Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2009 1:14:14 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM

Author: strmrdr

cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

I don't agree with it but that is the reason.
Next it will open season on old people with socialized medicine right here at home.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/22/2009 1:35:49 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM

Author: starsapphire

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM

Author: starsapphire

The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Now, if I were you, I''d lay off the ''Messiah'' moniker; it really rankles with some on ATW. ''Course maybe that''s how you like it. Ruffling feathers seems to be my particular forte, so who am I to judge. . . . .


If you want to see poetic waxing about the first day, there is another thread which will entertain you.

Perhaps "Savior" is a more acceptable moniker?

After all, Oprah said recently that "he makes me want to be a better human".

As for that "other thread" I dipped my toe in tonight and was received with the trusty and reliable "hate" calling rally.

Tell me, is Stepford less dull and predictable??

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/23/2009 1:00:18 AM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 1/22/2009 1:35:49 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM

Author: starsapphire

Date: 1/21/2009 7:44:42 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 1/21/2009 7:32:54 PM

Author: starsapphire

The unnecessary war, the one where Saddam Hussain and his raping murderous sons were deposed and killed? I agree that Daddy Bush should have taken the Hussains out back in the first Gulf War, but I do not regret his and his son''s deaths now.

This is a losing battle you''re waging here. Give it up. Let it go. Find happiness in the other threads. People like Dancing Fire will let you hang out here on your own, while they chortle and chuckle with every zinger from each side.

The people who agree with you have moved on. We caved. Join us. Stepford is a beautiful place.

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Now, if I were you, I''d lay off the ''Messiah'' moniker; it really rankles with some on ATW. ''Course maybe that''s how you like it. Ruffling feathers seems to be my particular forte, so who am I to judge. . . . .


If you want to see poetic waxing about the first day, there is another thread which will entertain you.

Perhaps ''Savior'' is a more acceptable moniker?

After all, Oprah said recently that ''he makes me want to be a better human''.

As for that ''other thread'' I dipped my toe in tonight and was received with the trusty and reliable ''hate'' calling rally.

Tell me, is Stepford less dull and predictable??

It''s calm and peaceful here. Full of low voices talking in monotones about the weather. Light classical music in the background. Polite children. Polite smiles. No one ever has high blood pressure in Stepford.

Dull and predictable? Yes. Gasket-blowing, full-throttle, rage-inducing, crazy-making chatter? Not here. We won''t stand for it. We''re very Zen.

 

[FrekeChild]

I''m going to Stepford to cause a ruckus.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/23/2009 1:15:10 AM
Author: FrekeChild
I'm going to Stepford to cause a ruckus.

You will be assimilated. Come. It will be over in a moment. And then nothing but stress free peace.

I must retire now. We don't allow late night cavorting in Stepford.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/22/2009 1:14:14 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM
Author: strmrdr
cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

Ah, and here is the crux of the matter. We have understandable outrage over the murder of a little child, yet we don''t blink a collective eye over the murder of millions of our unborn young. I see no difference morally in the two. There is so more outrage over the loss of endangered animals than there is over the killing of human life. Amazing. And no, I do not want my tax money going towards it, and I certainly hope we can stay out of unnecessary wars as well (which is off topic, actually).

But, this reminds me that I need to stay out of Around the World and get back to Stepford with Holly.

(FYI, I felt strongly enough about this topic to go to another country and adopt an unwanted baby who could have EASILY been aborted! In fact, her country often forces abortion. She is an amazing child, and ALL children have value! I am thankful beyond measure that this child was allowed to LIVE!)

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I totally agree...

Date: 1/21/2009 6:47:27 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/21/2009 6:37:29 PM
Author: brooklyngirl
I agree with you about wanting to choose where my tax dollars go as well. However, our political system doesn''t work that way, and we elect *representatives* who are to act on our behalf, and who represent our interests, and our tax dollars are used to support those interests.


If you want your money to go to a specific cause, you are free to donate to said cause, and you can be reasonably sure that your money will be spent supporting that cause.


With that said, we, as inhabitants of a country that allows women to do as they please with their bodies, really have no right to judge, or deny medical care to women who live in countries where they''re not allowed to do as they please. Groups who provide medical care to women in impoverished nations don''t only provide abortions. Many times the care they provide is the only one that''s available to impoverished women, who have no reproductive choices. It''s morally reprehensible IMHO to deny these women their only source of health care because we don''t like that they''re given the choice to abort.

This is spot on, and as an addendum it''s important to note as I did above that in many of these cases the women in question whose health providers receive [or would receive] US funding are actually NOT offered abortion as a reproductive choice because abortion is not legal in some of the countries in which the organization operates. Just because the larger organization counsels women facing reproductive choices to examine abortion as one possible option does NOT mean that the more localized initiatives where our funding is going necessarily include abortion as an option.

Not that there would be anything wrong with offering it in my book, but important information nonetheless.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/23/2009 10:10:45 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/22/2009 1:14:14 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM
Author: strmrdr
cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

Ah, and here is the crux of the matter. We have understandable outrage over the murder of a little child, yet we don''t blink a collective eye over the murder of millions of our unborn young. I see no difference morally in the two. There is so more outrage over the loss of endangered animals than there is over the killing of human life. Amazing. And no, I do not want my tax money going towards it, and I certainly hope we can stay out of unnecessary wars as well (which is off topic, actually).

But, this reminds me that I need to stay out of Around the World and get back to Stepford with Holly.

(FYI, I felt strongly enough about this topic to go to another country and adopt an unwanted baby who could have EASILY been aborted! In fact, her country often forces abortion. She is an amazing child, and ALL children have value! I am thankful beyond measure that this child was allowed to LIVE!)

That is indeed the crux of the matter. Where IS our outrage? Where IS our moral indignation? What gives us the right to pick and choose whose life is important, and at what point? And while I prefer not to decide everyone''s morality, and I concede that I prefer that women maintain their rights without government intervention, I refuse to sit quietly while forking over my dollars. Your choice, your morals, your money. Your consequences. Your regrets. Or not.

 

[sklingem]

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM
But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Yep - and that is why this country will not move forward - because of people who''d rather be "on the other side" than trying to come together in a joint effort for the good of the country. Like our friend Rush: "I hope Obama fails". That will make a great impact indeed.

 

[sklingem]

Please don''t get into an abortion debate here with respect to when human life starts. It will NOT be resolved, NOBODY will change his/her mind and we will be wasting our time.
THANK YOU!!! Maybe we can think about the children instead who end up dying from digging up our diamonds ... huh? Less interesting than Caylee or baby seals, for sure.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/23/2009 2:49:02 PM
Author: rob09

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM
But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Yep - and that is why this country will not move forward - because of people who''d rather be ''on the other side'' than trying to come together in a joint effort for the good of the country. Like our friend Rush: ''I hope Obama fails''. That will make a great impact indeed.

I heard Rush. I don''t always agree with him, and don''t feel the need to defend his positions, but you are quoting him out of context. He said -- in relation to the things Obama wants which go against the grain of what conservatives feel is best -- that he does not want those initiatives to succeed. Conservatives, including Rush, do not want Obama to ''fail'' in what they think is paramount in today''s world. . . national security, the safety of our citizens, slowing the progression of terrorism here and around the world, the revitalization of the economy, and much more.

What I will be watching closely, monitoring constantly, are the ''exceptions to my rule'' indicators like his appointing a couple of ex-lobbyists to admin posts that are clearly a conflict of interest -- after pompously declaring new and improved ethics regarding lobbyists and their role in his administration. Or like caving to pressure from the left to close Gitmo, and then scratching his head to figure out where to house them; and being made a fool of the day after that decision by the NY Times which pointed to more than one former detainee who has clearly continued terrorist activities after being released to the Saudis for ''rehab''.

Rhetoric on the stump can be inspiring. Everyday life behind the big desk can be a bitch.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 1/23/2009 12:50:07 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/23/2009 10:10:45 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/22/2009 1:14:14 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM
Author: strmrdr
cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

Ah, and here is the crux of the matter. We have understandable outrage over the murder of a little child, yet we don't blink a collective eye over the murder of millions of our unborn young. I see no difference morally in the two. There is so more outrage over the loss of endangered animals than there is over the killing of human life. Amazing. And no, I do not want my tax money going towards it, and I certainly hope we can stay out of unnecessary wars as well (which is off topic, actually).

But, this reminds me that I need to stay out of Around the World and get back to Stepford with Holly.

(FYI, I felt strongly enough about this topic to go to another country and adopt an unwanted baby who could have EASILY been aborted! In fact, her country often forces abortion. She is an amazing child, and ALL children have value! I am thankful beyond measure that this child was allowed to LIVE!)

That is indeed the crux of the matter. Where IS our outrage? Where IS our moral indignation? What gives us the right to pick and choose whose life is important, and at what point? And while I prefer not to decide everyone's morality, and I concede that I prefer that women maintain their rights without government intervention, I refuse to sit quietly while forking over my dollars. Your choice, your morals, your money. Your consequences. Your regrets. Or not.

Exactly.

I have no interest in telling anybody what their personal morals should be, so why tell me what mine should be by supporting publicly-funded abortions (regardless of where). If you (collective) want to fund them, nobody is stopping you. Knock yourself out. Fund all you want. But don't expect it of others.

And Rob, suddenly you want to move forward and come together for the good of the country? Where have you been for the past 8 years? Or was it okay to be on the other side then?

I'm staying in Stepford where everybody is personally responsible--I don't expect a dime or favor from another person and nobody wants anything from me. It's very zen.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

"Your choice, your morals, your money. Your consequences. Your regrets. Or not."

Great line, Holly.

We have low taxes in Stepford and a balanced budget.

 

[sklingem]

Date: 1/23/2009 5:09:03 PM
And Rob, suddenly you want to move forward and come together for the good of the country? Where have you been for the past 8 years? Or was it okay to be on the other side then?

First of all - don''t make any assumptions about me without a shred of knowledge - it does not come across very well.
I can tell you where I have been for the past 8 years:

I supported Bush in fostering a flourishing economy. He failed.
I supported Bush in keeping our environment clean - and taking a lead role in environmental policy. He failed.
I supported Bush in respecting people''s privacy. He failed.
I supported Bush in fostering a positive image of the US abroad and strengthen our ties with foreign countries. He
failed.
I supported Bush in refraining from using military force based on ideology and economic motives. He failed.

And the list could go on. I was not on the "other" side. I was hopeful and willing to give him a fair chance. I was not condemning the man from day 1. And that is all I am expecting from others as well. But I have no illusions - and many of the postings reflect just that.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/23/2009 2:49:02 PM
Author: rob09

Date: 1/21/2009 7:48:02 PM

But Holly, the first 100 days has begun! The Messiah has just begun his reign and rule! It will be fun observing, and being on the other side.

Yep - and that is why this country will not move forward - because of people who''d rather be ''on the other side'' than trying to come together in a joint effort for the good of the country. Like our friend Rush: ''I hope Obama fails''. That will make a great impact indeed.

Oh c''mon. If you are going to quote someone, I don''t care what side they are on, at least be HONEST about it and put it in context.

What Rush said--and meant!--was that if Obama wants to push a socialist/liberal agenda and policies then yes, he hopes they fail and hopes he fails at doing it.

BIG difference.

Some of us do NOT like Obama''s worldview and proposed policies. I''ll tell you right now that I personally hope they do fail and I hope he fails at implementing them.

Do I want him to "succeed"? Do I want him to be a "good" president? Yes, of course. But my idea of a "successful" and "good" president is probably world''s apart from yours.

So hypocritical coming from liberals who, in the last 8 years, basked in the glory of a Bush "failure", real or perceived. Perhaps had you all exhibited just one ounce of desire for Bush to "succeed" I''d have an easier time relating to your issue here.

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We''ve got to give him a chance." Why? They didn''t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I''m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I''ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don''t want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I''d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he''s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don''t want this to work. So I''m thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I''ll send you a response, but I don''t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here''s the point. Everybody thinks it''s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can''t do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what''s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what''s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don''t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody''s gotta say it. -Rush Limbaugh

 

[m76steve]

im afraid the lemmings that listened to the tall tails of obama were sold a bill of goods-all his plans have no substance-when asked for details about the 3 million new jobs-the answer is very vague or they burble out rabble-a lot of the new spending wont take effect for several years-lambs to the slaughter-he will never be my president...

 

[sklingem]

Date: 1/23/2009 6:10:48 PM
Author: beebrisk
I''ll tell you right now that I personally hope they do fail and I hope he fails at implementing them.

So hypocritical coming from liberals who, in the last 8 years, basked in the glory of a Bush ''failure'', real or perceived. Perhaps had you all exhibited just one ounce of desire for Bush to ''succeed'' I''d have an easier time relating to your issue here.

Thank you beebrisk for driving home my point. I could not have said it better - you''d rather see policies fail that do not correspond to what you think is "good" INDEPENDENT of whether they do indeed produce positive results, including a stronger economy or a cleaner environment. I rest my case.
And please do not lump all liberals together and accuse them of being hypocritical - it may make you feel better but does not make it true.

 

[sklingem]

"m afraid the lemmings that listened to the tall tails of obama were sold a bill of goods-all his plans have no substance-when asked for details about the 3 million new jobs-the answer is very vague or they burble out rabble-a lot of the new spending wont take effect for several years-lambs to the slaughter-he will never be my president"

I don't think it is appropriate in this forum to talk about Obama's tails - though I am assuming he has only one. Even liberals have morals.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/23/2009 6:26:36 PM
Author: rob09

Date: 1/23/2009 6:10:48 PM

Author: beebrisk

I'll tell you right now that I personally hope they do fail and I hope he fails at implementing them.


So hypocritical coming from liberals who, in the last 8 years, basked in the glory of a Bush 'failure', real or perceived. Perhaps had you all exhibited just one ounce of desire for Bush to 'succeed' I'd have an easier time relating to your issue here.

Thank you beebrisk for driving home my point. I could not have said it better - you'd rather see policies fail that do not correspond to what you think is 'good' INDEPENDENT of whether they do indeed produce positive results, including a stronger economy or a cleaner environment. I rest my case.

And please do not lump all liberals together and accuse them of being hypocritical - it may make you feel better but does not make it true.

Your "rested case" is based on incorrect assumption.

You see, it depends on what you consider a "positive" result. Again, I think your "positive" is quite different than mine.

I do not believe reinstating the Freedom of Choice act as something that will have a "positive" result.

I do not think signing the executive order to plan to close Gitmo will have a "positive" result.

I do not believe that socializing medicine will have a positive result.

I can go on and on....

So, yes indeedy...I hope these policies fail. I do not want to see them implemented because "they do not correspond to what I think is good" However, I would not want to see them fail INSPITE of what I would consider "positive results" as you inferred in your post.

When was the last time you wanted something to succeed that you believed would result negatively???

Your argument is kinda funny that way!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/23/2009 6:26:36 PM
Author: rob09

Date: 1/23/2009 6:10:48 PM
Author: beebrisk
I'll tell you right now that I personally hope they do fail and I hope he fails at implementing them.

So hypocritical coming from liberals who, in the last 8 years, basked in the glory of a Bush 'failure', real or perceived. Perhaps had you all exhibited just one ounce of desire for Bush to 'succeed' I'd have an easier time relating to your issue here.

Thank you beebrisk for driving home my point. I could not have said it better - you'd rather see policies fail that do not correspond to what you think is 'good' INDEPENDENT of whether they do indeed produce positive results, including a stronger economy or a cleaner environment. I rest my case.
And please do not lump all liberals together and accuse them of being hypocritical - it may make you feel better but does not make it true.

YOU believe that the policies Obama is suggesting are going to work to improve things. WE believe they won't. Your viewpoint doesn't make you more credible.

More power to him if he can produce the results we need. Bigger government and spending what we do not have is not the answer. It wasn't the answer when Bush rushed to 'TARP' us into bigger debt. And it won't help now.

If he gets some real help, from real economists, not 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' nincompoops, and finds a way to turn the tide economically . . . . .that will be fantabulous. And we'll throw another parade for him four years from now. But his ideas will need an overhaul. I don't want him to fail. But I don't want him to claim victory with stop-gap measures that don't provide true economic growth.

And no, we don't believe socialized medicine/healthcare is good. And no, we don't give a rat's patootie how we are perceived abroad if we cannot keep our citizens safe at home. And no, we don't want Gitmo detainees loose to wreck havoc again. And they will. And no, we don't want our tax dollars to fund abortions, here or there. And no, we don't believe a pullout of our troops at this point is a wise idea. I could go on. But there is no need. We all know what we do not agree on. But let's not create new boondoggles and arguments over what he hasn't even done yet, shall we?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/23/2009 5:09:03 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/23/2009 12:50:07 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 1/23/2009 10:10:45 AM

Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/22/2009 1:14:14 PM

Author: decodelighted

Date: 1/22/2009 1:01:39 AM

Author: strmrdr

cheaper to kill em than feed em

One Ms. Casey Anthony apparently agrees with you.

Ah, and here is the crux of the matter. We have understandable outrage over the murder of a little child, yet we don''t blink a collective eye over the murder of millions of our unborn young. I see no difference morally in the two. There is so more outrage over the loss of endangered animals than there is over the killing of human life. Amazing. And no, I do not want my tax money going towards it, and I certainly hope we can stay out of unnecessary wars as well (which is off topic, actually).


But, this reminds me that I need to stay out of Around the World and get back to Stepford with Holly.


(FYI, I felt strongly enough about this topic to go to another country and adopt an unwanted baby who could have EASILY been aborted! In fact, her country often forces abortion. She is an amazing child, and ALL children have value! I am thankful beyond measure that this child was allowed to LIVE!)

That is indeed the crux of the matter. Where IS our outrage? Where IS our moral indignation? What gives us the right to pick and choose whose life is important, and at what point? And while I prefer not to decide everyone''s morality, and I concede that I prefer that women maintain their rights without government intervention, I refuse to sit quietly while forking over my dollars. Your choice, your morals, your money. Your consequences. Your regrets. Or not.

Exactly.


I have no interest in telling anybody what their personal morals should be, so why tell me what mine should be by supporting publicly-funded abortions (regardless of where). If you (collective) want to fund them, nobody is stopping you. Knock yourself out. Fund all you want. But don''t expect it of others.


And Rob, suddenly you want to move forward and come together for the good of the country? Where have you been for the past 8 years? Or was it okay to be on the other side then?


I''m staying in Stepford where everybody is personally responsible--I don''t expect a dime or favor from another person and nobody wants anything from me. It''s very zen.

Completely agree with all but one leeetle point (and I hate to bust the zen). But I do believe your statement "nobody wants anything from me" is incorrect. I believe there are a couple of guys and gals in Washington right now that want a WHOLE LOTTA what you got!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:23:51 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/23/2009 6:26:36 PM

Author: rob09

Date: 1/23/2009 6:10:48 PM

Author: beebrisk

I''ll tell you right now that I personally hope they do fail and I hope he fails at implementing them.


So hypocritical coming from liberals who, in the last 8 years, basked in the glory of a Bush ''failure'', real or perceived. Perhaps had you all exhibited just one ounce of desire for Bush to ''succeed'' I''d have an easier time relating to your issue here.

Thank you beebrisk for driving home my point. I could not have said it better - you''d rather see policies fail that do not correspond to what you think is ''good'' INDEPENDENT of whether they do indeed produce positive results, including a stronger economy or a cleaner environment. I rest my case.

And please do not lump all liberals together and accuse them of being hypocritical - it may make you feel better but does not make it true.

YOU believe that the policies Obama is suggesting are going to work to improve things. WE believe they won''t. Your viewpoint doesn''t make you more credible.


More power to him if he can produce the results we need. Bigger government and spending what we do not have is not the answer. It wasn''t the answer when Bush rushed to ''TARP'' us into bigger debt. And it won''t help now.


If he gets some real help, from real economists, not ''the sky is falling, the sky is falling'' nincompoops, and finds a way to turn the tide economically . . . . .that will be fantabulous. And we''ll throw another parade for him four years from now. But his ideas will need an overhaul. I don''t want him to fail. But I don''t want him to claim victory with stop-gap measures that don''t provide true economic growth.

All hail Holly!

It''s amazing to me that some people not only despise a differing opinion, they are incredulous as to how anyone can even have one!

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:28:09 PM
Author: beebrisk



Completely agree with all but one leeetle point (and I hate to bust the zen). But I do believe your statement ''nobody wants anything from me'' is incorrect. I believe there are a couple of guys and gals in Washington right now that want a WHOLE LOTTA what you got!

Not in Stepford!!!!!

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:48:14 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/23/2009 7:28:09 PM

Author: beebrisk




Completely agree with all but one leeetle point (and I hate to bust the zen). But I do believe your statement ''nobody wants anything from me'' is incorrect. I believe there are a couple of guys and gals in Washington right now that want a WHOLE LOTTA what you got!

Not in Stepford!!!!!

You gotta point there!

 

[E B]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:34:56 PM
Author: beebrisk

It''s amazing to me that some people not only despise a differing opinion, they are incredulous as to how anyone can even have one!

That being...expressed, I just have to say that your (not beeb, specifically, but to anyone else this applies to) message gets a bit lost when it''s a single line at the bottom of the a ten-tiered quote. It''s quite easy to delete all but the quote you''re intending to reply to, and for the rest of us, it''s easier to read! A gentle reminder from yours truly.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:48:14 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/23/2009 7:28:09 PM
Author: beebrisk



Completely agree with all but one leeetle point (and I hate to bust the zen). But I do believe your statement ''nobody wants anything from me'' is incorrect. I believe there are a couple of guys and gals in Washington right now that want a WHOLE LOTTA what you got!

Not in Stepford!!!!!

Exactly. That''s why I love Stepford!

 

[klewis]

And no, we don''t believe socialized medicine/healthcare is good. And no, we don''t give a rat''s patootie how we are perceived abroad if we cannot keep our citizens safe at home. And no, we don''t want Gitmo detainees loose to wreck havoc again. And they will. And no, we don''t want our tax dollars to fund abortions, here or there. And no, we don''t believe a pullout of our troops at this point is a wise idea. I could go on. But there is no need. We all know what we do not agree on. But let''s not create new boondoggles and arguments over what he hasn''t even done yet, shall we? [/quote]


It is the history of the US government''s activities abroad "preserving our way of life" (preserving our supply of oil usually) that caused US citizens to be unsafe at home. Iran is just one example of this. They had, in the 1950s a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadeq, a modern, forward thinking leader who just happened to want to nationalize their oil reserves, and so, in order to "preserve our way of life" the CIA in cahoots with the British secret service, set about destabilizing and bringing down that democratically elected government, and helped to replace it with The Shah, "Light of the Aryans" who employed the most brutal, murderous, torturous secret sevice in the middle east - but who cares, he preserved our way of life? Just one example of many.
Also, some contributing here seem to believe that those captured/abducted, questioned/tourtured and detained/ illegally imprisoned for years at Guantanamo are all automatically guilty. Democracy?

 

[HollyS]

klewis: I think I''ve given you ample proof that I''m not interested in your thoughts on anything American. And really, I wouldn''t dream of criticizing all things New Zealand. The next time you''d like to enter the conversation, how about doing so without the U.S. bashing? Hmmm?

And while you''re being Mr. WorldWide Liberal, let me remind you that the current unstable climate in that country (Iran) is a result of Mr. Carter deciding the world was a better place without the Shah. It wasn''t and isn''t. There are times, when dealing with the Middle East, that one must choose the lesser of evils. I won''t rundown for you ALL the problems Mr. Carter created for the world by asking everyone to ''just get along'', like the assasinations of Sadat and others, the kidnapping of American citizens, etc. I will assume that you have read (because I know you haven''t lived it) all about that. Once again, you''re just picking and choosing your talking points.

I''m pretty sure that you or I will never know ALL the reasons why governments take action to depose, replace, effect, the leaders of other countries. Far all you know, we might still be living on this planet as a result of those actions. Maybe those actions have kept us all relatively safe. . . . .Nahh. The U.S. and Great Britian are just a bunch of schoolyard bullies. We just want things OUR way. Who cares about the fallout?

 

[starsapphire]

You know, the thought just occured to me that the US is so big and all that, and we have been so wealthy and all, that the US is kinda like a rich Daddy to the world. All the smaller countries come to Daddy for handouts, and sometimes Daddy does not give enough, or plays favorites with others, and people throw a hissy fit. And sometimes Daddy has problems with others in the world family, and the other people have something to say about it. But they will never be in the position of Daddy, and they really have no say in what Daddy does.

 

[starsapphire]

That is a very simplistic overview as I am not at all inclined to read some of the rather "hi-falutent" material out there about politics.