gadgetlady

I'm right there with you. I'm so passionate about politics. My kids (ages 8 and 11) are following in my footsteps; every time there's something online or on the news about the race, or a picket or protest they can go to, they want to be there. Great website here if you haven't seen it already: 2008 Election : Never Find Out : neverfindout.org

Thanks for putting that all together. I'm sure it took you some time, but well done!

Hey TommyO, good <ahem> to see you back. I didn't revive this thread -- someone else did. I only came back to correct the usual lies. When we slaughter thousands of innocent babies every day it is, indeed, the Dark Ages.

It might also make some people want to investigate how someone so in favor of a procedure that he fought to require it to be legal, performed thousands of them, owned many clinics that performed them, and made a very good living off of them, changed his mind. And no, it wasn't because he "found religion." He was an atheist when he changed his position. Can you show me where in the Constitution abortion is mentioned? You keep saying that but it just ain't in there, at least not that I've seen. Care to enlighten us?

No problem. Just FYI, Bernard Nathanson was one of the founders of NARAL and performed thousands upon thousands of abortions. He is now pro-life. So his discussions of fabricating statistics are more interesting than the average person, because he was one of the ones doing the fabricating.

Well, where ever it was, was it documented or did you just hear the number thrown out? I suspect it wasn't documented because it's just plain not true. There are lots of inaccurate and just downright untruthful things people believe and repeat to others because they've them, thus perpetuating the fraud. You should look into the history of the early pro-abortion movement -- read some of Bernard Nathanson's stuff about how they fabricated statistics to get the American public on their side on the issue of abortion. And just because it was printed in the newspaper, people bought it hook, line, and sinker. Even though it was wholly fabricated. If you want links or quotes, I'd be happy to provide them.

OH MY GOSH -- THIS IS FREAKIN' HILARIOUS! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_m1WadbFms]YouTube - Obama or McCain?[/ame] What an intelligent and educated public we have.

I don't care if it's an issue that favors Republicans or Democrats -- I think it's patently ludicrous that one doesn't have to verify one's identity to vote. Amen to both. LOL! Wouldn't want THAT to happen!

Here are some REAL statistics: Will Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? Women: 50% pro-abortion, 43% pro-life (This particular survey doesn't cite the numbers for men, but on the question of whether men and women believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, the numbers are quite telling, and awfully similar to the numbers above, allowing us to extrapolate the number of men who are pro-life): Women: No: 51%, Yes: 33% Men: No: 52%, Yes: 34% There is no validity to the claim that 80% of men are pro-life, nor to the claim that 80% of pro-lifers are men.

Perhaps you heard it in the above post. It's not a valid statistic. But prove me wrong! Show it to me.

I want to address the issue of the fradulent registrations never coming to fruition (never voting). Several years ago in California I went to vote. When I arrived at the polling place, I was ready to present my driver's license as identification. I was told I didn't need it and it was, in fact, ILLEGAL for them to ask for it. WHAT?!?!?!? I'm here to vote and you don't have the ability to VERIFY it's really me voting? Yup, that's correct. They just have to take you at your word that you are who you say you are. Now I don't know if it's the same in other states, but I do know that, had I wanted to do so, I could have registered in all of the surrounding precincts under different names and voted numerous times all over the state of California. Will someone claiming to be Mickey Mouse likely try to vote? Probably not (although I did once know a girl named Lolli Pop -- would they give her trouble voting? I don't know). But if I were working a polling site and someone came in with one of the names of the Dallas Cowboys, I wouldn't bat an eye -- because I wouldn't recognize the name (and who's to say there aren't two people -- or many people -- with the exact same name in the world?). So you may all say this isn't a big deal and amounts to nothing, but believe me, it IS a big deal when an organization, PUBLICLY FUNDED no less, corrupts the system.

I probably should have said INCREDULOUS.

That's a FASCINATING statistic. Do you mean 80% of pro-lifers are men, or 80% of men are pro-life? Either way, I'd just LOVE to see some back up on that INCREDIBLE statistic. I'll be waiting with baited breath. :regular_smile:

OK, does anyone else think this is going a bit far: Yes We Carve | Change Your Pumpkin, Change Your World ?

Statistics don't bear that out. Children who are abused are more often planned than not. And whether a child is planned at the time of conception or initially "wanted" doesn't necessarily mean he or she won't be wanted as he or she grows. Furthermore, if abortion cured child abuse, we'd have no child abuse. Instead, child abuse has grown dramatically since the Supreme Court decided abortion can't be illegal. My opinion is that when we devalue life in the womb, we naturally don't hold it in esteem outside of the womb either.

Oh, they say all sorts of things. It's a being but it's not a life. It's not a human being until it's wanted. It's not a life until it's viable. The mother gets to decide when the life begins. It's not human until it can survive on its own. It's human and it's alive but it's not a human life. Anything to wiggle out of the plain facts that the thing growing in the womb is human being. Anything at all.

I didn't know the New York Post and the St. Petersburg Times were tabloid, internet-only mediums. This is getting a LOT more press than those two publications (I just used them as examples because they were easy to find -- thank you Jack for posting them above), and a LOT more press than "internet only" sources.

The ACORNs are just falling from the trees, aren't they? Oh, wait, it's just conservative spin. It's not really happening, is it?

On that, you are 110% correct. It is unconscionable that a woman can't make this decision with her own body.

Many years ago I read a brilliantly written pamphlet entitled "Let's Legalize the Murder of Wives." In it, the author spelled out all the reasons why wife-murder should be legal: no one should be an unwanted wife, unwanted wives are likely to be abused, a husband shouldn't have to have a wife he doesn't want, unwanted wives are a burden on the family budget, and so forth. I wish I could find the pamphlet text online, as it was just brilliant. I will look for it at home and try to post it later. The point is, we don't kill people because they're inconvenient, unwanted, or because we envision they might have an unpleasant future.

Yup, I heard that, too. If YOU want to be patriotic with your money, go for it. But don't STEAL my money and tell me you're doing it "for the greater good", "to be patriotic", or "because it's fair". It's just plain theft, redistribution of wealth, and socialism. The question of how much money someone needs to have to be called "rich" (in order to determine how much they get taken away from them) shouldn't be answered with a numerical response. It should be answered, "None of your damn business."

I haven't seen any of the Republican candidates address this idiocy of "fairness". Biden froths at the mouth saying, re: taxing people who make over $250k/year, "I call that fair". Obama talks about "fairness" in raising taxes on people he, in his infinite wisdom, classifies as "rich." Why the hell is it FAIR to ever take someone's money away just because you think it is? SInce when is it OK to decide that someone doesn't deserve what they've earned?

That's because they ARE Mickey Mouse.

Oh, Missy, don't you know by now that that's just the mainstream conservative media distorting the facts? LOL!

There couldn't possibly be a real concern about fraud, of course.