Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
Posted By: mtstudent on 2008-08-24
In Reply to: He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the... - sam
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
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
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Animal treatment
I have to agree with you there. While I am neither PETA nor vegetarian either, the treatment of animals in this country is horrible for the most part. And those of us who do try to help the homeless animals cannot get any assistance either. For example, some jerk in my area dumped out thirteen coon hounds in my area. Of thirteen, two made it to my house (i'm in the country). I counted five on the side of the road, dead, and i have no idea what happened to the others. The two that made it to my home were not neutered/spayed (one male, one female). When I called the humane society, they told me that I did not qualify for the low income spay/neuter program (I guess the 24,000 we made last year is not considered low income) and that I would have to pay about 200 each to get them spayed. When I told them I couldn't afford this and that these dogs were strays that I was just trying to help, they told me if I brought them there they would more than likely be euthanized!
In the end I ended up finding a man to take them who treats his hunting dogs like family members, and he called me awhile ago to tell me they were worth their weight in gold and he had them both fixed.
But not all animals end up that way. Most end up euthanized because some jerk owner decides he doesn't want them anymore and dumps them.
Sorry if I'm ranting, but with all this country has, can't we treat "man's best friend" a little better? Not just dogs, but all animals.
What bothers me is ....
that nobody can explain exactly how the woman was COVERT? Everybody and his 3rd cousin knew where she worked, and all she did was push paper at a desk. To me this is much adieu about nothing.
you do not need to tell me what bothers me
rather, you seem to have little tolerance for those different than you.
I'm sorry it bothers you so much to
know there is someone you cannot intimidate. I am by far healthy, wealthy and wise beyond your expectations and it really bothers you, too bad. I wish you could know a fraction of the happiness and love that I have in my life. I wish that for all of your personalities that you post as here. You must really be one miserable person and I hope you have something to thrive on after this election is over.
Thanks, Em! It really bothers me when
years.* Dead giveaway that President Bush was not given a chance from day one. I have mentioned this before on here. Yet we hear repeatedly *give O a chance, he isn't even in the office yet.* Just more of the double standard the liberals have.
I agree, it is CRAZY here! I can't spend as much time here as I would like; I have to work harder than ever these days, MTing doesn't pay very well any more! Besides, there is one poster who monopolizes the board, albeit with many different little catch phrase names. Can't figure out why she spends so much time trying to keep arguments going here; she has told us repeatedly how intelligent and industrious she is. With all her community involvement, world traveling and all the research she does, just can't figure where she ever found the time to be a lowly MT! If you will notice closely, she even argues with herself at times.
Oh well, Thank you again for your post, and do come back and post again!
It bothers me because
people fail to see that there is corruption in both parties. Our country switches back and forth between pub control and crat control. When one party screws up and the people get p!ssed, the other party gets more control. That is the natural way of this. So for someone to come on here and brag that the pubs are losing people and how do you like those apples....I just think it is childish and that person needs a wake up call. There are plenty of crats who have screwed us over as well and no one in the crat party is willing to admit it. All they want to talk about is how the pubs suck and it goes both ways.....the pubs just want to fling poo at crats and not look into the corruption of their own party. I'm tired of it from both sides. If people would wake up and actually listen to what is going in our country, they might get a clue that both parties suck and that maybe we should elect people who aren't puppets to the people who donated to their campaigns. Our government as a whole is corrupt. It is obvious that both pubs and dems have no problem spending our money but now that the crats are in control and the people are seriously ticked off.....all of a sudden the pubs have taken up the cause to stop government spending.
What bothers me about abortion is...
the enormous numbers that need to be performed. In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....
People are careless, that is all. What other conclusion could you draw? If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now.
Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY.
Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?
What bothers you about the facts?
Does it scare you or do you just refuse to see the facts? This country has been borrowing from foreign countries (communist China big time)and the federal reserve to the tune of billions long before and after any republican and long before and after any democrat.
We have not had a surplus since the banking administration was developed a very long time ago.
What really bothers you? The post or that someone
??
About as much as it bothers you that poster boy
x
Many rich are rich because they too are hard
xx
If it bothers you, don't read'em....I have a job AND a life...
thank you very much. I also have things that are important to me, and the next President of the US and abortion are two of them.
Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious
nm
WARNNG...ANOTHER ABORTION POST....DON'T READ IF IT BOTHERS YOU.
Introductory Notes on Terminology: |
One of the major battlegrounds for this issue concerns the use of language. In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, the verbiage used here is explanatory and precise. This means expressions such as 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are replaced by words that articulate specific positions. This makes certain sentences cumbersome and repetitive, but for the sake of accuracy, sacrifices in eloquence were made.
Perhaps the largest point of contention regarding terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms 'unborn child' and 'unborn baby'. According to Webster's College Dictionary and the International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, the word child can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word baby only from the point of birth onwards.[1] Those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word 'fetus', a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning 'offspring' or 'newly delivered'.[2] Many who use this term in the media and general public are misinformed as to what it means. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines a fetus as:
"the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth." [3] |
In other words, when referring to humans, the word fetus is only applicable from nine weeks after conception until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied it to both before and after this period. [4] [5] Furthermore, the press rarely uses clinical terminology when referring to a pregnant woman ('gravida') or a newborn child ('neonate'). [6] [7]
The term chosen by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is 'preborn human'. This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in plain language. For those who might object to the use of the word 'human', a few medical references are in order. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:
"The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms." [8] |
Likewise, a clinical embryology textbook bears the title Human Life Before Birth, and phrases such as "human in utero" and "human females... in utero" appear in creditable medical textbooks. [9] Moreover, it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not.
* The average length of a full-term pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.[10] [11]
* Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.
Fertilization (2 weeks after LMP)
Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[219] [220] [221]
Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one. (10600 is ShortHand for the number 1 with 600 zeros after it. For comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.) [222] [223] [224] [225]
3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[12] [13]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)
The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[14] [15]
7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)
Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.[17]
![abortion7weeks.gif](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion7weeks.gif") [18]
9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)
More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[19] [20]The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[21]
10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)
All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body.[22] The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.[23]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion11weeks.gif") [24]
12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)
Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.[25]
13 Weeks after Fertilization (15 weeks after LMP):
Ultrasound Video [26] Windows Media Player Real Player
14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)
The preborn human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.[27]
16 Weeks after Fertilization (18 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion16weeks.gif") [28]
18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)
Ultrasound Video [29] Windows Media Player Real Player
The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.[30] [31]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
20 Weeks after Fertilization (22 weeks after LMP):
The preborn human sleeps, awakes and can hear sounds.[32]
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion20weeks.gif")
Ultrasound Video (Heart) [33] Windows Media Player Real Player
24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)
Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it.[34] The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down.[35] If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.[36]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood." (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)
If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.[37]
Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.) [38] [39]
32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion32weeks.gif")
(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)
38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)
Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate.[40] [41] At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."
* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [45] |
The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [46] |
* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]
* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:
"Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another." |
After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:
"[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?" |
The attorney for Roe responded:
"That's correct. That..." |
At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:
"Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?" |
The attorney for Roe stated:
* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [50] |
* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[52] |
* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:
"[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen." [53] |
* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that
"is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born." [54] [55] |
* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]
"WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." [57] |
* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]
* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [60] |
* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]
* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]
* They also:
- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]
- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]
* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:
1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]
2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]
3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]
After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]
* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]
* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77] A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]
* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]
* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]
* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]
* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]
Politics & Taxpayer Funding |
* The Democratic Party is in favor of abortion being generally legal. It supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. It supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions.[85]
* The Republican Party is in favor of abortion being generally illegal. It supports a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life. Since 1995, Republicans have proposed at least 12 amendments of this nature, all of them containing an exception to save the life of the mother.[86] [87]
* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. On their website, the ACLU poses the following rhetorical question:
"What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?" |
And answers:
"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose." [88] |
* The ACLU opposes school vouchers. One of the reasons they give for this stance is:
"School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree." [89] |
An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.
Average is 90.
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).
Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.
You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.
People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.
This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.
Special about Obama's Neighbors on now
Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).
Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?
I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw
Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.
Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL
There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln
The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.
Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore. 
Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.
So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.
You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.
I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.
The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.
By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.
From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.
I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.
Compassion goes both ways.
My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.
What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Not worried. O's request for a special prosecutor to investigate
DOJ regarding the pub party's umpteenth chapter in dogging this group will undoubtedly uncover both sides to this story...can you say voter suppression? How about election results challenges ala 2000 and 2004? Third time isn't always the charm.
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
LOL, this is rich! sm
Patrick Buchanan who the liberals labeled "certifiable" during his last presidential bid but not that he is saying what you want to hear, he's a great guy! That's okay, because Zell Miller said just the opposite of Patrick. Up is down and down is up!
This is rich.
Since when is it UnAmerican to want to know the TRUTH? Why are you people so ANTI-TRUTH? Wouldn't surprise me if this administration goes down in history as much more corrupt than Nixon.
In the middle of a "war"??!! Bush should be protected because we're stuck in HIS war that HE started based on HIS LIES? At the very least, it would show the entire world that not ALL Americans condone lying, attacking and occupying sovereign nations for no reason. I personally hope they FRY him and hold him and all those involved in his administration accountable for every single EVIL thing they have done.
Your theory that we shouldn't do this while we're in the middle of a war is like the guy who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he's an ORPHAN.
Whatever happened to "The truth will set you free"? Why are you people HATE the truth so much?
that 5% rich...
he is among them. wonder how much comes out of his pocket and how much o his own wealth he has been redistributing??
If you were rich, would you be saying that?
I know I wouldn't, especially after I had worked so hard to get the money I earned. Unfortunately, I'm not rich by any standards, but I'm infuriated and insulted by Obama's thinking that I need a hand out from those with more money! If we take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't, where's the motivation for those that don't have it to get it for themselves? Why would they want to go to school to get a better paying job or go for that promotion at work if they know that first of all, they can sit back and get it for free and second of all, if they do start making more money, they'll just have to turn around and give it to someone that doesn't have it! How is it that the American Dream has turned into the American Entitlement?
who hates the rich?
Just another broad generalization of how **we people** believe/feel/think..Rich people? I dont hate people I dont know..be them rich, poor or in between. I have loved and cared for the best and the worst..I could write a book (smile). To say we dont like or hate the rich..another broad generalization and bigoted statement by a neocon. I dont judge a person by their riches, I judge them by what they are giving back to this earth and when they pass, will the earth be a little bit better off for them being here..
Who knows any rich people???? nm
nm
never said rich were evil
I never said the rich were evil. I said there are many who dont care about the working class and yet you defend them. As an example, I just read a news article earlier this week that Dr. Phil pays his transcriptionists $7.00 to $8.00 an hour!!!!!!!!! Have you ever seen Dr. Phil's house in LA? I have passed it a few times..OMG!!!! Let me tell ya, the guy can afford to pay his transcriptionists better than that. If it wasnt for Oprah, he would still be working in Texas and not a celebrity but does it even make him realize, hey, I got a stroke of good luck thanks to Oprah, maybe I should take care of my staff better. Obviously he is one of the rich who does not get it. Sure there are some who care and give back, as they realize how lucky they are and there but for the grace of God go I. I have seen personally some rich give back greatly, some volunteering at jobs every one else would be paid for, giving to charities and so much more. The good ones realize they must give back, cause that is just the way it should be in a moral caring upright society. The others, they cant get enough money. Their religion is money. The more millions they have, they are worrying about how to make millions more.
The rich ARE the democrats
Look back over time. Who benefitted from tax breaks Clintons 2% of the richest people. Everyone makes it sound as though only republicans are rich. The democrat party has some of the richest people and they aren't paying their fair share. With the Democrats I've always had to pay more taxes. With the republicans I received refunds every year.
Ain't that rich! - see link
Did George Bush serve his country??????? I'd say Obama served his country right on our shores by working with the impoverished in Chicago. GW wouldn't dirty his hands and neither would McSame.
McWayne looks like a corpse with too much makeup on. One heartbeat away from the presidency? JC...............It is God's will we are in Iraq? W?
No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout. The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
Rich does not mean corrupt........
xx
Obama is a rich fat cat as well! You are being
nm
maybe sam's one of them rich oil pubs
well-being of the rest of us.
|
