salty blues
Active Member
I think obama and billary are running a contest to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most times. Really quite entertaining, yet frightening.
Obama supporters. I have one question
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
salty blues
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562650
Oh, did I get my Dems mixed up? So. what has your party done? The Right to lifers? Cut WIC? Cut funding for health care for children already born? What has the Republican done for the last 8 years? With all that control?
A classic Democrat, always wanting to know what the gubment is going to do for them.
http:///forum/post/2562650
Oh, did I get my Dems mixed up? So. what has your party done? The Right to lifers? Cut WIC? Cut funding for health care for children already born? What has the Republican done for the last 8 years? With all that control?
A classic Democrat, always wanting to know what the gubment is going to do for them.
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2562642
Better yet, go away Hillary! Obama, likewise.
Yeah, we want our Mc Bush to let illegal aliens have amnesty and bring terrorists across the border to murder us in our sleep....
Better yet, go away, McSame.
http:///forum/post/2562642
Better yet, go away Hillary! Obama, likewise.
Yeah, we want our Mc Bush to let illegal aliens have amnesty and bring terrorists across the border to murder us in our sleep....
Better yet, go away, McSame.
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2562663
A classic Democrat, always wanting to know what the gubment is going to do for them.
Strong dodge. (Not really, it is too obviously a way around answering. An artful dodge doesn't leave the question dangling.)
So, what has party done with it's complete control of the gubermint the last little bit? What platform promises did you get?
http:///forum/post/2562663
A classic Democrat, always wanting to know what the gubment is going to do for them.
Strong dodge. (Not really, it is too obviously a way around answering. An artful dodge doesn't leave the question dangling.)
So, what has party done with it's complete control of the gubermint the last little bit? What platform promises did you get?
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2562657
I think obama and billary are running a contest to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most times. Really quite entertaining, yet frightening.
Wait 'till the debates. You think this is entertaining! McBush can't even keep his terrorist lingo straight! Telflon John is gonna cry.....
http:///forum/post/2562657
I think obama and billary are running a contest to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most times. Really quite entertaining, yet frightening.
Wait 'till the debates. You think this is entertaining! McBush can't even keep his terrorist lingo straight! Telflon John is gonna cry.....
reefraff
Active Member
Bush hasn't attempted to limit abortions?
The pro abortion crowd doesn't see it that way
Bush's Strategy to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: A Chronology
To understand President Bush's ongoing strategy to restrict women's reproductive freedom, you need only look at his record since taking office in 2001. Bush has nominated over 200 anti-choice judges to the federal bench, has made a host of other anti-choice appointments to non-judicial posts, has enthusiastically signed anti-choice legislation passed by Congress, and has used his administration to further policies limiting access to safe and legal abortion.
January 2001 (on the President's first official day in office)
The President reinstated the Global Gag Rule. The Gag Rule prohibits any government funded international entity from using its own private funds to perform or provide abortions, lobby their own government for a change in abortion laws, conduct public education campaigns about abortion, refer women to safe abortion providers, or even provide medically accurate counseling about abortion to their clients.
January 2002 (and subsequent years)
The President declared January 18 "Sanctity of Life Day." The proclamation states that we must pursue a civil society "that will democratically embrace its essential moral duties, including...caring for children born and unborn."
January 2002
The Bush Administration directs states to classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child." The Administration recommends changing SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) so that states may cover children from conception until age 19.
December 2002
The President appointed Dr. David Hager as a member of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA. Dr. Hager is a member of the Christian Medical Association and Physicians Resource Council for Focus on the Family, two virulently anti-choice organizations. In his book As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, Dr. Hager states that the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome can be cured by prayer and reading Scripture.
2002 (and every year since)
The President withheld the Congress-approved $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA provides critical services to women around the world including educational materials, reproductive health services and contraception.
November 2003
The President signed the federal abortion ban. Three federal district courts and one federal appellate court have struck the ban down as unconstitutional. It provides no exception to protect women's health.
April 2004
The President signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an attempt to establish a precedent that could be used to weaken a woman's right to choose. The specific language of the legislation elevates the fetus with rights distinct from a pregnant woman.
May 2004
The President supported the FDA decision to withhold approval of over-the-counter distribution of emergency contraception. The FDA is scheduled to decide by September 1, 2005 whether to approve non-prescription sales of emergency contraception.
September 2004
The President applied heavy pressure on Congress to approve $273 million for abstinence-only education programs.
October 2004
>
The President pressured Congress to pass its Department of Defense Authorization bill denying federal funds to women in the military seeking abortions in the case of ---- or
[hr]
.
January 2005
The Department of Justice issued its first ever guidelines regarding medical treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines did not include any mention of emergency contraception.
January 2005
President Bush gave a recess appointment to Charles W. Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a failed cloture vote. Pickering has been quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court decision of the United States allows abortion on demand. It gives the husband no say-so.... The taking of life is wrong and we should oppose abortion."
Bush's Strategy to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: A Chronology
To understand President Bush's ongoing strategy to restrict women's reproductive freedom, you need only look at his record since taking office in 2001. Bush has nominated over 200 anti-choice judges to the federal bench, has made a host of other anti-choice appointments to non-judicial posts, has enthusiastically signed anti-choice legislation passed by Congress, and has used his administration to further policies limiting access to safe and legal abortion.
January 2001 (on the President's first official day in office)
The President reinstated the Global Gag Rule. The Gag Rule prohibits any government funded international entity from using its own private funds to perform or provide abortions, lobby their own government for a change in abortion laws, conduct public education campaigns about abortion, refer women to safe abortion providers, or even provide medically accurate counseling about abortion to their clients.
January 2002 (and subsequent years)
The President declared January 18 "Sanctity of Life Day." The proclamation states that we must pursue a civil society "that will democratically embrace its essential moral duties, including...caring for children born and unborn."
January 2002
The Bush Administration directs states to classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child." The Administration recommends changing SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) so that states may cover children from conception until age 19.
December 2002
The President appointed Dr. David Hager as a member of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA. Dr. Hager is a member of the Christian Medical Association and Physicians Resource Council for Focus on the Family, two virulently anti-choice organizations. In his book As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, Dr. Hager states that the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome can be cured by prayer and reading Scripture.
2002 (and every year since)
The President withheld the Congress-approved $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA provides critical services to women around the world including educational materials, reproductive health services and contraception.
November 2003
The President signed the federal abortion ban. Three federal district courts and one federal appellate court have struck the ban down as unconstitutional. It provides no exception to protect women's health.
April 2004
The President signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an attempt to establish a precedent that could be used to weaken a woman's right to choose. The specific language of the legislation elevates the fetus with rights distinct from a pregnant woman.
May 2004
The President supported the FDA decision to withhold approval of over-the-counter distribution of emergency contraception. The FDA is scheduled to decide by September 1, 2005 whether to approve non-prescription sales of emergency contraception.
September 2004
The President applied heavy pressure on Congress to approve $273 million for abstinence-only education programs.
October 2004
>
The President pressured Congress to pass its Department of Defense Authorization bill denying federal funds to women in the military seeking abortions in the case of ---- or
[hr]
.
January 2005
The Department of Justice issued its first ever guidelines regarding medical treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines did not include any mention of emergency contraception.
January 2005
President Bush gave a recess appointment to Charles W. Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a failed cloture vote. Pickering has been quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court decision of the United States allows abortion on demand. It gives the husband no say-so.... The taking of life is wrong and we should oppose abortion."
reefraff
Active Member
February 2005
President Bush gave William Pryor a recess appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor has been quoted as saying, "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the lives of millions of unborn children."
February 2005
President Bush re-nominated several extreme judicial nominees, including four who opposed reproductive choice, that were previously rejected by the Senate.
February 2005
The United States delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women attempted to manipulate the language in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing conference's platform. They proposed an amendment specifying that the platform not include a right to abortion or "create any new international human rights," ignoring the original recommendation that abortion should be safe in places where it is legal and that criminal charges should not be filed against any woman who undergoes an illegal abortion.
May 2005
Three of President Bush's most extreme nominees hostile to choice are confirmed to the federal appellate courts: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor.
July 2005
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court in upholding a woman's right to choose, retired. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill her seat. Roberts had once argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and stated that there was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. Roberts had also co-authored a brief arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..." in a case where the validity of Roe was not at issue. Roberts also referred to a fundamental right to privacy as merely a "so-called" right and argued for narrow interpretations of other women's rights in cases of constitutional protection against --- discrimination, equal opportunities in education, and protecting women in the workplace. Roberts even argued against the federal government's protection of women being harassed and physically intimidated at reproductive health clinics.
September 2005
Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. President Bush switched Judge John Roberts' nomination and nominated him to become Chief Justice, a position that is very influential on the Supreme Court and is the head of the judicial branch of government. He was confirmed by the Senate at the end of September.
October 2005
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Alito had a history of supporting restricted access to abortion and limiting the right to privacy. Alito would have upheld a provision requiring women to notify their husbands prior to having an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice O'Connor, whose seat he was nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision, joining the plurality opinion that found women most affected and most afraid to notify their husbands of their pregnancies were in the gravest danger.
In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, he wrote his own opinion making clear he joined the decision on New Jersey's ban on certain abortion procedures only because he was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent of Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), a precedent he would no longer be required to follow as a Supreme Court justice. He is confirmed by the Senate in January 2006.
July 2006
President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate with strong bi-partisan support, and was also supported by a majority of Americans. The President's veto reflected a decision to put politics above the lives and health of millions of Americans.
President Bush gave William Pryor a recess appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor has been quoted as saying, "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the lives of millions of unborn children."
February 2005
President Bush re-nominated several extreme judicial nominees, including four who opposed reproductive choice, that were previously rejected by the Senate.
February 2005
The United States delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women attempted to manipulate the language in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing conference's platform. They proposed an amendment specifying that the platform not include a right to abortion or "create any new international human rights," ignoring the original recommendation that abortion should be safe in places where it is legal and that criminal charges should not be filed against any woman who undergoes an illegal abortion.
May 2005
Three of President Bush's most extreme nominees hostile to choice are confirmed to the federal appellate courts: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor.
July 2005
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court in upholding a woman's right to choose, retired. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill her seat. Roberts had once argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and stated that there was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. Roberts had also co-authored a brief arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..." in a case where the validity of Roe was not at issue. Roberts also referred to a fundamental right to privacy as merely a "so-called" right and argued for narrow interpretations of other women's rights in cases of constitutional protection against --- discrimination, equal opportunities in education, and protecting women in the workplace. Roberts even argued against the federal government's protection of women being harassed and physically intimidated at reproductive health clinics.
September 2005
Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. President Bush switched Judge John Roberts' nomination and nominated him to become Chief Justice, a position that is very influential on the Supreme Court and is the head of the judicial branch of government. He was confirmed by the Senate at the end of September.
October 2005
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Alito had a history of supporting restricted access to abortion and limiting the right to privacy. Alito would have upheld a provision requiring women to notify their husbands prior to having an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice O'Connor, whose seat he was nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision, joining the plurality opinion that found women most affected and most afraid to notify their husbands of their pregnancies were in the gravest danger.
In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, he wrote his own opinion making clear he joined the decision on New Jersey's ban on certain abortion procedures only because he was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent of Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), a precedent he would no longer be required to follow as a Supreme Court justice. He is confirmed by the Senate in January 2006.
July 2006
President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate with strong bi-partisan support, and was also supported by a majority of Americans. The President's veto reflected a decision to put politics above the lives and health of millions of Americans.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562650
Oh, did I get my Dems mixed up? So. what has your party done? The Right to lifers? Cut WIC? Cut funding for health care for children already born? What has the Republican done for the last 8 years? With all that control?
That is not my discussion nor have I ever had that as my stance. You called BUSH trhe incompetant president. I gave examples of others. You said Carter was an Icon and not incompetant. I asked for one good thing he did....you said WIC legislation. I shopwed you he wasn't in office for WIC legislation (which incidentally was created before abortion)...I asked for another exaample that makes him not incompetant....you have yet to respond. Since you can not respoond you turned around and spun it so you could ask "well what have the republicans done for abortion"....Journey showed you and you still can't grasp why Roe V Wade can not be overturned by one president...or congress...so this is where we are today......
still waiting for what made Carter not incompetant...
http:///forum/post/2562650
Oh, did I get my Dems mixed up? So. what has your party done? The Right to lifers? Cut WIC? Cut funding for health care for children already born? What has the Republican done for the last 8 years? With all that control?
That is not my discussion nor have I ever had that as my stance. You called BUSH trhe incompetant president. I gave examples of others. You said Carter was an Icon and not incompetant. I asked for one good thing he did....you said WIC legislation. I shopwed you he wasn't in office for WIC legislation (which incidentally was created before abortion)...I asked for another exaample that makes him not incompetant....you have yet to respond. Since you can not respoond you turned around and spun it so you could ask "well what have the republicans done for abortion"....Journey showed you and you still can't grasp why Roe V Wade can not be overturned by one president...or congress...so this is where we are today......
still waiting for what made Carter not incompetant...
reefraff
Active Member
November 2006
President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA), the department that oversees Title X, the nation's family planning program. Dr. Keroack was the medical director for A Woman's Concern (AWC), six crisis pregnancy health centers located in the greater Boston area. Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are designed to discourage pregnant women from seeking abortions, and in many instances they misinform and intimidate women to achieve their goal. His appointment was deeply troubling given Title X's long-standing commitment to medically accurate information. The CPCs that he directed claimed that contractption was "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." NAF and many other health care and women's organizations sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to express serious concerns over the appointment of Dr. Keroack. He resigned in March 2007.
April 2007
The United States Supreme Court issued its decision upholding a federal ban on certain safe abortion procedures in Carhart v. Gonzales. In the first decision issued since Justice O'Connor's retirement, the Court retreated from a core principle of Roe v. Wade - that women's health must remain paramount. The ruling was a major set back for women's health and access to abortion.
June 2007
President Bush again vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, an action out of step with the majority of Americans who support this potentially life-saving medical research. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to find new treatments, or even cures, for diseases that affect millions of Americans such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's.
President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA), the department that oversees Title X, the nation's family planning program. Dr. Keroack was the medical director for A Woman's Concern (AWC), six crisis pregnancy health centers located in the greater Boston area. Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are designed to discourage pregnant women from seeking abortions, and in many instances they misinform and intimidate women to achieve their goal. His appointment was deeply troubling given Title X's long-standing commitment to medically accurate information. The CPCs that he directed claimed that contractption was "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." NAF and many other health care and women's organizations sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to express serious concerns over the appointment of Dr. Keroack. He resigned in March 2007.
April 2007
The United States Supreme Court issued its decision upholding a federal ban on certain safe abortion procedures in Carhart v. Gonzales. In the first decision issued since Justice O'Connor's retirement, the Court retreated from a core principle of Roe v. Wade - that women's health must remain paramount. The ruling was a major set back for women's health and access to abortion.
June 2007
President Bush again vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, an action out of step with the majority of Americans who support this potentially life-saving medical research. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to find new treatments, or even cures, for diseases that affect millions of Americans such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's.
suzy
Member
Of course your party can't change anything. I agree with you. But, I think they don't want to..
As far as Carter, IMO he is an Icon. A promoter of peace, a player in Israel/palestinian talks, the founder of Habitat for Humanity. You can bad mouth him, though. I just consider the source.
As far as Carter, IMO he is an Icon. A promoter of peace, a player in Israel/palestinian talks, the founder of Habitat for Humanity. You can bad mouth him, though. I just consider the source.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562673
What platform promises did you get?
Lower taxes which I got.....
Unlike you and everyone other democrat, I don't ask the government to provide for me, I ask them to allow me to provide for myself and leave me alone to live my life.
Sorry, if you are poor, work harder, I did...No college education first job was minimum, second was minimum wage, not once did I complain. (oh and the minimum wage then was 4. 25)
I worked hard to get where I am today owning my own business...I took no loans, no government grants, no help from government what so ever.
Why can't anyone else do what I did? Why should the government help them? are they that incompetant?
http:///forum/post/2562673
What platform promises did you get?
Lower taxes which I got.....
Unlike you and everyone other democrat, I don't ask the government to provide for me, I ask them to allow me to provide for myself and leave me alone to live my life.
Sorry, if you are poor, work harder, I did...No college education first job was minimum, second was minimum wage, not once did I complain. (oh and the minimum wage then was 4. 25)
I worked hard to get where I am today owning my own business...I took no loans, no government grants, no help from government what so ever.
Why can't anyone else do what I did? Why should the government help them? are they that incompetant?
salty blues
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562673
Strong dodge. (Not really, it is too obviously a way around answering. An artful dodge doesn't leave the question dangling.)
So, what has party done with it's complete control of the gubermint the last little bit? What platform promises did you get?
I try to adhere to a philosophy of doing things for my self as much as possible, not relying on the government for everything and desiring that they stay the heck out of my life as much as possible.
http:///forum/post/2562673
Strong dodge. (Not really, it is too obviously a way around answering. An artful dodge doesn't leave the question dangling.)
So, what has party done with it's complete control of the gubermint the last little bit? What platform promises did you get?
I try to adhere to a philosophy of doing things for my self as much as possible, not relying on the government for everything and desiring that they stay the heck out of my life as much as possible.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562689
Of course your party can't change anything. I agree with you. But, I think they don't want to..
As far as Carter, IMO he is an Icon. A promoter of peace, a player in Israel/palestinian talks, the founder of Habitat for Humanity. You can bad mouth him, though. I just consider the source.
You are speaking many many years after his presidency....what did he do during his presidency....
http:///forum/post/2562689
Of course your party can't change anything. I agree with you. But, I think they don't want to..
As far as Carter, IMO he is an Icon. A promoter of peace, a player in Israel/palestinian talks, the founder of Habitat for Humanity. You can bad mouth him, though. I just consider the source.
You are speaking many many years after his presidency....what did he do during his presidency....
suzy
Member
Hey, here's a letter from the chairman of the DNC I'll cut n paste for you. This can add at least a quarter page!
Dear Suzy,
John McCain is so wrong on Iraq, he can't even get the basic facts about the situation on the ground correct.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.
If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?
We have to stop John McCain from taking control of the White House, and stop him from taking over George Bush's war in Iraq. Can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting voters in your area know just how confused John McCain is?
http://www.democrats.org/gaffes
Once is misspeaking -- five times is a dangerous lack of understanding. John McCain so badly misunderstands Iraq that he's content to stay there for 100 years, something he's said multiple times. He has also failed to explain how he would pay for a war that is now costing you and me $12 billion each month -- money we could be using to help our economy here at home.
John McCain wants us to believe that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead our nation at war with terrorists.
We just can't afford someone who just doesn't understand Iraq -- it's too dangerous.
Thanks for your support.
Howard Dean
Dear Suzy,
John McCain is so wrong on Iraq, he can't even get the basic facts about the situation on the ground correct.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.
If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?
We have to stop John McCain from taking control of the White House, and stop him from taking over George Bush's war in Iraq. Can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting voters in your area know just how confused John McCain is?
http://www.democrats.org/gaffes
Once is misspeaking -- five times is a dangerous lack of understanding. John McCain so badly misunderstands Iraq that he's content to stay there for 100 years, something he's said multiple times. He has also failed to explain how he would pay for a war that is now costing you and me $12 billion each month -- money we could be using to help our economy here at home.
John McCain wants us to believe that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead our nation at war with terrorists.
We just can't afford someone who just doesn't understand Iraq -- it's too dangerous.
Thanks for your support.
Howard Dean
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562637
So, you support a party that talks big but does nothing? Nice.
hehe, they say that yet do nothing. They say that so you believe that they have some moral high ground but really, isn't it just lying when they know once they scam you into voting for them, they will just blow it off? hehe
Your argument that there is a bill that limits abortions doesn't wash. You've been played if you think it has. You belive it like you believe they want to limit spending.....hehe
A bill that banned partial birth abortions did not limit abortions....
Your candidate wants to allow partial birth abortions. Either I'm getting played or you are in denial. I'll let the readers of this thread come to the natural conclusion.
Dance all you want; The Republican party has continually done more to oppose and turn back RvW than the Democrats. Don't forget which party put the judges in place that passed RvW...
You can't honestly say the abortion issue is important to you and that you are Pro Life and support any Democrat; Especially not one as far Left as Obama.
http:///forum/post/2562637
So, you support a party that talks big but does nothing? Nice.
hehe, they say that yet do nothing. They say that so you believe that they have some moral high ground but really, isn't it just lying when they know once they scam you into voting for them, they will just blow it off? hehe
Your argument that there is a bill that limits abortions doesn't wash. You've been played if you think it has. You belive it like you believe they want to limit spending.....hehe
A bill that banned partial birth abortions did not limit abortions....
Your candidate wants to allow partial birth abortions. Either I'm getting played or you are in denial. I'll let the readers of this thread come to the natural conclusion.
Dance all you want; The Republican party has continually done more to oppose and turn back RvW than the Democrats. Don't forget which party put the judges in place that passed RvW...
You can't honestly say the abortion issue is important to you and that you are Pro Life and support any Democrat; Especially not one as far Left as Obama.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2562699
Hey, here's a letter from the chairman of the DNC I'll cut n paste for you. This can add at least a quarter page!
Dear Suzy,
John McCain is so wrong on Iraq, he can't even get the basic facts about the situation on the ground correct.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.
If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?
We have to stop John McCain from taking control of the White House, and stop him from taking over George Bush's war in Iraq. Can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting voters in your area know just how confused John McCain is?
http://www.democrats.org/gaffes
Once is misspeaking -- five times is a dangerous lack of understanding. John McCain so badly misunderstands Iraq that he's content to stay there for 100 years, something he's said multiple times. He has also failed to explain how he would pay for a war that is now costing you and me $12 billion each month -- money we could be using to help our economy here at home.
John McCain wants us to believe that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead our nation at war with terrorists.
We just can't afford someone who just doesn't understand Iraq -- it's too dangerous.
Thanks for your support.
Howard Dean
atleast he is trying, your candidate just wants to leave without trying correct the problem.
http:///forum/post/2562699
Hey, here's a letter from the chairman of the DNC I'll cut n paste for you. This can add at least a quarter page!
Dear Suzy,
John McCain is so wrong on Iraq, he can't even get the basic facts about the situation on the ground correct.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East.
If John McCain can't remember such a simple fact at crucial times, how will he be able to do it as President?
We have to stop John McCain from taking control of the White House, and stop him from taking over George Bush's war in Iraq. Can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting voters in your area know just how confused John McCain is?
http://www.democrats.org/gaffes
Once is misspeaking -- five times is a dangerous lack of understanding. John McCain so badly misunderstands Iraq that he's content to stay there for 100 years, something he's said multiple times. He has also failed to explain how he would pay for a war that is now costing you and me $12 billion each month -- money we could be using to help our economy here at home.
John McCain wants us to believe that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead our nation at war with terrorists.
We just can't afford someone who just doesn't understand Iraq -- it's too dangerous.
Thanks for your support.
Howard Dean
atleast he is trying, your candidate just wants to leave without trying correct the problem.
suzy
Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2562690
Lower taxes which I got.....
Unlike you and everyone other democrat, I don't ask the government to provide for me, I ask them to allow me to provide for myself and leave me alone to live my life.
Sorry, if you are poor, work harder, I did...No college education first job was minimum, second was minimum wage, not once did I complain. (oh and the minimum wage then was 4. 25)
I worked hard to get where I am today owning my own business...I took no loans, no government grants, no help from government what so ever.
Why can't anyone else do what I did? Why should the government help them? are they that incompetant?
Yeah, right. What did your grandkids get?Unlike you and everyone other republican, I want to pay for the services I use, and not try to get everyone else to pay for my bills or get other people kids to pay them.
http:///forum/post/2562690
Lower taxes which I got.....
Unlike you and everyone other democrat, I don't ask the government to provide for me, I ask them to allow me to provide for myself and leave me alone to live my life.
Sorry, if you are poor, work harder, I did...No college education first job was minimum, second was minimum wage, not once did I complain. (oh and the minimum wage then was 4. 25)
I worked hard to get where I am today owning my own business...I took no loans, no government grants, no help from government what so ever.
Why can't anyone else do what I did? Why should the government help them? are they that incompetant?
Yeah, right. What did your grandkids get?Unlike you and everyone other republican, I want to pay for the services I use, and not try to get everyone else to pay for my bills or get other people kids to pay them.
reefraff
Active Member
More prooof the Republicans have done nothing to reduce abortions.
Abortion Ban Spurs 'Free Choice' Move in Congress
Run Date: 04/20/07
By Allison Stevens
WeNews correspondent
Democrats reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress a day after the Supreme Court upheld an abortion-procedure ban. The bill could lead to a reversal of the ban that broke legal precedent by providing no health exception for the woman.
WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--The day after the Supreme Court upheld a controversial abortion ban, pro-choice politicians mounted a counteroffensive from the legislative branch of government across the street.
Democrats Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York--two leading supporters of abortion rights in the U.S. Congress--reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify in federal law the rights established in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that found abortion was part of a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose," said Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. "This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women's rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge."
If passed, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely lead to court challenges that could overturn the ban upheld Wednesday. The federal ban okayed by the high court Wednesday does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman, a precedent laid out in Roe v. Wade.
The Democrats' bill would also bar government at any level from passing laws that outlaw abortion before the fetus is viable or after viability if the woman's health or life is endangered. It is unclear how the law would apply to future or past restrictions on access to abortion.
Supporters say the legislation will help inoculate women from a wave of new restrictions to abortion that is expected to follow Wednesday's court decision. Advocates on both sides of the issue agree that the court's ruling gives a green light to further chip away at reproductive rights and could even embolden efforts to ban abortion altogether.
Response to Court Ruling
At a press conference in the Capitol Building Thursday, pro-choice activists rallied around the Democrat's bill as a way to counter Wednesday's Supreme Court decision.
"Pro-choice leaders like Sen. Boxer, Rep. Nadler and the bill's other cosponsors understand that government should not interfere in personal, private medical decisions," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading reproductive rights advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said at the news conference. "We applaud their efforts to stop anti-choice attacks and protect a woman's right to choose by introducing the Freedom of Choice Act."
Seven states have passed their own versions of the Freedom of Choice Act, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America. They are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.
At the federal level prospects are cloudy for the bill, which has been introduced in previous Congresses but has failed to win passage.
For starters, strongly anti-choice President Bush would almost certainly veto any legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade into federal law.
Abortion Ban Spurs 'Free Choice' Move in Congress
Run Date: 04/20/07
By Allison Stevens
WeNews correspondent
Democrats reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress a day after the Supreme Court upheld an abortion-procedure ban. The bill could lead to a reversal of the ban that broke legal precedent by providing no health exception for the woman.
WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--The day after the Supreme Court upheld a controversial abortion ban, pro-choice politicians mounted a counteroffensive from the legislative branch of government across the street.
Democrats Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York--two leading supporters of abortion rights in the U.S. Congress--reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify in federal law the rights established in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that found abortion was part of a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose," said Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. "This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women's rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge."
If passed, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely lead to court challenges that could overturn the ban upheld Wednesday. The federal ban okayed by the high court Wednesday does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman, a precedent laid out in Roe v. Wade.
The Democrats' bill would also bar government at any level from passing laws that outlaw abortion before the fetus is viable or after viability if the woman's health or life is endangered. It is unclear how the law would apply to future or past restrictions on access to abortion.
Supporters say the legislation will help inoculate women from a wave of new restrictions to abortion that is expected to follow Wednesday's court decision. Advocates on both sides of the issue agree that the court's ruling gives a green light to further chip away at reproductive rights and could even embolden efforts to ban abortion altogether.
Response to Court Ruling
At a press conference in the Capitol Building Thursday, pro-choice activists rallied around the Democrat's bill as a way to counter Wednesday's Supreme Court decision.
"Pro-choice leaders like Sen. Boxer, Rep. Nadler and the bill's other cosponsors understand that government should not interfere in personal, private medical decisions," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading reproductive rights advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said at the news conference. "We applaud their efforts to stop anti-choice attacks and protect a woman's right to choose by introducing the Freedom of Choice Act."
Seven states have passed their own versions of the Freedom of Choice Act, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America. They are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.
At the federal level prospects are cloudy for the bill, which has been introduced in previous Congresses but has failed to win passage.
For starters, strongly anti-choice President Bush would almost certainly veto any legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade into federal law.
reefraff
Active Member
Meanwhile, even though Congress is now controlled by the Democrats, pro-choice activists cannot count every member of the majority party as an ally.
Slim Majority
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon from Nevada, opposes abortion in most cases. And Democrats, with their slim majority of 51 seats, lack the 60 votes needed to override a likely filibuster.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California is a solid supporter of abortion rights, and a spokesperson confirmed her support of the Freedom of Choice Act shortly after it was introduced.
But she presides over a chamber that opposes abortion, said Ted Miller, a spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Miller says 219 House members oppose abortion, out of a total membership of 435.
The bill might be able to go farther than it has in the past, a reproductive rights advocate said, but couldn't predict if it stood a chance of passage. The advocate spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to publicly assess the bill's chances of success.
Some members of Congress, however, may make this is a priority now that the Supreme Court has demonstrated what many court-watchers see as an ideologically hostile bent on abortion-related issues.
In its ruling on Wednesday the Supreme Court said it was upholding a ban on a procedure that it identified as intact dilation and evacuation even though the law made no exception for women who might require that particular procedure for health reasons.
Offensive Switch
The legislative counteroffensive marks a new era in Congress in which pro-choice lawmakers are taking the offensive, a contrast to the past dozen years, when Republicans held the reigns of power and presided over a series of legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion.
The ban upheld by the court on Wednesday sailed through Congress in October 2003. With the court ruling to uphold it, the law is expected to take effect within the next month.
The House backed the measure 281-142; the Senate 64-34. In both chambers a considerable number of Democrats voted for the bill and Bush signed it into law that November. Until Wednesday, it was held back by legal challenges to its lack of a health exception for the woman.
Under the law, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison.
Wednesday's ruling was the court's first major decision on the issue of abortion since the 2006 retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the whose support for limited abortion rights made her the court's swing vote on the issue.
Two George W. Bush appointees--John Roberts and Samuel Alito--have joined the court since O'Connor's retirement and the death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who consistently voted against reproductive choice.
"Justice O'Connor retired and President Bush and a Republican Senate replaced her with a reliably anti-choice vote on the Supreme Court," Nadler said. "It is clear today that the far-right's campaign to pack the Supreme Court has succeeded and that women and their families will be the losers."
Slim Majority
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon from Nevada, opposes abortion in most cases. And Democrats, with their slim majority of 51 seats, lack the 60 votes needed to override a likely filibuster.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California is a solid supporter of abortion rights, and a spokesperson confirmed her support of the Freedom of Choice Act shortly after it was introduced.
But she presides over a chamber that opposes abortion, said Ted Miller, a spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Miller says 219 House members oppose abortion, out of a total membership of 435.
The bill might be able to go farther than it has in the past, a reproductive rights advocate said, but couldn't predict if it stood a chance of passage. The advocate spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to publicly assess the bill's chances of success.
Some members of Congress, however, may make this is a priority now that the Supreme Court has demonstrated what many court-watchers see as an ideologically hostile bent on abortion-related issues.
In its ruling on Wednesday the Supreme Court said it was upholding a ban on a procedure that it identified as intact dilation and evacuation even though the law made no exception for women who might require that particular procedure for health reasons.
Offensive Switch
The legislative counteroffensive marks a new era in Congress in which pro-choice lawmakers are taking the offensive, a contrast to the past dozen years, when Republicans held the reigns of power and presided over a series of legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion.
The ban upheld by the court on Wednesday sailed through Congress in October 2003. With the court ruling to uphold it, the law is expected to take effect within the next month.
The House backed the measure 281-142; the Senate 64-34. In both chambers a considerable number of Democrats voted for the bill and Bush signed it into law that November. Until Wednesday, it was held back by legal challenges to its lack of a health exception for the woman.
Under the law, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison.
Wednesday's ruling was the court's first major decision on the issue of abortion since the 2006 retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the whose support for limited abortion rights made her the court's swing vote on the issue.
Two George W. Bush appointees--John Roberts and Samuel Alito--have joined the court since O'Connor's retirement and the death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who consistently voted against reproductive choice.
"Justice O'Connor retired and President Bush and a Republican Senate replaced her with a reliably anti-choice vote on the Supreme Court," Nadler said. "It is clear today that the far-right's campaign to pack the Supreme Court has succeeded and that women and their families will be the losers."