WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
Posted By: and reasons very clear.I still support SCHIP tho.( on 2007-10-10
In Reply to: I still don't believe government-controlled... - Observer
.
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
Well, here is my stance on the subjects.
1. Homosexual marriage: For it. If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too. If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.
2. Welfare: Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need. Welfare needs an upgrade.
3. Abortion: I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.
Hope your poll helps clarifies things for you.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Joy isn't happy unless it's HER stance
on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.
Obama stance on terrorism....
This latest quote of his just says to me he doesn't get it, especially where Muslim extremists are concerned:
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
How is posting his stance bashing?
People are not supposed to compare the two?
OMG! Check out O's stance on immigration
Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
In fact, you can also check out Emanuel, Holder, McCain, Napolitano, Clinton, here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm#Headlines
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
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?
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....
Please do not respond 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.
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
Observer, did you say WONKY?? TeeHee
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.
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.
Yes I do have it made.
I do have it made, and it is well earned. How much military service do you have under your belt? How many political action committees have you served on?
I don't think she has made this
decision without thinking about all she might miss with her kids. My mom was at a lot of the things I did in school. However, my dad was at work. He was supporting his family by making a living. He was making our situation better by working that overtime so we could afford stuff. Would I have liked my dad to be at my tennis match.....sure. But the reality is that even though he wasn't there watching, he still was literally the one supporting me and I appreciated and loved him for that.
As for Palin, did you ever think that maybe....just maybe she is willing to sacrifice time with her kids to make a better country for them as well as all of us? Have they asked Obama about sacrificing time with his kids? No....because we all just assume Michelle will take care of the kids.
Al would have made sure we were . . .
not kissing (notice I did not say kicking) butt over in Iraq to get that oil. This country would have been a lot further along with alternative energy sources!!!
I made my own
NObama pin which I alternated with an Obama pin (with the red slash through the O as in a no smoking sign).
thank you SO much, made my day!!
 That was truly worth the seven minutes!!
Please tell me you just made that up!!!
Because if you didn't, you're right, that is much more sick.
Please tell me you just made that up!!!
Because if you didn't, you're right, that is much more sick.
NO vaccines are made in the U.S. now???
Or is that another conservative "fact"?
And, yes, those dang whacko liberals like Robert F. Kennedy and those of his ilk should be ashamed of themselves for connecting the presence of thimerosal in vaccines and resultant autism and attempting to STOP it. Who cares about the children who are already here? The most important thing is that we make sure not to hurt those inanimate cells in a petrie dish.
And, yes, it's certainly has been proven that there can be side effects associated with the smallpox vaccine where a small percentage of people might get sick and die. We COULD maybe let the people CHOOSE whether they want the vaccine or not (if enough of it ever actually EXISTED to protect the entire country), but, no, free choice isn't a very "red" thing to do. So the only logical thing to do is make sure that we deny the vaccine to all Americans so we can ALL die if terrorists decide to use that as a form of bio warfare. (By the way, I truly doubt that lawsuits will be much of an issue if we're all DEAD.)
Right? I mean, you "red" guys know what should be allowed and denied in the life of every single American, don't you? You've got some kind of special "divine knowledge" where you know what I should be "allowed" to do with my own personal body, who I'm "allowed" to love, how I'm "allowed" to plan my family, when I decide I'm "allowed" to die, and which God I'm "allowed" to worship without being doomed to eternal damnation?
wow, you made that assumption of me HOW? sm
by the way, the immaturity and silliness of your answer just makes you look like a fool. Might want to work on that.
Yep, made a mistake, should have been why would anyone BAN you. SM
People do that all the time on the board, don't make a big deal out of it and I am perfectly FINE here. Why.....feeling uncomfortable? It's not like you guys don't take pot shots on the Conservative board now is it?
No, only the ones made by liberals.
xox
|
