posted on February 22, 2007 08:03:50 PM new
Once again it would appear as if CRYBABY_K can whip out all the insults she wants, but she can not take it in return.
I think Linda needs her nook nook and blanket.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 22, 2007 08:10:08 PM new
How funny.
Almost the whole group of clowns all lined up.....baiting and trolling as usual.
All upset that while their party continues grandstanding.....they're cowards to just stop funding the war.
That's your problem....I'm laughing all the way....as I watch the 'surge' begin.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 22, 2007 08:12:26 PM new
Liar_K,
Again since quatermass called me a "baby raper" I would like to see you denounce that statement.
Come on LIAR_K your either for the "baby raper" statement or against it no middle of the road on that statement. Let me hear you speak out or are you a COWARD along with being a BOLD FACE LIAR?
posted on February 23, 2007 07:41:47 AM new
QM:"The Dem party is a gutless bunch of baby raping bastards who have never done anything in thier pathetic lives but take from productive people while they sit on their fat asses and watch tv."
babykiller_K:I agree with the message, although it's not my style to present it in that manner. The dem party supports the murder of babies....and wants no restrictions on abortion.
Once again, someone fails to see those in her party that also favor abortion
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who supports abortion rights, on Tuesday said that he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as chief justice despite his concern that the judge might seek to restrict abortion rights, the Providence Journal reports. Chafee said that because Roberts would be replacing William Rehnquist -- who dissented in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that effectively outlawed state abortion bans -- as chief justice, he would not disturb the Supreme Court's narrow majority in favor of abortion rights. Chafee said, "My party says that's a smart move" to support Roberts, while some abortion-rights supporters told him that "they understand" his decision (Mulligan, Providence Journal, 9/21).
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also a supporter of abortion rights, on Monday said he will vote to confirm Roberts, adding that the judge had "strongly affirmed" his belief in a right to privacy and the importance of judicial precedent. Specter said those expressed beliefs would make it less likely that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an abortion-rights supporter, also has said she intends to support Roberts' nomination (Reston, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/20). Nearly all of the Senate's 55 Republicans are expected to support Roberts' nomination, according to the Chicago Tribune (Zuckman, Chicago Tribune, 9/21). The judiciary committee is scheduled to vote on Thursday on whether to recommend Roberts' nomination to the full Senate -- which could debate and vote on the nomination next week (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 9/19).
Furthermore I like how you lump all democrats into the same bunch. I have previous stated my views on abortion and think it is wrong. However, it is not my choice to pass judegement against the women who get one. It is a choice they have to make. They will have to live with the consequences and have to face their God someday about that choice.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 23, 2007 07:59:09 AM new
All in all, logansdad, the Repugs CAN'T do anything about a woman's right to her own body....if they did what would they have to run on ?????
Notice they have run on the Anti-Choice platform but have never DONE anything about it....even some republican VOTERS have learned THAT
posted on February 23, 2007 08:57:11 AM new
Again a liberal PROVES their ignorance. Again, I believe that's the reason they vote for the dems....because they rarely KNOW what they're talking about. tsk tsk tsk
sybil said: "Notice they have run on the Anti-Choice platform but have never DONE anything about it....even some republican VOTERS have learned THAT"
Their ignorance has NO limits.....it was passed TWICE during the clinton administration and it was passed in 2003.
READ....get informed for a change. You embarass yourselves with your lack of knowledge.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 23, 2007 09:05:44 AM newit was passed TWICE during the clinton administration and it was passed in 2003.
Regardless of who passed it when, the law was deemed unconstitutional
August 26, 2004
New York District Judge Richard C. Casey found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. He ruled that the act must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health.
(NAF v. Ashcroft) [2]
September 8, 2004
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, a George H.W. Bush appointee, in Nebraska concluded that, "the overwhelming weight of the trial evidence proves that the banned procedure is safe and medically necessary in order to preserve the health of women under certain circumstances. In the absence of an exception for the health of a woman, banning the procedure constitutes a significant health hazard to women."
"The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable," Kopf wrote.
(Carhart v. Ashcroft)
July 8, 2005
Three judges of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis unanimously agreed, "Because the Act does not contain a health exception, it is unconstitutional."
(Carhart v. Gonzales)[3]
January 31, 2006
Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, January 31, 2006, saying the measure lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.
The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision in a 2-1 ruling.
February 21, 2006
The Supreme Court agreed to review the lower court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart. For further information on the political and legal issues surrounding the bill, see Abortion in the United States.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 23, 2007 09:52:29 AM new
An opinion piece from a man I have a lot of respect for.
====
Declaration of War
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 23, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The United States has fought many wars since 1941, but never again declared one. Abroad, no one declares war anymore either, perhaps because it has the anachronistic feel of an aristocratic challenge. Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn't declare war; it "authorizes" the "use of force."
In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information at the time, said, "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
No Resolutions, Only Resolve
Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy. Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds.
But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways.
The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed "ingenious" by anti-war activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops.
Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates -- no funds.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet -- ``We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can´t be done´´ -- in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.
But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.
Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds. They shouldn't micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it makes the Democrats' the-war-is-lost mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think that sends the wrong message to our troops."
Levin has a different idea -- change the original October 2002 authorization. "We'll be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission," says Levin. "That is very different from cutting off funds."
While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha's, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force -- except for combat. That is an oxymoron.
Changing the language of authorization means -- if it means anything -- that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal "support" mission or an illegal "combat" mission.
If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al-Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or fallback after) the administration's troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today.
Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.
===
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 23, 2007 10:04:27 AM newPublic doubts selling out Iraq
WA Times
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 23, 2007
In addition to being terrible public policy, the idea of abandoning Iraq, as promoted by the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. John Murtha, isn't overwhelmingly popular with the American public, according to two new public-opinion polls.
According to a poll released Feb. 20 by Public Opinion Strategies, by a margin of 53 to 46 percent, Americans agree that "The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq."
By 57-41 percent margins, voters agree with both of the following statements: "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism," and "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security."
To be sure, the poll also shows that Americans are pessimistic about the likelihood of victory in Iraq: By a margin of almost 2-1 they doubt that Iraq will become a stable democracy.
But they also disagree by a margin of 53 percent to 43 percent with the argument that victory in Iraq (defined as "creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home"is no longer possible for the United States.
The public rejects by a margin of almost 3-1 the statement that "I don't care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves; I just want the troops brought home."
Fifty-nine percent say pulling our troops out of Iraq would damage America's reputation as a world power.
By 56 percent to 43 percent, Americans agree with the premise that "Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war."
The Public Opinion Strategies poll found Americans evenly divided over future U.S. involvement in Iraq. Fifty percent of Americans (almost half of whom question whether the United States should be in Iraq) feel that "our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country"; 49 percent favor the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops or believe in setting "a strict timetable" for their removal.
Along the same lines, 66 percent of Americans polled earlier this month by the newspaper Investor's Business Daily said that a U.S. victory in Iraq is important, and by a 58 percent to 40 percent margin said they were hopeful that the United States will succeed in Iraq.
And, just as the degree of Americans' skepticism on the war is exaggerated by war critics, so too is the extent of Iraqis' opposition to the U.S. military presence in their country.
Last month, Rep. John Murtha in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cited a study which purported to show that 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shi'ite Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S. forces.
It turns out the survey was actually conducted by a firm called KA Research, which claims it uses face-to-face interviews, Web and postal interviews and focus groups to learn what Iraqis are really thinking -- a claim which deserves a large measure of skepticism. "Do strangers really go around freely in Baghdad asking for political opinions?," asks New York Post columnist Ze'ev Chafets. Did pollsters "ask the folks in Anbar Province to return candid questionnaires via a non-existent postal service, [or] go through the neighborhoods of Najaf requesting a few minutes with the lady of the House?"
We have no idea what percentage of Iraqis actually support such attacks, and judging from the legitimate questions raised about the reliability of the survey he cites, we doubt that Mr. Murtha does, either.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 23, 2007 10:43:02 AM new
Another issue is 'would Lieberman' ever really change parties????
I think he JUST might...if the liberals keep on with this nonsense.
And that would change the majority in the Senate.
======
[in part]
Lieberman acknowledges that at times he feels isolated, as a liberal on social policy and a conservative on defense.
He told Goldberg that he was reading "America Alone" by conservative Mark Steyn, who argues that Europe is being overwhelmed culturally and demographically by Islam.
"The thing I quote most from it is the power of demographics, in Europe particularly," Lieberman said. "But the other part is a kind of confirmation of what I know and what I've read elsewhere, which is that Islamist extremism has an ideology, and it's expansionist . . . We Americans will have ultimate responsibility for stopping this expansionism."
Those feelings are related to Lieberman's reasons for standing by the President on Iraq, he said.
"Why do I trust President Bush in spite of the mistakes that were made, consequential mistakes? Because having watched him, having talked to him, I believe that he understands the life-and-death struggle we are in with the most deadly and unconventional enemy, Islamic extremism."
"And he has shown himself, notwithstanding all these mistakes, willing to go forward with what he believes is right for the security of the country, regardless of what it has done to his popularity."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 23, 2007 10:48 AM ]
posted on February 23, 2007 12:02:27 PM newLOL....THAT wasn't the issue though, 'he who thinks Bush doesn't approve of this war' LOL LOL LOL It point was sybil was WRONG....they DID do 'something'.
Not really Linda. If those in Republican party are really anti-choice as mingo has said, they would have done something to OUTLAW ABORTION ALL TOGETHER. The partial-birth abortion ban only outlaws ONE TYPE OF abortion. The majority of abortions occur during the first trimester any. The passage of this bill was just for show. It still allows women to have all other kinds of abortions.
Since the partial birth abortion ban was deemed unconstitutional, the REPUBLICANS HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING - abortions of any kind are still legal and available to women.
You....well you believe President Bush doesn't approve of this war....so that says ALL that needs to be said about you
This coming from the person that says she believes the words of the Vietnamese over the soldiers that had actually served in the Vietnam War. Spoken like the true sockpupet she is, she would rather believe the enemy just because the some of the troops spoke out against the war. This once again shows how Linda supports are troops - just like her idol Ann Coulter.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 23, 2007 02:47:41 PM new
No, 'he who believes Bush doesn't approve of this war' lol
ALL it proves is that you can't comprehend what you read.....AND that you appear to believe that when congress passes a bill and the president signs it...that they THEN have control over what the upper courts do with it.
Hint....they don't.
But please, continue to show your total ignorance and inability to comprehend what is posted on these threads.
posted on February 23, 2007 03:19:37 PM new
Maybe LIAR_K should look at her own party for what she calls "baby killers".
Rudy Giuliani on Abortion
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” said Giuliani.
The front runner for President of the Republican Party has also been married 3 times.
Giuliani never told his second wife he had another woman and wanted a Divorce.
Mrs,Giuliani TWO found out about her upcoming Divorce in the newspapers.
How about John McCain,
This time John McCain has worked hard to woo the right. In 2000, he termed TV evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" for impugning his "pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative" credentials. But last year he delivered the graduation address at Falwell's Liberty University.
posted on February 23, 2007 05:00:23 PM newAND that you appear to believe that when congress passes a bill and the president signs it...that they THEN have control over what the upper courts do with it.
And the way you answered Mingo's post you made it seem like the bill was law.
Even if the law was in effect, it would not keep women from having abortions. It only limit one type of abortion. So how does that prove the Republicans stick up for their beliefs of being against abortions?
It is like Bush campaigning on passing a federal ban on gay marriage and then doing nothing to make it happen. It was all talk.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 23, 2007 05:24:21 PM new
"Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds."
"But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous."
AND they know that will do nothing except turn the voters against them.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 23, 2007 08:39:14 PM newSo...it IS law....it just can't be enforced UNTIL the courts make their decision on it's legality.
So as I said before, the Republicans created something useless since it is unconstitutional.
And as I said before, what has been presented, even if it is deemed constitutional, WILL NOT STOP ABORTIONS. They will still occur.
The only think that this law stops is late term abortions which are small in number to begin with.
So as Mingo has asked how does this law do anything to support the Republicans views on being against abortion? How does this law show the Republicans will stop abortions? It does not, all is does is show that they are against late term abortions. The Republicans have yet to pass any law showing they will prevent abortions from happening.
You did not provide any proof to the question that was originally asked.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
I just LOVE pointing out the LIES the liberals post especially when it's sybil who proves she's SO uninformed.
is no longer possible for the United States.