tdslf1

PG, I think you just intepreted what GOD said was free will to your will. I give up when you start speaking for God. God gave you his teachings in the bible according to you for all of us to follow. IF WE CHOSE TO FOLLOW. I choose for people to choose what direction they go into and you compare that to stoping them from making that choice? I am still lost on how you get to say no they can't have abortions if God is the judge and they have free will just like you do? If the free will statement is true, you can like it or not but trying to force your choice of NO onto them and God said that is not your role to do, but his? You say we are forcing our choice of choice on you? We don't care whether you have an abortion or not. We stand on both sides, have one or don't, you choose and have to face God. We don't make those judgements except for oursleves, not for other people. You however stand on the no choice side and thus take Gods role and try to force YOUR choice on them. They have the right to make that choice, God said that or not? Yet, your God gave us free will and you want to change that to suit your way of thinking. I thought there was a bowing to his wisdom and all that that you followed? Maybe you don't accept that God gave people free will. Maybe that is part of the bible you don't follow or accept?

I guess there is no point in arguing my point. God gave us all free will to choose. God's point is that he gives us a choice to follow and some people won't and no man or women can force their choice upon another. God has that judgement to make.

PG says, I am not trying to tell you what to believe. I feel the same way as you do. Go ahead and do what you like. Live any way you please. I do not have to answer to God for what you do, only what I do. But, I will have to answer to God for my choices and decisions in life. One of them is who I vote for and if they stand on God's principles or not. Would God be pleased with me if I voted for a person who is pro choice? I don't believe He would be. He might tell me, "Patty, you know that I abhor the taking of life by man's hand, I gave my words to you so that you would know what my will is. Why would you vote for someone who would allow the laws in your country to accept that wrong doing?" (or) He might tell me, "Patty, you know how I feel about the sin of homosexuality, because I gave you my words so that you would know what my will is. Why would you vote for someone who would change the definition of the covenant that I set up between a man and a woman, called marriage, and thereby allow that sin to become an acceptable practice in society?" You see, I, and every Christian out there, believe that we will have to answer to God for our choices in this life. I am not one to only worry about the here and now. I believe in eternal life that lasts forever after this one. Good, I am glad we are in argreement as to live and let live. Now do we both agree that God gave us FREE WILL? The will to make choices, good or bad? If the above statement is true, then why do you continue to force your will upon us? Now if you could only apply that to people outside this conversation. People who wish to "murder" by abortion should have that choice, which is what we have been trying to say all along. Your choice is your choice to follow God and their is to not. That is the point of choice. You choose to follow God's word as you say. Other people do not. MY point is you can't force people to follow YOUR choice. God gave us the choice to follow him or not. Some people choose NOT TO.

PG says, I say that if you don't want a baby, get sterilized, or use birth control. Plenty of people get pregnant on birth control and why should someone get sterilized when they might want to have children later? See, your point is based upon the illogical conclusion that a women would never want children later with the sterilization statement. Start drawing logical conclusions to arguments before you cast it out there. This is what makes you come across as wingnut. Statements like that and because your argument is based on the premise that people have abortions because of a lack of wanting to use birth control. Many people get pregnant because they are ignorant of birth control, where to get it, how to use it, caught up in the moment, etc. Not because they use it as a form of birth control. One of the dumbest statements the pro-hypocrite lifers came up with yet.

Great, we all have a way of interpreting the bible and whether this is God's writings or mans. The point I try t make is, great, interprete how you want but don't force YOUR interpretation on ME. Keep yours and I will keep mine. I say live and let live. I don't come over to your house and start going off about your reading of the bible is wrong. I say every one has a right to think it says what they think it says. Have at it, knock yourself out with whatever you think. Just don't call me wrong if I support abortion or the gay lifestyle or any such issue. No one can judge me and mine, just like I try to not judge you and yours. Our political issues are not religious ones as far as I am concerned and your religious view has no place in it just like mine does not.

PG, I applaud the effort, but I don't think that law will be changing too soon, so do what you must to try and change it. Since the majority of people believe in the choice, this change back will be a long time coming. But I do applaud the effort. The kick in the caracha is the law has stood over several generations. I can't be 100 percent positive but with Obama having the choice of 2 to 3 more Supreme court picks to come under his belt, I feel rather confident this one will stand a little bit more time. But we "pro abortion" folks, as you and your ilk are fond of calling us, will be watching you........

Did any one hear the idiot Beck talk about the Obama girl on his radio? This waste of human is even lower than I thought. No one has ever heard Obama attack anyones children and yet, Bizerk thought it was ok to talk about the presidents kids? Just when I think he can't show himself to be a lower level of human, he proves me wrong. And yet he probably gets a pat on the back from his sub prime viewers.

PG says, With that mentality, why don't we make drugs legal, then we can keep people safe while they take them. People are going to use drugs dispite the dangers of them, so why not legalize them. Heck, why not make a society where anything goes! We make laws because they are the "right" thing for the people. Some laws should never have been made, while others are good for all. Abortion is one of those laws that protects the right of the woman who gets pregnant to allow her to do something she would NEVER be allowed to do in society to anyone else without going to prison for it, while the law ignores the right of the baby within her. BTW, most women will not have abortions anyway, whether the law allows them or not. Most women will have their babies if the law was reversed. If they chose to disobey the law, then they would have to suffer t he consequence of that, just like anyone who disobeys any other law out there. First, I don't have a horse in the race for drugs, so I have no comment on if people should legalize them or not, but I do have a say in what happens to MY body. You are right about one point though. Laws are made because they are right for people. Roe law was right for women and is still right for women. We have no intentions of going back because religious people continue to try to make us feel guiltly about choices we make for our body. Abortion is not right for you I get that , but don't try to make it illegal if it is right for me. And as stated before, not all people thing of it as murder, and since the law has not changed it back to illegal, you keep your right to say no and I'll keep my right to say yes. And as far as women having to have the baby if it is illegal, some might choose to but we know from history and facts, of which some people can be ignorant when they want to be, women will have abortions and die in the process or be unable to have children because of some slime doctor, because humans get desperate when backed into that particular corner.

BJ, Not trying to marginalize the crazies, just hate the argument and some of the crazy things the other side says as though because we believe in choice, we have less moral value than they do. Like they are closer to God than the rest of us because of their stand, BS. Trust me, I am diligent with this garbage, determined that this country will not turn in to a religious rule of morality.

Abortion is a hot button issue, which will always be so. My thoughts on this are this. Women will always have abortions, they got them before when it was illegal and they get them now. The reason why they should stay legal is simple. Since we know women will have abortions regardless of the legality of it, why not make sure they are safe when they do get it which is why I think it will stay legal. This is one of those issues in which people are going to do it despite the dangers or not. No need to argue, pro choice won and I think so for a very long time to come.

Congrats Cleo! I became a grandma about 2 years ago and I am fortunate that I get to see her everyday if I want since my son lives in the same town two streets over. It's unbelievable for me to have kids that I love, but before she was born, I didn't think I could love her more than my own kids. Not more maybe but more intense when I hear her call me to help her with something and see her jump out of the car and run into my arms. Sometimes you get so busy raising kids you forget to stop and see how incredible they are at that age. My heart just jumps when I see her. Congrats again.

Phil says, tdlsf1: Your Postings are starting to sound a hell of a lot like "Joe The Plumber"? Remember that Yahoo that was worried about (his) taxes being raised and his concern about "Wealth Redistribution"? He never earned 50K in his lifetime, wasn`t a licensed Plumber and had about as much hope of one day owning his own Plumbing Business (without being licensed) as he had in securing a position on the Supreme Court. What the hell you guy`s been smoking? Life`s too short to drink cheap beer! It`s rotting what few brain cells you have left! What exactly did I say that contradicts this?

GOP tries to upend NC campaign backed by tea party By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Mike Baker, Associated Press Writer – Mon May 24, 6:18 pm ET RALEIGH, N.C. – Republican officials are working to derail the campaign of a tea party supported candidate in North Carolina — circulating documents from the man's messy divorce that depict him as a pot smoker who has called himself the messiah. It's a risky move for state and national party leaders trying to harness the power of the tea party movement without letting it spin out of their control. Tim D'Annunzio, a congressional candidate in North Carolina's most competitive district, has run an anti-establishment campaign with vows to dismantle entire branches of the federal government. His ideas have drawn support from tea party activists, and he has raised more money from individuals than his GOP rival while also contributing more than $1 million to his own campaign. Republican leaders in both Raleigh and Washington, however, are worried about his electability in November if he wins a primary runoff next month. They're publicizing court documents about D'Annunzio's past legal, martial and business troubles and denouncing him as unfit for office. "Mr. D'Annunzio has disqualified himself by his background, his record and his behavior," said Tom Fetzer, North Carolina's Republican Party chairman. He said the GOP embraces the tea party but doesn't believe a person with such a checkered past should be the party's nominee. In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager. The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments. D'Annunzio declined Monday to discuss the specifics of his past and refused to confirm or deny the details of the court documents. He acknowledged having "a troubled upbringing" but that he got himself out of it and changed his life 16 years ago, when he had a religious conversion. "The bigger story is that the power brokers in Raleigh and in Washington are willing to go to any length and use any unscrupulous tactic to try to destroy somebody," he said. "They think that they're losing their control over the Republican party." D'Annunzio was the leader in a Republican primary earlier this month but didn't get enough votes to avoid a runoff. He faces former television sportscaster Harold Johnson in a runoff vote June 22 for the 8th District, which extends from Charlotte to Fayetteville. The GOP is targeting Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell, who won the seat two years ago after many years of Republican control. Republican tensions with the tea party have surfaced around the country, most recently in Kentucky, when the coalition pushed political novice Rand Paul to victory in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Paul defeated Trey Grayson, who was supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. In Nevada, tea party backers have supported Sharron Angle over former state GOP chair Sue Lowden as the party's pick to challenge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Ronnie Long, a Harrisburg businessman who is president of We the People NC and part of the tea party movement, said he was disappointed to see Republican officials resort to personal attacks against D'Annunzio. Long said his group and others are backing D'Annunzio because he has the integrity and fortitude to make decisions for the people and not the party. "He's not the kind of person the parties can rule over and manipulate," he said. Did they say DERAIL? As in, the crazies have taken over the asylum? What is this joyfull news? Rethugs eating their young? Did they not give birth and encourage this animal, now they want to tell their creation they're too crazy? I thought they loved REAL people like half term governor Palin? Outstanding that they have to back peddle 2 times in a month with Paul and now this one. No lamestream media doing this attack job. This is all the rethugs. Let us liberals sit back and watch the implosion.

By the way, I haven't heard any yahoos screeching about Obama raising taxes. Idiots finally looked at their tax returns.

Good point BJ Most people understand that someone elses body choices are not their own. If pro life and pro abortion are the choices, obviously few would pick pro abortion on the grounds that such a phrase is ignorant. Pro abortion is not a choice and the ones that use it are trying to throw the guilt card. Not gonna ever work. Never to the point that we turn back the clock to back alley abortions. This is settled law, I think. I want my country forward, not back. We seem to be going in the right direction on a lot of issues. They lost on keeping women in the shame of having abortions. They will continue to lose on this issue because no one wants to take the choice away. The best advertisement for keeping it that way was the wacko who killed Tiller.

I have no negative feeling towards Paul, he just feels the way he feels about business' regardless of how they treat humans in the process. I say he has less regard for people outside his family. The natural conclusion would be that SOme people would be told to go fly if they came to that place of business. The handicap, would be told to take a leap about getting to the 3rd floor. Blacks or hispanics, especially in AZ, would be told to frequent another facility to eat, and when that happened, we would have even more unrest in the country. I think this wasn't particularily a business law as it was a people law. Conditions that should be level for all people. If a business owner did not want to serve all people then don't go into business. This is settled law, no one is going to debate this, ever and for Paul to think this in 2010 america, says something about Paul and his motivations. Yes, it may be a leap to call him a racist, but I will say if he truely feels like that about business then he doesn't give a damn about others and how they get treated which is, for me, the Real difference between the dems and the rethugs. As stated, I am not calling him racist, but it sure plays into the tea bagger song of never having a problem spending under Bush, but now we have a problem mantra they have been spewing and the crazy signs with the N-word they carried at those tea parties. Every leader before us gets a pass about spending but this one doesn't? How crazy is that especially since he had to. All experts agree, we had to spend. This is fact. Then again, maybe we should have let it go down the tubes and many more would have been out of work, left homeless, unable to pay bills, short on police, short on the things our military needs to fight these wars. Not one person who says we should have not spent any money can tell us what the conclusion of doings so would bring. Please enlighten the crowd about what NOT spending any money would have brought us? How exactly would we be paying for things coming down the pike? What would be happening right now? Would we still have an economy that is getting better? Please tell the crowd and just saing stop the spending is not an answer, its a slogan, that doesn't work. Bring it to its natural conclusion because most don't think past their front lawn. Lets go further with it to progression. Also, which President did the turn around and stop the economy from falling off the cliff even further? Was it Obama? Was it Bush? For all the garbage being thrown at this president about his supposed lies, back peddling, he, according to my tally, did that ONE important thing. Stop the massive bleeding with his actions and NO ONE can say differently. All the ins and outs of who said what and who didn't do what, NO ONE can take that fact away, that he stopped one of the biggest economy failures in hstory. I'd like someone to explain differently, my recollection.

From Daily Kos website Stormfront.org, which was founded to support David Duke for senate by another KKK Grand Dragon, Don Black, has been promoting and contributing to Rand Paul's moneybombs. Palling around with WhiteSupremacists much? That's a tweet from Don Black, head of the white supremacist group Stormfront. Wow. ~snip~ So, Trey Grayson should reject donations from Republicans who voted for the bailout........but it's okay for Rand Paul to accept donations from Stormfront? genuineGOPmom.blogspot.com I will state this loudly and clearly. Over and over at the top of my Jewish lungs. Rand Paul MUST return Neo-Nazi funds NOW and DENOUNCE Stormfront.org But he can't. MinistryOfTruth's diary :: :: Democrats MUST turn 2010 into a referendum on Rand Paul. So, let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Paul Says Nazism’s Bad Because It’s Big Govt At a teabagger forum in March, Rand Paul was asked about claims that Nazis were supporting his candidacy. Rather than explain that, no, Nazis are racist skinheads, what’s he do? He says it’s a ridiculous assertion because Nazism was "big government." He went on to say, "there’s nothing about Nazism that would even appeal remotely to people who like what I stand for because I’m for limited constitutional government." Except Nazis ARE supporting, promoting and funding your Senate campaign, Rand! Would you like to comment? Yeah, just brilliant, Rand! Nazis support the extermination of the Jewish race, the most insidious sort of racism possible and everything that America has fought tooth and nail against since FDR's day, but that isn't as important to Rand Paul as the fact that Nazis, in his worldview, represent "Big Government"! I am sure my Polish Jewish ancestors in the 30's were more afraid of Big Government than they were of the gas chambers! Anyone picking up a pattern here? Strike #1. Rand Paul's campaign spokesperson Chris Hightower was fired for posting "Happy Nigger day" with Lynching pics at Facebook along with posts describing how he liked to go to the local mall in KKK garb. Strike #2. On The Rachel Maddow's Show and NPR Rand Paul, repeatedly, objects to Title II of the Civil Rights Act, stating that Businesses should be able to discriminate based on race. Upon learning of the controversy he had stirred by airing his pro discrimination views, he backtracks and goes into hiding/damage control. And now Strike #3. Rand Paul has received funds and promotion from white supremacists, Neo-Nazi's and KKK leadership via Stormfront.org This is sad that ANY character can come out of the wood work that says "stop the spending" and the tea party will vote for them regardless of what they stand for.

PG says, How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:tongue2: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech. WHo knows what he is for or against. The guy is scared to come out and talk about it. He knows full well, most people don't accept those ideas about the disability act, abolishing the dept of ed, the FBI and the civil rights-title 2 just to name a few that I have read he has an issue to. This should be self explanitory but for the challenged I will give an example. I would love to go around and not wear clothes in public. Level the playing field for all, but I can't. WHy? because not all people feel the need to be nude and thus I would place undue hardship on others and the government recognized that and passed laws about indecent exposure. Same thing here. The government passes laws to protect citizens most times and some citizens don't like it. That is what the government must do. Look at the greater good for ALL citizens. That salt example. Why exactly would the government place those laws on business? Did they do this because they wanted to place another burden on society? Did they do it for the greater good? I would appreciate a fact based answer from someone. Sorry PG, I respectfully request that you don't answer since you are too emotionally driven and prejudice against government like Paul and I KNOW you're incapable of fact based answers. Reference the above emotional answer.

It's about to get hot in Arizona. I say lets get this reform on the road and get it done before this fall.

Did anyone hear that when Obama came into office and had that big meeting with Rethuglicans to reach out to them, Boner tan specimen passed around a memo before Obama got to the meeting place and informed all the Rethugs to reject anything he wanted to do and not to talk to him? Apparently from day one, they were going to say no to anthing. I was real sad to hear that the other day. I say throw all the bums out, incumbents be damn. Then put others in who want to move this country forward. On a better note, Dems will keep the House and the Senate, so hopefully we gain more seats to get more things done.

Did Glen " I am a dangerous commedian" Beck get sufficiently taken to task for successfuly selling gold to the unsuspected Fake Noise masses? Then again, not surprised since the REAL comedy channel is selling news as fact. Almost wish I had thought of seling garbage wrapped in a big bow to the ignorant masses. I would be geting paid with such low hanging fruit.

I just wanna know. Is Paul and Blumenthal done? One for being a straight liar and the other for being a crackpot. But then again politics are local. More than likely, they accept liars in CT seeing as how they got the fake Dem LIE berman and KY has "I can flip flop and run away from my crackpot views" Paul. They both need to be handed their walking papers. I want my country forward, not back. One is definitely on the side of BIG business and makes no bones about it. The other tried to identify with the little guy by making crap up. People have been saying "isn't it refreshing to have someone tell the truth about how they feel." Yep, Paul definitly did that and he effectively got shut down, cause that ain't normal talk. In this day and age, who comes out against a civil rights chapter? Only the tea party in KY would think it great that their candidate loves big business AND hates desegregation. Not to mention, Paul is against the disability act, medicaidvand a whole host of stuff that helps the disadvantage. Loves the BIG business and STFU to the little guy who gets medicaid, half of which KY is on. Retard. The other yahoo might have a better chance since he seems to have gotten the forgiveness of his state and still has the 15 point lead. Not surprised since they have LIE berman. As far as we can see he has a decent record, but happens to be twins with LIE berman with low moral standards. Idiot.

I just wanna know. Did Rand Paul just break a record? The record of winning an election AND losing one within 48 hours? The cosmos have tip the balance in dems favor. First clown on stage, Palin. Second clown, McShame and AZ, then the coupe de gra, Rand Paul. Gotta love that chicken pepperoni!! What is really classic is Paul is the King of the tea baggers!!! I'm goin' in, all in. Just like the Republicans.

Title 2 , Rand's waterloo........ I found a new past time, Rand Paul's self destruction. Double down, baby, double down.

Ari says, Sources or didn't happen. What didn't happen? Your candidate didn't fudge when asked if he believes in the civil rights act regarding discrimination in a place of business or Paul didn't just make history by being the first candidate to win and lose an election within 48 hours because of his EXTREME stand on civil rights? Maybe you didn't see it on the comedy channel, but its all over the rest of the REAL news and the internet. No sources needed for nonsense from loonies. Any yahoo can find that out.