Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Success is sweet.. jealousy is ugly

Posted By: OBAMA MAMMAS UNITE on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: I don't take pride in underhanded tactics to win - that's not superior

he won! hahaha


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

    That's not jealousy...(sm)
    its pointing out hypocrisy.  Boy, that one just flew right by ya didn't it.....LOL.
    sounds like jealousy
    you may say otherwise but reading your post you can see it. Jealousy plain and simple!
    Jealousy..er..jealousness? What does she have


    Gee, sounds like jealousy....................
    --
    Jealousy? HARDLY. Try uneasiness. LOTS of it.
    nm
    I would be ashamed if I were someone with Rush's ignorance. No jealousy here. But I do wonder a
    lot about those who are his fans.
    It is definitely jealousy coming thru LOUD AND CLEAR
    --
    Success!!

    Glad to see you made it.  This board was very confusing for me when they changed it.  Wasn't sure for a while where I was going to end up half the time!!!


    I'm kicking myself because I didn't see that interview you described above.  And I'd been watching O'Reilly a little bit more often than usual, too.  Have been much busier with work lately.  Maybe I could visit the website and find the transcript, although your description of it upset me enough, and I'm not sure I want to be upset today.  To me, there are just some people who are off limits to attack, and families of soldiers who were killed in Iraq (especially mothers) are those people!  I've seen parents in the past who were still supportive of the president after their child was killed, and I totally respected every single word they said.  Then there are also parents like Ms. Sheehan and Kesterer, whose opinions I also respect. 


    If anyone has a right to object to this war, it's the mother of a slain soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice.  O'Reilly should be suspended like Novak was.


    Anyway, it's really nice to see you here, and I hope you find this a safer, more pleasant place to be than the Conservative board (sans the obvious posters who are only here to insult and harass).


    Have a great day! 


     


    success in war

    A war is not a success until it is over.  While it is continuing, it is simply called a war.


     


    That success=success even when
    nm
    this is a really sweet one too
    x
    wow--that was sweet!
    x
    Who are you"? Haven't met you yet. Your post reeks of jealousy. Are you sure you could finish
    nm
    I'll take 70% success over nothing.....
    x
    sweet neocons
    Love the Rolling Stones, always have, but I think the name of the song should have been..Lying sack of dirt, warmonger, murdering, chickenhawk neocons..but I guess since the Rolling Stones are a commercial band and have contracts with the NFL, they had to keep their song a bit low key..
    No more venemous than you, sweet pea.


    Sweet! Sadly, I think you are right. I need a better job. LOL nm
    x
    Aren't you sweet.
    Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?

    Conservatives blame the housing crisis on a 1977 law that helps-low income people get mortgages. It's a useful story for them, but it isn't true.


    Robert Gordon | April 7, 2008 | web only



    The idea started on the outer precincts of the right. Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who calls Ron Paul "the Jefferson of our time," wrote in September that the housing crisis is "the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers." The policy DiLorenzo decries is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve.

    The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."

    Last week, a more careful expression of the idea hit The Washington Post, in an article on former Sen. Phil Gramm's influence over John McCain. While two progressive economists were quoted criticizing Gramm's insistent opposition to government regulation, the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan offered an opposing perspective. Litan suggested that the 1990s enhancement of CRA, which was achieved over Gramm's fierce opposition, may have contributed to the current crisis. "If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed," Litan said, "it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that."

    This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.

    The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)

    The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals. Studies by the Federal Reserve and Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.

    But CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

    The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

    Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

    Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

    Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business."

    It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.

    And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

    Repeat: DNC phenomenal success.
    nm
    Yeah, look at the success the govt has been with
    nm
    Welfare Reform is a Success

    Welfare Reform Reauthorized


    Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened


    Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).


    "The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."


    The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.


    Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.


    "The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."


    Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.


    "A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."


    The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.


    The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.


    For more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, view: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/.


    Baby steps is the key to success!
    President Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows it won't happen overnight, and he knows it is not always going to please everyone, but he know that it must be done!
    His comment that it was a success is about as good as
    On the day (after a whole week) of the dollar dropping.

    He's so out of touch and his lack of experience really shows.


    Im back, sweet peas
    To those who have posted..where is gt??  I have been relaxing in Mexico..NOT BANNED..as Im sure many have wished or prayed..nope..IM HERE..Just took a few days off to enjoy my Mexican friends and shop at their so inexpensive shops..IM BACK.
    I would be calm sweet and caring too
    if I had her money. Her outfit the other night was said to be worth over $300K. Minus the 3-carat diamond earrings, the outfit was only valued at around $30K. Laura Bush's outfit was estimated to be valued at less than $5K. Michelle Obama's was probably in that ballpark too.

    Even if this stuff was donated by the designers, etc., I can't relate to any of these people. You will find me cruising the aisles of my local thrift shop looking for a bargain
    sweet - more like sour and rotten LOL LOL LOL
    x
    His sweet little Kenyan grandmother was there....
    and she said herself that she is so proud to have witnessed the birth IN KENYA of her grandson who will be the next POTUS. Can't deny that one.
    depends on how you measure success I guess....
    He only got a 4-5 point bounce in the polls and lost that the next week. Not all Americans were impressed with his "citizen of the world" speech. There are those of us who wonder where his real allegiance lies. No wonder.

    By the way, when I say "hoohah" I don't mean the word you refer to. Apparently it does not mean the same thing in my neck of the woods. If I want to intimate the 4-letter word I would certainly do it more directly...not my style.

    There is no way that little speech in Germany was "diplomacy." And gee, call me old-fashioned, but I think if you are running for Pres of the US, you should give your political speeches HERE.

    I did not demand, nor have I heard anyone else demand that Obama admit the surge is working. It is obvious that it is. The fact that he chooses to ignore it does not give me any more faith in his ability to run the country or take care of national security issues, and makes me doubt his honesty. As to being true to his beliefs...didn't take him long to throw his lifelong friend and mentor the Reverend Wright under the bus for political expediency. There's that trust thing again.

    How anyone can say, faced with all the info out there about him and how he handled the Wright thing (which was in name only, you don't stay in a church for 20 years that is built on black liberation theology if you don't believe it)...and say with a straight face he is being true to his beliefs.

    Well, I take that back...he IS being true to his hard left socialist/Marxist beliefs. Already wants to redistribute wealth aka economic parity, a big element of the black liberatin theology...by taxing oil companies and redistributing their profits to people who did nothing to earn it. How much more socialist approaching Marxist could you possibly be? In that, yes, I would agree...he is being true to his socialist/Marxist beliefs. You got me there.
    Oh it's so sweet you're concerned, you do have a heart!...nm
    x
    OBAMA WON!!! Despite Faux News attempts to thwart the success WE DID IT
    very good news and what a relief
    The Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly page sm
    is a great idea. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin are at the top of my list for rabid vermin. There are some other great links there too, some funny.
    The ugly Right
    I captured this off a post by MT:

    "know, alas, I must be a real ogre to not feel compelled to cast my lot with the compassion-über-alles crowd, fall all over myself issuing the expected disclaimers concerning the treatment of the grief-stricken, and imply that such status renders one immune from the criticism that usually attends being a left-wing, activist wacko. But let’s get something straight: if you want to grieve, grieve. If you want to play politics, play politics.

    But my sympathy for the grieving ends where their use of their grief as a political battering ram begins."

    Someone named Selwyn Duke wrote that, apparently.

    Is anyone surprised that the "pugilistic pen" of the NeoCons finds no merit in grief, no respect for loss, no sympathy for the death of a child? Oh no, their message is "YOU CAN'T FOOL US!" - to them it's always about WHO WINS and never about the reality of broken, bloodied hearts and bodies. To them, something as pure and simple as a mother's grief and determination becomes something ugly and suspicious and threatening.

    They don't realize how their paranoia exposes the fact that they DO have much to be ashamed of. Their sense of being threatened is warranted. What is good and right is always a threat to liars, thieves and murderers. Just ask Jesus. he might have something to say about the stone hearts and evil plotting minds who killed him. Recognize yourselves, NeoCons? Oh no, you won't be tricked into seeing yourselves as you really are - never say uncle, right? You're too clever.

    There's always the option to attack and attack some more - leave no whistleblower or dissenter unmauled! Shut them all up! Nuke 'em! Women, babies, the broken, the poor, the trampled, the noble dead - get another handful of dukey and smear 'til you drop!

    Didn't really expect anything else from them.

    Wow, this is really getting ugly.
    I'm really undecided on who to vote for becasue I like and dislike many things about both candidates.  What I'd like to ask everyone that reads this message is to post a quick reply with something really good about the candidate that they suport WITHOUT saying anything negative about the opposing candidate.  That would really help me out, and probably a lot of other people as well.  Thanks!
    LOL! She believes she can do anything ugly she wants because she

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


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


    UGLY BENNETT









    Ugly Bennett

    Hit on 'abort every black baby' gaffe










    William Bennett
    Morality maven William Bennett was in holier-than-thou hell yesterday after the White House and just about everybody else blasted him for saying the crime rate could be reduced by aborting every black baby in this country.

    The best-selling author of The Book of Virtues insisted he was no racist and refused to apologize.

    I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition, Bennett said on his Morning in America radio show.

    But the Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the cultural conservative. The President believes the comments were not appropriate, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

    While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize, NAACP chief Bruce Gordon said he was personally offended and angry that Bennett felt he could make such a public statement with impunity.

    The Rev. Al Sharpton called the conservative's comments blatantly racist. He's a man who thinks black and crime are synonymous, he said.

    But Bennett was defended by his brother, high-powered Washington lawyer Robert Bennett.

    What I would emphasize is that he called this morally reprehensible, the lawyer told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. I think it's largely making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Responding to a caller on Wednesday's radio program, Bennett said he disagreed with the hypothesis put forward in another best seller, Freakonomics, that crime goes down as abortions go up.

    But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, said Bennett.

    Bennett, a Republican who opposes abortion, then added that this would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

    Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything links the drop in crime to a drop in the number of children born into poverty after Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. But authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner did not assume that those aborted fetuses would have been black.

    Race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime, Levitt wrote on his blog yesterday.

    The Brooklyn-reared Bennett was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and the nation's first drug czar under the first President George Bush. A darling of the religious right, Bennett's credentials as moralizer-in-chief were tarnished two years ago when he admitted he had a gambling problem.


    Dumb's the word


    What William Bennett said:

    But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

    Originally published on September 30, 2005


    You must be one of the ugly people.
    .
    All I know is that all this dirty, ugly
    campaigning by the McCain camp has done nothing but fuel the fires.  You can't blame this on Obama.  He has handled his campaign with nothing but class.  There were so many things he could have dragged out, but he chose not to lower himself to those standards.  Kind of reminds me of the hysteria of the Massachusetts witch trials, and a lot of innocent people were hung over that.
    Can't you just see those old ugly, fake
    pictures of Obama on them hanging around all through their houses? They so cheapened those things when they stuck his old colored picture up there beside George Washington and John Kennedy. What a JOKE!
    Who ever said that Hillary is ugly?
    Now, this I want to know:

    Who is prettier Hillary or Michelle?
    The bad and the ugly truth of it all.........

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


    Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay



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


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


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


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


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


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


    The bad and the ugly truth of it all.........

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


    Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay



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


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


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


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


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


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


    The bad and the ugly truth of it all.........

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


    Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay



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


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


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


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


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


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


    UGLY woman. Looks like an
    Hence, the full-time makeup artist, who should get a medal for merely making her sufficiently presentable that she doesn't break more than a couple dozen cameras wherever she appears in public.
    yes, it's gonna be ugly, especially if
    Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
    Pretty ugly stuff for someone . . .
    who is so fond of mudslinging!!  He is a desperate man who would rather incite hate mongering than address the real issues at hand!!
    This board is turning ugly
    Towelhead? Oreo? half-breed??

    SHAME on you.


    shame on you.
    Poster below is right...your comments here are ugly.

    I was called jealous and ugly and that's not okay sm
    No matter how you try to cover for your friends or backpedal. No matter how you worded it, that was a personal attack and I am noticing republicans or Palin and McCain supporters are getting very angry and speaking in hateful ways. I do believe it's because it's evident that Obama is winning. I do hope you will all be good American citizens and back our new president when this election is carried out and shows our new President Obama!
    When I read the ugly responses here to my

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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


     


    Sorry, but your protest idea, is what's UGLY,
    You people are trying to force your beliefs on women you dont even know. You're trying to force them to have children you'll never see, and will never lift finger to help. The pro-choice folks don't tell others they must HAVE abortions, who why do you think it's your place to tell us they CAN'T?

    Control, people. It's all about CONTROL. Right now we have control of our own bodies and life destinies, and they're trying to take that right away from us. Once that's gone, what will they take away from us next?
    BIGOTRY is ugly, even when camouflaged