Please do not respond observer
Posted By: liberal democrat on 2007-10-16
In Reply to: Ahem...that was due to what was done in Congress during those years.... - Observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*. This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger. I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president. Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
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'm sorry, I just HAVE to respond here...
This is just bunk. How arrogant can human beings be? To think that we can manipulate this planet in such profound ways is ridiculous. This is a dynamic planet. These things have always happened, and always will. The world has reinvented itself at least twice. It will shake us all off like fleas off a dog, if it chooses to do so. Not that we shouldn't be good custodians of the planet, but we don't even come CLOSE to having the kind of control that the environmental loons seem to believe. Reminds me of that movie Armgageddon where Bruce Willis is standing out on that oil rig hitting golf balls at a Greenpeace boat screaming at them asking them how much diesel does that boat you've got there use?
And lastly, the United States cannot be single handedly blamed for a supposed case of global warming? That people think that, specifically liberals, shows you just how political the whole thing is, and very little to do with science. Last time I checked there was a great big huge INHABITED world beyond our shores, and they're also especially good at polluting this planet that we all share.
cant respond right now
Im sorry, first thing in my morning reading your post after watching thousands without anything and knowing they are going to DEMAND what they need..Geez, Im sorry, I cant post response right now..Im too upset..Later today, I will however respond, I promise.
So why did ya respond?
If ignorance is bliss, the Obama-land is the happiest place on Earth! Screw Disneyland!
Respond away.
You claimed I was the first to bring it up and I wasn't.
Dixie Dew: Please respond to this!
Okay. Now you're back on the right.... er left.... er CORRECT board! Please stay here, okay? 
Wow. I really don't know how to respond to your post. sm
But you support the troops...right?
It is immaterial to me if you respond to me or not, LD...
still a free board, still a free country, still able to state an opinion. You do not have to waste your time or energy reading my responses. With all due respect of course.
Know you are not going to respond, don't mind....others might want to know...
any fire department employee is paid for by some branch of government...city, county, etc. They are all in essence government employees. Like any other city or county employee...like law enforcement. Los Angeles County FD, Orange County FD, they were the most heavily involved in fighting the Malibu fire, I believe. Generally volunteer firefighters are used where the municipalities cannot afford to pay firefighters, or for outlying areas that town firefighters do not cover. So I suppose that means firefighting is socialized anywhere the town, city or county government can afford it...not sure that qualifies as socialized firefighting. They are not universal firefighters all controlled from Washington, so really not similar to what socialized medicine would be. Control is at the local city or county level.
Would like to respond, but need more info....
I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.
IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.
The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.
With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.
Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
911 Widows Respond to Coulter
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Response to “Godless”
For Immediate Release -- June 6, 2006
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain underprotected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world -- particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
###
September 11th Advocates:
Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
Stand down. If you respond, she will repeat herself
an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Kudo's to you. I was hoping you'd respond
to the tactics of those who try to silence others who don't agree with them.
Mom always told me you don't like the channel change it, you don't have to watch something you don't want to. Same with the posters. If they don't like what you have to say, ignore it and move on.
Life's too short.
Glad you can laugh....I should know better than to respond to you...nm
Observer
Shame on you for touting your song. Why be proud to be a racist? I grew up in a semi-southern town where they had one of the last lynchings of multiple black males in the U.S. There was a PBS special done on this town if you have any interest. It makes me sickened and ashamed, now proud.
I could cite the legion problems still present in today's south - poor counties/states in the US, worst school performance, corruption, civil rights issues.....but I won't.
Below is exactly why the south NEEDS a greater range of folks with differing philosophies/political persuasion. This is an excerpt by a musical analyst:
The lines in "Sweet Home Alabama" are a direct response to Young's anti-racist, anti-cross burning "Southern Man" and "Alabama" songs. Lynyrd Skynyrd's comeback was intended to mean, essentially, "Thank you for your opinion Neil, now leave us alone."
It is this perceived "attitude" which has led to Lynyrd Skynyrd earning a reputation as a "racist" band. Not withstanding the fact that the band often performed with a Confederate flag as a backdrop
Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" meaning is often interpreted as being "racist" because of the the lyrics reference "In Birmingham [where a black church was bombed killing 4 young girls] they love the governor [George Wallace]" who was a segrationist.
Furthermore, Lynyrd Skynyrd sang "Now Watergate does not bother me". Sadly, it would seem not only were Lynard Skynard untroubled by racism but were not terribly concerned by corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Thank you Dr. Observer. sm
However, I have to believe your personal party affilitation is having way too much sway on your "diagnosis." There is plenty of dysfunction on here. I don't particularly like being called a liar. I defend myself and my country and a president I happen to admire. That irritates you into a frenzy and you take the logical calm approach to insult me with your lame diagnosis! If you don't like my posts, DON'T READ THEM. How hard is that? I ask you.
Hey observer
do 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage? Would you explain why God would take the life if life begins in utero?
Observer...sm
I suggest you don't put your faith in politics. I know that NOTHING will happen to me or my family for generations to come unless it is the will of the Lord. Forgive my optimism, but I will not have you sign my death certificate prematurily. If we are so weak that we fear going out in crowds, then we need to concentrate our efforts on securing our own country more so than Iraq.
Politically, I have NEVER agreed with invading Iraq, ever. I believed the head insepctor when he said there were no WMDs. I didn't see then and I don't see now how that was a logical response to 9-11. Go back and check it, Congress did not vote for going into Iraq specifically, but they did give Bush autonomy to make that decision should it become a necessary option. Bad decision. I disagree with Kerry, Hillary and all the other democrats who cosigned on that, but everyone's adrenalin was pumping after 9-11 and who wanted to look *soft on terror.* I think averting attention from bin Laden to Sadaam was the biggest spin of the century.
So now we're in Iraq, and the only news we get back from over there are death counts, bombings, etc. What is the progress? Seriously, what is the progress? Are we winning the minds and hearts of the Iraqis like we won the mind and heart of bin Laden when we helped him in Afghanistan? I have said before in order to win the war in Iraq we need to go in strong and hit them with all we got. I would not like it, but I would support that. I think that is the only way our soldiers can walk out of that country with the mission accomplished. More innocents will die, more US soldiers will die, but that is the only way to WIN. If we are not in it to win, then we should come home. What we are doing now is policing and I don't agree with that. The US taxpayers are not responsible for Iraqi citizens' safety. Tell that to people who are terrorized by criminals in their own homes right here in the US daily.
If we leave Iraq it will be a defeat for the US, but the battle was not ours to begin with. It is not easy, but we have a choice to make. I want to believe that most or ALL Iraqis will stand up and hold the US flag high and thank us for our sacrifice one day, but I don't believe in fairy tales. We should be careful, because we could be training the next group of 9-11 attackers.
Observer...
you have articulated excellently a lot of my concerns about a Democratic administration. One of my greatest frustrations with the war is that so many do not seem to understand that, in many ways, to this enemy (radical Islamist terrorists), appearance is everything.
In many ways they seem to me to be like Klingons - emboldened by and contemptuous of any show of weakness, even if it would seem superficially to be to their advantage.
If we are to succeed against this enemy, it seems to me that we must embrace two characteristics which have become somewhat foreign to the political process - strength and honor. We must be willing to do what we say we will do (i.e., stay in Iraq until they establish a stable government, as we promised them we would do) and enforce our own demands through whatever force is necessary. To do otherwise merely encourages the Jihadists to ongoing violence.
Unfortunately, I doubt in this era that any administration will have the fortitude for such action, particularly in the face of unrelenting media coverage of every setback. Like you, I have certainly seen nothing from any Democratic spokesperson save possibly Joe Lieberman to indicate to me any level of understanding of the enemy we face or the gravity of the consequences of failure.
It's all about them, Observer.
It has always been all about them. The leftists are starting to write articles now and make public appearances, admitting that they don't care about the troops at all. They don't even have much invested in peace. They want radical change by radical means and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. In the civil rights days, protest really did effect needed change. But it hasn't since then and is a tool of the left to get what they want. Imagine, Jane Fonda protesting at The Wall. How much more of a slap in the face to our veterans can you get. I am dumbfounded at this insult to our veterans. I know many of them will be there to protest HER being there and I wish I were one of them.
You are right, Observer. sm
These people are not what they seem. See link below for the real story.
Oh please, Observer.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said I supported partial-birth abortions. I definitely do not and never have. I'm talking about abortions that occur before 3 months gestational age. Do you really think that fetus can register pain at that point? Just because YOUR religion tells you that babies have a soul before they're born does not make it so - it's just a theory from your religion's mythology. It just drives me nuts when people act like their religion has the only correct answers and try to get others to believe it as well.
I think it is well known that many children are suffering in the US, and you are asking to put thousands (millions?) more kids into an already strained system. You must remember all of our discussions about the SCHIP program. Although many Republicans supported the bill, what the bill was ultimately missing was support from Republicans - the party that is almost exclusively pro-life yet didn't seem to mind children from lower-middle income families suffering without healthcare. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. (And yes, I know you think the bill was flawed, blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains kids are going without healthcare due to that decision).
You want state-to-state decisions made, so what happens to the women whose state doesn't allow abortion? What if she cannot afford to travel to a state where it is legal? You ask why her life is more important? What if she is a mother? What if she dies and leaves her other chidren motherless? Her family and friends would be devastated, whereas a fetus in the womb does not have these connections with others yet, and I still maintain that a fetus that young is not even capable of feeling pain. You have your opinion and your religious agenda, and that's your choice, but I don't think it is a smart choice to make abortions illegal, even in some states, as I truly believe women will have abortions regardless of legality.
Okay Observer...
it's Sunday, and I have a ton of work to do so I will try to make this brief. First of all, I do not hate you - I just don't like to be told the same things over and over again about your beliefs when I already know where you stand on pretty much every issue that is brought up. Some people may not have heard your views yet, and as I said, you certainly have the right to state them again and again, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed by them.
As for hating George W. Bush. I don't recall ever stating that, but I do think he is the most horrible president in the history of America and that he is destroying our nation and running us into an enormous deficit. I personally do not like to argue with people who defend Bush simply because if nothing that has gone on over the last 7 years has convinced them that Bush is a horrible president, then obviously nothing I can say will either.
I also don't despise Christians. I just get sick of many religions starting wars in the name of God and hating others (gays, children out of wedlock, etc.) because the bible tells them these things are against God so therefore many religious people think this hate is justified. I know not all religious people are that hateful, and I actually have numerous friends who attend church regularly. I just think it's kind of silly to say we have to live by what the bible says when it was written sooooo long ago and so much has changed. It has also been interpreted so many times that who knows how much of the original content is even there or how it's been maneuvered. I do think the bible has some great stories and inspirational quotes - I just get annoyed when people are always like "bible says!" like they can't possibly be wrong because the "bible says." I actually believe in God and say prayers every night and teach my children about God too. Church just isn't for me. I live in the most beautiful state in America - I don't need to go sit in a church to get close to God! Church has helped some of my friends who have lost loved ones, and for them it is a great thing. So no, I don't hate Christians, but I am very sick of people killing others all over the world in the name of God - it's obviously the exact opposite of what God would want, and I will never understand their logic. Wouldn't God just be happy they are worshipping him in their own way?
Hey Observer.....
Hey observer didn't you steal someone else's moniker also?
I hesitate to respond to this because I'm an Independent and see good and bad
in both liberals and conservatives.
Believe it or not, liberal/independent people can be pro choice, believe in God, love America, would like to see all nations free, and most of all, supports our troops.
First of all, we love our country so much that we have respect for the Constitution. Being pro choice or pro life is a direct result of your religious/spiritual beliefs. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for ALL people, even those who don’t subscribe to the same religion as YOU. The concept of when life begins relies 100% on religious beliefs. If I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then the best way I can honor my God my religion is to not ever have an abortion. What I DON’T believe is that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on every American in this country via laws. If I do that, I’m infringing on THEIR religious beliefs. The same hold true for stem cell research. If you don’t believe in it, then don’t participate in it. But don’t prevent others who don’t agree with you from reaping the life-saving benefits it may offer. In fact, some of us might think those against this research are anti-life, rather than pro-life, since they don’t seem to care at all about saving the people who are already here. A reasonable person of any faith might ask why in the world God gave us the technology if he/she didn’t want us to use it.
We further believe in the Constitution’s promise that we have freedom of speech. There is no doubt in my mind that you were surrounded by pro Bush people at a pro Bush rally. Were you actually in the same room with President Bush, though? You may have been. I, on the other hand, would never be allowed to attend one of his "town hall" meetings because he prescreens people and doesn’t let anyone in who doesn’t agree with him or might challenge him. Some of us would definitely think this is a very anti-American practice.
As far as other moral values are concerned, I personally don’t believe in lying. My personal God doesn’t care for that very much, either. The entire world was lied to by President Bush concerning the war in Iraq. What’s much worse than that is that he used the tragedy of 9/11 to propagate a war against the leader of a country that wasn’t associated with 9/11 in any way. He used the vast support he received during the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11 to achieve the goal he had before he was even elected President: To declare war against Saddam Hussein. He did this on the blood and backs of every victim of the Twin Towers attack. My personal God really has contempt for that kind of behavior.
As far as getting rid of God "from the publics views," I have yet to hear of one church/synagogue/mosque or other public religious building being shut down by a liberal. Liberals have EQUAL respect for all religions and are against one particular religion receiving favor over another. To bring Jesus’ name into the political arena or an arena paid for by the tax dollars of everyone diminishes other religious beliefs. There are people whose religious beliefs don’t include Jesus, and some liberals see the "My God is better than your God" game to be very dangerous in a country that claims to provide freedom of religion for all.
Finally, regarding our troops: Nobody has more respect for our troops than I do. It’s the President who seems to have no respect. The difference between me and President Bush is that I place much more value on each of their lives. I would never be so reckless with the lives of our children as to send them into an unplanned war, refuse to provide them with adequate equipment to fight that war and protect themselves, and lie to them about their release dates in order to hold them hostage. For several months in a row now, the military has failed to reach their recruitment quotas, which is no surprise to me. I want our troops to come home, ALIVE AND WELL, and that is a direct result of the respect I have for him all. Their lives should not be sacrificed casually for a false reason. Their lives should only be on the line when we are protecting ourselves from a direct threat. Perhaps if Bush cared enough about this country 30-some years ago and served combat duty in Vietnam, he would have more respect for our troops. But his wealth and privilege came to his rescue, and he was able to wiggle out of it. He never had to know firsthand what it’s like to wake up every morning (if indeed you’re that lucky) to wonder if this day is going to be your last. Perhaps if he did, he’d have more respect for our troops today.
Everyone supported the President when he sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. Unfortunately, we can’t leave Iraq right now. Bush "broke it," and now WE are MORALLY obligated to fix it. God only knows when that will happen. It’s not, as he and his cronies promised in the beginning, going to be a quick war, and contrary to what he declared in his well-planned photo op, "Mission Accomplished" by a long shot. The terrorists must figure that the odds are pretty good in their favor if only ONE suicide bomber can kill multiple people, Americans and Iraqis, in a single hit. And they’re not going away. They’re only getting stronger all the time because Bush created a haven for them in Iraq. So much for respecting our troops. And how are we going to "fix" the mess he made in Iraq when we simply run out of troops because young people refuse to enlist because they’ve lost faith in him and don’t trust our government any more? He promised he wouldn’t impose a draft. If/when he ultimately DOES impose it, I think a GREAT photo op for him would be when he accompanies Jenna and Barbara as they enlist. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for that one.
Did you know that part of the Iraq war budget includes a comprehensive health care plan for every Iraqi citizen? I personally think it's very immoral for a President to take care of others in another country when his own Americans are in the midst of such a health care crisis.
He’s apparently too concerned about "spreading freedom" all over the world to guarantee that same freedom is safe from peril here at home. I recently heard that al Qaeda is now joining drug lords from Central America to cross our carelessly unprotected borders and enter the country. They figured out they can do this successfully because their complexions are similar, and they can easily pass as someone of Latin descent. There is a myriad of other things this President should have done to make this country safer. But he’s too busy obsessing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into finding Osama bin Laden, we would have captured him by now. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into taking precautions concerning nuclear plants and other entities in this country, we actually WOULD be safer today.
Just because someone has tolerance and respect for all religious beliefs; perhaps has his or her own style of respect and support for our troops by wanting to keep them alive and using their service carefully, thoughtfully, and judiciously; believes a person already born and living in this country is a citizen and that an embryo isn’t; believes that we should clean up our own country before trying to clone more like it all over the world; and believes that the Constitution should be the written document that is relied upon to form laws and that religious documents should be left to churches and other houses of worship, doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t love this country, doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t have morals, isn’t a good person and doesn’t have values, and, most importantly, doesn’t support our troops.
The fact that you seem to think it does and would even ask that question, though, makes me wonder somewhat about you.
Just a hint. Next time respond to a post,
read it first.
This isn't about the ACLU, or an agency LIKE the ACLU.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a liberal who agrees with NAMBLA or any organization like them that is in favor of sexual exploitation of children. I don't think prison is even good enough for them. I think they should get the death penalty.
Maybe if you would have actually taken the time to READ the post, you would see it has nothing to do with your response.
Oh, before you call me a liar. I did respond to the flat tax,
but I brought my responses back here.
You didn't respond to Yepper's post.
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
I am unable to respond to leaps in "logic" that
rasberries
Thanks for posting, Observer
Also to those donating money, please be aware that the FEMA site list of receiving agencies includes mostly faith-based groups after the Red Cross, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, except the Operation Blessings charity which is Pat Robertson's group. He must need another diamond mine in South Africa. You might want to skip that one.
Didn't say you did...it was Observer
who asked me. It went like this (I think) I asked if you and AG did anything besides rant on about the left. Did you have **legs** that led you to do anything constructive with or for the stay the course people. Observer answered and said a bunch of stuff and then at the end, she said, what do you do??? where are your legs and mouth, so I answered her. That is how it went.
Just an Observation, Observer.....
Approximately 65% of the posts on this board are made by you. I have read some of your posts, and in one of them you state that you come here, as a conservative, mainly to read and learn. Are you certain that this is, in fact, your main purpose for coming here? It would seem from the sheer number of your posts, well over 50% of them being made by you here, that your purpose is not to read and learn, but rather to dominate and monopolize. Just an observation....
On the contrary, Observer...
I am using my right of free speech to encourage others to disregard what I believe to be a forum that you created for your own personal agenda. This is not the forum for debate between conservative and liberal points of view. This posting site is not titled "political debate". Nor is it supposed to provide fodder for you to chew on.
I will speak for most of us in that we do not have a lot of time in the day to try to strike up a conversation amongst ourselves under the liberal forum, and when we to get time to log on, we don't want to have to sift through it, and we shouldn't have to.
If political debate is your preferred forum, perhaps you should email admin to add another posting site to accommodate it?
If you can accomplish this, I would gladly log on and argue point to point with you, but until then I would appreciate it if you stayed on the conservative posting.
Oh, Observer. I wondered where you'd been. sm
By the way, 'sm' means 'see message' (as opposed to 'nm' meaning 'no message'). Doesn't mean 'small message' as far as I know.
I agree with that last paragraph that kitty wrote. And I don't know where you're getting your statistics either, because poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion remaining legal during the 1st trimester. Less (but still a majority) are in favor of abortion remaining legal up to the 2nd trimester, but not after that.
What I get from your posts is that when someone mentions 'abortion' you picture a healthy, full-term infant of 9 months' gestation, angelic and cooing happily in its crib, being viciously 'murdered.' Obviously, that is not what takes place when the pregnancy is under 3 months.
Me, I picture a cluster of cells that may or may not have gone on to become a person. After all, it's been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage'), usually w/o a woman even knowing she was pregnant. And in fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages. That is just human biology. Are you weeping and wailing for all those 'children'?
I don't believe there is any suffering of the embryo in that case, or in a 1st (or even 2nd) trimester abortion, but there is *plenty* of suffering of the unwanted children that are already here on this Earth and being abused and neglected.
Make safe, medical abortions illegal, and that suffering will grow exponentially with more unwanted children, as well as more women who will die or be injured during an illegal, unsafe abortion - because abortions will still take place.
IMO, on both 'sides' of the issue, we should all be working towards reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place by demanding better education, better birth control methods, and better access and affordability to birth control.
Not a Palin observer as you obviously are
xx
From an objective observer.
nothing further to add to te nothingness of this post
I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.
in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.
I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.
As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).
The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.
If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.
If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.
LOL! Not bright enough to respond intelligently to a wonderfully written
Observer, did you say WONKY?? TeeHee
WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Are Observer and Americangirl the same person?
You guys seem to have exactly the same extremely conservative viewpoint on just about everything, so I'm just wondering.
Observer, please ignore my posts
Observer, please do not respond to my posts as you are not going to get any answers to your questions from me. I do not read your posts. They are con propaganda. My posts are for fellow democrats. You are wasting you time and energy reading and responding to my posts.
curious - if Observer is not liberal, why always here?
...speaking for myself, as an observer of your style...s/m
of supposed "debate" -- I can see why some people would prefer to avoid you.
It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.
I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.
Being an objective observer, the repugnants appear to be the most evil.
Defend the republican party all you want with your self-righteousness, but in the end the republican party will always be a party that represents big business and the rich.
You religious right wingers, rednecks who were undereducated and/or raised by a long line of redneckers will never get it so I won't even address you as your perception of reality is hopelessly distorted.
However, I will say that, anyone who makes under 250 grand a year and who votes for the republican tick is a fool.
This next presidential term will all be about taxes now that Georgie has sold out the country to foreign lands to pay for his war and cover his tax cuts to the wealthy, and someone's taxes are going to be raised and if you vote republican and earn less than 250 grand, it will be YOURS.
Funding under republicans will also be cut to social services and that means more crime, and if your town is like mine, police and fire departments are laying off due to budget cuts - hey, what an oxymoron, cutting police forces while fighting terrorism.
Republicans are not for the people whatever you say. They pander to the religious right and those high school drop out rednecks for the votes. Abortion is and always will happen as it has since the beginning of time and I don't think you will ever stop it from happening. You can try to romanticize reproduction all you want but in this world, as we watch babies starving, dying from curable disease and, even raped, it just doesn't hold water.
Republicans are as evil as greed is evil.
Your arguments are weak as always.
If you know some good democratic blog sites, please respond to this post with the links. nm
Thanks.
Check the source for Observer's Murtha article....
It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico." If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.
Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources. If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.
Observer is not a troll, but does debate. Posters here need to understand
this. You are welcome to debate here or on the Conservatives board. Debate IS allowed on both forums. Again, there will be no additional forum strictly for debates as it can be conducted in a respectful fashion on either of our two political forums.
|
