I am posting here to present a differing view...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-11-16
In Reply to: Isn't this a liberal site? - Rosa
just like the liberals who post on the conservative board. This IS America, my friend. We do have the right to do so. Why is a different opinion so aggravating to you? I have read, and heard from liberals own lips, what liberals stand for. There are a few of you who post on this board who are the antithesis of that, sooooo....why are YOU posting here and what does it matter who else does?
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
So be it. We have differing opinions, both of us are entitled....
No matter who gets elected, I hope things get better for you. Sincerely.
Presenting differing viewpoints is not bashing
Its called balanced news. Liberals cannot stand when the other side presents their viewpoint. They call it bashing. It's because they had a monopoly for years in news, but now that has eroded away.
I think you like to present yourself
as being right and more knowledgeable than anyone on this board about almost everything that you address; much more important than *keeping things real.** You want all of us to make note that you are right, more informed, more well read, more educated on just about everything that is discussed here...OKAY, you got it!!!, Enjoy it.
I still believe my friend, not because the cost of gas in CA is really that important, but because she is my friend and I have no reason not to believe her and even more, she has no reason to make it up, we were not discussing anything remotely related to energy or conservation; it was just a passing comment on her part as we drove past the local Chevron. But it seems to be quite important to you so, as I said, I will defer to you and all of your many resources in the future. No prob.
I believe I used the word *present*. nm
,
birthday present
I just wanted to make sure I was giving the correct information. This was for her birthday last year. He bought her earrings that cost $5,000 and she exchanged them for earrings that cost $12,000. She checked with her husband and he came back in and bought the earring for $12, 000.
To be fair to the present administration..
There hasn't been a SINGLE PRESIDENT willing to address the borders. I wish Bush would get off his duff about the border too, but if he did put a military clamp down on our border, you'd have a huge uproar from the civil liberties camp. You can never make everybody happy.
As for spending... Most Democrats never met a dollar they didn't want to spend. Wanna have your hair stand on end? Read a synopsis of The Big Dig in Boston, a la Kennedy and Kerry. Talk about a money pit at the taxpayers expense. If only it were a perfect world, but it never will be.
Does anyone else see a clear and present danger?
L
You mean the other women who dare to present
Americans are not a monolith.
He does not present the certificate that states the
nm
When you can't defend the present why do you always bring up the past?
Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm
what shaped it? It isn't possible.
Obama refuses to present an official
!1
The present mess has nothing to do with George Bush...
and everything to do with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank and the other Democrats who consistently blocked reforming of Fannie and Freddie. They deserve most of the credit for this fiasco.
Even most liberals present thought it was poor taste.
x
The present crisis was not caused by Bush or McCain...
both approached the Democrats a total of 4 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie regulated. We can't afford Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, AND a Democratic president. Whatever else Bush is or is not, he is NOT responsible for this current financial MESS.
Whoa, that is actually like a Christmas Present from the IRS, what an unheard of concept!!!....sm
True, you can do it yourself, the IRS just makes so daunting and intimidating with all those forms, and then you worry if you make another mistake, you will get another penalty.....Just those three letters together give most folk the heebie geebies.
Also, taling about not needing a service, most people do not know that you DO NOT need those miriad of services who will "talk down your credit bills" and renegotiate. Especially in these times, banks are very eager to get payment and work with you, most banks have a "hardship" department where you can talk to reps who can negotiate lower settlements, eliminate fees, figure out a very good payment plan without fees, etc. You can do it yourself without paying a debt relief service.
Is Newt your president? Lets stick with the present
There is about to be an explosion of spending and for those that really do work and think they won't be paying taxes, think again! You could only use half your brain or whatever is lucid and understand the ONLY way to pay for that kind of spending is by EVERYONE who works to pay taxes.
You really need to get off your one-party tunnel vision way of thinking, and I would say think like an individual, but I can see you are a follower of Obama, and as we all know, most of them have never thought for themselves.
I'm an independent......sure as heck didn't want a totalitarian government in power and if I had to choose between Newt and that backside kisser we have in office now, I'd choose Newt....
Too bad we're stuck with Obama and his crooked cronies!!
I feel it safe to say you have never had an independent thought in your life.....
I were you I would not call the present US president 'naive and stupid.' nm
nm
Don't ya'll pay attention? The Popes (past and present) had already decided this.
...Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
"Drive the American Economy into the dirt and then present socialism as the only way out!"
nm
I found a Freudian slip too - present elect Clinton (not president erect)
HA HA HA - but then if the shoe fits. HA HA HA
Doom & Gloom: Drive the American economy into the dirt then present socialism as the only way out.
nm
My view.
I really don't think the slander/libel has anything to do with how the public is perceiving this. I do think it plays a part in how the women feel, as well it should. I have been saying all along that we have free will to read or not read what we wish. I agree with you totally on that. However, I feel the handling of this incident is definitely along political lines and I also feel that what Ward Churchill said was a lot worse. Ward says he does not regret what he said and he probably doesn't. But his career has certainly been affected. Thank you for addressing the issue and not making a personal attack. That's refreshing.
Sam we don't always have the same view but
you are welcome to post under mine at any time. We have debated a few issues without resorting to crude, name-calling and I have enjoyed that. I too am an independent, leaning more toward Dem., and I am glad you aren't going to lump all Dems together, because not all, and none I know, would do anything that you are seeing on TV or say even a tenth of the crap that is being said here.
So Sam, please debate away!
and what about JOY ON THE VIEW?
and Barbara is just about as bad.
My view............sm
based on my studies of Revelation over a period of time, are that there are 2 beasts referred to in Revelation 13. The first Beast who arises out of the sea (could be interpreted to mean a sea or mass of people or, in Obama's case, that hew was born on an island - Hawaii) and the Antichrist are one and the same. Why? Because the Beast will usher in a one-world religion that will demand he be worshiped, thereby making him the Antichrist. The 2nd beast will arise out of the earth. I believe this is likely the religious figure who will point to the first beast and build him up as one to be worshiped. Farrakhan has already said "the messiah has spoken" so could this be him? I don't know, but I do know that Obama has said that should the political winds blow in an ugly direction he would side with the Muslims and Farrakhan has very strong roots in the Islam faith.
All this remains to be seen, of course, and I'm certain that, if these conclusions are correct, it won't matter who we vote for because God will cause the events in Revelation to come to pass, whether now or at some point in the future.
God does not view us
as homosexual or heterosexual. He sees us as humans he created. We are not to be lukewarm or sit on the fence when it comes to sin. You need to either heat up the water or fall off the fence. Hopefully, it will be on the right side. ;-)
Another point of view...
Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007
The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.
Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.
Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.
Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.
The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.
By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.
Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.
One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.
Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.
The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.
In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.
He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.
The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.
Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.
There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.
Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.
I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.
However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.
I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.
The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.
I understand your view, but
Yes, you don't like government control at all. However, if insurance companies have full control -which they pretty much do - then they have the full power to deny or insure whomever they choose. What do you say then to the people who have cancer that have been denied coverage by the insurance company? I have posted a few times regarding this issue and I never get a response. I am really curious, for those who want government hands out of health care altogether, what do you say to the people that insurance has denied due to an illness? Too bad?
Just a little opposing view...
Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.
To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.
I kid you not.
*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.
After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"
This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):
Story Continues Below Ad
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky.
Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?
No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.
Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.
Isn't that special?
Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:
But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.
Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.
After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.
That's their job.
And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.
One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.
Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?
ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
*****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:
Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright
Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883
Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
my view on experience is...
I don't think experience is that big of an issue - nobody has "experience" at being the President of the United States until they get elected - and I don't think that the experience that Hillary claims is any real experience anyway.
I am excited at the prospect of having somebody in office who has no "experience" - maybe they will really want to "change" the way the "experienced" people have been doing things!
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.
In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.
The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."
Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.
Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.
And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.
Afraid to view it are you?
And it is the least of my worries what you consider trash...:)
By all means....don't view it. You might actually have to really know...
what you support. Can't have that, can you?
Perhaps not everyone shares your view....as to the
downward course of the nation. Just like you did not allow us to rain on your parade...you ain't gonna rain on this one. So happpeeee this morning, not even you can dampen it, try though you will. :) You have a great day, valuevoter! It is a GOOD day!!
Some may view that differently.......
When I was little and my grandfather said pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on, he simply meant do the best you can, lean on God and do not expect yourself to be able to handle EVERYTHING yourself. Somehow politics gets pulled into the meaning, when it shouldn't really. It used to be a phrase thrown out there to encourage others to get up and on the saddle again, so to speak, and just get moving without waiting for everyone else to do it for you. Do the best you can in whatever you do.
I agree with this view.
The Christian Right threw fits when Ridge was being considered. Leiberman was too much of a party turncoat to suit them and way to left of party center. It does not really matter where the idea of submitting to the temptation to pander to the Right AND Hillary supporters/women voters came from. JM or advisors, the pick would suggest that whoever made this decision was putting winning first and the welfare of the country second. BTW, presidents are held responsible for the decisions they make, no matter how many advisors had input.
My view as an independent.
I don't see Michele as hard, negative or loud. I see her as passionate and a go-getter. I have seen her speak at different things and have always enjoyed her.
Cindy I see as not weak, but just more quiet. I wouldn't say she was weak though.
Maybe this has something to do with their age differences, different generations?
My point of view
I really don't care if a president cheats on his or HER spouse under most circumstances. But when his little playmate testifies he was being "serviced" by her with talking on the phone with important people, that bothers me. She very well could have heard confidential things she shouldn't have. When you are in the Oval Office you are on the clock and should act like it.
need to view the big picture
Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.
Not much of one, if it narrows their view
*
View of the world........
It would seem to me that someone, obviously you, who has nothing to believe in, does have a VERY NARROW view of the world, as you seem to believe you and you alone got yourself here, and formed everything around you. I, on the other hand, know for a fact there is so much out there waiting for us and I for one am looking forward to it BECAUSE I don't have such a narrow view of the world/Heaven!!!
The View today
Love, love, love Joy (Go Girl!). Bill O'Reilly is an arrogant, egomaniac and Keith Olberman so has his ticket. Elisabeth is know-nothing, simpering little twit who most of the time doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Whoopi is the best -- so much common sense!! I would vote for Whoopi in 2012!
It's more how Muslims view us
They see any non-Muslim as an infidel. THAT is the problem.
the overwhelming view is that
the Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They believe rightly that the citizens have spoken in the election. Anchors having hard time keeping straight face reporting this story.
World view (sm)
All this talk about how unimportant France and other countries are. Now I understand why you thought Palin was such a genius. LOL. You know that old saying about if you look around the room and everyone in the room is wrong except you? Guess what? That's how it's been for the US and the rest of the world for a really long time. I just hope that one day Americans can get over themselves long enough to take a peek outside and see the world as it really is instead of just going by what our censored media wants us to know.
Another point of view...or two (sm)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17587
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388377.htm
I go along with the well-said points of view of
Kaydie and LA difference.
You need to get out into the real world. From your post, it seems like you are living in a dream world.
When you have someone in your family assaulted and spends weeks in the hospital on the "edge", you will see why our right to own a gun is necessary. I certainly will not hesitate to shoot if I'm being threatened or to protect my family.
Only criminals use guns indiscriminantly and they don't care about life itself, or haven't you noticed? And that brings me to the point of the death penalty. Those that use a gun to commit a crime should receive the death penalty if they kill someone. I believe the death penalty is a deterent; i.e., some criminals with brains think twice before killing, but others do not.
I won't even go into your pub or Roe vs. Wade. They are so asinine, they don't deserve a reply.
I have had one and have an opposite view
I had one when I was around 18 which now is almost 50 years ago and do not dwell on it now nor did I in the past. My body, did what I had to do because years ago you did not bring home a baby and be unwed, never. If you were pregnant, most of the time people sent to what they called unwed mother homes to have the baby and then the baby be adopted out. I had no regrets then and I dont now.
In view of experiencing...
employers who ripped me off on my linecount or bounced my paychecks, just possibly I WAS employed by the poor. I just want to be "regular." Because this whole debate is just that, a crock of &^(@.
Beck on the view....(sm)
I love the part where they ask him if he checks his facts.....ROFL.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ladies-view-rake-glenn-beck-over-coa
|
