gadgetlady

I think what upset him/her wasn't the existence of a sub-forum, but the less-than-respectful explanation of the existence of that sub-forum.

My husband and I have dear friends who are emergency foster parents. They have 3 grown (one still in hs) daughters and they're now taking infants into their home. The first baby they got was a crack baby with a train-wreck set of natural parents. They've had this baby in their house for about 1 1/2 years now (other babies have come and gone due to their unique situations), and they now want to adopt her (their goal at the beginning was not to become adoptive parents, but rather just provide foster care_. The problem is, her parents, despite not being able to clean up their lives, despite not being able to get a job or have a home that passes muster for the state, despite not taking any steps to regularly visit their daughter, despite all of the other obvious problems that they have, won't give up rights to her. Our friends, who are now completely head-over-heels in love with this baby, are terrified that she will be taken away from them and given back to either the father or the mother (who are no longer together) and put back into a horrible familial situation. The problems that these babies face are multi-faceted. The solutions are as well. To say that people are unwilling to adopt foster children is a broad-stroke answer that doesn't look at the fine-brush problems. There are a lot of changes that need to be made, including changes to the foster care system and the adoption system. We have huge social issues all over the nation and the world. But none of these needed changes and horrible social issues warrants the wholesale murder of people in an effort to solve them (that's what Hitler tried). The solution to our problems shouldn't be to kill the innocent victims of the situations. We don't go around killing the elderly, the disabled, the underpriveleged, the downtrodden, and so forth -- similarly we shouldn't just kill the unborn because we think they might have an undesirable future. I am ALL for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I believe very strongly in birth control and believe women who never want to have children shouldn't be discriminated against when they want to be sterilized (as several on this board have had happen to them). But once the baby is created, I don't believe in killing him or her because we're not happy with their being alive.

Would you feel the same way if McCain had launched his political career from the home of someone who had bombed an abortion clinic 30 years ago, and said 7 years ago that he wished he had gone further? Or would you be OK if he had political and financial connections to someone who used to be a member of the KKK but wasn't any longer (and not only never denounced what he did, but said he wished he had done more)?

For those of you who believe left-wingers are never hateful, hurtful, or inappropriate: Halloween display aims for 'shock value' | stargazette.com | Star-Gazette

Yup, I was wrong to perceive a change. Should have known.

One more thing -- last night I was listing to someone (can't remember who) who said something along the lines of: if McCain launched his national political career from the home of someone who had bombed an abortion clinic -- but it was 30 years ago -- what do you think would happen to his chances at the Presidency?

He was more than someone he just sat on a board with. And Ayres said, on 9/11/01, that he wished as a terrorist that he had gone further. Ayres isn't the only one either. I don't have time right now to go into it but I will try to pop back in later and give some more details. Look, people have reasonable questions about Obama's multiple associations with people of questionable affiliation. Just because he's black doesn't mean we should overlook these associations. And just because people question him doesn't mean they're racist.

Wow. You refuse to believe anything except left-wing propaganda and poor explanations for the truth, don't you? Ridiculous. Just because someone doesn't like Obama doesn't make them a racist.

Thanks for educating me on this.

Well said. We need to judge by his philosophies as evidenced by his actions, not his name or his color. I don't think calling him "traitor" has anything to do with racism. I think it has more to do with his known associations with terrorists and radicals.

I'm right there with you. I'm terrified out of my gourd as to what will happen to this country if Obama gets elected. Scares me to death. I just have to remember God has a plan . . . God has a plan . . . God has a plan . . .

That wasn't the point of my post, but I hope it makes you less sad :smile2: (and just so you know, I don't run around telling people they're sinners either -- because I am one myself and I know there is no level to which I could not sink)

Do you know if they were ever charged with attempted assassination, or if it was just a weapons/drugs charge?

Steve, I've been thinking about this since you posted it a few days ago. I assume this woman will "never be legally allowed to vote" because she has Down Syndrome. Is that correct? If so, how is that determination made? To my knowledge, there isn't a basic literacy test (or any other test) that must be passed prior to being allowed to register to vote. How did the state determine that she doesn't have the right to vote? Or am I misreading/misinterpreting/misunderstanding completely? I'm very curious -- could you enlighten me? Thanks!

I'm thinking the same thing. Either it was buried (possible), or it wasn't what it seemed at first (equally possible). I'm just trying to think of what the goal would be to bury it. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but the whole thing interests me quite a bit.

Of course, sir. Right away, sir. I'm sure we can find someone else to pay for FedEx delivery of your pure water and your Kool Aid, because, after all, you deserve it. And you deserve it tomorrow, even if it's extra to pay for Saturday delivery, and even if you chose to live in a rural area -- it matters not. If someone won't volunteer to pay for it, we'll just call it a "tax" and bill them for it anyway.

Coffi, I have so many comments to what you've posted, but I'm tired right now. I want to say one thing about the overall tone, though. Just because a person believes he or she has the right to decide what to do with his or her own money doesn't mean he or she is selfish. I firmly believe in charity. I have friends who say I am one of the most generous people they know. Even my accountant told me that the percentage that my husband and I donate to charity far surpasses the majority of her clientele. Just because I believe people have the right to do what they want with their own money doesn't mean I believe in hoarding it. It simply means I believe people have the RIGHT to hoard it if they so choose, and just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I have the right to force them to behave differently. My objection is to FORCED charity. The government is a proven wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy. And the places they choose to direct the taxes they impose are not the places I would choose to direct that same money. I had a thought several years ago -- wouldn't it be wonderful if people could take a portion of what they owed the government, cut out the middleman, and give it directly to charity? So you could choose to take 20% of your taxes due, circumvent the IRS completely, and give the money directly to organizations that support your beliefs. I think that's a great idea -- but it would never pass because the government wants their sticky little (big?) hand in everything. Yes, absolutely, there are people out there who work hard and seem to get nowhere. And often they're in the jobs that our citizenry should value the most. I was a teacher once; I know. But just because we lament their laborious work doesn't mean we have the right to "redistribute" someone else's money to ease their situation. It's just plain wrong.

FYI, I'm not doubting that this happened or questioning your understanding of the situation. I just like to know facts! Assassination attempts are horrific, regardless of the target.

I didn't search YouTube. I searched Google. Is there any follow through on this (i.e. charges brought)? I'm curious because it's been a while since this report (if it was at the DNC convention in August) so we should know more about it by now.

And I guess the other question I have is about this supposed attempt. I can't find any substantiated information on it after a quick web search. Is there something out there you can direct us to about this attempt?

You and I think so much alike in many ways, Wheetsin (in others, not so much [grin]). That was my reaction too -- the procedural aspect -- Biden ascends. As far as the psychological state of the country, I think it's horrible when any public leader is killed. It would not be a good thing.

Nope. If you're drinking the Kool Aid, the only thing that matters is whether HE thinks you have too many. Whether you TRULY have more than you need (however THAT's defined) is inconsequential.

I agree. The only reason I posted McCain's speech and not Obama's is because I found Obama's to be slightly boring while McCain's was, IMO, hilarious. I just didn't want to waste anyone's time with something that wasn't really, really good. Obama did get some good lines in there, but overall it wasn't the belly-laughs that McCain got.

What in particular do you find objectionable about that interview?

I suspect our point can never been made, because it is clear that you subscribe to a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" philosophy. But I will try. It is literally none of anyone's business how much someone wishes to indulge himself out of his abundance. Just because you feel his abundance is, for want of a better word, abundant, doesn't give you the right to yank it out of his hands. What would you do were a politician to suddenly and arbitrarily define YOU as "rich" and advocate taking more money out of your hard-earned salary? After all, if you live in the US you are head-and-shoulders above most of the rest of the world. Got a refrigerator? Got a car? Got electricity and running water? You're much better off than others -- therefore the government has the right to take it away from you and give it to them.