Get a grip...........they have the same rights everyone
Posted By: has.....quit falling for that crap! nm on 2009-05-28
In Reply to: So now you're likening homosexuality to ...(sm) - Just the big bad
--
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
You seriously need to GET A GRIP.
Where are you people digging up all your 'facts'? In the checkout line?
Get a grip...(sm)
*government and religion are intricately intertwined and that the fact will be made evident in the ensuing years.* Guess what? That fact has already been made evident ---- and that's the problem.
Exactly why is it that you feel obligated to jump into a conversation that initially had nothing to do with religion and start preaching? Might I suggest the faith board.
Get a grip
Certainly abortion is not an issue that is going to be settled here, but to lump all Republicans and Christians together claiming they want no sex ed and no birth control makes yours about the MOST narrow-minded opinion I've seen yet.
Abortion is a very personal issue and ultimately will remain to be up to the woman involved. My great-grandmother, who was having children around 1895-1905 used to say "Better ten on your lap than one on your conscience." Women even then did things to prevent having more children and thankfully, we have a lot better alternatives now than we had then.
Get a grip....(sm)
As everyone on this board knows, I am an athiest, pro-choice, pro gay marriage. I have been told it would be better if I were sterile. I have been called a racist (that one was funny), a hypocrite, a pig, an Obamatron, and I don't have time to look for the rest of them. You don't see me crying do you?
This board is full of hot topics. If you can't handle it, I would suggest you leave it alone.
Get a grip please
Could this be any more ridiculous? If you believe this, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell ya! You scare me...
Get a grip.......
Bush just locked people up period. He flushed habeas corpus. He could care less about the families of these attacks. He had agendas to fulfill. Of course Obama said he was going to close Gitmo and a good thing, too. This war in Iraq, derailed from Afghanistan, bred more terrorists than anyone can imagine. Bush set the middle east on fire. Not Obama. But Obama gets to clean it up. You really don't know who you are dealing with here, do you? Bush was "The Decider." And a lot of good that got us. Let's see what Obama does. He may be "The Doer." You just don't know, do you? Nobody does. I think he's a lot smarter than you could possibly imagine. I suppose he could let those prisoners squat in Gitmo for his entire term and let someone else deal with it. How long do you think these guys will last in one of our federal prisons? Ole whatshisname, the serial killer that liked to eat his victims didn't last very long. Wipe your tears and buck it up.
Okay, get a grip on your emotions....
Some folks - possibly just you in different monikers/lack of moniker - are posting on this board under the guise of concern for our troops as well as condemnation of the left.
These posts reek of play-acting. You seem to portray yourself as a reasonable person who is truly concerned but your posts show you as an intolerant, kind of crazy person. See the above post about how I could talk to a military person like that. You were the one being hateful and volatile and a little bit nuts, not me.
But there is no reasoning with such a person. You are creepy. I will not reply to any more of your posts, nor read any more of them.
I do have a grip. If she knew about them, she would have
tried to clean them up. It is her community, after all, and she has children growing up there.
Are you implying something more sinister here? If so, please provide referenced links with proof.
Get a grip. This is illegal and against the constitution. nm
.
I have a grip..........a darned good one....sm
Since you are so politely asking me to butt out of the conversation, then I will oblige you. So much for freedom of speech. 
Geez. No. Get a grip. I was sincerely hoping...
that no one ever places you in the position you are placing these babies.
Rights
And I have a right to protect myself, my beliefs, my religion my family, and my country. And I will. Did you see us going to them? They have been attacking us forever, not just on 9-11. Check it out and you will find this is true. I guess if we all just lie down and let them take over our country and attack us whenever they feel like it you will be happy. No country worthy of existence is war free. If you have no stomach for wars then knit things and make cookies or something. Maybe you could write a children's book about a perfect society and imagine yourself there. Just wear a blindfold or something and when others strike out at you then you can lie down and let them have at it. Finally, hatred is not "formulated" it is or is not. It is a feeling. It is prejudiced hostility or animosity. No one is without prejudice, just look at your own point of view versus mine. It is a human thing, hatred. The world is filled with humans, so it follows that hatred will occur along with all other human emotions, feelings, failings and triumphs.
what about his rights?
x
If your rights were to be taken away...(sm)
would you be sick of hearing that too?
Who is assigning rights?
Certainly not you with any credibility. If I lie I expect to be castigated over it because lying is immoral and demonstrates a weak and selfish character. Likewise if I KNOW someone else is a liar I will not fail to rebuke them - it is in fact wrong not to do so. Note also in the midst of your misdirected and uninformed tizzy that no names were mentioned. The liar knows who she is and you don't know, unless of course it's you. If so, change your ways. If not, look for better things to be indignant about - say, corporate oligarchies and the men and women dying in the streets to bring them obscene profits.
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).
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
he doesn't get any rights
nm
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
It doesn't SEEM they have more rights, they do!
My town has more illegals than you can shake a stick at. They are very rude, with the exception of a few, they do NOT try to speak English AT ALL. They do not hesitate to go to our ERs with every little thing and hog up the emergency room; I know this to be a fact! They EXPECT medical treatment and will tell you they have a "right" to be seen. NO THEY DON'T!. They have no rights..they are illegal! They spit out one baby after the other at taxpayers' expense and then I pay to raise their children, educate their children (have to hire MORE teachers to accomodate their refusal to speak English), put clothes on their backs and the list goes on and on.
Heck, one family had the gall to show up in my friend's pet shop (mother couldn't speak a word of English). She had her daughter ask everyone where they could get a German Shephard to breed with some mutt they owned. The owner was trying to tell her they didn't encourage that, that there were enough unwanted puppies and that she should have her pet neutered. The woman just smirked, shrugged her shoulders, said something to her daughter, who in turn looked a little embarrased when she told the lady they were free to own as many pets as they wanted and could breed all they wanted.
The lady tried to explain again that there were plenty of unwanted puppies at the shelter if they wanted a puppy but the lady said "In MY country, we are not told to spay/neuter our animals to which the owner replied, "You are not in YOUR country, you are in the U.S."
They lady (who wanted a better life) replied something to "you are all just a bunch of stupid ******". Her daughter was so embarrassed and looked like she could have died but remember it is that attitude that is breeding many illegal children to be raised with OUR dollars in our country.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Abortion is for men, not reproductive rights
Men can do as they please s*xually and have no long term consequences. If you are pro-choice or pro-life either one it's so clear it's for men NOT for women. Especially when you see how many adult men are bringing in teenager girls to the clinic. Abortion is another way to allow men to use women without consequences to them like responsibility.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
No rights? They have the right to step up to the plate.
They have the right to support their child. Unfortunately, mother nature did not give them the capacity to bear children. What they do not have the right to do is to force a woman to be their own personal incubator against her will. If they do not want to be stripped of their reproductive rights, perhaps they should take their own measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies (condoms, vasectomy) or practice abstinence and keep their pants zipped.
Yeah and to he** with the baby's rights.
Not a person worthy of my trust. Your trust is yours to give to whoever. Have a nice day.
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?.....sm
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Pierre, S.D. — My son and I are on ground where one of my heroes –- the legendary Joe Foss, U.S. Marine, America's leading ace in aerial combat, Medal of Honor recipient, mentor and friend -– once stood beside me. We're hunting –- and exercising our Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." We will be back home in time to vote in hopes that this "right of the people" won't be "infringed." But I wonder.
Last week in Ohio, the Obama for President Campaign suggested that Americans need a "second Bill of Rights." The idea –- not a new one for liberals –- came this time from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, as she introduced Senator Obama at a rally in Toledo. Congressman Kaptur enthusiastically endorsed the initiative –- first proffered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Senator Obama said nothing to disabuse his enthusiastic followers of the notion. It was a bad idea when FDR advocated it -– and it is now.
President Roosevelt made the proposal in his State of the Union address –- delivered over the radio from the White House -– instead of in person before Congress. He claimed that he had "the flu" and that his doctors would not permit him "to go up to the Capitol." The nation was then –- as we are today -– at war. And FDR –- the "indispensable leader" –- was already preparing for his 4th presidential campaign.
In promoting his new "Bill of Rights," Mr. Roosevelt observed that we already enjoyed "certain inalienable political rights –- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." He then said, "They were our rights to life and liberty." Notably, FDR used the past tense and omitted the Second Amendment in its entirety -– no small lapse when nearly 16 million Americans were under arms.
Unfortunately, the idea that our original Bill of Rights is inadequate –- or even archaic –- has achieved new currency with liberals. In enumerating his abbreviated version of the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, FDR described our rights as "political" and insufficient. The framers saw them as God-given and a sacred trust to deliver unabridged to future generations.
Therein is the challenge in next week's elections. The mainstream media and the polls predict a rout to the left. Does that mean Congress would have free reign to resurrect FDR's "second Bill of Rights"? And, if so, what then happens to the real Bill of Rights -– first handed into our care on December 15, 1791?
The practitioners of politics –- and those who write and speak about it –- claim that these matters are secondary to "pocketbook issues." I was told this week that, "Nobody in America cares about that 'Constitutional stuff' right now with all that's gone wrong with our economy." If that's true, we're in more serious trouble than my 401(k).
Perhaps I have spent too much of my life with young Americans who sacrificed the comforts of home and the company of loved ones to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of us. They didn't sign up to fight for gold or colonial conquest or "the economy." The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have been covering for the FOX News Channel in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Philippine Archipelago volunteered to defend us and protect our liberty from those who had done us grievous harm.
They raised their right hands and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They understand what it means to "bear true faith and allegiance." Most of them have seen parts of the world where there is no freedom and they know that freedom is an idea worth fighting for -– preferably at great distance from home.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of young Americans in uniform -– and those who preceded them -– foreign adversaries do not immediately threaten our liberty. But freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our essential freedoms are "political rights." If that is true, then politicians –- and the judges they appoint -– can abridge, alter or eliminate them.
The extraordinary dedication, commitment and tenacity of American men and women in uniform serving the cause of freedom inspires me. Their bravery and perseverance on battlefields around the world should remind us all that freedom is fragile and must be defended to flourish. The Bill of Rights –- including the Second Amendment -– did not come to us gratis or without obligation.
We are blessed in America that we can fend for freedom with ballots instead of bullets. Our charge is to elect those who will deliver those freedoms, intact and undiminished, to those who follow us -– as my son and I now follow in the footsteps of Joe Foss.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445386,00.html
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Good for her, they could use some women's rights over there.
xx
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
In a country that is still free for now, we have rights
nm
yes, I will explain human rights to you now sm
Barack Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo. Throughout the world, this announcement will be understood as an introduction to a new kind of American leadership, a repudiation of the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.
Closing Guantanamo will be a complicated process, which must be accomplished in phases. But the first step clearly is the settlement of the 50 or 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. These men have been called the “Guantanamo refugees.” Some of these men are stateless, but most of them simply can’t be returned to their home countries because their lives would be in danger there.
A number of European countries have recently indicated a willingness to take in some of the Guantanamo refugees. But the U.S. must also take some of them.
A group of 17 ethnic Uyghurs from western China have been at Guantanamo almost since its opening. From very early on, they were known to be innocent. In September 2008, a federal court officially cleared them of “enemy combatant” status. In October, Federal Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered them released into the U.S, where Uyghur-American families were waiting to take them in. Justice Department lawyers obtained a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was briefed and argued in late November. The Government argued that only the President has the power to order the transfer of detainees and their release into the U.S. The appeal has not yet been decided by the Court. As President, Obama should either dismiss the appeal and comply with Judge Urbina’s order or exercise his power as President to bring the Uyghurs to the U.S.
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Fighting for your parental rights
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=412082
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
I hate to ask this but just what "special" rights is
the homosexual community demanding?
Equal rights to you people is when
you get YOUR way and to he!! with whatever majority group doesn't like it or doesn't believe in it. That is your idea of equal rights.
correction: Christian rights should NOT be trampled...I mean to say..nm
This is what I found on the civil rights vote.
House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.
This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.
I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.
Yep....the rights that the military have fought and died for...
over the years. You know, the might want to say thank you once nin awhile for that too...but that would take common courtesy. Too much to expect I guess. Take, take, take, but never say thank you for those who sacrificed for what is being taken...and taken...and taken FOR GRANTED.
Unborn rights until birth...after that, off the radar
nm
don'forget civil rights lawyer
and constitutional law professor. Yep, I think he think on his feet with the best of em.
The constitution guarantees us certain rights as Christians...
Jews, Muslims, etc.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please pay special attention to the words: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Does not say anything about keeping it in "churches."
This is still America. If you don't want to read religious posts, close them. But do not attempt to circumvent our constitutional rights. Thank you.
He also tried to give drilling rights in Utah's Nat'l.
Nice, huh? Those parks aren't HIS to give... they're everybody's parks, and we don't want to stinkin' oil wells ruining them.
He also tried to give drilling rights in Utah's Nat'l.
Nice, huh? Those parks aren't HIS to give, either... they're everybody's parks, and we don't want no stinkin' oil wells ruining them.
It's a little thing called human rights!
What makes you think Americans deserve more rights than human beings from other countries? The phrase all men are created equal applies to the entire human race not just Americans.
|
