Yet another reason why I am voting for Fred Thompson in the primaries...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-11-15
In Reply to: Pro-Choice - Cop's Daughter
he opposes a nationwide ban on abortion. He says it should be up to the individual states, put to a vote of the people, not decided by Congress (who would not touch it anyway or they would have already) or activist judges (who overturned a state law with Roe vs. Wade, which is unconstitutional and should be overturned...the only entity the constitution allows to make low is Congress either at state or federal level...NOT judges). The point being, THAT is the democratic, American way to do it. Let the people speak and let it stand. I am sure some states would allow abortion, others would not. But at least it is put to the vote of the people. Let us as individuals have choice also. There would still be places to obtain abortion if that is someone's choice, but if the majority of a state does not want abortion legal, they should not have to have it legal. That is what democracy is all about. Right? Why would any of you have a problem with letting the people speak?
As to back alley abortions...the numbers of those were very small in proportion to the number of abortions performed when abortion was illegal. Doctors did them illegally as well, under sterile conditions, and no one died. I agree, no one should have died, but women did have a choice. The babies are not given the same consideration.
And again...why is it so abhorent to some that women died from "botched" abortions, but not that unborn children are chopped up or have their skulls collapsed? A woman has a choice whether or not to subject herself to a "back alley" abortion. That child has no choice, no place to go, just to be chopped up or have their skull collapsed. Imagine that being done to an infant 3 minutes old, 1 hour old...being chopped up or having skull collapsed. Then would we call abortionists serial killers?
I just don't get it, how one is so horrifying and people are accepting of other based totally on "choice."
No offense, but if your father attended an abortion or two, especially a partial birth abortion...he might flip back to the other side. I doubt he would be able to forget those images either. I have seen the pictures. I know I will never forget those images.
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
Fred Thompson was my guy
He's awesome :) But he looks older than McCain! :)
Merrry Christmas from Fred Thompson...
Not sure if I should laugh or cry...
http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F1536208%3Freferrer%3Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fnewsfornatives.com%25252Fblog%25252Fcategory%25252Ffamily%25252F%26source%3D3&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fshowplayer.swf&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffredpac.blip.tv%2Frss%2Fflash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true
I have heard Fred Thompson talk about health care...
but I take that sort of thing with a grain of salt anyway. The President can only put forth a plan...it is up to Congress to say yay or nay on it. You need to listen to what your senatorial and representative candidates when it comes their turns. And hold them accountable if they run on one platform and when it comes to a vote they choke. It is in Congress where things like health care will be changed. I believe we the people should, like I have said before, look into the recall procedure (meaning call a representative back to the state he/she came from and sending someone else) if they don't do the job they promised to do. They don't represent us anymore, they represent themselves and the party line and that occurs on both sides. And it needs to change on both sides. I could not vote for any of the Democrat candidates because we have too many core differences, before we ever get to issues. My parents were both Democrats, but had they lived they would not recognize the party as it exists today. It has changed that much.
All I was countering with the Clinton stuff was to illustrate a point...both men are flawed. And George Bush is not an unintelligent man by any stretch. He is just not a slick politician. I know a lot of down-home guys who talk a lot like him, and they are not dummies by any means. You don't get an MBA if you are unintelligent(and please don't go down that he got into harvard and got an MBA because he has money road, it would not be becoming). But I think we can quit rehashing all that and agree to disagree.
I am concerned about healthcare, but it is not my primary concern in the next election cycle.
God bless.
Chene Thompson -- the wife of state Rep. Nicholas Thompson, R-Fort Myers -- sm
That being said, I have to agree...how DOES a homeless black woman, living in her truck to boot, get into the front row of an Obama event, etc. etc? Something is rotten in Denmark...or Florida as the case may be.
I told my mortgage company that I was going to quit my job and would they please call the White House to get their payment. Not really, but I sure did think about it after I saw that clip on my local news last night.
My reason for not voting for Obama...
he is going to raise DH and my taxes. Yes, we make a very good living through having a good work ethic, not living above our means and working for everything that we have. We have never had to rely on the gov't to give us a handout and we don't expect one. We put ourselves through school with loans that we paid back, we pay for our own health insurance, we paid for daycare when the kids were little, we didn't expect the gov't to give us a thing; we were taught early on that you work hard to achieve your goals and we have. I don't need a president telling my DH and I that we have to "spread our wealth" around to those less fortunate than us. WE decide who to give our money to and when. There will be on incentive to work hard if Obama is elected; laziness will be rewarded. We shouldn't be bailing out big corporations at all, nor should we bail out every homeowner who bought more than they could afford and now expect help. While there are some circumstances that do merit help such as medical reasons or job loss, most are due to financial irresponsibility on the homeowners part. The American Dream is out there if you work for it, but Obama will make sure if you acheive it you must carry someone on your back who doesn't deserve it.
My main reason for voting for McCain because
1. TRUST. Don't trust O.
2. TRUTH. He is more truthful than the O. I didn't hear him waver much from what he has been saying through the whole campaign, while O has changed his mind a few times.
3. AMERICA. He believes in this country and its freedoms. O wants to curb our freedom.
4. "MAVERICK". He does cross party lines and buck the system. O will vote specifically with the dems all the time,,, and I really hate the word Maverick.
5. SAFETY. He will keep us safer. O would rather talk. Talking gets you nowhere with the radicals in the world today. The radicals give their word and the next day will kill.
6. I believe he will TRY to cut government spending. This one is iffy since it depends on who runs the house and senate, but I believe he will try his darndest to get this done.
There are so many more reasons why I chose McC and those include those in the below posts.
I couldn't agree with you more!! I'm voting McCain for the same reason. nm
x
just as i hope African American's aren't voting for Obama for that reason!
NM (i suppose that means "no more"? or something) im still a bit new to the board!
Wish it was a Thompson/Palin ticket
That would rock! Also glad to know I was listening to Fox last night so I guess I heard the whole thing.
Thompson gave an excellent speech. I do have more respect for McCain since hearing Thompson. Guess I should read JM's story before making any judgements - sorry folks its the liberal tendencies in me to judge people before I research and learn about them. But as they say... "I have seen the errors of my ways" and now will read before spewing.
would be interesting primaries
if the candidates fell all over each other praising how great the other guy would be as the candidate.
Fred
I hopef for Fred and/or Mitt, but the drive-bys were too scared of Mitt so took him out. He's got the whole thing going for him. But the Mormon thing was over-played by the DB media. Funny how it matters not one iota where Henry Reid is concerned, that corrupt, little twit. Just say Rush's briefcase and that's plenty! Talk about making the entire Dem. Senate look like the fools they already are with the lowest approval rating in history. But they just put Bush's approval numbers out there to fool the American public into (a) hiding their own shameful numbers and (b) showing how ignorant they are for essentially running against a lame duck.
When my party does stupid crap I don't let 'em slide. Why the Dems have no rules in their party is beyond me.
Yes, it was Hillary Clinton. She had said, after the primaries...
that she would accept if offered. Obama, understandably, did not want his admin confused or overshadowed by the Clintons. But the point is, he did diss her. Especially in the eyes of some of her ardent supporters. Which is why many of them will vote McCain or stay at home rather than vote for Obama. How many of them...who knows. But party unity is not the issue here...otherwise they would not call themselves PUMA (Party Unity My As*).
Over 18 million voted for him in primaries
absolutely NOBODY has voted for Palin in this contest. Why should we be stuck with yet another Bush? She "governs" Alaska just as Bush "governed" the country. She likes to handoff decisions to others. People try to get in contact with her and wear "Where is Sarah?" buttons. No thanks to McPain.
That is when this started, back during the primaries
The first lawsuit that is still ongoing was filed by a lifelong democrat attorney in Pennsylvania.
But yes, I agree with you on that last point.
Yaooo Fred
Fred is giving a WOONDERFUL AND TRUTHFUL speech!!!!!!
McCain did say this in the primaries several times - same phrase exactly - nm
x
Was during the primaries or while he was promoting his book (on the table)??
//
During the electrion primaries and now with President Obama
we hear so much about creating jobs for Americans. The unemployment rate is at an all time high, and yet no one seems to say anything about jobs being lost to India. Isn't there something being done by the politicians who so wanted our votes to protect American jobs? This is criminal. I know if I was a business owner I truly could not find it within myself to betray this country and cause Americans to be jobless. I am honestly reaching for answers.
Ask Rev. Fred Phelps...he's got it mastered
x
Dems leak Palin's SSN, Fred on Fire, Newt
A few tidbits from Rush today. Compare Nancy Pelosi to Newt--not even a contest!
Mr. Newt Rips NBC Reporter
Gingrich fights back
Fred Thompson's speech at RNC video)
Bush vetoed regulation of FRED and WALL st several times
and stop watching fox distorted faux news
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. sm
The 2 main choices are horrible. They only offer a continuation of the status quo. Nothing on bringing the troops home (now not 5 years from now), no sound monetary policy, reinstating our civil liberties, etc. Third party candidates have better platforms. People should be voting principles over party, or you deserve whatever you get.
Many repubs voting for Obama in my experience..OR NOT VOTING ..only
only a few stragglers left, like the 26 percent who don't hate Bush.
Most people voting for Obama are voting on emotion...sm
You may be the exception.
All that matters is hope and change. At what cost, my friend, at what cost, will your hope and change come at.
He will try to change the very foundation of this country, the constitution, and our very way of life.
If I wanted that, I'd move back to Russia where some of my ancestors came from.
I can recognize socialism and Marxism, even if half the country cannot.
They only care for hope. And change.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Voting present and not voting, who has
the highest record in DC of simply not voting - McCain. Yes, Obama is up there too but ole' McCain is #1 for no votes.
Who are you REALLY voting for?
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/videos.html
Voting is not a right!!
Please direct me to where in the Constitution that it says that voting is a RIGHT? It is not a right. We have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!!
I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that our voting is for nothing... nm
x
I'm voting........
For George W. Bush. He stands for everything this country was founded on. He is a true patriot. He is a republican. He's the bestest!! Just ask Harriet Myers. Better yet, why don't we write in Dik Cheney? He's a true-blue American and a republican to boot! He even knows how to shoot a gun! Let's pack the house and the senate with republicans because they have US in their best interest. They are for the people! Just look at the last 8 years - success story after success story. I am living the life of my dreams! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which side deserves to run this country! Let's run all these democrats and filthy liberals out of this country!!! My way or the highway!!! We can't second guess Israel. ATTACK Iran!!! We need to get Georgia hooked up with NATO so we can go to war with Russia (which is Alaska's neighbor, BTW - can see it right from Alaska). Let's all get on the same page here so we are a UNITED nation. End this division of party!! All for one and one for all!! We can call ourselves Republicrats. Feel the love
I'm voting...
but I tend agree with you. I think it is sad race still matters all these years later, rather depressing really. You can keep your nose clean, do all of the right things according to society's standards and color still matters. Why? Who cares about color what about his policies? Shouldn't they matter more?
blessings,
I'm not voting for him because he is a dem -sm
and historically they have raised our taxes. However, I personally think it's awesome that whichever candidate wins, there will finally be some diversity to the office of the president. We will have either our first black president or our first female vice president.
I'm certainly not voting for him but
if he is elected, I certainly would not want to see anything happen to him. That would be devastating. But you're right, the republicans probably would get the blame or if not the republicans, it would take on a racist tone, which would be another blow to this country.
I am voting for O but
i too believe we are in a recession and have been for a while. But repubs are not the only ones not wanting to admit it. I have heard NO ONE say it. They dont want to admit to it, no matter what party.
I will tell them I'm voting for O, but am really voting for M
That's why the polls don't mean anything.
Besides who in their right mind would tell people your not for O because you'll be yelled at and called a racist. Got enough bashing on this board, don't need any more on the phones or in public.
That's why this election may see what is referred to as "The Bradley Effect".
i am voting for o
x
Voting all done!
Small polling place, only 4 machines, 1 of which was already belly up and I was just 15th in line. Anyway, vote is in, and I didn't vote a straight party one button. I punched each one separately...I wanted to savor the moment! :-)
I have enjoyed the debate and I for one am glad there are so many in our profession engaged in the process and concerned for the country, no matter which side you fall on. So, hats off to you, and may the best man and woman win! :-)
Right, of course! To me, just voting for someone
nm
voting
you should be ashamed for posting such a hateful insulting post
voting
Sam: Would you have posted this is McCain had won??
voting
We've been doing that for many, many years now. It doesn't seem to be working. It just seems that even before the Bush admin, laws have been changing and our rights have been decreasing. It seems that many people do not want O in office again. However, if ACORN or any other company is involved in census taking, he will be voted into office again.
Oh yes....voting.
We vote for people and we usually end up voting for the lesser of two evils. Both parties have shown that they like to spend. They only complain about government spending when it is their particular party that isn't doing the spending. Our government is corrupt and until we show them that we are tired of this craziness....it won't matter which lies we fall for and vote for. I'm truly surprised that Obama voters aren't outraged by all the lies that he has told. You continue to stand by him and blame Bush for everything. Where is the outrage on your part? We are still in Iraq. Gitmo is still open. We will all very soon be taxed one way or another. They are even talking about taxing our health care benefits to pay for Obama's health care plan when he openly ridiculed McCain during the campaign and stated that McCain was going to tax our healthcare and how dumb that was. I guess now it is okay. Why can't you see the constant lies? It isn't like Obama tries to hide them. He does them so bluntly and fo all to see and yet the mainstream media and his blind followers continue to praise him. I don't get it?
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues. 
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
|
