So where do YOU think such lack for the sanctity of life comes
Posted By: from? God? MsMT on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: Satan huh? - wow!
xx
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
Article written by a liberal regarding sanctity of life....
knew there were pro-life liberals; just had to look for some. She does not understand the stand some of you are taking, any more than I do.
Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
Mary Meehan, The Progressive,
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.
Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."
It is not my purpose to explain why courts and parliaments in many nations rejected this tradition over the past few decades, though I suspect their action was largely a surrender to technical achievement -- if such inventions as suction aspirators can be called technical achievements. But it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion.
One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born. When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.
Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.
But pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women. Thus; 1972, when a Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalized abortion, partly to remove discrimination against poor women, several commission members dissented.
One was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana was active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. Olivarez, who later was named to head the Federal Government's Community Services Administration, had known poverty in her youth in the Southwest. With a touch of bitterness, she said in her dissent, "The poor cry out for justice and equality and we respond with legalized abortion." Olivarez noted that blacks and Chicanos had often been unwanted by white society. She added, "I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ?wanted' or not, all citizens stand in danger." Later she told the press, "We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."
Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us." It is true that opposition to abortion is a religious position for many people. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and many of the fundamentalist Protestant groups also oppose abortion. (So did the mainstream Protestant churches until recent years.) But many people are against abortion for reasons that are independent of religious authority or belief. Many would still be against abortion if they lost their faith; others are opposed to it after they have lost faith, or if they never had any faith. Only if their non-religious grounds for opposition can be proven baseless should legal prohibition of abortion fairly be called an establishment of religion. The pro-abortion forces concentrate heavily on religious arguments against abortion and generally ignore the secular arguments -- possibly because they cannot answer them.
Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement.
If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as D*ck Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion. We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.
Although many liberals and radicals accepted legalized abortion, there are signs of uneasiness about it. Tell someone who supports it that you have many problems with the issue, and she is likely to say, quickly, "Oh, I don't think I could ever have one myself, but . . . ." or "I'm really not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice" or "I'm personally opposed to it, but . . . ."
Why are they personally opposed to it if there is nothing wrong with it?
Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on, the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:
First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.
Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.
Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. D*ck Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idi*t on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "
Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.
Juli Loesch, a feminist/pacifist writer, notes that feminists want to have men participate more in the care of children, but abortion allows a man to shift total responsibility to the woman: "He can buy his way out of accountability by making `The Offer' for `The Procedure.' " She adds that the man's sexual role "then implies-exactly nothing: no relationship. How quickly a `woman's right to choose' comes to serve a `man's right to use.?" And Daphne DE Jong, a New Zealand feminist, says, "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience." She adds, "Of all the things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape . . . ."
Loesch, de Jong, Olivarez, and other pro-life feminists believe men should bear a much greater share of the burdens of child-rearing than they do at present. And de Jong makes a radical point when she says, "Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." Olivarez and others have also called for the development of safer and more effective contraceptives for both men and women. In her 1972 dissent, Olivarez noted with irony that "medical science has developed four differ ways for killing a fetus, but has not "developed a safe-for-all-to-use contraceptive."
Fifth, abortion is an escape from an obligation that is owed to another. Doris Gordon, Coordinator of Libertarians for Life, puts it this way: "Unborn children don't cause women to become pregnant but parents cause their children to be in the womb, and as a result, they need parental care. As a general principle, if we are the cause of another's need for care, as when we cause an accident, we acquire an obligation to that person a result .... We have no right to kill order to terminate any obligation."
Sixth, abortion brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen. Too many of us look the other way because we do not want to think about abortion. A part of reality is blocked out because one does not want to see broken bodies coming home, or going to an incinerator, in those awful plastic bags. People deny their own humanity when they refuse to identify with, or even knowledge, the pain of others.
With some it is worse: They are making money from the misery others, from exploited women and dead children. Doctors, business and clinic directors are making a great deal of money from abortion. Jobs and high incomes depend on abortion; it?s part of the gross national product. The parallels of this with the military industrial complex should be obvious to anyone who was involved in the war movement.
And the "slippery slope" argument is right: People really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia and accepting "triage" for the hunger problem and accepting "lifeboat ethics" as a general guide to human behavior. We slip down the slope back to the jungle.
To save the smallest children, save its own conscience, the Left should speak out against abortion.
Mary Meehan has written for Inquiry, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and other publications.
which clearly you lack.
h
I don't think character (or lack of it)...
...is restricted to one political party.
Whether this crook is a Democrat or a Republican, he should be tossed in jail and the keys thrown away. Period.
What I see as sad is people who lack
the common sense required to set their fears aside and look at all sides of an issue objectively and intelligently instead of allowing others to interpret information for them, often intentionally misleading the reader/listener. Parroting alarmist misinformation is representative of the sad state our country is in.
lack of integrity
I am a died-in-the-wool Democrat and also from Pennsylvania. I have a legitimate interest in this. I have always admired Arlen Specter (he certainly never gives up) and have mostly agreed with his policies. However I think it shows a total lack of integrity to switch parties in the middle of a term. He was elected as a Repbulican and should serve as a Republican........after all he can still vote according to his conscience. If he wants to run next year as a Democrat, then so be it, but he should remain a Repbulican until the end of his term. It is unfair to
This Democrat who previously voted for Specter will not have my vote again!
I am not in your life....I am in the life of the baby...
and will continue to speak for the baby. Again, my right.
No, your lack of compassion upsets me. sm
You need to think about THAT.
Well, then.... that explains your lack thereof.
Lack of common sense
An 83-year-old woman is too old, most likely, to be of much assistance in Iraq. Not ruling it out totally, but most likely this is the case. I have gleaned from the posts I have read that the rah-rah-war conservatives doing most of the posting are fairly able-bodied, some in their 30s, some in their 50s and some older. I am 52 and if I truly truly believed in this war I feel I would be over there doing what I could to support that effort (especially since many over there do NOT want to be there and have serious qualms about our involvement). But go ahead, call me names and make even more ENDLESS excuses why you won't go. Maybe even mention a 95-year-old or a 5-year-old that supports the war as examples of folks who aren't over there.
In the meantime I read more and more that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda continue to grow and operate at ease and at will in a large area of Afghanistan near Pakistan.
Total lack of compassion
I wanted to like this woman, and I did for approximately the first 48 hours after she was named as Sen. McCain's running mate. Then I heard from a close friend whose sister teaches high school Spanish in the small Alaskan town SP was mayor of. SP's son, the one who is about to be deployed overseas, was her student a few years ago and allegedly not a high-achieving one. My friend's sister said he was disrespectful and acted like he thought he was better than everyone else, and when it came time for the parent-teacher conference SP blamed his failing grades on her.
Okay, so this is one person's biased description and I didn't pay a lot of attention to it, but THEN I discovered her history regarding wildlife, ecology and "hunting," and I have to tell you this is a deal breaker for me.
What is so incredible to me is that she appears extremely caring and passionate regarding issues related to motherhood, family, child welfare and the right to life, yet she is completely void of emotion or sensitivity towards "lesser" forms of life. I don't care that she's a lifetime member of the NRA or even that she's a hunter, but she has a frightening and callous history in terms of wielding her legal power to exploit, maim and destroy wildlife and their natural habitats.
I'm so disgusted and disillusioned by all the political BS and hype coming from every direction that I can honestly say I don't plan to vote in the coming election.
the mind or lack thereof
worried about what someone said to a football player rather than the fact that US economy is on verge of collapse. The McCainites are attempting to distract everyone again .... dum da dum dum
It's getting late and the lack of information
way more time than I have at the moment to address. Obama spent much time in Kenya in an OFFICIAL capacity....sent there while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I will be expanding on this tomorrow and look forward to the slam dunk that a few tiny facts will exact on this trash you are trying to peddle.
have you ever heard of anyone who dies because of a lack of
health care? We treat everyone here--part of why LA can't keep an emergency room open. Ask Canadians if people die waiting for health care. As for Michael Moore--I would not waste my money.
I would not call that a lack of character...
I would actually call it strong character that she can praise Obama's win even though she feels he has anti-American views. So that is her opinion, as many of us here feel.
i don't really care about his o connection or lack of
dig it. they killed those pigs. - he and his wife are jerks
Lack of interest was the point.
Focks Noise is rarely relevant. I am retired and as grown as I can get. Resorting to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you does not exactly imply a great deal of maturity.
Yep, under Bush's lack of leadership nm
nm
You assume a lack of compassion....
but your snotty self-righteous attitude speaks for itself. Get over it.
The lack of one pretty much speaks for itself...
nm
and I don't believe their lack of support for O equals hate
x
Lack of intelligent conversation on your part
nm
Like lack of a valid birth certificate and that he...sm
would absolutely in no uncertain terms allow pork barrel projects? I could go on and on about the FACTS as the liberals see it, but by my dictionary - and without regard to news media or the channels thereof - these are NOT facts! Just wait - you'll find out for yourself. I'll be right here to tell you "I tried to tell you so!"
Trolls like YOU (and the lack of an ignore button) are the reasons
I can't stand it here any more. You do nothing but troll this board, stalk and attack posters. You add nothing of an intelligent or substantive nature to anything you post. Coming to this board used to be nice, but now it's like standing in a field as flies leave a nearby manure pile and suddenly hover around me and my friends, and I wind up spending too much time swatting them away. You simply can't be nice and civil to people. Nobody wants to subject themselves to that all the time. You've been relentless in your attacks against gt, and all it does is make you look like a horrible person, whether you realize it or not.
As far as debate, I'd love to debate issues, but personal attacks based on one's views is NOT debate, and that's all you do.
Here's an example of a post on Maher's board by an intelligent conservative who I believe I could learn a lot from. Note the EXTREME difference in this person's communication skills, compared to yours and those of your ilk on this board.
This poster generates interest and respect. Your posts generate disgust.
******
The Republicans Here Are Fake
I just came to this board today. I watched Real Time with Bill Maher for the first time last night and really enjoy it. While I do not agree with him on his views, I enjoy listening to politcal arguments and he does make strong cases.
I have been a life long Republican and served on numerous state campaigns as both a volunteer and paid worker. I know the value of a true debate and what it yields.
I searched for Bill Maher this morning and immediatley found this board. I have spent the last couple hours reading through countless posts and views of people from both sides of the political aisle. It is truly a shocking and numbing experience.
I see that most from the left provide a rational view and expressed opinions, but then I see the right has no true representation here. I have come across a few posters that say they are Republicans, but as a Republican I can assure you they do not stand for our parties beliefs.
A couple of the names I have seen include; helloinfidels, ketchupholic, mudwhistle, and theraceman.
While I am only passing by, I wanted to share with you my views on these individuals, as a person with a strong politcal background. I have a few explanations into the actions of these individuals and would like to post them for you.
-These people only argue because they purely like to argue with no goal in mind except to upset other.
-These individuals are truly Democrats, posing as Republicans in an attempt to smear the Republican party
- These people truly do not know what the Republican party stands for
In any of the above cases, we would rather they not try to represent our party, as they are actually mis-representing it.
I have been a member of numerous political forums, and I assure you that we would not allow any of these people to exist on our boards. They give no basis of fact with their arguments and only make them to hear themselves self promote a disturbing agenda.
I hope the majority of the people on here do not lend credit to their foolish assertions and realize they represent no party in this country.
Thank you for hearing from me and I look forward to some civil political debate on here without the rhetoric those few seem to rely upon.
Words can come off sounding like an attack, because these messages lack..sm
facial expressions, demeanor, so it leaves the reader to interpret the mood.
I don't know if you were saying me or Sir Percy was a recovering Democrat, but either way I'm a registered Democrat and have never voted for a republican president because of where I stand on social and civil issues.
Speaking of frustrating democrats, and I never thought I would be going here because I have a lot of respect for her. I was even bidding for her to be the first woman president, but Hillary needs to take a stand and stand firm on it, and let us know what it is. Her centrist stance is frustrating because I think she is the one democratic model out there that could speak and be heard and respected. Yet she has been quiet, and too her lack of opposition to the war has taken my respect down for her a few notches.
One look at the stats on Darfur...and the lack of American response...sm
takes any credibility from our being in Iraq for human rights reasons.
I would say that the lack of his demise being plastered all over the news speaks s/m
quite well for his health.
Lack of faith in Obama as leader of this country is
xx
This shows a true and disturbing lack of knowledge regarding the Israeli
Arab conflict. You surely realise that. I hope this was a joke....an unfunny one at that.
get a life
You post once again shows you are a vile and nasty person who surmises too much about people on chat boards. You know nothing about me and you attribute too much to me. I have no control of liberal posters. I enjoy reading their posts and respond when I want to. My advice to you is get a life and stop taking postings on a tiny bulletin board so seriously. You are sounding irrational.
Life?
Well, as a practicing Jew, I believe life begins at the first breath, but I know everyone does not agree with me.
Life...
How can something that moves, has a heartbeat and brain waves not be alive? Please to explain that to me.
Life...
I never said I did not give a hoot about what you believe and I am somewhat taken aback that you accuse me when you do not even know me. I do not agree with you, no; but you are entitled to believe as you wish, and just hope that you afford me the same courtesy. So, you are saying that you are on board with abortion? It is okay because the child is not alive according to your religion...that the child has no soul until it takes its first breath? So basically taking away its chance to take that first breath by invasive surgery is not murder, because you believe the child has no soul until it breathes? I am not finding fault, I am trying to understand a different view.
life
I am not on board with abortion. Since I believe (and many Jews do too, but not all) that life begins with breath, I believe it is up to each woman to make the decision that is right for her. It is not my place to judge or condemn her choice. My family has 2 children what were very much wanted and are very much loved. I feel fortunate that I never was in a position to have to make a choice regarding my pregnancies. But, just because I didn't chose to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason), I certainly don't want to take that choice away from another.
Basically, (and I am not referring to you personally here) if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't push your beliefs on me or anyone else.
Nat'l Right To Life, etc.
Check some of these places if you still don't want to believe me. Plenty are out there. One search for the above (nrl.org) brought up plenty.
I'm Pro-life sm
My point is that all our tax dollars have no business being spent on bad behavior and things such as this. The mainstream media has "mainstreamed" this issue, in an attempt to minimize the subject matter a
Many people who refuse to watch FNC because they're supposedly nutty right-wingers aren't getting both sides to the story. For instance, if you go to Foxnews.com and pull up Hannity & Colmes, you'll see that the show is half liberal and half conservative. You won't find that on the others. And while you're at that site, the info regarding what Rick Warren had to say about the debate at Saddleback, and how Obama actually heard more ahead of time than McCain. Actually, it was no debate, as Obama still refuses to have a face-to-face with McCain. I guess that's presidential?
I personally prefer to know when I get my news that I get both sides of it, and the people on the network aren't afraid to put their political views out there.
It sounds like we both agree on this, so I was surprised that you asked. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough or something.
her life is obviously out of
control. A real woman attends to her responsibilities at home. Her Downs baby needs her to BE THERE and interact with her. It is not enough just to bring her into the world, she must care for her. A pregnant teenager needs her mother there to guide her through this unfortunate time in her life. Teenage pregnancy is devastating to the development of a young woman who should be preparing for her own adulthood not attending the needs of an infant. Infants of teenage mothers suffer also. Instead Mrs. Palin will be on the road campaigning for 2 months and then in the WH adjusting to her new job after that. Those sure aren't part-time activities. I don't approve of a part-time mother OR a part-time VP especially with such an elderly pres. Obama and Biden are vital individuals who have loving, stable home lives and will not be distracted from their duties.
Get a life
Duped how exactly??? They still have the ranch and are keeping the ranch. Big figgin deal.
Nothing in life is sure but............ sm
death and taxes, and Mr. Barnett very eloquently proved the latter.
A Day in the Life of a Republican
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
I am against anything that destroys life.
That's my stand.
Yes, I am strongly pro-life...
and I have said in numerous posts that I am not against insuring children. And I am NOT. What I am against is taxing all Americans to death to pay for all kinds of programs where the waste is unimaginable. There are thousands if not millions of women who made a living having babies...under Aid for Dependent Children. If you don't believe that, talk to some people in Human Services. They sign up 2nd and 3rd generations on AFDC or whatever they call it now. Those ladies will never work and they tell you they will never work, and I can promise you they are not bettering themselves so that they can keep health care for their children. And if you look at those children, I am thinking not a lot of that check every month goes to taking good care of the kids. My point is, trim the fat on existing programs that obviously are not working...don't make NEW taxes to pay for MORE programs that no one is going monitor either. There is plenty of money floating around out there in wasteful programs that could fund insurance for children without making even MORE taxes. And what I am saying to you is that at some point, the more people who get on programs and out of the work force, the less tax money there is going to be to take care of all the programs. That is all I am saying.
And another thing, you need to read the bill. It does give a lot of leeway for folks who could pay for private insurance for their children if they made it a priority. But why should they, if you and I are going to pay for it for them. Yes, I believe there are some people out there who would like to better themselves but will not so they can keep health care for their children. I can also tell you that there are as many out there who could provide health care for their children but will not because they think it is too high and they choose to spend the money elsewhere. Ugly, but true. So why didn't Congress send the bill to Bush that did not have that loophole provision in it? There is a really good question.
I am sorry if my being pro life is offensive to you...
however, I have not called any individual a profane and hateful name. Defend it if you like. Birds of a feather.
I am THRILLED that we might have a pro life ....
(it's about darned time we had a voice in washington), Bible-thumpin' (which builds character and compassion, not bad things, and may I remind you, Obama professes to be a Christian and talks about his faith as well..why the double standard may I ask), gun moll (oh please...although the idea that she could pick up a gun and defend herself if she had to is not a minus either) for VP. If I was going to be in a fight I'd sure rather have her at my back than Joe Biden.
Even after loopholes, the rich still pay more than 80% of the taxes in this country. Even that is not enough for you?
I actually was doing worse under Clinton than I have done under either of the Bush terms. Your party has had control of Congress for a year and have sat on their hands and done NOTHING to help this economy. Bush had to push through the economic stimulus package, and frankly, that check was welcome. At least it was SOMETHING.
Your congress is who makes policy. It is THEY who should be working on the economy. BUt they have not done diddly. Not my fault...I didn't vote for the Democrats (majority). Those are your guys and girls.
The Nat. Enquirer? Oh, get a life.
nm
A day in the life of Joe Repub. sm
Someone e-mailed this to me, I thought it was kind of funny and took it in the spirit in which it was sent (considering a pub sent it to me). The date says 2004, but whoever recirculated it put in some current references. Not saying that it is true, just thought it was funny.
A Day in the life of Joe Republican.
Politics September 28, 2004
Found on This Modern World, an e-mail that’s apparently making the rounds:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations]
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions] He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations that have prevented poisoned food being imported to the USA ]
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained[Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations] .
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of MOST government regulations and environmental protections]. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of the public projects in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to and the power of unions] If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to get rid of many of these consumer protections and public assistance in favor of the giant financial industry] Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Again, conservatives fought these steps to aid the citizens of America for the good of ALL Americans) He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. [Conservatives (ie McCain/Palin) want to limit workers access to unions and government safety nets in favor of financing the Military/Industrial complex] Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. (And have used smears and lies against liberals that have pushed these agendas)Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.” (sic)
I have know some people in my life who are....sm
always flying the American flag or have worn a flag pin (or a cross) on their lapel who if truth be know are dispicable human beings, not patriotic or religious in any way. It is what is in your heart and mind that matters not what you display to the rest of the world via a symbol on your lapel.
I would stake my life on it...
They do not want Palin to answer any questions, just want to somehow sneak her into the WH. You don't have to believe me but mark my words if that is not what happens. Somehow, some way, they will not have the VP debate.
Its a Wonderful Life
Warren Buffet and Barack Obama
George Baily and Mr. Potter are finally friends George will be the richest man in town!
Well....if I was fighting for my life....
I would much rather have Sarah at my back than Joe Biden or Barack Obama. In a HEARTBEAT.
What exactly makes him a low-life, besides just
x
Geeeze, they need to get a life then
))
|
