With all due respect....way off on figures...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-12-14
In Reply to: The last paragraph is why I posted it. - piglet
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.
The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.
There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.
For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.
There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)
In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.
A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.
An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.
At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.
Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.
(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)
It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.
The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.
What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.
Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.
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 figures. (sm)
So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as: “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board? Figures. Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.
I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay. The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.
Do I advocate racial profiling? I advocate historical profiling. Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again.
In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.
You may consider the below too long to read. I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words. I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this. Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.
Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006
The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.
Figures, please? Thanks. nm
nm
Figures....nm
Figures.
x
sorry where did you get those figures?
It cost 43.5 million for Bush's inauguration
reported yesterday in new stories
i will find the link if I must
Here's some figures
It doesn't take away from what you said of people voting for him because of his skin color and not qualifications, but doing some research I found these facts interesting and now I don't feel so bad (of course this is not down to the exact number but only what is on the statistics through the internet).
Population in USA 303,824,640
# people who voted for President Obama - 69,456,897
# people who voted for Sen. McCain - 59,934,814
# of people under the voting ages - 60,764,928
That means that 113,668,001 did not vote at all. So if you put the people who didn't vote, and the people who voted for McCain together that means that
# people who voted for Obama - 69,456,897
# of people who did not vote for Obama - 173,602,815
Kind of puts things in a better perspective.
Figures the people who are for Ono are for this
I received a message from an Obama supporter who tried to justify why its a good thing to vote early. Makes me wonder if it was going in favor of McCain would you all be in favor of this? No. This is an outrage to be able to register and vote at the same time. So if I want to do that, lets see, I'll go to my county and do that, then I'll drive to the next county, and the next and next and next and keep doing this so I can keep voting for McCain like some of the democrats will be doing. Oh no, that's not fair. Truth be known this has been the democrats operandi in the past. I have never seen such a big bunch of cheaters ever. They don't care if they cheat as long as their guy wins.
This is not right. If you can't vote in your state then you do an absentee ballot. Or will you be doing one of those also. America's election day is November 4th.
If you feel so strongly about voting you would find a way to legitimately vote on 11/4. Wonder how many other fraudulent votes will they find. At least the rupublicans are smart and are trying to verify how many of those new voter registers names and addresses are linked to the local cemeteries.
I was just giving figures from what they said.
Dont' burn me for that.
I agree! Here are some figures.
The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR
14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”
It figures - a liberal station
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Figures McCain would pull something like this
Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman). Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything. Talk about calling the kettle black. He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her? She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever. He's going to have a hard time explaining that one.
Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people. He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women. I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.
She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything. Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him. His ego is taking over and its going to sink him. He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water. Never mind her radical christian viewpoints. Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that. How could he have gotten it so wrong? Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick.
Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate. Hello President Obama.
All you have to do is look at the figures and when they started declining....
and 20 months is about right. This democratically controlled congress sat on their hands even when Greenspan was telling them they needed to tighten up on Freddie and fannie. Instead they made their hold on the housing market even bigger.
They failed to act to do anything about rising cost of fuel, went on freaking vacation rather than vote on energy bill. Not only do we need to vote in McCain/Palin, we need to clean up that viper pit that is Congress and finally start acting like adults and work together to clean up that viper pit. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it isn't yours.
If you don't have any figures to back up your statement....
just say so. Of all the catholic priests in this country, I have no idea what percentage have turned out to be sexual predators, but I am unwilling, without figures, to say it is disproporinately high.
Now in this post you have amended your position from disproproportinately high to a "little bit fishy."
Big difference in disproportionately high and "a little bit fishy." I think blindness refers more to an attitude which wants to ssume "disproportionately high" without some proof of that statement.
That is all I am saying.
The figures taken were from the US Treasury's website
Whether you want to believe it or not this info comes directly from the US Treasury website. You can't make up the figures no matter what political party you belong to.
I know lots of people were in love with Clinton and thought him to be a good president. I too voted for him the first time (after 2 months realized his agenda and got the heck out of the democrat party), but figures don't lie. I guess you didn't finish reading it because you didn't like that it favored the Clinton.
I just go by the facts and I don't care who it favors. I am one of the very few who want to know truth and would like some decent politicians.
Unfortunately we don't have any decent politicians - not one, nada.
They are all liars and crooks and thieves. It's just how they all spin everything.
As for Global warming? If you believe in that I guess you still believe the world is flat. That has been debunked by top scientist. Don't people get that. Scientists...people who have degrees. People who have studied climatology. People who are educated. They all say the earth is in a cooling trend, not warming. AL Gore has not studied this. He wrote a book filled with lies and misinformation and everyone who felt he was cheated out of the president (which even though I was against Bush know this isn't true), but feel sorry for the guy fine, but don't buy into his fantasies (just like he invented the internet and he and Tipper were the role models for the guy who wrote Love Story). Al Gore is a megalomaniac. You know, just cos your ice cube melts faster in your drink doesn't mean this is global warming. If it's global warming tell me then can you dispute these news articles:
Headline: Arab world shivers in unusual cold snap
Jordan's airport shut down by ice, other nations shiver as well - see link below
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782918/
Headline: Anectodotal cold weather news from around the world - There continues to be a number of reports of colder than normal weather and seasons from around the globe. Here are a few. - see link below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/16/anecdotal-cold-weather-news-from-around-the-world/
Headline: Brrr! State braces for unusual cold - see link below
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/doc4808db9f73005670297734.txt
Headline: Unusual cold weather strains Argentina’s energy grid - see link below
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/12-07-2007/94848-cold_weather_argentina-0
Headline - Karachi shivers in unusual cold snap - see link below
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/970965-pakistan-degrees
Those are just a few. You have got to open your eyes and look at things objectively. Al Gore knows absolutely crapola about global warming. He has an agenda. He's becoming richer and richer off of the whole thing. He is benefitting from people buying "carbon credits". He invested big time in the company and gets kickbacks from all the suckers who believe it.
P.S. - I am certainly not going to take any advice telling me I have to cut back on energy when their driving around in SUVs, limos, fuel eating buses, and who knows how many planes.
All public figures are scrutinized, especially
presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.
Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..
and again, if you will actually read my posts before attacking, I said we had more social programs than others...I would also like to know if they are comparing apples to apples...meaning countries the same size as ours with the same population as ours. You also quoted from 2001. I am sure the number of people in worst-off houses increased...they probably had more children. Does not make sense to me to have more children when you are already struggling to feed those you have. But that is what the welfare system in this country encourages. When you have second and third generation families on welfare, there is something WRONG with the system. Again...read what I actually post and then come with your rebuttal, and come with a rebuttal that has substance and not cut and paste from some old statistics (probably Wikipedia, right?).
Moores facts/figures from US info
This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show. In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling. Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts. He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.
I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.
I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine? What the Congress has? Then give it to me. I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all. To me it is a no brainer. I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.
Your figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below." Your figures support that statement.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Figures....sm
That's why I usually use non-Fox links, so the demmies will "try" to read with open mind....lol....or maybe not.....whatever.....ciao
Figures. Eventually, there's name calling from you. Twice. You must be proud. nm
Yeah, figures that Hollywood is almost all democrat
nm
O's plan is WELFARE, figures you dems want that
nm
Figures....if you can't address the problem...deflect.
What possible difference does what Bush did make? That was then, this is now. We are in a huge financial crisis (largely brought on by Democrats in congress blissfully ignoring the looming housing crisis and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle...yet you want to trust them now that we are up to our eyeballs drowning in debt with more on the way). Bush did not spend a much in 8 years as Obama has spent in...oh wait...how many WEEKS? Good grief!!!!! Don't you even WONDER how he possibly hopes to recoup all this?
Gracious enough to grant him more time? To do WHAT? Triple my taxes about the time the economy straightens out? If you think taxing the "rich" will fix this...get out your calculator and try again.
Look...I don't want to fight with anyone, but I do not understand the total blindless being exhibited here, when the microscope was used to examine Bush. Take that same microscope and start examining Obama...if you can.
Well, I guess she figures if whichever cheating...
husband Republican used state funds to meet his mistress she could use federal funds to shop. I'm sure in the world of politics that seems fair tit for tat. LOL!! Sigh.
If we are going to investigate everybody why aren't we investigating John Edwards to see if he used campaign funds to meet his mistress? How do we know for sure Bill wasn't using tax funds...well heck, he WAS. We were paying him to run the country, not have leave stains on Monica's dress. Geeez!! lol.
Stomp and whine then stick your hand out.........figures.........nm
x
Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm
nm
Not true. This is the latest poll, figures submitted just today. nm
.
With all due respect,
all the posts I've seen you post have come across to me as very confrontational. You seem to be limited to posting only posts that defend these three, and I haven't seen you post anything on any political issue -- just confronting posters and complaining about their behavior, sympathizing with poor AG, Nan and MT. That's ALL you've posted on this board, and to say it was YOU who was attacked shows, at the very least, the very same mindset that precludes you from seeing things objectively. Afraid I have to agree with GT above. I, too, smell a conservative in liberal clothing, and it also wouldn't surprise me if you were either one of those three or one who is very closely allied with them.
But I will take you at your word that this is your last post. In addition, I will make this my last post to you. I'm happy that at least temporarily we're free of all the intolerance and hatred and rage and battles that ensue when those three are around. I refuse to get back into that, and I feel that you're trying to take me down that path, and I'm not buying it.
Have a blessed day.
With all due respect.
One source is a personal blog. Those are strictly opinion pieces and carry no weight on either side. The Chicago Sun piece is more interesting, but merely makes vague statements without a single name of anyone who is bashing. Now don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns with President Bush, stem cell research not being one of them. I am alarmed at the big government policies and also at the illegal alien fiasco (which I am reading has some surprises in store). At any rate, this really is a nonstory. Remember when Lieberman gave the speech on the Senate floor criticizing Clinton. It happens. I feel no connection to the country club wing of the republican party (any more than the country club wing of the democratic party). They certainly don't speak for me.
With all due respect..
... it doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would use his service -- his putting his life on the line -- in order to try to bully, shame and coerce people who would rather see her son home with his family and safe.
It doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would sacrifice her own flesh and blood because she's too busy worshiping a very false idol in Bush.
But most of all it doesn't say very much about a president who couldn't care less about her son, a president who has recklessly, negligently and uncaringly tossed America's young people into harm's way for an unnecessary, very possible illegal war.
I honor her son, and I respect his courage very much. I thank him for putting his life on the line in service to his country. And I profusely apologize to him for the way his life has been devalued by Bush. Maybe if Bush had the integrity and courage to actually serve in a war himself, he wouldn't be so hasty about killing our young people. Her son, by virtue of having the courage to serve, is way, way, WAY above George Bush in the integrity and courage categories. Wouldn't we be fortunate if someday her son went on to become president? He's already more fit to serve than Bush is.
I hope and pray that he can return home to his family (where he belongs) and that his return is safe and without injury. I'm just very, very sorry that his mother can't see that just because we don't worship an idiot like she does, that doesn't mean we don't support our troops because we want them safe and home with their families instead of fighting an unnecessary, immoral war.
No respect
No respect for the owners of this board who have requested republicans/conservatives to not post here..Do I have to report you?
With all due respect...yes you did...
you posted that you loved to find the errors and do the research. That certainly implies that you enjoy trying to prove people wrong. And that is fine, if that is what trips your trigger. Again, what I said was we had more social programs, and again, the comparison to other nations, I would like to know what other nations and their population in relation to ours before I put a lot of stock in the data. Respectfully.
With all due respect...sm
*Civil debate* has not gotten us anywhere. In order for there to be debate BOTH sides would have to listen to each other, and meet somewhere in the middle.
With all due respect, I
disagree. I have read the words Dems and lefties and socialists used interchangeably. Look through the archives and I did not say it was you.
Respect
Well, I find the posts title a bit disrespectful. I mean, I wouldn't come to the conservative board and post with a title "Glad to not be a republican." Seems to me like "Me" was looking to stir the pot with that title.
With all due respect...
the moderator has posted several times that we can cross post. Apparently the moderator does believe in freedom of expression.
If "most of you" want to speak among yourselves, don't answer my posts, don't pile on with the crass remarks that are totally unnecessary. To coin your own words, ignore me. Quash dissent. Be intolerant of other views. To each his/her own.
There are those on the liberal board who do not mind a discussion and are actually able to do so in true liberal fashion without the personal gotchas. And as far as the gotchas...I only gave as I got. At least there were those true liberals who did not mind...but I believe you quashers have run them all off too.
So, if you do not wish to have a discussion, certainly your right. Don't answer my posts.
And...just a side note...liberal posters cross over too, and I have yet to ask them to get on back to their "own" board or stay on their own board. You see...I don't just say I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression...I act on it...unlike you.
With all due respect....
Your quote of:
"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"
These kids at Camp Cropper were committing acts of violence..setting roadside combs, firing at soldiers, etc. Your quote came from a different article about a different program dealing with adults...not with children. Two different programs I think. No one is asking them to change their faith. Are you saying that all Islam is radial jihadist? Of course it is not. These children are being taught by Iraqi teachers, not Americans. The article I posted describes it more clearly.
If it can turn a few away from jihad to what most Muslims call "true Islam," that is a good thing, right? If it can get sunni and shiite teens talking with one another, listening to one another, interacting with one another...is that not where change begins? Like you rightfully said, it was the young people in Venezuela who helped turn the tide in that country. Perhaps the same can happen in Iraq. Are you saying it is a bad thing to present these kids with a different view of Islam, that perhaps killing other Muslims is not a good thing to do? When it is presented to them by other Muslims, not by Americans? How can that be a bad thing by any stretch?
Again...we are there, piglet. Whether we leave now, next week, next month, or next year, we are there. Why should we not try to help while we are there? Like the soldier said...it is a positive thing and he is proud of what he was able to accomplish. If it turns one kid, two kids...they may be the future of Iraq. Someone had to start teaching kids in Venezuela another way...why can't we show those kids another way while we are there? If we can stop one from strapping a bomb to himself or getting his arms and legs blown off trying to set a roadside bomb...is that not a good thing? I don't see the down side to this. Honestly.
I have a lot of respect
for any man or woman in the armed forces. I think that their opinion in our next president is very important. However, even with military personnel, there are still going to be some of them who vote strictly because of race or political party.
If our votes don't really count....this is pointless, but you can't screen people and question their motives for voting and who they choose to vote for and why before you let them vote.
with all due respect...
the only one WITHOUT a voice here is the child. We are speaking for the child. If that chaps you so severely, I'm sorry. No one is judging anyone. When Scott Peterson killed laci and connor, 12 people judged him and he is in jail for the rest of his life. It is somehow different because Scott chose to kill the baby instead of Laci? Please tell me how that makes sense. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill, and it certainly wrong to let one person have the choice to arbitrarily kill another. It is the act and the procedure that is being judged here...or that is what should be judged here.
Moral wrongs are judged by people every day. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing someone is murder. Cutting a defenseless baby to pieces with no one to defend it and nowhere to run to is horrific. At least admit it. If you want to give a person a right to murder another person, at least call it what it is.
With all due respect...
I don't think making it through an ivy league school on student loans indicates character. But to each his own and you are entitled to think so.
Yes, this is a democracy, and frankly I don't think there should be any parties. I don't think there should be an electoral college. I think it should really be up to the people. But that is just me.
I beg to differ...majority may rule but majority is not always right. I refer you to the Carter years.
Again, with all due respect, Obama's speech last night, was nothing new. It was the same thing Democrats always promise. The same things Bill Clinton promised. He had the country for 8 years and none of the promises happened. That happens on both sides, I realize. But it is politics. It is give them what they want to hear and when we get elected we do what we want. No matter which man is elected, that is what is going to happen. The only thing that makes Barack Obama different from any other Democrat who has run is that he is African American. And yes, he did make history last night, and he should be commended for having the will to work his way up to where he is. That should tell him he should be backing off social programs and figure out a way to instill that ambition in other folks, instead of rewarding people by keeping them dependent on the government for everything. If he can do it, why not others? But that is not the Democrat way.
We are up to our eyeballs in China because of Bill Clinton, not a Republican. If the truth really matters to you, check it out. Bill forged alliances and trade with China during his administration. You don't remember the big flap about the contributions gotten for Clinton by the Chinese. And I don't look for Obama to change anything about how we trade with the Chinese. Have not heard anything about him doing that, and I have listened to most of his speeches. Didn't see anything about it on the website either...but I could have missed it.
Please...the Democratic party is as corrupt as the Republican party. They are both corrupt. That is the nature of the beast, because they are controlled by money people who all have agendas and while they pay lip service to the little people, they do whatever they want, including trashing their own, as was so eloquently demonstrated in Denver this week.
I say this to your party...STOP TRYING TO MAKE the US A SOCIALIST STATE and destroy the greatest nation on earth.
Like I said....I don't want your respect nor do I need it.
Your posts prove constantly that what I say is right. Keep piling it on.
With all due respect....
if providing birth control to teenagers would stop teen pregnancies we would not have 1.2 million abortions every year. I do not want to start an abortion thread...just making a point.
I respect you even more - your the first....
to say anything of substance that is positive about Obama without cutting down McCain.
I do agree with you 100% I can't afford to pay any more taxes. Food, gas, and cost of living expenses are skyrocketing but my pay isn't. Do you think we paid so much in taxes the last time we had a democratic president (Clinton) because of congress. It was absolutely horrible during his pregnancy. We were being taxed over 40% of our pay (we didn't own our own place, we drove a used car, could only afford to live in a 1-bedroom apartment, so it was not like we were living high off the hog), but we were getting taxed so much when Clinton was in that we could hardly afford to do anything. When Bush became president our taxes went down and we started getting rebates, so wondering if it has anything to do with a different congress/senate (the real people who vote). The presidents in my opinion are a bunch of talking mouths but don't make any real decisions. They are told what they will do. They are there just to look pretty (ooh, is that a sexist remark HA HA).
I totally agree that corporations are not paying their fare share and jobs keep going overseas - that absolutely has to stop or we'll be forced to move overseas just so we can get a job.
I'm just scared all round because in the past both democrat and republican have always said on their campaign trail it will be better, yet it just seems to get worse and no president ever keeps the promise they made during their campaign trail.
I like the idea of new ideas, but I also like for people to be truthful too. I think why I'm starting to fall away from supporting Obama is because he keeps changing his mind and that's starting to scare me. Now I hear he's not bringing the troops home. He said he plans to keep them there for at least 5 years, and, he said he's for the draft. When will our tax money start coming back to the US to be used to rebuild the US, not support military in countries we don't belong in and a war we should not have started in the first place.
Thank you again for your opinions on Barack Obama without being cutting down John McCain. One of them will be president and I just hope whoever gets in will make America a better place than it's been. I'm open to everything.
Respect
I respect your opinion even though we disagree. What I am looking for in a leader is a moral man or woman with a HUGE dose of common sense and honesty. I don't think we have that in any of the candidates. That's just my opinion and I thank God every day that we have the right to express and differ in our opinions. I have to wonder how long we will have that freedom. I don't think many of us realize just how much freedom we actually lost with the Patriot Act.
So, in the same respect,
do you admire Sarah Palin for standing up against her own party in Alaska for the good of her state?
Probably not, I would guess. Double standard.
With all due respect,
I care what she thinks. That is different than I don't care for what you think.
I had a lot more respect for him
before I watched the video of him being VERY ugly to the lady who was testifying before the senate committee wanting to know what happened to her SON who is still MIA!!!. He had absolutely no compassion for her whatsoever. I also had more respect for him before he started every other sentence "I was a POW and have the scars to prove it." He is no more deserving of credit for his military service than the many POWs and MIAs. His military service is no greater than the lowest boot in the military, many who have and are continuing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If you want to think I'm "cheapening" his service, go ahead and think what you will With his "experience" one would not think he would have been so quick to side with Bush to send our young men and women into harm's way in this ridiculous Iraq war, many of them have made a much greater sacrifice than he and he promises to keep it going for "100 years if necessary." How many more will die? I would think being a POW would be preferable to being DOA!!!
Respect...........sm
is something that is totally lacking in our society today, Kendra, and not just in displays of drunkeness and the likely ensuing brawling and revelry such as what sounds like is the plan for the inauguration, but also in our families and work and practically every area of society. It's time we started showing a little less "me-me-me" and started thinking of what we can do to help each other and how we can show honor for those in positions of leadership at all levels.
Out of respect
could we not give this man a rest and let him mourn the passing of his grandmother without all the rhetoric? I'm sure even John McCain would agree with that. . I think by now most people have made up their minds how they are going to vote and posting this old tired stuff over and over and over and over and ........is not going to change anyone's mind that I can imagine.
look, I can respect
the man because he is president of the US. I have no problem with that. I didn't vote for him OR McCain for that matter. The problem is such that when you speak up and say you have a good point, but what about this? There are some on these boards that take it as an attack and state you are uneducated, a sore loser, fascist, misinformed or whatever. I respect the fact that Obama stepped up and tried to reassure us as a nation when Bush did not. I have no problem with talking to someone as it can help me to learn something I may not have known. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of adults that cannot tolerate anything negative said.
|
