No, most of those murder enough babies legally as well.....
Posted By: now I pay to kill others in ALL countries on 2009-01-21
In Reply to: So you could always - Christine
@@
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
We murder 4000 innocent babies by abortion each
and every day, 50 million total so far in this country and counting, and now we will pay for abortions worldwide. Social Security is bankrupt but would not be if those 50 million innocent children had had a choice for life. No one can deny that fact.
Add it up: Abortion kills 4000 innocent babies each day. Queers do not populate.
I would definitely say we are practicing population control, and Obama gonna see we practice worldwide.
Well, that judge is right legally
I mean, really, do we all here check the little box on our tax forms that gives extra money to whatever it is they're asking for? I try to keep up with all changes in the tax law looking for things that I can deduct.
Part of the shenanigans of the big companies, however, is that they can hire alchemist accountants who can turn lead into gold, finding ways to create deductions that is far different from the original intent when the deduction was entered into the tax code.
Obama didn't wait for his term to legally begin, he started on Nov. 5th.
Another murder
Yet another illegal shot and killed a mother of 3 in front of her kids according to our area news headlines this morning. Seems he had been arrested numerous times in California, deported once and now ends up in Arkansas. I think all the bleeding heart liberals should take over paying for their health care, kids, food stamps, and their public defenders. It just makes me sick.
did I say murder?
1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct4: moral conduct : virtue
That's taking it a bit out there, isn't it? You took a simple statement aimed at SEXUAL morality - which obviously was too much for you to comprehend - and defended your stance with broad-based BS. It's my fault teenagers are having sex? Hahahahahahaha...........yep, Bill's right. Why don't you adopt those millions of babies if you are so worried about them - obviously the people having abortions do not want them. It's okay to go to Iraq and kill millions of innocent civilians but abortion is murder? What an oxyMORON. Might as well advocate torture while you are at it.
Go Nascar! If you had the money Obama did, you wouldn't spend it on your kids? Is it any of your business? BTW, that was not a shot at Palin's daughter - it was a point in fact. I feel sorry for that poor girl being paraded around in front of millions of people. Look at her eyes. She's terrified. How awful. They knew perfectly well what they were doing when they dug Palin out of the hat and they knew perfectly well her daughter was pregnant. M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N.
Beat that drum.......someone might listen
It's not right for us to murder
but God takes lives all the time and he does it in various ways. He can certainly use another one of his creation to take a life. He's going to take many lives one day. Woman have the right to chose sex, birth control. They have the right to avoid pregnancy. They do not have a right to kill their unborn. It's kind of hypocritical to say you're against murder but, on the other hand, you're happy he can no longer kill any more babies. Maybe, with luck, in a few years he would have died from disease but that wouldn't have helped all the unborn during the interim. He's the exact opposite of Kevorkian. These unborn babies don't get a say in their death sentence. Kevorkian only kills adults who wish to die. Big difference.
Abortion is murder....
plan and simple. People scream and complain about the war and how we are killing innocent people.....yet they never seem to focus on the innocent children who are murdered by their mothers every day in our own country. Those are the real baby killers. That is a human life that you are getting rid of....disposing off like it is trash.
It amazes me how a pregnant woman can be killed and it is considered a double homicide and yet other pregnant woman can go kill the baby themselves at a clinic and that is okay.....no big deal. Talk about a contradiction. I living thing is a living thing whether it is still in the womb or not. You kill it.....you are a murderer!!!
Murder charges for 3 U.S. soldiers..sm
I have mixed feelings about this y'all. There is no doubt in my mind that mental issues are involved given the situation. However, they could have just been following orders. Or, worse just murdered the Iraqis on their own volition and threatened a fellow soldier.
Definitely worth the investigation, which sends the message that we (the US) does not tolerate this type behavior from our soldiers.
---------------------------------
Murder charges for 3 U.S. soldiers
They are accused of killing 3 Iraqis
Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
(06-20) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Three U.S. soldiers have been charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqi detainees as well as with threatening the life of a fellow soldier who they feared would challenge their accounts of the deaths, military officials said Monday.
The three Americans were identified as staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker and Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, all members of the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. They were charged with shooting the detainees May 9 during a military operation near Thar Thar Canal in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad.
A murder conviction in the military carries the possibility of the death penalty. The accused soldiers are being held in Kuwait, a Pentagon official said. No personal information was available Monday about the soldiers.
The latest charges come as the military is conducting a separate investigation of the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha in November. Military investigators are examining possible murder charges against a group of Marines for those deaths. In addition, seven other marines and a Navy corpsman are being held in the brig at Camp Pendleton (San Diego County) in connection with the death of an Iraqi man in another town, Hamandiya. Since the start of the Iraq war, the military has brought criminal charges against at least 20 other service members in deaths of Iraqis.
Military officials first mentioned the Salahuddin investigation in a brief news release June 16. But details of how the three soldiers shot the men, near the Muthana Chemical Complex, have remained sketchy. The military has not said why the three Iraqis were being detained.
In addition to murder, the soldiers were charged with conspiracy and with threatening another soldier. Military officials said the accused initially reported they shot the detainees while they were trying to flee.
But that account was contradicted by a junior soldier who saw the shooting. Defense Department charge sheets released Monday identify the object of the threats as Bradley Mason, an Army private first class. The legal papers do not specify whether Mason is the soldier who witnessed the killings.
The accused soldiers are charged with threatening to kill Mason on May 29, as the group was traveling from its own operating base to Camp Speicher, near Tikrit, where the Criminal Investigation Division has an office.
You better not say anything, or I swear I will kill you, Girouard allegedly told Mason, according to charge sheets.
Girouard is accused of threatening to kill Mason six different times in the weeks after the detainees died. Hunsaker is accused of threatening Mason four times, and Clagett twice.
They face a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence for a court-martial. The first proceeding, known as an Article 32 hearing, is likely several weeks away, a military officer said.
The military has not executed anyone since April 1961, but nine people are on death row, including a sergeant in the 101st Airborne who killed two officers and wounded 14 soldiers in Kuwait in March 2003.
Laws protecting from murder
Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.
A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."
Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized. The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.
Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.
If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is: Don't have one.
My conscience tells me that it is murder.....sm
and that is even apart from what my religious beliefs tell me. I believe in life at the moment of conception as I stated in my post above. I won't go into all that again.
As far as amounts and agencies and how monies from my taxes and every one else's taxes are distributed to help provide medical care for those who receive free (to them) medical care, of course I can't provide that. I am not privy to where each of my tax dollars go and how much of it is spent on various government agencies or governmental salaries, etc., and neither do you. Funny, though, you're not asking Obama to produce his birth certificate or from whom he received campaign contributions, huh.
You're right--that's why noone ever goes to prison for murder. nm
nm
Since when do fishers of men advocate plotting murder?
Are you serious, or have you truly lost the ability to disagree with someone - no matter how corrupt - if he SHARES your political agenda?
The fact he described Zarqawi's death is *murder*
is a big clue that he supported what Zarqawi.
I would rather money go to illegal aliens than murder by war.
Apparently, you prefer murder.
Cry babies
Your post is so true. Cry babies, run to the moderator and get the posts they disagree with deleted, even though they are posted on the LIBERAL board.
Cry babies
The posts that get removed are removed because they violate the rules for the boards posted by the administrator. Typical liberal response, follow only the rules you like, and to use your term, become a cry baby when the you don't like the rules. With all due respect, spend less time whining about who posts on what board and what posts are removed, and more time trying to figure out why you think it is more important to investigate Bush than it is to concentrate on terrorism. Still having a real difficult time trying to wrap my mind around that one. But..it does underscore why conservatives are so concerned and rightly so.
Cry babies
The two posts of last week were removed because a conservative who came on this board (you?) did not agree with them. Both were articles from journalists and printed in major newspapers, so obviously cleared and approved by the editors of the newspapers and read throughout America. However, the conservative did not agree with the articles, so whined and cried and ran to the moderator (flash back of junior high actions) and had them removed. My opinion is, if a conservative cannot handle an article that was posted in a newspaper and obviously cleared by its editor, dont read it, go back to the conservative board and leave the liberal board alone. I have never posted on the conservative board but have read some of the posts and some are definitely inflammatory and attacks on liberal/democratic politicians. Liberals have not asked to have those posts removed. Conservatives: Do as I say, not as I do.
How many babies do you think die in
the wars that Bush and McCain support? Or does it only matter when American babies die?
You say you think McCain is the lesser of two evils because he is against abortion, right? Well if you are against the concept of killing innocent life, you should be APPALLED at the number of innocent children the US has killed in IRAQ, and will kill in Iran if Mr. 'Prolife" McCain gets in power.
Let your "conscience" be your guide.
So were the babies
murdered. I don't see you making a case for them.
Anchor babies. sm
You mean to tell me, gourdpainter, that you don't celebrate this country's great cultural differences and rights for every American born citizen? I'm shocked!!!! 
Seriously, yes, I do see this as a problem, but doing away with the 14th Amendment is not the way to keep this from happeniing. I'm not sure what the correct procedure for handling this would be or even if it could be done as anchor babies are automatically citizens, but I would think writing your congressmen would be the place to start. This is one of the tragedies this country might face because of weak borders and law enforcement's seeming inabiilty to send illegals back where they came from. It goes deeper than that, though.
You know, you mentioned in another post that no Native American has ever run for POTUS. Actually, they probably have more right than Caucasian American citizens to hold this office as they were here first. 
anchor babies are ---
Anchor babies are babies born to foreigners on American soil. They by virtue of being born here are automatically American citizens even if their parents are not and even if their parents are here illegally. Thus, one day, we could very well have a president whose parents are here illegally, whose parents do not speak English, and he will be legal to be the president! Think that's right?
The law concerning anchor babies....sm
In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
Where do babies come from? 1 man and 1 woman
I understand these relationships, but I don't think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should cover gays/lesbians. They have civil unions in my state and now they want marriage. Leave the tradition of marriage alone.
I am not willing to assume that 1.2 million babies...
would have horrible lives. I can't see killing them all just in case some might suffer. But how is our choice to decide whether or not someone lives based on what kind of life they might have? I think it should be the choice of the creator, myself. I am curious as to what you think your creator thinks about choosing to kill an unborn child? I think mine's heart breaks every time one happens...over 2000 times a day. Yes, that's what I think.
It's quick? It's horrible but its quick? Good grief!!
You keep discounting the right of the child to live. Who are you, the mother, or anyone else, to say that child has no right to live? Do you think your creator endowed you with that right? Just curious.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted, sam? (nm)
???
but there was already a law in place to protect the babies -
nx
wow -- that's as sad as 1/2 aborted babies being left
nm
They cant stop having babies if they have no forms
Remember the babies in dumpsters?
We had a 17-year-old come in our hospital, full-term and in complete denial she was pregnant. She got mad and left when told she was pregnant. She came back a few weeks later and they could not save her - she never went into labor, the baby was stillborn in her for god knows how long and it subsequently killed her. This kid was living here and there - her parents did not care. The ills in society will remain regardless of the laws.
Obama is not saying he wants babies murdered -
Obama is prochoice - that means each person has the right to decide for themselves. You all amaze me when you say you want the government out of your life and to quit telling you what you have to do, but then it is okay for the government to tell the other person that they can't do something they want to because it does not go along with your belief system.
I would never ever have an abortion. I think it is wrong. However, I think that each person should have the right to decide for themselves if they do it or not. In this case I agree, government stay out of my business!
Nope. She can have all the babies SHE wansts to have.
It's a free country. Believers in pro-choice want to KEEP it free.
Sorry, but according to the law, anchor babies are US citizens - nm
x
Better 1.2 million dead babies a year?
I think we get where you are coming from.
babies are piling up in hospitals and all you're
Have you written or called your local representative? Have you written Congress? What about getting a group together to picket the issue on Capitol Hill?
So many people claim to care, but what they really want is a "clear conscience". Not voting for Obama does not clear anyone of this travesty. It only makes people like you think it does. Sam, you claim to be an independent, but you need to change your card to republican. That's how a republican operates. They only worry about if their hands are clean at the end of the day.
GP..Exactly. And those "anchor babies" can sponsor their whole family and who know what else.
nm
You don't think you might hear the cries of aborted babies....
where were you? Why didn't you help me?
Anchor babies are natural citizens... sm
by virtue of being born on American soil, just as the babies of Chinese immigrants or German immigrants or any other nationality are citizens of this country if they are born on US soil. Granted, the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico has created a problem in that it has burdened the welfare system in this country, but that is not the issue here.
The issue is that Obama cannot produce proof that he is a natural born American citizen. The birth certificate floating around the internet purported to be real is a fake. You can find anything on the internet these days, true or not. Just the fact that liberals shoot down every article posted in support of a conservative's point of view as being "not a credible source" is proof of that.
Mr. Obama is well aware of the questions being raised concerning his birth certificate. If he had a REAL birth certificate, why would he just not produce it and put an end to all the speculation? Because he can't, plain and simple. He flew to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother and "coincidentally" his "birth records" were sealed at the same time. Isn't that interesting?
Mr. Obama lived for 5 years in Indonesia, a country that does not recognize dual citizenship, therefore nullifying his American citizenship IF it ever existed in the first place. There are no records on file where he ever applied for citizenship after returning to the US.
We have to produce birth certificates for our children to attend school today. Why shouldn't the man who would be POTUS have to show his?
Barack Obama is not even legally a black American. He only has one black great-great-grandmother on his father's side while the other 7 were Arab.
That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black. 12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America.
Obama would qualify as the first Arab-American president, NOT the first black president. That is why they keep saying "African-American" and NOT black because they know he is African Arab and not African black.
Why would you want anyone who has any kind of questionable background leading our country? Would you allow persons of questionable background to teach your children in school? What if that person was suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a child but it could not be proven? Would you want to run that risk?
I agree that America has more pressing problems that whether the man about to take the helm is a natural born citizen, but do you want someone who is not even an American leading us through these problems?
Murdering near-term babies isn't violent?
nm
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
Ridiculous post. Quit your whining, big babies
nm
Oldtimer, it is used in late-term abortions. To get rid of babies.
nm
Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
Okie dokie. We agree to disagree. Someone should speak for the babies...
and I would be one of those. Because I think they deserve a shot at life just like you do. You don't. Your prerogative.
You sound irrational...killing ethiopian babies with your money? ???
nm
If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
|
