"Tea Party" DO YOU THINK THEY NEED TO THINK TWICE BEFORE THEY SPEAK
- woolman60posted 13 years ago
0Even as national Republican officials seek ways to limit damage from Rand Paul's unorthodox remarks, the Kentucky Senate nominee raised more eyebrows Friday by defending the oil company blamed for the Gulf oil spill.
Those comments, on top of Paul's earlier suggestion that businesses should have the right to turn away racial minorities, sent gleeful Democrats into full attack mode while top Republicans pondered how to calm things down.Thats not what he said. He said it was not the Govt. right to legislate that aspect of private bussiness. And many agree.
Fringe people agree, but it violates the civil rights act. It is ridiculous to fight this. No business should have the right to refuse service based on race Mason. You guys must not want to ever get elected.
No one is fighting it, or trying to repeal the civil rights acts.
That is just leftists hyperbolic BS.
You can have an opinion against a protion of a bill and not agree with something in it. Yet still support the over-all intent of the bill.
Man, the left should really stop trying to exagerate everything the right and those who don't agree with them do and say.
I haven't heard word one from the left condemning the SEIU for storming houses. But Rand Paul is a racist because he dis-agrees with the reach the Govt. granted themselves in that bill into private co',.
You guys are a riot... a laugh a minute.
The only fight against the civil rights act is the imaginary one you all created this week. lololThe public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act was at the heart of the bill. Making blacks ride in the back of the bus and not use white rest rooms at gas stations and refusal to serve them at lunch counters were what started the revolution that led to the passage of the act. Rand Paul isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.
I cant believe how obvious you people have become. You need to look up (or dig up) David Duke and learn how to hide your stupid racism and hatred with some kind of Finest. You Right Wing nuts are just a pitiful joke now.
The republicans and independents don't seem to be having a problem getting elected! Or are you just oblivious to that fact?
This is from Steve Bennen - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv … 023869.php
"For those keeping score, there have been seven special elections for U.S. House seats since the president's inauguration 16 months ago: NY20, IL5, CA32, CA10, NY23, FL19, and PA12. Democrats have won all seven."Not sure what you are trying to link to, and now that I think about it, after reading some of your drivel who cares what you are trying to link to.
Those funky litle flies at the beginning and end of the statement are called 'quatation marks'. They indicate I am repeating a statement from someone else. In this case, an editorial by Steve Benon writing for the Washington Monthly. The thingie in blue is called a 'link'. If you click on it (you know what a mouse is?) the link will take you directly to the article and you can read it in its entirety. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Actually, unless you repaired the link it doesn't take you anywhere.
Don't bother with the repair, it wont change who you are!
As useless as, well, you can figure it out.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archivThanks for pointing that out. The link is -
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv … 023869.php
It's not anything I wrote - and it's backed up with facts, a technique wingnuts haven't got the hang of yet. The point being that in U.S. House races, dmocrats have swept - so the liberals and indipendents wave that Bill spoke of - is fictional.Do read the article - and see if you can find fault with the fact.
7 Special elections in the last 16 months for US House seats -
ALL went to democrats.
This included an election in NY in a district that had gone republican in every electon for the last 100+ years. On Tuesday, the House seat vacated by Murtha was won by a democrat - and that's in a district that went for McCain last year. The GOP pumped big money into that election because they thought it was easy pickings.
Are you typing on a dyslexic keyboard?
Please stop, it hurts, and Obama and the Dems are gone at the latest 2012!
Now teach that keyboard to spell!Obviously you have not read many of TM's postings if only Chris' occasional typos bother you...
To begin with, Paul, when he's asked about his stand on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, looks (understandably) uncomfortable and evasive. From time to time he directly answers the questions posed to him -- but in the process he hems and haws, bobs and weaves. He looks slightly embarrassed to say publicly what he believes philosophically. All of which makes him look like a "typical" politician rather than what he presents himself as: a new voice, a fresh face, a departure from tiresome political doublespeak.
The question posed by Maddow is not a "gotcha" one at all, and to pretend that it is comes across as whiny, defensive and childish.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a monumental piece of legislation, among the most important in American history. To be asked his views on such a matter is entirely legitimate and, in fact, it can (and in this case it does) offer an insight into the worldview and governing philosophy of a candidate. Paul and other leading Republicans should quit blaming the questioners because they don't like the questions -- or, to be more precise, because they don't like the answers Paul has given.
Rand Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative
Many agree. Are you one of the many, perchance?
It would be a great leap forward if they would even think once before speaking.
What I think is that everyone needs to think twice before they speak about some topics, but especially I think LEFTISTS need to think twice or thrice or quadruple before they speak about anything. Matter of fact, there are many things that leftists should be barred from saying anywhere.
Secondly, I think all potential Officials should be "vetted" much more strenuously than they are, before they're even nominated. That would include Kentucky at this time. Rand Paul is unconventional and there should be more known about him before allowing him to be Senator. That loose vetting process that's so popular these days is how we got the radically unpatriotic guy who's sittin' in the highest Office in our land, quite tragically for our nation's morality and morale.
The old idea that "anyone" can grow up to be President has been taken way too far.Who was one of the largest recipients of campaign donations from BP....oh yeah, Obama...SPIN it LIBS!!!
If you drive a vehicle, you contribute to BP yourself. We all share some blame for the oil tragedy. We love to drive! We demand cheap gas because we have always had it. "Drill Baby Drill." Anyone know who said that?
Oh yeah, that certainly defeated my point. What I am saying is that this is NOT a party issue as much as you want to make it one. And Pallin is a joke.
So, who were the other large recipients of donations from BP? Companies donate the most to who they expect to win the elections. They hedge their bets by giving smaller amounts to the underdogs just in case.
Come on, you knew that! It's basic unregulated capitalism at its finest. I personally detest it!Yeah, the other economics are so much better huh?
What other economics are you referring to?
I hope this helps
1) Market economy
2) Command (planned) economy
3) Traditional economy
4) Mixed economy
Other: Barter economy / Economy of production / Economy of redistribution etc.
Other Macroeconomics / Microeconomics
Basic economics / Intermediate economics / Advanced economics
International economics / Wealth economics
and there are 4 types of economies:
1. traditional economy; state owned and controlled, non existent in the real world.
2. controlled or planned economy; all state ownership with no private control; formerly existed in the form of Russia, Cuba is one too.
3. mixed economy; both state and private ownership, the most common model in the world.
4. free market economy; all private ownership with no or very little government intervention. also non existent.It is just sooooo IN and HIP to hate on your own country!
Ok...We gotta be honest. It was me, you, Obama and most of the people in the Country saying Drill Baby Drill, under our breath, in private. We can't protest to loud to BP. Just Pray they can stop the leak soon and clean up the gulf states the best they can before declaring bankruptcy.
I applaud your honesty! And you're right, Friendly, if I were going to be the one denied access to restaurants, toilets, water fountains, etc, I'd be mad as hell, too! Still, I think intelligent coversation would be the best place to begin - IF I could control my anger.
NO! I love that you would think that. You're a good person. But, there is no place for anything but outrage in regards to living in Rand Pauls world.
Big Business does not back losers! All the large businesses in the World were fallin over each other to contribute to President Obamas' Campaign because they new he was going to be the next Leader of the World! Politics 101.
Well he wasn't trying to be racist. You have to understand where he was coming from he simply believes in a very free market where the government stays out of it. And at this point in time it would be extremely poor and stupid business to discriminate against people anyway. This isn't the 60's and it wouldn't be like that if his idea were the case. But I do think this issue should never have been brought up because it's the past and it's already done. The media just loves causing racial problems and getting us fighting with one another. It's so simple you guys and people don't understand the concept yet. Why can't we focus on our collapsing country instead.
Private busines have the right to serve or deal with whom then please. Thier refusal must not be racial..gender or religious biased.
He wants the gvt to reach into my uterus! Who are you kidding?
You all love to scream about gvt over-reach until it's you who want the reaching.
And it's always the most private matters that repubs want gvt to control.The government wants your uterus? Please do tell us more!
Your uterus eh...
You mean we want to outlaw abortion.... yes I do... except for rape , incest and the life of the mother. And i don't mean saving her private life and partying either.
If you cannot understand that a fetus is a human life, then your not that smart. Every seventh grade biology teacher knows a fetus is alive.
Life is the first enshrined right in the Constitution and the most important.
We should defend it above all else, even a woman's right to party....except for people we're reasonably sure have committed a capital crime, who should be put to death by the state. Right?
Why?
And what about those who maintain their innocence?Why should only murderers die... because some murders warrant death.
As for your second question... I hope they have a good appeals lawyer.
I am not joking either.
We cannot stop the system because we are second guessing the jury's decision.
I do not believe the system to be perfect... but it is what we have.
And Cags... that remark shows the leftist metallity you possess... if someone doesn't sgree with you all. Then it is because they are stupid, or just don't think about things.
What-ever.
The Govt. did not have the right to institute laws and or quotas and other discriminatory measures to force the private sector to hire individuals just because they are non-white.
The Govt. needs to get out of the private sector all together. No more bail-outs or quotas.
How do you define a murderer? Would you include Bush & Co who is responsible for so many deaths in Iraq, the people of course being innocent because they were lied to. What about those people who put in place 'free trade' rules, imposed on the trading world to favour American business, that causes poverty, starvation and misery all around the globe? etc etc etc - do they qualify?
Murder; The unlawful taking of another's life.
I do not consider Bush and Cheney murderers. That is all your perspective on it man. Not mine. besides in Islam all those civillians are just fine. Mohhammud already decreed that even though a mislim may not be involved in the fight and may just be collatoral losses. That Musliom is assured blessings of the Mujahadeen, because he died in the midst of Jihad.
Also... You know the Bush lied shit amazes me.... Bush found no WMDs in Iraq?... But the NYC Bomber was planting a weapon of mass destruction?
That is idiocy...
The gas found in Iraq wouldv'e killed thousands if used. And Saddam had already killed thousands with it... but whatever...
As far as free trade.
I do not now, nor ever have I, supprted those policies.Crap, Utter Crap. If someone puts a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, and you survive, then perhaps you will know the difference. We are not at war in the USA, you should give thanks for that, but you wouldn't know who to give thanks to.
What crime has an unborn baby committed that should lead you to make such an analogy?
Yes it is nice the way they equate the unborn to all kinds oif nastiness. Murder is just the latest. I had one leftist scientist tell me a fetus was nothing more than a bioplasticyst... lolol
Yeah... and they complain we have no younger workforce to replace the aging... no shit... they, the left, has made sure they aborted a great percentage of them.......you have to wonder if they want abortion legal and something to talk about over morning coffee, so that in the future the'Legally' mandated abortions of a monarchial leftist government worried about their social budget -- is easier on the limp and indoctrinated brains. Lots of Chinese couples would weigh in on that.
it would be funny, if it were not so sick in its reality.
Over a million dead babies a year through thier socail construct and still they cannot see the barbarity of it.Not a single dead baby. What doesn't exist is hard to see for rational people. Teabaggers on the other hand see much that isn't reality.
What doesn't exist in their arms is hard to see for some women and their men, both whose Only concern is themselves. WingDings see much that they are Told to see, Understand much that they are Told to Understand, in the interests of only Themselves, not the greater good. WingDings buy into the 'they are bad' 'they have money' theory, and are shooting themselves in the ass, and their children, should they be born, as well.
Brilliant. You should work for Hallmark.
Do Walmart have special employment programmes for special people ?
That statement alone shows the shallow depth of logic and reasoning you leant leftists use.
"Not a single dead baby. What doesn't exist is hard to see for rational people"
So because the baby doesn't shoot out the birth canal it doesn't exist...
Yup.
You have just invalidated yourself with that blind and closed minded explaination Ron.What support do you have for your contention that medical science and The Supreme Court of the United States are wrong and the wingnuts are right?
I eagerly await your next pearl of misspelled wisdom.What support do you have for your contention that a pregnant woman is wrong and the WingDings interested in population control are Right?
We all eagerly await your next pearl of wisdom, your readers pant for your logic. God forbid you should be criticized for a misspelling.
The supreme court is not always the sharpest tool in the shed, ron.
Show me how you see a right to abortion in the right to privacy?
Yes the living constitutionalists may have twisted thier own interpretation into it for know... but it won't last much longer.
And are you saying science doesn't believe life to begin at conception?For people who advocate the killing of embryonic human beings in the cause of biomedical research, the Holy Grail is an argument that would definitively establish that the human embryo, at least early in its development, is not a living human organism and therefore not a human being at all. The problem for these advocates is that all the scientific evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. Modern human embryology and developmental biology have shown that fertilization produces a new and distinct organism: a living individual of the human species in the embryonic stage of his or her development.
Some proponents of embryo-destructive research are willing to face up to these biological facts. They concede that human embryos are living individuals of the human species, but deny that this gives them the moral status of being persons. According to this argument, not all human beings are equal; not all possess inherent dignity and a right to life. Some, including those at early developmental stages, are not (or are not yet) “persons,” and they may therefore (at least in some circumstances, or in the pursuit of some goals) legitimately be killed.
There is much to be said against this position, but its defects are philosophical, not scientific. Its proponents recognize that there is no Holy Grail out there to find, and they are willing to defend the killing of human embryos while facing up to the biological facts. But then there are the Grail searchers. These people are determined to prove that what modern human embryology has been telling us is wrong, and to this end they scavenge the fields of molecular biology and human genetics.
Among the Grail searchers, there is none more determined than Ronald Bailey, science writer for the libertarian magazine Reason. Every now and then Bailey pops up to make a dramatic announcement: The Grail has been found! A few years ago, for example, he used a reductio ad absurdum that employed an analogy to cloning. Bailey offered to prove that every cell in the human body has as much potential for development as a human embryo. Therefore, he wrote, human embryos are the biological and moral equivalent of body (“somatic”) cells; they have no greater dignity than, for example, the skin cells that we rub or wash off our bodies every day.
http://www.americanprinciplesproject.or … -case.html
And MANY MANY MANY more scientists agree. it is a fact, human life begins at conception. Even an enchoate fetus is alive.
Too bad...
There's no such thing as an unborn baby. You are refering to a fetus. You are medically, legally, and justplaincommonsensically incorrect.
Huhhhhhaahahaha....
Just like a leant leftist liberal to get frothy and viscious over his right to baby killin being threatened.baby killin' is illegal, abortion is constitutionally protected. You seem very confused on this and many other issues.
...and you seem to like the confused funny man role.
To bad you can't hold your own against even a confused funny man. Are you by chance a middle school dropout?
The constitutional protection of Abortion is a joke and a complete mis-interpretation of the Constitution.
It will be over-turned soon.Yes, the best legal minds of the past 30 years are wrong and you are right.... and Michael Bolton is a musical genius
http://www.americanprinciplesproject.or … -case.html
http://www.americanprinciplesproject.or … -case.html
Science says life begins at conception.I didn't even have to follow your link to know that it doesn't refer to fetuses as babies like you do.
Perhaps, but zygotes, embryos and early term fetuses aren't babies.
Yeah, well, your opinion is pretty sick and incorrect in my opinion, explain your opinion to a mother who miscarries and has long felt the life within her. Tell her. You are just flat wrong.
That mother, (mine is one of them) would not use her personal tragedy to take away the rights of others. You could learn a great deal from my mother.
I could learn nothing from anyone that created you.
Common, relax KFlippin. I'm sure you don't mean that.
Let's try having a peaceful discussion about this, hmm?
Here, I've even made a thread on it for you: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43809?? so that came off as personal? but his words to me did not???
Hmmmmmmmm, I'll look at your link, Mr.Popo.
Get a dictionary. Zygotes, embryos and early term fetuses aren't "unborn babies."
By some definitions they aren't babies until they are born. By others when they are developed enough to survive outside the womb. Before that only anti-abortion propagandists call them babies.
They are zygotes, embryos and early term fetuses according to my dictionary. According to common law going back centuries they aren't babies until they are born or until they are able to survive outside the womb.
What they are is life, albeit the earliest form that a human takes but life nonetheless. You can consult a dictionary or common law dating back centuries (although men a few centuries ago thought the earth was flat and sea-monsters existed)if you like but the answer is still life.
Can't imagine where you've found that babies were referred to as zygotes, embryos, and early fetuses several hundred years ago. As for common law, had abortion been a felony under common law, the guilty person would have been put to death. To try to argue that there is precedence for treating, and even your clinical and distanced speaking of, an unborn child as worthless and inhuman, as not a child, not a baby -- is a quite worthless effort.
You are attempting to misinterpret common law that a child, a baby, yet unborn that is killed by the mother or another, is not a felony, not murder, and thus not punishable by death -- and has therefore always been considered a mash of cells with no value.
In reality, the unborn 'child', the unborn 'baby', was considered exactly that. If opinions such as yours are allowed to find an audience, allowed to become 'common' thought and given 'common' acceptance, this could easily result in forced abortions, or birth control, or sterilizatin -- as it is only zygotes that are being disposed of in the interests of population control or the greater good.
"Administering Drugs to procure Abortion, the Woman being quick with Child." 1828-Britain
"....On the day of__ in the year of__ our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight, at____ in the said county unlawfully maliciously and feloniously did cause to be administered to and taken by one CD, a large quantity of a certain noxious thing, called sarin, poison or other noxious thing, with intent then and there, and thereby to cause and procure the miscarriage of the said CD, she the said CD then being quick with child, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided. And you the said keeper."
Some of the points made in the case of Mary Pulley, whose child was killed apparently at the point of birth, given the arguments made, and clearly it was considered a child, unborn or not, this would be an important case, as abortion was not punishable by death, but instead a midemeanor, or manslaughter.
"A puncture was found in the child's skull, but, when the injury that had caused it was inflicted, did not appear - some questions were asked as to whether the child breathed.
Mr Justice J. Parke: The child might breathe before it was born but its having breathed is not sufficiently life to make the killing of the child murder.
Godson: The wound might have been given before the child was born, and the child might have lived afterwards.
Mr Justice J Parke: Yes, but there must have been an independent circulation in the child, or the child cannot be considered as alive for this purpose."
Fortunately, science has progressed a great deal since the early 1800's, and we know in our great wisdom that the child is very much alive and very much thinking and feeling in the womb.What, no answer, you can't find an argument or party line to reiterate and obfuscate?
May I jump in here? Why do people get caught up in the argument of when life begins. Of course it's a living baby as soon as the egg is fertilized. The question is who has control of that life and when. Do you support the Death Penalty?
No, I don't support the death penalty for abortion, if that is your question.
What I do support is that an unborn child is a 'child' is a 'baby' and has been referred to and accepted as such for centuries, despite what some here would have their audience believe.
*********
As for DoughHuges and his repeated belittling reference to me as 'Captain America' and his complete and usual misrepresentation of anything that I've said.......I don't have a single superstition about abortion, no need to....but I do have distinct superstitions and instincts about other things more variable and indistinct and shadowy in human natures. Perhaps DoughHughes should start a topic about superstitions, as he digresses.Can a fertilized egg (zygote or even fetus) live outside its mother on its own?
What does that matter. A PERSON has no right to life until it is a separate human being, outside of the mothers body, and the umbilical cord is cut. Are you with Poet. He thinks the speck of cells in your uterus could possibly develope into a MOUSE. So if you end your pregnancy at that time, it's ok. You're just killing a rodent.
The basic problem of the abortion issue is the anti lobby mostly can't read.
I quote myself:
of course a speck of cells is life - so is a mouse - it is not a human being until it makes a human being
As you can see I never said a human foetus could develop into a mouse, this kind of word twisting and plain ignorance is normal in the playground when a child has no argument; the next step is bullying of course.
The argument here is going round and around without anyone facing the question of what their views actually mean. Habee favours extenuating circumstances, but if the foetus is a human being then abortion is murder; Cagsil supports the right of wome to their own body but this avoids the issue of the foetus or baby which would surely have the same rights?
Those who support a prohibition n abortion are the same that oppose healthcare, social programmes etc which is where the effects of such decisions end up - if you are so violent about supporting a foetus as if it was a baby then you should be as violent about supporting it while it grows up.
Perhaps that question should be addressed to a scientific community -- I kind of think they can these days, probably no more difficult than helping a premature baby hold on to their own breathing life......but then I suppose the zygote crowd doesn't even think a premie should be given care and life support.
Captain America - The law of the land allows you to hold whatever religious beliefs that amuse you. If you believe that a speck of cells no larger then the head of a pin which has not even attached to the wall of the uterus is 'life', then you are free to believe so. A few Christions DO fell that the morning-after pill, takne hours after conception, is murder of a human being.
Most Americans don't have a problem with the morning-after pill though, which by your definition is abortion. Most Americans feel that, though any abortion is undesirable, there is a period of time after conception but EARLY in the pregnancy where the woman's rights over her own body are greater than the 'rights' of the fetus.
So for most reasoanble people, the issue is where to draw the line. You have a perfect right to your opinion - but the law is the law - and the courts have not decided in favor of your superstition.
Get a Life, get a Soul, get a Zygote growing for a couple of months that you grow to care about, or an "early term fetus" you decide you can sense and care for in your lovers belly, but decide the next week to kill it, how sick is that, or you could just ignore topics like this and post your typical fringe porn.
Women are human and have the right to control thier bodies. I would rather see a woman abort, than have a child and abuse it. Stop puting your misguided beliefs on others,
And it's the elitists that want to control our minds and wallets!
Explain the Mind Control part of your comment.
Unfortunately, there remains too many people speaking before they think. No wonder why people have trouble agreeing.
If it makes a difference TMMason, I was talking about the OP?
But, then again, most people do talk before thinking. So, it is not related to being anything political? at all. Are you such a fool to think that whenever someone makes a remark, it is against you?
I mean, come on. You've got to be kidding. It is a proven fact that people do it more than they do not, and your comment to me proves it. So, with that said- Have a great day!
It seemed as if you were talking in the conversation I was. Too bad if you don't like it...waaahhh
So... next time clearify if your that worried about it cag. It is simple, a lil OP there somewhere would do it.Hey TMMason,
You know the little boxes that are around what people say, when you hit the reply key? That would mean I would be IN your conversation and "talking" to you.
However, as usual, you jump the gun and make yourself look foolish, yet try to pawn it off on me somehow.
You're ridiculous.
No crime whatsoever...the crime would be in bringing an unwanted baby into this world.
Or you know, you may bring a baby in that was wanted more than life itself, but happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets blown to pieces by a bomb.
You gonna outlaw war?
As for what I do with my body--it's none of your business.
And if gay people want to marry--how does that affect you?
See....you really are not for freedom at all...just your desires and beliefs should be free, no one else's.
That's why America voted you out.Yes, I'm familiar with the term. You people use it all the time to denigrate the person speaking. It's a righty trick....not very original of you.
Here's another choice belittling word you people use:
Whine
I remember this one guy who used to belittle people all the time....until he lost his 401K when the banks stole it from him....
Boy then he was crying like a baby.
He didn't care that people had lost their homes, their jobs...he always said "Stop Whining"
Then he lost his retirement and boy it was Boo Hoo!
So--let me guess..you heard "rant" and "whine" from Russsshhhhh.
Some people actually quote him verbatim....he's stolen their mind.
And I'm not kidding.
So- who's going to take care of all those unwanted babies you are going to force women to have?The banks "stole it from him" -- find your mind, read the pattern of the laws of the past 10 years, see the reality, not the liberal crap........ or go get a life time job with Freddie or Fannie and relieve everyone of your 'rants' and 'whines'.
Unlike you Chrs, I don't need people to tell me what to say.
Why shouldn't the oil companies be defended, especially BP.
A bit of wreckage from the original poil spill busts open one of their pipelines and they have been trying a huge number of methods to seal up the damage. Frankly I am impressed that they managed to lower a pipe and thread it in to a hole which was a mile away.
The best example would be if you took a needle and sealed it up against a tap (faucet?), then turned the tap (faucet?) on, then stood 100 feet away, and tried to thread a piece of wire through that hole.I would agree that they have tried to do all that they could to contain this oil spill, and they have monetary reasons for trying as well, there is a lot of value left in the well, should they get it capped off to sell.
What bothers me most about all this, is that despite the micro regulation of so many things in our lives, there doesn't appear to have been a government employee charged with oversight on the rig. Anybody know if there was one?Mason said eariler in this post -
"The Govt. needs to get out of the private sector all together. "
Flipin said -
" there doesn't appear to have been a government employee charged with oversight on the rig. "
It's not an exageration to say Mason & Flippen are in agreement - just read them on this post alone. But there's a contradiction in the rightie mind - something not connected. Rand Paul defends BP - and the rights of business to operate without interference from the government.. But when they get a cozy relationship with regulators and DO operate as they wish - and they screw up BADLY - then you get from this same crowd that it's the GOVERMENT'S fault!!!
Pick one side or the other. You can't have it both ways.You have completely twisted things, as is usual from what I've read of your ..... posts here. You make no sense.
Nothing twisted, but maybe compoicated for you.
You want government out of business. But when business screws up the Gulf with a massive oil spill, it's government's fault for not regulating.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE!Hahahahahahahaha
Doug... you are a riot man...
HahahahahahahHAhahahahahHhahahahaha....
More Govt regs... that'll fix it. RIGHT!! Hahahahaha"Nothing twisted, but maybe compoicated for you."
It's certainly compoicated to me
You coirack me upYou are wasting your time putting up actual facts here for your attackers! what were you thinking, I guess you thought they could read huh !! ??
It is "compoicated" to read his posts, painful too!
You have not heard me blame the Govt for any leak.
Niether did I blame the Govt when the idiots who were told to leave New orleans didn't, and got crushed by the hurricane.
Unlike the LEFT, we Independents and righties now the Govt is not the Cure, nor the cause of and for, all the ills.Yeah, those idiots who did not have cars and couldn't afford to escape deserved to die I guess.
Both of your comments are generalities. There were many many who chose not to leave, I might have myself, who knew the levies would really breech, who knew how bad the flooding would be, and there were those, a lesser 'many', who could not leave, and had the others sought shelter elsewhere, those that could not leave would have been much quicker to be rescued. Humans, choices, mistakes, calamity.
And saying those idiots who did not leave got what was coming to them was not a generality?
I was replying to this statement:
"Niether did I blame the Govt when the idiots who were told to leave New orleans didn't, and got crushed by the hurricane.
"
It may have been, if he actually said what you attributed to him, alas, he did not!
Do you really believe what you just typed? You are completely unaware of how many New Orleans residents thought they could just "ride out the storm!"
As Ron White said
"Its not that the wind is blowing, its what the wind is blowing!"
Yeah, lots of idiots stayed!
It's true that some people thought they could "ride out" Katrina and did not leave when they could have. The majority of those who didn't leave, however, could not afford to leave. I've always wondered...what genius planned a city that was 5 feet below sea level, near a huge body of water, and in a hurricane zone??
"The majority of those who didn't leave, however, could not afford to leave."
They couldn't afford to leave on the free buses headed out of the fish bowl?
Free is not that expensive, hell, its free!As far as I remember many people had trouble getting to those buses and that they were overcrowded.
Lets think shall we?
They had plenty of time to get out, they chose to stay, how is this fact not understood?Many who could not leave did not choose to stay...
Are you one of those who say that people who live in high-crime areas should just move? It's not always that easy to get out of somewhere when you do not have transportation or money.
And I also don't believe that most people thought it would be as bad as it was.I am one of those people who when told that a Hurricane of the strength of Katrina is coming well in advance, I leave! I get on one of those free buses and get the hell out of Dodge, I don't intend to sit on a roof in downpour and whine that George Bush isn't helping me get off!
You can believe whatever you choose, I saw the news reports days before it hit and they all said it would be bad. Now, if the amateur meteorologists living in Katrina's path didn't think it would be bad well, they thought wrong!
Yes, they were, at the last hours of realization. Flooding for that area is historically not uncommon at all. Read up, before the last levies were built, there was a long history of flood and levies breaking down, and everyone handy helped to stem the flow and come to the aid of those in harm's way.
If you want a culprit for the disaster of Katrina, look to those who built the levies, who made all think they were enough to hold, to blame Bush is just nonsense. If Obama had been president, he would be blaming it on both his Republican predecessors and the engineers that signed off on the levies. Period.Psycho...er..psychic now, are we? LOLOLOLOL!
You that strained in the brain area are you?
Well, he does think he voted for a Vice President.
Yes, but you voted for a dingbat! And no matter how ridiculous she acts, you will remember she was your hope! Very, very sad indeed!
What dingbat was that, Palin? I have never lived in Alaska, so, no I never voted for her.
What's really sad is you still believe you voted for Vice President, sad, but given your statements made here, not unexpected!
No, what is sad is you pretending you didn't understand my meaning. But perhaps you aren't pretending.
I completely understand you and I pity you, but I still want my money, I don't pity you that much.
Well, that just breaks my damn heart! I so wanted you to like me! Ha!
Aw, c'mon, Randy - you don't have a heart! I thought y'all were going to middle GA?
.....and your 'Hope'? Still on board? Have a seat at the communal public supper table? Or is Goldman Sucks and Citibank squeezing you out? That job just hasn't materialized? Sad and sucks indeed.
I think I'll check for a 'twister' smiley face........
Not me making unfounded statements about what Obama would have done in Dumbya's place. Do you really think making such a hypothetical statement gives your argument any support. You were doing better citing your hypothetical polls.
All you have is hypotheticals, every day it's blame it on Bush, and if Bush didn't do this or that, and if the world was really flat and not round, and you object now? Odd.
What hypothetical statements about Bush have I made?
Where were they going to go? Most shelters were packed after a few days, according to a friend of mine who lives in New Orleans.
Back to the abortion topic...Ralph, I'm curious: Do you support late-term abortion? I'm not talking about cases in which the mother's life is at risk.
Also, someone here asked what would happen to all the unwanted babies if they weren't aborted? They would be adopted! My best friend was on a waiting list for 10 years to adopt a baby. She finally went to China to get one and to Cambodia for another because there were not enough American babies to meet the demand."Where were they going to go? Most shelters were packed after a few days, according to a friend of mine who lives in New Orleans."
To any one of the hundreds of shelters set up days in advance, I guess that would have been to simple!
Whats the next question? How would they get there? If your choice is drowning in the attic or walking to Texas,Arkansas,Mississippi then it would be "feets don't fail me now!"
Way too complicated I guess.
I had dinner with a liberal democrat friend tonight, and she said on MSNBC, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow were blaming Obama for the handling of the oil spill and calling it "Obama's Katrina." I haven't watched any news in the last couple of days, so I didn't see it. Do you guys agree with the way Obama is handling the oil spill? According to MSNBC, the US has ships that travel the globe and suck up oil spills, but we're not using them in the gulf.
The original question was...do you think they need to think twice before they speak....
In that regard, I think everyone would be better off if they think twice before speaking, and thrice before typing.
These political forums get really ugly, for no apparent reason. Whatever happened to respectfully agreeing to disagree? And besides, most of these posts have gotten way off topic.
Namaste.Yes they do get ugly, and if you read through these forums you see the ones who constantly badger and berate others. Those are the ones I confront and give them exactly what they give.
As far as respectfully disagreeing with someone, you have to have respect for them to begin with, I do not have respect for those who show none.
On the other hand, you and I may be on two different sides politically, but you have shown the ability to give respect therefore it is returned by me.She doesn't realize how lucky she is, Bill ! Tell her!
Yes, but you know how impress yourself in the telling!
Can someone translate this? Are you using Doug Hughes keyboard?
No, his has keys that stick which causes misspelled words sometimes!
Or he creates words, or he can't spell while calling people stupid, or proofreading is a lost art among the hubpages elitists.
I'm going with number 2!Yep, I figured you for a number 2 type guy! LOL!
Is that what you figured, all on your own?
You shouldn't always listen to the voices in your head.
Not me! Haven't you heard about KFlippin's imaginary polls she quotes from? Well, "If you took a poll..........." HaHa!
No, I haven't heard of these "imaginary polls" why don't you enlighten me?
Is it something like the imaginary vote you cast for Joe Biden?No, but it's similar to your imaginary humor! Okay, This is boring! Why don't you try writing some hubs about how bad the left is and how great the right is? I promise you, I will read them and learn how you would handle things if you were in control of the White house.
You are sure to get those from the right to comment on them. You are here to write, aren't you?You seem angry, have I upset you, do you need a hug? I guess you don't like someone taking your beliefs and ridiculing them, well, that's a shame. Oh well I'm sure there is someone on this site with the same views you have that can attempt to defend them, you're right about one thing, this is boring!
Not angry in the least, Bill. You would know this if you had been on HP for a while. I do not let people here make me angry, especially on these forums. They come and they go in many cases. You are no different than those on the religious forums. I merely wondered why you are here if you do not plan to write.
Believe me, down here in South Georgia there are many who would agree with your stance on things. So I am well inured to your idea of what's good for America. No biggie!You have no clue what I think would be good for America, but that's ok, I didn't really think you would.
But it IS clear what you think - the same as Sab oh/Tk Sensei and the other faces he inhabits - all with the same inability to argue convincingly but a huge ability to post endless drivel
But Bill doesn't realize he is behaving like a troll, China Man! Or perhaps he does. But time will tell and if he doesn't write anything worthwhile there will be no doubt as to his motives.
You are a real hoot, a funny guy, a great contributor to the forums......and this post does show your appreciation for me and your desperation as well, glad to see that.
Night nite to all...........Correct again! Wow, twice in one night! That is indeed a record for you!
Another democrat blaming Obama for the oil spill disaster: James Carville, on CNN. I've always liked the "ragin' Cajun," but I don't understand how he can blame Obama more than he does BP!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/james-carvil … oil-spill/
Meanwhile, Olbermann blames it on Cheney. Maybe he's tired of blaming Bush for everything.I have to agree, this one is on Obama:
"Last year the Obama administration granted oil giant BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico, an article Wednesday in the Washington Post reveals.
Federal documents show that the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) gave BP a "categorical exclusion" on April 6, 2009 to commence drilling with Deepwater Horizon even though it had not produced the impact study required by a law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill.
The exemption came less than one month after BP had requested it in a March 10 "exploration plan" submitted to the MMS. The plan said that because a spill was "unlikely," no additional "mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." BP also assured the MMS that any spill would not seriously hurt marine wildlife and that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."
Kierán Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Post that the Obama administration's exemption effectively "put BP entirely in control," adding, "The agency's oversight role has devolved to little more than rubber-stamping British Petroleum's self-serving drilling plans."
...Obama's decision to disregard scientific evidence is not the result of a mistaken policy, however. It is the result of definite class interests.
According to a report from the Center for Responsive Politics, BP gave more campaign donations to the Obama campaign in the 2008 election cycle than to any other politician—$71,000 in all—though in total it gave slightly more to Republican candidates. BP also took the step of hiring the Podesta Group, the lobbying firm headed up by Obama confidant John Podesta and his brother Tony, paying the firm $720,000 since 2008. All told, BP has spent just shy of $20 million on federal lobbying over the last two years."
BUT....since BP said a spill was unlikely...maybe that was true.
And since Haliburton was DIRECTLY involved in that oil rig, I wouldn't put it past them to blow it up.
Maybe Haliburton is the one who "sabotaged" it....somebody did.
I wouldn't put anything past that sinister creep Cheney.
And he did put his cronies in the MMS;
"MMS "We conduct safety inspections on offshore oil platforms at least once a month. Would you believe a couple times a year? No? How about we occasionally fly by in a private jet them while an oil executive snorts coke off our ass?" (abcnews.go.com)"This spill is no more Obama's fault than Hurricane Katrina was Bush's! In a world where drilling for oil is done at the depths that they are then these things will happen. The oil will stop and the slick will go away, this is not the end of the world and it wont be the end of any species.
I think you're wrong there....
"One of the greatest estuaries on the planet is now gone."-Dublin Mick
"Damages are capped, so who will pay for the cleanup? Taxpayers.
Who will get the cleanup work? Expect taxpayers to go into debt to pay Halliburton and friends to clean up the disaster they caused. The crime scene evidence remains at the bottom of the ocean, and that's where it will stay."--Twelfth Bough
You think it's an accident--I think it was on purpose.That doesn't surprise me, BP caused the accident so they could get all the bad press and lose revenue because it can?
No. Haliburton because the neo-cons are pissed at Obama.
"We're in charge, see?"
"Think you're gonna take the reigns punk?"
They knew BP would take all the blame. And as per ususal--the real perps slink inot the black lagoon from whence they slithered.
ssssssssss
I'm not angry, I have a big smile on my face when I point out stupidity.
This is the internet! Everyone is supposed to get angry.
No! I can't. You see I would be one of those people in Rand Pauls world looking for a place to eat or shit. Not you. So No! I dont want to have some high minded quiet, intelligent conversation about a Stupid, Tactless, Racist who got caught out there and can't take it back or dress it up in any type of INTELIGENT CONVERSATION.
Thank goodness racists eventually show their true "colors" and can't help but eventually be found out. Most are fairly easy to identify though, especially if you speak with them at any length.
Stupid! Not ignorant, just plain stupid!No disrespect meant to you Habee! You asked a great question. But, that was the only answer appropriate for this situation.
Its a good thing you were not representing your side some 46 years ago, that type of attitude would have been self defeating. The civil rights act of 1964 is not going to be overturned because of some novice politicians "opinion" in Kentucky.
I agree, the Civil Rights Act is not going to be amended because of a novice politician from Kentucky - hopefully the good voters of KY will decide to sent Rand back to his medical practice or whatever job he has. He's not ready for the big leagues.
How about being told how to live?
How about being told our individual rights mean nothing?
How about the flagrant abuse of political office?
How about Government employees falling down on the job that costs taxpayers trillions of dollars?
How about being Governed by righteous over morality?
It all goes to controlling a person's habits, living and thought process, so others can manipulate and usurp power and wealth.
That's where the "elitists" come into play. They fund the politicians in place and all the puppets that continue to step up to the platform.
To break the status quo- (a) business must relinquish its control on Congress and (b) people need to stay out of the life of other people, therefore they do not infringe on another person's right to life and right to choice.
But, I digress and off topic. However, I made my point.Agree with almost all of this - See - but now I agree with your build up and not your conclusion. Big business cannot 'relinquish' and will not. Government in most western countries prides itself on carrying the name of Democracy, people would have to excercise it and change the shape of their government to one that is for the people and by the people to defend them from big business, by controlling it properly - but then enough people would have to realise what is going on, and for that they would have to think for themselves.
The left is obsessive and historyonic.
Rand Paul makes a statement and you guys have blown it into repealing the civil rights act.
LOLOLOl Hahahaha
Meds people... meds for all of ya.
His remark goes more to the Govt intrusion into private industry, not ammending or repealing anything.
You leant leftists are freakin hysterical... get a grip.
Between your pres Oby' and his Mexican buddy trying to start a race war and the new and you all crying about repealing the civil rights act... it is idiotic.
All this hysteria has to do with the fact that you know most Americans want to repeal the health care bill. So if you can sway the populace into thinkin the right wants to repeal civil rights, also. You will get some votes to push back with... man you guys are so predictable.I don't know who on the left you are talking to, but I quickly read through this thread and didn't find anyone from the left worrying that the Civil Rights Act would be repealed. If I missed it, I'm sure you'll point it out to me.
Now, I completely agree with you that, based on what I have seen of Rand Paul, he is opposed to government intrusion in private industry. Since this is currently a hot issue with the Tea Party crowd who apparently supports him, and since he will undoubtedly be voting on measures that involve this very issue, it is perfectly reasonable for the media to question him closely about where he would draw the line. As a voter, and as the mother of two developmentally disabled children, the fact that he opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act is disturbing. It is also disturbing that questions about the Civil Rights Act made him visibly uncomfortable.
Now, you can call that hysterical if it makes you feel better, but a politician who is openly opposed or uncomfortable with two of the most popular and progressive measures ever enacted is, in my book, someone who needs to be exposed. If this is what the Tea Party voters want, then the rest of the voters who don't want that type of politician in office need to know about it. That is not hysteria; that is speaking out and making sure that the voters are aware of the radical beliefs of some of these so-called libertarians.
Yeah---get gvt out of private industry and into your private life....
I don't support the death penalty. I take life - any form of life - very seriously and don't believe in taking it unless absolutely neccessary. Yes, I eat flesh because I haven't found a good substitute. Yes, I've killed animals and birds while hunting, and my family and I ate them. I catch fish and either eat them or release them. I don't wear fur because we have other products that keep us just as warm without the inherent cruelty. I don't kill spiders and snakes unless they're venomous. If I come across a nonvenomous spider or bug (or snake!) in my house, I release it outside, unharmed.
That said, I do believe in life in prison without parole.I support the death penalty, if it is proven that a person has committed a capital offense that warrants the death penalty!
Some criminals have lived a life that has done nothing but cause others pain, and when the death penalty is affixed as their sentence then they have forfeited whatever life they had.
To imagine some link between the execution of a guilty felon and the extermination of the most innocent is completely ridiculous!Extermination! Execution! = MURDER.
I'm just saying that sometimes it's justified in both cases. And sometimes it's not.of course a speck of cells is life - so is a mouse - it is not a human being until it makes a human being and blurring this kind of talk just shows the emotional irrational nature of your argument.
You said
"Captain America - The law of the land allows you to hold whatever religious beliefs that amuse you. If you believe that a speck of cells no larger then the head of a pin which has not even attached to the wall of the uterus is 'life', then you are free to believe so."
I'm free to believe so? Its a good thing that I and every scientist in the world are allowed to believe in a fact!
Cells are not life?
"The cell is the functional basic unit of life,It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life."
I guess science is superstition?
You see Doug, this is exactly why you can't be taken seriously.
As usual, you are wrong!Bill - I just clipped off the end of a fingernail. God knows how many million cells I terminated. Is trimming a fingernail murder? It kills millions of cells. Your argument is flawed.
ROFL
Just clipped my dogs nails and now I wonder if I could perhaps make new Crickett babies from the clippings? Is that possible? I had no idea that life could come from nail clippings, and I really would like to have a pup from Crickett, poor thing is neutered.
I'll have to give my vet a call first thing in the morning, in the meantime I suppose I should rescue those clippings from the trash and put them in the freezer?
What do you advise?
Sorry Doug, you know I love you. But you are dead wrong saying a speck of cells is not a life. The United States kills people and gave women in this country the right to kill people. Dont try to dress it up or say it's anything but voluntary homicide. Don't accept the right to kill if you're not going to accept the responsibility of your actions.
I believe women should have that right. Just call it what it is.I think you spoke very well here, in regard to abortion.
And I'll avoid any scathing comments made by others, not you, in regard to the likening of an unborn baby to a mouse -- the comment speaks volumes of ignorance.Friendlyword - You and I differ in our outlook, but your argument was different from Bill's in that you used the phrase 'is not a life'. Cells are alive, but they are not 'a life'. When does life begin? I don't know but I will not accept your right to decide for me that it's at conception. If you want to believe that an infetesimal group of cells is 'a life' at the moment a diligent sperm gets through the egg, that's an article of faith, not a precept of science. Fertilization doesn't normally happen in the uturus, but in the falopian tube, as yet unattached to the womb. Is the morning-after pill murder of a human being? If you say no - it's not wrong morally or criminally, then you believe that 'life' as a morally or ethically protected issue begins some point AFTER conception. Most Americans 'feel' that way. The courts have decided that way.The question and issue which I do NOT think religion should dictate is just WHEN the potential of life is legally protected.
This statement of yours from just a few moments ago --
Doug Hughes wrote:
Bill - I just clipped off the end of a fingernail. God knows how many million cells I terminated. Is trimming a fingernail murder? It kills millions of cells. Your argument is flawed.
. . .Completely belies your attempt to appear only concerned about the fertilized 'cells' in the fallopian tube that are enroute to the womb being okay to detonate with a morning-after pill.
Perhaps you should address the question of just when you think it is NOT okay to kill the living cellular mass, the baby, in a woman's womb? You seem to be trying to philosophize and educate.......educate us all on that, what's your cut off for abortion.
What business is it of yours?
Are you going to take care of it? If not, why does it concern you?
It sure doesn't concern conservatives or libertarians who say-fend for yourself.
Or am I confusing you with a party that doesn't say None of MY money for "welfare queens"?
No help for daycare. You had that baby--deal with it!
Poor on the streets, sold for drugs, used in satanic ceremonies, beaten, sexually abused, going from foster care to foster care....whatever, as long as they get delivered, right?
Pro Life until they're born, then you could care less.
And you have no right to force a woman to give birth in the first place.
It's none of your business.Well, LovemyChris, I happen to think a woman should have a choice, that she is the mistress of her own body, her own life. However, the current and growing climate of referring to unborn babies as for example, comparable to a mouse, and the constant referral to them as not babies, as zygotes, as cellular whisps of nothing.......
....all of this disrespect for the gift of new life is a reflection of a growing disrespect of any life, any choice, any politic, unless it is the one of a neuvo liberal socialistic choice.
Something is very screwed up there, very immoral, amoral, and not all in keeping with the favored sentiment and bandwagging of the call to save the world and its many species, eat vegetables and pat pigs and other sentient animals on the head......In mammalian reproduction, after fertilization has taken place the zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form more cells[2] without the zygote actually increasing in size. This cell division is mitotic, and is known as cleavage.[3] All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Zygotes eventually develop into an embryo, and then a fetus. A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.[4]
The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula, but before implantation. It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta. The trophoblast surrounds the inner cell mass and a fluid-filled blastocyst cavity known as the blastocoele. The human blastocyst comprises 70-100 cells.
Blastocyst formation begins at day 5 after fertilization in humans,[1] when the blastocoele opens up in the morula.
An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.
The development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has half of the DNA of each of two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.
9 weeks of gestation:start of fetal stage to 25 weeks
Fetus attached to placenta, approximately 12 weeks after fertilization.
The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week.[1] At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[1] The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size.[8] Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[9]The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.[10][11]
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.[12] At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.[13]
16 to 25 weeks after fertilization A woman pregnant for the first time (i.e. a primiparous woman) typically feels fetal movements at about 21 weeks, whereas a woman who has already given birth at least two times (i.e. a multiparous woman) will typically feel movements by 20 weeks.[14] By the end of the fifth month, the fetus is about 20 cm (8 inches).
In general contexts, a newborn is an infant who is within hours, days, or up to a few weeks from birth. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days of life (less than a month old).[2] The term "newborn" includes premature infants, postmature infants and full term newborns.
Source: WikipediaTerribly impressed with your grasp of scientific terms, just terribly. Do you object to sentient animals being killed and eaten? Surely not, how could anyone with a callous disregard for the gift of human life care one wit about an animal's treatment?
Isn't the idea that we shouldn't promote a climate of disregard for the sentient animal? But, the poor human, ah well, let us all create a climate of utter disregard, have monthly abortion meetings to catch up on whose kid needs one, hand out those morning-afters to all school kids -- why not, if you have no religion, no beliefs beyond your own gutter needs, procreate and kill at will, what a thing to teach this generation.
I am also reminded that you hold that unborn zygotes, and whatever other label you wish to put on a child at various 'life' stages, have never been considered babies under old common law dating back hundreds of years....yeah that is pretty much what you said.
Ralph Deeds wrote:
They are zygotes, embryos and early term fetuses according to my dictionary. According to common law going back centuries they aren't babies until they are born or until they are able to survive outside the womb.
KFlippin wrote:
Can't imagine where you've found that babies were referred to as zygotes, embryos, and early fetuses several hundred years ago. As for common law, had abortion been a felony under common law, the guilty person would have been put to death. To try to argue that there is precedence for treating, and even your clinical and distanced speaking of, an unborn child as worthless and inhuman, as not a child, not a baby -- is a quite worthless effort.
You are attempting to misinterpret common law that a child, a baby, yet unborn that is killed by the mother or another, is not a felony, not murder, and thus not punishable by death -- and has therefore always been considered a mash of cells with no value.
In reality, the unborn 'child', the unborn 'baby', was considered exactly that. If opinions such as yours are allowed to find an audience, allowed to become 'common' thought and given 'common' acceptance, this could easily result in forced abortions, or birth control, or sterilizatin -- as it is only zygotes that are being disposed of in the interests of population control or the greater good.
"Administering Drugs to procure Abortion, the Woman being quick with Child." 1828-Britain
"....On the day of__ in the year of__ our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight, at____ in the said county unlawfully maliciously and feloniously did cause to be administered to and taken by one CD, a large quantity of a certain noxious thing, called sarin, poison or other noxious thing, with intent then and there, and thereby to cause and procure the miscarriage of the said CD, she the said CD then being quick with child, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided. And you the said keeper."
Some of the points made in the case of Mary Pulley, whose child was killed apparently at the point of birth, given the arguments made, and clearly it was considered a child, unborn or not, this would be an important case, as abortion was not punishable by death, but instead a midemeanor, or manslaughter.
"A puncture was found in the child's skull, but, when the injury that had caused it was inflicted, did not appear - some questions were asked as to whether the child breathed.
Mr Justice J. Parke: The child might breathe before it was born but its having breathed is not sufficiently life to make the killing of the child murder.
Godson: The wound might have been given before the child was born, and the child might have lived afterwards.
Mr Justice J Parke: Yes, but there must have been an independent circulation in the child, or the child cannot be considered as alive for this purpose."
Fortunately, science has progressed a great deal since the early 1800's, and we know in our great wisdom that the child is very much alive and very much thinking and feeling in the womb.
I agree with you 100%. It's obscene to tell someone what to do with their body or what's inside it. My only problem is with people who try to diminish a person by saying they are not a human being YET!
I'll say it again. Don't accept rights you are not willing to accept the responsibility for.
But I and no one else should have a say in what a woman does with here body or the human being inside it until the cord is cut.
Now I'll mind my business too.
I've written a hub about "abortion" - How it is an NON issue for society, because those who demand abortion be illegal invade the right to life and right of choice of the woman. No one, under any circumstance has the "right" to tell a woman what to do with her body. And, yes, if you want to push the extreme, by all accounts - prostitution should be legalized. So, do not go there either.
What a woman does with her body is not the concern of another individual. Nor should it be. People claim we live in a civilized society? It's a myth people. Dressed up to think ourselves of moral superiority, when 80% of the world is not civilized to begin with. Pushing morality, the highest degree is and can never be an option. Teach them sure, force them upon others- No!I agree with you fully, Cags. I do not feel I have the right to decide these types of issues for other people and they do not have the power to decide for anyone but themselves. Many don't see it that way and try to decide for everyone. I can't understand why these folks think they have this right. Who made them the "deciders?"
Randy, are you okay with abortion at any stage?
If I ever get pregnant I will possibly be able to give you a more self informed answer. No set of circumstances are ever exactly the same from one person to the next. No one can answer for anyone else, no matter how terribly bad they would like to.
If our world had a person of infallibility to decide this dilemma for us, it would be a different matter. But I see none here on this forum.I'm not following your line of reasoning. Are you saying since no one is infallible, no one should be able to dictate right and wrong to others? That's what I got from your post. In that case, we can't say that others shouldn't murder, rape, steal, etc.
The crimes you listed are as old as time. They were part of the basic tribal laws to keep peace. I think everyone of us here can agree these laws serve a useful purpose in keeping harmony within a community.
Abortion does not fall under these laws. A woman can become pregnant and the father may never know it. What control has the man over the outcome of the pregnancy? A woman may abort the child and the father may never know about it. Surely you cannot disagree with this fact.
The same goes for birth control. Either following a birth control regimen, or not doing so falls to the female to as she wishes. Unless you think a woman has never gotten pregnant or not gotten pregnant on purpose. More female control.
What I'm trying to say is, I don't feel qualified to decide for a woman. And besides the rape law, would you steal food to feed your children or murder to protect them? If so, then you would have to agree there are always extenuating circumstances.
Perhaps he will post here and straighten us out then. Or are you speaking for this person?
No need for me to try and speak for Him, He has been doing it Himself loud and clear throughout history (His story) but unfortunately folk are deaf or dim, not sure which, they won't listen or obey His commands.... no wonder there are problems!
HohnIf what you say is true, then we would have no problems and everyone would hear his "loud and clear" statements. Keep quiet about your god and see how often he corrects those of us not privy to his intentions. Why would an all powerful being choose you to represent him when he can do it himself?
John 3:18-20 (King James Version)
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Matthew 23:24
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"God" does it all the time....it's called a mis-carriage.
A "right" is something that does not impose on another person, something that is inherent to the individual themselves and does not require action from outside to be accomplished.
Abortion is a right to the point where it imposes on the right of the child, so the question becomes when does a baby become a individual?
Same goes for other rights. Right to freedom, right to life etc. This is why I have issues with other "rights" such as the "right to health care," or "right to a job." I do not believe that those things are rights given to all people as they may in some cases depend on imposing on the rights of others to accomplish them. A true right is something where it only requires protecting someone from harm done by another to preserve that right, not requiring another to do, provide or give something up.
I do agree that there are always extenuating circumstances. And yes, I would kill in order to protect my family, but that wouldn't be murder. And yes, I would steal if my children were starving.
As you probably know, I have mixed feelings about abortion. I'm generally against it, but I don't want to see Roe v Wade overturned. I know if it were outlawed, women would still get abortions - dangerous septic ones. BUT I think abortions should be strictly limited to the first trimester - before the fetus can feel pain and react to its environment. If the mother's life is in danger, only then should a later abortion be considered. And then I think about the father. Does he have any rights? Should he have any say in the matter? I don't know...my mind starts going in circles when I think about all this.
What I don't understand is how some far left liberals support late-term abortions yet protest against a convicted murderer's execution. I'm against the death penalty, too, but I'm also against late term abortions.Typical Tea Partier--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDED_vGk … mp;index=1Oh--!! Not only that....
Today at work I heard a little clip of Beckles from his radio show.
He was making fun of Malia Obama..you know, that little kid.....hello!
Anyway, he was making a girly voice pretending to be her talking to president Obama, and he says
"Daddy, why do you hate black people so much?" ...Obama voice, "I'm half white."
No racism on their part eh? It's all a figment of liberals imagination eh? And I'm the Tooth Fairy!
We libs need to start listening to those freaks....even though they are hard to stomache we must! We must know what the enemy is up to...and I mean enemy. Of this country!No one here has brought up Beck's latest obnoxiousness...it was sinking to a new low, making fun on an 11-year-old.
It was sinking to a new low that the POTUS would use his own daughter to make political points.
You guys really need to start listening to the actual shows you bitch about.
So what... he immatated her voice to make a joke... he did not make fun of her. You guys twist everything as if you won't get caught.
This ranks right up there with chrs' remark about the right on hubs calling mexicans, "dirty people". Just any lie will do for you all.So why did he apologize? Beck himself said you should leave the family out of it...
And Obama does not "use children to shield himself from criticism" no matter how much you want to believe that.Go listen to the show in question UW.
It is as simple as that.
Then if you still buy the leftist spin on it, fine.
But you should really listen to the shows of rush and beck and what they supposedly said, before you buy into it.I repeat...why did he apologize?
There is no excuse for what he said...you can argue about that until you are blue in the face...
- Beck is really putting one over on you guys, and you don't even realize it
So good you went and listened to it... so as to draw an actual knowledgable opinion of it.
Hate to think you just parrot back what you hear on cnn or msnbc.
It wasn't CNN--it was WILD 1090 am in Boston, 10:00am-1:00pm, the Warren Ballentine show.
Truth Fighters!
He also brought up Bill Maher and his comment about "We need a real black man as president. One who opens his shirt and shows his gun" ... !!!WHAT!!!
So you see, there is a LOT of racial stuff happening here all the time which some people always want to deny.
It is there as clear as day...always.
How about Chris Mattews? "For a minute, I forgot he was black."...geeezus!
And don't kid yourself Mason...he meant to insult Malia, just as they insult the whole Obama family. Tammy Bruce on IngraHAM's show calling Michelle "Trash"? Who EVER called Laura Bush Trash??
Face it...your Faux Fonies are a nasty bunch of evil-doers, who MEAN to cause hatred and division!
And it HURTS to listen to that crap. But I used to listen to the re-runs of Russsshhhh's show on Saturdays, and wouldn't you know, his crap was regurgitated verbatim by people on the local blog.
At least be honest..you know an insult when you hear one...and Palin is crying to Beck about leaving her kids alone, so why the next second is he insulting Malia?
Did you hear the Malia voice????? INSULTING! An 11 year old does not talk like a baby.
And what about the why do you hate black people so much daddy?
Remember--this is the guy who said Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people. His own mother I guess he hated too!
What a dweeb Beckles is! And YES--I meant that as an insult!!Well I see your comments qoting from Bill Maher, and Chris Mathews, but I do not see a quote from beck?...
What? You couldn't find tape to support your argument?
What did he say? He imatated her in a kiddy voice... yeah thats rough... gimme a break.
You have listed insults from the left, but not one word from a quote from Beck... are you lying again?
If not produce the tape or a transcript.
And as far as black people go... I think you are the one with the race issue, Chrs... everything is race to you.
And yes Obama does hate white people... just read his book "Dreams From My Father", and you will see it. His hatred for white people spews out all over the pages of that book.
So... where are the words chrs... I see leftist racist hate in your post but nothing other than your claim, your words to support you BS against beck.
Also... don't you still owe an apology to the right, for lying about them yesterday?http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=1703
Scroll down to the bottom for video. Watching the entire video will give you some context, but the Malia imitation occurs approximately 3 minutes into it.Well, Beck is the poster child for the right, what do you expect?
hahahahaha thats hysterical...
So he, POTUS, states his daughter asks him about it every morning... and no one is suppossed to make fun of that because it is making fun of his daughter.
What-ever PP... lololol
I agree it could've been better thought out... but I see no harm in making her lil girl voice... hahahaha...
Is it that he made her sound like a two year old that your upset about?
And your trying to say that ranks up there.... and even is more awful than the comments made by Mathews and Maher... So they talk racist shit and it isn't as bad as mimiking a 11Yr old?
lololI didn't post it for your benefit, because even though I believe you do, somewhere deep down, have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand that Glen Beck and his ilk are damaging to our national discourse, you have chosen to defend the lowest of the low -- a person who makes money by feeding into the fear, paranoia, anger, and irrationality of people who are afraid of change.
I posted the video for the benefit of others who might be reading here, so they can see and judge for themselves.Everything Beck says on his shows in regards to the administration is fact... he provides you with the sources and thier, the admins, own words.
If you don't think obama meant socailism when he preached change,... then I cannot convince you.
It is the left which is out to destroy this country.
It is easy to dismiss everything as paronoia when you don't care to look into it. But the fact is we are headed into European style socailism... and many of us do not want it.
As far as the Malia thing... I probrably wouldn't have done it... but is it sooo bad... no.Beck is counting on you to keep on feeling that way. The more of you that are out there, the richer he grows.
Actually I am not a great fan of Beck... but if he hasn't lied then he hasn't lied.
I have yet to see one thing he has said about the admin be shown to be false.
If you have something to prove what the rest of the left cannot... please do show us.
Obama is a socailist... he is a member of the socailist party of Chicago. Has been since the beginning of his career. I shouldn't believe he is a socailist? Why?
Tea Baggers harrass Congressman Chris Murphy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6K6u_OpDhAWhats your point Ralph? No one but the left should be allowed to protest?
lolol
Related Discussions
- 79
So how is this small government stuff going to work then?
by kirstenblog 13 years ago
Seems to me the biggest aim of the tea party is a smaller government, right?Well now how does that work then? I have always thought that folks want the government to be hands off when it comes to them. When it comes to those that they don't approve of, well why the hell isn't the government doing...
- 130
Glenn Beck and Many of the Tea Partiers are Neo-Birchers
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
A long article in this week's "The New Yorker" by Sean Wilentz entitled "Confounding Fathers" traces the antecedents of Glenn Beck's rants and the Tea Party's hysteria to two individuals who spouted much of the nonsense now being repeated Beck and the Teatards. Unfortunately...
- 7
Can someone agree with abortion and oppose the death penalty?
by Erin Trefz 8 years ago
Can someone agree with abortion and oppose the death penalty?
- 29
Is this store owner within his rights as a private business owner?
by Motown2Chitown 11 years ago
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/ … 00470.htmlI find myself disturbed by this story. I am a firm believer in the right of an individual to ask that his religious values be respected, but does that mean he should be able to demand that a privately owned business cater to those...
- 17
Who is pushing the wave of political hatred sweeping America and why?
by Stump Parrish 13 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 … 73857.htmlThis is part of the problem but not all. The tea party has created an environment that adualt males feel they have the right to stomp on the head of those who disagree. There are lunatics in both parties I will admit. Is there a teaparty...
- 230
Are Democrats The Latest Anti-Semite Hate Group Promoting Violence
by Poppa Blues 14 years ago
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … th-threat/An arrest has been made in a death threat against a Jewish Republican Congressman by a pro-Obama supporter. Obviously all the Democrats must be just like this guy, anti-Semite haters. I mean it makes sense right, since all the Tea Party...