You agree with killing infants??

• The Obama debate all should read... - sam
  • Transcript of SB1093 - sbMT
    • Okay -- I perused this. So if you don't - now you got me thinking.....
      • THis was not about deciding whether abortion was legal... - sam
      • Supreme Court - TskTsk
        • So you want the other side to be able to stack the deck the other way? nm - Amanda
          • Darn right - we must ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the INNOCENT. - TskTsk
          • Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm - sam
            • I'm in favor of choice - ExMQMT
              • So you favor the choice to deny a living child... - sam
                • Gee thanks - ExMQMT
                  • I believe you used the words you would like the deck... - sam
                    • I was talking about - ExMQMT
              • choice - Fiona
                • It is just appalling to me that people think it is acceptable... - sam
              • whose choice? - what about that baby?
                • oh yeah, that's what I believe, gimme a break - ExMQMT
                  • Abortion - Fiona
                    • This is not about abortion. It is about a man who... - sam
                  • if the infant has been temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb - it is not terminating a pregnancy
                    • yeah, so what, you aren't following the whole discussion - ExMQMT
      • This isn't abortion! - sbMT
  • Socialism aside....If there were no other reason, this stands alone....sm - ms
    • Despise? Oh my! nm - MQMT
      • Despise - ExMQMT
    • Does this not bother anyone? - sbMT
      • or wrong - right
        • Do you hear yourself? Fetus? Embryo....? - sam
          • You know what Sam? Don't bother - sbMT
            • yeah, don't bother - ExMQMT
              • Anyone who thinks infanticide A-OK.... - sam
                • sigh... - ExMQMT
              • you have issues blah blah blah - nm
                • just for the record, that wasn't me! - sbMT
                • yeah, I do, with you, lol! - ExMQMT
              • You agree with killing infants?? - sbMT
                • No - ExMQMT
                  • Pro choice is one thing - sbMT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

...and they look like such nice boys.....

I have never said I defend Hezbollah.  I don't defend Hezbollah.  They're terrorists, and they're horrible.

But blindly defending Israel, regardless of what they do, doesn't work for me either.  What is most disquieting to me is that you defend Israel's placement of landmines to kill innocent civilians, designed to go off at a later date when people least expect it?  Why don't you consider that terrorism, as well?

NM

That's first and foremost in his mind, and Americans can go to hell, as far as he's concerned.

He thinks the war is more important than anything, including funding of projects to prevent a hurricane from destroying vulnerables, including funding border patrols, including forcing Americans to go broke just because they want to stay warm in the winter.

I overheard a conversation last night in a store.  A woman was complaining of gas prices and said she didn't know if she'd be able to afford to heat her home this winter.  Another woman told her about Jessie Jackson and his visit to Chavez and Chavez' offer to help low-income Americans with heating fuel.

This woman (who reminded me very much of some of you who post here, always in attack mode) said she and her children would FREEZE before she'd take any welfare from a communist.  She then went on a tirade about the kind of people who receive welfare (not fit to print on a public forum like this).  I was shocked, and the first three things that popped in my mind were Jim Jones, David Koresh and PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Is there any length you people WON'T go to to defend this idiot president who doesn't care enough about YOU to make gasoline and heating oil affordable? 

Not easy to watch, but if she's for this, then I'm against her.

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Donation2?idb=0&df_id=1547&1547.donation=form1&s_src=6JY08WDC4F&s_subsrc=6JY08WDC4F_EJI08D1web

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel.  I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts.  (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC.  I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.  I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor.  (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder.  And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion.  One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member?  That sick stuff DOES happen in this country.  What if she knows she wants an abortion?  Should she be forced to have the baby?  I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know.  I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion.  That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman.  After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it.  I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they?  I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight.  Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay.  I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country.  As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay.  (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker."  That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."  

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech.  Next, it will be freedom of religion.  What about freedom of "thought." 

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it.  And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people.  A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor.  Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7.  I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them.  All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries.  They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods.  About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today.  The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made.  But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy.  Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned.  I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT.  If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters.  Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican. 

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work.  The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help.  Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency. 

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work.  If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that.  But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working.  Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it.  I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq.  O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there.  I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest:  The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney.  He's very scary.  There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own.  And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*.  For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers.  If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example).  Nothing is out of bounds any more.

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation.