Bush is a hero

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#163752 Jun 25, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) takes the cake. He petitioned against any military expansion on Guam due to the 'fact' that......... It's a pretty small island, and our expansion could cause it to tip over and capsize.
Your tax dollars, and government, at work.
There it is. Of course he claims he was joking - if so, his delivery needs some serious work.

I guess I'd rather see them make stupid comments about geography than a subject like pregnancy after rape, tho'....
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163753 Jun 25, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
“If a woman is raped… We have hospital emergency rooms,” Texas State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R) insisted.“We have funded what’s called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out. And then hopefully that will alleviate that.”
That was an award winning ignorant-moronic-statement. No argument here.
==

Joe Salazar (D) made one which ties him for first place in my view and in the view of alot of other women. When involving himself in the debate on whether or not permits for concealed guns for women on college campuses should be allowed, big Joe took a turn at the bat with this comment:

"It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody."

"Women won't know who they're shooting at?" Joe opined he was fearful women may shoot first and ask questions later because... why? Does he view women as hysterical, unable to tell when they are in danger? Not adroit enough to handle a boys toy? Do womens "feelings" get in the way of sound judgement? Maybe Joe thinks they shouldn't be at college in the first place. Joe sounds like the kind of lugnut who when spoken to by a woman in a way that doesn't please him, asks her if she's having her period.

Being pro choice I agree women should have autonomy over their body but when a party states a woman should be allowed to have an abortion but not carry a gun to protect herself, sorry but that just seems a little screwy to me.

I'd like to tell Joe something about women. Women are the undisputed experts at being on the receiving end of domestic violence. Their wishes to prevent it by evening up the odds should be met. Women are the undisputed experts on being raped. Their wishes to prevent it by evening up the odds should be met. The 2nd leading cause of death for pregnant women in this country is homicide by the man who fathered the child. I guess when those women blew their whistles, no one heard them, I guess they should have stayed in a "safe zone." I guess they should have run faster to a call box......maybe if they didn't run like a girl they woulda made it.

Liberals are in favor of a poor woman living in Harlem going to an abortion clinic to excercise her right over bodily autonomy. They are not in favor of her being able to protect herself to get there.

...and the wheel of stupid goes round and round.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163754 Jun 25, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
Who is waging the "real" war on women?
What's the difference between Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Philly's out-of-the-womb abortion specialist, and barack obama, who voted twice to condone such proedures?
Why is obama embarrassing us by negotiating with, and thereby legitimizing, the taliban? The taliban, that has absolutely no need to negotiate or compromise... they know barry has the American troops leaving Afghanistan in July 2014. The taliban, who didn't allow girls to attend school, and are still killing the teachers and female students even today. The taliban, who would not allow women to work, drive or even leave their homes without a male relative escort. The taliban, who continue to attack and kill our soldiers, even as the obama administration is bestowing legitimacy on them.
Why does the obama White House pay their female staff so much less than the male staff?
Why have women lost such a high percentage of the jobs lost under the obama administration.
Why is the obama administration seeing such a large increase of women and chidren in poverty?
Who is really waging the "war on women"?
I wish someone would explain the Clintons to me.
Bill, the darling of the democrat party treated Hillary like a cheap doormat for decades with emotional abuse and by publically and repeatedly humiliating her with his extracurricular activites......and by sticking around, her message to women the world over, was to just grin and bear it.

How those two got to be the annointed power couple for representing and empowering women, is beyond me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#163755 Jun 25, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish someone would explain the Clintons to me.
Bill, the darling of the democrat party treated Hillary like a cheap doormat for decades with emotional abuse and by publically and repeatedly humiliating her with his extracurricular activites......and by sticking around, her message to women the world over, was to just grin and bear it.
How those two got to be the annointed power couple for representing and empowering women, is beyond me.
Hypocrisy? A real time example of celebrating a diverse lifestyle? Tolerance?
I lean towards hypocrisy.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163756 Jun 25, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text> The last one, Equador they said they tend to prosecute the journalists that don't agree with the government. Hmm. JUST LIKE THE UNITED STATES!
Your post promted me to wonder two things. Why didn't Snowden take his concerns to someone elsewhere on the governmental chain or why didn't he take his story and concerns to an American journalist?

If the answers to those questions were he couldn't go to anyone in the government because no one in the government in his view can be trusted and he couldn't go to for example the NY Times with the story because he knew the NY Times would have distorted it unmercifully because the tale paints liberalism and this administration poorly, that is something to note. It's no secret that their first allegiance is to liberalism but how far will they go to protect it? They might have tweaked it and buried it on page 9 and/or simply not printed any of it and just notified the White House they had a problem on their hands. He couldn't go to FOX because look at what Holder at the DOJ tried to do to Rosen. He couldn't go to the Associated Press for similar reasons.

There was a time in this country when all else failed, a citizen could take their issue to the news media and gain support and expect a reasonable opportunity to have their story heard in the manner in which they intended it to be heard. It occurs to me that the news media in the US may now be the 4th branch of government under Obama and it represents liberalism at all costs. The US government may now be so decayed & corrupt he felt he had no choice but to take it to the Guardian in the UK.

If that is all true or even if there is only some truth to it, I don't think it's a stretch to say we have a bigger problem in this country than I thought. Regardless of party affiliation this story should make everyone want to look alot more closely at Washington.
miner49er

Lerona, WV

#163757 Jun 25, 2013
Lyndi, you said "Women won't know who they're shooting at?" Joe opined he was fearful women may shoot first and ask questions later because... why" but I didn't see him use the word "women" in the text you quoted.
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163758 Jun 25, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post promted me to wonder two things. Why didn't Snowden take his concerns to someone elsewhere on the governmental chain or why didn't he take his story and concerns to an American journalist?
If the answers to those questions were he couldn't go to anyone in the government because no one in the government in his view can be trusted and he couldn't go to for example the NY Times with the story because he knew the NY Times would have distorted it unmercifully because the tale paints liberalism and this administration poorly, that is something to note. It's no secret that their first allegiance is to liberalism but how far will they go to protect it? They might have tweaked it and buried it on page 9 and/or simply not printed any of it and just notified the White House they had a problem on their hands. He couldn't go to FOX because look at what Holder at the DOJ tried to do to Rosen. He couldn't go to the Associated Press for similar reasons.
There was a time in this country when all else failed, a citizen could take their issue to the news media and gain support and expect a reasonable opportunity to have their story heard in the manner in which they intended it to be heard. It occurs to me that the news media in the US may now be the 4th branch of government under Obama and it represents liberalism at all costs. The US government may now be so decayed & corrupt he felt he had no choice but to take it to the Guardian in the UK.
If that is all true or even if there is only some truth to it, I don't think it's a stretch to say we have a bigger problem in this country than I thought. Regardless of party affiliation this story should make everyone want to look alot more closely at Washington.
Give me just a sec to don my tinfoil hat, but the timing of this makes me wonder. Obama was enmeshed in so many scandals. Snowden just started working for the contracting company 3 months before he let the cat out of the bag. Could he be Obama's strawman to divert attention from all that is wrong with this administration? As you see, the IRS (which is investigating itself) is all of the sudden coming up with liberal groups that were targeted.
When Chicago politics are involved I don't put anything past them and the press is just too dumb to figure it out or they don't care as long as they have a rock star to report on.
miner49er

Lerona, WV

#163759 Jun 25, 2013
lisw, your wacky speculation is entertaining but it lacks any factual foundation.

And the birth certificate still stands.
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163760 Jun 25, 2013
Not to mention that the added bonus is that Putin gets to look like a jerk. A win-win for Obama, a lose-lose for the USA.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163761 Jun 25, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Give me just a sec to don my tinfoil hat, but the timing of this makes me wonder. Obama was enmeshed in so many scandals. Snowden just started working for the contracting company 3 months before he let the cat out of the bag. Could he be Obama's strawman to divert attention from all that is wrong with this administration? As you see, the IRS (which is investigating itself) is all of the sudden coming up with liberal groups that were targeted.
When Chicago politics are involved I don't put anything past them and the press is just too dumb to figure it out or they don't care as long as they have a rock star to report on.
"don your tinfoil hat?" -lol- They wear alot of those in France. They're called silver plated chapeaux.

Simply put, NOTHING this administration does surprises me anymore. What you suggest could very well be true. I still think we all ought to go out an buy a paddle. That famous creek seems to be rising.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163762 Jun 25, 2013
lisw wrote:
Not to mention that the added bonus is that Putin gets to look like a jerk. A win-win for Obama, a lose-lose for the USA.
Putin may look like a jerk but he's laughing his head off right along with China at the US. Here this guy's scampering around the globe like a kid hiding under furniture and the Obama administration doesn't have the clout or muscle to get him back home and put him to bed.
Pansies belong in a garden. Not the White House.

WAY TO GO BARRY!
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163763 Jun 25, 2013
Putin says "NO" to John Kerry's request to extradite Snowden back to the US.

John Kerry returns the blow by threatening to cut off Russia's supply of Heinz ketchup.

I love the way liberals command respect on a national platform. This is like watchng our government running around in their undies.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#163764 Jun 25, 2013
The Constitution, more accurately, the Bill Of Rights gives our government the right to enforce the laws set down by it All other laws were left to the states to regulate. But lately it seems that the feds are usurping those rights.
If the government is going to take power over All of our rights, then what is the point of statehood?
Roberta G

Chicago, IL

#163765 Jun 25, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
Putin says "NO" to John Kerry's request to extradite Snowden back to the US.
John Kerry returns the blow by threatening to cut off Russia's supply of Heinz ketchup.
I love the way liberals command respect on a national platform. This is like watchng our government running around in their undies.
Thanks for that mental picture, Lyndi :s

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#163766 Jun 25, 2013
When I said that the mormons had me, I mean they Really had me. I was fourteen, and allowed to sit in on the Bishopric meetings. It was there that I heard them talking about 'when they got in power', meaning into government. It was also at one of those meeting that they spoke of me, as if I wasn't even in the room.'He's got great potential.' they said.'A natural leader.''smart', and other adjectives flew around the room. They finished with,'But he's still an individual'.
They wanted more than I was willing to part with.
The government, it seems, is doing the same with its citizens. Like, did you know that in order to get certain medications, you have to sign documents that say you will not do certain things, like drink or smoke? and if you go to some government clinics, you have to take all the crap they shovel on you? or risk losing your medical benfits? Really. If you get kicked out of one government clinic, then you're basically kicked out of all of them.And, Yes, you have to sign a paper stating that you will eat all the shit they give you. They word it differently, but that's what it boils down to.
Sign enough of those papers, and you have nothing left. No more individuality, just 'the system.'
Does that sound like the government's dream, or what?
miner49er

Lerona, WV

#163767 Jun 25, 2013
"the news media in the US may now be the 4th branch of government under Obama and it represents liberalism at all costs."

Really? How did the liberals gain control of "the news media in the US"?

"That famous creek seems to be rising."

This is true, see:

"Rising seas challenge shore dwellers
Delmarva newspapers, Anne Arundel survey focus on warming's impact and response

The Inner Harbor flooded in the wake of Tropical Storm Isabel…
August 20, 2012|Tim Wheeler
Sea level rise along the mid-Atlantic coast made headlines over the weekend, as Gannett newspapers on the Delmarva Peninsula and in New Jersey launched a series of stories examining how climate change could swamp shorefront homes and resort communities, hamper farming and even contaminate municipal water supplies.
Scientists say the Atlantic coast from around Boston to North Carolina is in a "hot zone" where sea level is expected to rise even faster than elsewhere as a result of the planet's warming and related changes in ocean currents. Increases are predicted in sea level of 1.5 feet by 2050 and 3.5 to 5 feet by century's end, according to state and federal science surveys and report cited by the papers."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-20/f...
Roberta G

Chicago, IL

#163768 Jun 25, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
The Constitution, more accurately, the Bill Of Rights gives our government the right to enforce the laws set down by it All other laws were left to the states to regulate. But lately it seems that the feds are usurping those rights.
If the government is going to take power over All of our rights, then what is the point of statehood?
None. I hope a few more people out there wake up to that, before it's too late.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#163769 Jun 25, 2013
miner49er wrote:
"Then how can you possibly know how they would have performed as Presidents?"
By their statements, actions and campaign platforms.
Apply what you just stated to pResident barry. If he had lived up to what he campaigned on, his popularity might not be going south.

Think first, about the oath he took, and then think transparency.
miner49er wrote:
And Bobin in TX... no Texas citizens have been US citizens since 1861, Texas never met the requirements for readmission:
Hey, I like that. If we aren't citizens of the United States, why is the U.S. demanding that Texans pay income taxes to a country in which we aren't citizens?

Do you ever think before you type?
miner49er wrote:
Yes, both Bushs were unlawful pResidents, never Citizens of the United States.
Obviously, you don't think before you type.
miner49er wrote:
Bobin, you aren't a Citizen of the United States, please stop interfering in our political process.
Do you really think that everyone living in Texas today was born in Texas? We're the fastest growing state in the Union, and that growth rate isn't from new births.

You definitely qualify as one of obama's "low information voters"

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#163770 Jun 25, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post promted me to wonder two things. Why didn't Snowden take his concerns to someone elsewhere on the governmental chain or why didn't he take his story and concerns to an American journalist?
If the answers to those questions were he couldn't go to anyone in the government because no one in the government in his view can be trusted and he couldn't go to for example the NY Times with the story because he knew the NY Times would have distorted it unmercifully because the tale paints liberalism and this administration poorly, that is something to note. It's no secret that their first allegiance is to liberalism but how far will they go to protect it? They might have tweaked it and buried it on page 9 and/or simply not printed any of it and just notified the White House they had a problem on their hands. He couldn't go to FOX because look at what Holder at the DOJ tried to do to Rosen. He couldn't go to the Associated Press for similar reasons.
There was a time in this country when all else failed, a citizen could take their issue to the news media and gain support and expect a reasonable opportunity to have their story heard in the manner in which they intended it to be heard. It occurs to me that the news media in the US may now be the 4th branch of government under Obama and it represents liberalism at all costs. The US government may now be so decayed & corrupt he felt he had no choice but to take it to the Guardian in the UK.
If that is all true or even if there is only some truth to it, I don't think it's a stretch to say we have a bigger problem in this country than I thought. Regardless of party affiliation this story should make everyone want to look alot more closely at Washington.
Excellent post... well thought out.
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163771 Jun 25, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
When I said that the mormons had me, I mean they Really had me. I was fourteen, and allowed to sit in on the Bishopric meetings. It was there that I heard them talking about 'when they got in power', meaning into government. It was also at one of those meeting that they spoke of me, as if I wasn't even in the room.'He's got great potential.' they said.'A natural leader.''smart', and other adjectives flew around the room. They finished with,'But he's still an individual'.
They wanted more than I was willing to part with.
The government, it seems, is doing the same with its citizens. Like, did you know that in order to get certain medications, you have to sign documents that say you will not do certain things, like drink or smoke? and if you go to some government clinics, you have to take all the crap they shovel on you? or risk losing your medical benfits? Really. If you get kicked out of one government clinic, then you're basically kicked out of all of them.And, Yes, you have to sign a paper stating that you will eat all the shit they give you. They word it differently, but that's what it boils down to.
Sign enough of those papers, and you have nothing left. No more individuality, just 'the system.'
Does that sound like the government's dream, or what?
BH I am a social worker, which one would think makes me believe in the government helping people. But it made me an insider and I saw that any acceptance of help from the government means they think they can tell you how to lead your life. Children have been taken from homes for something like they didn't think mom kept it clean enough, a woman's SSI was threatened because her son gave her money to come visit him so she just didn't go. Whether it is the goal or not any government program removes the autonomy of the individual. Now some people are really into that, being a penguin, but not me.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min RiversideRedneck 70,523
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min Gods r Delusions ... 658,522
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 19 min Internet Reality 45,603
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 20 min USA-1 39,177
Who won the debate 2016 ? 24 min Truthiness 8
crossdressing on skype. (Apr '15) 1 hr RoyalKitten 7
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 1 hr Johnny 4,958
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr The Hangman 974,679
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Blink 282,934
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 6 hr Hilary 93
More from around the web