legal scholars and attorneys and judges who have devoted their entire careers specializing on Constitutional issues. Why wasn't one of THOSE people considered for this appointment?
Regarding euthanasia, I can promise you right now that if I am ever terminally ill with an incurable disease and my pain progresses to the point where I just want to die with some dignity and not endure agonizing pain any longer, I certainly will not permit a bunch of people who have never met me to claim they know what's best for me and force me to obey THEIR religious beliefs and die on THEIR terms. This notion is so arrogant on its face, it's even hard to write about. I would hope my physician would be caring and compassionate and assist me in ending my suffering if I were to reach that level of agony. Why do we show more kindness and compassion to our pets than we do to our humans? My own spiritual beliefs would not preclude me from doing that, and I refuse to be forced to obey YOUR religious beliefs. If forced to do so, then MY freedom of religion ceases to exist.
These are definitely privacy issues that, in my opinion, should be left to individuals. What if the *right* religious belief in this country doesn't believe in contraceptives? Will they be outlawed, as well? That's not as far-fetched as it sounds.
As far as dwindling morals in this country, I agree there are more heinous crimes being committed, particularly against children, than I can ever recall, and I'm outraged that our children are allowed to be raped and murdered, with the perpetrators of those crimes receiving what seem to be minimal prison sentences.
I also think it's clearly immoral that our ability to live or die is directly related to the number of dollars we have in our wallet. Healthcare in this country has become a very immoral commodity, along with legal care. I find it disgustingly immoral that American children are starving to death every day.
Morality has to come from someone's heart. It can't be forced, and it can't be legislated. Each of us has our own conscience, our own soul, and our own *creator.* Mine might not be the same as yours. It doesn't mean one is right or one is wrong. Just different. That's the beauty of America: Freedom of religion for all.
I can only end this as I started it, by saying that's what makes America so great. The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise).
Thanks for posting. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a debate with someone who is friendly and respectful and doesn't resort to calling names. And I do respect your opinion and especially your right to say it, even though I respectfully disagree.
Why insult my views?
I assure you my views aren't warped. They are my own personal views just as you have theirs. Your view of reality is not mine. I realize that the war on terror is going to be an ongoing war with it's inevitable ebbs and flows. I'll admit that I don't know if Bin Laden is alive or dead, but my gut feeling is that he is dead of natural causes. You are right, if we had caught Bin Laden the world would know it, although I don't know if it would be for purely political gain like you would think it would be. I'm sorry that you have to turn discussion of a topic into a personal insult towards me and my views, but I believe you hold a very polarized view of what is going on in the war on terror. I guess history will have to pan out what exactly is going on in this country, but I believe we are in a political civil war.
Why not put your partisan views aside and tell us this: Do YOU think sm
that Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? I am neither a conservative nor a democrat, and I do not think he deserved to win it. I'm with the Observer on this one. Anyone with a molecule of sense knows that the two just don't go together - global warming and peace.
The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted "fraternity between nations," peace conferences or the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."
Hmmmmmmmm
You do not seriously consider yourself tolerant of other views, do you?
what a joke.
Sam, I think you are letting your views of
Obama and the media cloud things. I saw that interview and I do not think Couric was looking down her nose at her. I think it doesn't matter what anyone asks, if you are for McCain and Palin then you are going to see things going that way. I have seen some interviews with Biden and he has not come off looking great. I don't think Palin did a pathetic job either, I just think that whenever she gets asked a tough question, regardless of how she answers it the interviewer is going to painted in this all for Obama light. I think it is a no-win situation all around. Yes, the press needs to get tought with all of candidates. End of story. Will it happen, most likely not but it is what it is.
And, before you go accusing me for being all about Obama, I am not. I am a Republican who has no plans to cross party lines to vote, but believe that Palin better get out there and start answering questions, taking questions, doing press conferences, anything for God's sake but stand back. So yes, she needs to be asked whatever stupid question the interviewer gives her because for one, I want to hear what she has to say and two, I want to see how she handles herself. Maybe Biden is not getting asked the same questions becuase we alreay know where he stands. I have seen a number of interviews, sit-downs, etc, with him already.
I don't share her views but no need to ban her. nm
It's just another of their racist views
In fact, welfare makes up a very small portion of our national budget. It's just a convenient scapegoat for the ignorant.
Guess we don't have to ask you your views on
//
I truly feel sorry for you and your views
Apparently you did not have a good upbringing because if you had you would never think racist like you do. Obama did everything in his power not to mention race or do any race baiting during the election. Your ideas are very warped. You are to be pitied.
Thanks. Very much looking forward to reading more of your views.
Republicans Views on Impeachment
(This, of course, pertained to CLINTON. You can break the law, fake reasons to start a war and illegally spy on Americans, but don't you DARE have sex!!!! I wonder how many of these holier-than-thou people have the courage or ethics to repeat these words today, pertaining to BUSH.)
Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):
And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.
Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):
How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?
Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):
How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.
Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.
This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.
Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.):
Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the president and move on. That's a reasonable question. And I certainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with that.
But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the Constitution, or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems more convenient and expedient?
Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of government based on the rule of law, a system of government in which no one -- no one -- is above the law. We are here because we have a constitution.
A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.
In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.
The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power.
Rep. Bob Ingliss (R-S.C.):
I think is important to point out here is that we have a constitutional obligation, a constitutional obligation to act. And there are lots of folks who would counsel, Listen, let's just move along. It's sort of the Clinton so-what defense. So what? I committed perjury. So what? I broke the law. Let's just move along. I believe we've got a constitutional obligation to act.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):
Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive
Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.
Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.):
You know, there are people out all across America every day that help define the nation's character, and they exercise common-sense virtues, whether it's honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, respect, accountability, they pursue excellence, they exercise self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There's duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously.
So those are things that the founders also took seriously. Yet every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the founding fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between good and evil.
So the founders created a system of checks and balances and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means was available to address it. The founders felt impeachment was so important it was included in six different places in the Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachment of the president and other civil officers as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The House of Representatives must use this standard in circumstances and facts of the president's conduct to determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding the highest executive office of this great country.
Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):
In the next few days I will cast some of the most important votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be right. But I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.
Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):
I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.
The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame Darkness at Noon is forgotten, or The Gulag Archipelago, but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.
Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.
I can tell you some of Barack Obama's views on this
I agree that this is a huge issue. We have the technology to be virtually independent energy wise, but too many crooked politicians have too much money invested in the oil companies and have no interest in seeing alternative energy sources take away any of their profit. That, in my opinion, is a huge source of our problem. Below I will post a portion of what Obama plans to do about the energy crisis (from his website - barackobama.com). He has a much more detailed plan listed on his website. I'm posting a link if anyone would like to read more.
"Barack Obama believes we have a moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner.
- Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts.
- Invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.
- Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50 percent by 2030.
- Reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030.
- Make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership."
Good for you for stating your views on the war then...
I find it ultra annoying when people start calling others unpatriotic when they don't agree with the war or something else the government is doing. Isn't being passionate about what you feel is best for the country the epitome of patriotism!? I think so.
BTDT. Please address views of the
nm
Views on illegal immigrants and which ...sm
presidential candidate do you think MAY do something more about it. I am sure a lot of you realize we have illegal immigrants (mostly in large number Mexican immigrants) who have swarmed into the country illegally.
I have an Mexian illegal immigrant who lives near me. She is nice enough. She doesn't speak really good english. I know she got pregnant and was actually able to go to our neighboring state and apply for Medicaid to pay for her prenatal care and the child after it was born. And do you know she got Medicaid and I know for a fact she is an illegal immigrant because she told me herself. I asked and she told me. When it is possible for someone who is not even in our country legally to obtain government assistance, that is just insane. What is wrong with our country? 
extremist views of HATE
nm
yeah, and our ol' sal is very, very free with her vulgar views...sm
don't feed the troll, she's the gift that keeps on giving if you do
Yeah, I'd love to know your views on Israel, please tell us. nm
x
It's not a crime to state your religious views in public.
We don't have to keep it in our homes or our churches. Freedom of religion covers that too!
Yep, that is real healthy...ignore opposing views.
very UNlike the name you your party took...*democratic.* Very UNlike what your put yourselves off as, that being tolerant of ALL views (that is laughable), champion of the little guy (as long as that little guy is not a conservative)....and you prove it on this board every day. Thank you. If one ever has a doubt about the liberal agenda, one only need read your posts. Again...thank you for the reassurance to keep fighting the good fight. Have a good night now.
A lot of politicians on both sides changed their views on the war once the truth came out. nm
x
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
You are right on, but Nancy Pelosi is so darned MILITANT about her leftist views, (registered Dem he
I think some of those mice are running amok in her head. I used to respect her as a strong female role model in politics, but lately she has become just another aggressive, abrasive, cultish Demobot that I am totally sick of her. The more I get into politics, the more I am convinced we need a new system, this two-party system is antiquated and has become just sorry, elitist clubs, us versus them, as America's heart and soul deteriorates, we have become the new Roman Empire, writing our own end...starting with the wrong stimulus bill in this depression. Shame on them all. Sorry for venting, watching C-Span while I work all week!
With all due respect,
all the posts I've seen you post have come across to me as very confrontational. You seem to be limited to posting only posts that defend these three, and I haven't seen you post anything on any political issue -- just confronting posters and complaining about their behavior, sympathizing with poor AG, Nan and MT. That's ALL you've posted on this board, and to say it was YOU who was attacked shows, at the very least, the very same mindset that precludes you from seeing things objectively. Afraid I have to agree with GT above. I, too, smell a conservative in liberal clothing, and it also wouldn't surprise me if you were either one of those three or one who is very closely allied with them.
But I will take you at your word that this is your last post. In addition, I will make this my last post to you. I'm happy that at least temporarily we're free of all the intolerance and hatred and rage and battles that ensue when those three are around. I refuse to get back into that, and I feel that you're trying to take me down that path, and I'm not buying it.
Have a blessed day.
With all due respect.
One source is a personal blog. Those are strictly opinion pieces and carry no weight on either side. The Chicago Sun piece is more interesting, but merely makes vague statements without a single name of anyone who is bashing. Now don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns with President Bush, stem cell research not being one of them. I am alarmed at the big government policies and also at the illegal alien fiasco (which I am reading has some surprises in store). At any rate, this really is a nonstory. Remember when Lieberman gave the speech on the Senate floor criticizing Clinton. It happens. I feel no connection to the country club wing of the republican party (any more than the country club wing of the democratic party). They certainly don't speak for me.
With all due respect..
... it doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would use his service -- his putting his life on the line -- in order to try to bully, shame and coerce people who would rather see her son home with his family and safe.
It doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would sacrifice her own flesh and blood because she's too busy worshiping a very false idol in Bush.
But most of all it doesn't say very much about a president who couldn't care less about her son, a president who has recklessly, negligently and uncaringly tossed America's young people into harm's way for an unnecessary, very possible illegal war.
I honor her son, and I respect his courage very much. I thank him for putting his life on the line in service to his country. And I profusely apologize to him for the way his life has been devalued by Bush. Maybe if Bush had the integrity and courage to actually serve in a war himself, he wouldn't be so hasty about killing our young people. Her son, by virtue of having the courage to serve, is way, way, WAY above George Bush in the integrity and courage categories. Wouldn't we be fortunate if someday her son went on to become president? He's already more fit to serve than Bush is.
I hope and pray that he can return home to his family (where he belongs) and that his return is safe and without injury. I'm just very, very sorry that his mother can't see that just because we don't worship an idiot like she does, that doesn't mean we don't support our troops because we want them safe and home with their families instead of fighting an unnecessary, immoral war.
No respect
No respect for the owners of this board who have requested republicans/conservatives to not post here..Do I have to report you?
With all due respect...yes you did...
you posted that you loved to find the errors and do the research. That certainly implies that you enjoy trying to prove people wrong. And that is fine, if that is what trips your trigger. Again, what I said was we had more social programs, and again, the comparison to other nations, I would like to know what other nations and their population in relation to ours before I put a lot of stock in the data. Respectfully.
With all due respect...sm
*Civil debate* has not gotten us anywhere. In order for there to be debate BOTH sides would have to listen to each other, and meet somewhere in the middle.
With all due respect, I
disagree. I have read the words Dems and lefties and socialists used interchangeably. Look through the archives and I did not say it was you.
Respect
Well, I find the posts title a bit disrespectful. I mean, I wouldn't come to the conservative board and post with a title "Glad to not be a republican." Seems to me like "Me" was looking to stir the pot with that title.
With all due respect...
the moderator has posted several times that we can cross post. Apparently the moderator does believe in freedom of expression.
If "most of you" want to speak among yourselves, don't answer my posts, don't pile on with the crass remarks that are totally unnecessary. To coin your own words, ignore me. Quash dissent. Be intolerant of other views. To each his/her own.
There are those on the liberal board who do not mind a discussion and are actually able to do so in true liberal fashion without the personal gotchas. And as far as the gotchas...I only gave as I got. At least there were those true liberals who did not mind...but I believe you quashers have run them all off too.
So, if you do not wish to have a discussion, certainly your right. Don't answer my posts.
And...just a side note...liberal posters cross over too, and I have yet to ask them to get on back to their "own" board or stay on their own board. You see...I don't just say I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression...I act on it...unlike you.
With all due respect....
Your quote of:
"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"
These kids at Camp Cropper were committing acts of violence..setting roadside combs, firing at soldiers, etc. Your quote came from a different article about a different program dealing with adults...not with children. Two different programs I think. No one is asking them to change their faith. Are you saying that all Islam is radial jihadist? Of course it is not. These children are being taught by Iraqi teachers, not Americans. The article I posted describes it more clearly.
If it can turn a few away from jihad to what most Muslims call "true Islam," that is a good thing, right? If it can get sunni and shiite teens talking with one another, listening to one another, interacting with one another...is that not where change begins? Like you rightfully said, it was the young people in Venezuela who helped turn the tide in that country. Perhaps the same can happen in Iraq. Are you saying it is a bad thing to present these kids with a different view of Islam, that perhaps killing other Muslims is not a good thing to do? When it is presented to them by other Muslims, not by Americans? How can that be a bad thing by any stretch?
Again...we are there, piglet. Whether we leave now, next week, next month, or next year, we are there. Why should we not try to help while we are there? Like the soldier said...it is a positive thing and he is proud of what he was able to accomplish. If it turns one kid, two kids...they may be the future of Iraq. Someone had to start teaching kids in Venezuela another way...why can't we show those kids another way while we are there? If we can stop one from strapping a bomb to himself or getting his arms and legs blown off trying to set a roadside bomb...is that not a good thing? I don't see the down side to this. Honestly.
I have a lot of respect
for any man or woman in the armed forces. I think that their opinion in our next president is very important. However, even with military personnel, there are still going to be some of them who vote strictly because of race or political party.
If our votes don't really count....this is pointless, but you can't screen people and question their motives for voting and who they choose to vote for and why before you let them vote.
with all due respect...
the only one WITHOUT a voice here is the child. We are speaking for the child. If that chaps you so severely, I'm sorry. No one is judging anyone. When Scott Peterson killed laci and connor, 12 people judged him and he is in jail for the rest of his life. It is somehow different because Scott chose to kill the baby instead of Laci? Please tell me how that makes sense. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill, and it certainly wrong to let one person have the choice to arbitrarily kill another. It is the act and the procedure that is being judged here...or that is what should be judged here.
Moral wrongs are judged by people every day. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing someone is murder. Cutting a defenseless baby to pieces with no one to defend it and nowhere to run to is horrific. At least admit it. If you want to give a person a right to murder another person, at least call it what it is.
With all due respect...
I don't think making it through an ivy league school on student loans indicates character. But to each his own and you are entitled to think so.
Yes, this is a democracy, and frankly I don't think there should be any parties. I don't think there should be an electoral college. I think it should really be up to the people. But that is just me.
I beg to differ...majority may rule but majority is not always right. I refer you to the Carter years.
Again, with all due respect, Obama's speech last night, was nothing new. It was the same thing Democrats always promise. The same things Bill Clinton promised. He had the country for 8 years and none of the promises happened. That happens on both sides, I realize. But it is politics. It is give them what they want to hear and when we get elected we do what we want. No matter which man is elected, that is what is going to happen. The only thing that makes Barack Obama different from any other Democrat who has run is that he is African American. And yes, he did make history last night, and he should be commended for having the will to work his way up to where he is. That should tell him he should be backing off social programs and figure out a way to instill that ambition in other folks, instead of rewarding people by keeping them dependent on the government for everything. If he can do it, why not others? But that is not the Democrat way.
We are up to our eyeballs in China because of Bill Clinton, not a Republican. If the truth really matters to you, check it out. Bill forged alliances and trade with China during his administration. You don't remember the big flap about the contributions gotten for Clinton by the Chinese. And I don't look for Obama to change anything about how we trade with the Chinese. Have not heard anything about him doing that, and I have listened to most of his speeches. Didn't see anything about it on the website either...but I could have missed it.
Please...the Democratic party is as corrupt as the Republican party. They are both corrupt. That is the nature of the beast, because they are controlled by money people who all have agendas and while they pay lip service to the little people, they do whatever they want, including trashing their own, as was so eloquently demonstrated in Denver this week.
I say this to your party...STOP TRYING TO MAKE the US A SOCIALIST STATE and destroy the greatest nation on earth.
Like I said....I don't want your respect nor do I need it.
Your posts prove constantly that what I say is right. Keep piling it on.
With all due respect....
if providing birth control to teenagers would stop teen pregnancies we would not have 1.2 million abortions every year. I do not want to start an abortion thread...just making a point.
I respect you even more - your the first....
to say anything of substance that is positive about Obama without cutting down McCain.
I do agree with you 100% I can't afford to pay any more taxes. Food, gas, and cost of living expenses are skyrocketing but my pay isn't. Do you think we paid so much in taxes the last time we had a democratic president (Clinton) because of congress. It was absolutely horrible during his pregnancy. We were being taxed over 40% of our pay (we didn't own our own place, we drove a used car, could only afford to live in a 1-bedroom apartment, so it was not like we were living high off the hog), but we were getting taxed so much when Clinton was in that we could hardly afford to do anything. When Bush became president our taxes went down and we started getting rebates, so wondering if it has anything to do with a different congress/senate (the real people who vote). The presidents in my opinion are a bunch of talking mouths but don't make any real decisions. They are told what they will do. They are there just to look pretty (ooh, is that a sexist remark HA HA).
I totally agree that corporations are not paying their fare share and jobs keep going overseas - that absolutely has to stop or we'll be forced to move overseas just so we can get a job.
I'm just scared all round because in the past both democrat and republican have always said on their campaign trail it will be better, yet it just seems to get worse and no president ever keeps the promise they made during their campaign trail.
I like the idea of new ideas, but I also like for people to be truthful too. I think why I'm starting to fall away from supporting Obama is because he keeps changing his mind and that's starting to scare me. Now I hear he's not bringing the troops home. He said he plans to keep them there for at least 5 years, and, he said he's for the draft. When will our tax money start coming back to the US to be used to rebuild the US, not support military in countries we don't belong in and a war we should not have started in the first place.
Thank you again for your opinions on Barack Obama without being cutting down John McCain. One of them will be president and I just hope whoever gets in will make America a better place than it's been. I'm open to everything.
Respect
I respect your opinion even though we disagree. What I am looking for in a leader is a moral man or woman with a HUGE dose of common sense and honesty. I don't think we have that in any of the candidates. That's just my opinion and I thank God every day that we have the right to express and differ in our opinions. I have to wonder how long we will have that freedom. I don't think many of us realize just how much freedom we actually lost with the Patriot Act.
So, in the same respect,
do you admire Sarah Palin for standing up against her own party in Alaska for the good of her state?
Probably not, I would guess. Double standard.
With all due respect,
I care what she thinks. That is different than I don't care for what you think.
I had a lot more respect for him
before I watched the video of him being VERY ugly to the lady who was testifying before the senate committee wanting to know what happened to her SON who is still MIA!!!. He had absolutely no compassion for her whatsoever. I also had more respect for him before he started every other sentence "I was a POW and have the scars to prove it." He is no more deserving of credit for his military service than the many POWs and MIAs. His military service is no greater than the lowest boot in the military, many who have and are continuing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If you want to think I'm "cheapening" his service, go ahead and think what you will With his "experience" one would not think he would have been so quick to side with Bush to send our young men and women into harm's way in this ridiculous Iraq war, many of them have made a much greater sacrifice than he and he promises to keep it going for "100 years if necessary." How many more will die? I would think being a POW would be preferable to being DOA!!!
Respect...........sm
is something that is totally lacking in our society today, Kendra, and not just in displays of drunkeness and the likely ensuing brawling and revelry such as what sounds like is the plan for the inauguration, but also in our families and work and practically every area of society. It's time we started showing a little less "me-me-me" and started thinking of what we can do to help each other and how we can show honor for those in positions of leadership at all levels.
Out of respect
could we not give this man a rest and let him mourn the passing of his grandmother without all the rhetoric? I'm sure even John McCain would agree with that. . I think by now most people have made up their minds how they are going to vote and posting this old tired stuff over and over and over and over and ........is not going to change anyone's mind that I can imagine.
look, I can respect
the man because he is president of the US. I have no problem with that. I didn't vote for him OR McCain for that matter. The problem is such that when you speak up and say you have a good point, but what about this? There are some on these boards that take it as an attack and state you are uneducated, a sore loser, fascist, misinformed or whatever. I respect the fact that Obama stepped up and tried to reassure us as a nation when Bush did not. I have no problem with talking to someone as it can help me to learn something I may not have known. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of adults that cannot tolerate anything negative said.
You don't have respect for
us. As Joy Behar says, "Who cares? So what???
I respect someone who stands for what they believe in...
and you obviously do, and I appreciate that you also respect my stand. While we agree to disagree on certain things, we have had this exchange without making it mean or personal. Be Blessed!
With all due respect, and I am sincere in that....
how can you learn new things if you only talk to people who agree with everything you say? I come here to the liberal board for that very reason...if I wanted someone to rubber stamp my ideas I would be talking to people I knew would do that. That is not how you learn. Debate forces you to go to different sources, listen to differing views, and help you make informed decisions. I am not a rote party person. That is why I am not a registered Republican. I registered Independent only because you have to register as one of the three to be able to vote. I have voted for Democrats before (though I admit, not often). I admire Joe Lieberman tremendously and I hate that the Dem party is so far left they forced him to run as an Independent this time. I thought that was very short-sighted on their part. Because there are Democrats out there in small-town America who have not taken the same hard left turn that the Dem base seems to have taken. If I were a Georgian, I would have voted for Zell Miller in a heartbeat. Not because of his political affiliation, but because of his views, and because of he had the guts to stand up for those views when the hard left sought to highjack his party. My parents were lifelong Democrats. Sadly they are not longer with us, but I am telling you my friend, they would NOT recognize the Democratic party of today. They would be horrified at the hard left turn it has taken. Much of the Republican party has abandoned their core platform as well. Most of those running are not true conservatives. What I want is less government interference in the lives of individuals, more power at the state level where it belongs according to the constitution, the Supreme Court to keep their noses out of state's business and not legislate from the bench...encourage individual responsibility again instead of everyone looking to the government to supply every social need. The more we move toward that, the more we move toward socialism...and that is the agenda of the hard left in this country today. And friend, it does not work. Look at Venezuela. Look at Cuba. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy...both started as socialism and ended in dictatorship. That is where socialism inevitably goes...when you take power away from individual states and give to the federal government, and make the entire populace depend upon the government to supply everything. Believe me...that is NOT where any of us should want to go.
Thanks for listening.
With all due respect, you are wrong...
even when abortion was "illegal," there were provisions if the life of the mother was in danger. Any law can have exceptions. We have thousands of laws on the books with exceptions. On killing someone...murder one, murder two, manslaughter, and on and on. I don't know of many laws that are completely cut and dried. If all abortions cannot be stopped, then stop the "convenience ones." That would save a staggering amount of babies and let's face it...if there were consequences for the action, many might make difference choices and for pete's sake be more responsible. You know that as well as I do...that is human nature.
God bless!
With all due respect....way off on figures...
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.
The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.
There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.
For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.
There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)
In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.
A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.
An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.
At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.
Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.
(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)
It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.
The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.
What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.
Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.
|
