The GOP did just fine

[OldMercsRule]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/the_gop_did_just_fine.html

"There is more good in the budget deal than is revealed in the budget cut number agreed on last night. Measured against the size of budget cutting necessary for the future, the numbers are small, to be sure, but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012.


Andrew Stiles at NRO correctly points out the extent of the Harry Reid cave-in"

A thoughtful read.... hope ya enjoy it...... I did..... :cool:

'Course... a feller with one functional brain cell is fairly easy ta entertain.... :happy0203:

Where are all of our Liberal/Progressives on this site?

Hmmmmmmmm???????????

I miss 'em....sniff.... sniff.

I now have ta punch back @ Girlfriend, :laugh2: (2 a lesser extent) : Logroller, n' Missileman; (which is real rare), .... n' it isn't nearly as fun as slappin' Liberals. sniff...... sniff

Hope we can get some over here, again..... n' if soooooo beeeee nice......

Yoooooooohooooooooooooooo: Mr. Tree ..... Where are yooooooooo?

Me overpriced $.02. JR

[Kathianne]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/the_gop_did_just_fine.html

"There is more good in the budget deal than is revealed in the budget cut number agreed on last night. Measured against the size of budget cutting necessary for the future, the numbers are small, to be sure, but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012.


Andrew Stiles at NRO correctly points out the extent of the Harry Reid cave-in"

A thoughtful read.... hope ya enjoy it...... I did..... :cool:

'Course... a feller with one functional brain cell is fairly easy ta entertain.... :happy0203:

Where are all of our Liberal/Progressives on this site?

Hmmmmmmmm???????????

I miss 'em....sniff.... sniff.

I now have ta punch back @ Girlfriend, :laugh2: (2 a lesser extent) : Logroller, n' Missileman; (which is real rare), .... n' it isn't nearly as fun as slappin' Liberals. sniff...... sniff

Hope we can get some over here, again..... n' if soooooo beeeee nice......

Yoooooooohooooooooooooooo: Mr. Tree ..... Where are yooooooooo?

Me overpriced $.02. JR

Yeah, I thought so too, yesterday:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31016-Time-s-up-Obama-and-GOP-scramble-to-halt-shutdown&p=466717#post466717

[Cracker]

Remains to be seen. I think they should strike when the iron is hot, and they failed to do that. Time will tell.

[OldMercsRule]

Remains to be seen. I think they should strike when the iron is hot, and they failed to do that. Time will tell.

Yuppers the really big battles loom ahead.

[Cracker]

Yuppers the really big battles loom ahead. They alienated me and other TEA folks. Screw them bitches.

[Kathianne]

They alienated me and other TEA folks. Screw them bitches.

Assuming you are a social conservative, with some strong religious convictions? I'd really like to know why if there's so many like you, they never formed their own group instead of jumping in with the tea parties? From the start they were focused on government size, federalism, and the government elite? The issues of gay marriage, abortion, etc., were not the focus, regardless of individuals beliefs.

They understood the need to grow from the bottom up, while chipping away at federal offices. How many of those elected were actually new members? How many were nutters like Bachmann, not representative of the tea parties, but I'll bet your cuppa?

The only thing any of us can do is watch what our representatives run on then how they actually vote at all levels of government. If they run counter to what we wanted, find a new one with the next election.

[OldMercsRule]

They alienated me and other TEA folks. Screw them bitches.

Hmmmmmmm..... "they alienated" ya eh?

Please, (yer kinda huffy aren't ya)? :lol:

Ya "alienated" yersef IMHO.

Politics is a bunch of relative choices..... many can't seem ta get that basic corncept. McCain was noooooo Ronald Reagan butt: MUCH better then the fruit fly Chicago thug we now have.

If yer lookin' fer an exact fit in the political world.... it doesn't exist, nor are there many political heros, (n' ZERO perfect ones). They are all fer sale... n' ebb n' flow as political winds blow 'em toooooo and frow, (not talkin' about BJ neither). :happy0203:

It takes a bit o' time ta gain critical mass. The Republicans got badly spanked in 2006 n' 2008, fer good reason..... n' now are crawlin' back. A weeeeee bit at a time, hope the Country can stick to it n' keep pushin'.

They don't have the MSM or achedemia, n' most Americans, [(dim wit Democrat supporters approx 30% + or -), Independents, (which encludes me) 40% = or -], are not Republicans.

They did well in the first grudge match, IMHO, (soooooooo we will have ta disagree here). :thumb:

The real test is when Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is the center of the debate, (and it will not be over then), either.

We are at a critical cross road in the history of this Great Republic, as the "Dead" sang: "trouble ahead....... trouble behind".... hopefully the train makes it through the real challenging pass ahead. :salute:

Me vastly overpriced $.02. JR

:boobies:

[Little-Acorn]

They alienated me and other TEA folks. Screw them bitches.

Got a better alternative?

Or a better plan? One that will SUCCEED in getting major spending cuts and other conservative (i.e. small-govt) legislation into place?

[Cracker]

Assuming you are a social conservative, with some strong religious convictions? I'd really like to know why if there's so many like you, they never formed their own group instead of jumping in with the tea parties? From the start they were focused on government size, federalism, and the government elite? The issues of gay marriage, abortion, etc., were not the focus, regardless of individuals beliefs.

They understood the need to grow from the bottom up, while chipping away at federal offices. How many of those elected were actually new members? How many were nutters like Bachmann, not representative of the tea parties, but I'll bet your cuppa?

The only thing any of us can do is watch what our representatives run on then how they actually vote at all levels of government. If they run counter to what we wanted, find a new one with the next election.

What's your point? Yes I am a social conservative; what does that have to do with the TEA platform? If the federal government stuck to its Constitutional authority under Article I Section 8 and didn't ignore the 10th Amendment, it wouldn't be able to fund abortions or mess with conservative policies enacted by states.

[Cracker]

Got a better alternative?

Or a better plan? One that will SUCCEED in getting major spending cuts and other conservative (i.e. small-govt) legislation into place?

Yeah, vote the bums out and replace them with conservatives.

[Kathianne]

What's your point? Yes I am a social conservative; what does that have to do with the TEA platform? If the federal government stuck to its Constitutional authority under Article I Section 8 and didn't ignore the 10th Amendment, it wouldn't be able to fund abortions or mess with conservative policies enacted by states.

Your social conservative issues have nothing to do with the tea parties. Once again, you all are so sure of the right way to go, why not put the Bachmanns, Palins, Huckabees under your own banner and leave the other parties to do their things? If you are right and strong and can call down the wrath of YOUR god, you shouldn't have a problem.

[OldMercsRule]

Your social conservative issues have nothing to do with the tea parties. Once again, you all are so sure of the right way to go, why not put the Bachmanns, Palins, Huckabees under your own banner and leave the other parties to do their things? If you are right and strong and can call down the wrath of YOUR god, you shouldn't have a problem.

His God, (the one and only: God/Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost)... NOT ALLAH..... is the same as me God: Kathianne....

No one can "call down the wrath of God".... so please... hold the sarcasm fer the man's faith........

I'm a Cornservative/Libertarian..... who tends ta be Liberal socially....

What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston? :laugh2:

Beans do cause flatulance in me...... As ya prolly know.... :happy0203:

[Kathianne]

His God, (the one and only: God/Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost)... NOT ALLAH..... is the same as me God: Kathianne....

No one can "call down the wrath of God".... so please... hold the sarcasm fer the man's faith........

I'm a Cornservative/Libertarian..... who tends ta be Liberal socially....

What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston? :laugh2:

Beans do cause flatulance in me...... As ya prolly know.... :happy0203:

Sorry, when people start that their way is God's way, I don't feel a need to shut up. No one can tell me what the final judgment of anyone, themselves included, will be.

That doesn't mean that I don't even agree with their assessment of what is moral, but when they claim to know, yeah they are but a legend in their own mind. A sort of minime godlett I guess.

Religion should be out of the government and government out of religion.

Then to imply that they are conservatives and/or tea parties members, they don't understand the meaning.

[OldMercsRule]

Sorry, when people start that their way is God's way, I don't feel a need to shut up. No one can tell me what the final judgment of anyone, themselves included, will be.

I never told ya to "shut up" I like yer banter....


That doesn't mean that I don't even agree with their assessment of what is moral, but when they claim to know, yeah they are but a legend in their own mind. A sort of minime godlett I guess.

I'm a "cafeteria Christian" 180 degrees from most.


Religion should be out of the government and government out of religion.

Agreed..... butt: please don't ban Christmas.... n' Easter.


Then to imply that they are conservatives and/or tea parties members, they don't understand the meaning.

I do tend ta clash with some "social Cornservatives".... although I try ta avoid the debates....

I'm not pro Abortion.... butt: don't like Nanny Gubment tellin' a woman what ta do with her body et al.....

[Kathianne]

I never told ya to "shut up" I like yer banter....



I'm a "cafeteria Christian" 180 degrees from most.



Agreed..... butt: please don't ban Christmas.... n' Easter.



I do tend ta clash with some "social Cornservatives".... although I try ta avoid the debates....

I'm not pro Abortion.... butt: don't like Nanny Gubment tellin' a woman what ta do with her body et al.....

While I agree with you on everything but the 180, since I'm clueless to what you mean, I guess you and I are going the right way. LOL!

Seriously, when someone says they know God's Will and there are a set standard and they KNOW it, sorry. When they then try to burden a political movement or party with the same litmus tests-their standards of course, excuse me, "God's standards," wrong place and I don't respect the person for doing so.

Now if they wish to hold fast to their beliefs and live their lives content in their KNOWLEDGE, teach it all to their children, not one problem with that. I'm pretty socially conservatives myself in my life, but that's not for everyone and I really don't care. It's between them and God.

[OldMercsRule]

The 180 degree part means: I like fast women, wine... n' song, am kind of a HO n' don't go ta church or thump the bible... n' such.

Jesus Christ is my God..... n' I try NOT ta judge as that is up to the big feller upstairs: Jesus Christ!!!!

Many of me "bible thumper" friends look down at me.... n' they do give me a pass as they know I'm a good person, Dad, loyal friend n' honest n' such.....

I dance to the beat of me own drummer....... n' I have ony one functional brain cell... so that is wy they give me a break......

Hope that helps..... :happy0203:

[Salty]

( had to remove ur link: newbie rules)

"There is more good in the budget deal than is revealed in the budget cut number agreed on last night. Measured against the size of budget cutting necessary for the future, the numbers are small, to be sure, but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012.


Andrew Stiles at NRO correctly points out the extent of the Harry Reid cave-in"

A thoughtful read.... hope ya enjoy it...... I did..... :cool:

'Course... a feller with one functional brain cell is fairly easy ta entertain.... :happy0203:

Where are all of our Liberal/Progressives on this site?

Hmmmmmmmm???????????

I miss 'em....sniff.... sniff.

I now have ta punch back @ Girlfriend, :laugh2: (2 a lesser extent) : Logroller, n' Missileman; (which is real rare), .... n' it isn't nearly as fun as slappin' Liberals. sniff...... sniff

Hope we can get some over here, again..... n' if soooooo beeeee nice......

Yoooooooohooooooooooooooo: Mr. Tree ..... Where are yooooooooo?

Me overpriced $.02. JR

Before I discuss further I just have to get this little jab off my chest:
One thing the American public will not tolerate is using our brave military heroes as political pawns.
The American people have tolerated it for...how many years now? From a Republican and Democrat President? That was a mistake on the author's part.
As for the rest of his analysis, it is right on. Bohner has proved a shrewd and tough opponent. He had his sh__ together when his feet hit the ground.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan President someday, but that's for another thread. :D
The thing about the Democrat congress and Democrat President in the last go round (ala Pelosi) is none of them were great politicians.

They were and still are mostly ideologists who are unable to make the tactile maneuvers to get things done in Washington. The congress even butted against their Liberal President trying to one-up him in Liberalism.
Republicans are cherry picking their cuts for sure but at the same time they are picking a few key items that shoot straight to the hearts of voters.
Like it or not, most people in this country do not want to fund abortion.
The women's movement that is harping on rights and health care makes me sick. They are making it harder for their own party to win. I know they have a voice and constitutional right to say whatever, but most (Even tried and true Democrat) women I know have reservations about paying for this service.

[OldMercsRule]

Before I discuss further I just have to get this little jab off my chest:


One thing the American public will not tolerate is using our brave military heroes as political pawns.

Now Salty quit talkin' about yer chest..... ya know I can beeee a reeeeeeel bad boy........... :happy0203:


The American people have tolerated it for...how many years now?

Since the Commies like Teddy "Oldmobile" Kennedy; John PUKE Kerry... n' George McGovern took over a large chunk of the dim wit Democrat party in 1968 to 1972. The "end's justify the means" crowd tried openly fer our outright defeat in Iraq in 2004, (Harry Ried, Dick "Turbin" Durbin...) and actually handed the Commies Vietnam in 1974-5.


From a Republican and Democrat President? That was a mistake on the author's part.

Hmmmmmm.............. can't stop thinkin about yer chest now.... :happy0203:

Sorry... MY = BAD......


As for the rest of his analysis, it is right on. Bohner has proved a shrewd and tough opponent. He had his sh__ together when his feet hit the ground.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan President someday, but that's for another thread. :D

Hope yer right.....


The thing about the Democrat congress and Democrat President in the last go round (ala Pelosi) is none of them were great politicians.

Disagree Darlin'...... Nasty Nancy was the most effective Speaker in History... no small feat.... N' I like her chest toooooo......

I'm Terrible now........ I better STFU or Jim or Kathianne will ban me.....


They were and still are mostly ideologists who are unable to make the tactile maneuvers to get things done in Washington. The congress even butted against their Liberal President trying to one-up him in Liberalism.

Hmmmmmmm....... :boobies: :boobies: :boobies:


Republicans are cherry picking their cuts for sure but at the same time they are picking a few key items that shoot straight to the hearts of voters.
Like it or not, most people in this country do not want to fund abortion.
The women's movement that is harping on rights and health care makes me sick. They are making it harder for their own party to win. I know they have a voice and constitutional right to say whatever, but most (Even tried and true Democrat) women I know have reservations about paying for this service.

Good post.... sorry fer bein' bad......

Me overpriced $.02 JR

ps: I told you floks this Lady was/is smart!!!!! :happy0203:

[fj1200]

I know they have a voice and constitutional right to say whatever, but most (Even tried and true Democrat) women I know have reservations about paying for this service.

Let me get this straight, not only is it a right to have an abortion to that group it's also a right to have it paid for by the government? Hope I didn't misunderstand your words.

[Cracker]

Your social conservative issues have nothing to do with the tea parties. Once again, you all are so sure of the right way to go, why not put the Bachmanns, Palins, Huckabees under your own banner and leave the other parties to do their things? If you are right and strong and can call down the wrath of YOUR god, you shouldn't have a problem. WTF flew up your skirt? :slap:

[Kathianne]

WTF flew up your skirt? :slap:

Your sanctimony. :bs1:

[DragonStryk72]

Yeah, vote the bums out and replace them with conservatives.

Yeah, I think you've mistaken the words "goal", and "plan". What you have above is a goal, but without a plan on how to get to said goal, it's just more spinning of the tires.

Now me, I'm a libertarian, and I realize it's gonna be an uphill battle for me cause I'm part of a third-party. So I do what I can as far as volunteering, even did a couple gun shows now. I work with my fellow libertarians to help elect either libertarians, or those that are most closely aligned with that platform. lol, we'll whatever victories we can get.

I get alot of people telling me I'm "wasting" my vote, but I'm not betting on a horse, I'm voting on who I believe would be the best candidate.

[Cracker]

Your sanctimony. :bs1: Dudette, nothing of mine would ever venture closer that 10 feet from your skirt. :lol:

[Kathianne]

Dudette, nothing of mine would ever venture closer that 10 feet from your skirt. :lol:

and if you came closer than 50 ft, you'd be dead. Slimebag.

[Cracker]

Yeah, I think you've mistaken the words "goal", and "plan". What you have above is a goal, but without a plan on how to get to said goal, it's just more spinning of the tires.

Now me, I'm a libertarian, and I realize it's gonna be an uphill battle for me cause I'm part of a third-party. So I do what I can as far as volunteering, even did a couple gun shows now. I work with my fellow libertarians to help elect either libertarians, or those that are most closely aligned with that platform. lol, we'll whatever victories we can get.

I get alot of people telling me I'm "wasting" my vote, but I'm not betting on a horse, I'm voting on who I believe would be the best candidate.

You are wasting your vote though. Its OK if its a primary, and I do the same thing by voting for the most conservative candidate without regard to anything else. But in a general election if you don't vote for the more conservative of the two major parties then you might just as well vote for the liberal.

[fj1200]

You are wasting your vote though. Its OK if its a primary, and I do the same thing by voting for the most conservative candidate without regard to anything else. But in a general election if you don't vote for the more conservative of the two major parties then you might just as well vote for the liberal.

True, we need more participation in primaries at EVERY level not just every 4 years when a new POTUS wannabe starts glad-handing.

[logroller]

Yeah, I think you've mistaken the words "goal", and "plan". What you have above is a goal, but without a plan on how to get to said goal, it's just more spinning of the tires.

Now me, I'm a libertarian, and I realize it's gonna be an uphill battle for me cause I'm part of a third-party. So I do what I can as far as volunteering, even did a couple gun shows now. I work with my fellow libertarians to help elect either libertarians, or those that are most closely aligned with that platform. lol, we'll whatever victories we can get.

I get alot of people telling me I'm "wasting" my vote, but I'm not betting on a horse, I'm voting on who I believe would be the best candidate.

Dragon, I know where you're coming from. I disagree with the "you're wasting your vote" mentality, as I see it as a prisoner's dilemma. By that same logic 40% of blue state voters for mccain "wasted" their votes too. The people who make such claims need to look at the statistics. Specifically voter turnout, which in 2008 was at its highest in 40 years, at 56.8%. So the real wasted votes were the 40%+ of votes that weren't cast to begin with, no doubt many of which reasoned my vote won't change anything-- so why bother?

IMHO, that vote for who will win favors the populist candidate like the POTUS we have now-- pretty far off the logical result I'd hang my hat on.

[DragonStryk72]

You are wasting your vote though. Its OK if its a primary, and I do the same thing by voting for the most conservative candidate without regard to anything else. But in a general election if you don't vote for the more conservative of the two major parties then you might just as well vote for the liberal.

Uh no, see here's the problem with that: It's not a horse race. I'm not betting on who has the better chance of winning, I'm choosing who I believe is the best leader, and if we get more people to do that, then we might start seeing some actual growth in the country. But this A or B crap's killing us, and worse, it's factionalizing americans into two camps, which is never good.

See, you don't even need a win necessarily by a 3rd party, you just need enough people voting for them that it's a contest. It would change everything, as Republicans and Democrats right now are relying on exactly your mentality to stay in office without having to produce any results. It why, despite his lackluster presidency, Obama still has a serious chance at getting re-elected in 2012. Do you really think they don't know for a fact that most people will just vote Rep or Dem regardless of how they personally feel? We need new blood, and it's not gonna come from the two parties who are both playing the two sides against one another.

[Cracker]

Uh no, see here's the problem with that: It's not a horse race. I'm not betting on who has the better chance of winning, I'm choosing who I believe is the best leader, and if we get more people to do that, then we might start seeing some actual growth in the country. But this A or B crap's killing us, and worse, it's factionalizing americans into two camps, which is never good.

See, you don't even need a win necessarily by a 3rd party, you just need enough people voting for them that it's a contest. It would change everything, as Republicans and Democrats right now are relying on exactly your mentality to stay in office without having to produce any results. It why, despite his lackluster presidency, Obama still has a serious chance at getting re-elected in 2012. Do you really think they don't know for a fact that most people will just vote Rep or Dem regardless of how they personally feel? We need new blood, and it's not gonna come from the two parties who are both playing the two sides against one another.

If I was betting on the winner I'd simply look at who's ahead in the polls and then vote that way. I register my "protest" vote in the primary. But once the primary is over its time to support the more conservative candidate who has a chance of winning, even if he's far from ideal. If your third party guy is polling well, say withing 10 points of the lead, and he's the most conservative, then he gets my vote. But if he's wallowing in the single digits a vote for him simply helps the Democrat and nothing more, and that is simply unacceptable.

[logroller]

http://palmettoconservative.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/federal-spending-growth.jpg
I understand what you're saying, but look at the facts; regardless of party control of either house, senate, pres---we've spent too much for years. this back and forth blue/red race isn't solving our problems. If I'm going down, I'm going down with a clear conscience--and that's voting for the person who I think will be the best. If that happens to be merely the lesser of two evils, well OK; but if there's a better candidate, I'd vote for him regardless. Somehow we think because we watch a few shows on tv we're political strategists. Uh think again, we're citizens, we vote for representatives who are supposed to use politics to serve us, not use us to serve their politics. It's really not that complicated, vote for who you want to represent you, and leave the politics to the politicians.

[LuvRPgrl]

Got a better alternative?

Or a better plan? One that will SUCCEED in getting major spending cuts and other conservative (i.e. small-govt) legislation into place?

revolution

[LuvRPgrl]

Uh no, see here's the problem with that: It's not a horse race. I'm not betting on who has the better chance of winning, I'm choosing who I believe is the best leader, and if we get more people to do that, then we might start seeing some actual growth in the country. But this A or B crap's killing us, and worse, it's factionalizing americans into two camps, which is never good.

See, you don't even need a win necessarily by a 3rd party, you just need enough people voting for them that it's a contest. It would change everything, as Republicans and Democrats right now are relying on exactly your mentality to stay in office without having to produce any results. It why, despite his lackluster presidency, Obama still has a serious chance at getting re-elected in 2012. Do you really think they don't know for a fact that most people will just vote Rep or Dem regardless of how they personally feel? We need new blood, and it's not gonna come from the two parties who are both playing the two sides against one another.

Dragon and Cracker are arguing an age old problem that really haunts us all, and really I agree with both of you, and disagree with both of you.
There really is no answer right or wrong.
Both have solid points.
We all have that same debate inside our own brain and have to go with what we feel is right. Pragmatism vs idealism.
Should we give up the immediate "lesser" beneficial compromised candidate, sacrafice it for the long term "greater" good of the perfect candidate.

However, I think we are playing with pawns here when we should be utilizing our rooks, queens, knights and bishops.
The lliberals have been taking control by gaining control over the MSM, schools and hollywood.

They then get more and more educated and stupid people the right to vote.

They fight for, "even if you are soooo stupid you cant even figure out how to punch out a chad, you should participate in deciding the lives of our adults and the future of our children".

Originally only property owners could vote cuz the FF knew that educated people needed to do the voting.
Then using the MSM and hollywood and schools, they brainwash them.

Even Kathianne has fallen for it. God, Christianity and Religion, when removed, as it has been steadily for 50 years now, leads to the eventual fall.

The proof is clearly in the pudding. We all have seen exactly what has happened to our social -programs, public education, family structures, and govt responsability since the 60's.

While we made great strides in civil rights and technology, the vile evil policies of godless people who have worked on removing God from schools and govt have suceeded in creating the social structure mess we are in today.

We continue to lead only because of our technological superiority, but that won't carry us forever.

The breakup of the family is the single most crucial element the liberals have succeeded at. Removing fathers from the household via abortion, govt welfare, and no fault divorce.

Dumbing down our kids and brainwashing them into liberalism thru our educational system.

Masculizing women, {women PUCH men in movies now instead of slapping)
feminizing boys, over 5 million on ritalin
Making women belive emotional abuse is grounds for divorce and that "just not being in love anymore" is a good reason to remove the dad from the household.

The Constitution is dead, the liberals have re written thru a "living and breathing document" arguement.

We are in a quasi socialist and police (nazi) state. We have police "check points", where the police force you to produce your documents when you are doing NOTHING BUT TRAVELING from one point to another.

They force us to pay for abortions.

They force me to pay for others college educations when I couldnt pay for my own.

They now have debtors prisons, which is completely unconstitutional.
Yet dont pay your income taxes or child support and you go to prison.

Kids graduating out of high school cant do basic math, spell or read.
They depend on machines to do anything.

Moms are driving their kids off bridges and murdering them
OUR KIDS are entering schools and murdering their fellow students in gross numbers.

Gang warfare, drugs and inner city murders are out of control.

Our speech is now controlled by the govt.

They have made us virtually unable to function without a car, but to drive they call it a privledge and when you do you lose all your constitutional rights. MM even says the cops can drive a needle into my arm and draw blood if the "suspect' I'm drinking and driving.

Kathianne calls for seperation of church and state, WHICH DOESNT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION

Old merc supporst social liberalism

And these are our "conservatives" opposing the liberalism takeover. Even they have been brainwashed by the lies of the godless.

The only people who really have rights these days are the criminals.

For the bigger picture, the only answer I see is to regain control of the schools (thru school choice) and/or regaining control of the media.

Although deciding if to vote for the idealist candidate or the pragmatist candidate is a legitimate debate, its only changing seats on the titanic, when we should be concerned with the overall navigational direction.

So my solution is to vote in whoever has a chance, and supports school choice first, strict constitutionalism , and smaller govt

I promise to be more thourough and longer in my next rant

My ten dollars and .02 cents worth.

[Kathianne]

I'm all for God, Christianity, and religion. Pick any or all, I support you. What I am not for is bringing religion into government, such as forcing creationism into science curriculum. I'm not for people telling me that I'm falling for something, when the Founder's also agreed my point. It's dangerous in a country as diverse as ours. I think Michigan schools that cover for Islamic training centers ought to be hauled to court, pronto!

I'm not an atheist or even agnostic, but according to your pov, I shouldn't have a right to participate in political action? LOL! Get ready dude, lots of folks will be ready to take you and yours on.

I'm assuming you didn't care for my response to the pseudo-sanctimony of a hater that cloaks himself in his version of Christianity? Tough. It's folks behaving like that which leads to comparisons with the Taliban.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm all for God, Christianity, and religion. Pick any or all, I support you. What I am not for is bringing religion into government, such as forcing creationism into science curriculum. I'm not for people telling me that I'm falling for something, when the Founder's also agreed my point. It's dangerous in a country as diverse as ours. I think Michigan schools that cover for Islamic training centers ought to be hauled to court, pronto!

I'm not an atheist or even agnostic, but according to your pov, I shouldn't have a right to participate in political action? LOL! Get ready dude, lots of folks will be ready to take you and yours on.

I'm assuming you didn't care for my response to the pseudo-sanctimony of a hater that cloaks himself in his version of Christianity? Tough. It's folks behaving like that which leads to comparisons with the Taliban.

Did I say you dont have a right to participate in political action?

You are simplyflat out wrong about religion in govt. one of our posters even has a sig that addresses that.
Those who say the founding fathers wanted a seperation of church and state are misinformed by FLAT OUT LIES, DISTORTION AND REWRITING OF HISTORY, or, they are guillty of being LIARS and DISTORTERS OF HISSTORY

I havent read anything from cracker that indicates hatred, but I also haven't read all his posts, but his name makes me wonder. Of course you know my stance on racism, I'm not accusing him of that however.
BUt fact of the matter is, I'm supporting what he posted here, not EVERYTHING he stands for, says or does. Your inability to distinguish those has led you to wrongly assume I support a "hater" although I dont know what the fuck that term means, after all, Im a hater. I hate terrorists, I hate pedophiles, murderers, etc

Your use of that term in that way just indicates another time one of our fellow conservatives has fallen for the trap of the liberals, allowing our language to be co opted, after all, gay means happy doesn't it?

[Kathianne]

Did I say you dont have a right to participate in political action?

You are simplyflat out wrong about religion in govt. one of our posters even has a sig that addresses that.
Those who say the founding fathers wanted a seperation of church and state are misinformed by FLAT OUT LIES, DISTORTION AND REWRITING OF HISTORY, or, they are guillty of being LIARS and DISTORTERS OF HISSTORY

I havent read anything from cracker that indicates hatred, but I also haven't read all his posts, but his name makes me wonder. Of course you know my stance on racism, I'm not accusing him of that however.
BUt fact of the matter is, I'm supporting what he posted here, not EVERYTHING he stands for, says or does. Your inability to distinguish those has led you to wrongly assume I support a "hater" although I dont know what the fuck that term means, after all, Im a hater. I hate terrorists, I hate pedophiles, murderers, etc

Your use of that term in that way just indicates another time one of our fellow conservatives has fallen for the trap of the liberals, allowing our language to be co opted, after all, gay means happy doesn't it?

There's a difference between conservatives that want smaller government, less government, adherence to federalism, and the rights given under the Constitution; and those that want the above plus, public schools that advocate Christian teachings and their particular version of 'science', the abolishment of abortion on principle alone, regardless of SCOTUS ruling, no matter how misguided and lack of majority in Congress. Just because it's what they want. Screw the rule of law, say those that keep bringing up the Constitution.

If you can't see the whining and temper tantrums from the right as you do the left, sorry for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

There's a difference between conservatives that want smaller government, less government, adherence to federalism, and the rights given under the Constitution; and those that want the above plus, public schools that advocate Christian teachings and their particular version of 'science', the abolishment of abortion on principle alone, regardless of SCOTUS ruling, no matter how misguided and lack of majority in Congress. Just because it's what they want. Screw the rule of law, say those that keep bringing up the Constitution.

If you can't see the whining and temper tantrums from the right as you do the left, sorry for you.

R there really a large number that want creationism "advocated" or simply just taught as another possible explanation if evolution is taugh also?

Eliminate abortion on principle? Why else would you want it ended?

SCOTUS rulings? hahhahha, emminent domain? SCOTUS IS often wrong, and our legal system is screwed up. Abortion is about protecting life, and the same issue was in place when slavery was legal, SCOTUS protected it, the congress wouldn't ban it,so the people opposed to it had to stand up against congress, scotus and the law of the land.

[Kathianne]

R there really a large number that want creationism "advocated" or simply just taught as another possible explanation if evolution is taugh also?

Eliminate abortion on principle? Why else would you want it ended?

SCOTUS rulings? hahhahha, emminent domain? SCOTUS IS often wrong, and our legal system is screwed up. Abortion is about protecting life, and the same issue was in place when slavery was legal, SCOTUS protected it, the congress wouldn't ban it,so the people opposed to it had to stand up against congress, scotus and the law of the land.

Thanks for making my points about the rule of law. I know, you're clueless.

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks for making my points about the rule of law. I know, you're clueless.


so you've slumped to personal insults, soooo psycho blues of you

[Kathianne]

so you've slumped to personal insults, soooo psycho blues of you

Just following your own.

[LuvRPgrl]

Just following your own. I personally jjinsulted you?

[revelarts]

There's a difference between conservatives that want smaller government, less government, adherence to federalism, and the rights given under the Constitution;

I think many conservative agree on these issue in general too. but your follow up "PLUS" should also make a distinction between those who "MINUS" the bits of the constitution that don't grant the prez the power to go to war willy nilly or illegal searches or cruel and unusual punishments or detentions without trails.

those parts of the constitution somehow get lost by some on the right and replaced by irrational fear. ripping freedoms up with one hand while demanding that a smaller gov't fight every war/terrorist around the world and check under every rock at home for boogie men.



and those that want the above plus,
public schools that advocate Christian teachings and their particular version of 'science',
That is a state and local issue and not a high priority for most involved in the national legal debate. most understand that if the feds are out of education that's a good step at that level. But talking about the issue doesn't mean it's part of the political struggle. I haven't seen anyone on this board advocating this as part of a federal platform. seem like a straw man here Kath.



the abolishment of abortion on principle alone, regardless of SCOTUS ruling, no matter how misguided and lack of majority in Congress. Just because it's what they want. Screw the rule of law, say those that keep bringing up the Constitution.
Just like slavery was legal and Wrong, Abortion is legal and wrong. It was Illegal and not a federal issue for MOST of the countries History. The Supreme court made a Horrific mistake in 1973.
I think you'd agree that the SCOTUS have made a mistake a time or 2 in it's history. This is one.

Concerning the rule of Law. and the constitution I refer you back to the Above, Illegal searches, Indefinite detentions without trial etc etc etc .
Why don't you consider that as "SCREWING the RULE OF LAW". because it's necessary to keep us safe? Well then, make no mistake unborn American boys and girls are NOT SAFE. Seems they deserve as much consideration as those concerned about Possible attacks after 3000 where killed 9 years ago. Since there are literally apx 3000 unborn babies killed PER DAY. PER DAY! not possible, maybe, growing threat of attacks, will have a weapon one day ...soon maybe... better get them BEFORE they get us, pat Downs are WORTH IT FOR SAFETY, A few hundred people MIGHT Get KILLED one day maybe if we don't GIVE UP ---LET THEM TAKE -- some rights.

No, 3000 dead EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
3000 killed yesterday.
3000 killed today,
3000 killed tomorrow.

Threat level Is past RED it's BLACK for the unborn kids Kath. But somehow we're willing to ignore the constitution and rule of law for much less.

[Kathianne]

I think many conservative agree on these issue in general too. but your follow up "PLUS" should also make a distinction between those who "MINUS" the bits of the constitution that don't grant the prez the power to go to war willy nilly or illegal searches or cruel and unusual punishments or detentions without trails.

those parts of the constitution somehow get lost by some on the right and replaced by irrational fear. ripping freedoms up with one hand while demanding that a smaller gov't fight every war/terrorist around the world and check under every rock at home for boogie men.


That is a state and local issue and not a high priority for most involved in the national legal debate. most understand that if the feds are out of education that's a good step at that level. But talking about the issue doesn't mean it's part of the political struggle. I haven't seen anyone on this board advocating this as part of a federal platform. seem like a straw man here Kath.


Just like slavery was legal and Wrong, Abortion is legal and wrong. It was Illegal and not a federal issue for MOST of the countries History. The Supreme court made a Horrific mistake in 1973.
I think you'd agree that the SCOTUS have made a mistake a time or 2 in it's history. This is one.

Concerning the rule of Law. and the constitution I refer you back to the Above, Illegal searches, Indefinite detentions without trial etc etc etc .
Why don't you consider that as "SCREWING the RULE OF LAW". because it's necessary to keep us safe? Well then, make no mistake unborn American boys and girls are NOT SAFE. Seems they deserve as much consideration as those concerned about Possible attacks after 3000 where killed 9 years ago. Since there are literally apx 3000 unborn babies killed PER DAY. PER DAY! not possible, maybe, growing threat of attacks, will have a weapon one day ...soon maybe... better get them BEFORE they get us, pat Downs are WORTH IT FOR SAFETY, A few hundred people MIGHT Get KILLED one day maybe if we don't GIVE UP ---LET THEM TAKE -- some rights.

No, 3000 dead EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
3000 killed yesterday.
3000 killed today,
3000 killed tomorrow.

Threat level Is past RED it's BLACK for the unborn kids Kath. But somehow we're willing to ignore the constitution and rule of law for much less.

See, here's where we agree. Most of the 'schism' issues have to do with things that are at state level or rather, should be. Yet what did some get upset with a week ago, other than money? Planned parenthood. I agree with not wanting my money going there however I wouldn't make it a litmus test on voting, not when there's 'control' in one house, not veto proof, and those with vastly different opinions on a myriad of issues control the other house and the executive branch.

It's those that can't pick the right fights that are causing the see sawing of the middle.

[LuvRPgrl]

Absolutely spot on post.

And as for abortion, it's sickening, evil & downright destructive. It, all alone will be the cause of the collapse of our great country.


I think many conservative agree on these issue in general too. but your follow up "PLUS" should also make a distinction between those who "MINUS" the bits of the constitution that don't grant the prez the power to go to war willy nilly or illegal searches or cruel and unusual punishments or detentions without trails.

those parts of the constitution somehow get lost by some on the right and replaced by irrational fear. ripping freedoms up with one hand while demanding that a smaller gov't fight every war/terrorist around the world and check under every rock at home for boogie men.


That is a state and local issue and not a high priority for most involved in the national legal debate. most understand that if the feds are out of education that's a good step at that level. But talking about the issue doesn't mean it's part of the political struggle. I haven't seen anyone on this board advocating this as part of a federal platform. seem like a straw man here Kath.


Just like slavery was legal and Wrong, Abortion is legal and wrong. It was Illegal and not a federal issue for MOST of the countries History. The Supreme court made a Horrific mistake in 1973.
I think you'd agree that the SCOTUS have made a mistake a time or 2 in it's history. This is one.

Concerning the rule of Law. and the constitution I refer you back to the Above, Illegal searches, Indefinite detentions without trial etc etc etc .
Why don't you consider that as "SCREWING the RULE OF LAW". because it's necessary to keep us safe? Well then, make no mistake unborn American boys and girls are NOT SAFE. Seems they deserve as much consideration as those concerned about Possible attacks after 3000 where killed 9 years ago. Since there are literally apx 3000 unborn babies killed PER DAY. PER DAY! not possible, maybe, growing threat of attacks, will have a weapon one day ...soon maybe... better get them BEFORE they get us, pat Downs are WORTH IT FOR SAFETY, A few hundred people MIGHT Get KILLED one day maybe if we don't GIVE UP ---LET THEM TAKE -- some rights.

No, 3000 dead EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
3000 killed yesterday.
3000 killed today,
3000 killed tomorrow.

Threat level Is past RED it's BLACK for the unborn kids Kath. But somehow we're willing to ignore the constitution and rule of law for much less.

[Missileman]

Well then, make no mistake unborn American boys and girls are NOT SAFE.

Are you sure they're not unborn High School students? Maybe they're unborn grandparents. Ultimately, they're unborn corpses. I guess it just depends on how far into the future you have to project a fertilized egg to justify your argument.

[logroller]

How did this become an abortion debate?

If its about tax$ for abortion, its really unrelated, beyond it being an elective procedure.

[revelarts]

Are you sure they're not unborn High School students? Maybe they're unborn grandparents. Ultimately, they're unborn corpses. I guess it just depends on how far into the future you have to project a fertilized egg to justify your argument.

Unborn Human beings Missile, the scientific debate is long over on that.

So now we are considering "Human" rights, not pieces of flesh or useless eaters or disabled or imbeciles or fetuses or whatever you may use to Dehumanize people in an attempt to justify being able to kill a living person.

[LuvRPgrl]

Unborn Human beings Missile, the scientific debate is long over on that.

So now we are considering "Human" rights, not pieces of flesh or useless eaters or disabled or imbeciles or fetuses or whatever you may use to Dehumanize people in an attempt to justify being able to kill a living person.

You are exactly right. Science has squashed the idea that the fetus is anything but a human being.

[Missileman]

Unborn Human beings Missile, the scientific debate is long over on that.

So now we are considering "Human" rights, not pieces of flesh or useless eaters or disabled or imbeciles or fetuses or whatever you may use to Dehumanize people in an attempt to justify being able to kill a living person.

You have to pervert the definition of human being to include any tissue with human DNA to justify your argument. And even more perverted, you just applied the person tag to a fertilized egg. It takes far more than DNA to make a person.

[revelarts]

You have to pervert the definition of human being to include any tissue with human DNA to justify your argument. And even more perverted, you just applied the person tag to a fertilized egg. It takes far more than DNA to make a person.

Well DNA is one rational base seems to me.
Not sure how that becomes perverted to you.
But what subjective criteria are you proposing grants personhood to Human DNA.
What makes one entity with Human DNA worthy NOT to be killed by others with human DNA Missile?

[Missileman]

Well DNA is one rational base seems to me.
Not sure how that becomes perverted to you.
But what subjective criteria are you proposing grants personhood to Human DNA.
What makes one entity with Human DNA worthy NOT to be killed by others with human DNA Missile?

Can you be a person without a functioning brain? I'd say no...what's your opinion?

[revelarts]

Can you be a person without a functioning brain? I'd say no...what's your opinion?


Yes, humans are a persons with or without a functioning brain.
Without one you probably won't live long. But yes.
the condition can be temporary, or from trauma. why should it strip someone of personhood.

But a unborn child has a developing brain like a 2 year old or teen.
some say teens dont have functioning brains but that's another thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

Can you be a person without a functioning brain? I'd say no...what's your opinion?

Of course they have a functioning brain.
Besides, if that were your criteria, then at what point wouild yoiu say they have a functioning brain? Certainly well before birth, as we all know. So, where will you draw the line? 1 month, 3 months, 8 months?
The problem you create is the line becomes so subjective.

But anyways, the fertilized egg is no longer under the control of the mothers brain, it is now acting independently from it, just as any single cell organism is able to divide, so does the fertilized egg. Thus, making it an indepent organism, alive, and DNA proves its human.

[Missileman]

Yes, humans are a persons with or without a functioning brain.

Well then, any old clump of cells with human DNA meets your criteria for a person, arguably including a cancer tumor. Your position lacks even the slightest hint of common sense.



But a unborn child has a developing brain like a 2 year old or teen.
some say teens dont have functioning brains but that's another thread.

The unborn septuagenerian only has a brain after a certain amount of development.

[Missileman]

But anyways, the cancer tumor is no longer under the control of the mothers brain, it is now acting independently from it, just as any single cell organism is able to divide, so does the cancer cell. Thus, making it an indepent organism, alive, and DNA proves its human.

Can you see now why your definition lacks any real substance?

[revelarts]

Well then, any old clump of cells with human DNA meets your criteria for a person, arguably including a cancer tumor. Your position lacks even the slightest hint of common sense.

The unborn septuagenerian only has a brain after a certain amount of development.


Can you see now why your definition lacks any real substance?

The embryo has it's own DNA completely separate and unique from the mother or father. the cancer cell has only the DNA of the person the disease has attacked.

The embryo is a completely separate person growing and living naturally inside of the woman not a disease or even like her own arm or fingernails or brain cells that she might want to cut off or out at will.

I hope that clears it up.

[DragonStryk72]

If I was betting on the winner I'd simply look at who's ahead in the polls and then vote that way. I register my "protest" vote in the primary. But once the primary is over its time to support the more conservative candidate who has a chance of winning, even if he's far from ideal. If your third party guy is polling well, say withing 10 points of the lead, and he's the most conservative, then he gets my vote. But if he's wallowing in the single digits a vote for him simply helps the Democrat and nothing more, and that is simply unacceptable.

Right, so basically, you'll vote for whoever, because they have the correct letter next to their name, and you think they'll win. I take it back, even regulars at the horse track put more into their thinking than that. This explains eight years of Bush & Co. rather well

[LuvRPgrl]

Well then, any old clump of cells with human DNA meets your criteria for a person, arguably including a cancer tumor. Your position lacks even the slightest hint of common sense..
That's so old and untrue. Is that the best ya got? Its so simple, it surprises me its coming out of you. Simply put, the cancerous cells do not meet some other requirements for personhood.





The unborn septuagenerian only has a brain after a certain amount of development.

Alll depends on your definition of brain. In essence , even the single cell has a functioning brain, something has to be the basic CPU of the organism, telling the other parts what to do.
WHich also lends itself to why it couldn't have developed "accidentally" on its own like evolutionists like to delude themselves with. DID I REALLY OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS??? HAHHAHA

[Missileman]

Alll depends on your definition of brain. In essence , even the single cell has a functioning brain, something has to be the basic CPU of the organism, telling the other parts what to do.


Your degree in fecology doesn't allow you to redefine biology...sorry. A single cell does NOT have a brain by any stretch of the definition.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your degree in fecology doesn't allow you to redefine biology...sorry. A single cell does NOT have a brain by any stretch of the definition.

Does too.

[Missileman]

Does too.

So far, all you've established in your argument is the similarity between a slightly developed fetus and a cancer tumor. They're both alive, they both contain unique human DNA, and now you're arguing they both have brains. If you're going to argue against me, you might want to try a tactic other than making my argument for me.

[LuvRPgrl]

So far, all you've established in your argument is the similarity between a slightly developed fetus and a cancer tumor. They're both alive, they both contain unique human DNA, and now you're arguing they both have brains. If you're going to argue against me, you might want to try a tactic other than making my argument for me.

remove the fetus and it can live, cut the tumour out, it dies, everytime

[Missileman]

remove the fetus and it can live, cut the tumour out, it dies, everytime

Only after significant development...you'll have to do way better than this.

[fj1200]

Only after significant development...you'll have to do way better than this.

So your position rests on the potential for a tumor becoming self aware?

[Missileman]

So your position rests on a tumor becoming self aware?

My position is that it takes more than a few cells clumped together to comprise a person and that prematurely assigning personhood to a fetus is nonsensical.

[fj1200]

My position is that it takes more than a few cells clumped together to comprise a person and that prematurely assigning personhood to a fetus is nonsensical.

Then I believe you forgot to answer the following question.


... at what point wouild yoiu say they have a functioning brain? Certainly well before birth, as we all know. So, where will you draw the line? 1 month, 3 months, 8 months?
The problem you create is the line becomes so subjective.

No other "clump of cells" has the potential to be born and attain personhood.

[LuvRPgrl]

Only after significant development...you'll have to do way better than this.

the age of viability continues to get pushed backwards by science. Does that mean the age of the fetus becoming a "human being" is changing as science advances?

Is the age of the fetus, hence the humaness of it, determined by how advanced our medical science is?

[red states rule]

The answer to the budget problem is simple

When Obama said the governemnt has to live within its means and can't spend more then it takes in; the Republicans should have drafted a budget with NO DEFICT and sent it to the Sentae and the WH

Make Obama and the Dems balk at it.

It would take the issue of raising the debt ceiling off the table and show Dems are not serious about cutting spending

[Missileman]

Then I believe you forgot to answer the following question.

I've always drawn the line at the end of the first trimester




No other "clump of cells" has the potential to be born and attain personhood.

And you just echoed my argument...thanks!

[Missileman]

The answer to the budget problem is simple

When Obama said the governemnt has to live within its means and can't spend more then it takes in; the Republicans should have drafted a budget with NO DEFICT and sent it to the Sentae and the WH

Make Obama and the Dems balk at it.

It would take the issue of raising the debt ceiling off the table and show Dems are not serious about cutting spending

I've said all along that the first thing Boehner should have said when he took over was that the House would pass no bill that inceased spending, the deficit, or taxes.

[red states rule]

I've said all along that the first thing Boehner should have said when he took over was that the House would pass no bill that inceased spending, the deficit, or taxes.

Obama is on defense and now is the time to put more pressure on him. Pass a balanced budget and watch him squirm

Now is the time to set the stage to make Obama a failed one term President so do it!!

[fj1200]

I've always drawn the line at the end of the first trimester

And that is a subjective line that you drawn based on?


And you just echoed my argument...thanks!

Maybe, but you chose a clump of cells that has NO chance to attain personhood with which to compare. At the moment of inception those cells are the ONLY ones that have the potential to be born, it may not happen for many reasons (I don't recall the percentage that makes it to birth but the odds go up every day), and become a human being. At any point along the way abortion is a decision by man/woman that interrupts the natural process.

[red states rule]

Republicans have so many issues to go after Obama on, and I wish they would starthammering him on these issues on a daily basis.

Hold press conferences, town hall meetings, hit the radio and TV talk shows. Keep up the pressure on Obama and make him either cave or veto the bills

Here are a few issues where Obama and the Dems are on the wrong side




•53% Favor Health Care Repeal, Think Law Will Increase Deficit

•63% Still Believe Border Control Is Top Immigration Priority

•Support for Deepwater Drilling Up to 59%

•61% Oppose U.S. Citizenship for Children Born to Illegal Immigrants

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[Missileman]

And that is a subjective line that you drawn based on?

The extent of development




At any point along the way abortion is a decision by man/woman that interrupts the natural process.

So? All medical decisions and treatments interrupt the natural process.

[LuvRPgrl]

And that is a subjective line that you drawn based on?



Maybe, but you chose a clump of cells that has NO chance to attain personhood with which to compare. At the moment of inception those cells are the ONLY ones that have the potential to be born, it may not happen for many reasons (I don't recall the percentage that makes it to birth but the odds go up every day), and become a human being. At any point along the way abortion is a decision by man/woman that interrupts the natural process.

Your first line is absolutely correct. However, the last comment, the "potential", when you first posted that, I really squirmed. I say this as an ally and a friend. I KNEW MM was going to attack that one. You need to revise your thinking, and become aware of the fact that personhood is actually achieved at the moment of conception.

MM refused to answer some of our questions, because he has no answer. His completely ARBITRARY line of first trimester is completely opinion, there is no factual evidence to support where that line should be drawn.

Once medical science began making advances in keeping the baby alive when they are premature, I knew, and know now, that eventually, they will be able to keep it alive from the moment of conception. What they will never be able to duplicate is the creation of a sperm, and egg and what they become when united.

[fj1200]

The extent of development

It's subjective even if you try to duck it.


So? All medical decisions and treatments interrupt the natural process.

Not to the point of death.

[fj1200]

Your first line is absolutely correct. However, the last comment, the "potential", when you first posted that, I really squirmed. I say this as an ally and a friend. I KNEW MM was going to attack that one. You need to revise your thinking, and become aware of the fact that personhood is actually achieved at the moment of conception.

So did I and maybe it wasn't the best word but the fact is conception is not a guarantee of birth. Miscarriages, etc. happen so it's not certain that full term will be achieved. Sometimes a fertilized egg grows and has no potential to reach term, it happened to us.


MM refused to answer some of our questions, because he has no answer. His completely ARBITRARY line of first trimester is completely opinion, there is no factual evidence to support where that line should be drawn.

Agreed, just because some don't reach personhood doesn't mean that we should look at all of them as mere clumps of cell.


Once medical science began making advances in keeping the baby alive when they are premature, I knew, and know now, that eventually, they will be able to keep it alive from the moment of conception. What they will never be able to duplicate is the creation of a sperm, and egg and what they become when united.

Let's wait until we get there.

[red states rule]

http://thehill.com/images/stories/weyants/2011/cartoon---04-14-11.big.jpg

[logroller]

And that is a subjective line that you drawn based on?



Maybe, but you chose a clump of cells that has NO chance to attain personhood with which to compare. At the moment of inception those cells are the ONLY ones that have the potential to be born, it may not happen for many reasons (I don't recall the percentage that makes it to birth but the odds go up every day), and become a human being. At any point along the way abortion is a decision by man/woman that interrupts the natural process.

I'm against abortion, but I'm more against society dictating morality. You have to draw the line somewhere, if not by an objective measure like viability, than what-- collective moral judgement? Kinda hard to argue for a law based on something as subjective as morality, as the slippery slope goes both ways-- some forms of contraception, like the morning after pill and other hormones("the pill"), also interupt the "natural process". For all intents and purposes such actions result in the abortion of a clump of cells which have a higher likelihood of being a person than a tumor, should these too be subject to public statute? I believe that correcting society's misdoings are best acheived through freedom of choice-- this is my subjective determination and I may be wrong, but without the choice being mine, how am I to come to believe in what's right?

[red states rule]

I'm against abortion, but I'm more against society dictating morality. You have to draw the line somewhere, if not by an objective measure like viability, than what-- collective moral judgement? Kinda hard to argue for a law based on something as subjective as morality, as the slippery slope goes both ways-- some forms of contraception, like the morning after pill and other hormones("the pill"), also interupt the "natural process". For all intents and purposes such actions result in the abortion of a clump of cells which have a higher likelihood of being a person than a tumor, should these too be subject to public statute? I believe that correcting society's misdoings are best acheived through freedom of choice-- this is my subjective determination and I may be wrong, but without the choice being mine, how am I to come to believe in what's right?



Clump of cells eh?


http://www.aawaken.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sonogram.jpg


http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/cartoon_500/cartoons/plannedparenthood.jpg

[fj1200]

I'm against abortion, but I'm more against society dictating morality. You have to draw the line somewhere, if not by an objective measure like viability, than what-- collective moral judgement? Kinda hard to argue for a law based on something as subjective as morality, as the slippery slope goes both ways-- some forms of contraception, like the morning after pill and other hormones("the pill"), also interupt the "natural process". For all intents and purposes such actions result in the abortion of a clump of cells which have a higher likelihood of being a person than a tumor, should these too be subject to public statute? I believe that correcting society's misdoings are best acheived through freedom of choice-- this is my subjective determination and I may be wrong, but without the choice being mine, how am I to come to believe in what's right?

That may all be well and good but it comes down to the utter lack of society truly having a say about this issue. The law of the land was decreed upon us 30 years ago by SCOTUS fiat and I don't recall any state being having a direct vote on this issue.

[revelarts]

Let's wait until we get there.

We are already there in a sense.
That's whats happening in the invitro fertilization essentially isn't it?
The egg and sperm are removed from the parents and joined outside of the body then placed into a woman's womb, not necessarily the biological mother's.

Full incubation of children outside the human womb from Zygote to air breathing child is on the way but if you read Brave New World and a few other Sci Fi books you realize that its got it's own moral and social problems.

[red states rule]

I guess some people have the attitude - whats a few dead babies among friends

[revelarts]

I guess some people have the attitude - whats a few dead babies among friends

dead unwanted cells that are only to be considered valuable if you want them, like cancer.

[red states rule]

dead unwanted cells that are only to be considered valuable if you want them, like cancer.

Reminds me of when Obama siad he would not want one of his daughters "punished" with a baby

Some people put such a low priority on human life.

[revelarts]

Yes , but many just aren't aware

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/63Y1oVyN3rg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/63Y1oVyN3rg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

The extent of development





So? All medical decisions and treatments interrupt the natural process.

alll medical decisions and treatments DO NOT interrupt natural processes.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm against abortion, but I'm more against society dictating morality. You have to draw the line somewhere, if not by an objective measure like viability, than what-- collective moral judgement? Kinda hard to argue for a law based on something as subjective as morality, as the slippery slope goes both ways-- some forms of contraception, like the morning after pill and other hormones("the pill"), also interupt the "natural process". For all intents and purposes such actions result in the abortion of a clump of cells which have a higher likelihood of being a person than a tumor, should these too be subject to public statute? I believe that correcting society's misdoings are best acheived through freedom of choice-- this is my subjective determination and I may be wrong, but without the choice being mine, how am I to come to believe in what's right?

You used two terms here, society dictating morality, and freedom of choice.

Of course society dictates morality, society dictates virtually all morality. Thats why in some cultures, what is taboo, isn't in other cultures.

Freedom of choice is simply a non sensical feel good term. What does it mean? Do I have the freedom to choose to murder someone? (oh, sorry, I guess if I'm pregnant I do)

[gabosaurus]

Anyone here know how I can contribute to 2012 presidential campaign of Michele Bachman? I figure having a loony teabagger run on the GOP ticket might be the Dem's only chance in regaining the White House.

[Kathianne]

Anyone here know how I can contribute to 2012 presidential campaign of Michele Bachman? I figure having a loony teabagger run on the GOP ticket might be the Dem's only chance in regaining the White House.

No feeling the Obama transparency, huh?

[Missileman]

MM refused to answer some of our questions, because he has no answer.

Which question is that?

[Missileman]

eventually, they will be able to keep it alive from the moment of conception.

To what end? Why in hell would you want to bring to term an embryo so defective that nature would dispose of it?

[Missileman]

the age of viability continues to get pushed backwards by science. Does that mean the age of the fetus becoming a "human being" is changing as science advances?

Is the age of the fetus, hence the humaness of it, determined by how advanced our medical science is?

I don't give a shit if they can grow a baby in a pepsi bottle, a certain amount of development will still be required to establish personhood.

[Missileman]

alll medical decisions and treatments DO NOT interrupt natural processes.

Name a single one that doesn't except the decision to forego treatment.

[red states rule]

Anyone here know how I can contribute to 2012 presidential campaign of Michele Bachman? I figure having a loony teabagger run on the GOP ticket might be the Dem's only chance in regaining the White House.

So Gabby, based on your post is it your contention that:

1) the soaring high gas prices that is streching the budgets of working people to the limit is insignificant?

2) the continued high unemployment despit a trillion dollar "stimulus" and several "jobs bills" is inconsequential?

3) the record number of foreclosures is irrelevant

4) the amonut of debt Obama and the Dems have added to your daughters bill is not applicable?

Seems to me, like our ol' pal Virgil - the ONLY things that matters to you is Dems holding onto their political power despite how much harm they do to the US economy

[red states rule]

Anyone here know how I can contribute to 2012 presidential campaign of Michele Bachman? I figure having a loony teabagger run on the GOP ticket might be the Dem's only chance in regaining the White House.

When I read this Gabby I thought of you. Like you these young people seem to lost the thrill over hope and change




So, the AP conducted a poll of young Americans between 18 and 24. It found a great many of them think the American dream defined as, “life getting better for each new generation” is mythical … at least in their own lives.

Over 40 percent think it’s going to be harder to raise a family and have the lifestyle they desire; 75 percent believe they’ll have a tougher time than their parents, and think the current economy is in poor shape. A very high number are worried about their parents’ financial condition as well. That worry is driven by fear as well as love. Half these youngsters remain dependent on their parents; they can’t stand on their own two feet. Some of them still live at home!

The future looks decidedly gloomy for a lot of American youth. AP didn’t make this important link in reporting their poll, but these are the same kids who were out in force in 2008. They were waving their Obama signs, making pro-Obama videos for social networks, and celebrating the end of the Bush era. These were the kids who bought into the “hope and change” mantra – who drank the Obama-Messiah Kool-Aid in one big gulp.

Three years later, many of them have diminished economic prospects, they’re dependent on their parents, and they think the American dream is a myth. They got the change, but not much hope.

All is not lost. The American dream is bigger than Obama. And his failed Presidency could be the biggest “teachable moment” in generations! Let's make it happen, shall we?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041911/content/01125101.member.html

[LuvRPgrl]

Name a single one that doesn't except the decision to forego treatment.

First, we would have to agree on a definition for "natural process"

[logroller]

That may all be well and good but it comes down to the utter lack of society truly having a say about this issue. The law of the land was decreed upon us 30 years ago by SCOTUS fiat and I don't recall any state being having a direct vote on this issue.

No direct vote on it... of course there isn't-- we have an independent judiciary system. Look I don't like a lot of things, but the laws are what bind us, SCOTUS the final interpreter. If the people(society) want it changed-- change the constitution! Its been done before, it could be done again. But I can assure you that trying to undermine the authority of the judicial branch through continued state and federal anti-abortion campaigns, outside amending COTUS, is a challenge to say the least. FDR did it, so its not unprecedented, but it takes a pretty overwhelming support from both houses and the president! If it hasn't happened in thirty years, I don't see it happening anytime soon-- they can't even pass a balanced budget! :laugh:

[logroller]

I guess some people have the attitude - whats a few dead babies among friends

Probably not as many as have the attitude -- what good is the Constitution if it doesn't serve my agenda!


You used two terms here, society dictating morality, and freedom of choice.

Of course society dictates morality, society dictates virtually all morality. Thats why in some cultures, what is taboo, isn't in other cultures.

Freedom of choice is simply a non sensical feel good term. What does it mean? Do I have the freedom to choose to murder someone? (oh, sorry, I guess if I'm pregnant I do)

I meant society under the social contract, ie government. Morals are a characteristic of a society, but they're owned by the individuals within it and that's the way it should be.

Freedom of choice means whatever you want it to. You are free to choose to do whatever, even kill people. I'd advise joining the police or military, no jail time and you get paid.

[fj1200]

No direct vote on it... of course there isn't-- we have an independent judiciary system. Look I don't like a lot of things, but the laws are what bind us, SCOTUS the final interpreter. If the people(society) want it changed-- change the constitution! Its been done before, it could be done again. But I can assure you that trying to undermine the authority of the judicial branch through continued state and federal anti-abortion campaigns, outside amending COTUS, is a challenge to say the least. FDR did it, so its not unprecedented, but it takes a pretty overwhelming support from both houses and the president! If it hasn't happened in thirty years, I don't see it happening anytime soon-- they can't even pass a balanced budget! :laugh:

Of course. But even some honest libs will agree that Roe was a bad decision, it's just that most of them happen to like that particular decision.

FDR didn't change the constitution, just exerted enough pressure to get some justices to change their interpretation.

[logroller]

Of course. But even some honest libs will agree that Roe was a bad decision, it's just that most of them happen to like that particular decision.

FDR didn't change the constitution, just exerted enough pressure to get some justices to change their interpretation.
(The switch in time that saved nine was greatest tradegy committed against our society, IMHO)
Yea, i know. Sorry if it sounded like I meant different; I added the internal clause "outside amending COTUS" to assuage that misdirection, but I think you understood my point: there are legitimate paths available. Its just when its a freedom we must give up for the greater good, it takes an overwhelming public sentiment and usually a war. This issue doesn't have that. Were the tables turned, I don't think you could muster amendment support for pro-choice either quite frankly.

[fj1200]

(The switch in time that saved nine was greatest tradegy committed against our society, IMHO)
Yea, i know. Sorry if it sounded like I meant different; I added the internal clause "outside amending COTUS" to assuage that misdirection, but I think you understood my point: there are legitimate paths available. Its just when its a freedom we must give up for the greater good, it takes an overwhelming public sentiment and usually a war. This issue doesn't have that. Were the tables turned, I don't think you could muster amendment support for pro-choice either quite frankly.

I did. I also agree with your "tragedy" viewpoint, it goes along with my "Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid)" thread. It's a shame too especially considering that FDR had backed off his plan about when the justice "switched."

[logroller]

I did. I also agree with your "tragedy" viewpoint, it goes along with my "Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid)" thread. It's a shame too especially considering that FDR had backed off his plan about when the justice "switched."

Given the speed of communications at the time and the fact FDR announced his bill the same day SCOTUS conferenced a vote, just over a month later giving a fireside chat to the people; with the ruling coming out a mere 20 days later-- I don't see that as backing down off his plan. Pretty timely orchestration IMO.

But yea, your thread is dead on. The framers skillfully limited the powers of federalism through the formation of a republic-- both sides had to make concessions. Some concessions would come to bear in the civil war. FDR used his popularity and the depression he caused to undermine the COTUS. Who has that quote on here about a constitutional government having flaws, but its better than we have now... Too true!

[gabosaurus]

Have fun with this thread while you can. The Blowback of 2012 is not that far off.

[red states rule]

So Gabby, based on your post is it your contention that:

1) the soaring high gas prices that is streching the budgets of working people to the limit is insignificant?

2) the continued high unemployment despit a trillion dollar "stimulus" and several "jobs bills" is inconsequential?

3) the record number of foreclosures is irrelevant

4) the amountt of debt Obama and the Dems have added to your daughters bill is not applicable?

Seems to me, like our ol' pal Virgil - the ONLY things that matters to you is Dems holding onto their political power despite how much harm they do to the US economy

Hey Gabby, did you miss these questions?

Or are you ignoring them?

[Missileman]

First, we would have to agree on a definition for "natural process"

Tell me what you consider natural process and I'll reply whether I agree.

[gabosaurus]

Hey Gabby, did you miss these questions?

Or are you ignoring them?

Can't you see that I'm cooking dinner? If you bothered your girlfriend in this situation, she would give you a good firm slap in the chops!


1) the soaring high gas prices that is streching the budgets of working people to the limit is insignificant?

2) the continued high unemployment despit a trillion dollar "stimulus" and several "jobs bills" is inconsequential?

3) the record number of foreclosures is irrelevant

4) the amountt of debt Obama and the Dems have added to your daughters bill is not applicable?

Soaring gas prices are the result of Big Oil conspiring with Wall Street deal makers to create profits.
Continued high unemployment, foreclosures and soaring debt are all left over from the Bush years. When Dubya showed his knack for fiscal irresponsibility by failing to reign in Big Business, extended tax credits to Big Oil despite their soaring profits, created huge debts by by starting a war while simultaneously cutting taxes and casting a blind eye while lending companies went wild with stupid risks.

Would you like gravy on your pot roast?

[SassyLady]

Soaring gas prices are the result of Big Oil conspiring with Wall Street deal makers to create profits.

And exactly what is Obama doing about it? I could care less about who/why it is happening ... I just want it fixed, and fixed fast.


Continued high unemployment, foreclosures and soaring debt are all left over from the Bush years. When Dubya showed his knack for fiscal irresponsibility by failing to reign in Big Business, extended tax credits to Big Oil despite their soaring profits, created huge debts by by starting a war while simultaneously cutting taxes and casting a blind eye while lending companies went wild with stupid risks.


I was recently hired by a company to clean up and fix the mess their last accountant left them. How long do you think I can blame my predecessor? Yesterday we got a notice from the IRS regarding screwed up 1099's .... from 2009. Do you think my boss said ... hey, it's not your problem just ignore it? Nope....he said this only has 15 days to get fixed ... so make it your top priority.

One thing I've learned about liberals over the last few years is that they are real big on telling us what they will/can do, and I'm still waiting to see/experience any positive changes on their watch.

[Kathianne]

Can't you see that I'm cooking dinner? If you bothered your girlfriend in this situation, she would give you a good firm slap in the chops!



Soaring gas prices are the result of Big Oil conspiring with Wall Street deal makers to create profits.
Continued high unemployment, foreclosures and soaring debt are all left over from the Bush years. When Dubya showed his knack for fiscal irresponsibility by failing to reign in Big Business, extended tax credits to Big Oil despite their soaring profits, created huge debts by by starting a war while simultaneously cutting taxes and casting a blind eye while lending companies went wild with stupid risks.

Would you like gravy on your pot roast?

Gabby, you really would buy the Brooklyn Bridge if the Democrats were selling.

While the US has decreased consumption of oil steadily for years, Asia has been consuming voraciously, with no end in sight. Supplies are down some due to conflicts, but the larger problem is increasing supplies while working on alternatives. We need to exploit our resources here and build refineries now.

[gabosaurus]

While the US has decreased consumption of oil steadily for years, Asia has been consuming voraciously, with no end in sight. Supplies are down some due to conflicts, but the larger problem is increasing supplies while working on alternatives. We need to exploit our resources here and build refineries now.

If supplies are down, why are our oil reserves as high as they have ever been? We don't work on alternatives because lobbyists for Big Oil continually sabotage efforts. Our "resources" here, if fully "exploited," would add barely a drop to your tank of gas. The refineries we have now are not at full capacity, and few want to build new ones. Do you want a refinery near your home?

[Missileman]

If supplies are down, why are our oil reserves as high as they have ever been? We don't work on alternatives because lobbyists for Big Oil continually sabotage efforts. Our "resources" here, if fully "exploited," would add barely a drop to your tank of gas. The refineries we have now are not at full capacity, and few want to build new ones. Do you want a refinery near your home?

Natural gas needs no refinement and we're sitting on a hundred years worth.

[DragonStryk72]

Well then, any old clump of cells with human DNA meets your criteria for a person, arguably including a cancer tumor. Your position lacks even the slightest hint of common sense.




The unborn septuagenerian only has a brain after a certain amount of development.

I'll expound a bit on this one. A fetus is a group of human DNA that will, without interruption, will become a human being, unlike say a cancerous tumor. To put it another way, using another point you made, without a functioning brain, say due to a medically induced coma, I would be guilty of murder if I just yanked out the plugs.

Why? Because without my interference, the human DNA of that person would have been fully functional once again. Also, according to the brain functionality, you're saying that the mentally retarded have less right to life than those with a fully functional brain, pretty much.

[Kathianne]

Gabby, http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31021-Rising-Oil-Prices-Beginning-To-Hurt-The-Economy!-Shockers!&p=467740#post467740

and this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703367004576289292254881456.html?m od=googlenews_wsj


* APRIL 28, 2011

Drivers Cut Back on $4 Gas
Economy Won't Get a Lift as Overseas Demand Is Expected to Keep Prices High

By RUSSELL GOLD

After weeks of paying steadily more for a tank of gasoline, American drivers are beginning to ease up on the gas pedal, but in today's global economy, that might not be enough to lower crude-oil prices and give a lift to U.S. growth.

Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

The U.S. Energy Department on Wednesday reported a 1.6% decline in a closely watched gauge of gasoline consumption, compared with a year ago. In the past, when U.S. drivers cut back, that has dented global demand for oil and depressed prices. After a lag, the lower prices would help the economy regain its footing—or at least remove a substantial headwind...

...Economists believe that oil prices would still be above $100 even if peace broke out in North Africa and the Middle East. A key factor: China guzzled 874,000 more barrels of oil in March than it did a year earlier, a 10.6% increase despite high oil prices, notes Barclays Capital.

Since 2000, U.S. oil consumption has edged down 4% to 19.2 million barrels a day. In the same period, the combined demand from Brazil, India, China and Saudi Arabia has risen 76% to 18.8 million barrels, nearly matching the U.S. By itself, China has more than doubled oil consumption to 9.4 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency...

So the pricing is based on 'supply and demand' not speculation. We need more, now.

[fj1200]

Soaring gas prices are the result of Big Oil conspiring with Wall Street deal makers to create profits.
Continued high unemployment, foreclosures and soaring debt are all left over from the Bush years. When Dubya showed his knack for fiscal irresponsibility by failing to reign in Big Business, extended tax credits to Big Oil despite their soaring profits, created huge debts by by starting a war while simultaneously cutting taxes and casting a blind eye while lending companies went wild with stupid risks.

What a silly list. Gas prices are due to nothing of the sort, reliance on government to grant us growth has shown to be folly, tax credits to oil is nonsensical in your context... Can you please explain to us how BO's addition to debt, see stimulus, is better than war debt? Did you miss the Bush administration's attempts to increase regulation on Fannie and Freddie with Congress refusing to act?

I hope your pot roast is better than your logic.

[gabosaurus]

My pot roast was wonderful. Your attempt at logic is not.

[fj1200]

My pot roast was wonderful. Your attempt at logic is not.

Good. I didn't attempt logic, only pointed out your lack of. I noticed how you defended your pot roast but NOT your logic. ;)

[LuvRPgrl]

To what end? Why in hell would you want to bring to term an embryo so defective that nature would dispose of it?

Who said the embryo is defective?

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't give a shit if they can grow a baby in a pepsi bottle, a certain amount of development will still be required to establish personhood.

if you ARBITRARILY say so

[LuvRPgrl]

Probably not as many as have the attitude -- what good is the Constitution if it doesn't serve my agenda!



I meant society under the social contract, ie government. Morals are a characteristic of a society, but they're owned by the individuals within it and that's the way it should be.

Freedom of choice means whatever you want it to. You are free to choose to do whatever, even kill people. I'd advise joining the police or military, no jail time and you get paid.

Govt dictate morality all the time thru laws it passes.

We are free to kill? Occasionally, you seem to roll right off the log:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Tell me what you consider natural process and I'll reply whether I agree.

I'm very flexible on it, I'm more likely to agree with what you present, than you with mine

[gabosaurus]

Good. I didn't attempt logic, only pointed out your lack of. I noticed how you defended your pot roast but NOT your logic. ;)

I am glad that I did not abort my pot roast. My family would have been all over me.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am glad that I did not abort my pot roast. My family would have been all over me.



You can keep the roast, just send me the pot:laugh:

[Missileman]

Who said the embryo is defective?

15% of fertilized eggs are miscarried because they are defective. It's likely that 15% of your test tube babies will be also. Since you've removed them from a natural process to discard them, you'll be bringing them to term.

[Missileman]

I'll expound a bit on this one. A fetus is a group of human DNA that will, without interruption, will become a human being, unlike say a cancerous tumor. To put it another way, using another point you made, without a functioning brain, say due to a medically induced coma, I would be guilty of murder if I just yanked out the plugs.

Why? Because without my interference, the human DNA of that person would have been fully functional once again. Also, according to the brain functionality, you're saying that the mentally retarded have less right to life than those with a fully functional brain, pretty much.

I'm saying nothing of the sort.

Your argument about the coma patient is bogus as the person has a brain and it is still functioning. Coma does not equal brain dead.

An anencephalic baby will never be a person. Terry Schaivo had ceased to be a person when her brain died, though I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who disagree.

[LuvRPgrl]

15% of fertilized eggs are miscarried because they are defective. It's likely that 15% of your test tube babies will be also. Since you've removed them from a natural process to discard them, you'll be bringing them to term.



???????

[red states rule]

Can't you see that I'm cooking dinner? If you bothered your girlfriend in this situation, she would give you a good firm slap in the chops!



Soaring gas prices are the result of Big Oil conspiring with Wall Street deal makers to create profits.
Continued high unemployment, foreclosures and soaring debt are all left over from the Bush years. When Dubya showed his knack for fiscal irresponsibility by failing to reign in Big Business, extended tax credits to Big Oil despite their soaring profits, created huge debts by by starting a war while simultaneously cutting taxes and casting a blind eye while lending companies went wild with stupid risks.

Would you like gravy on your pot roast?

I have "bothered" her many times while she was cooking dinner. Then we started cooking

Your reponse is typical from a loyal foot solider in the liberal army Gabby. You consider Obama mearly an innocent bystander and a victim of circumstance

Your side ran on the "blame Bush" excuse in 2010 and we saw how the voters responded

Like many liberals I know, you continue to lower the bar for Obama rather then admit you voted for an inexperienced and unqualified pewrson to lead the country

I know you were not around when Carter ran for reelection in 1980 Gabby, and I am confident you would have voted for him if given the chance. But I am egually confident you will vote to have Carters THIRD term in 2012 when you vote for Obama.

Regardless how bad the US economy is. It is all about keeping Dems in offcie with you, rather then who can do the best job to solve the nations problems

[logroller]

You can keep the roast, just send me the pot:laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:I do love a good double entendre.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11042120110425022932.jpg