Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Because the morals of a human being says EVERYTHING about their character. A person who doesn't care about the life in a womb will not care about anyones life but their own.Not true. Just more inflammatory right wing BS. A person who will cheat on their wife, will decieve their constituients.Well, then those represented by all the lying, cheating republicans are very deceived. It seems like a new one every week. The person who would lie about serving in the war will lie to everyone else and not bat an eyelash, and then can never be trusted.I feel the same way about republican Kirk. Morals mean everything. They are your character.

Then the republican party is in big trouble because they sure haven't shown much in the way or morals or character lately.

[BJean 16]

Legislating morality. That's what the Republicans say they want. But the fact is, this particilar group of Republican politicians are some of the most immoral folks we have seen in poliltics. Not that they have a monopoly on immorality, of course. Democrats have their share, but not in the numbers the Republicans appear to have.

And when someone stands up and declares that they have the answer to morality in America by virtue of their religion and they wind up on the slippery slope sliding down the immoral abyss (meaning immoral behavior), we are more shocked than if it is someone who doesn't claim to have all the answers to life.

Republicans have created a huge contradiction and every day in every way they reveal just how black their hearts are. Because they do not show themselves to be following the path that they want to enforce others to take. So their religion, their morals are not worth anything to the American voter.

They are political quacks. And I will go so far as to say not only are these people political quacks, they are religious quacks too. And they aren't really patriotic either. If they were patriotic and cared one whit about this country they would be trying to work with the duly elected congress and president.

Black hearts. People who lie, misrepresent, pass judgement on others and try to force their religion on the rest of the nation are not kind-hearted or gracious or good or pure or even trying to be. They say they are sinners because God (who only speaks in their heads) tells them that they are sinners and that it is all right to be a sinner because Jesus died for those sins.

They have it all backwards. They have it all wrong. They are hypocrits in the worst possible definition of the word.

And the people who follow them, vote for them, praise them, are fools.

Edited June 5, 2010 by BJean

[LeighaMason 19]

That's because dems aren't JUST spenders, they are also crazy kooks who think it's okay to murder babies in the womb and they think it's just peachy to let homosexuals form marriages, and they feel that it's okay to redistribute the wealth around. "Share and Share alike!" There is more than JUST one reason to not vote democrat!

Patty, I am going to tell you a story, I know you are not going to learn anything from it but maybe someone else will.

Its about my grandfather, he was a democrat. He was also born in 1920 and he lived through the great depression. When he married my grandmother in 1937, he had 1 pair of shoes, 2 shirts and 1 pair of pants. My grandmother had 2 dresses and 1 pair of shoes.

They started working on a local cotton farm and saved until they could buy their own property. Then they started growing cotton. This was before tractors were widely available and my grandfather plowed and planted behind a mule, in west Texas where it is regularly over 100 degrees.

During WWII he farmed his and his brother in laws land, 7 days a week, while the brother in law fought in Europe.

Once the reaping crews came through in the fall, he didn't rest, he signed on with them and traveled north until all the crops were out of the fields and then he went back home.

My Grandmother raised and sold chickens and eggs to make ends meet as well as taking in laundry from neighbors who lived in town. ( I know this because I have their tax returns from the 40's and 50's)

My Grandfather retired in 1982. When he died at 87 years old in 2007, he still had over $300K in savings. He made every dime working his hands to the bone.

He is the one who taught me that the democrats are out for the common people, republicans are for the rich. He actually voted for Reagan, and was bitter about it for the rest of his life. He retired earlier than planned because "Reaganomics" ruined the farming industry, as demonstrated by Farm Aid in 1985. Republicanism always ruins the small businessman in favor of big business.

The moral of my story is this, to call democrats lazy and expecting a handout is wrong on so many levels. There are many democrats who's work ethic make your job look like a cake walk.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

LeighaMason, thank you for that heartwarming and poignant story about your grandfather. We've all seen the pictures of his generation with their sooty faces as they mined coal, or their sledge hammers as they built railroads, or their sweat soaked clothes as they made steel. These people were the ones who built our nation and they were democrats and FDR didn't forget about them and he promised to help them and he did and thus formed the middle class that the republicans are out to destroy.

[tdslf1 0]

PG answers tdslf1 questions,

Nobody can say what prompted the teabagger protest right after Obama came in office.

Health Care reform that most people were opposed to.

(LIE. No one was talking about healthcare at that time, nor did anyone know how much it would cost. LIE)Nobody can explain away the negative and racial signs held at teabagger events.

1 or 2 jack asses in every crowd. (LIE. You still see signs like that. Not just one. Silence is support)

Nobody can say they supported an out of control budget when Bush was in office, now having a cow because Obama puts some meat on the table.

Most people don't object to spending for defense. We thought we were getting back at those with WMD for 9/11. And, the budget was not as near out of control as Obama has pushed it in one years time. (LIE. Most people never liked the war because it was started on a lie.)

Nobody can explain that every time we hear about someone getting insulted by a rethuglican, it happens to be Obama who gets insulted.

He's in Charge. He's the man. (Can't argue with that. MY GUY IS IN CHARGE. A DEMOCRAT)

Nobody can explain why the rethuglicans, before Obama even started his agenda, the rethuglicans were saying no to anything he wanted.

He was very clear BEFORE he was even elected on what he wanted. Socialism. People voted for him because he was black and wanted to be part of history.:thumbup:(stupid reason to vote for such an inexperienced person) (LIE. We know why we voted for him and it ain't cause he was black. But, why did you vote for your moron and his dumber than a stump candidate, cause he was white?)

Nobody can explain this palatable hatred they feel that Obama is the anti-crist, which is straight looneyville, yet he is a christian.

Anti Christ means against Christ. Many of his policies are against what Christ would approve of. Hence, the anti-Christ nick name. It's not hatred, BTW, it's his policies, they stink. (LIE. All of us have heard idiots call him the anti-crist because of everything but his policies. What is that I mentioned about free will? There you go again telling us what God feels is right and wrong. You are not God, but you are a little unhinged for falling into the anti-crist crowd.)

Nobody can explain that craziness going on in SC with a rethuglican calling Obama and another candidate towelheads just because they have relatives that are Muslim.

Just like when liberals called Bush a Nazi. You know, name calling. It's childish, but it even happens here, usually directed at me. (LIE. Two wrongs don't make a right. Aint that what you just said?)

No rethuglican, and fake independant liars, can explain these things. (You are not an independant, LIE. Independants don't have all their issues they find important in either rethug or demo, thus independant. You lie.

[pattygreen 5]

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

Pattygreen - you often say that you have no control over other's behavior and that everyone is a sinner and that each person has their own moral code that you, again, have no control over.

Then you say the reason to vote for republicans is that they are more moral and are anti-abortion and anti-gay rights.

So, I guess it is your belief that the republicans can force people to be more moral by enacting laws against those things?

No, no one can force anything. Here's a an example that I can share from my own family. My daughter has grown up in a home with very happily married parents who do not even mention divorce as an option to problems in marriage. Love is a decision we make. We taught her that she should be very sure of who she is going to marry because marriage is meant to be for life. (exceptions are made for unfaithfulness) She grew up with this example. Most all of her family members, aunts, uncles, grandparents (over 60 years married), etc. are life time married people. This is very good, for God hates divorce. Her boyfriend of 4 years, OTOH, came from divorced parents and family members that have all been divorced once or twice. He is afraid to make the marriage committment because he fears that divorce is inevitable once you get married and he loves my daughter and doesn't want to lose her. See how allowing divorce can screw up a kid? When society makes laws that are immoral, people get hurt by them.

I agree that divorce screws up kids, but I don't think it should be illegal. Marriage is recognized by the state and it can be dissolved. I believe abuse in a marriage, along with infidelity, is a reason for divorce.

Parents make rules for their children for their own protection. Would you agree? God does also. The moral rules he sets for us as a standard of living are for our own good. They protect us and others form hurt, harm, heartbreak, etc.

Just because society doesn't always follow the moral laws, doesn't mean we should not make them.

If abortion were illegal, would you not have one because it is illegal or because it's immoral to you?

Because it's immoral to you. So if it's immoral to someone, how can having it be legal change that? If each person is responsible for his/her moral conduct?

Should we then make stealing legal? because it's immoral, too.

People who have a moral sense don't steal, lie, or murder only because there are laws against those things. They don't do them because they're wrong.

You want to legislate morality not because you think it will change one's morals (it won't) but for the punishment end of it. That's what I have been saying on all my posts. That's what you are interested in. Not the behavior, but the punishment.

If someone is gay, do you think they will stop being gay because the law says they can't marry?

If someone does drugs, do you think they will stop doing drugs because the law says they can't? No. So, should we make drugs legal? Just because some will not follow the moral laws, doesn't mean we should not make them.

The laws are meant to punish, not deter. As I have said before, that's what it's about for you.

So how does voting for a republican because they are anti-abortion and anti-gay change anything for people about getting jobs, getting a mortgage, putting your kids through college, etc..? The things that matter the most to the majority of americans?

Liberals have problems with consequences for actions taken.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Liberals have problems with consequences for actions taken.

And conservatives have problems being truthful as to why they are against the things they're against. It has nothing to do with morality or reducing abortions and thus "saving babies", it's all about retribution, punishment, throw them all in jail mentality.

[phil1336 0]

PG is obviously "drunk" with her Religious nonsense AGAIN! She claims that American`s voted for Obama because they wanted to be part of history by electing the first African American to be President.....what a hoot! Did we have a choice? Ohh, perhaps we should have voted for John McCain and his sidekick Sara Palin who was a heart beat away from being President? Now thats a scary thought! Experience you say? She has the IQ of her waist measurement, has enormous past (experience) as being Governor of a State with a smaller population then any major city in America, but she was Commander and Chief of the Alaska National Guard and on a clear day she claimed she could see Russia or the Soviet Union from the front porch of her house. Now THAT`S the kind of experience you can sleep well at night knowing who has the code to start the next nuclear war! This Blog has become ridiculous attempting to reply to the Village Idiot that resides in Naugatuck! Report me to the Moderator....I`m done raising my blood pressure listening to this individual. If the show fits ...wear it! And believe me, it fits you like a glove!

[pattygreen 5]

And conservatives have problems being truthful as to why they are against the things they're against. It has nothing to do with morality or reducing abortions and thus "saving babies", it's all about retribution, punishment, throw them all in jail mentality.

I don't have any problem being truthful about why I'm against the things I am against. NONE at all. I'm against abortions because the life in the womb is just that, a real live human being, that God has a plan for. Abortions kill off that life. What's untruthful about that? Just because there are penalties, consequences and jail time for breaking laws, does not mean that THAT is my reason for being against abortion or any other issue that I'm against. What a lame reason to place opon conservatives for their hatred of sinful acts.

"Oh yeah, we just want to put people in jail and make them 'pay' and we just want to punish people.":rolleyes:

You just don't have any good 'reason' to refute the fact that conservatives are mostly against immorality. So, you have to come up with "It's because they want to punish people." Oh brother!

[pattygreen 5]

People who have a moral sense don't steal, lie, or murder only because there are laws against those things. They don't do them because they're wrong.

You want to legislate morality not because you think it will change one's morals (it won't) but for the punishment end of it. That's what I have been saying on all my posts. That's what you are interested in. Not the behavior, but the punishment.

Just because "someone will do it" anyway isn't a good enough reason to not have a law against it.

Parents make rules that they want their kids to abide by, knowing full well that they may not always follow them, they do it because it is the right thing to do. They make consequences for when they break the rules, because it is the right thing to do. Law makers need to do the same thing. Whether the people always follow the laws is irrelivent. There will always be people who do not obey all the laws out there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make any. When a society leaves out laws of morality, they condone it and thus the society becomes more and more immoral.

The next step after allowing gay marriages is to allow marriages between siblings, and then marriages between man and animals. Hey, if it's something that a person wants to do, who are we to say it's wrong? right? That's a liberals philosophy.

A society must set limits on moral standards, or the moral standards of a society go down the tube over generations.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I don't have any problem being truthful about why I'm against the things I am against. NONE at all. I'm against abortions because the life in the womb is just that, a real live human being, that God has a plan for. Abortions kill off that life. What's untruthful about that? Just because there are penalties, consequences and jail time for breaking laws, does not mean that THAT is my reason for being against abortion or any other issue that I'm against. What a lame reason to place opon conservatives for their hatred of sinful acts.

"Oh yeah, we just want to put people in jail and make them 'pay' and we just want to punish people.":rolleyes:

You just don't have any good 'reason' to refute the fact that conservatives are mostly against immorality. So, you have to come up with "It's because they want to punish people." Oh brother!

Once again, you ignored my post about the research that showed that making birth control free reduces abortion.

If your REAL goal was to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, you would want to do everything possible for that to happen. You would support government subsidies for free birth control because you would say "You can't put a price on saving even one baby so if providing free birth control would save even one life, it would be worth it."

Now that would be the attitude of someone whose MAIN concern was the life of the fetus.

However, for someone whose main concern is punishment then their attitude would be: "Why should I pay for someone else's birth control. They need to be responsible. Give up that pizza and make a trip to the drugstore."

See the difference? I made it succinct so you wouldn't have to strain your eyes to read it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

People who have a moral sense don't steal, lie, or murder only because there are laws against those things. They don't do them because they're wrong.

You want to legislate morality not because you think it will change one's morals (it won't) but for the punishment end of it. That's what I have been saying on all my posts. That's what you are interested in. Not the behavior, but the punishment.

Just because "someone will do it" anyway isn't a good enough reason to not have a law against it.

Parents make rules that they want their kids to abide by, knowing full well that they may not always follow them, they do it because it is the right thing to do. They make consequences for when they break the rules, because it is the right thing to do. Law makers need to do the same thing. Whether the people always follow the laws is irrelivent. There will always be people who do not obey all the laws out there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make any. When a society leaves out laws of morality, they condone it and thus the society becomes more and more immoral.

The next step after allowing gay marriages is to allow marriages between siblings, and then marriages between man and animals. Hey, if it's something that a person wants to do, who are we to say it's wrong? right? That's a liberals philosophy.

A society must set limits on moral standards, or the moral standards of a society go down the tube over generations.

The laws we have about murder, rape, stealing, etc.. aren't meant as a deterrent. People with no morals or conscience will still commit crimes. The laws are made to mete out punishments for committing crimes.

People will continue to have abortions even if they're made illegal. Those who find it immoral don't need a law against it. The only difference will be the punishment end of it which is what you support.

The liberal's philosophy is that equal rights under the law shouldn't be denied to you because of your sexual orientation. I haven't heard any liberal say that they want to make marriage between people and animals or relatives legal. That's just another neocon inflammatory comment. Typical when they can't argue otherwise :thumbup:

Edited June 6, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Patty, I am going to tell you a story, I know you are not going to learn anything from it but maybe someone else will.

Its about my grandfather, he was a democrat. He was also born in 1920 and he lived through the great depression. When he married my grandmother in 1937, he had 1 pair of shoes, 2 shirts and 1 pair of pants. My grandmother had 2 dresses and 1 pair of shoes.

They started working on a local cotton farm and saved until they could buy their own property. Then they started growing cotton. This was before tractors were widely available and my grandfather plowed and planted behind a mule, in west Texas where it is regularly over 100 degrees.

During WWII he farmed his and his brother in laws land, 7 days a week, while the brother in law fought in Europe.

Once the reaping crews came through in the fall, he didn't rest, he signed on with them and traveled north until all the crops were out of the fields and then he went back home.

My Grandmother raised and sold chickens and eggs to make ends meet as well as taking in laundry from neighbors who lived in town. ( I know this because I have their tax returns from the 40's and 50's)

My Grandfather retired in 1982. When he died at 87 years old in 2007, he still had over $300K in savings. He made every dime working his hands to the bone.

He is the one who taught me that the democrats are out for the common people, republicans are for the rich. He actually voted for Reagan, and was bitter about it for the rest of his life. He retired earlier than planned because "Reaganomics" ruined the farming industry, as demonstrated by Farm Aid in 1985. Republicanism always ruins the small businessman in favor of big business.

The moral of my story is this, to call democrats lazy and expecting a handout is wrong on so many levels. There are many democrats who's work ethic make your job look like a cake walk.

Wonderful story and great illustration of what our parents and their parents grew up with regarding politics and business in the U.S.

My grandparents told stories that would shock people about how they survived the war and the depression. They were such staunch Democrats as a result, they became very active in local politics. I wish my husband could have had the benefit of hearing their stories because real life trumps the Republican made up stuff every time.

[pattygreen 5]

Once again, you ignored my post about the research that showed that making birth control free reduces abortion.

Should we provide free clothing for all the shop lifters in the world to keep them from stealing? Why not? It would keep down the sin of stealing in dept. stores. Your logic is senseless. Conservatives do not want people to be dependednt upon the government for anything. Why should the lack of free birthcontrol from the government be the deciding point on whether people will abort their babies. How about not doing it because murder is WRONG!

If your REAL goal was to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, you would want to do everything possible for that to happen. You would support government subsidies for free birth control because you would say "You can't put a price on saving even one baby so if providing free birth control would save even one life, it would be worth it."

No. I don't say that. It's principle! I DO NOT want to give away anything to people who could do for themselves. I am against government giveaways. They already give away far too much. The country is going under. I will not support ANY further spending of ANY kind because we don't have the funds for anything more. Now, if the government were willing to give up some of their stupid spending (I gave the list before) and substitute birth control for women and men, I wouldn't complain. This, at least, would be a far more worthy cause than research on whether aliens exist, for example.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Once again, you ignored my post about the research that showed that making birth control free reduces abortion.

Should we provide free clothing for all the shop lifters in the world to keep them from stealing? Why not? It would keep down the sin of stealing in dept. stores. Your logic is senseless. Conservatives do not want people to be dependednt upon the government for anything. Why should the lack of free birthcontrol from the government be the deciding point on whether people will abort their babies. How about not doing it because murder is WRONG!

If your REAL goal was to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, you would want to do everything possible for that to happen. You would support government subsidies for free birth control because you would say "You can't put a price on saving even one baby so if providing free birth control would save even one life, it would be worth it."

No. I don't say that. It's principle! I DO NOT want to give away anything to people who could do for themselves. I am against government giveaways. They already give away far too much. The country is going under. I will not support ANY further spending of ANY kind because we don't have the funds for anything more. Now, if the government were willing to give up some of their stupid spending (I gave the list before) and substitute birth control for women and men, I wouldn't complain. This, at least, would be a far more worthy cause than research on whether aliens exist, for example.

How about if we slash the bloated military budget by the amount needed to provide free birth control?