M, did u write the post Vie is referring to?

just wondering

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

I don't find one thing funny about it. I'm outraged about it because blaming anyone BUT the priests is giving a green flag for that behavior to continue.

And I totally agree with you that it's gone on too long, with the church's apparent blessing.  They know what these priests are doing, and they just transfer them to another parish so they can continue with a new set of children.

As far as the "headline" comment about my post, see what you mean about it coming up as a "headline" when you log onto this site.  I didn't realize it was going to come up that way.

Please rest assured that I'm outraged by all this.  Our children in this country are molested and killed every day in what seems to be an epidemic, and nobody is doing anything about it.

That's what my son used to tell me to do when I told him I didn't have any money.  "Just write a check, Mommy,"     

Levity, people........... LEVITY!!!!

"Obama is flying on the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty..."

That's what the Constitution you claim to support so much demands:  Innocent until proven guilty (and not a word about "flying on the premise" of same).

I'm just curious.  Once this bogus b/c issue is "officially" revealed as such by the SC, you have promised to let this issue go.

What's next on your list to pound this man into the ground about?  Because it's obvious that you're never going to give him an honest, fair chance to be a good president.  (He hasn't even been sworn in yet.)

So what's the next bogus issue on the agenda that will be raised to continue to try to drag him (and the country) down?

My last question:  Did you complain as vigorously about George W. Bush's blatant contempt for the Constitution that you claim to love so much?

A man who calls himself a **Christian conservative** did. He was I believe the #2 man on the **faith-based initiative program.** His name is David Kuo. He is a Republican. I think he will be on 60 minutes tonight. I have seen a couple of recognizable names from the Christian right denounce the white house after hearing some of the things Kuo writes. I am anxious to hear what Kuo himself says.

I am a Christian and I do not feel stiffled at all about voting.

//

1. Fiscal Stimulus Plan: Before or after inauguration (sp). Wants to get it moving quickly, but if he has to wait until January 20, so be it, but states he will try during these couple months to push one through now.

2. Retooling assistance plan for automakers for fuel-effieicnt cars. He realizes that the auto industry employs thousands and other companies depend on the auto industry for their jobs. Wants this package done quickly.

3. Review implementaion of plans and not rewarding management for housing problems that are caused.

4. Grow middle class in the long term.

Reporters asked questions but couldn't get them all.

1. He wants to help the states financially.

2. As to going to other countries for conferences: He is developing a team and weighing all his options. Iran's nuclear weapons are unacceptable along with the militants. This has to cease. It's not something he can do in a knee-jerk fashion and wants to be careful (not to p--s them off).

3. Tax plan: 95% of WORKING Americans will get it. His first goal is tax relief for struggling families and to build the economy from the bottom up.

That's all I could get.

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.

Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this.  The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc.  I was just questioning that comment, that's all.

As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to.  Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum.  I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....

Time for me to give this a rest.

Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse).  I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...).  Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing?  An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)?  An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?

I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America. 

money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.

The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,*  who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money.  The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal.  But anything to defend Dubya, right?

Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right? 

individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.**  Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.

My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.

the things I have gotten mostly on the C board but some here. I did not say you said any of those things. I just know they have been said to me. I am not championing anyone. I wanted to let Teddy know that she has a place here as does everyone (except if you denigrate W) and some pretty nasty things have been said on both sides. I did not want her to leave because she was, it appeared, standing alone yesterday. The more people are here the better it is.

I don't think that anyone probably deserves some of the rhetoric that appears here and I am amazed at the viciousness sometimes...both sides...but we are representative of a larger picture and that is a good thing.

My apologies, I was not referring to you in any way. I was telling Teddy that I knew how she must feel. It's tough to go it alone sometimes or be the only one on your side (or so it seems). I have been there where I am the only left voice and besides being difficult, it gets really confusing about answering what to who about what. That is all.