How are anti-abortion people nuts

• The sicko who shot the army soldier - sm
  • The reason the media covered - Trigger Happy
    • Speaking of psychos...(sm) - Just the big bad
      • You're right. They're all wack-jobs... nothing - of real value going on in their lives - SM
      • How are anti-abortion people nuts - sm
        • How are they NOT nuts? Those points could be counted - on 1 finger. No wait, NO fingers.
          • I will admit that there are some - Trigger Happy
      • Murdering near-term babies isn't violent? - WHAT A HYPOCRIT!!!! NM
        • You people are the hypocrits. Why don't you try - supporting mother & child financially,than?
    • The point is Obama NEVER thought it was important - either.................nm
    • Amen. nm - Tired
  • there's no media coverage because they issued a gag order - - Amanda
    • A gag order on the media? Doubtful. - GhostMom
      • No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one.... - Obama's true colors coming out.....nm
        • Ummm....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • So now Obama is also repsonsible for the media? - Do you expect him to wipe windows too?
          • Are you just deluded? - sm
    • who and why? - cj
      • It's a gag order to protect the dolt - AnnuderMT
        • Why would they want to protect him. - sm
          • Guilt doesn't eliminate rights - AnnuderMT
        • thank you.. - cj
      • If a gag order were issued............ sm - m
        • The media seem to voluntarily - C. Mudgeon
          • If they cannot get information from the courts, there is nothing to report! - Amanda
            • How many times have we seen - reporters standing on the courthouse steps
              • Maybe you've just missed it? - AnnuderMT

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

I'm someone who believes in minding my own business.  What others do in their family lives is none of my business.  There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.

On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal.  I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.

I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.

One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."  The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate.  He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.

I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.

Corporate tax breaks simply don't work.  The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money.  They don't create jobs; they outsource them.  As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.

Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America.  That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.

The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives.  It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.

Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes.  I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.

I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night.  In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?"  She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews.  I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric.  To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.

I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp.  When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic.  Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:

If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";

if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;

if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;

then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy.  If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.   

I think that sums it up.

check out this link and it shows all of the politicians and your MASTER is at #2.

COPY AND PASTE:  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Will Obama do anything but follow the UN in being ''gravely concerned'' and issuing ''stern warnings''?  And hasn't Obama already said it's not up to the (arrogant) US to say who gets a nuclear program and who does not? 

After his failed Kuwait invasion, remember how long S. Hussein strung the UN along, refusing to allow inspections, pounding his chest, playing bad@ss, and trying really hard NOT to prove to the world he did not have WMDs.  Well, his saber rattling was convincing enough to get himself invaded and his butt kicked.

A few years of this from NK, and they may actually have a guidance system capable hitting something (other than ocean.)   Such petty tyrants have a track record of not playing very well with other nations and I am sure it really amuses them to repeatedly cross the lines drawn by the UN, which they believe is a toothless organization more suited to administering Meals-on-Wheels programs than ensuring the safety of the planet.

but read Lurker and Imagine! Just IMAGINE!

President Obama knows all too well how difficult it is to quit smoking, and today he addressed his struggle to kick the habit just before signing a law he hopes will help other people put out their cigarettes too.

"Each day, 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become new, regular, daily smokers, and almost 90 percent of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday," Obama said today. "I know. I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."

The new tobacco law gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals.

"This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress," Obama said today. "It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country."

Public health organizations and many lawmakers, several of whom joined Obama today for the signing, have been fighting for regulation for nearly a decade in hopes of helping an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the United States to kick their habit.

The law means the government will have the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and monitor how they're promoted to young people. It means cigarette makers will be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and will be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.

While the law does not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright, it does allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in tobacco products.

"Forty-five years after the first U.S. surgeon general's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement earlier this month when Congress passed the bill.

Within the year, a rule will also be reinstated that prohibits outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events, according to the law.

At the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin said the changes "will finally put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also pinned high hopes on the effort.

"This legislation is a key part of our plans to cut health care costs and reduce the number of Americans who smoke," Sebelius said in a June 11 statement.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.

"This legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a June 11 statement. "It has been a long and challenging process to move the bill through Congress but the determination of many concerned parents and supporters has never wavered."

*Sorry arses*   You compare the Revolutionary War to World War II.  You call names and label. You are violently nearly out of control with your anger and your very wording borders on horrendously out of control.  Do people really take you seriously in discussion. If so, why?

I read a daily blog on Key West real estate and today's posting happened to be on a slightly different subject.

Apparently Fred Phelps and his minions are planning on a trip to Key West to demonstrate their hate of not only gay people but the USA.

Can we take them down as the terrorist organization they are yet? One of his cohorts is already down there:

====================================================

The Key West community will meet tonight to decide whether -- and if so, how -- to respond to a nationally infamous man who hates homosexuals.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, is scheduled to be in Key West on May 22 to protest the Gay/Straight Alliance at Key West High School. Phelps also is planning to demonstrate at the entrance to the island, in front of Sigsbee Park and at B'Nai Zion synagogue, according to a letter Phelps' daughter sent to Police Chief Donie Lee.

The group is planning an outdoor demonstration "regarding the judgment of God with respect to the dangers of promoting homosexuality, and the rest of the filthy manner of life and idol worshipping in this country," the letter states. The city does not require a permit for such assemblies.

Phelps' church is not recognized by mainstream Baptists and is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate group. His "church" comprises mostly his family members, about 60 of whom are said to protest three times a day, with signs that read, "God Hates Fags" and other anti-homosexual slurs. The church also protests at military funerals, claiming the deaths are the result of America's tolerance of homosexuality.

The Rev. Joe McMurray, pastor of the gay-friendly Metropolitan Community Church, where tonight's meeting will be held, said he does not think that Anthony Charles Capo Jr., who often holds a sign that says "God Hates Fags.com" on Key West street corners, is formally connected with the Kansas group.

Meeting organizers will solicit ideas from community members and law enforcement officials, said McMurray. The gathering will include the police chief, Schools Superintendent Randy Acevedo and some city commissioners.

"We can come together and decide if there will be a response, and what it would be," McMurray said. "We'll also hear from law enforcement to see what they prefer in the interest of public safety."

The Police Department is developing an operational plan for Phelps' demonstration, but Lee emphasized that the general public should ignore Phelps.

"I know it's difficult and I know, firsthand, that it's an emotional issue, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the way to deal with it," said Lee, who is gay. Any demonstrations from counter-protesters would only make it more difficult for officers to keep the peace, Lee said.

Phelps' First Amendment rights allow him and his followers to express their opinions, and the police cannot arrest them for doing so.

Lee explained that if someone says something that directly creates a public safety issue, then the situation changes. He used the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as an example that would jeopardize public safety and therefore be an arrestable offense.

"Short of that, people have the right to express their opinion," Lee said.

McMurray said he does not know what prompted Phelps to target the high school group in a town known for its acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and its official motto of "One Human Family."

"I don't know if anybody has the 'why' behind Fred Phelps," McMurray said. "He wants to come disrupt, create unease and disturb the peace in a peace-loving community, and he raises money by suing municipalities who violate his civil rights during protests. He intimidates communities."

McMurray and others hope to hear ideas that would turn Phelps' protest into something positive for the community. One option would be a fundraiser for every hour that Phelps is here. People could make an hourly pledge to local charities such as AIDS Help and the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, so the longer Phelps remained in town, the more money he would help raise for gay-friendly service organizations.

"This cannot be personal," said McMurray, who is gay. "Once it becomes personal, we're operating on his level."

J.T. Thompson, a graphic designer who founded the "One Human Family" movement, emphasized that confrontation with Phelps and his group will not serve any purpose.

"This guy earns a living making confrontations happen," Thompson said. "It will be a good day in the fact that we can unite people here. The meeting will gather input to unite the community in a peaceful, positive and loving response."

Hugo Chavez I believe is a growing symbol on the American radical Left like his mentor Fidel Castro. Chavez is a paranoid anti-American who believes America is out to get him just like Fidel believed the same thing.

Robertson’s comments to assassinate Chavez, unfortnately strengthens Chavez’s tyrannical grip over his people (and his paranoia). Chavez himself is becoming a tyrant who is funding international terrorism. From al-Qaeda to FARC. Chavez’s mentor Fidel Castro has funded international terrorism from the PLO, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, African National Congress and a whole bunch of other terrorist groups.

Chavez is a threat to America because of his ties to Fidel Castro and to international terrorism. I mean if the radical Left really believe Robertson’s comments were wrong, why does it give them the right to support Fidel Castro and his pal Hugo Chavez? Why does the left-wing media like people such as Ted Turner who owns CNN get away with being Fidel Castro’s admirer? Yet when there are reports of Castro and Chavez killing or making tyrannical iron fist rules against their own people, it’s okay but complain whenever someone like Robertson or someone else makes a harsh comments against their idols (i.e. Castro and Chavez)?

There in lines the double-standard of the American radical Left and how much influence they have over the media. If it’s wrong for Pat Robertson to make those comments, then it’s ten times worse for any hardline Lefty in the American media to admire Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. But that never seems to be scorned by the media. Only Robertson’s statements.