Yeah and to he** with the baby's rights.
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: both - meme
Not a person worthy of my trust. Your trust is yours to give to whoever. Have a nice day.
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
yeah baby, WHAT IF?
Big flipping deal.
oh yeah baby! pave the way to kick W out.
Bush may have only made one smart decision his whole life, and that was having someone even more evil, twisted, and money hungry than himself be his vice president. Even the harshest Bush critics don't want him impeached because no one wants Cheney, aka the Devil's spawn and the King of Corruption, running things! I don't care if I sound outrageous and mean - I am so sick of the Bush administration's corruption I could just scream - or cry. Their crimes cannot continue! But it's like Bill Maher said, this country has f@!* up fatigue. Our tolerance for the outrageously inappropriate actions of this administration is getting pretty high. Nothing they could do would shock me at this point. blah.
Yeah, baby. Excellent article.
x
as a mother I would not subject my baby, or anyone's baby
to that type of situation. but then again, I am not the kind of mother who agrees with the village raising the child, or whatever Hillary used to say. to me the child's safety would come first above and beyond what I was doing, and I would not expose the baby to all that. that is just me.
mostly I am talking about at the end of her speech when the baby was being passed around and then she eventually grabbed him, half paying attention to him.
it is my opinion but I found it a little troubling and my heart kind of went out to that little baby.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta
yeah, yeah, yeah.....what he failed to mention...
is that the Dems are responsible for the mortgage meltdown which is responsible for the wall street meltdown. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank...totally to blame. Blocked every attemmpt by Bush Admin and yes, McCain, to regulate fannie/freddie. Dems certainly have selective memories...convenient bouts of amnesia. lol.
Rights
And I have a right to protect myself, my beliefs, my religion my family, and my country. And I will. Did you see us going to them? They have been attacking us forever, not just on 9-11. Check it out and you will find this is true. I guess if we all just lie down and let them take over our country and attack us whenever they feel like it you will be happy. No country worthy of existence is war free. If you have no stomach for wars then knit things and make cookies or something. Maybe you could write a children's book about a perfect society and imagine yourself there. Just wear a blindfold or something and when others strike out at you then you can lie down and let them have at it. Finally, hatred is not "formulated" it is or is not. It is a feeling. It is prejudiced hostility or animosity. No one is without prejudice, just look at your own point of view versus mine. It is a human thing, hatred. The world is filled with humans, so it follows that hatred will occur along with all other human emotions, feelings, failings and triumphs.
what about his rights?
x
If your rights were to be taken away...(sm)
would you be sick of hearing that too?
Who is assigning rights?
Certainly not you with any credibility. If I lie I expect to be castigated over it because lying is immoral and demonstrates a weak and selfish character. Likewise if I KNOW someone else is a liar I will not fail to rebuke them - it is in fact wrong not to do so. Note also in the midst of your misdirected and uninformed tizzy that no names were mentioned. The liar knows who she is and you don't know, unless of course it's you. If so, change your ways. If not, look for better things to be indignant about - say, corporate oligarchies and the men and women dying in the streets to bring them obscene profits.
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
he doesn't get any rights
nm
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
It doesn't SEEM they have more rights, they do!
My town has more illegals than you can shake a stick at. They are very rude, with the exception of a few, they do NOT try to speak English AT ALL. They do not hesitate to go to our ERs with every little thing and hog up the emergency room; I know this to be a fact! They EXPECT medical treatment and will tell you they have a "right" to be seen. NO THEY DON'T!. They have no rights..they are illegal! They spit out one baby after the other at taxpayers' expense and then I pay to raise their children, educate their children (have to hire MORE teachers to accomodate their refusal to speak English), put clothes on their backs and the list goes on and on.
Heck, one family had the gall to show up in my friend's pet shop (mother couldn't speak a word of English). She had her daughter ask everyone where they could get a German Shephard to breed with some mutt they owned. The owner was trying to tell her they didn't encourage that, that there were enough unwanted puppies and that she should have her pet neutered. The woman just smirked, shrugged her shoulders, said something to her daughter, who in turn looked a little embarrased when she told the lady they were free to own as many pets as they wanted and could breed all they wanted.
The lady tried to explain again that there were plenty of unwanted puppies at the shelter if they wanted a puppy but the lady said "In MY country, we are not told to spay/neuter our animals to which the owner replied, "You are not in YOUR country, you are in the U.S."
They lady (who wanted a better life) replied something to "you are all just a bunch of stupid ******". Her daughter was so embarrassed and looked like she could have died but remember it is that attitude that is breeding many illegal children to be raised with OUR dollars in our country.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
Get a grip...........they have the same rights everyone
--
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
Right on, baby!
Cuz you know, the answer my friend (to all this brouhaha) is blowin' in the wind......
I'm heading out now for a lunch with my Harley-riding, beer-swigging, antique-collecting redneck friend. No kidding!! Strange things can happen in this big ole universe and that's just the way I like it. Actually, he quit drnking beer about 10 years ago, and quit riding the Harley after he went broke trying to sell antiques....but he's still pretty much of a redneck.
Thanks for helping me have a laugh and see some humor where I thought there was none!!
Except for the baby..............
Use the baby in WHAT way? If you want to know why
further than this board full of none other than women, most of whom I presume are MTs and therefore working mothers themselves!! How do you reconcile ripping someone down for being the very thing you are? By criticizing SP or Hillary or any other prominent woman figure who happens to be a mother, you are only applying the exact same things to yourselves, ladies. This has to be one of the most disgusting things I see on here. Take pot shots at her skills or work history, but how can you possibly rip on her for having a career and children? Do you want us all barefoot, pregnant, and waiting on Ward hand and foot again? Grow up. I, for one, am ashamed to be a woman and lumped in with such juvenile BS when I see this nonsense.
I didn't care for Hillary, but I still hailed the fact that she was campaigning. It meant maybe women are finally gaining recognition and respect. Want to know why our wages are less than men's and why every time women make one step forward, they take 2 steps back? It's because the very gender prominent women hope to elevate will attack those women out of jealousy or worse yet, because they don't happen to ascribe to their own set of beliefs. It makes the whole lot of us look petty and ridiculous.
There's a saying, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it to the world.
Welcome baby!
I didn't know there was such a thing!
what about the baby's
x
okay what about the baby?
Yes, I do believe you should be able to do whatever you decide to your own body so long as others are not endangered in the process.
Well what about baby? Baby isnt endangered in the process. I would called being killed endangered. But I guess you are saying that it isnt a baby yet. I dont get that. A tadpole doesnt look like a frog but it is still a living thing. It just hasnt matured. A caterpillar isnt a butterfly but it is still alive, it just hasnt matured. So a fetus that is developing is still alive, just not matured. So because a fetus doesnt turn into something that looks like a baby in a matter of minutes or hours is okay to kill because it takes a while to mature? The video that you do not want to see shows a 19 week old baby girl. She has red hair. She is fully formed, just tiny. She was aborted by saline. The saline poured all over her body and burned her to death. She has black burn marks all over her little arms and legs and body. She is curled up like a little angle. Are you telling me that she did feel that just because no one could hear her misery? She wasnt a living thing? Sorry, but it is murder and it is wrong. You dont have to even believe in God to understand that.
Such a baby!
You can poke and jab at others and make fun of what they say, but when it turns on you, you are suddenly "better" than everyone else? How so? You act like a little baby who starts a fight and then runs away. Don't play the innocent victim card. Go back and read some of your insulting posts, THAT is the reason people are "ganging up" on you and your superiority. Guess you better "show us" and just go away. Please....
ALWAYS WILL BABY.
x
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Abortion is for men, not reproductive rights
Men can do as they please s*xually and have no long term consequences. If you are pro-choice or pro-life either one it's so clear it's for men NOT for women. Especially when you see how many adult men are bringing in teenager girls to the clinic. Abortion is another way to allow men to use women without consequences to them like responsibility.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
No rights? They have the right to step up to the plate.
They have the right to support their child. Unfortunately, mother nature did not give them the capacity to bear children. What they do not have the right to do is to force a woman to be their own personal incubator against her will. If they do not want to be stripped of their reproductive rights, perhaps they should take their own measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies (condoms, vasectomy) or practice abstinence and keep their pants zipped.
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?.....sm
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Pierre, S.D. My son and I are on ground where one of my heroes - the legendary Joe Foss, U.S. Marine, America's leading ace in aerial combat, Medal of Honor recipient, mentor and friend - once stood beside me. We're hunting - and exercising our Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." We will be back home in time to vote in hopes that this "right of the people" won't be "infringed." But I wonder.
Last week in Ohio, the Obama for President Campaign suggested that Americans need a "second Bill of Rights." The idea - not a new one for liberals - came this time from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, as she introduced Senator Obama at a rally in Toledo. Congressman Kaptur enthusiastically endorsed the initiative - first proffered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Senator Obama said nothing to disabuse his enthusiastic followers of the notion. It was a bad idea when FDR advocated it - and it is now.
President Roosevelt made the proposal in his State of the Union address - delivered over the radio from the White House - instead of in person before Congress. He claimed that he had "the flu" and that his doctors would not permit him "to go up to the Capitol." The nation was then - as we are today - at war. And FDR - the "indispensable leader" - was already preparing for his 4th presidential campaign.
In promoting his new "Bill of Rights," Mr. Roosevelt observed that we already enjoyed "certain inalienable political rights - among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." He then said, "They were our rights to life and liberty." Notably, FDR used the past tense and omitted the Second Amendment in its entirety - no small lapse when nearly 16 million Americans were under arms.
Unfortunately, the idea that our original Bill of Rights is inadequate - or even archaic - has achieved new currency with liberals. In enumerating his abbreviated version of the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, FDR described our rights as "political" and insufficient. The framers saw them as God-given and a sacred trust to deliver unabridged to future generations.
Therein is the challenge in next week's elections. The mainstream media and the polls predict a rout to the left. Does that mean Congress would have free reign to resurrect FDR's "second Bill of Rights"? And, if so, what then happens to the real Bill of Rights - first handed into our care on December 15, 1791?
The practitioners of politics - and those who write and speak about it - claim that these matters are secondary to "pocketbook issues." I was told this week that, "Nobody in America cares about that 'Constitutional stuff' right now with all that's gone wrong with our economy." If that's true, we're in more serious trouble than my 401(k).
Perhaps I have spent too much of my life with young Americans who sacrificed the comforts of home and the company of loved ones to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of us. They didn't sign up to fight for gold or colonial conquest or "the economy." The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have been covering for the FOX News Channel in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Philippine Archipelago volunteered to defend us and protect our liberty from those who had done us grievous harm.
They raised their right hands and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They understand what it means to "bear true faith and allegiance." Most of them have seen parts of the world where there is no freedom and they know that freedom is an idea worth fighting for - preferably at great distance from home.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of young Americans in uniform - and those who preceded them - foreign adversaries do not immediately threaten our liberty. But freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our essential freedoms are "political rights." If that is true, then politicians - and the judges they appoint - can abridge, alter or eliminate them.
The extraordinary dedication, commitment and tenacity of American men and women in uniform serving the cause of freedom inspires me. Their bravery and perseverance on battlefields around the world should remind us all that freedom is fragile and must be defended to flourish. The Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment - did not come to us gratis or without obligation.
We are blessed in America that we can fend for freedom with ballots instead of bullets. Our charge is to elect those who will deliver those freedoms, intact and undiminished, to those who follow us - as my son and I now follow in the footsteps of Joe Foss.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445386,00.html
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Good for her, they could use some women's rights over there.
xx
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
In a country that is still free for now, we have rights
nm
yes, I will explain human rights to you now sm
Barack Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo. Throughout the world, this announcement will be understood as an introduction to a new kind of American leadership, a repudiation of the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.
Closing Guantanamo will be a complicated process, which must be accomplished in phases. But the first step clearly is the settlement of the 50 or 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. These men have been called the Guantanamo refugees. Some of these men are stateless, but most of them simply cant be returned to their home countries because their lives would be in danger there.
A number of European countries have recently indicated a willingness to take in some of the Guantanamo refugees. But the U.S. must also take some of them.
A group of 17 ethnic Uyghurs from western China have been at Guantanamo almost since its opening. From very early on, they were known to be innocent. In September 2008, a federal court officially cleared them of enemy combatant status. In October, Federal Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered them released into the U.S, where Uyghur-American families were waiting to take them in. Justice Department lawyers obtained a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was briefed and argued in late November. The Government argued that only the President has the power to order the transfer of detainees and their release into the U.S. The appeal has not yet been decided by the Court. As President, Obama should either dismiss the appeal and comply with Judge Urbinas order or exercise his power as President to bring the Uyghurs to the U.S.
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Fighting for your parental rights
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=412082
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
I hate to ask this but just what "special" rights is
the homosexual community demanding?
Equal rights to you people is when
you get YOUR way and to he!! with whatever majority group doesn't like it or doesn't believe in it. That is your idea of equal rights.
Must have had soy in his baby formula sm
According to an article on World Net Daily:
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jim Rutz
© 2006
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a health food, one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
(Column continues below)
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your female side, physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual. No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that soy prevents cancer. It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
Speak for you own baby...
zzzzzzzzzzzz
She is not leaving the baby. sm
This is either another Carl Rove bait and switch or McCain is truly demented. As someone else said, "does not pass the smell test".
a Down baby and a pregnant
teenager? Good golly, how many calamities will Mrs. Palin ignore in her own house. I don't want somewhat like that as a heartbeat from running my country.
Down syndrome baby
or 'normal' baby...if the baby did not have Down syndrome no comment would've been made, except "Oh, how cute." I think it was precious the way the baby sister licked her hand and combed the baby's hair. REGULAR PEOPLE.
Achtung baby!
Song title.
|
