LOL! She believes she can do anything ugly she wants because she

wraps herself up in the Bible and Jesus is her *special friend* and just gives her a wink and a nod every time she does something heinous.  At least that's what she herself said in a post not long ago.  (Aggressive denial by her to follow, I'm sure, like she lies about everything else.)

It's obvious that none of these people have Jesus in their hearts because there's no room for love and peace and truth in those jaded, hateful, dishonest, angry people.  I wonder if they even have a hint of how laughable they really are!  LOL! 

• cut what federal programs?? - gt
  • Bush's fault for NO? Get your facts straight.. - This says it all... SM
    • get off the liberal board - gt
      • You know? - Me again
        • Oh pleeaassee - gt
          • You've never debated - Reality check
            • Debate, lets debate - GT
              • An example of your attack.. See below where I posted an editorial - from a newspaper. You told me to get off the board
                • She said let's debate. Instead you want to argue as usual. - PK
            • Another neocon lie. GT has repeatedly tried to debate - Jackie
              • Here's a clue. SM - MT
              • I'm not MT and I haved not bashed - Reality check
                • You asked me to point to a thread where she debated someone. - Jackie
                  • Let me make myself emphatically clear - Reality check
                  • First of all. sm - sm
          • Gt, I know and like and get along with many liberals.. You are not a liberal, - you've crossed over into loon. Get some help. n
            • Democrat tried and true - gt
              • LOL, and you called me a bigot up above, so - you need to look in a mirror. nm
          • You just called me a bigot, and you have the nerve to complain - about someone else attacking you? LOL nm
        • Amen to that! NM - MT
          • Amen..Indeed - gt
            • LOL! She believes she can do anything ugly she wants because she - Libby
              • And now your true colors shine through. Black as the ace of spades. nm - sm
                • I've been reading up on your illness. I apologize. I realize now how truly ill you all are. I wi - Libby
                  • LOL!!!! Oh brother. nm - sm
                    • I'm praying for you and your dark soul. - Libby
                      • Somehow I doubt that. nm - sm
                        • Don't fight it, sweetie. Let the love in. You'll feel better. - Libby
                          • Yeah, you radiate love like a heat seeking missle. No thanks. nm - sm
                            • You poor thing. I'll say an extra prayer for the demons to leave your heart. - Libby
                              • No thanks. Frankly, the thought of you touching me gives me the heebie jeebies. nm - sm
                                • Tsk tsk. That's not very nice. What kind of Christian are you? - Another Democrat
              • Unless you are God - Reality check
                • I'm not judging. All I did was repeat what she herself said. - Libby
                  • Evil is as evil does. You can't hide evil. Nope. nm - sm
            • So now you speak for God. Wow, gt. sm - sm
              • Yup - gt
                • There are some things that aren't funny, gt. Saying we speak for God is at the top of the list. - sm
                  • WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??! - Reader
                    • The post was *so now you speak for God, gt* Her answer yup. - -
                      • She ignored that ridiculous statement and responded to the - Reader
                        • Oh, that's just silly. So you are a mind reader? I don't think so. - -

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

And sorry to offend you but in fact the poster is a fanatic, in my opinion.

Also, it's not a FACT that Palin is a fanatic; she is a Christian.  You call her a fanatic, your opinion.

"First Admendment" to the Constitution of the United States.

By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM

In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.

Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.  

In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."

In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that

should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Huh?

The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele

He also terms global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and adds that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention," according to excerpts of planned remarks his campaign made available Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18269994/

Ugly Bennett

Hit on 'abort every black baby' gaffe

By CORKY SIEMASZKO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

William Bennett Morality maven William Bennett was in holier-than-thou hell yesterday after the White House and just about everybody else blasted him for saying the crime rate could be reduced by aborting every black baby in this country. The best-selling author of The Book of Virtues insisted he was no racist and refused to apologize. I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition, Bennett said on his Morning in America radio show. But the Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the cultural conservative. The President believes the comments were not appropriate, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize, NAACP chief Bruce Gordon said he was personally offended and angry that Bennett felt he could make such a public statement with impunity. The Rev. Al Sharpton called the conservative's comments blatantly racist. He's a man who thinks black and crime are synonymous, he said. But Bennett was defended by his brother, high-powered Washington lawyer Robert Bennett. What I would emphasize is that he called this morally reprehensible, the lawyer told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. I think it's largely making a mountain out of a molehill. Responding to a caller on Wednesday's radio program, Bennett said he disagreed with the hypothesis put forward in another best seller, Freakonomics, that crime goes down as abortions go up. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, said Bennett. Bennett, a Republican who opposes abortion, then added that this would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything links the drop in crime to a drop in the number of children born into poverty after Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. But authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner did not assume that those aborted fetuses would have been black. Race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime, Levitt wrote on his blog yesterday. The Brooklyn-reared Bennett was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and the nation's first drug czar under the first President George Bush. A darling of the religious right, Bennett's credentials as moralizer-in-chief were tarnished two years ago when he admitted he had a gambling problem. Dumb's the word What William Bennett said: But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. Originally published on September 30, 2005

Reality check!        link:  http://www.truthout.org/032109A

Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay

Tuesday 17 March 2009

by: Lawrence Wilkerson  |  Visit article original @ The Washington Note

 The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

    This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".

    It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).

    The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

    But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

Reality check!        link:  http://www.truthout.org/032109A

Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay

Tuesday 17 March 2009

by: Lawrence Wilkerson  |  Visit article original @ The Washington Note

 The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

    This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".

    It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).

    The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

    But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

Reality check!        link:  http://www.truthout.org/032109A

Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay

Tuesday 17 March 2009

by: Lawrence Wilkerson  |  Visit article original @ The Washington Note

 The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

    This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".

    It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).

    The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

    But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

post, I know that Jesus is real and that He not only gives someone a new heart but a new mind, a mind not corrupted by the world as the majority of the minds are of you who responded here with your attacks.  Of course, you think you are attacking me, some of you on a very personal level, not even knowing who I am, asking such a stupid question as to whether I have children or even suggesting sending brown envelopes filled with feces to people like me. 

I don’t know who you are either, but I can tell you that I pray God forgive you for your blindness and hate just as He forgave me when I surrendered my life to Him. 

This post is not about me.  It is about innocent life, life that never asks to be born, defenseless life that no matter the circumstances of conception is holy and valued in the eyes of its Creator.  For everyone of YOU reading this, someone gave you a chance at life.  That is more than 50 million aborted babies and counting have had.  Their lives have been snuffed out before they had a chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice.  They have been murdered for convenience and a lack of responsibility.  We all have choices in life, and yes, responsibility does begin with conception.  Even a baby conceived in a rape has the same right to life as any other.  It didn’t have a choice as to its parentage or the circumstances of its conception.

The Red Envelope Project is to protest millions more innocent babies being murdered across the globe using U. S. taxpayer monies.  Woe to you if you support this administration’s unbridled hatred of innocent lives. 

I do put my money where my mouth is by working with pregnant women in my community, giving of my time, talents, energy, and financial resources in giving them an alternative to abortion.  Many have become pregnant under the most awful circumstances imaginable to the human mind.  Yet, these women are far more courageous than most of you who call us terrorists because we want to protect life.  In fact, these women are thankful that there are those of us who are willing to sacrifice for them so that their babies have a chance at life.  Not even the most vile of you on this board can take away the profound satisfaction and love we have of defending and protecting the most innocent among us.  When I see a mother look into the face of her baby and know that she has chosen life, whether she has decided to raise her baby or to give it up for adoption, then I know that all my time, talents, energy, and financial resources have gone into and been made to that which is worthy and glorifies my Lord, and another child has been born who will have an opportunity to become all that God created him or her to be. 

Someone made a choice of life for you.  Why would you want to deny that for another innocent baby?  Why would you want to support an evil president who celebrates death instead of life?