Have you seen he new Newsweek Magazine cover yet? Wow, this is interesting!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
I have been asked to "get something new" on the Blog so I thought this Magazine cover in the midst of the political fray was interesting to say the least, no to mention a "NEW" tack for that publication.
Prat tell is the newness worn off of the Obama regime so much that their ardent supporter Newsweek is leaving them?
Tom Ford
NO. 1045
posted by Crestwood Independent at 10:50
74 Comments:
I have never been unhappy with our current president, and Romney for me is NOT an option. Romney makes me sick and I would never, ever vote for him. Obama has done an acceptable job thus far in my opinion, so....there you go.
well, everyone has differing takes on everything. Here's an opposing take on your article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/paul-krugman-niall-ferguson-newsweek_n_1810136.html
Republican, Democrat, anymore it's all about party lines. No one cares about facts or truth, just who they can bluster at and find those who agree with them. Kind of sickening.
And yet another site on Obama and the democrats advertising.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-didnt-kill-her-obama-disowns-cancer-ad-in-surprise-visit-with-press/
Tom Ford
"Obama has done an acceptable job thus far in my opinion, so....there you go." To feel Obama is acceptable tells me you have very low or nonexistent standards.
Liberalism is a form of mental illness. Liberals are mostly people who think they're smarter than the rest of us, but are not as successful, and can't figure out why -- and that frustrates the hell out of them.
And yet a few more thoughts on the subject:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.
php?fbid=393359214052903&set=a.152219938166833.40496.
133279166727577&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf
Tom Ford
3:36 and 3:56 posters: how quickly we resort to name calling and insults. Nice, and very grown up. Your parents must be so proud.
Fine, then, tell me why I should vote for good ol' Mittens. All I have ever heard Republicans say is that they hate Obama, but never touting Romney. So, tout away. I will read every word.
5:19 PM Blogger: That's a very interesting take my friend. First of all you said "name calling," (I see none of that) and yet YOU used the term "Mittens."
Next we see YOU attempting to insult the posters by saying "your parents must be very proud."
And last but not least YOU apparently rail at the word liberal when in fact the progressive / liberals have named themselves (see Maxine Waters, ETAL.)
I guess you can explain to them why they should pay any attention to you?
Tom Ford
simply stating, in a very calm way, that I had no particular problem with Obama got me told I had low or non-existant standards, and an assumption was made and it was alluded to that I had some form of mental illness. Now, honestly, if that's not name calling and insults, I don't know what your standard for that is. And, if you'll read what I posted, I didn't ask anyone to listen to me, I asked to have it explained why I should vote for Romney. No one has still answered that. So I will ask again: what does Romney bring to the table that should make me want to vote for him?
5:58 AM Blogger: OK, here you go, read this and tell me why you would vote for obama (and this is but one reason.)
http://www.crainsdetroit.com
/article/20120820/STAFFBLOG10/120829998/hospital-systems-prepare-for-medicare-cuts-under-obamacare
Tom Ford
5:58 AM Blogger: here is another, it's called wasteful spending in my book.
(From the Culver second amendment site as posted.)
.First Lady Michelle Obama’s Servant List and Pay Scale
The First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants (that’s 22 attendants to be exact)
1. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special-2Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) (This is community organizing at it’s finest.)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Tom Ford
And while this is not pro or con Obama or Romney it will show you just how the two parties have become "media darlings" at some rather great expense.
http://www.usatoday.com/news
/politics/story/2012-08-20/
obama-campaign-spending-fundraising/57174798/1
Tom Ford
that's all very interesting information, though I disagree. but my question has not been answered. Why should I vote for Romney? Bashing Obama tells me nothing about the positives your candidate brings to the race. It was just as I stated before: I have yet to hear a Republican actually tout Romney...all I hear is bashing Obama. "I hate Obama" is tired and over-used, and it nicely side steps talking about Romney. So I ask again: why should I vote for Romney? What attributes does this man possess that should make me or anyone mark his name in the voting booth? Please, for my educational purposes, leave Obama out of it and tell me about your choice. I am not being difficult, I really want to know, because I cannot see one single thing that would make me vote for him.
"Republican actually tout Romney"
Listen closely.
MR will not require on the job training as Obama did for the job and still does.
MR knows the impact of taxes, while Obama BELIEVES THEY ARE TOO LOW.
MR Understands that what makes American is run is not the public sector but the PRIVATE SECTOR.
MR knows you built your business and will govern accordingly.
MR will not, as Commander in Chief, stand for a Russian sub to cruise the Gulf of Mexico undetected for 2 weeks like Obama's weaken Navy allowed.
MR will expand our domestic sources of energy to remove our reliance on foreign energy and by doing so will reduce unemployment as drilling, mining and pipeline work expands,(all in the PRIVATE SECTOR I MIGHT ADD) unlike Obama who has stopped major pipeline building for no damned good reason other that to boost the unemployment rate even higher.
MR will waste billions of tax dollars on "green energy" failures like the Volt, which is now known as the only electric lighter on four wheels.
MR will enforce the federal AND state laws regarding illegal immigration, unlike Obama who looks the other way as our border become seamless with Mexico and our few jobs are taken by illegals.
And to cut this short, I'll close by saying MR has already picked a V.P who unlike Obama's V.P. doesn't cause nightmares by the very thought that he is just a heart beat away from the Oval Office/Commander in Chief. That alone ought to be some clue as to why you should vote for Mitt Romney.
Someone else please, Ive got writers cramp.
MR will waste billions of tax dollars on "green energy"
MAKE THAT WILL NOT WASTE BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS"
7:48 AM Blogger: Well here is the BIO of Mitt Romney, now please contrast this with the BIO of Barack Obama.
I do believe Mitt's obvious experience will trump a less than one term Senator and prior community organizer.
http://www.usatoday.com/
news/politics/story/
2012-08-20/obama-campaign-
spending-fundraising/57174798/1
Tom Ford
It looks as though the gilt may be off the Lilly for Mr. Obama.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/
anti-obama-movie-beats-batman-bourne/article/2505405#.
UDOSPallSKu
Tom Ford
I admire your faith in Romney. Your assumptions of what he "will" do are very encouraging and my hat is off to you. When I look at and listen to him, I see a VERY different person. And Ryan, same thing. Glad you have faith in him, and I bow to your trust. I see absolutely NOTHING in either that would make me vote for them. Both of their records are appalling in my opinion. I have seen Romney called a "rino" on this very blog. How quickly opinions change...
Both of their records are appalling to you, so be honest with us and your self. The problem wasnt that you had never heard a republican explain why you should vote for MR, the reality is you are a liberal democrat living in denial with your mind closed to the fact that there has been no hope or changed as Obama promised.
Be honest, you may just like class warfare, higher taxes on the 50% of Anericans who pay federal taxes, as you are a part of the 50% who doesn't pay taxes. It's ok just be honest with us and yourself.
Do you still have faith in "your" Obama?
Tell us why we should vote for Obama since he has broken every promise he made to get elected and is not defending his record but attacking MR?
yes...no attacks coming from the Romney camp, right? He's just a poor innocent bystander being bullied. Riiight.
Alright, I will tell you what I see when I hear him talk. It has nothing to do with Obama. I am not as huge a supporter of him as you think I am. I said in my first post that I wasn't unhappy. That isn't huge praise. But there are several things he has done that I liked. Tune out of Fox News for a short while and see other news and you'll see that there are other viewpoints out there.
Romney is a pandering flip flopper and that scares me. He was for abortion rights before he was against. He was for the health care reform when HE was doing it, but against it now that the president installed it. He refuses to release his tax returns. Yes it is his choice, but I want to see where and how he got all that money. I also want an explanation about why he has all that money overseas. Income tax evasion enrages me and I will NOT take his word for it. I want to know why Ryan votes against women's issues at every chance. I want to know why Ryan wants birth control, abortion, and invitro fertilization outlawed. I do not wish to see women beaten back to 1910. I will not apologize for that. I do not want to see stem cell research outlawed. It has the potential to help millions of people and it is insane to outlaw it. I do not like the idea that both Ryan and Romney did not support the Ledbetter fair pay act. Back to the whole women problem. I do not like the calling for less and less regulation, but he would apparently install uterus police to patrol every pregnancy in the country. I resent the fact that Romney tried to take credit for the auto industry success and refused to give credit for getting Bin Laden. It made him look small and petty and childish and it turned me off. Grown people give credit where it's due. I could go on and on....
Please note I did not call you names, and I left Obama out of it. I addressed issues I have with Romney, nothing more.
Just realized I did not answer your question about Obama. I did not intend to disregard your question.
He has not broken every promise he made. In fact, he has kept approximately 200 promises he made. There are a few that stand out in my mind: Created the credit card rating system, established a credit card bill of rights, expanded the small business loan program, closed the donut hole in medicare prescription coverage, required insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, expanded veterans' centers in rural areas, expanded housing vouchers for homeless veterans,
funded the violence against women act, ended the war in Iraq, ended the use of torture,reformed No Child Left Behind, expanded Pell Grants for low income students, enacted the Matthew Shepard Act, repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, signed into law the Ledbetter Fair pay Act, reformed health care and health care laws, and he gave the order to kill Bin Laden.
There are some things he has done I didn't like. These are some of the things he has done that I do like. You asked, I answered.
Do you realize that almost every thing you listed increased the Federal Govt power to regulate us one way or another over us?
It's ok, you liberal big govt liberal, we understand. Is that calling you a name?
"install uterus police to patrol every pregnancy in the country".
Have you read the Affordable Health Care Act? You don't want uterus police, what until you read that abortion of a law.
"credit for the auto industry success' what success? GM owes me and other tax payers of which you may not be one, billions of dollars and unless they get another bailout they will be bankrupt by this time next year. The Obama bail out was just a UAW pension fund bailout.
Chrysler is now owned by Fiat and the UAW. Will see how long they last until they need some extra cash. BTW, ho about all those UAW workers in Fenton, guess they missed the bailout.
And our unemployment rate, Obama said 3 yrs ago if HE didn't have it under 7% by this time, he didn't deserve to be reelected.
Finally something I can agree with him about.
Obama counts it a success the more of us he has dependent on Food Stamps and other Federal handouts.
Nah, I don't think he is good for America, and I am going to do I legally can to ensure he doesn't get four more years in the peoples house.
well, maybe you could calmly explain to me how your side of the aisle calls for smaller government, but then wants to try to micro-manage everything from pregnancy and birth control to how and when we all see a doctor? Please explain to me your side of the aisle's intense push to meld religion into our government? Can you please explain to me why you would vote for the Romney budget plan that has no new revenue measures in it and will slash taxes by over 4 billion dollars over 10 years? And further that in his plan most of the taxes slashes are for the wealthy? Can you also explain to me how, when the stock market is higher than it has been in years, and companies are recording huge profits, that people don't seem better off, and how that in any way bolsters trickle down economics? Seems to me that those little nuggets tend to prove that trickle down doesn't work after all. What a shock. I have asked people I know these questions and I have not heard an intelligent answer. So far, all I have heard is "well....you're a LIBERAL!"(stomp the foot and look angry) Gosh, thanks, but that doesn't answer my questions or defend your candidate. So...as I expected, questions unanswered, Romney not defended, end of story. Thanks for taking the time to talk.
taxes slashes are for the wealthy
equals tax slashes for the 50% of us who pay taxes, which include the wealthy.
BTW ever hear of spending cuts?
Guess not.
May I suggest our good, big govt, increase taxes on those who already pay all the taxes, liberal friend, read this weeks issue of Newsweek before they go any further.
BTW, spending cuts are not enough...revenue has to be generated as well, especially to withstand billions in tax revenue lost. I also notice you addressed none of my other questions. I do, however, apperciate the give and take.
10:38 PM Blogger: I have but one simple question to ask of you. Could you please tell me why I should look favorably at Obama knowing the following facts.
1. Excessive unemployment (8+%)
2. $16.8 TRILLION in debt.
3. High tax increases for ?
4. More people on food stamps.
5. No budget in place (as required.)
Now can you given these undisputed facts please tell us what you see that is good in any of these things?
Please don't tell us that he inherited this from Bush, as he has had four years to change things (over 3 with a Democrat controlled House and Senate that was veto proof.)
As the president HE is the one responsible to the American people for the failed policies of his administration, and had he wanted it different HE could have changed his party's thinking to move it that way.
May we please have your thoughts on each of these points, and why you still would support him?
Tom Ford
"Have you read the Affordable Health Care Act? You don't want uterus police, what until you read that abortion of a law."
I am unable to understand exactly what you mean by this, so could you please clarify?
Obama's labor department (read Obama) spent $500,000.00 of the "stimulus fund" (provided by our tax money)to advertise Obama's reelection bid!
http://www.washingtontimes.
com/news/2012/aug/21/stimulus-funds-spent-obama-ads-olbermann-maddow/
I didn't OK that use, did you?
Tom Ford
I read your link and cannot find any reference to a re-election. The article was about 2009 "green" ads.
" billions in tax revenue lost."
LOST, its the fricking federal govt we are talking about, not some charity. Why should they not be forced to reduce spending when they have less money?
Do you realize that JFK CUT taxes to end a recession, which it did. That FDR INCREASED taxes which did not end the depression.
When ever taxes are cut, the Federal revenue increases! It is a historical fact.
Do you understand that over 50% of the the federal budget is for entitlements which the 50% of us who pay the taxes, foot the bill for?
And that percentage is growing every day as evidenced by the list provided of what Obama has done that someone call good.
Do you really think the Federal govt can spend it's way out of debt? You could take every penny the top 20% earners make or have in investments away by taxes and that still would not balance our budget much less reduce the debit.
Right now there are billions of dollars overseas placed there to avoid the highest corp tax rate in the world, our 35%. Can you imagine how much of that would come back if we just reduce that rate to the worlds average? Think of the investments that would be made by business, the private sector jobs that would create, the amount of tax dollars that all that would create, the billions of dollars that would no longer have to be spent on welfare, food stamps, Pell Grants, the billions of dollars that would be collected for S.S. and Medicare and Medicaid as people were able to work and provide for themsleves.
But instead you want to increase taxes!! Is it out of class envy, is it our of a sense of entitlement, it is out not understanding how capitalism works, is it because you worked for the Govt, not the private sector?
The federal govt doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. And now in America we have close to 50% of our population who live off what govt gives them instead of off what they earn by working.
S.W.Malter
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday(8/22/12) that letting decade-old tax Bush tax rates expire and sweeping spending cuts occur in January -- which will happen without congressional action -- "would lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession."
If that happened, the economy would contract by 0.5 percent -- a gloomier projection than the budget office made earlier this year when it envisioned slight growth under that scenario. Unemployment would rise to around 9 percent by late next year the analysts said.
Here you go, lets raise taxes and enjoy thinking about how the evil rich are getting theirs, while more of use become dependent on the govt.
Job security for public sector for sure.
to the 9:11 post, I can only try to toss out a few of my thoughts on all your topics.
The unemployment rate is too high. New jobs are being added all the time, but I agree, it is still too high. given the state of the economy, it seems about what to expect.
The debt, well, yes, too high also. There really isn't a defense of it other than to say that at the time the stimulus was passed it was generally thought of as a way to reverse or slow down a recession. Extending the Bush tax cuts, while maybe necessary, will cost the US about 850 billion in revenue, which is about what stimulus cost. Add to this the original '01 and '03 tax cuts were not offset by any new revenue or spending cuts, and there's a huge problem on the horizon. Has Obama handled it perfectly? No. Did he do this alone? No.
Food stamps, well, about 14% of the population currently uses them. The recession began about a year before Obama took office, and the number of recipients had begun to rise under Bush when they made that big effort to get eligible people to sign up. There was also a rule change then that expanded coverage. These policies were started by Bush and continued by Obama. The change in the rules at the time increased the number of recipients, and the numbers rose in 7 of the 8 years Bush was in office, or about 60%. Obama did not start the rise. Should he have done something differently? Maybe. Is he to blame solely? No.
Budget? Well, it's been sent and voted down. Welcome to Congress.
3 years with a Democrat controlled Congress at his disposal? Well, not really. Democrats gained the majority in Jan of '07, and Obama took office 1/'09. So, actually he had "control" for just under 2 years. And that's about when the insane filibusters began. Again, welcome to Congress. These are small, vindictive people who stated publicly that their only goal was to oust Obama. Sworn to uphold laws and do what's right for the citizens? Not so much. Congress is worthless.
So..there are my thoughts on all your topics. I do not believe Obama has handled everything properly and perfectly, which I have stated again and again. But no thinking person can expect the monsterous economy to turn around in 3 years, when it was years in the making. It's unrealistic and sophomoric to expect that, yet every Republican I have spoken to expected complete turn around in 18 months. Ridiculous.
Now, if someone would be so kind, please address my questions regarding Romney. I have asked, and gotten nothing back. I am no expert but I have stated what I thought on "my" candidate, so how about returning the favor?The questions are on the 6:53 Aug 21st post. Thanks in advance.
BUT the man you think should be reelected said himself that there weren't as many shovel ready jobs as he thought. This after wasting how billions of tax dollars that only 50% of us pay? How can you trust or beleive a thing he says?
12;36 PM Blogger: let's try it another way shell we?
He has not had 18 months but rather 43 months to DO SOMETHING ELSE, he as not.
Let's look at " sworn to uphold the laws." How does "fast and furious" (where he AND Holder subverted the laws) in order to get guns into Mexico for what reason, no one yet knows. If you don't like that one how about the New Black Panther party that Holder refused to investigate for voter intimidation?
Moving on to a budget, the House has sent three of them to the Senate only to die under the watchful eyes of who? That's right Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate.
Would Congress still be worthless if it was once again under the Democrat thumb? I doubt you would think so, right?
Pray tell where do you get the talking points that you have posted here as reasons to vote for your man? I wonder as I have never visited the daily kos, ETC.
The ship under Obama is floundering, it's time to relieve him of command before America sinks into an abyss that will take years to recover from, if ever.
Tom Ford
33Here you go 12:36, a second time!
Listen closely.
MR will not require on the job training as Obama did for the job and still does.
MR knows the impact of taxes, while Obama BELIEVES THEY ARE TOO LOW.
MR Understands that what makes American is run is not the public sector but the PRIVATE SECTOR.
MR knows you built your business and will govern accordingly.
MR will not, as Commander in Chief, stand for a Russian sub to cruise the Gulf of Mexico undetected for 2 weeks like Obama's weaken Navy allowed.
MR will expand our domestic sources of energy to remove our reliance on foreign energy and by doing so will reduce unemployment as drilling, mining and pipeline work expands,(all in the PRIVATE SECTOR I MIGHT ADD) unlike Obama who has stopped major pipeline building for no damned good reason other that to boost the unemployment rate even higher.
MR will waste billions of tax dollars on "green energy" failures like the Volt, which is now known as the only electric lighter on four wheels.
MR will enforce the federal AND state laws regarding illegal immigration, unlike Obama who looks the other way as our border become seamless with Mexico and our few jobs are taken by illegals.
And to cut this short, I'll close by saying MR has already picked a V.P who unlike Obama's V.P. doesn't cause nightmares by the very thought that he is just a heart beat away from the Oval Office/Commander in Chief. That alone ought to be some clue as to why you should vote for Mitt Romney.
This is good, cant wait until Obama disowns them for their radicalism.
Radical Islam Joins The DNC: 20,000 Muslims From Islamist Movement To Attend “Jumah At The DNC” Event…
12:36 PM Blogger: What's your take on this report from the NON PARTSIAN C.B.O. reference the course set by the Obama administration?
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com
/_news/2012/08/22/13414070-cbo-chief-warns-of-fiscal-cliff-and-potential-recession?lite
Do you think that this too is a good plan for America(allowing the tax increase and cuts as proposed in defence, ETAL?)
Tom Ford
you asked what I thought and I told you. why the attacks? And still no one has addressed all the questions I posted. So, I'll ask again. Please address the issues I stated about Romney and Ryan.
they are the 10:38 and 6:53 posts on the 21st. No one has addressed these specific concerns and I cannot imagine why. I answered your specific questions, and I cannot be responsible for the fact that you don't like the answers I gave you. Am I to assume you have no defense for these concerns?
and, just for clarification, to the 3:19 poster: are you actually under the impression that Romney, or any one else, is pre-prepared for being president? What on earth in Romney's background, or anyone's, prepares them for that awful, difficult, pressure-filled job? And tell me you're not referring to his tenure at Bain, because that's not even CLOSE. Buying and taking apart companies and selling off the parts for millions is pure profit bears no resemblance to running a country.
What on earth in Romney's background, or anyone's, prepares them for that awful, difficult, pressure-filled job?
MR has the same govt experience as Clinton and Carter did which in all 3 cases was a heck of lot more than Obama had. They were governors, they knew how to run an executive branch, they knew how to make a budget. Hows that for starters. Oh I know, community organizer is right up there with being Governor, isn't it?
4:04, do you realize how easy you are making this for me?
3:57 PM, August 22, 2012
You want answers to your questions?
Lets start with your first one. Killing of baby's while in their mothers womb.
Rev Jessie Jackson was pro life and then became pro abortion rights. He changed his mind. MR cant do the same thing? Or is just because you are pro abortion and are opposed to anyone who isn't the same?
There's your first answer, but now you have to answer mine.
Are for or against the right to kill a baby while it is still in it's mother womb? If for, then why does it have to be done before the human baby leaves it's mothers womb, why not right after, whats the difference in your mind?
I don't like Obama or McCaskill, (They're both too far right for my liking) and I'd intended to vote Green Party, but the Dems will get my vote as the lesser of two evils just to keep Republicans and the Koch Brothers in check.
MR was for the health care reform when MR was doing it.
Answer: Do you understand the concept of the United STATES of America? It is a federation of 50 different states or countries whose internal laws and needs will be different that the others states. The states are allowed to address them as they want within their borders. Hence at one time you could have different drinking ages in states as an example. If MR wanted to do State wide health care in MA, it only effect those in that state. If you didn't like the outcome, you can move out of MA.. Just as if you want that type of health care you cam move to MA. That is called FREEDOM!
Under Obamacare, if I don't like it I have not choice, that is called slavery.
Why are you making this so easy for me, 3:57 PM, August 22, 2012
"RM refuses to release his tax returns".
So what, Obama refuses to reduce his school records but makes all kinds of claims about his education. Clinton refused to release his physical exam records, so what? If MR was a tax cheat like Obama's boy Grinter was (our Secy of the Treasury), I'm sure the IRS would have let that be known by now.
come on poster 4:04, I've answered 3 of your questions and you haven't answered my only one.
Here let me repeat it for you if you were busy checking out the Huffington Post.
"Are for or against the right to kill a baby while it is still in it's mother womb?"
Simple yes or no will do, put up or shut up.
5:13 poster, you are one hostile person. If you must know the truth I was at the hospital visiting an ill relative.
I am not pro abortion. I am pro choice. There's a huge difference, and if you choose not see that it's your problem. So...if most or all forms of birth control are banned, and abortion is banned...what then? The foster system is clogged, tens of thousands of unwanted children already wards of the state, are you going to adopt them all? Give Brad and Angie a call and see if they are done collecting children? What is your solution to unwanted pregnancies?
And yes, i agree with your statement about it being easy for you. I have just realized how many things probably ARE easy for you. No, that was not a compliment. I need to return to the hospital later, so I will sign off. I have absolute faith your anger can be managed through someone else.
"5:13 poster, you are one hostile person." Really, well since my magic mirror wasn't working how was I to know where you were. You seemed pretty much in a hurry to get some answers, earlier, now you got them and you don't like what I said?
I don't ask if you were pro choice or pro life, so don't dodge my question.
".if most or all forms of birth control are banned, and abortion is banned...what then?" You are one honest liberal, you look at abortion as a form of birth control.
That's sick.
Here's my question which you have not answered and I guess my asking it is what makes me hostile.
"Are for or against the right to kill a human baby while it is still in it's mother womb?"
If so is it then ok to kill the baby right out of the womb? If so, how long our of the womb, 5 minutes, 1 hour? Why not, whats the difference in or out of the womb?
You can try to hide behind the nice clean term of "pro-choice" but the reality is, that is what an abortion does, it kills a human baby while still in its mothers womb. Do you think that is alright?
By the way, hope who ever you are visiting in the hospital gets well soon. While you are there, why don't you go by the maternity ward and take a look at the newborns, before you answer my question.
Hostile Poster.
hostile poster:
your judgmental rants were interesting but are now getting old. I told you how I feel. I loathe abortion and wish women were never in a position to feel it's the only option. Not once did I say I see it as a form of birth control, and the fact that you saw that right away perhaps means the sickness is with you, not me. I mentioned the 2 things as separate items. I believe that a woman can become desperate and can be willing to kill herself to get un-pregnant. I also note you did not offer a solution for the thousands of unwanted children...so do we care about the children only until they're born? I knew a woman once who was date raped and ended up pregnant had an abortion at 6 weeks along. It haunts her to this day. So does the rape. another girl I knew was 14 when she got pregnant and had an abortion. She too is haunted by it. I choose not to stand in judgement of others and these awful choices. Being pregnant is a personal, private matter dealt with a woman and her doctor. I have no business in that, and neither do you, and certainly neither does the government. I do not see myself as so superior that I am able to stand and judge others about anything, especially an unwanted pregnancy. I am now done with this conversation. I have a very close relative who is quite ill and I have no further time for this. I will wish you luck and hope things work out the way you want so you can be a happy, fulfilled person. I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep fighting with you or anyone else. I thank you for your time.
"So...if most or all forms of birth control are banned, and abortion is banned...what then?"
Direct quote from poster
6:31 PM, August 22, 2012
'Not once did I say I see it as a form of birth control"
Direct quote from poster
8:48 PM, August 22, 2012
IF YOU ARE THE SAME POSTER, IN THE WORDS OF RICKY RICARDO, 'you got some splaining to do".
"I do not see myself as so superior that I am able to stand and judge others about anything." Really?
You judged me as hostile cause I answered your questions, and you have never answered mine. You judged MR as a flip flopper but didn't judge Rev Jackson the same way. You judged that MR makes you sick, and that Obama has done an acceptable job so far, you judged that nothing presented in support of MR has changed your mind about voting for him, you judged that I am fan of FOX News without even know me, you judged that MR was not prepared for the White House, while ignoring the fact he has the credentials as Clinton and Carter.
But the largest judgment you have made is with your pro abortion position. You have as judge, supported the murder of the innocent while still in their mothers womb, the human who committed no crime other than being conceived, has not had been afforded a trial, has not faced their accusers, has has no defense attorney, whose life is judged as being unwanted.
I guess pointing this out makes me
the Very Hostile Poster. Now, how was your trip by the maternity ward, see any unwanted, humans there? Are are you not willing to make that judgement call?
Very Hostile Poster (VHP)
Well maybe we should all turn to the Holy Bible for guidance, If I may quote a passage from same.
""The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left"...Ecclesiastes 10:2"
I didn't make it up folks.
Tom Ford
I have been reading this from time to time, and I gotta weigh in. To the very hostile poster, I have ask: why so angry? I want to state up front that I go to church pro life, I vote pro life, and I live pro life. I work in a field that allows me to remain pro life. I want to address a pattern I have noticed, then I will shut up. First I will say the poster you were berating brought up some valid points that you became very angry over. As the "side" that wants to make abortion not an option, I understand your feelings. However, I want to make a note that standing up screaming and berating those who disagree gets you no where. It makes the other person angry, and they tune out and chalk you up as some right wing crazy. Calm, rational discussion is always the best choice, I have found, when dealing with those on the opposite side of an arguement. Oddly, from out here reading, that poster was far more rational than you appeared to be.(example: how did Rev Jackson get into the discussion?)
The valid point that poster made was a look at our current state and federal system. (that's the area I work within). The system, as it stands now, is woefully underperpared to handle a major influx of babaies and children. If abortion is no longer an option, there will be a major influx. There simply isn't anywhere to put more children, and there are no extra resources to pay for it all. You disregarded and never even addressed that concern, and it is a huge consideration. We ask that abortion be made illegal, yet offer no relief or solutions for the enormous problems that will create for an already overburdened system. This is, I think, why that poster asked if you care about children only until they are born. I have heard this many times in this arguement, and though I hate it, I can see where that might be what some people could think. I am a proponent of intense counseling and expanded avenues for women who are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I would never beat these people over the head with my beliefs. They are usually frightened and really feel this is their only option. Standing in front of a newly pregnant woman screaming at her is counterproductive and does nothing to further the cause.
Please take my thoughts with a grain of salt, they are only my feelings and my experiences. But experinece in this area tells me the yelling, accusing and ugliness will never ever find a solution or change anyone's mind. You had a willing participant in a discussion where the poster already said he/she hated abortion. You could have made huge progress for this cause, but chose instead to yell, accuse and scream. This is disappointing to me because it feeds into the stereotype of this cause. We are not all lunatics willing to gun down doctors and blow up clinics, and ranting like this only serves to further that stereotype.And, as an aside, while I intend to vote for Mitt Romney, I am not as thrilled with him as you are. I dislike what that poster called his "flip flopping" too. His position changes too often. I also suspect that he is now pro life not because he deeply believes it, but because it was politically advantageous to say that. Just my opinion. And I don't care for the "no exceptions" abortion ban. I am opposed to abortion, but there are instances where it is tragically necessary, to save the mother's life, or in cases of rape and incest. I would never agree with a platform that forced a woman to carry a rapist's baby. This is where I differ with my Party. I think in those cases that a morning after pill is perfereable because it does not allow a pregnancy to take place at all, which is much better than ending a a pregnancy that has begun.
I am curious.. of the millions of abortions that have been performed over the last 20 years how many were to save the life of the mother/incest victims/rape victims?.
This statement is always used to justify the killing of many ..to save the few.
Please honestly ask yourself if this same treatment would be given to Mrs. Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
08/23/us/politics/limited-convention-coverage-will-
leave-ann-romney-off-air.html
?_r=1&hp
Do we indeed have a double standard, or is this just another case of 'network' bias?
Tom Ford
8:02 AM Blogger: I don't know the answer on that one, but I do have another question to pose with it.
In a case of homicide (negligent or not,) where the victim is pregnant the perpetrator can be charged with two murders.
That being the case, why is it not prosecuted as a homicide when a fetus is aborted, is it not the same more or less?
Tom Ford
my guess is, without looking up numbers, very few. That is one of the reasons I am able to justify it in my heart and soul. I know it doesn't happen often, and the circumstances surrounding those cases make for different needs and outcomes.
8:19 AM Blogger: OK, I get it, but can you justify in you heart and soul the murder of a fetus for no other reason than the "host" (these would not be mothers by any stretch of the imagination) dosen't want it?
Personally, I can't, and I pray I never will be able to justify abortion as "an after" pill or any other reason other than the immediate health of the Mother, or in non consensual situations such as forcible rape.
Tom Ford
the life of the mother and rape is exactly what I was referring to. Those are the few situations where I can justify the action.
9:41 AM Blogger: Very well, can we then say that you are against any form of abortion other than what you stated above?
Tom Ford
I believe so. That is what I have indicated. Was I unlcear? I did not mean to be if I was. In my first post I tried to make a few points, so I may have muddled some of it. Apologies.
MR flip flopped on abortion, this upset poster, I asked if thee upset when Jackson flipped his position.
If asking some one if they are ok with the killing of a baby seems hostile, how do you think the baby views the abortion? The pro abortion poster asked if anyone could give them reasons to vote forMR vs voting against Obama. I provided same, and answered the posters questions about MR position on abortion. That seemed to be the posters largest concern. My question was an attempt to pull away the false front used by words as choice, judge, rights,not address what really happens in an abortion.
The pro abortion crowd do not want the focus to be on the innocent child, they want it to be on rights. Fact is the abortion industry is a billon dollar a year business, and will continue to be until the focus is returned to the results of the abortion. A dead human baby.
Sorry if that offends,, but it is the truth of what happens. Deal with abortion on that level and rights seem less important.
VHP
This worry about an overwhelming birth rate if abortion is prevented. How uninformed people are to swallow that tripe.
The US birth is is at its lowest since 2008. There are fewer people each year entering the job market due to our population no longer growing. One result of this trend is there are fewer young people working and paying into S.S. and Medicare. Seniors are living longer, yet the base from which the money needed to support these types of programs is not keeping up. Is that all due to abortion?
I don't know, but I do know the we are not over populated. Look at your average public school class size. It it getting larger or smaller? Have you noticed that private college like SLU are having a tuff time growing their student body size. They now have empty class rooms and half filled lecture halls..
To worry at this time that ending abortions will increase our population to an safe level exposes the often used slogan that people want abortions safe and rare and ony in the case of this or that. The truth is abortion is now an excepted form of birth control, as disgusting as that may seem.
If all if what I posted seems harsh, it's because we have become used to thinking of abortion in the terms presented to us Planned Parenthood, NOW, and NARAL. We have become desensitized.
When adoption are said to not be a solution to unwanted babies, I challenge you to call Bethany Christan Services and ask if they are over whelmed with kids who can't find parents., find out for your self.
I was referring to the foster system and state run group homes. You are clearly far more educated and informed on the subject than I, so I will leave you as the authority.
10:13 AM Blogger: Good for you, I do believe your on the side of those who know the real truth.
I congratulate you, and by the way, you didn't obfuscate anything, I just wanted to make sure I was not speaking for you.
Tom Ford
Thank You. I use to be a foster parent for Bethany. Cared for many new born, for months while their adoptive parents got the paper work lined up..Some had waited for YEARS for that baby. There is a waiting list of parents waiting today. The expression on their faces when I gave them their baby for the first time, that they already loved and had waited for was worth every sleepless nite I had caring for that baby as it went through drug addiction withdrawals its mom have given it by being a drug user.Then there were the STD's that I had to be careful as as we had young children of our own.
I am not sorry for my position on life. I never got into the face of a mother and yelled at her to keep her baby. I was the person who was there if she allowed her baby to live, to put my money were my mouth was, to walk the talk.
This is why all the excuses made for abortion seem so shallow to me.
It doesn't have to happen. People no longer want to be responsible for their actions, and abortion is just one example.
Enough.
to the 4:56 poster, I respect and value your efforts on the part of homeless infants. As a member of society at large, I can say that your work is necessary and self-less. I do hope, though, that you are not as rigid in the belief that only you have a valid viewpoint as it appears. I will state, before I take my leave, that there are no waiting lists for 10 year old children of color with emotional and behavior disturbances. These children white, black, hispanic, asian... are all in "the system". Those are the children I referred to, and those are the children no one wanted and no one still wants. They are bounced from foster home to foster home, group home to group home. They trust no one, and many are emotionally so damaged even intense counseling yields only moderate results.
I fully accept that you know all there is to know about unwanted babies, but I was making the point that those babies grow up and many thousands become wards of the state. Their lives are one step above miserable. There are, as I said, no waiting lists for those children. I know this because they are where I work. And now I thank you for your time and efforts and leave this discussion in your more than capable hands.
many thousands become wards of the state
Site your sources please.
Or maybe the solution is to really late term abort them?
400,00-500,000 as of 2011. No one said anything about late term abortions.
that was supposed to read 400,000-500,000, my mistake. I must have fat fingers.
that there are no waiting lists for 10 year old children of color with emotional and behavior disturbances. These children white, black, hispanic, asian... are all in "the system". Those are the children I referred to, and those are the children no one wanted and no one still wants"
maybe we should "late term abort" them
to reduce this problem?
To our "late term abortion" friends, I have an idea that might well solve all these problems.
What say we consider "late term abortions" retroactive to those who would actively seek and champion this wanton murder?
Folks, it's a human baby, a human being who just might discover the cure for ?
What if we had "terminated" the pregnancy's of the mothers of Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, or (pick someone you know.)
Stage one in my mind is to call it what it it really is, murder for the sake of convenience in most cases and forget the "artsy craftsy" slogans.
Think of it this way, what if it was YOU that was next in line to be "aborted?" Would you still in favor of it?
Tom Ford
I agree with you Mr. Ford. I am trying, for most of my adult life, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I feel like that's the only intelligent way to effectively end abortion. It is frustrating to deal with lawmakers who want to ban birth control and abortion. I want abortion to be illegal, but to do that somehow unwanted pregnancies must dealt with first. I think that is the biggest challenge. This mentality that women casually get abortions as a form of regular birth control has never been something I have witnessed. I have only known women to be devastated by the decision.
It is frustrating to deal with lawmakers who want to ban birth control and abortion.
Please name these lawmakers what want what you say, and include the birth control they wish to ban.
Post a Comment
<< Home