Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,432 Views)
~LovelyRita~

wrote this a few days ago, it satirically sums up my current views on the election.

The next big step in the campaign process for our dear presidential candidates is in the choosing of a running mate. Such an important decision could make or break a candidates’ bid to the Whitehouse; it is obvious that neither is taking the matter lightly. As rumors and debate circulate on who Obama and McCain will ultimately chose as their potential vice president, I would like to throw in my two cents. In fact, I have actually found the perfect solution for both of them. Obama should pick McCain and McCain Obama. Yes my friends, they should be each others running partner. My reasoning behind this bizarre proposal is surprisingly straight forward; now that the primaries are over the two candidates have magically merged into the exact same person. Victor Hanson, a senior fellow at Stanford University, recently wrote of Obama’s increasingly conservative viewpoints. “Obama is now a gun-rights advocate. Like Bush, he applauded the Supreme Court's overturning of a Washington, D.C. ordinance banning the possession of handguns”. Obama “also supports the death penalty, recently objecting to the court's rejection of a state law that allowed for the execution of child rapists”. Not only that, but as is cited in this article, Obama questions some aspects of the pro-choice issue, opted out on public financing, wants to give telecommunications companies exemption from wiring tapping lawsuits, wants to maintain NAFTA, and even has revoked his promise to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. Yes folks, Barack Obama is now John McCain. It really only makes sense that the two candidates run together - it’s win-win for both of them. Regardless of whether Obama-McCain or McCain - Obama wins this election, both would make it to the Whitehouse and both would see policies they support implemented in either situation. Of course it might be a little difficult for them to compete against and support each other at the same time, but stranger things have certainly happened in politics and I’m confident that they’ll figure it all out. So who are you going to vote for? Obama – McCain or McCain – Obama? The choice is yours…..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

John Edwards wants to be VP, he also wants to be a big part at the convention. The same man that may have some deep dark secrets he doesn't want anyone to know. Now I know that info comming from The National Enqueirer is not very credible, but if this story that seems to have resurfaced and if true can spell disaster. If this is false I think he should sue and if so within 6 mounths should own the magazine. I truly dislike John Edwards VERY MUCH! However I will say that if there is no truth to this, that magazine should pay a serious price. Saying that, I think should it be true, I also feel John Edwards should be punished harshly!

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child_update/celebrity/65199

JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD

UPDATE: The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is revealing new details about the political scoop we broke yesterday - the secret meeting between Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

A team of ENQUIRER reporters caught the married ex-senator visiting his mistress and secret love child late Monday night at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles hotel.

As we reported previously, Edwards arrived at the hotel at 9:45 p.m. (PST) Monday, driven by a friend in a BMW, and was seen by ENQUIRER reporter Alan Butterfield.

We can now reveal that the man who drove Edwards was Bob McGovern, the same man who drove Rielle to the hotel from Santa Barbara and rented her room in his name.

He was driving a 1999 four-door midnight blue BMW.

Said Butterfield: "The car had a baby seat in the back for Rielle's infant. He pulled into the parking lot, took a ticket from the automated machine, pulled forward, and stopped right after the parking gate lowered. Edwards got out of the passenger side, walked around the front of the car and went in a side entrance near the swimming pool.

"McGovern parked the car and then slowly walked back inside the hotel and went upstairs."

In the aftermath of our exclusive story, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has now learned:

* Edwards' advisers are "spitting mad and furious" that his late-night escapades have made international headlines because it could derail his chances of becoming Barack Obama's running mate.

* Edwards has not explained his whereabouts to any members of other news media outlets who have been trying to follow up on the story.

* His mistress, blonde divorcee Rielle, meanwhile, has returned to her home in Santa Barbara, Calif., and sources say she is "in despair" that Edwards might cut off contact with her because their latest rendezvous has been exposed in the media.

After we posted the details of Edwards shocking meeting with Rielle, political sources close to Edwards revealed how he was candidly scolded by his advisors hours later.

One political source divulged: "His advisors told him they were furious that this had been brought out by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER right when Obama is considering whether he's V.P. material with the Democratic National Convention (Aug. 25-28 in Denver) only weeks away.

"From what I hear, John was read the riot act by his people. The fallout from this could cost him the job of running mate. They told him Obama doesn't want to pick someone and be embarrassed by the choice. This 'bimbo eruption' at this critical time will do him absolutely no good.

"While his people are not trying to tell him how to live his personal life, this baggage isn't going to help him convince Obama that he's the right guy to be his veep."

A day after the incident, Edwards traveled to Denver for an appearance at the University of Denver in support of the anti-poverty campaign, called Half in Ten. The very first question put to him at the event was about whether he'd become Obama's running mate.

Edwards was quoted as saying: "I'm not seeking the job. I don't expect to be asked…but anything that Sen. Obama would ask me to do, whether it's in his campaign or in his presidency, I would consider seriously."

But Edwards made no official comment on our bombshell disclosure about his late-night antics less than 24 hours earlier.

Said another source: "He's going out of his way to avoid discussing it - he knows whatever he says will come back to haunt him. If he denies being there, he doesn't want to be found out to be a liar."

In other new details, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned that McGovern, the man who picked up Edwards and dropped him off at the hotel, has become one of Rielle's closest friends.

McGovern reserved rooms 246 and 252 at the Beverly Hilton under his name. Rielle was in one room and McGovern was in another with her baby. This allowed her and Edwards to spend time alone.

Another source said: "Bob McGovern is someone Rielle met in Santa Barbara when she recently moved there. He's become one of her closest friends and agreed to help her see Edwards."

Rielle has not yet made any public comments about her Monday night visit from Edwards.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
tonyhemp
Jul 20 2008, 03:53 PM
Thats funny Bill but I like this one better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Ha ha ha...so funny! :yawn: I'm sure there is just as much out there to make fun of Democratic policies, too.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 18 2008, 12:30 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 17 2008, 05:25 PM
Bill
Jul 17 2008, 02:02 AM
Just a few questions:

Who was president on Sept. 11?
Who held congress on Sept. 11?
Who had the senate on Sept. 11?
Who was mayor on Sept. 11?

Vote Republican? They let it happen!

Rudy 9iu11iana claims that after he saw the towers fall he said, "Thank God George Bush is out president."
Funny how he never saw the towers STAND and say "Thank God Bill Clinton is our president."

I'll never understand some people's priorities. :no:
Typical. :roll:

Let's blame whoever was in office for a terrorist attack! :wacko: :ponder:
ABSOLUTELY!

Let's blame the ones who ignored the warnings they were given by the previous administration.
Let's blame the ones who didn't translate the coded warnings received prior to the attacks until the week after the attacks.
Let's blame the ones who were too thick to know what "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S." meant.
Let's blame the ones who didn't read security briefings.
Let's blame the ones who deliberately took counter-terrorism off the agenda.
Let's blame the ones who put the command centre inside a known terrorist target.

What's not to get about that?

If the people in office are not to blame for the most comprehensive and humiliating security lapse in the nation's history, then who the hell is?

I'll say it again. They let it happen by being asleep at the wheel. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
Good to know. So Bill Clinton is to blame for the 1993 terrorist attack when the terrorists tried to take down the WTC by blowing up the basement. Maybe if he would've done his job correctly, maybe we wouldn't have the current problem now.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 18 2008, 01:50 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 17 2008, 05:36 PM
Cathy,

You haven't told me anything that I already don't know about gangs. What I said is not a bunch of "hogwash." Point #3 did not include the psychological reasonings of why a person is in a gang. I totally realize that there are other reasons why a person belongs to a gang; it's not strictly for money. The need to belong is a strong thing; people who live in such dangerous areas and in poverty don't have a lot of opportunities in this life and make hard choices to be in gangs or be beaten/killed. I don't have to walk around in Compton to know this, thank you. No matter where you live in CA, there are gang issues. :mellow:

I stand by what I said earlier; while gangs are a horrible form of terrorism, people whose lives are not affected on a daily basis by these gangs are not as worried about them as they are about having their entire country's electrical grid being destroyed and then not being able to get food, water, money, etc. Simultaneous mass destruction is a much greater fear among most Americans by a group you can't identify by the city they're from or the colors that they're wearing.
I'm not at all worried about the country's electrical grid going out. We're in summer mode here. We get threatened by blackouts and brownouts when it gets hot. In my City our power just goes out with no warning. When we have earthquakes power can be out for days, the last big quake we had some neighborhoods had no power for nearly 2 weeks. I fear mother nature's wrath more than I do any terrorist. We never know when she is going to strike.

You should worry about gangs more. They are not just located in California anymore. They have branched out nationwide AND worldwide. Just because they are not in your neighborhood does not mean they don't exist. in my City we have gangs but they are less a problem than regular everyday folk. We have little tagging and gang violence but we do have drunk drivers and the Ronald Reagan Library, which is on the last target list for terrorism.

Seeing our local news and newspapers, I stand by my "hogwash" you may think you know the terror that gangs strike but it appears you don't really know. When you have law enforcement afraid to go into certain areas at night, you know it's bad.

Our own Gov't can't contain the national gang problem, how the hell are they going to contain a international gang of terrorists? Hell this administration can't even help our own people when it's needed. Why?!?
You would worry if the entire country's electrical grid was taken out simultaneously and our computers were all down, basically shutting the entire nation down. Talk to me then when the country is immobilized.

I take gangs and crime very seriously. I also take terrorist threats seriously.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 23 2008, 11:51 PM
Good to know. So Bill Clinton is to blame for the 1993 terrorist attack when the terrorists tried to take down the WTC by blowing up the basement. Maybe if he would've done his job correctly, maybe we wouldn't have the current problem now.
Oh, I was just waiting for that one!

Reality check:
In the attack of 1993, Bill Clinton had been in the job for five weeks and had no warning. In 2001, Bush had been in the job for seven and a half months and had plenty of warnings, including dire warnings from the previous administration. And you're saying it's Clinton's fault in BOTH cases? You can't have it both ways. If Sept 11 was all Clinton's fault for not stopping it before it started, then it stands to reason that 1993 was Bush Snr's fault.

People are quick to praise Bush for there being no terrorist attacks SINCE Sept 11 (as if Sept 11 somehow doesn't count), yet nobody talks about the 1999 New Year's Eve al Qaeda plot that the Clinton administration foiled. What was that about doing his job properly? Double standards? I think so.

More facts: in his five weeks in office, had Clinton taken deliberate steps to DISMANTLE anti-terrorism measures? Bush did! And Bush did in a climate where they knew a lot more about terrorist threats than they did in 1993, yet they STILL backed off. Did you read what I posted on the 9/11 commission report. You can download the whole thing and see exactly what they have to say about Clinton if you want to.

No disrespect, but please get your facts straight.


Dan,
The National Enquirer??? AYSM????
Please don't if me.
It would be disastrous if Martians attacked the earth, but it's not going to happen. If you read the Enquirer, they'll probably tell you they're already here. :roll:
Edited by Bill, Jul 24 2008, 02:02 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 23 2008, 11:45 PM
tonyhemp
Jul 20 2008, 03:53 PM
Thats funny Bill but I like this one better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Ha ha ha...so funny! :yawn: I'm sure there is just as much out there to make fun of Democratic policies, too.
:-/

I find it a real drag when people say, "Oh, I'm sure the other side are just the same," and just leave it at that as an article of faith and never bother to find out.

If there are factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the film, then let's talk about them. If the other side's policies are even worse, then let's talk about them.
But if one is just going to assume that they are, just because he or she is comfortable in that belief, you could almost call that..... I don't want to say "prejudice," but I can't find a way not to. :-/
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Quote:
 
Dan,
The National Enquirer??? AYSM????
Please don't if me.
It would be disastrous if Martians attacked the earth, but it's not going to happen. If you read the Enquirer, they'll probably tell you they're already here. :roll:


:rofl: :yes: :giggle:

As for the 9/11 Commission Report I think you can still buy a copy of it. There were a lot of revelations there. I haven't read it in a few years.

Heidi, when the power goes out for more than a day, that's when I'll worry about it. We are prepared, foodwise, water, and battery wise, for emergencies (up to a week). I don't have much cash but then again, I have little money anyways. power goes out for a few days, money won't mean much anyway. I don't base my life on scare tactics, that's what they want is for you to be scared. That's how they work. I'm not blind, nor am I deaf. I have heard the threats about the power grids and the poison in the water. It's the same threats we heard during the cold war with the exception of nuclear annihilation.

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
dantheweatherman
Jul 23 2008, 08:10 PM
John Edwards wants to be VP, he also wants to be a big part at the convention. The same man that may have some deep dark secrets he doesn't want anyone to know. Now I know that info comming from The National Enqueirer is not very credible, but if this story that seems to have resurfaced and if true can spell disaster. If this is false I think he should sue and if so within 6 mounths should own the magazine. I truly dislike John Edwards VERY MUCH! However I will say that if there is no truth to this, that magazine should pay a serious price. Saying that, I think should it be true, I also feel John Edwards should be punished harshly!

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child_update/celebrity/65199

JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD

UPDATE: The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is revealing new details about the political scoop we broke yesterday - the secret meeting between Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

A team of ENQUIRER reporters caught the married ex-senator visiting his mistress and secret love child late Monday night at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles hotel.

As we reported previously, Edwards arrived at the hotel at 9:45 p.m. (PST) Monday, driven by a friend in a BMW, and was seen by ENQUIRER reporter Alan Butterfield.

We can now reveal that the man who drove Edwards was Bob McGovern, the same man who drove Rielle to the hotel from Santa Barbara and rented her room in his name.

He was driving a 1999 four-door midnight blue BMW.

Said Butterfield: "The car had a baby seat in the back for Rielle's infant. He pulled into the parking lot, took a ticket from the automated machine, pulled forward, and stopped right after the parking gate lowered. Edwards got out of the passenger side, walked around the front of the car and went in a side entrance near the swimming pool.

"McGovern parked the car and then slowly walked back inside the hotel and went upstairs."

In the aftermath of our exclusive story, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has now learned:

* Edwards' advisers are "spitting mad and furious" that his late-night escapades have made international headlines because it could derail his chances of becoming Barack Obama's running mate.

* Edwards has not explained his whereabouts to any members of other news media outlets who have been trying to follow up on the story.

* His mistress, blonde divorcee Rielle, meanwhile, has returned to her home in Santa Barbara, Calif., and sources say she is "in despair" that Edwards might cut off contact with her because their latest rendezvous has been exposed in the media.

After we posted the details of Edwards shocking meeting with Rielle, political sources close to Edwards revealed how he was candidly scolded by his advisors hours later.

One political source divulged: "His advisors told him they were furious that this had been brought out by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER right when Obama is considering whether he's V.P. material with the Democratic National Convention (Aug. 25-28 in Denver) only weeks away.

"From what I hear, John was read the riot act by his people. The fallout from this could cost him the job of running mate. They told him Obama doesn't want to pick someone and be embarrassed by the choice. This 'bimbo eruption' at this critical time will do him absolutely no good.

"While his people are not trying to tell him how to live his personal life, this baggage isn't going to help him convince Obama that he's the right guy to be his veep."

A day after the incident, Edwards traveled to Denver for an appearance at the University of Denver in support of the anti-poverty campaign, called Half in Ten. The very first question put to him at the event was about whether he'd become Obama's running mate.

Edwards was quoted as saying: "I'm not seeking the job. I don't expect to be asked…but anything that Sen. Obama would ask me to do, whether it's in his campaign or in his presidency, I would consider seriously."

But Edwards made no official comment on our bombshell disclosure about his late-night antics less than 24 hours earlier.

Said another source: "He's going out of his way to avoid discussing it - he knows whatever he says will come back to haunt him. If he denies being there, he doesn't want to be found out to be a liar."

In other new details, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned that McGovern, the man who picked up Edwards and dropped him off at the hotel, has become one of Rielle's closest friends.

McGovern reserved rooms 246 and 252 at the Beverly Hilton under his name. Rielle was in one room and McGovern was in another with her baby. This allowed her and Edwards to spend time alone.

Another source said: "Bob McGovern is someone Rielle met in Santa Barbara when she recently moved there. He's become one of her closest friends and agreed to help her see Edwards."

Rielle has not yet made any public comments about her Monday night visit from Edwards.
Oh yeah, a great reason to dislike someone. :bemused: Yes, the National Enquirer has been sued by many people, just doesn't make it on the mainstream news. Here is another look at this:

National Enquirer retracts story for now
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

ARRGH! You don't even need to BUY it!
Why buy what you've already paid for? Just google it!

Click HERE for the homepage.
Click HERE for the index.
Click HERE for the executive summary, or HERE for the summary in a searchable PDF format.

And if you want the whole story (and I should hope you do), click HERE to download the entire thing.


Now, a couple of tips. When it loads into adobe reader (get it HERE), click Edit and Search. Type "Clinton" or any other player you want to know about. It will take you straight to where they are mentioned.

See how easy it is to find the truth?
Maybe I should send the report out as a chain email. :whistle: :P
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Well NOW you don't have to buy it, when it came out it was a whopping $5 (I think) and you could not download it. Quite a thick book that I bought for myself and about 2 other people. It was worth the price.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Bill
Jul 24 2008, 01:02 AM

Dan,
The National Enquirer??? AYSM????
Please don't if me.
It would be disastrous if Martians attacked the earth, but it's not going to happen. If you read the Enquirer, they'll probably tell you they're already here. :roll:
The National Enquirer? Give me a break. Edwards was here yesterday and said he does not want to be vice president, but would serve in some other capacity in the Obama administration if asked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
A little levity, as least as far as I am concerned:

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. The Library will include:



* The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
* The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
* The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
* The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
* The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
* The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
* The National Debt room which is huge and has no ceiling.
* The 'Tax Cut' Room with entry only to the wealthy.
* The 'Economy Room' which is in the toilet.
* The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
* The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.
* The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
* The Supremes Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
* The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
* The 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.



The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Jul 24 2008, 01:58 AM
The National Enquirer? Give me a break. Edwards was here yesterday and said he does not want to be vice president, but would serve in some other capacity in the Obama administration if asked.
In all fairness, that's a pretty bog standard, open-ended answer. No-one is accusing Edwards of not being a politician.


Dan,
All due respect mate, but I think this proves beyond reasonable doubt that you're prepared to believe anything that fits your preconceived notions.


Anyone remember when the story was put about that John McCain had a lovechild?

Anyone remember who did it?

Anyone remember that it was a

L-I-E?

Didn't think so. :no:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Why don't I hear American news outlets talk about important issues that matter to the electorate? Or are these stupid stories what really matter to voters?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Jul 24 2008, 04:08 AM
Why don't I hear American news outlets talk about important issues that matter to the electorate? Or are these stupid stories what really matter to voters?
Oh they do just that when big time journalism like the National Enquirer hits the news stands everyone just sits in awe, awe of not actually throwing up at their brand of journalism that is!!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Is today the "Ich bin ein beginner" speech? :D :rofl: :)
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 24 2008, 01:14 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 23 2008, 11:45 PM
tonyhemp
Jul 20 2008, 03:53 PM
Thats funny Bill but I like this one better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
Ha ha ha...so funny! :yawn: I'm sure there is just as much out there to make fun of Democratic policies, too.
:-/

I find it a real drag when people say, "Oh, I'm sure the other side are just the same," and just leave it at that as an article of faith and never bother to find out.

If there are factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the film, then let's talk about them. If the other side's policies are even worse, then let's talk about them.
But if one is just going to assume that they are, just because he or she is comfortable in that belief, you could almost call that..... I don't want to say "prejudice," but I can't find a way not to. :-/
Frankly I don't have the time to cruise YouTube to find rebuttals.
So I guess the Democrats have all the answers to the problems we face.

Right. :giggle:

I love the blame game.
No one group is perfect nor has all the answers.
When you find them, please let me know.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Jul 24 2008, 01:02 AM
Bag O' Nails
Jul 23 2008, 11:51 PM
Good to know. So Bill Clinton is to blame for the 1993 terrorist attack when the terrorists tried to take down the WTC by blowing up the basement. Maybe if he would've done his job correctly, maybe we wouldn't have the current problem now.
Oh, I was just waiting for that one!

Reality check:
In the attack of 1993, Bill Clinton had been in the job for five weeks and had no warning. In 2001, Bush had been in the job for seven and a half months and had plenty of warnings, including dire warnings from the previous administration. And you're saying it's Clinton's fault in BOTH cases? You can't have it both ways. If Sept 11 was all Clinton's fault for not stopping it before it started, then it stands to reason that 1993 was Bush Snr's fault.

People are quick to praise Bush for there being no terrorist attacks SINCE Sept 11 (as if Sept 11 somehow doesn't count), yet nobody talks about the 1999 New Year's Eve al Qaeda plot that the Clinton administration foiled. What was that about doing his job properly? Double standards? I think so.

More facts: in his five weeks in office, had Clinton taken deliberate steps to DISMANTLE anti-terrorism measures? Bush did! And Bush did in a climate where they knew a lot more about terrorist threats than they did in 1993, yet they STILL backed off. Did you read what I posted on the 9/11 commission report. You can download the whole thing and see exactly what they have to say about Clinton if you want to.

No disrespect, but please get your facts straight.


Dan,
The National Enquirer??? AYSM????
Please don't if me.
It would be disastrous if Martians attacked the earth, but it's not going to happen. If you read the Enquirer, they'll probably tell you they're already here. :roll:
Of course you were waiting for that one....no surprises here!

My point is that it is totally ridiculous to blame any President for a terrorist attack, no matter how long they're in office! Steps can be taken to try to thwart attacks, but there is no way to totally prevent a handful of people from blowing up things.

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Jul 24 2008, 01:22 AM
Quote:
 
Dan,
The National Enquirer??? AYSM????
Please don't if me.
It would be disastrous if Martians attacked the earth, but it's not going to happen. If you read the Enquirer, they'll probably tell you they're already here. :roll:


:rofl: :yes: :giggle:

As for the 9/11 Commission Report I think you can still buy a copy of it. There were a lot of revelations there. I haven't read it in a few years.

Heidi, when the power goes out for more than a day, that's when I'll worry about it. We are prepared, foodwise, water, and battery wise, for emergencies (up to a week). I don't have much cash but then again, I have little money anyways. power goes out for a few days, money won't mean much anyway. I don't base my life on scare tactics, that's what they want is for you to be scared. That's how they work. I'm not blind, nor am I deaf. I have heard the threats about the power grids and the poison in the water. It's the same threats we heard during the cold war with the exception of nuclear annihilation.

Yes gangs and terrorists do want you to be scared. I don't live in constant fear of either, but I do think that a "healthy" dose of fear will move people to become prepared. It's good to keep our heads out of the sand and not pretend we all still live in the Leave it to Beaver world anymore.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
fab4fan
Jul 24 2008, 12:53 PM
Is today the "Ich bin ein beginner" speech? :D :rofl: :)
:giggle:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70236

Why. :nono:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Jul 24 2008, 02:17 AM
maccascruff
Jul 24 2008, 01:58 AM
The National Enquirer? Give me a break. Edwards was here yesterday and said he does not want to be vice president, but would serve in some other capacity in the Obama administration if asked.
In all fairness, that's a pretty bog standard, open-ended answer. No-one is accusing Edwards of not being a politician.


Dan,
All due respect mate, but I think this proves beyond reasonable doubt that you're prepared to believe anything that fits your preconceived notions.


Anyone remember when the story was put about that John McCain had a lovechild?

Anyone remember who did it?

Anyone remember that it was a

L-I-E?

Didn't think so. :no:
Bill, all due respect you are the one with preconceived notions and I don't think it I know here is why. If you take your time and read my post, I said;

"Now I know that info comming from The National Enqueirer is not very credible, but if this story that seems to have resurfaced and if true can spell disaster."

If I were Edwards ( :sick: ) I would immediately go to my doctors office to do DNA testing to prove the love child is not mine. Once that proves the child is not mine I'd sue and I would make the closing arrgument and it would be the preformance of my life time talking about how my wife having to deal with her own mortality is dying of cancer now has to deal with this. All though she knows me best & knows that I would never do that in the back of her mind the thought of "could it be true?" certainly is possible. My children also wonder if this is true. At the very least hold a press confrence and publicly humiliate TNE.
So my question is why hasn't he done any of this?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Dan, how do you know what Edwards has done or not done regarding a paternity test?

Why do you feel the need to repeat stories that are not credible, i.e., false?

Also holding a press conference to address the Enquirer's allegations would only serve to legitimize them, their brand of "journalism" and advertise their existence. Why in the world would anyone do that?
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Jul 24 2008, 04:24 PM
OMIGAWD, he's not worthy of our votes. Cast him out with the bathwater................. but wait! I do believe that a part of his emblem HAS a waving flag! Look about about halfway down..............Posted Image

Can't we just criticize him on issues that mean things to the general public in the US and abroad? Before 9/11 happened nobody was criticized for NOT wearing a flagpin. It was not an issue on 9/10/01. Why now?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Jacaranda
Jul 24 2008, 08:28 PM
Dan, how do you know what Edwards has done or not done regarding a paternity test?

Why do you feel the need to repeat stories that are not credible, i.e., false?

Also holding a press conference to address the Enquirer's allegations would only serve to legitimize them, their brand of "journalism" and advertise their existence. Why in the world would anyone do that?
This is very true. In the past there have been celebrities and politicians who have taken the Enquirer to task on issues very similar. All that did was make people buy the rag to see what was said, Lisa you do know that the written word is ALWAYS true no matter what!, and condemn the person for whatever wrong or misquoted thing was said.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

dantheweatherman
Jul 24 2008, 06:09 PM
Bill, all due respect you are the one with preconceived notions and I don't think it I know here is why. If you take your time and read my post, I said;

"Now I know that info comming from The National Enqueirer is not very credible, but if this story that seems to have resurfaced and if true can spell disaster."
I read that Dan. I know exactly what you said. You know full well that the Enquirer is full of crap, yet you posted it anyway. I think that proves my point. Are you just as concerned about the alien babies? :lol:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Jul 24 2008, 04:15 PM
Of course you were waiting for that one....no surprises here!

My point is that it is totally ridiculous to blame any President for a terrorist attack, no matter how long they're in office! Steps can be taken to try to thwart attacks, but there is no way to totally prevent a handful of people from blowing up things.

So you're saying that when an administration cuts back on anti-terrorism, and then the worst ever terrorist attack occurs, there's no possible link between those two things?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Bag O' Nails
Jul 24 2008, 04:09 PM
Frankly I don't have the time to cruise YouTube to find rebuttals.

I found a reBUTTal for you Heidi.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=224_1216749378

:rofl:
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Going today for my volunteer training for the DNC. I just hope I don't end up parking cars or guarding the protesters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I went to Denver for my volunteer training for the convention. It was basically a motivational talk and some Denver orientation. I have lived in Boulder, but never Denver, so I am not an expert on Denver. I will have to bone up on Denver and it's streets. I did volunteer to drive Obama and other campaign dignitaries around. They are short of drivers, so I said yes to that.

I still have no idea of what I will be doing or when. They want people from August 16 through August 31 and I volunteered for some part of every day--except for the time of the acceptance speech at Mile High.

One of the requirements to get recommended as a restaurant is that you add one green item to the menu. I would think this would be something veggie. The guy talked about "sustainable" chicken and organic beef. I don't consider that green.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
sh*t, just what a lot of us would fear might happen!

Man held in Florida on charge of threatening Barack Obama

Quote:
 

Man held in Fla. on charge of threatening Obama
By CURT ANDERSON, AP


A man who authorities said was keeping weapons and military-style gear in his hotel room and car appeared in court Thursday on charges he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Raymond Hunter Geisel, 22, was arrested by the Secret Service on Saturday in Miami and was ordered held at Miami's downtown detention center without bail Thursday by a federal magistrate.

A Secret Service affidavit charges that Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July. According to someone else in the 48-member class, Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, "If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself."

Obama was most recently in Florida on Aug. 1-2 but did not visit the South Florida area.

Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that "he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head," according to the Secret Service.

Geisel denied in a written statement to a Secret Service agent that he ever made those threats, and the documents don't indicate that he ever took steps to carry out any assassination. He was charged only with threatening Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, but not for any threat against President Bush.

Geisel's court-appointed attorney declined comment. The charge of threatening a major candidate for president or vice president carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.

The Obama campaign declined comment Thursday on the alleged threat.

In the interview with a Secret Service agent, Geisel said "if he wanted to kill Senator Obama he simply would shoot him with a sniper rifle, but then he claimed that he was just joking," according to court documents.

A search of Geisel's 1998 Ford Explorer and hotel room in Miami uncovered a loaded 9mm handgun, knives, dozens of rounds of ammunition including armor-piercing types, body armor, military-style fatigues and a machete. The SUV, which has Maine license plates, was wired with flashing red and yellow emergency lights.

Geisel told the Secret Service he was originally from Bangor, Maine, and had been living recently in a houseboat in the Florida Keys town of Marathon, according to court documents. He said he used the handgun for training for the bail bondsman class, had the knives for protection and used the machete to cut brush in Maine.

Authorities in Maine said Geisel pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal threatening after a 2007 incident and spent 48 hours in a Bangor jail.

Police in Hampden, a town just outside of Bangor, received a complaint from Geisel's brother on Oct. 18, 2007 that Geisel had threatened him with a knife, Hampden police Sgt. Dan Stewart said. Geisel was charged with criminal threatening and terrorizing; the second charge was later dropped.

The Secret Service affidavit said Geisel told agents that he suffered from psychiatric problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, but he couldn't provide the names of any facilities where he sought treatment.

___

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
That is so scary.

I guess about 50,000 seats at Mile High are reserved for Coloradoans. I spent last evening submitting numerous applications. They have closed the application process at 60,000. I think my chances of securing one ticket are good. It sounds like an all day thing though. Rumor has it, the gates open at noon and Obama isn't scheduled to speak until 8 PM. It's general admission except for the delegates and VIPs. They made you say how you would get to Mile High and where you were staying. I'm staying at home, so that was easy. We are to be told if we were successful on August 15,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Good luck, Linda! I tried for the tickets for non-residents. Haven't heard a thing but I highly doubt that I would be selected anyway.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I really don't know what I will do if I get a ticket, but I will probably go see the next president of the US.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Okay so now we find out that Edwards had an affair in 2006. Okay...........
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

beatlechick
Aug 8 2008, 11:38 PM
Okay so now we find out that Edwards had an affair in 2006. Okay...........
What!? :o You mean The Enquirer is NOT full of crap?! :duh: Nooooo! They actually told the truth and got the story right. I mean I never liked the cheater, but now just when I thought I couldn't dislike him more...well.
FYI a paternity test has yet to be done, he admitted that and now wants it. He still denies being the father. Maybe he is, maybe not.

Edwards said in a letter to ABC;
"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."

Really Edawards, you think, I got a few more choice words for you but for the sake of young readers, I'll quote Daffy Duck in saying "Your despicable!"
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

No, that's not what she said at all. The Enquirer IS full of crap.
The last time I looked, America still had a system of presuming someone innocent until proven guilty, and the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Why all the hate? What did John Edwards ever do to you?

Unlike Edwards' alleged affair, the infidelity of John McCain and Rudy Guilliani is well documented. What say you?
Edited by Bill, Aug 9 2008, 06:56 AM.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Aug 9 2008, 06:43 AM
No, that's not what she said at all. The Enquirer IS full of crap.
The last time I looked, America still had a system of presuming someone innocent until proven guilty, and the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Why all the hate? What did John Edwards ever do to you?

Unlike Edwards' alleged affair, the infidelity of John McCain and Rudy Guilliani is well documented. What say you?
I never said she did, the "full of crap" comment was in response to what you said a few posts prior. I appologize for the confusion, I quoted her due to she was the first to post the fact that he admitted to having an affair, I guess you missed that since you are still calling it an "alleged affair".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

You didn't answer the question.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Let's put it this way, CNN knew of the story months ago too but held on to it until they got their facts straight. They never alleged that he had a "Love Child" as the National Enquirer put it. Mr Young, the campaign aide, still states that he is the father. The same time that the NE reporter was being shut out at the Beverly Hills Hilton, other reporters were too.

A major difference to stories that affect this world (and many people's lives) and what affects just a handful of people is this, the headlining story in the US had to with an affair that Edward had with this woman while the 2nd headline had to do with Russia invading a Georgian province where at least a 1000 people have died.

You tell me, what story is more important? :duh:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

dantheweatherman
Aug 9 2008, 02:09 PM
Bill
Aug 9 2008, 06:43 AM
No, that's not what she said at all. The Enquirer IS full of crap.
The last time I looked, America still had a system of presuming someone innocent until proven guilty, and the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Why all the hate? What did John Edwards ever do to you?

Unlike Edwards' alleged affair, the infidelity of John McCain and Rudy Guilliani is well documented. What say you?
I never said she did, the "full of crap" comment was in response to what you said a few posts prior. I appologize for the confusion, I quoted her due to she was the first to post the fact that he admitted to having an affair, I guess you missed that since you are still calling it an "alleged affair".
That's because you are putting words in my mouth, I never said I hated him. Having no respect for someone or despising their actions is different than hating someone. I know I said "I dislike him", that is diffrent than "I hate him". I dislike what the man represents, I try not to hate anyone. Hate is a strong word, again let me remind you, for me that is diffrent than dislike. That is why your question went unanswered.

By the way, are you willing to admit The Enquirer has at least part of the story correct? I'm still waiting for the paternity test before I give them full credit but they got it right on the affair.

I would also like to say that my prayers are with Mrs. Edwards and her children, this must really be hard for them, they have my sympathy. I aslo hope that John Edwards is truely sorry for the pain and embarrassment he caused his family.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill you asked what he ever did to me, well I'll answer that when you answer; What did Bill O'Reilly ever do to you to not like him?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
Once again don't Americans care about actual issues? Edwards isn't even a candidate.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Aug 11 2008, 04:03 AM
Once again don't Americans care about actual issues? Edwards isn't even a candidate.
Yes we do. Some media just likes to make you think we don't. Edwards may not be a candidate but he was up for the Vice President contender post.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

dantheweatherman
Aug 10 2008, 09:23 PM
Bill you asked what he ever did to me, well I'll answer that when you answer; What did Bill O'Reilly ever do to you to not like him?
He tells lies, he's rude, he's cowardly and he debases journalism.

Your turn.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
He's bad tempered, appeals to the lowest common denominator, will use any paltry excuse to rip into people he disagrees with, doesn't particularly care about logic or reason - oh, and he calls people 'pinhead' and reduces political discussion to the level of the playground.

It's someone else's turn now! (Or wasn't that what you meant? :P )
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
I wonder if the Enquirer can sue Edwards for slander and libel?
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Monkey Chow
Aug 12 2008, 07:49 AM
I wonder if the Enquirer can sue Edwards for slander and libel?
:lol: I think they're probably just so happy at being right for once! Now, if they can prove that that woman's son really was a fish finger or that the alien babies were real, they could really make a name for themselves in cutting edge journalism! ^_^
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doris mendlovitz
Member Avatar

Perhaps we should get our own corner of the world and start our own country. I would vote for Bill for President , Tony for vice president and Dottie for Justice extrodinaire

love doris.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Then you'd really be stuffed. :lol:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old Brown Shoe
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 12 2008, 07:55 AM
Monkey Chow
Aug 12 2008, 07:49 AM
I wonder if the Enquirer can sue Edwards for slander and libel?
:lol: I think they're probably just so happy at being right for once! Now, if they can prove that that woman's son really was a fish finger or that the alien babies were real, they could really make a name for themselves in cutting edge journalism! ^_^
Your so right than they can be in the same class as the New York Times and all the other liberal papers here :P
Edited by Old Brown Shoe, Aug 12 2008, 12:28 PM.
Rest in Peace Mom!!!!4/7/38-2/8/09 I Miss You!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Who's the dumb blonde now?

Paris hits back at McCain:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I think it's the old wrinkled white haired guy! :giggle:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I love what Paris did to McCain and he deserved it.

As for Edwards, I am so glad that he did not somehow become the nominee of the Democrats and then this came out. When you look at the timeline of the Enquirer's confronting him at the Beverly Hilton and when he dropped out, the timing isn't that far off.

I love how one of Hilary's campaign aides is saying that if he hadn't run in Iowa and come in second to Obama, that Hilary would have won Iowa and the nomination.

I do not understand the thinking of Edwards and why he was even running for president. He had to know that this was eventually going to come out. I am just so glad that he did not get the nomination and this was not the October surprise. My poor mother is so upset about this. I find it horrendous that Edwards did this to a cancer stricken Elizabeth. Maybe due to her illness, he wasn't getting any, but that is no excuse.

On another note, I go to some more volunteer training Thursday evening and will do two five hour shifts for people validating their credentials for the acceptance speech. I better be validating my own!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Who's Beverly Hilton?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Aug 13 2008, 09:13 AM
Who's Beverly Hilton?
Uh, Paris and Nikki's hidden sister (you know, the smart one that isn't HOT?!?)? Or maybe The Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Just saw this on ebay Posted Image

And they want the starting bid to go for about $60. Couldn't someone get into trouble for messing with an Apple product?
Edited by beatlechick, Aug 14 2008, 12:05 AM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I like that, Cathy.

I got mad at the Obama campaign. There are so many caveats on these tickets for the acceptance speech, that I will be doing no more volunteering, no more donating and will not be going to the speech. I will vote for Obama and he better beat McCain. From what I am reading in the Colorado for Obama group, many people are feeling the same way I do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Aug 14 2008, 01:31 AM
I like that, Cathy.

I got mad at the Obama campaign. There are so many caveats on these tickets for the acceptance speech, that I will be doing no more volunteering, no more donating and will not be going to the speech. I will vote for Obama and he better beat McCain. From what I am reading in the Colorado for Obama group, many people are feeling the same way I do.
Care to explain, Linda? I'd be curious to know what stipulations they've put on those tickets.




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TywWtlK1hs


Very interesting. Hannity & Colmes square off about double standards with regard to cheating by John Edwards and John McCain. :whistle:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
doris mendlovitz
Aug 12 2008, 09:53 AM
Perhaps we should get our own corner of the world and start our own country.
Just make sure it's not a corner somebody else is willing to kill and die for.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

scottycatt
Aug 14 2008, 02:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TywWtlK1hs


Very interesting. Hannity & Colmes square off about double standards with regard to cheating by John Edwards and John McCain. :whistle:
Anyone remember the story about John McCain's lovechild?

Was it true?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Bill
Aug 14 2008, 06:46 AM
Anyone remember the story about John McCain's lovechild?

Was it true?
I'd find it difficult to believe that John McCain has ever loved anything.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Don't know anything about a love child but found something very interesting about McCain!

Dan Abrams on MSNBC commenting on John McCain's I didn't really love America pt 1

Pt. 2
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

The point is (and it shows how people have short memories) that in the 2000 campaign, it was put about that McCain's adopted daughter was in fact his natural child who he fathered with a prostitute. The story was circulated by Karl Rove on behalf of the Bush campaign and it was a filthy lie.

Some of the same people now work for the McCain campaign which deeply disappoints me and makes me wonder how much self-respect he really has.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Now for the sick side to American politics:

The KKK warns about assassinating Obama.

Dumb Fox Commentary commenting on Obama
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
scottycatt
Aug 14 2008, 02:30 AM
Care to explain, Linda? I'd be curious to know what stipulations they've put on those tickets.
First, I did not get a ticket, but I am wait listed. Some people were told no ticket.

The caveats were that you had to do so many volunteer shifts of three hours by tomorrow, but that was NOT in the application for the tickets. They have changed the way they went about this so many time. First they had us apply on the Colorado Democratic website. Then we had to do it all over again on the Obama website. It sounds like people who got the tickets applied in the first couple of hours. I work. I didn't see the email until I got home and it was obviously too late.

You wouldn't believe some of the television interviews with people who were called and told they had tickets "if" they did their volunteer shifts. They had the audacity to ask if I would go to Denver and volunteer a six hour shift when these people call to verify their credentials. I could only do that if I brought my own laptop. I've told them no, I will watch from home.

Edited by maccascruff, Aug 15 2008, 02:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Next question:

Why is it unforgivably presumptuous for Barrack Obama to give a speech in Germany but not for John McCain to send envoys to Georgia?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Perhaps there are issues that are too complex to be whittled down into easily digested, media friendly soundbytes. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Samwise
Member Avatar

wackadoo
Aug 19 2008, 01:37 AM
Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
I thought just the opposite - that Obama was thoughtful and authentic, while McCain's answers were overly simplistic.
Posted Image
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Bill
Aug 19 2008, 01:45 AM
Perhaps there are issues that are too complex to be whittled down into easily digested, media friendly soundbytes. ;)
I think you're right, Bill. Furthermore, had a skilled journalist interviewed the pair, there would have been follow up questions that would have been much more revealing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
I was impressed by both candidates.

I found McCain refreshingly direct.

Obama was his usual thoughtful and intelligent self.

The only problem I had was Obama's response to the most simplest question: When do YOU believe life begins? As a Christian (him, not me) I would think that he would have an answer for that. (and I don't care what implication that would have on that issue, not trying to start a debate about abortion.)
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Samwise
Aug 19 2008, 02:00 AM
wackadoo
Aug 19 2008, 01:37 AM
Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
I thought just the opposite - that Obama was thoughtful and authentic, while McCain's answers were overly simplistic.
I don't think McCain's answer were that simplistic I just didn't like the campaigning he did. This was a forum and not a campaign stop!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
fab4fan
Aug 19 2008, 02:36 AM
I was impressed by both candidates.

I found McCain refreshingly direct.

Obama was his usual thoughtful and intelligent self.

The only problem I had was Obama's response to the most simplest question: When do YOU believe life begins? As a Christian (him, not me) I would think that he would have an answer for that. (and I don't care what implication that would have on that issue, not trying to start a debate about abortion.)
John, that is not a simple answer. For some, life begins at conception while for others it begins at birth. I do believe he did answer that by stating it begins at birth.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Aug 19 2008, 02:42 AM
fab4fan
Aug 19 2008, 02:36 AM
I was impressed by both candidates.

I found McCain refreshingly direct.

Obama was his usual thoughtful and intelligent self.

The only problem I had was Obama's response to the most simplest question: When do YOU believe life begins? As a Christian (him, not me) I would think that he would have an answer for that. (and I don't care what implication that would have on that issue, not trying to start a debate about abortion.)
John, that is not a simple answer. For some, life begins at conception while for others it begins at birth. I do believe he did answer that by stating it begins at birth.
So Cathy did you watch this debate? What were your thoughts?

Obama said he believes life begins at birth?
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
wackadoo
Aug 19 2008, 01:37 AM
Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
Maryann,
I missed it...so I'm going to have to watch it on the web.

I found the way they conducted this was interesting; the same questions were being posed to both candidates without them hearing each other's answers. I guess this was an excellent way to really "hear" them. They couldn't argue/debate with each other; rather we got to hear their objective thoughts to important questions.

Someone told me a question that was posed was "what was the most difficult decision you ever had to make in your life?" McCain answered that when he was a prisoner of war, he had the opportunity to be released from the camp (the higher ranking officers and their families got to be released first) and he decided to let them pass him over and release another man deemed lower than himself. This caused him an add'l four years in this camp! He said it was a very hard decision, but he knew that if he left, the morale and the secret communication codes that were devised to keep them all sane would be in jeopardy. I think that selfless act was remarkable. :clap:

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I saw most of it, and heard Obama on my way home from taking my mother's ashes to the cemetary. Obama has trouble with the conception issue as do many Christians, myself included.

I think Obama could've done better however, I think McCain was campaigning way to much. I think this is where you see the seasoned pro going up against someone who actually tried to speak from the heart. Not to say that seasoned pro wasn't, I just think that there were times he was pandering to an audience that, let's face it, was most likely all ready to vote for him. It really disgusted me that McCain threw away the wishes of my Governor, that I really don't like but do with the offshore drilling and environmental issues, so readily and made fun of him.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Samwise
Aug 19 2008, 02:00 AM
wackadoo
Aug 19 2008, 01:37 AM
Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
I thought just the opposite - that Obama was thoughtful and authentic, while McCain's answers were overly simplistic.
Some may think more to the point and not so full of fluff. Guess it depends on one's perspective. B)
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Aug 19 2008, 05:18 AM
I saw most of it, and heard Obama on my way home from taking my mother's ashes to the cemetary. Obama has trouble with the conception issue as do many Christians, myself included.

I think Obama could've done better however, I think McCain was campaigning way to much. I think this is where you see the seasoned pro going up against someone who actually tried to speak from the heart. Not to say that seasoned pro wasn't, I just think that there were times he was pandering to an audience that, let's face it, was most likely all ready to vote for him. It really disgusted me that McCain threw away the wishes of my Governor, that I really don't like but do with the offshore drilling and environmental issues, so readily and made fun of him.
I guess I'm just surprised that anyone would think life begins at physical birth. I can understand how some may question that it doesn't begin at conception but to say it's at birth is scientifically ridiculous! But I guess this is not an abortion debate....
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Aug 19 2008, 05:19 AM
Samwise
Aug 19 2008, 02:00 AM
wackadoo
Aug 19 2008, 01:37 AM
Bag O' Nails
Aug 18 2008, 08:16 PM
Anyone watch the debate from Saddlebrook Church the other day?
I saw it, Heidi. I fell asleep for part of Obama's part because he rambled and was boring. I saw a replay and he talks too much and then I still didn't really know what he stood for. McCain was decisive, energetic, humorous and right to the point. I always like it when the candidates actually answer the questions. My opinion of McCain went up after seeing this.
I thought just the opposite - that Obama was thoughtful and authentic, while McCain's answers were overly simplistic.
Some may think more to the point and not so full of fluff. Guess it depends on one's perspective. B)
I don't think he was talking about fluff but that he made everything sound so simple. For instance, there was one point where McCain was asked about evil. Do you contain it or defeat it. He stated, simply, defeat. This is where some of the campaigning came into focus. He said if he were President he would go after Bin Laden and that he knows how to capture him. My thoughts are, fine if you know how to capture Bin Laden why not let the powers that be know so that more American and worldwide lives aren't lost?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Abortion is only ever mentioned in election years and in the time between elections, nothing changes no matter who is in charge.

What difference does it make when someone "believes" life begins when that's a matter of faith that nobody really knows?

Isn't it more important to focus on facts and issues rather than looking for "gotcha" moments based on a candidate's personal, private beliefs?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Aug 19 2008, 05:25 AM
beatlechick
Aug 19 2008, 05:18 AM
I saw most of it, and heard Obama on my way home from taking my mother's ashes to the cemetary. Obama has trouble with the conception issue as do many Christians, myself included.

I think Obama could've done better however, I think McCain was campaigning way to much. I think this is where you see the seasoned pro going up against someone who actually tried to speak from the heart. Not to say that seasoned pro wasn't, I just think that there were times he was pandering to an audience that, let's face it, was most likely all ready to vote for him. It really disgusted me that McCain threw away the wishes of my Governor, that I really don't like but do with the offshore drilling and environmental issues, so readily and made fun of him.
I guess I'm just surprised that anyone would think life begins at physical birth. I can understand how some may question that it doesn't begin at conception but to say it's at birth is scientifically ridiculous! But I guess this is not an abortion debate....
You're right, this is not an abortion debate but why have trouble thinking that others would have trouble with the conception idea? I don't. Not many people know the exact time of conception, nor is it always possible that they know that they are even pregnant. I have known of women who have had their periods throughout the pregnancy and barely gained weight yet gave birth at full term.

The Chinese guess when conception took place. I don't know if this belief still exists but instead of having a 'birth' day for the birthdate, they used the conception date as the birthday.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 05:31 AM
Abortion is only ever mentioned in election years and in the time between elections, nothing changes no matter who is in charge.

What difference does it make when someone "believes" life begins when that's a matter of faith that nobody really knows?

Isn't it more important to focus on facts and issues rather than looking for "gotcha" moments based on a candidate's personal, private beliefs?
Well said! :clap:

I know I don't personally care what date I was conceived. I have no memory of it. I have no memory in the womb. My earliest memory was when I was about 2 so why should I care about my conception date?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 05:31 AM
Abortion is only ever mentioned in election years and in the time between elections, nothing changes no matter who is in charge.

What difference does it make when someone "believes" life begins when that's a matter of faith that nobody really knows?

Isn't it more important to focus on facts and issues rather than looking for "gotcha" moments based on a candidate's personal, private beliefs?
Bill, the first part of your first sentence doesn't make sense ("in election years and in the time between"); what other time is there? :wacko:

Abortion is a "moral" issue that concerns many people and not just during an election! It just comes to the forefront during election times because people are interested in a candidate's moral stances as well as other kinds of "facts."

You asked "what difference does it make when someone believes when life begins?" Well, it makes all the difference in the world! If you believe life begins at conception, then it makes abortion murder (taking an innocent life) at any point in the pregnancy. If you believe that it begins at physical birth, then justifies the right to have an abortion at any time, even partial birth abortion. If there are laws to protect a woman's right to choose an abortion, then the question must be posed as to when does a life begin!

Look at the Lacey Peterson and unborn baby Conner murder case. Her husband Scott was found guilty of two murders; that of Lacey and her unborn child! Who decided and how was it decided that Conner was an actual child...he wasn't even born yet! :ponder:

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Aug 19 2008, 05:38 AM
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 05:31 AM
Abortion is only ever mentioned in election years and in the time between elections, nothing changes no matter who is in charge.

What difference does it make when someone "believes" life begins when that's a matter of faith that nobody really knows?

Isn't it more important to focus on facts and issues rather than looking for "gotcha" moments based on a candidate's personal, private beliefs?
Well said! :clap:

I know I don't personally care what date I was conceived. I have no memory of it. I have no memory in the womb. My earliest memory was when I was about 2 so why should I care about my conception date?
None of us know when exactly we were conceived nor do we have memory of it. You say that you don't have memory before age 2, but I assume you're not implying that because you have no memory of being alive before then that it means you were not alive? :wacko: :P

Anyone who has ever carried a baby in their womb knows that they are carrying a life at some point (whether or not you planned or wanted it). When you find out you're pregnant and feel that little flutter of life and the baby is beginning to move around, you know it's alive! Is it viable on it's own? Of course not; it needs to grow until it can survive independently on its own.

Until someone can scientifically pinpoint the exact time a life becomes "real," there are those who will take the conservative view and say it begins at conception. This is to protect the life of the child at every stage. And to bring this into the political forum for this topic, that's why it's important for us to know where the candidates stand on their views! People know that the president has power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will influence the laws that protect the right to life. It is an important issue to many; and needless to say this is not the sole issue out there.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Aug 19 2008, 09:10 PM
Bill, the first part of your first sentence doesn't make sense ("in election years and in the time between"); what other time is there? :wacko:

Abortion is a "moral" issue that concerns many people and not just during an election! It just comes to the forefront during election times because people are interested in a candidate's moral stances as well as other kinds of "facts."

You asked "what difference does it make when someone believes when life begins?" Well, it makes all the difference in the world! If you believe life begins at conception, then it makes abortion murder (taking an innocent life) at any point in the pregnancy. If you believe that it begins at physical birth, then justifies the right to have an abortion at any time, even partial birth abortion. If there are laws to protect a woman's right to choose an abortion, then the question must be posed as to when does a life begin!

Look at the Lacey Peterson and unborn baby Conner murder case. Her husband Scott was found guilty of two murders; that of Lacey and her unborn child! Who decided and how was it decided that Conner was an actual child...he wasn't even born yet! :ponder:

Sorry, that was supposed to be "not in the time in between."

And that's true. Was abortion a political issue last year? No it wasn't. Has anything changed in the last 30 years on the issue? No it hasn't.

Six months ago, we had nearly half the Republican candidates at one of CNN's sad excuses for a debate putting their hand up saying they don't believe in evolution. It's a bit late to bring science into the mix now. :lol:

Since we don't KNOW when life begins, it is therefore a matter of faith. Although I disagree with his answer, I give Obama points for being honest about his beliefs when McCain has such a history of pandering to the right-wing base that I cannot take any such answer at face value especially since his past suggests he has no strong opinion on the issue either way.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

In fact, the thing that bothers me about most of these so-called debates is that most of the questions being asked seem more appropriate for a date than an election.

I'll bet you anything you like that the availability of abortion will not change either way no matter who is elected. Write that down and throw it back at me if I'm wrong. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bag O' Nails
Aug 19 2008, 09:10 PM
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 05:31 AM
Abortion is only ever mentioned in election years and in the time between elections, nothing changes no matter who is in charge.

What difference does it make when someone "believes" life begins when that's a matter of faith that nobody really knows?

Isn't it more important to focus on facts and issues rather than looking for "gotcha" moments based on a candidate's personal, private beliefs?
Bill, the first part of your first sentence doesn't make sense ("in election years and in the time between"); what other time is there? :wacko:

Abortion is a "moral" issue that concerns many people and not just during an election! It just comes to the forefront during election times because people are interested in a candidate's moral stances as well as other kinds of "facts."

You asked "what difference does it make when someone believes when life begins?" Well, it makes all the difference in the world! If you believe life begins at conception, then it makes abortion murder (taking an innocent life) at any point in the pregnancy. If you believe that it begins at physical birth, then justifies the right to have an abortion at any time, even partial birth abortion. If there are laws to protect a woman's right to choose an abortion, then the question must be posed as to when does a life begin!

Look at the Lacey Peterson and unborn baby Conner murder case. Her husband Scott was found guilty of two murders; that of Lacey and her unborn child! Who decided and how was it decided that Conner was an actual child...he wasn't even born yet! :ponder:

The point where Connor was part of the murder was when he was cut out of Lacey, he was still alive and could've lived on his own without any help. That is when, in the eyes of the law, it is deemed murder. When the now infant could survive on its' own.

I never tried to imply in my post that I was not alive before the age of 2. What I was trying to say was that does it matter that there was no memory? Does it matter exactly when conception was as no one knows the realy date.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 10:34 PM
In fact, the thing that bothers me about most of these so-called debates is that most of the questions being asked seem more appropriate for a date than an election.

I'll bet you anything you like that the availability of abortion will not change either way no matter who is elected. Write that down and throw it back at me if I'm wrong. ;)
Only semi- tossing it back to you. In states like California, where I live, it could be a federal mandate that no abortions can happen. Roe v Wade could be completely struck down however the way the law is written in California, only the voters could strike down our Roe v Wade law. No one else, no elected officials, no President, nobody but the electorate could strike it down. However in states that don't have laws like mine does, an elected federal official could strike it down at any given moment having gone through the proper steps, if there is any. Many have threatened to but none have really tried to.
Edited by beatlechick, Aug 19 2008, 10:48 PM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
Actually, California's murder law was changed to include a fetus because there was a horrible case where some guy got off on murder even though he kicked his pregnant ex in the stomach until she aborted and the baby died. At the time, the murder law did not include the unborn. There was such outrage the legislature added fetuses to the law.
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monkey Chow
Member Avatar
beep beep m beep beep yeah
California tightens fetal murder law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

updated 2:44 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 5, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO - The state Supreme Court strengthened California’s fetal-murder law Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant.

The 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

California’s fetal-murder law was passed by the Legislature in 1970. The law is being used to prosecute Scott Peterson in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son. More than two dozen states have passed various versions of a fetal-murder law.

President Bush signed similar legislation last week to make it a crime to kill a fetus during the commission of a federal offense, and that law does not require knowledge of the pregnancy. Both the federal legislation and California’s law exempt the killing of a fetus during an abortion.

The Legislature adopted the fetal-murder law after the state Supreme Court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of a Stockton man who, while beating his estranged wife, killed her unborn child. At the time, the court said California’s murder law did not recognize a fetus.

California’s justices reached Monday’s conclusion two years after a state appeals court overturned the fetal-murder conviction of Harold Taylor, a Vietnam veteran found guilty of murdering his former lover, who was at least 10 weeks pregnant.

Conviction reinstated
On appeal, Taylor claimed he did not know Patty Fansler was pregnant, and he argued that he could not be prosecuted for murdering her fetus, which died when Taylor shot and killed the woman in 1999.

The lower court agreed, ruling that murder in California requires “malice aforethought” — a willful intent to take the life of another — and a “conscious disregard” for life.

In reinstating Taylor’s fetal-murder conviction, Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown said Taylor “did not need to be specifically aware how many potential victims his conscious disregard for life endangered.”

Because of the ruling, Taylor’s 40-year prison term for killing the woman and other offenses is expected to be increased by 25 years, prosecutors said.

In dissent, Justice Joyce L. Kennard endorsed the lower court decision, saying California’s fetal-murder law was vague and “susceptible to two equally reasonable constructions.”

California’s law applies to fetuses beyond eight weeks of gestation. The federal rule applies to an unborn child “at any stage of development.”
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Here is the law as it stands:California Penal Code
Quote:
 
A fetus is an unborn human being that has progressed beyond the embryonic stage after major structures have been outlined, which occurs at seven to eight weeks of development.
Quote:
 
Murder Law in California
Below is the Judicial Council of California's jury instruction for murder. It explains what the prosecution must prove before a person can be convicted of this charge:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus;

AND

2. When the defendant acted, he/she had a state of mind called malice aforethought;

AND

3. He/She killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Two kinds of malice aforethought exist: express malice and implied malice. Proof of either one is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.

The murder defendant acted with express malice if he/she unlawfully intended to kill.

The murder defendant acted with implied malice if:

1. He/She intentionally committed an act;

2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;

3. At the time he/she acted, he/she knew his/her act was dangerous to human life;

AND

4. He/She deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human or fetal life.

Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim. It is a mental state that must be formed before the act that causes death is committed. It does not require deliberation or the passage of any particular period of time.

An act causes death in a murder case if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.


Now that we have that established, abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law.
Edited by beatlechick, Aug 19 2008, 11:07 PM.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Aug 19 2008, 10:34 PM

I'll bet you anything you like that the availability of abortion will not change either way no matter who is elected. Write that down and throw it back at me if I'm wrong. ;)
Sadly I agree with you. But it shouldn't stop people from voicing their opinions about it and trying to do something to change what they don't like....
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Aug 19 2008, 11:06 PM
Here is the law as it stands:California Penal Code
Quote:
 
A fetus is an unborn human being that has progressed beyond the embryonic stage after major structures have been outlined, which occurs at seven to eight weeks of development.
Quote:
 
Murder Law in California
Below is the Judicial Council of California's jury instruction for murder. It explains what the prosecution must prove before a person can be convicted of this charge:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus;

AND

2. When the defendant acted, he/she had a state of mind called malice aforethought;

AND

3. He/She killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Two kinds of malice aforethought exist: express malice and implied malice. Proof of either one is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.

The murder defendant acted with express malice if he/she unlawfully intended to kill.

The murder defendant acted with implied malice if:

1. He/She intentionally committed an act;

2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;

3. At the time he/she acted, he/she knew his/her act was dangerous to human life;

AND

4. He/She deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human or fetal life.

Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim. It is a mental state that must be formed before the act that causes death is committed. It does not require deliberation or the passage of any particular period of time.

An act causes death in a murder case if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.


Now that we have that established, abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law.
After reading this it just proved to me that if you purposefully take an unborn life after the gestation age of 8 weeks, you are indeed killing it...according to the "law," that is.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
So are you saying you would charge the mother with murder? You kind of make deciding to have an abortion an easy choice. It isn't. I personally knew 2 friends who have had abortions. Neither one would've been good mothers. One was through rape and the other was a teenager that wasn't thinking. They both wrestled with this decision but, for them, it was the right decision to make. They both would've ended up having babies neither of them wanted. Yes, I know they had options but being teenagers and feeling this was their only option that was the choice they made. Now it is 25-30 years later for both of them and neither of them regret that decision.

They both felt guilt, even the one that was raped, but unless you have taken a deep personal journey such as theirs was, you can not judge their actions.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
This thread is moving dangerously towards being an all-out debate regarding abortion.

I suggest that, if you wish to continue the abortion debate, then start a new thread about that subject otherwise it could derail the talk about the election. Although I appreciate that it was a question asked of the candidates, this election is far more complex than a single issue.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
beatlechick
Aug 20 2008, 12:54 AM
So are you saying you would charge the mother with murder? You kind of make deciding to have an abortion an easy choice. It isn't. I personally knew 2 friends who have had abortions. Neither one would've been good mothers. One was through rape and the other was a teenager that wasn't thinking. They both wrestled with this decision but, for them, it was the right decision to make. They both would've ended up having babies neither of them wanted. Yes, I know they had options but being teenagers and feeling this was their only option that was the choice they made. Now it is 25-30 years later for both of them and neither of them regret that decision.

They both felt guilt, even the one that was raped, but unless you have taken a deep personal journey such as theirs was, you can not judge their actions.
It's never an easy choice.

I agree with Andy and since everyone knows where the candidates stand on this issue, I guess there is no longer a reason to discuss it on this thread.
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"