Bush is a hero

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#154642 Nov 15, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike obama and the left who have no moral compass, those having values may find that those values can sometimes cost one votes. The killing of innocent, viable babies, in or outside the womb will never be acceptable to conservatives... whether it cost votes or not.
Allowing illegal immigrants to flood accross our borders, taking American jobs and resources will never be acceptable to conservatives... whether it cost votes or not.
Spending ourselves into bankruptcy will never be acceptable to conservatives... whether it cost votes or not.
OK, but hopefully you will understand that these positions will result in the Republican party becoming more and more irrelevant.
The majority have other views, and this will continue to be reflected in the ballot box.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#154643 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>There was someone on here went by the name Anonymous. She was from Canada and she was lamenting that in Europe they had so many holidays and such a laid back life she wondered why it couldn't be like that here. Noone could tell her that a productive country "works" and that alot of people take pleasure in that work.
Not that a lot of people didn't try :) She simply wouldn't listen.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#154644 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>The problem is that none of the liberals here will answer our questions, not even to defend Obama. They learned that from Clinton then Obama (ignore it and it will go away OR pretend they asked a different question) I'd like to find just one liberal I can respect. It used to be Willie but he's disappeared. Don't get me wrong I got mad at him but at least he tried to answer questions.
I haven't seen a question go unanswered, they're just not the answers you've pre-concluded from your list of speculations.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154645 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You (and others) absolutely refuse to believe that what Bobin (and others) is talking about is NOT reversing Roe v Wade. We want sane limits on abortion. Is that really too much to ask, that they not be partial birth, let the baby die once it's born etc. and that we don't want millions in federal dollars we don't have to go to pay for them? I think it is called compromise, I thought that is what Obama wanted.
There are already an enormous number of limits on this medical procedure. Congresses across the nation spent more time on it than any other subject, when crafting legislation last session. That (others) keep talking about 'smaller less intrusive government' and 'personal responsibility' except in this one particular case, wherein one half of the population is expected to take 'full responsibility' for pregnancy, and is continually threatened with losing access to contraception, is venal.
I don't wish to argue that federal dollars will not subsidize contraception for anyone who will use it, male and female alike; under the current legislation, it will. What I do argue, is that providing contraception to those who need it is more cost effective than further restricting abortion. The resultant lawsuits, and the subsequent cost of taking over for parents who didn't want to be parents in the first place, will be more expensive for the state than allowing people to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Because we're not just talking about money here, Lis. We're also talking about the life these kids are born to. The emotional toll of raising children should not be forced upon anyone - some people just aren't up to it. Why not prevent the need for abortion, by funding contraceptive access, and paying more attention to facilitating adoption, rather than setting fire to millions of taxpayer dollars (and psyches) by attempting to make this terribly difficult decision even harder?

This is just my opinion. I know we don't agree that abortion is restricted enough, and we probably never will.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#154646 Nov 15, 2012
KarlVIII wrote:
Make that EX-candidate
Mark my words in 2016 the republicans will be hiding Romney in some closet somewhere like Bush W was in 2012.....HA
Republicans the party of FAILURE......HA
First, immediately after the election, I asked Boehner, McConnell, and Santorem to urge the Republican Party to step down to allow the Dems to rule the US under a 1-party system. Yes it was just symbolic, sweetcheeks. Duuuuuuh!

But I want the Dems in charge so that the US population, especially the misguided Obama enablers, will have NO one else to blame when things go terribly WRONG, and Obamabots like you will finally wake up and see the horrific blunder you've made.(BTW stay tuned on that).

Second, in your zealous GUSHING right after the election, you clearly stated that your "work" was done in here. Several of us have already pointed that out. Yet you continue to preach your sermons anyway.

So you were either underestimating the truth(lying) when you blurted out your "work" was done, or you have nearly ZERO credibility now.

Doesn't really matter all that much, one way or the other, as long as you stay short-leashed. The only posters that care about your misguided preachings, are the few other Obama choir members here.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#154647 Nov 15, 2012
KarlVIII wrote:
Make that EX-candidate
Mark my words in 2016 the republicans will be hiding Romney in some closet somewhere like Bush W was in 2012.....HA
Republicans the party of FAILURE......HA
Oh yeah, "marking your words" was the first thing I did when I spotted this msg.

As for the rest, I guess you were preaching somewhere else when Romney declared he has no further interest in running for POTUS.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154648 Nov 15, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, but hopefully you will understand that these positions will result in the Republican party becoming more and more irrelevant.
The majority have other views, and this will continue to be reflected in the ballot box.
Then why do more states, including blue states have Republican governors? I guess you think that federal gov't trumps state and local gov't all of the time. Oops I guess we should be called America instead of the USA.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154649 Nov 15, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>There are already an enormous number of limits on this medical procedure. Congresses across the nation spent more time on it than any other subject, when crafting legislation last session. That (others) keep talking about 'smaller less intrusive government' and 'personal responsibility' except in this one particular case, wherein one half of the population is expected to take 'full responsibility' for pregnancy, and is continually threatened with losing access to contraception, is venal.
I don't wish to argue that federal dollars will not subsidize contraception for anyone who will use it, male and female alike; under the current legislation, it will. What I do argue, is that providing contraception to those who need it is more cost effective than further restricting abortion. The resultant lawsuits, and the subsequent cost of taking over for parents who didn't want to be parents in the first place, will be more expensive for the state than allowing people to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
Because we're not just talking about money here, Lis. We're also talking about the life these kids are born to. The emotional toll of raising children should not be forced upon anyone - some people just aren't up to it. Why not prevent the need for abortion, by funding contraceptive access, and paying more attention to facilitating adoption, rather than setting fire to millions of taxpayer dollars (and psyches) by attempting to make this terribly difficult decision even harder?
This is just my opinion. I know we don't agree that abortion is restricted enough, and we probably never will.
People in this country don't eat right, and people die because of it. Should we fund a food program for everyone so they eat their vegetables?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#154650 Nov 15, 2012
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time I was in Ca. was when our king took his place in Jan 09. I lost my job in March of that year. I worked from San Diego to about 150 miles south of San Fran and just about every account I went to in each town had a huge homeless problem. I thought we had it bad here! In fact I remember seeing entire stip malls that were closed and the only thing you saw were day workers that would chase my truck in hopes I could give them a cash job for the day. So whats it like today?
There have been "for sale" and "for lease" signs on at least 50% of the commercial buildings here for the last 4-5 years. There are very few job openings, housing construction has mostly shut down, and about the only major construction is city, county and state workers
rebuilding highways, etc., and causing traffic delays.

Much the same in LA. The freeways are packed bumper to bumper, as more and more people add to the congestion, with little hope of relief
by way of adding lanes, or rerouting traffic on alternate freeways.

I believe soon, toll roads will be imposed by Sacramento from SD to LA, and up in the bay area, in order to collect enough funds just for the current maintenance alone.

You say 150 miles south of SF. That puts you in the Paso Robles area? Did you ever get over (or thru) here?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154651 Nov 15, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>I haven't seen a question go unanswered, they're just not the answers you've pre-concluded from your list of speculations.
You've answered nothing Hip so to make it easy on you I'll break it down and ask one question at a time. As a woman's rights advocate where was your outrage when Sarah Palin was called a c...?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#154652 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Then why do more states, including blue states have Republican governors? I guess you think that federal gov't trumps state and local gov't all of the time. Oops I guess we should be called America instead of the USA.
Did you miss the landslide election? Do you not realize what just happened?

Are you going to bury your head in the sand by finding some
ray of hope in governorships?

Is this all you've got?

Fine with me! We'll carry on without you.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#154653 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>People in this country don't eat right, and people die because of it. Should we fund a food program for everyone so they eat their vegetables?
Hey, this sort of platform may get you more votes than the Romney-Ryan one.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#154654 Nov 15, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bad at all.
We're all out in the streets singing Randy Newman's "I love L.A."
The sun is shining, the beaches are beautiful, and it's a laid-back place.
OMG you are fulla crapola! He was talking about things like the economy, not freakin' tourist attractions.

Yer LIBERAL "tax & spend" leadership up in the Sac, have managed to bring CA right to the edge of an abyss. Several CA cities have ALREADY declared bancruptcy.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154655 Nov 15, 2012

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154656 Nov 15, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the landslide election? Do you not realize what just happened?
Are you going to bury your head in the sand by finding some
ray of hope in governorships?
Is this all you've got?
Fine with me! We'll carry on without you.
Well let's see those governorships are producing jobs and making the state a black state in other words no debt. You're a fool Catcher. But a happy fool. I'm glad for you. You'll have a couple good years.
( btw Jerry Brown is a bigger fool than you are. I know him from his early years)

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154657 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>People in this country don't eat right, and people die because of it. Should we fund a food program for everyone so they eat their vegetables?
We do - SNAP pays for vegetables. Some "smaller government" advocates, are very much in favor of letting the government decide if vegetables should be purchased exclusive of anything else.

And thanks for changing the subject.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#154658 Nov 15, 2012
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
In the late 70s I drilled for oil off the Santa Barbara coast. A beautiful, well managed city. Or it used to be, haven't been there for a while.
Very little has changed in CA's scenic beauty LIT. But as everywhere
else coast to coast, it's the jobs and the economy causing tremendous
hardships here.

The LA lawyer's comments are NOT based on reality here on earth.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#154659 Nov 15, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>We do - SNAP pays for vegetables. Some "smaller government" advocates, are very much in favor of letting the government decide if vegetables should be purchased exclusive of anything else.
And thanks for changing the subject.
Not a subject change. Just a comparison. People are not stupid and if they are they are allowed to be in a free country.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154660 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
Prince of a guy. Wonder if he realizes other owners of Denny's franchises may lose business (to boycotters who decline to further patronize Denny's) whether they impose such trickle-down tactics on their customers and staff or not?

Probably.
What a patriot.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#154661 Nov 15, 2012
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You've answered nothing Hip so to make it easy on you I'll break it down and ask one question at a time. As a woman's rights advocate where was your outrage when Sarah Palin was called a c...?
Despicable. Does that really need to be said? I'll lay dollars to donuts you "missed" that he was soundly criticized by right and left equally. But am I "outraged" by the crap spewed by a shock comedian known for outrageous statements? Should we get "outraged" every time a comedian shoots off his mouth? My "outrage" account is more valuable than that. What is a shock comedian's bread and butter? Answer: Reaction, which brings notoriety, which translates to money in the bank. The best weapon is to ignore. Why should we feed his ego and bank account? Shock comedians go there because they don't have any actual material. I'm not going to feed him, but your "outrage" does.

Do you think it harmed her professionally? Heck, it probably resulted in more book sales and donations to her PAC. Surely you've heard the old show-biz adage, "No such thing as bad press". Palin is (was) all about show-biz.

Don't even give him the benefit of naming him, but still - to present this fringe comedian as representative of "liberals" is just more feed for his ego. Use your head. Be a little more discriminating with your "outrage" quota.

Unless of course it feeds a need.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Aura Mytha 30,956
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Aerobatty 987,299
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Robert F 687,246
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 12 min RADEKT 286,555
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 3 hr Halle Berry Sister 4,315
8.1 Earthquake Off the Coast of Mexico 4 hr Concerned 3
skype usernames for dirty skyping;) and usernam... (Aug '14) 8 hr Jack Pitan 9
More from around the web