I do not recall saying that I did not agree with...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-12-17
In Reply to: Not particularly. - piglet
abortion because God would never approve of it nor want it. I may have said God would never approve of it or want it, because I believe that to be true. However, I do not remember saying that was the only reason I was opposed to it. What about people who are not religious who think abortion is morally wrong? Again...you do not have to be religious to be opposed to abortion. There are a lot of people (nonreligious) who are against the death penalty for the same reason. Frankly, what difference does it make anyway? My point all along was that opposition is on moral grounds, and I certainly was a moral person BEFORE I came to know God. Are you saying you are not a moral person because you are not religious? Did I miss something??
Ah. Well, then perhaps we should sterilize everyone right now to make sure the antichrist is never born. That is how much sense that argument makes.
For the last time, piglet. I perceive abortion to be wrong because it kills what to me is a person. I don't need God or anyone else to tell me that life begins at conception. If it didn't, the child would not grow and mature. Whatever the stage the life is in, it is necessary to kill it so that it does not continue to grow. If you want to equate that with plants and animals, that is certainly your prerogative.
Again, I don't know why it chaps you so much for someone to have a different opinion.
The moral police? You mean like saying theft is wrong? Like saying war is wrong? Like saying assault is wrong? Like saying rape is wrong? That kind of moral police?
Again...there are laws on the books right now that you can be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant woman. Do you oppose that too? Scott Peterson...charged with Laci and Connor's death. Connor was certainly not viable outside his mother's womb. You are saying it was okay if Laci wanted to kill him, but murder because Scott killed Laci and therefore terminated Connor's life at the same time?
Try telling a pregnant woman who WANTS her child the instant she finds out she is pregnant, that that child will not become a child and is only alive like a plant or an animal until it takes a breath. Tell her that when she mourns if she loses it, oh it wasn't a child anyway, it was an embyronic sac so get over it. Two women, 6 weeks along, one wants it, one doesn't. One knows it is alive and can't wait for it to be born. The other one wants to abort it. What makes the wanted child anymore alive than the unwanted child? Nothing, because they are BOTH alive. You can justify it in the name of choice if you want to. Just call it what it is. You want a woman to have the right to kill the living child within her, because her choice trumps the child's right to live. I just don't happen to agree.
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
Really? I don't recall seeing that in my
xx
As I recall
those pubs in Congress along with their bush leader didn't do a thing for the good of the country and they were replaced by the Dems but with Daddy Bush as the "decider" it was unlikely he was going to let them get away with anything for the good.........not that they tried either.
I don't recall ever
defending Bush no matter what. There are a lot of things that I don't agree with Bush on as well. I think both parties need a good cleaning out. I'm not a Cheney fan either but I do get what he is saying. If they want to let out part of those memos....let them all out so we know what happened and what we got in return that may or may not have benefited. How are we to know for sure if only half of this is opened up and looked at. You have pubs lying and dems lying alike. If the dems want the pubs to go down.....then the dems involved should go down with the ship as well. I'm tired of the double standards and the finger pointing.
However, I still say this is all best left alone until after our troops are home. It does no good for anyone to have us fighting amongst ourselves at home and releasing information that could endanger our troops even more than they are.
I also don't really think that our tactics as far as treatment of prisoners should be out there for all to see because, like I said before, what is the point of anything if terrorists know they are going to be treated well with no threat to their life. They would have no reason to spill the beans. They would just have to be patient until they got out.
I'm not here defending the GOP and Bush and Cheney. However, I personally see nothing wrong with waterboarding in an attempt to save lives.
Obviously this is something that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on. As per my research and understanding, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention and therefore Bush didn't order anything unlawful in that instance. But seriously....this is something that should be investigated after our troops are home and safe. I don't think Bush is worth putting our troops at higher risk.
I don't recall saying in my post that you were gt. SM
What an odd thing to say. Anyway, I don't like posting over here. I just happened to see that you were ungracious when I apologized and talking about slander when you did the exact same thing to me so, in other words, nothing has changed here. And you are not funny.
I did notice this also and never did before. Can anyone recall? nm
.
And you know, Zville, as I recall, at one
point in his life, Mr. Obama was addicted to some form of illegal drug, and I don't believe it was a prescription drug. I don't recall if he ever went through any type of rehab or not like Rush did.
I don't recall MTPockets
saying they were leaving the board. Just saying goodbye to others who were leaving. I think several of us on this board could grow up a bit. This is getting ridiculous. Enough already and let's discuss important things instead of this elementary drama.
I don't recall ever sayin that
I agreed with the Bush administration 100% either. I'm not a pub. I'm an independent who personally thinks that our government has a whole is doing a p!ss poor job. Bush and Cheney weren't perfect by any means but they are out of the White House now. They cannot be blamed for the bad decisions Obama makes during his administration.
I don't recall saying I was on the left. Newsflash:
Do you recall the pre-Patriot Act world?
when diverse viewpoints were at our fingertips and not dictated by Mega-Media outlets riding around in the pockets of political status quo? Not only has this dummed down American audiences nationwide, but it has been a direct assault on the democratic process.
Patriot Act provisions:
1. Law enforcement agencies authorized (and sometimes forced) to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records without a warrant. This has been exercised against their own citizens, the most recent instance being voyeuristic easedropping on intimate conversations between American troops serving in Iraw and their spouses...right to privacy in 1st, 4th and 5th admendments notwithstanding.
2. Eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. This has allowed them to expand their definition of terrorisim to include individuals and groups exercising their 1st amendment right to redress the government via political dissent.
3. Expanded the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities. An example of this would be freezing funds of a first generation natural born citizens sending money to their family members who still live overseas.
4. Enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting SUSPECTED (not proven) of terrorism-related acts. This has not worked out well for many perfectly innocent citizens and permanent residents whose only crime is to have a Moslem name.
5. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Abuse of the Patriot Act has been rife and is the stuff of legend, as is the controversy that surrounds it. The erosion of civil right stemming from this one piece of legislation is breath-taking, but the mindset that created it....even more so. I will be voting for a candidate that shows at least some sort of awareness of civil rights. Those are the freedoms I worry about.
Really? I don't recall seeing his pinky finger.
He's only showed us his middle one.
I don't recall Obama making
any promises to the gay and lesbian community. He himself is against same sex marriage.
As for this healthcare BS.....when it comes to pass and it isn't as great as he professed it to be and we are getting taxed out of the ying yang to pay for it....I'm sure many will be ready to get rid of Obama and any fellow cronies on the dem party. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
As for the promises he has broken. Gitmo is still open. We are still in Iraq and now in Afgan. He promises he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of Americans which is a downright lie especially if he is going to pay for this healthcare plan of his. He said lobbyists wouldn't have a place in his administration and yet he appointed some. Obama is nothing but a liar. The reason a lot of people still love Obama is because the mainstream media continues to portray Obama as doing no wrong. If some of these people would actually pay attention to what is going on and actually do a little research as well as lay off the kool-aid.....I'm sure more people would not be satisfied with Barry.
P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the
remote to that.
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
seem to recall someone else protecing herself again a WITCH...haha
hmmm, real sound judgment there. So if Palin wins and decides to seek advice from shamans or witchdoctors, you are okay with that?
I recall Bush on a train with the press
not long after the 2004 election stating that he had 3 1/2 years to go...with a heavy sigh, thoroughly disgusted me. He should have recused himself then, and we would have been much better off.
And I think I recall reading about sperm doners
test tube babies, IVF, etc. The complete ig that people have that you have to have 1 man and 1 woman to have a baby. You know what? I can't have kids. We tried for over 30 years. Nothing worked, adoption never worked either. That's why they have other means (like sperm doners, etc.)
You know you can still have your "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman and call it traditional marriage, and for the gay and lesbians let them have a marriage to the person they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with just like you do.
Leave the tradition of marriage alone? Gee why not segregate whites and blacks in schools, and why don't you tell us whether different races can marry? How much further are you going to take it? If two people love each other they should be allowed to marry. They are human beings and have feeling just like you or I do. If I ever find myself without my husband in the future I have some woman friends that I share deep affection with and if we want to marry its nobody else's business and what we do in our own home does not affect you. Does that change the way you feel for your spouse? Has all your vows and trust for each other gone down the drain now because two people of the same sex love each other and want to share the same human rights that everyone else takes for granted. Talk about discrimination and making someone feel totally inferior and less of a human being, oh and what's next, only catholics can get married but mormons and lutheran or Jewish people can't. Man, now I know why I am not a Christian. So let there be two branches of marriage. Traditional branch where you say "I Marge take Fred to be my lawful partner, blah, blah, blah" and then you have another branch of marriage where you can say "I Judy take Barbara to be my lawful partner. I promise to take care of her when she is sick and dying. I will love her til death do we part". And this allows her to be able to make the decisions and have the same rights that all other human beings can. If you believe in a loving God, then he loves all people no matter what. He doesn't discriminate. He doesn't need any spokesperson interjecting their opinion as to what they "think" "he" wants.
Also, our lives on this planet are too short. Why wouldn't you want other people to be happy and share in the same happiness you share with a partner. Their getting married doesn't affect you.
I don't recall saying I was right or left for that matter. What happened to your ability to sm
consider that and not label?
If I recall, Mahatma Ghandi resided in the country...
where the fighting was going on that he protested against. He did not move to, say, the US and bus to DC and protest and then bus back to home sweet home safe and sound. I challenge you and the other *peace* protestors to PLEASE stop preaching to the choir. It is idiotic to say that anyone (other than terrorists who seem to) WANT war. I certainly do not want war. I certainly do not want to have citizens killed 3000 in one day either or to allow my way of life (and yours) endangered by peaceniks. Umm....try dropping daisy in the barrel of a terrorist gun. See how far that gets you. You do not have to convince me peace is better when nations can live in harmony. Problem with that, Lurker, is that all the nations involved need to be of one mind. Despite what is being portrayed by many of the peaceniks posting, we did not bring 9-11 on ourselves. It was a cowardly, craven attack. You need to convince the people who are the real threat to that peace..the terrorists. Tehran. Kim Jong Il...picky any of them to start. Go to their capitals and protest and carry your signs. Talk to THEM about giving peace a chance. If you are serious about it, do something more than carry a sign and sing silly songs.
As to supporting the troops but not the mission...the person who wrote that opinion piece has no clue. There are a good many people who do join the military for purely patriotic reasons and because they love their country. A good many joined after 9-11 for that very reason. I will try one more time to make the point. When you do not support the mission, when you protest and hold signs that 9-11 was an inside job, that the President of The United States lied them into the fight, that they are fighting and dying for a lie, fighting and dying for nothing, ...if you think that does not affect morale and is anything but hurtful to the real live human beings with feelings putting their lives on the line for this country that they swore to defend against enemies....helllooooo. That is NOT in any way, shape, or form supporting. And you don't seem to give a rat's patootie what effect it has on them. In fact, it seems like you could not care less. Because, in case you and your peacenik friends don't realize it, they are there and they are staying there for the forseeable future. Why is it sooo hard for you to just support them while they are there? For people who are supposed to really care about others....that shows an amazing lack of empathy. Common decency should keep you from doing that while they are still over there.
Saw the spot in the NY Times about the protestor spitting on the disabled veteran. Way to go, support the troops!
Tell me again how noble the protest is. Get off the bus and on a plane to terrorist central. Talk to them. They may not doubt your sincerity as much as I do.
I recall junior high being full of tattle-tales.
Speak for yourself.
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
I AGREE
I agree with a few of your points..maybe this govt will push us liberals and conservatives together..how great that would be. I agree with eminent domain, I dont know about the abortion issue for a young person, however, I feel empathy for them. Regarding gay marriage. I feel there is not enough love in this word and if two people find love and want to be married, let them. I personally do not believe in marriage..dont want the govt or anyone else keeping tabs on my personal life. I have lived with my male friend for 11 years and dont want anyone telling me what choices to make in my adult life.
agree
I agree with you..why, a lot of my friends are conservative (smile), they really are. We agree on a lot and disagree on a bit but do it in a friendly manner. My dream..that both ideologies can live together peacefully..
I agree!!!
These people on here are pretty nasty to conservatives. They are definitely not living up to their standards of tolerance and peace. They seem very angry even enraged. I don't think we should rip each other apart. It serves not useful purpose whatsoever.
I agree with most of what you said.
However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.
Agree with everything you said
I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.
I so agree with you. Even one is way too
many.
I agree. I think they're ill.
It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.
I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.
Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.
I agree.
The only way to do it is to DO IT, increase our troops, speed up training their troops, and GET OUT. We've created such an unnecessary mess over there, I think it would be very immoral to just invade, turn their country upside and leave without fixing what we broke.
I agree with you
I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.
Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.
I agree.
With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.
I agree with you.
And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."
I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.
I agree
Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?
I agree with you.
What you said is so profoundly true and so profoundly sad. I think over time Bush will be viewed as a pawn or a stooge. Who or what do you think may be the controlling force behind Bush? I have read articles on the "Vulcans" but have read little about this recently.
I agree.
It keeps promising to leave (yet another lie). Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
I agree.....
I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.
As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.
I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.
agree!
I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..
I agree with you.
I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.
I agree with you both.
And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.
I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 
I agree with you as far as
the definition. But to read some posts on these boards, you'd think it WAS communism. It's a part of their mantra that you're worse than a traitor if you have anything GOOD to say about it, so it looks like McCarthyism is still alive in well in today's CONservative party!
I agree
I agree with you..I have always believed there was a **supreme being** who was creating evolution.
Agree 100%
with your post Freethinker..its a scary world out there, like the Twilight Zone or something.
I agree with that, too.
Schools are for teaching science, and churches are for teaching religion, except in the cases where there are private religious schools, which are certainly there for the purpose to teach both, which is great!
I have to agree. nm
x
Actually I agree with you.
I agree!
Bush and his military brass treated this family horribly. They did nothing but lie about everything. (Big surprise, huh?)
They tried to use Pat Tillman as their poster child for recruiting purposes, but Tillman wouldn't agree to be used that way.
When I think if the incredible courage and integrity Pat Tillman had and I look at what a coward Bush was when it came to fighting in a war and what a lying sack of crap he is today, it's easy to see who the REAL man is, and it just makes me want to spit on Bush.
I agree mostly
I think both the Schiavo case and the Lunsford case are equal cases, although what happened to Jessica is one the most heinous crimes imaginable. She used to live in a community only ten minutes from mine, and I can tell you if the guy who did this goes free on a technicality he will not be long for this Earth. He will be hunted down. Also, men who commit heinous crimes on children usually suffer in prison also...crimes against children are usually not tolerated even among the most hardened criminals. So, the death penality would actually be the lesser of the sentences if you know what I mean.
I agree he needs some
medication. Maybe his pal Rush will slide him some.
I agree. nm
I agree that this was not necessary. nm
.
|
