No, because she had not written a book about one of the...
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-01
In Reply to: Did you complain when she moderated it in 2004? - I don't get it
participants and it is in her best book selling interest if he WINS. She makes no secret she supports him. A moderator is supposed to be NEUTRAL.
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
that's your problem. You put too much stock in a book written
Why do people say no flames please when they make inflamatory statements? You must like the attention.
The book of Revelations was written thousands of years ago.
Why do you think it pertains in any way to our time and not to the time in which it was written? Why do people think it is some sort of prophecy for their particular lifetime? Does no one study the history of the bible anymore? I am so saddened and appalled by the lack of theological and historical education in churches. If people don't even understand the documents of their own faiths,then there is never any hope for understand people of another faith.
Very well written
Too many responses below are too long that I got lost reading them all so hope I don't repeat anything. Your post was very well written and I agree totally. I'd love to see this speech spoken by one of the candidates.
really? well it is written that he was a muslim
http://freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
A very well written post
piglet. What would you like to discuss?
Well written message
Thank you. I am so tired of people making acusations against Obama and most of it is meaningless. Most of them don't research, they just repeat things they hear. After reading about McCain and his history and what he is like now, read the post below called "I did my homework". I can't see why anyone would vote for anyone with McCain's temper and history. I'm going by his voting record too. If people want America to live in fear and lose all our freedoms that the country was founded on then go ahead and vote for McCain.
Ditto that, well written
That is exactly how I feel and I have medical insurance because I work two jobs and can barely afford it and everything else for my small family. But I am not crying and whining about what I don't or can't have. My parents raised me with good sense and wisdom. When my life isn't going the way I want it to, it is up to me to change it, not someone (or government) else. I do not support the culture of government handouts. When you reward less than ambitious people to not work and expect nothing from them, you get nothing in return. There is no investment in that. I love President Clinton's welfare reform that gets people into training for jobs to get them off welfare. It is not a perfect plan, but is a step in the right direction. And, yes, those training opportunities are in every state.
you have written the 11th
commandment - Two wrongs DO make a right.
Books have been written
on the insidious & frightening merging of the right wing (currently occupied by the republican party) and the Christian religion. Certainly there are individual exceptions, but the political party defines itself in large part by its religious beliefs, which as I understand from the media and from the posts on this very board, involves preservation of life at all costs, period. Here's a scary watch: The documentary "Jesus Camp."
As far as my world view being narrow, I would say that the difference is that I'm willing to let people believe whatever they want to believe, & if I don't like it I can change channels. As opposed to Christians (granted, maybe the most vocal ones, who are the only ones I've had occasion to hear), who do not appear to be satisfied until everyone thinks the way they do. I think everyone has a right to personal beliefs, but that right STOPS at the point where it infringes on my own. As opposed to Christians (ditto above reference) who seem quite happy to legislate the world to their own belief system. To me, that's what the narrowness involves.
I agree with you CDW, very well written nm
nm
Since it was written by holdovers from
they apparently have not changed their SOP.
It was written AFTER Obama came in....
xx
Great article! Very well written.
As I've suspected for a long time now, he's deaf and *dumb*!!
Thanks for posting this. 
How you interpret the written word is beyond me.
I believe I said in order to be forgiven, one has to 'fess up, own up, repent and go and sin no more. This is a 1 on 1 deal with God. I have repeatedly said, in response to many issues, that God judges, not us but what I get is God will judge W and anyone else with whom we agree and who are we to say anything different but the liberals, the people of other faiths, poor people, the spiritually bankrupt people, the **undeserving poor** as opposed to the ***deserving poor***, now that is a different story. We can and ought to judge them as harshly as possible; speaking out of both sides of one's mouth it would seem to me. In response to my unChristianness I have enclosed the definition of repentence with Bible ***links***.
What is Repentance?
Repentance comes from a Greek word meaning to change one's mind. It is much more than feeling sorry about what has happened or regretful about circumstances and their outcome. The key element is the concept of change, of turning completely around. It involves both a turning from and a turning to. In the Bible it means to be converted; to undergo a radical change of heart and life, a complete turnabout of life.
The Shorter Catechism says Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
The change of mind and heart comes as we move from a state of rebellion against God and the idolization of our selves (Rom 1:21ff; 3:10-19, 23). We agree with God in His assessment of us - we are sinners in thought, word and deed - under His wrath and curse. No longer do we seek to justify ourselves, excuse our sins, or try to merit salvation. Rather we comprehend the awful truth about ourselves - that we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sin - and the wages of sin is death, and after that will come judgment. (Eph 2:1-3; James 1:15; Rom 6:23; Hebr 9:27).
True repentance is not putting on sackcloth and ashes, a negative preoccupation with ourselves. However to turn from sin and live for Christ, we must see our sin for what it is and how it affects our thinking and actions and this can be done most clearly as Christ bears it to the cross - God's response to our sin is such that he couldn't spare his own Son. (Rom 8:32)
Repentance includes Confession - the acknowledging of our sinfulness to God and our admission to Him that apart from Christ we are unable to please God. It includes knowing God's forgiveness, we can turn away from sin when we know our sinfulness no longer keeps us from God. And true repentance leads to new obedience. We are turning to newness of life, living now as God would have us to live.
True repentance can only come at the foot of the cross. It is inseparable from faith for this reason. Repentance is admitting that we are as God sees us, and He knows every secret within our hearts (Psa 139, Matt 6:4, 6). Faith embraces the Savior he offers for our salvation.
Only as we realize what our sin is before God, will we experience true godly sorrow for our sins (Cf 2 Cor 7:8-11) Worldly sorrow regrets the consequences, feels remorse that I'm guilty - it leads to death. If we dwell on our sins rather than viewing them in the shade of the cross - we would be driven to despair and hopelessness. But godly sorrow leads to repentance and salvation - we see ourselves as we are and hate our sin, humbling ourselves before God. True repentance is being honest with ourselves and with God without fear - because we trust God has dealt with that sin on the cross. (Rom 8:1ff)
P.S. All humans make mistakes. All presidents are human, ergo, all presidents make mistakes.
Well written, I agree with you Amanda
nm
Saw this on a blog, written by a soldier....sm
Apparently written in response to negative posts regarding our country, the election, the republicans, etc. I felt this soldier's viewpoint is very, very important.
I will tell you about America!! I have been a soldier. I have seen American men and women of all RACES and religions that courageously and proudly serve their country. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice for their country with their lives. I read these comments putting down what these finest of Americans have done It makes me really ANGRY. These people that put our country down have NO appreciation of the freedoms that they have because of the sacrifice of these military heroes!!
I know that in America we have problems and although it has taken along time to fix many of these problems, we still FIX things. That is what Americans do. There have been racial problems but in 1862 there was slavery .A Christian republican president (Lincoln) issued the Emancipation Proclamation that ended the slavery and set our country on the road to racial equality. We are not entirely there yet but we have come a long way. It would have been impossible in years past for a black man like Obama to make 4million dollars a year not to mention actually run for president.
The capitalist system that he is trying to destroy has been really good to him.
I have been around the world and I have seen “civilized” socialist European countries that have a 6o% tax rate on the working class in order to “spread the wealth” and few personal freedoms. I have seen third world countries where one in three babies die due to water born disease. I have also seen American Christian organizations voluntarily drilling wells to help these people survive. I have seen Americans risking their lives to provide medical assistance to people that have no access.
When that enormous tsunami hit Indonesia, Who was there first??? America was there first. American Marines put down their weapons and began digging the out survivors as well as those who didn’t survive. Americans set up water purification units to provide safe drinking water, setting up field hospitals aiding the injured, setting up temporary housing for these victims and food services for the victims. America was there FIRST!!
I have seen countries where the middle class live in filthy squalor, with open sewers and trash in the streets, living under oppressive totalitarian regimes. I have seen communists that plunder, murder, rape and torture the very people that they are supposedly “liberating”.
You people who want to believe that America is so bad really don’t have a realistic view of the world. NOWHERE in the world do people have a higher standard of living due to our capitalist free market system. NOWHERE in the world do people have the personal rights that we have in America. NOBODY in the world puts so much effort in to helping other people, even some that are not very friendly to us. NOBODY matches our humanitarian worldwide efforts. Why do you think that so many people want to get to America????
You people that put America down should really open your eyes and take a good honest look at the rest of the world. You should also question the anti-American rantings of people like Mr. Ayers, Mr. Wright and those associated with them. If these people had spouted this stuff in 90% of
other countries, they would have been thrown in prison or would have wound up in an unmarked shallow grave somewhere. Instead Mr. Wright lives in a 1.2 million dollar home and Mr. Ayers is a professor in a prestigious university.
Again, only in AMERICA…..
WAKE UP AMERICA……WAKE UP!!!!
never saw the S-word written like that before - too funny
x
Your post was well written but hypocritical.
You admonish us to come together while in the same paragraph stating Republicans are to blame for everything gone wrong in the last 8 years. You speak of cluelessness, simplemindedness, backwardness, etc. etc. etc., insulting the past administration and anyone supportive of it while proclaiming the virtues of a man whose potential and abilities have not yet been proven. Your post is insulting, opinionated and presumptious, yet you are bewildered and dismayed by those not joining you on the Obama-idolizing bandwagon.
How dare you reduce this to an accusation of racial prejudice? How is such an assumption not hateful in itself?
It is precisely this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that creates and perpetuates devisivenss in the world!
I have already written the author of this- others should email
Doctors swamped, having to dictate from a zoo. Honestly. How many of us have heard doctors dictating from the bathrooms, doing their business 1 and 2, their homes with dogs barking, eating, snorting, and the list goes on. Also as an Editor was amused by the fact "only doctors are allowed to edit reports or change." I do not know of any physicians here in the US doing that. As far as what is not to like, when my hospital tried to send work overseas the physicians up in arms because of the horrible work they got back. That did not last long with them when the doctors spoke.
if one cannot interpret what is written in the Bible
the results are catastrophic.
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
That's when the letter was dated. It could have been written the day he released it.
Why would he quit the day after his dad accepted the nomination and not release the letter then?
here's a link to written text -eye opening
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/16075/
nothing hateful written; it is not Totally Unnecessary.
nm
Beautiful psalm, written by David
This is a beautiful psalm, written by David, not by G-d, and therefore, is not part of Jewish law.
And where is that written, if you are conducting the job or position for which you ran with integrit
where is it written that you give away your right to privacy? Are you kidding? I am so sick of the media mentality that just because someone has chosen a profession, such as politics, acting, the arts, etc., that EVERYTHING is fair game, you can never have a private moment in your entire life (or term), you may be hunted, haunted, treated like an animal in a zoo.....yes, you are a public figure, but still a human being with rights, and that means a right to privacy. To think otherwise is mercenary, cold, and totally out of touch with humanity. Actors play parts to entertain us, give us pleasure, help us escape, but they can never ever escape the papparazzi at any time, when off camera??? What a cruel and voyeuristic society we have become!!!!
This is a great article written by Jim Cramer...
he is the money guy on CNBC. We listen to him sometimes, have read a couple of his books, and because of watching his show in Sept or Oct of last year, we pulled our money out of the stock market, which was the BEST idea. It is an interesting artcile to some, maybe not to others.
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
If there already exist specific written policies
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
paranoid and delusional, is this written in the Bible?...nm
nm
Extremely revealing article written
by a first-generation African-American woman (hard to get by with calling her a racist) in The National Thinker:
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa
Well worth reading the entire thing: http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2278969/posts?page=1
Applauding! What a great post, to the point and well written.
I don't think some people realize the seriousness of the illegally invading a sovereign nation for what is truthfully nothing more than regime change, after being dishonest to the entire world about the true reasons for invading this country.
If/when it happens, they still won't get it. And if/when more Americans are killed by terrorists because this president was too stubborn to care about America first and refused to implement most suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, the ones who survive the next terror attack will still be kneeling down and kissing his boots because they are preprogrammed to believe this man can do nothing wrong.
LOL! Not bright enough to respond intelligently to a wonderfully written
Article written by a liberal regarding sanctity of life....
knew there were pro-life liberals; just had to look for some. She does not understand the stand some of you are taking, any more than I do.
Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
Mary Meehan, The Progressive,
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.
Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.
Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."
It is not my purpose to explain why courts and parliaments in many nations rejected this tradition over the past few decades, though I suspect their action was largely a surrender to technical achievement -- if such inventions as suction aspirators can be called technical achievements. But it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion.
One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born. When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."
Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.
Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.
But pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women. Thus; 1972, when a Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalized abortion, partly to remove discrimination against poor women, several commission members dissented.
One was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana was active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. Olivarez, who later was named to head the Federal Government's Community Services Administration, had known poverty in her youth in the Southwest. With a touch of bitterness, she said in her dissent, "The poor cry out for justice and equality and we respond with legalized abortion." Olivarez noted that blacks and Chicanos had often been unwanted by white society. She added, "I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ?wanted' or not, all citizens stand in danger." Later she told the press, "We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."
Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us." It is true that opposition to abortion is a religious position for many people. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and many of the fundamentalist Protestant groups also oppose abortion. (So did the mainstream Protestant churches until recent years.) But many people are against abortion for reasons that are independent of religious authority or belief. Many would still be against abortion if they lost their faith; others are opposed to it after they have lost faith, or if they never had any faith. Only if their non-religious grounds for opposition can be proven baseless should legal prohibition of abortion fairly be called an establishment of religion. The pro-abortion forces concentrate heavily on religious arguments against abortion and generally ignore the secular arguments -- possibly because they cannot answer them.
Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement.
If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as D*ck Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion. We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.
Although many liberals and radicals accepted legalized abortion, there are signs of uneasiness about it. Tell someone who supports it that you have many problems with the issue, and she is likely to say, quickly, "Oh, I don't think I could ever have one myself, but . . . ." or "I'm really not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice" or "I'm personally opposed to it, but . . . ."
Why are they personally opposed to it if there is nothing wrong with it?
Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on, the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:
First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.
Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.
Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. D*ck Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idi*t on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "
Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.
Juli Loesch, a feminist/pacifist writer, notes that feminists want to have men participate more in the care of children, but abortion allows a man to shift total responsibility to the woman: "He can buy his way out of accountability by making `The Offer' for `The Procedure.' " She adds that the man's sexual role "then implies-exactly nothing: no relationship. How quickly a `woman's right to choose' comes to serve a `man's right to use.?" And Daphne DE Jong, a New Zealand feminist, says, "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience." She adds, "Of all the things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape . . . ."
Loesch, de Jong, Olivarez, and other pro-life feminists believe men should bear a much greater share of the burdens of child-rearing than they do at present. And de Jong makes a radical point when she says, "Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." Olivarez and others have also called for the development of safer and more effective contraceptives for both men and women. In her 1972 dissent, Olivarez noted with irony that "medical science has developed four differ ways for killing a fetus, but has not "developed a safe-for-all-to-use contraceptive."
Fifth, abortion is an escape from an obligation that is owed to another. Doris Gordon, Coordinator of Libertarians for Life, puts it this way: "Unborn children don't cause women to become pregnant but parents cause their children to be in the womb, and as a result, they need parental care. As a general principle, if we are the cause of another's need for care, as when we cause an accident, we acquire an obligation to that person a result .... We have no right to kill order to terminate any obligation."
Sixth, abortion brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen. Too many of us look the other way because we do not want to think about abortion. A part of reality is blocked out because one does not want to see broken bodies coming home, or going to an incinerator, in those awful plastic bags. People deny their own humanity when they refuse to identify with, or even knowledge, the pain of others.
With some it is worse: They are making money from the misery others, from exploited women and dead children. Doctors, business and clinic directors are making a great deal of money from abortion. Jobs and high incomes depend on abortion; it?s part of the gross national product. The parallels of this with the military industrial complex should be obvious to anyone who was involved in the war movement.
And the "slippery slope" argument is right: People really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia and accepting "triage" for the hunger problem and accepting "lifeboat ethics" as a general guide to human behavior. We slip down the slope back to the jungle.
To save the smallest children, save its own conscience, the Left should speak out against abortion.
Mary Meehan has written for Inquiry, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and other publications.
Obama's busted bubble....very well written article
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/obamas_busted_bubble.html
I agree, and I have written to two of my reps, Whitehouse and Reed, what about you??....sm
I am not talking ideology here, I said I was a "traitor Democrat" jokingly because even though I carry the party affiliation with my in my voting records, I do not vote along straight party lines, and I can admit when my president does something wrong, unlike many others here. I want what is right for my country. why not give O a chance and find ways to help him see where changes have to be made, he has crossed over the aisle before, and plans to do so over his administration. We he be entirely successful? No one is giving him the chance or support to find out, everyone wants a genie in a bottle who will "POOF" make all those big bad problems disappear, erase all the wrong-doing of previous administrations (and Yes, that includes Bill Clinton at times), LET'S FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM AT HAND AND AT THE FUTURE.
As long as a taxpayer complies with the code as it was written
Taxpayers are not responsible for observing "the intent" of the tax law, but for observing its specific terms.
It's the obligation of the legislature to make sure that the law is written in such a way that it reflects their intentions. Unfortunately (or in some cases, fortunately), the intentions of the legislature are often so ambiguous, inappropriate or impossible to implement by tax laws that such a hope is doomed from the start.
What a beautifully written, truthful, common sense post.
Cannot add a thing. Thank you for telling it like it is so profoundly and full of truths! 
McCain's speech was well written (for him, I doubt he wrote it himself), but he is not a great s
He does not have 'it'.
Obama has 'it'.
Well done, Obama.
or maybe a BOOK
try one. You might like.
Bible not bad book at all...
...and should have its basic tenets taught right alongside of those of the Qur'an and the holy books of all other major world religions. Students of any age who wish to read the Bible in my opinion should certainly be able to do so anytime they wish. Same for all other holy/religious writings. A person's education really isn't complete without a fundamental understanding of all of the religions that shape our world.
I would however sign any petition that forces anyone to do anything in the spirit of indoctrination or exclusion, or against any requirement that implies that THIS is the one true holy book and you WILL read it even if your negligent atheist going-to-hell-parents wouldn't force you to do it at home (and we're coming for them soon too - better join us if you know what's good for you). Unfortunately that is how this kind of requirement is perceived by many people in our current political climate - including me. And unfortunately, I believe this is exactly the attitude held by those who try to force such requirements into the public schools.
I don't think it qualifies as a "random act of kindness" - but rather as a deliberate act of religious supremacism.
I can see the title of her next book now...sm
*The Liberals Took My Voting Rights.* She's such a nutjob!
But every book she writes goes to #1. sm
She is unbelievably wealthy and she can always fall back on her law degree. I don't think she is hurting.
Woodward's book
Cannot wait to read Woodward's new book, however, most of us with eyes wide open have known this even before Bush's war.
YIPES! Foley..what were you thinking? Do as I say, not as I do?
Concerning Chavez's remarks. What better place to scream and holler than at the UN? There have been many heated debates and speeches over the years. Secondly, America, land of freedom and free speech, even for foreigners. I have no problems with what Chavez said, in fact, I agree with him. The democratic leaders who spoke out against Chavez and defended the president need to realize that if the shoe was on the other foot, do they actually think Bush, Cheney, Rove, Snow, Rice, Rumsfeld would defend them? Republicans play dirty, there is proof of that all around, Democrats try not to, however, it has gotten us no where. It is time to play as dirty as the other side. Chavez did not state lies, he stated the truth. If you do not agree, explain then our foreign policy for the last 50+ years, explain our presence in Iraq, even as most Iraqi's are wanting us out or dead. Bringing Democracy to Iraq, oh please. You cannot force an ideology on people with the barrel of a gun. When we do leave Iraq, whenever that is, it will not resemble any type of Democracy that we have ever seen. We have given a gift to Iran with our invasion of Iraq.
Book Proceeds
Yep, was just posting information. Funneling the money to the kids is a way to get the book published. I am sure there are under-the-counter things going on, and I figure the Brown and Goldman families will tie it up anyway as well they should. As to those poor kids...I don't know if there are anough couches in the US to fix them. And that sociopath father of theirs could not care less. If he cared one whit about those kids he would not have murdered their mother and left her mutilated body lying on the sidewalk for them to possibly find. Sick, sick puppy.
That is unsubstantiated....out of a book some...
guy wrote who said "three Arizona reports on condition of anonymity" told him they overheard it. Chalk this one up to unsubstantiated rumor in my books. If someone knows of a link where McCain admitted this, I would be interested in it. If it is true, she should have slapped the cr*p out of him. I am not so naive as to think that other Presidents have not called their wives foul names and vice versa. I can just imagine during the Clinton years.... lol ....remember all the unsubstantiated rumors about Hillary using the "F" word to the secret service people and calling them all kinds of names? I think that is what is happening here. Any time someone says they speak on condition of anonymity makes me suspicious out of the gate.
Book banning VP?
If SP tried to ban library books as mayor, what will she do if she becomes president, which is very likely since JM is not healthy. Isn't there something in the bill of rights about freedom of speech? I am a book lover and this really makes me angry.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
Former Mayor John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
I would like to suggest a book.....
"People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, MD - excellent book and he makes reference to several other books that are good reads. This book is about the true meaning of evil - from a scientific perspective. It is not about "possession" but he participated in a few exorcisms performed by many people of different faiths, he said (and don't quote me) that the basic requirement was just that the participants love the afflicted enough to want to help them. He states that "possession" is extremely rare, but he witnessed it up close and personal when the patient was thought to be mentally ill. I have owned this book for years and every time I lend out my copy and don't get it back, another one presents itself at a yard sale, library book sale, whatever.
You really should read a book about his...
career. And then you should read on his website what he proposes for this country. And then you should read up on socialism. Not saying that to be demeaning. I don't think he is a socialist...I KNOW he is a socialist.
book smart isn't everything
I've known a lot of educated people who don't know a thing about real life. Need some life experience and common sense to go anywhere.
The book has been widely
vetted. It is regarded as trash by all other than extreme right thinkers. The author made 8 corrections in the second print already. that was only weeks after publication. I have a great idea. Instead of insisting people wear flag pins let us change this country back to the democracy we can be proud off. The country is based on inspiring ideas. Internal change is much more legit than external. How you ask. I myself am working for my candidate in my community to spread the word. We are successfully awakening the spirit of the nation. We have gathered hundreds of young voters and driven them to the polling place to register and vote. The sleeping giant is stirring and a youthful new leader has emerged to restore us to the greatest nation in history. If you don't believe me, check out this morning's edition of Vast Variety, the newspaper of those in the know.
|
