timesjoke

I predict you are a dumbass.. lol, well coming from you that is a compliment Wez, being as your almost always wrong about everything you try to pass off as a fact. Your main fault Wez is you take everything to the emotional peaks, you "feel" abortions are good and proper so everyone in the world must agree with your emotional possition or they need to be attacked for daring not to agree with you. Emotions are certainly a big part of human decisions, and that is exactly the best part of this new law. Up to now there has been a direct blocking of the emotional/feeling side of the decision to kill a child and why is that Wez? Because a lot of people work for abortion clinics Wez, if women stopped getting abortions they would not have a job so they are more motivated to push women to kill their child than to help her make the 'right' decision with all the facts. On fact is this is her child, not a disease, not a cancer, but her child growing insider her and that basic fact is never spoken by the abortion workers because they know if the woman feels an emotional attachment, she will most likely not get an abortion and that will cost them millions of dollars every year. Consider that in the opinion offered by the Court, they went to great lengths to consider all aspects of the abortion decision making process to include things like finiancial issues and menal health issues, their opinion clearly said that all of those issues should be considered and discussed between the patient and her "responsible physician". And yet now, these abortion advocates don't want all things to be considered, they want to control and manipulate women into killing their children. Most people don't even know the biggest thing the Supreme Court was pointing out, their main possition was based on the older laws, they were primarily based on safety and using the old methods of abortion was very dangerious. With modern science, the abortion process had been made very safe in comparison and based on attitudes of old, the Justices did not see any real trend to protect the unborn children.........where they made a mistake in my opinion was not understanding that the relatively low concern was because of the very low attempts to abort their children. Women very rarely desired the death of their own children so on the rare time it did happen, most figured that the women who would want to kill their children were most likely doing a kindness to the child not forcing them to be raised in that situation with that woman. Today the situation is completely different. Today, the average woman getting an abortion is using the procedure because she refused to use any form of birth control prior to sexual relations. Abortions are now a primary birth control measure, not a last ditch move because their birth control measures failed. This proposes a question never considered by the Courts where their endorsement of abortion actually "caused" women to turn to abortion more and exercise self-control less because now they had a safety net.

lol, I love the way liberals try to rewrite history, they say they want the Republicans to work with them "after" they ram the most massive increases in spending down America;s throats completely excluding all Conservatives from the process in things like the stimulus and healthcare take over. Obama has spent more in one year than Bush and his Congrss did in 4 that added to the deficit. Add on top of that the spending the Republicans did was bad but was done during a time of prosperity and the much greater and faster spending of money now is being done with the knowledge that there is no more money and Americans are hurting. The Obama Administration is intentionally spending money they know we will never have setting the stage for further Government takeover later down the road such as their healthcare bill. They know this will cause more problems then it fixes, it is intended to fail, so they will be forced to go the bigger route of a full takeover of insurance like Canada has.

Well I am glad I was not the only person who thought the kid was good, I was starting to wonder.......

It would be a gross over reaching of power for the Federal Government to slap down the rights of the States to govern their own people. In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion was not absolute: This law does not directly stop the ability to get an abortion, it simply reattaches the humanity segment of the abortion decision. I predict that if this does make it to the Supreme Court, they will uphold their earlier provision that each State does have a interest in defending the life of the unborn and small measures as this are reasonable.

And we do that by applying pressure on the Republican party as a whole to represent our interests, not by running away from the party and creating splinter groups to steal votes away from Republicans. Yes, to a certain degree some of the splinters groups have drawn attention to this need as well, I admit that much, but the real truth is if all these people had stayed with the Republicans and been on the inside instead of the outside, I am sure we could have stayed closer to our roots and not gone as bad off the road as we had. The extra layer of "nasty" these splinter groups bring is counter productive, attacking someone like Sarah Palin only hurts the Conservative agenda, we need to agree on who the enemy is, not either directly or indirectly be helping the enemy tear us apart so they can stay in power. And yes IWS, Governor Christie is a great guy for this, we will see what the long term result will be.

Well I am sure they will not drop the 'racist' bomb on these guys, this administration saves that for those not in the party who don't blindly follw their lead as a way of stopping discussion on things they can't respond to. But it is interesting to see more Democrats starting to see some of the harms you get by electing a guy with no management skills in the slightest. He manages with his progressive and socialist agenda, nothing else. If this spill is allowed to be a huge problem, then suddenly a larger environmental reaction from the Federal Government will be needed with wide ranging and limitless powers............a huge environmental disaster would be good for their desire for more power, so why not step back and let BP handle it? If BP does a good job, Obama looks good and he can claim sometimes the Federal Government needs to let the experts in the field handle things and he knows when those times are....if BP does a horrible job and there is massive damage that can't be easily fixed, then Obama can come out and say that he just proved this is too important to leave in the hands of greedy oil companies and at that point he can go for the big control, or even a complete takeover of all oil wells, the latter would be difficult, but massive controlls with an all powerful environmental protection agency division to handle these platforms would not be very hard.

Now there is an inconvenient truth.

And yet you lost your mind with just the hint of possibility that kids dancing "MIGHT" excite a pedaphile? Here there is no doubt, you have a proven sexual predator in your hand and your two choices are hold him any way possible to protect future victims from harm, or let him go under some misguided attempt at "purity" and cause more harm........you choose to let him go? I always wonder at people who get more excited over possible harm than real and actual harm. As your last post points out, only 20 States have stepped up to the plate and created their own civil commitment laws. But without those laws there is still a need, a need that is filled very often by the Federal Government. If the States had worked better at dealing with this problem, it would not now be a question the Federal Government would have to take up. The problem is there even if the States refuse to act on that problem. I hate a lot of the things the Federal Government does, but protecting the innocent from predators is not one of them.

But you miss the most important thing about Regan, he was not considered a radical when he ran for office, Regan grew into his most powerful possitions as his support from Congress grew, sure it happend fast, but he needed congress. Consider someone like Regan in office with the current congress for a second, almost none of the things Regan accomplished would have been possible with this congress, and that is always my point, no one man can accomplish anything, but the failure to support McCain was with the knowledge that a radical progressive Obama would be the President with a radical liberal Congress is my opinion a huge mistake. A match made in Conservative Hell. If there had been a balanced congress or even a conservative Congress I might even have joined you guys in voting for "purity" because the harm of that choice would have been very low, but there was no way I could assist Obama get into power with a friendly radical Congress by wasting my vote to make a "purity" claim. There was too much at stake to throw away my vote on that election.

We can dissagree on what person may or may not have been large or moderate change but how about this: Moderate change would at least have stopped the digging on the hole, while your refusal to even support that meant the digging was increased ten fold. Your requirement of 'perfect or nothing' has given us nothing, and that nothing is taking us out of the pan and into the fire.

That was so wrong, em, your feisty lately you know that? That shows how much you know her. She's always feisty. I have seen em be very sweet before, so there

What the heck are you talking about? Did you read his quote? Yes, he said he does not agree with discrimination, but at the same time he also said that Government should not have the right to tell private business that they could not discriminate and that each owner should be allowed to decide if they do or do not want to conform with the laws against discrimination. Basically Rand said that discrimination is wrong, but the Government should not have the power to stop that wrong. Is the intrusion of Government into private business to stop dumping toxic waste in drinking water also blurring the lines? Either the Government has a responsibility to enforce laws and protect the people or it does not. In what way was the business made public? Does everyone get to share the profit the business makes (beyond the taxes)? Does the public change the menu or the prices? Exactly how did the business change hands of ownership just because there is a human rights policy saying that business owners chould not use their businesses as a weapon against the black community? You do know that was the real concern right? All the business owners had to do was refuse service to the blacks and kill them off from starvation, make them move away. As I said before, sometimes man has to be forced to walk down the right path, it is a shame to be true, but still a fact.

lol, no you only pretend to be against things when in reality your completely onboard witht hem, take the immegration example, you "SAY" you don't want the illegals here, but you fight against any attempt to directly identify and deport them. Your only wearing a different dress as a costume, in reality you want exactly the same things the liberals do. And as far as hugo is concerned, you still refuse to understand basic english, I have said many times that hugo is a radical and the "results" of what he does is what helps the liberals, and the two of you agree on many things because that is the nature of radicals to respect each sides off the charts possitions as kindred souls. A progressive wants the Government to impose "social justice", you can't snake out of that basic truth about progressives and that is why from a conservative possition, there is absolutely no difference between a progressive and a liberal. That is why you avoided my question about what new policies you want, and how you pay for them, and how you impliment them without big Government power, you know the answer to that very simple question is you can't. If you want to play Robin Hood, your a liberal, you want to redistribute wealth by force of big Government Bender, so your a liberal, nuff said.

lol, more dodging and redirecting but not one answer, because you can't answer. Nice try with your attempt to say you don't want big brother but all progressives want things like government run healthcare, and that is as much big brother as you can ever get in one program. I do know the difference, but it is like Joe Liberman, he was rejected by the Democrats, ran on his own as an independent, won and is "called" an independent but in reality is just as much a liberal as anyone else with the title Democrat. Progressives like to try and say their not the same as liberals but they share more than they are different and when it comes down to party politics, a progressive and a liberal will both sign the same bills like this healthcare bill that was signed. From a conservative standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a liberal and a progressive, both want to put the Government in control of more things (like government run free healthcare) and kill most private sector jobs. Both believe that at some point, making money is evil and once a person reaches that point of earning in their life, they should be stolen from and give that stolen money to what the Progressives and liberal both call disadvantaged. Both believe in the "man caused" global warming lie and want to punnish all humans everywhere for what they see as their contribution to that lie. How about this Bender, name some things liberals want to do you would not support in any way, that is if you can........

And your constant dodging and attempts to redirect attention away from the facts is even more of a joke. You know what Bender, this is a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong and give some details of how you progressives enact the many "social justice" programs without increasing the size or power of Government, let's hear it, educate me and anyone else who may see your points and be turned to your ideas. Show me what you got, give specifics and how your going to pay for these things without big Government stealing more money from the people to give to other people? You do understand that the Government taking more from the private sector is still bigger Government right?

Exactly, get a clue, you can pretend all you want but the only way to enact things like universal healthcare (one of the main beliefs of the progressives) is to have an all powerful government to enact and run it. Everything you progressives want requires the power of a monster government entity to put it into place. Sure, at the same time all of you guys blog about not trusting government as a kind of camouflage but you know there is no way to do what you want to do without the force of the Federal Government behind you.

How exactly do you redistribute wealth and give handouts without a big government behind you using it's power to take from one group to give to another Bender? And Barack Obama has been called a progressive even by progressive groups.

Just to clarify something, I agree in principle with his point, but this would ammount to the same thing as Benders idea about going after employers to work on immigration, if you make a law that says something is illegal, but at the same time you say there is no possible way of enforcing that law, why would anyone care about that law? The real law has always been enforcement, not the laws themselves. If the cops refuse to follow a law as some cops in Arizona have promised, what then? Does the law jump off the page and enforce itself? If you say discrimination is wrong, but then you tell everyone in America there there is absolutely no possible way to be punnished if you violate the law, who will follow the law? I think some people are looking at the problem of racism in reverse, but that is not how it happend, if not for the pressure from the Feds the vast majority of the south would still be very seperated, I know people right now who are very racist and would flock to businesses that excluded blacks. It is painful but true that sometimes men need to be pushed to walk the right direction. Pretty much every law that exists is based on moral stands, and at the same time all of those laws are worthless without enforcement. Possitions like Rand makes is that we are all free, but the business owner is more free because he can dictate what race of humans can buy from their store, this in turn limits where blacks can live, where they can go to school, what products they can buy and it would also mean that blacks would pay more for the same goods and services just because of the color of their skin. What happens if the local businesses join together and agree not to serve blacks? Should blacks have to move to a new town? What happens if every grocery store in America exercises their "freedom" and refuses to serve blacks? Do they all just starve because they are black?

What is the "REAL" difference when you all stick together for voting purposes anyway Bender? Your all voting Democrat, that is the one thing us Conservatives don't do, we have splintered groups so blinded by their search for 100% perfection they actually hurt instead of help conservative values in America, but their radical mindsets don't let them see that truth. So, as far as legislation and voting is concerned, there is no difference between a liberal and a progressive, both want to control America with big government and both have as their main political objective as "social justice", all the other tiny pieces are meaningless to the political picture.

That was so wrong, em, your feisty lately you know that?

Someone posted this on another forum, this kid is good Edited the video to show the better video of him on the ellen show.

The apple does not fall far from the tree, Ron Paul took a lot of heat for very racist stuff being in his private newsletters and later Ron tried to say he knew nothing about the stuff and blamed other people but in reality, his name was on it, you can't tell me he did not know what was being published under his name. Radicals tend to be.....radical. That said Rand will still be a great addition to the mix, I have said all along the contributions Ron Paul makes help to counter the radical left, his son will be the exact same thing, where we don't want radicals is in a possition like President. We see right now what a radical on the left does and the same would be true with a far right radical like Ron Paul. A very successful businessman once told me there is no such thing as the wrong person, just the wrong job, each of us have great potential, we just need to be in the job that matches our potential.

I get the feeling em is feeling a little left out so here is one for her: .

.Another for you hugo....

Well then I will give you another one: [attach=full]2789[/attach]