Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info.

• Hey, all you liberals out there! It's YOUR fault that priests sexually abuse - children.
  • Well, I don't know about this article... - SM
    • Just a hint. Next time respond to a post, - it might be a good idea to
      • Oh boy.... I glanced at the article... - SM
        • I've followed some of the cases that ACLU sticks their nose in and to know that they are somehow sm - Democrat
    • What does the ACLU have to do with - HUH?
      • Let me spell it out again... - SM
        • now like ACLU? - et
          • It's a figure of speech..., not spin. I was always referring only to. - the ACLU. Don't be so linear. NM
  • Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info. - Not offended
    • Thank you! I'm not a bit surprised - by the responses, though,
      • What does that mean?NM - OH?
  • So you find the sexual abuse of children funny? Pretty sick. NM - ?
    • Absolutely not, as I said before in my post - that was deleted for some

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

You brandish the name of your saviour like it was a badge of honor. 

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't believe in your religion/saviour?  Perhaps it never occurred to you that there are OTHER RELIGIONS out there in this world that other people believe in.  Your salvation might be another person's idea of mythology. 

It's kind of sad that your religious philosophy is to shove your crap down everyone else's throat. 

Bush is a nutcase.  This country is going down the tubes.  And, after reading the blurb above about how he said God told him to clean up the mess in Iraq and God told him to declare war on the mideast, I fear that this country is really in deep doo-doo.  I shudder to think what the next three years will be like under this administration.  A president has to please ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population. 

As far as the supreme court and the abortion issue, well let's put it like this.  If abortion becomes a crime AGAIN - women will be like third world citizens - AGAIN.  Abortion will not stop, it will go back to the alleys, backrooms and other dirty places where it used to be done and women will DIE.  And to use a worn-out phase - If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. 

Said I wouldn't be back because of all the bickering and fighting going on, but I came here today to let you know about the following information.  I think everyone will find it interesting.

WGAL-TV reporter Matt Belanger will be looking at the ads of both candidates in the coming weeks and break them down so we can be INFORMED voters. Here are his first investigations. He will be doing this every week until election day. It may help some people on this board make up their minds without going to the trash sites for garbage news. Enjoy and PLEASE STOP FIGHTING!!!!

If the links don’t work, go to www.wgal.com and in the search box at the top left, put in “Video 8: On Your Side.”

http://www.wgal.com/video/17508920/index.html

http://www.wgal.com/video/17491060/index.html

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/did_il_abortion.html

August 22, 2008
Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?

Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.

For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."

Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:

Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...

Thanks for the nice reply - I was a little hesitant to post, thought I might get blasted as I realize this can be a sensitive topic. 

I just posted because I believe there were misconceptions about what a universal sytem might entail.  And obviously any attempt so have something similar in the United States would be a massive undertaking and probably would be a different model than what we have.  Just want to mention a couple of things.  Someone mentioned government interference, not specifically referring to Canada, but more to the US.  There really isn't much here - everyone has a health card and wherever we go we use it.  Within your own province and going to most other provinces (excluding Quebec, where they always like to be different) most of the time there is no government-related paperwork, no permission for tests/surgeries/etc., and everything is between the patient and doc.   

I realize some doctors would no longer be involved in direct patient care, but some here are not as well, although I would think universal coverage would mean fewer doctors needed as legal consultants, people wouldn't need to sue to cover their medical bills?

Another bonus.  I've been working as an MT for 29 years, for many different places, have never been employed at a place where our work is sent offshore (probably happens, but not to such a degree).  Maybe combination of health care not being run by private interests and I believe we have stricter privacy laws covering all personal information, including health-related. 

Thanks

I saw nothing in the bill that included all you included in your statement. As I read it, it just allows for stiffer penalties for hate crimes. 

I would definitely like to check this out more.

http://share.triangle.com/node/13576

The questions remain :

What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?

What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?

Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?

How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?

Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.

When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?

Change they want? With the gun? With the torch?

And plenty more will be posted here.  I hadn't even heard of Democratic Underground.  Classy!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419964,00.html

I know he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem, but I haven't heard about him not saying the pledge, saluting the flag, or not shaking the hands of soldiers.

I do feel that Obama is someone that we need to question.  I think his followers are in for a big surprise if Obama gets elected.  But putting aside all of his associations, etc.......Obama will not help this economy.  He puts Bush down for the deficit going up and if you add up all of Obama's government plans and spending.....he will actually add more to the deficit.  To raise taxes on anyone during this kind of crisis isn't good for the economy.  There aren't enough "rich" people to tax to pay for all Obama wants to do.  It isn't feasible. 

I don't make enough money and I will be one of the supposed 95% that benefits from Obama's plan.  However, I still don't think him taxing only the rich is a feasible thing and I don't want a government handout.  Not all of that 95% are working people and they will basically get a welfare check with money they didn't earn.  Just let me have and keep the money I earn.  I don't want money taken from others who earned it.  That isn't right.  I want the American dream.  I want what I have because I earned it....not because it was given to me and taken from someone else. 

I've always been told by my parents that you will feel good about yourself if you work hard and achieve something.  Getting a monthly welfare check with money you didn't earn at the expense of hard working individuals isn't achieving anything.  It is doing nothing but penalizing hard work.  It is destroying the American dream.  Why strive to achieve something when the government is going to take it away from you and give it to someone who didn't strive to achieve anything?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/17/obamas-lead-falls-two-points-in-new-cnn-poll-of-polls/

Make up your own mind about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers.  It's on now, but check your own TV schedules.  It also repeats.  FYI.

Pretty scary.

Just heard they don't expect it to kick in until NEXT year, then the year after that will be the whopping $8.

An economist stated when Reagan put the tax cuts in, it took a whole 5 years for the plan to take effect; i.e., economy to pick up, so batten down the hatches. We're in for it if Iran doesn't get us first.

those who dutifully paid their mortgages may be able to get help if their interest rates are 7.5 or higher. They may be able to get it knocked down to 5-6%.

They are supposedly going to let FannieMae/FreddieMac handle it (of all groups!), but they hope to divert $75B of the money to refinancing mortgages.

Here's a snippet from a piece on CNN from today.  It's an interview with John Dean.  He points out that this Rove thing is not all that simple and there may be other things involved than just outing a CIA agent.

DOBBS: In a perhaps bizarre piece, it appears that Time magazine leaked some material to Newsweek magazine. I can't say that for certain, but it appears that way. The fact is: It's unclear whether what Karl Rove may or may not have done here is even illegal.

DEAN: That's right. It isn't clear.

DOBBS: What's your sense of that?

DEAN: We can't tell on the facts we have alone whether we have a law that's been violated or which laws have been violated. The attention is focused on the CIA Identities Protection Act and that hasn't really been my concern.

I think probably the lawyers involved in this case are looking at the other potential concerns. You take the prima facie facts we have and this could very well be a couple statutes that are involved with Mr. Rove.

He could be, well, converting government information to his own political uses and putting it out, and that is a violation of the law. It could be the statute that got a lot of those of us involved in Watergate, which is if he is conspiring with others to do what he's not being paid as a government employee to do, which it would be in this instance, to leak information for political purposes. That in turn, could be a violation as well.

DOBBS: Effectively, fraud and conspiracy.

DEAN: Yes.

Check out this website:

factcheck.org

It's part of the Annenberg Foundation (don't know anything about that group).  Anyway this seems to be a fairly nonpartisan website (even gives statistics backing that up).  It provides great coverage of the claims made by both candidates and where the truth actually lay.  Not surprisingly it appeared that overall Bush had a bigger problem with manipulating the truth than Kerry. 

The site is not limited to just the candidates from the last election - I check it periodically out of general interest.  As I said, I want the truth, even if it's painful sometimes.

quoted a fascist, racist writer in her RNC acceptance speech about small town values.  I read it on a board but hadn't had time to research it yet.  I think his last name was Pegler, and it said that he was a fascist, an avowed racist and called for the slaying of Robert Kennedy. 

Like I said, not sure how accurate this is because I read it on a board.

Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisers, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

 

McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart - while adding $10,726 to her annual income - by leaving Obama's office and going to work for McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women - much more than men - for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

Also, let us look at the fact that Obama could have picked a woman as his running mate and did not.  McCain, however, did pick a woman.