When I read the ugly responses here to my
Posted By: Original Poster on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: Massive abortion protest set for - sm
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?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I can also read them and post responses to them
if I like and sometimes I choose to, and I don't use use rage to get my point across like you do. You are the one that needs to take a serious chill pill...that is if you want to, but I seriously doubt it. You revel in your rage.
Read all the responses to your message - sm
and try to understand what we are saying.
There is just no justifiable reason for this luau and/or any other diversion Obama is into. Does not seem as though many people agree with you and, for the record, I am not here to argue with you, just to try to get you to see past the fog.
No, she was calling ME ugly and jealous actually, read it again. nm
xxx
Your responses come as no
surprise. I was actually expecting worse. I guess i should thank you for your temperance. All that I said was that when I heard the Governor speak, it crossed my mind how no one representing this administration has attended any funerals of Iraqi soldiers. You say the others have attended none to some...that is more than this administration sees fit.
This IS the only administration where the president or an envoy of some sort has not attended a funeral or 2. It just simply crossed my mind while listening to the governor going on and on about W's compassionate self. I do not, contrary to popular belief, suffer from BDS. He is so completely inconsequential that I almost feel sorry for him. I watched him in Ohio giving a speech and he was rambling about chickens and plucking and something else...really not making a lot of sense. I was embarrassed for him. I have never seen a presidential campaign start as early as this one and I believe, IMHO, that the reason is that the nation pretty much considers this administration chopped liver. You have got to admit that the scandals (enough to make any CEO proud) have kept this administration from governing, with the exception of **staying the course,** not attending a funeral here or there.
I did not get my information on other presidents' funeral attendances from **liberal sources,** it is pretty much common knowledge and has been bandied around every time someone talks or writes about the numbers, the lack of photos, the **no draped caskets** rule quite a few times,...at any rate, I DID go to a **liberal** site today and found an article written by a man who had the same response I did and I will enclose it for your reading enjoyment. His focus covers the Iraqi civilians while I confess I had not thought of them as much as the soldiers and I should have.What those poor people go through on a daily basis, every day, every single day, with numbers in the 3 digits some of the time is heartbreaking.
The Human Face of Death
by Louis Freedberg
What the green hills of Blacksburg, Va., and the dusty streets of Baghdad have in common is that in the last few days terrible acts of violence have been perpetrated there.
But the reactions to that violence could not have been more different.
Within a day of the Virginia Tech massacre, the 32 victims were memorialized in detailed biographies, news stories, photos and “interactive features” on a range of Web sites.
Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post’s write-up on 19-year-old Emily Hilscher, the first student killed by the deranged Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently, Hilscher liked every kind of music except country and classical. “Give me something I can bang my head to or dance like crazy and I’m all over it,” she wrote in her My Space profile.
Of Ryan Clark, another early victim, the New York Times wrote, “Ryan Clark was known as Stack on campus, an amiable senior memorable for his ready smile and thoughtful ways … Tall and thin, Mr. Clark, a resident of August, Ga., was well liked and a member of the university’s marching band, the Marching Virginians.”
It is entirely appropriate that the violence at Blacksburg be personalized. Putting the human face on death will help focus the nation’s attention on an out-of-control culture of violence, which allows easy access to guns to the most demented among us.
If the violence in Iraq were humanized to the same extent, perhaps the war in Iraq would be over by now.
Yet, instead of putting a human face on the carnage there, the human toll in Iraq has been mostly reduced to body counts. The victims of the Iraq war have received little of the outpouring of grief and national attention focused on the Virginia victims.
Here’s a cold number: as of this week, 3,309 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq. Typically, the victims get a story or two in their hometown newspaper or a report on local television. (I just read my colleague Steve Rubenstein’s wrenching obituary on Sgt. Mario De Leon from Rohnert Park, who died in Baghdad on Monday. “Sweet, polite kind,” his wife said of her 26-year-old husband, who loved to watch his collection of “Star Wars” movies. “I never met anyone like him.”)
But then everyone moves on (except, of course, the survivors).
Some might say soldiers are in a line of work where casualties are expected. Mass homicide on a college campus, they’d argue, is a different story that deserve special attention.
But the civilian casualties of the civil war in Iraq rarely emerge as human beings who have lives as rich and complex lives as the Virginia dead. News reports from Iraq invariably provide a daily casualty count in a sentence or two, the numbers usually prefaced by the words “at least.”
On the Saturday just before the Virginia Tech massacre, “at least” 37 people were killed, and another 150 wounded in a car bomb explosion in Karbala.
On Sunday, 34 people were killed in two suicide bombings in Baghdad. Of those who died half were women and children, according to a report.
On Wednesday, “at least” 158 people were killed in Baghdad in some of the deadliest attacks of the war.
So it goes, each day in Iraq. More deaths. More numbers.
I’ve been searching for a report profiling even one of yesterday’s victims in Iraq. What did they look like? What music were they interested in? What were their hobbies? Who is mourning them?
I’ll concede that it’s tough to identify victims of suicide and car bombings. Language and security barriers make it difficult for reporters to track down relatives and friends of the victims.
Of course, they aren’t Americans. It’s understandable we would care more about our own.
The daily statistical reports from Baghdad on the latest atrocity are numbing to the point where we hardly pay attention to them anymore. They read like a table from Dow Jones Industrial index — up today, down tomorrow.
Imagine what would happen if mass killings on the scale of the Virginia Tech massacre — or multiples thereof — occurred each day in the United States.
Yet that is exactly what is happening in Iraq, a country one-tenth our size.
The Virginia victims deserve to be remembered as vibrant human beings. The images of them that dominate the airwaves have the potential to spark action to make sure something like it does not happen again.
But the anonymous victims of a war begun by the United States should also be memorialized. By reducing them to ciphers, it’s too easy to avoid confronting the full impact of the catastrophe that has overtaken Iraq.
And so the war goes on.
Louis Freedberg is a Chronicle editorial writer. E-mail him at lfreedberg@sfchronicle.com.
© 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle
Discuss this story
If your not getting responses
It seems like some posters below are attacking others for not aggreeing with them, however, they are being ignored. People are attacking others and luckly the original posters know what their game is and decided to not respond anymore, however, some (a) poster has taken it to a new level and decided to try to instigate more trouble. I would say no response is the best response they deserve.
Your responses are disturbing.
I don't believe I have ever seen a more angry and irrational person.
Thank you for your candid responses.
It helped solidify a few things in my head. I guess for me the bottom line is, whatever your beliefs are on the subject, if you have religion in your life or a pagan like myself, it does not give the right for a special interest group to subjugate another, and that is the end result. I don't think that they can effectively stop abortion using this method.
I think it all goes back to educating people. I guess it is easier for some individuals to stand on their moral high ground and point fingers than to truly come up with a workable solution. The unborn do not need their voice. They have a mother to make decisions for them, which is where it should stay. Selective benevolence? Not for me. If one is so emphatic in the decision to embrace life and fight for it, then fight for all. Do not pick and choose who or what's life is in more need. Pro-life to me means anti-war, anti-starvation, anti-subjugation, etcetera, for all living things.
If one is strongly anti-abortion, which is strictly a moral issue, then start a movement to educate people and create viable alternatives, but leave it out of political and the legal system. I do believe that choosing a presidential candidate because of a moral or religious tendency is improper. It comes as no surprise to me that this behavior has been justified on this posting. I find it to be extremely arrogant. But it seems that some just cannot temper themselves and feels the calling to preach not realizing that when one has an opinion about everything, they lose their effectiveness. People stop listening. The need to control or dominant a conversation has nothing to do with dissent. It has everything to do with being unduly opinionated and argumentative and makes people wonder who they are trying to convince.
I was glad someone brought up the subject of the welfare of these unwanted children. If parents discover early in their pregnancy that the child has birth defects and are responsible for the welfare over the lifetime of that child, should they not have the right to abort it? If a parent has a child who has experienced a TBI who cannot survive without a ventilator and nutritional support, should they not have the right to end that child's life? To me, that is benevolence. It is wrenching decision and should not rest within the government or a special interest group. Deferring abortion law back to the states does not address the issue at its root, it just puts it in someone else's lap.
No one wants increased welfare and other government subsidies. There is a direct correlation between the poor and uneducated to welfare subsidies. If government would actually take the subject seriously and increase education funding rather than cutting it everytime tax cuts are put on the table, which tend to hit the inner cities the hardest, it would stand to reason the abortion rates would go down. I firmly believe this. But, I digress, and this is a whole other subject.
I would like to hear a presidential candidate state they are going to increase education funding. That is a reason for backing a presidential hopeful.
Responses for M and Some thoughts (sm)
M:
If they don't show progress and default on the loans, then the gov would have a controlling interest because they gave out those loans. This would lead to restructuring, and probably more of a government run industry. And yeah, they could mess it up just as bad, but we have to at least try something.
Some thoughts:
Even if they are supported financially during re-education, what would they go into? Just about every industry across the board is being hit with this financial mess, so their options would be limited. Also, we're talking about millions of people, and not everyone is cut out for higher education, which is a good thing because we actually do need workers in this country.
This also leaves us with an auto industry that would consist of imports, so we would still be oil dependent.
Thank you for your wonderful responses!
I am truly impressed by all of the posters who responded to this question in such a compassionate and intelligent way. You have renewed my faith in the people who post on this board, and for that I thank you!
Personally, I think that any medicine that can help relieve human suffering should, without a doubt, be legal and made available to those in need. The voters of California or any other state that wish to have marijuana legalized should have that right without interference from the federal governent.
Again, thank you!
Yep -Responses from the very ones I expected.
You all are SO predictable.
TTYL...I'm off to do something constructive for our country....
Obama does not inspire these responses.
xoxoxo
Unbelievable that there are no responses to this post.. All I can say is...sm
this is so true. In my opinion, people voting for the republican ticket are either right wing religious voters, rich voters, poor under-educated voters who are easily led, bigots who would never vote for a black man, or people who for whatever reason buy into the terrorist, Muslim, anti-American, anti-Christ, foreigner, not like us scare tactics that abound.
Well, I got a fair number of other responses....sm
..from people who got the point. Sorry if it zoomed past you two!
Note to self: There are a couple of simpletons on the board. Do not use parody or metaphor when writing, or you'll lose them.
Questions for dems and pubs - only serious responses need post...(sm)
If you are a democrat, is there anything that Obama has done that you don't agree with, or perhaps is there a policy that he has kept from the previous admin that you agree with that would be out of the norm for the left?
My answer: I actually agree with the decision exhibited thus far by the Obama administration to keep the "enemy combatant" thing. I think it could serve as useful, however, it should not be abused. In the case of al-Marri I think it was abused, and it should be refined. They have FINALLY brought charges against this guy who has been held in prison since 2003 with no charges, no counsel, nada. I think we need to preserve the right to hold people, but there needs to be some kind of standard for doing so.
Info on case: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gcdH1vowYGzkkCo-7c8M2imC056Q
If you are a republican is there anything that the Obama administration has done that you DO agree with?
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
|
By CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
|
 |
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
Tuesday 17 March 2009
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
Tuesday 17 March 2009
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
Tuesday 17 March 2009
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!
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
And another troll rears her ugly head.
Shoo, shoo, shoo away, dirty FLY. 
I mean really. Fascism is rearing its ugly head...nm
Last-worditis rears its ugly head once again.
Ad nauseum.........
Incompetence and stupidity rearing its ugly
2100 more fraudulent voter registrations already uncovered as of today, but lets not blame ACORN for that, those wonderful caring nonracial folks.
Fraudulent is their middle name.
What an ugly thing to say. Keep spewing hate. We will see on Nov 4
.
Socialism rears its ugly head
I have a cute story too!
My neighbor is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican like so many up here in this rural area where Obama equals Osama. She's burying her guns because she thinks Obama will come here personally and take them if he is elected. She goes on about the Ay-rab pretender, and frequently brings me articles from far right-wing mags proving Obama is a black panther socialist and wants to take all the money and give it to bums. She don't want no socialist commie in the White House.
My neighbor lives on disability payments for a supposed bipolar disorder. She draws her late husband's veteran's benefits. When we had a mutual boundary problem with another neighbor, she got free state legal aid, while I had to pay for mine. She gets free medical care due to low income, and free dental care. She's 57 years old, just a few more years older than me. She's got a great house that they got on VA loan, and spends her days lounging on the back deck, playing ball with her dog, and going out to party at night in the local bars. And she's not unique up here - this heavily Republican county draws more social services out of the kitty than any other county in the state.
Now, here I am, working 13 hours a day sometimes 14 days in a row, never took a dime off the public dole, worked my whole life for everything I have,raised 2 great kids without help, pay my bills, served in the military, and dontcha know, I'm a Democrat.
Where would my essentially useless and unproductive REPUBLICAN neighbor be without "socialism"? Why, she'd be your bum on the street, that's what. In fact the whole town would be rioting without their free health care, social security checks, disability checks, food stamps, ad nauseum. And folks, they ain't Democrats - far from it.
So, I don't buy this phony outrage over "welfare mamas" - and anybody who doesn't realize where their hard-earned tax money is going right now (to the rich, the military corporate profiteers, and to some lazy Republican neighbors)ought to check it out, and maybe decide it's time for the average hard-working Joe to be able to keep a little more of what he makes for himself. What's so scary about that? It's high time somebody looks to give US a break.
Success is sweet.. jealousy is ugly
he won! hahaha
Really classy reply; I would rather be ugly on the outside than the inside...sm
Honest truth. Physical beauty fades, but inner beauty is forever, and it benefits all who come in contact with you. Personally, I think Mrs. Obama is very lovely, carries herself well, she is a lady, she is so healthy and toned I could only WISH I could get that back, and her style is her style. Shall we put first ladies in a Burka? Is there a dress code to the office? Her husband is crazy about her, the public loves her, she has beautiful, lady-like daughters, and she is friendly and unassuming. Do the folk flinging around the nasty "ugly" comments look into their own mirror, let alone their inner beauty, or lack thereof? JMHO
Really classy reply; I would rather be ugly on the outside than the inside...sm
Honest truth. Physical beauty fades, but inner beauty is forever, and it benefits all who come in contact with you. Personally, I think Mrs. Obama is very lovely, carries herself well, she is a lady, she is so healthy and toned I could only WISH I could get that back, and her style is her style. Shall we put first ladies in a Burka? Is there a dress code to the office? Her husband is crazy about her, the public loves her, she has beautiful, lady-like daughters, and she is friendly and unassuming. Do the folk flinging around the nasty "ugly" comments look into their own mirror, let alone their inner beauty, or lack thereof? JMHO
I agree with your analysis. It's gonna be ugly, especially if
Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
In realty I'm a guy dressed up like a girl, that's why I'm butt ugly.
x
I agree that Wright's racist rants were ugly. nm
x
I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm
x
Spoken like a true jealous, ugly woman.
I am so amazed that the people who seem to be the hardest on Palin are women. She has been a success in her state. She has more experience at running something than Obama does and yet you lemmings think he is GOD. Give me a friggin break. I think women are out to get Palin just simply because they are jealous and/or ugly and can't stand the fact that a down to Earth, good looking, smart woman like Palin could have made it this far. If Palin were on the dem side.....you all would be drooling over her. Well....she is a republican and I'm sorry she isn't as ugly as Hillary, but Palin is very capable of being the VP of our country.
Spoken like a true jealous, ugly woman??!!
How dare you call someone names like that, simply because she disagrees with your political views?
The only one who comes across as "ugly" is you.
The truth is that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the job of Vice resident entails. She's an embarrassment to every intelligent, qualified woman out there who WOULD be ready to step in and take over if need be, and there are plenty of them. Kay Bailey Hutchinson comes to mind right now, along with Elizabeth Dole, just to name two.
Just one more example of John McCain's terrible judgment.
Political wind have shifted in an ugly direction.
One does not have to look any further than this forum to know PRECISELY what he was talking about....racism and bigotry has reared its ugly head once again. When that happens, the damage transcends race and ethnicity. This is why you see so many of us stepping up every single time this kind of trash is posted to call it down and expose it for exactly what it is.
Middle Eastern Moslem ethic minorities DO need the protection of our leaders and of our laws when this shameful, dangerous and destrucive behavior emerges. Their citizenship DOES matter and the protection they need is against the very same GARBAGE your are posting here that, whether you realize it or not, incites fanatic whack jobs to violence.
Nothing to be sorry for when the truths comes to the light of day. Get a grip on yourself and do some soul searching, for a change.
LOL You prove the ugly part of mental disease.
I can't believe this obsessive hatred you have for gays. Are you maybe closeted or something and fear coming out? Because usually the amount of vitriol you spew makes "me think you protesteth too much". Is your own sexuality so fragile that you are threatened by gays? The scientific community is pretty much convinced that gay is not a choice any more than the color of your eyes is; you can try and disguise it, but you are what you are. Free yourself, friend, and embrace your inner KD Lang.
Yeah, it's that pesky TRUTH raising its ugly head again, huh?
xx
|
