i wasn't referring to the baby specifically
Posted By: Emily Ayn on 2008-09-03
In Reply to: Oh yeah, they are just darling... - huh?
nice sarcasm, and yes they are, but I wasn't referring to all babies, cause i wasn't watching all babies on TV
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
Reagon wasn't specifically talking about
Barrack Obama.....however, what he did say can be applied to what Obama wants.
Bigger government gives government control over us. Government is supposed to work for us....not control us. Obama wants bigger government. He wants a government that has more control over us.
Taking guns away from US citizens will leave them defenseless. Obama wants to take away our guns.
Dictators take away weapons from their people so they have nothing to fight back with....therefore leaving the dictators to do what they wish. I do not know if Obama will in fact turn into a dictator, but I don't want him to my guns to find that out either.
OK. But, I wasn't referring to this. That's all I'm trying to say. nm
x
Wasn't referring to you....nm
fdfdf
I wasn't referring to you as the "pot" it should have been under the gourd's post
x
as a mother I would not subject my baby, or anyone's baby
to that type of situation. but then again, I am not the kind of mother who agrees with the village raising the child, or whatever Hillary used to say. to me the child's safety would come first above and beyond what I was doing, and I would not expose the baby to all that. that is just me.
mostly I am talking about at the end of her speech when the baby was being passed around and then she eventually grabbed him, half paying attention to him.
it is my opinion but I found it a little troubling and my heart kind of went out to that little baby.
More specifically.....
Who does the Geneva Convention apply to?
The Geneva Convention (s) is a negotiated agreement between signer nations who have voluntarily agreed to abide by and therefore be protected by the terms of this agreement. Voluntary signer nations should expect to benefit from these protections, so long as they abide by these protections themselves. Non-signer nations have NOT agreed to abide by these terms and are therefore, not protected by these terms. It is that simple.
Combatants from signer nations are obligated under this agreement to meet certain conditions in order to be protected by this agreement. Specifically, protected combatants are defined as follows…
- members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict,
- members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command,
- are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population,
- carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war
Combatants do not have to meet one of these conditions in order to receive protection under the Geneva Convention (s), they must meet ALL of them. The Convention (s) goes on to state clearly, “However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections.”
International terrorists do NOT meet any of the conditions stated in the Geneva Convention in order to gain protection as a known enemy combatant. They do NOT serve in any organized armed force serving any particular nation. They do NOT have any well-defined chain of command or control. They go out of their way to be indistinguishable from the civilian population and have gone so far as to disguise themselves as medical, police and press personnel. They do NOT carry arms openly or obey any set of laws. They distinguish between military and civilian targets only to the degree that they prefer attacking unarmed defenseless civilian targets as opposed to military targets. As such, they are NOT covered by the language or terms of the Geneva Convention (s).
The monitor specifically requested
you stay on your own board. Your lack of respect isn't surprising.
The solution is simple. Go back to your freezer. Don't let the door hit ya.
Didn't specifically do either in my posts...
Not sure whose posts you are referring to.
Could you clarify these rules in case I do decide to refer to this country or the president in any future posts, as well anyone else posting on the liberal board? Apparently demeaning past presidents is A-OK if the conservative board is any indication.
No, he specifically said Bush and the governor of Mississippi. nm
I never meant where he bought his house specifically, but...
if I could afford a really nice ranch with an amazing barn, you can bet your behind I would be there, as I am sure you all would buy your dream house, as well, regardless of what you are saying here. I don't really buy into the whole "I would continue to live just where I do" frap. At least I am honest. And, no, money can't buy happiness, but I don't bet that it hurts to have a nice house either. What is it that you find so offensive about living in a nice neighborhood?
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
Right on, baby!
Cuz you know, the answer my friend (to all this brouhaha) is blowin' in the wind......
I'm heading out now for a lunch with my Harley-riding, beer-swigging, antique-collecting redneck friend. No kidding!! Strange things can happen in this big ole universe and that's just the way I like it. Actually, he quit drnking beer about 10 years ago, and quit riding the Harley after he went broke trying to sell antiques....but he's still pretty much of a redneck.
Thanks for helping me have a laugh and see some humor where I thought there was none!!
Except for the baby..............
Use the baby in WHAT way? If you want to know why
further than this board full of none other than women, most of whom I presume are MTs and therefore working mothers themselves!! How do you reconcile ripping someone down for being the very thing you are? By criticizing SP or Hillary or any other prominent woman figure who happens to be a mother, you are only applying the exact same things to yourselves, ladies. This has to be one of the most disgusting things I see on here. Take pot shots at her skills or work history, but how can you possibly rip on her for having a career and children? Do you want us all barefoot, pregnant, and waiting on Ward hand and foot again? Grow up. I, for one, am ashamed to be a woman and lumped in with such juvenile BS when I see this nonsense.
I didn't care for Hillary, but I still hailed the fact that she was campaigning. It meant maybe women are finally gaining recognition and respect. Want to know why our wages are less than men's and why every time women make one step forward, they take 2 steps back? It's because the very gender prominent women hope to elevate will attack those women out of jealousy or worse yet, because they don't happen to ascribe to their own set of beliefs. It makes the whole lot of us look petty and ridiculous.
There's a saying, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it to the world.
Welcome baby!
I didn't know there was such a thing!
what about the baby's
x
okay what about the baby?
Yes, I do believe you should be able to do whatever you decide to your own body so long as others are not endangered in the process.
Well what about baby? Baby isnt endangered in the process. I would called being killed endangered. But I guess you are saying that it isnt a baby yet. I dont get that. A tadpole doesnt look like a frog but it is still a living thing. It just hasnt matured. A caterpillar isnt a butterfly but it is still alive, it just hasnt matured. So a fetus that is developing is still alive, just not matured. So because a fetus doesnt turn into something that looks like a baby in a matter of minutes or hours is okay to kill because it takes a while to mature? The video that you do not want to see shows a 19 week old baby girl. She has red hair. She is fully formed, just tiny. She was aborted by saline. The saline poured all over her body and burned her to death. She has black burn marks all over her little arms and legs and body. She is curled up like a little angle. Are you telling me that she did feel that just because no one could hear her misery? She wasnt a living thing? Sorry, but it is murder and it is wrong. You dont have to even believe in God to understand that.
Such a baby!
You can poke and jab at others and make fun of what they say, but when it turns on you, you are suddenly "better" than everyone else? How so? You act like a little baby who starts a fight and then runs away. Don't play the innocent victim card. Go back and read some of your insulting posts, THAT is the reason people are "ganging up" on you and your superiority. Guess you better "show us" and just go away. Please....
ALWAYS WILL BABY.
x
Must have had soy in his baby formula sm
According to an article on World Net Daily:
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jim Rutz
© 2006
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a health food, one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
(Column continues below)
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your female side, physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual. No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that soy prevents cancer. It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
Speak for you own baby...
zzzzzzzzzzzz
She is not leaving the baby. sm
This is either another Carl Rove bait and switch or McCain is truly demented. As someone else said, "does not pass the smell test".
a Down baby and a pregnant
teenager? Good golly, how many calamities will Mrs. Palin ignore in her own house. I don't want somewhat like that as a heartbeat from running my country.
Down syndrome baby
or 'normal' baby...if the baby did not have Down syndrome no comment would've been made, except "Oh, how cute." I think it was precious the way the baby sister licked her hand and combed the baby's hair. REGULAR PEOPLE.
Achtung baby!
Song title.
yeah baby, WHAT IF?
Big flipping deal.
A baby costs.....
It was $6,000 in 2002.
$2,500 if you paid cash in advance.
Yes, I could! It is MY baby and MY belly!..nm
and the embroy starts only to live during the 5th month!
Yes, I can, I would have a calmer conscience than knowing that my child is out there somewhere, in the hands of strangers, not knowing HOW they are treating him/her.
I prefer to give it back to God, before it starts to live!
My embryo is MY embryo and it is not COMMON property.
YES, I COULD.
And don't ever forget it, baby. Believe
someone around to remind you, YES YOU DID!
My baby sister (in her 50s) says
Obama speaks 'real elegant' and also told me prior to the election that he does not use notes because he has a 'photogenic memory.' This is the sister who dropped out of high school and stays tuned to the MSM 24/7. Love her, but sometimes I need subtitles when we speak. Sort of like listening to comedian Norm Crosby (if anyone else is old enough to remember him.)
Poor baby...(sm)
Using the term "teabaggers" is rude? I shouldn't ridicule others with different beliefs? Give me a break. You guys have consistently ridiculed anyone who agrees with Obama time and time again on this board, as well as those who just don't agree with you. Rude? How about Kool-Aid drinkers, Obamatrons.....you know the list.
The problem with you is that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you plan on teabagging effectively you might want to consider growing a pair. 
Not sure how this 'anchor baby' law
came to be, but a whole family can stay in this country if they can manage to have a baby here.
Not what I was referring to...
Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this. The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc. I was just questioning that comment, that's all.
As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to. Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum. I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....
Time for me to give this a rest.
LOL! I was referring to
Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse). I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...). Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing? An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)? An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?
I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America. 
Actually, I was referring to
money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.
The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,* who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money. The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal. But anything to defend Dubya, right?
Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right?
I was actually not referring to you.
You are not the message-syntax-style-similar person.
I was not referring to these 2
individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.** Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.
My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.
I was referring to myself...
the things I have gotten mostly on the C board but some here. I did not say you said any of those things. I just know they have been said to me. I am not championing anyone. I wanted to let Teddy know that she has a place here as does everyone (except if you denigrate W) and some pretty nasty things have been said on both sides. I did not want her to leave because she was, it appeared, standing alone yesterday. The more people are here the better it is.
I don't think that anyone probably deserves some of the rhetoric that appears here and I am amazed at the viciousness sometimes...both sides...but we are representative of a larger picture and that is a good thing.
My apologies, I was not referring to you in any way. I was telling Teddy that I knew how she must feel. It's tough to go it alone sometimes or be the only one on your side (or so it seems). I have been there where I am the only left voice and besides being difficult, it gets really confusing about answering what to who about what. That is all.
This is what I was referring to...
I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.). Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job. Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!
Don't know what you are referring to. nm
nm
I am referring to....
The missionary story told in the "Wow. This is impressive. I agree." post, the point being that there are a multitude of Christian viewpoints, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) and reconciling more secular political beliefs.
To whom are you referring?
First, I would like to know exactly to whom you are referring. Second, I would like to know who gave you the power to tell people to go elsewhere? If you are offended by a post or posts, you certainly are free to go elsewhere yourself, but I do not believe you have the right to tell others what to do!
Perhaps she's referring to
A fictional character, John McClane of Die Hard fame. We know she's out of touch with reality.
But why are you referring to....sm
republicans as being rabid tonight? I imagine that term could be used both ways for both parties, but why are you so vehement tonight about only Republicans? Did something happen?
(at least in the posts that I have read...might have missed some, as I don't go back when I've missed a day or so of posts....)
You're usually very level headed, although as you said above on a different post, it sounds like you go right and left on different issues.
And I keep meaning to ask you how your gourd painting is coming along, now that Halloween and fall are upon us. I hope you're having fun with that, as I saw you post on a different board a while back about your hobby....
I was referring to the very same NWO...
...that is the goal of the PNAC that everyone was afraid Bush would cause.
That's what I was referring too....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450445,00.html
The Atheist organizations ran "Why believe in a god" ads in D.C.
I mean if we as Christians can't run ads in secular areas, why should atheists?
By the way, Atheism is becoming a lot like it's own religion nowadays....
That's right - I was referring to him
and should have credited Bubba's name to the quote. Everyone should remember though, Mr. O is not the first black President we've had, according to many Bubba was.
First of all, I was referring to the GOP going . . . .
down the toilet, NOT Fox News. Secondly, the only reason Fox has the highest ratings on non-cable networks is because all the intellligent people are gleaning their information from the more intelligent cable networks. I reckon those people in the boonies can't get those fancy cable stations, and so they are forced to pick between the big 3, and besides, Lamebaugh, Beck, et al, are more to their likin', since birds of a feather (or smaller brains) stick together. So, you all can keep harping on Fox's ratings -- I don't give a rat's behind because I am not impressed (and I am not brainwashed), and I actually have a mind of my own. I think it is disgraceful that they are even allowed to call themselves a news network -- more like hate-inciting network.
If you are referring to me....
I haven't posted anything since January. So I think you may have me confused with someone else. I really just lurk and laugh. Thanks though!
In little baby steps it is happening. sm
I call myself a Republican in recovery. Sooner or later, I hope the sheep stop sleeping or God bless them or us all. Remember Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone. John Quincy Adams
I heard she did not have a baby, but her 16-year-old
daughter did. The daughter missed the last 4-5 months of school.
|
