N O SSI increase in January

[Patrick]

Facts and links have been asked for for years and when provided they are ignored or dismissed because they don't go along with their opinions. So its a waste of time. If anyone wants to know something all they have to do is take a little time and look it up.





I've been thinking that since I'm playing the back nine and probably won't be around to see the outcome maybe I should just jump on the 'freebie' band wagon and sit back for the ride.  After-al, why not take an increase in SS, Medicare and anything else the liberals can give away since I won't be around to pay for it.  Naaa, never mind, can't do it, I have a conscience.

[baldo]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but when I read these posts that time after time make vague statements such as yours, I'm going to ask for proof. QUOTE by Baldo.

Baldo, you seem to automatically assume that those who don't want to back up their statements are 'vague'

At 87 years of age, I do have knowledge that isn't vague in my mind.  However, to what point would it do any good to try to change your opinion?  I really don't have the inclination to discuss it.  You, however, would be making a BIG mistake if you assume that people are ignorant because they don't want to engage.


Just this day, I served on the bi monthly meeting of the Board of Works and Safety in our city. The other member of the Board asked me to identify a pistol that she wanted to sell.  She has always  admitted that she was severely antigun and wanted to get this antique pistol out of the family.

Rather than go into a lenghty discussion with her which would've proved nothing, I merely gave her my opinion, NOT a discourse on where she was wrong.  That simple exchange did not lessen my knowledge of my experience with firearms.  So, No further discussion.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  DO NOT disrespect me for my refusal to  become part of a futile discussion.!

Cheers, Wayne, Solo1

Wayne,

I'm not disrespecting you for not getting involved in a discussion, not at all. That's probably a smart move. My point was, and has always been, to speak up when I read someone making statements about Obama that are, to be kind, not true. It's bad enough without willfully spreading BS.

I feel that to just sit back and not challenge someone making these statements, would be a disservice to the truth. I'm talking about claims that he's a Muslim, that he was born in Kenya, that he has 6 fingers on each hand (joking), etc. With all the crap that gets thrown around, it sure would be nice if it was at least partially true, at least half the time.

Respectfully,

Bob

[baldo]

Facts and links have been asked for for years and when provided they are ignored or dismissed because they don't go along with their opinions. So its a waste of time. If anyone wants to know something all they have to do is take a little time and look it up.

 

[BF]

You cold heartless people.   

Those several hundred thousand moooslum Syrians headed this way are gonna need all the free stuff they can handle. 

You don't need anymore money when there's folks out there that need more free stuff.   

[solo1]

Thank you Bob.

Solo1

[f6john]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

[Wizzard]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Well stated 

[The emperor has no clothes]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Well stated 

Not hardly

[f6john]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Well stated 

Not hardly

    Thanks Meathead, for the comment. Since hardly means barely or almost not and you said Not hardly you literally said definitely. It has to be the first time we have agreed on anything.

[Wizzard]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Well stated 

Not hardly

    Thanks Meathead, for the comment. Since hardly means barely or almost not and you said Not hardly you literally said definitely. It has to be the first time we have agreed on anything.

 

[Patrick]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Yep, well said !   

[The emperor has no clothes]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Well stated 

Not hardly

    Thanks Meathead, for the comment. Since hardly means barely or almost not and you said Not hardly you literally said definitely. It has to be the first time we have agreed on anything.

 

  You got me. (I can remember once or twice we were in agreement, of course that was over a 5 year period)

[Wizzard]

   I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable. 

Yep, well said !   

Only thing left out was about saving trees, protect the animals,, but still,, kill the babies!

[dinosnake]

For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all

You see, some people think different.  For some people, the point is "Mind my own damn business" - what I, you or just about what everyone else feels about a woman's decision regarding her pregnancy is a question only for her, her mate (if present) and her doctor.  With so much of the anti- debate being based upon, and wrapped in the language, of religion, many of us believe that we have no right to impose said religious beliefs on other people who may not believe the same - the very foundation of the First Amendment.

with abortion on demand is sickening.

What may be even more sickening is that a large contingent of the pro- side is also, ironically, anti-universal health care.  So they stand up on their street corners, proclaiming "Pro life!", maybe force a woman to have an unwanted child by passing bans on procedures based upon their singular beliefs...and then, conversely, have a stance that unequivocally states after the baby is born, "It's your problem, now".  Baby born with health problems, needs medical treatments or even life-saving surgery?  Nope, no social support here, folks, you're on your own.

But we're "Pro life!".

THAT"S sickening.

[Wizzard]

If it is not murder taking a babies life cause supposedly in someone's mind its not a life then how come if a pregnant woman is murdered in most states the perpetrator is charged with 2 murders?

[The emperor has no clothes]

If it is not murder taking a babies life cause supposedly in someone's mind its not a life then how come if a pregnant woman is murdered in most states the perpetrator is charged with 2 murders?

Isn't it considered a life after the 2nd trimester ?

[dinosnake]

If it is not murder taking a babies life cause supposedly in someone's mind its not a life then how come if a pregnant woman is murdered in most states the perpetrator is charged with 2 murders?

Isn't it considered a life after the 2nd trimester ?

Yes.  According to what I just read about it all, they based "life" on "viability" - the ability to live outside the womb, even with mechanical assistance.  That would be third trimester, before that time it can not survive outside.

[Wizzard]

so what is it before the third trimester,, dead?

[baldo]

Look, another outrage.....

I thought this was a motorcycle forum.

[baldo]

For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all

You see, some people think different.  For some people, the point is "Mind my own damn business" - what I, you or just about what everyone else feels about a woman's decision regarding her pregnancy is a question only for her, her mate (if present) and her doctor.  With so much of the anti- debate being based upon, and wrapped in the language, of religion, many of us believe that we have no right to impose said religious beliefs on other people who may not believe the same - the very foundation of the First Amendment.

with abortion on demand is sickening.

What may be even more sickening is that a large contingent of the pro- side is also, ironically, anti-universal health care.  So they stand up on their street corners, proclaiming "Pro life!", maybe force a woman to have an unwanted child by passing bans on procedures based upon their singular beliefs...and then, conversely, have a stance that unequivocally states after the baby is born, "It's your problem, now".  Baby born with health problems, needs medical treatments or even life-saving surgery?  Nope, no social support here, folks, you're on your own.

But we're "Pro life!".

THAT"S sickening.

Well stated....

[baldo]

  I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable.  

I was with you until you started the Benghazi BS...Have you been watching the news the last couple of days? Even though everyone else in the world has seen it for what it is, you seem to have some secret knowledge that no one else has found in all the 'investigations' carried out to date.

And don't even get me going on the 'Obama wants to take my guns' tripe.

And the last I knew, a woman's right to choose was the law of the land. You might not like it, but that's your choice.

[MP]

But, of course, NONE of the other investigations had ANY of her emails, because she had them hidden in her basement.  The emails now are showing that Ambassador Stevens implored her on many occasions to increase security because he felt he was in danger, and ALL of them were turned down.  Why?  No answer yet.

Obama lauded Australia as a country with good gun laws.  What are Australia's gun laws?  Confiscation.  So, it is not tripe to say he wants to take guns away.  Not when he points to a country with confiscation, and says that is the way to go.

Yes, the Supreme Court has declared that babies may be killed before birth.  I imagine you would support your mother's decision, if she had decided to have an abortion while you were "just" a mass of cells.  The Supreme Court has reversed MANY decisions in the past, as they later decided they had erred earlier.  A lot of hope and pray this is one of them.  We happen to believe life starts at conception.  You, and others like you, believe it only starts at birth.  If so, why does, in a lot of states, murdering a pregnant mother, constitute TWO murders?  And, in the same state, that mother could have aborted that baby on the same day, and you would have applauded her decision.  I cannot reconcile that difference.  Maybe you can help me understand the reasoning.

[f6john]

You see, some people think different.  For some people, the point is "Mind my own damn business" - what I, you or just about what everyone else feels about a woman's decision regarding her pregnancy is a question only for her, her mate (if present) and her doctor.  With so much of the anti- debate being based upon, and wrapped in the language, of religion, many of us believe that we have no right to impose said religious beliefs on other people who may not believe the same - the very foundation of the First Amendment.

It's very shallow thinking to reduce the taking of a human life as a religious argument. Take religion out of the equation completely, for us to have facilities that exist for the purpose of abortions (women's health issues, ya sure) for pay and on demand  is sickening to me. If you have ever witnessed an abortion especially a late term abortion, you life is changed forever. There are I am sure many reasons and instances where abortion is necessary and that decision made between the parents and their doctor is not in question. But we all know that is not the way the current system works.

with abortion on demand is sickening.

What may be even more sickening is that a large contingent of the pro- side is also, ironically, anti-universal health care.  So they stand up on their street corners, proclaiming "Pro life!", maybe force a woman to have an unwanted child by passing bans on procedures based upon their singular beliefs...and then, conversely, have a stance that unequivocally states after the baby is born, "It's your problem, now".  Baby born with health problems, needs medical treatments or even life-saving surgery?  Nope, no social support here, folks, you're on your own.

But we're "Pro life!".

THAT"S sickening.

    I'm all for universal health care, who wouldn't be? It's the way it has been handled and implemented that has caused all the ruckus. Do you have any idea how many childless couples would take that "unwanted child". There is more than one way to view a problem and usually more than one way to solve the problem. My last choice is having someone take a set of forceps and reach inside a mothers womb and remove an "unwanted baby" while trying not to destroy the tissue and organs they hope to salvage. Anybody that has an argument for that scenario, I'd like to hear it.  


    

[f6john]

  I understand the dislike for the thought of a Republican back in the White House after all they are politicians and the Republican Congress has proven they are more politicians than servants of the people they represent. In my home state of Kentucky, I have voted repeatedly for Mitch McConnell but probably for the last time. If your ineffective and can't lead or won't lead it's time to go home.

    I can understand people who voted for and supported Obama's Presidency. But after 7 years of blunders I am amazed that he could be elected for a third term. If you still support the man and his policies then you and I have a very different view of the type of country I hope to see survive for my twin grandsons due to arrive in March of 2016. Now the party of Obama wants us to swallow a candidate that allowed a situation to exist that cost the lives of 4 Americans that could have been prevented by her just doing her job. The attack may have still happened but at least they would have had a fighting chance. Of course the full truth would hurt the President so it's close ranks and stonewall. The air of privilege and position that politicians and the Clinton's in particular exude make me sick to my stomach.

   For a party that wants to eliminate guns from the general public in order to save innocent lives and then turns around and supports the slaughter of thousands of the most innocent of us all with abortion on demand is sickening. If you support this kind of thinking, I respect your right to do so, but you and I have nothing of real importance in common. I feel bad when I run over a squirrel and those people have no issue with killing human beings. Apparently neither does Obama or Clinton. He may cherish his kids but not the safety of the unborn. Unbelievable.  

I was with you until you started the Benghazi BS...Have you been watching the news the last couple of days? Even though everyone else in the world has seen it for what it is, you seem to have some secret knowledge that no one else has found in all the 'investigations' carried out to date.

And don't even get me going on the 'Obama wants to take my guns' tripe.

And the last I knew, a woman's right to choose was the law of the land. You might not like it, but that's your choice.

     I could save you a bunch of time. When ever I post something, I could just go ahead and post your reply for you, it so predictable it's laughable. All I have done is state my thoughts and positions, some will agree some will not. But I will not remain silent because something is currently the law of the land.

[The emperor has no clothes]

so what is it before the third trimester,, dead?

I think the term is not viable 

[Wizzard]

Is there a heartbeat?
My wife is a 39 year veteran of managing a newborn intensive care and has saved babies born in the second trimester. So how the hell is that not viable?

[dinosnake]

Is there a heartbeat?
My wife is a 39 year veteran of managing a newborn intensive care and has saved babies born in the second trimester. So how the hell is that not viable?

As the Wiki article states, 'subject to changing medical technology'.  30 years ago second trimester wasn't viable, now it is.

Still, some of us believe this choice should be left to the individual and not have society impress a singular viewpoint of it.  If we want to go into the "save a life" campaign then we should also ask where are all the anti-war demonstrators, because children suffer horribly in the hands of adults while they fight out their pretty squabbles over who is right, who is wrong and who will end up with all the riches and resources.

Again, a double standard.

If "life is precious" then that should apply everywhere you can make it so, to everyone equally, and not pick and choose where it is valid and where it is not.  THEN all of us will be glad, thrilled actually, to acknowledge the viewpoint that we are doing everything we can, everywhere, and when you have your child we will help you take care of it no matter your status or condition.  In the meantime for a society to say "protect our [unborn] children!", then dismissing millions of living ones because of social or economic convenience, is just hypocritical.

[f6john]

Is there a heartbeat?
My wife is a 39 year veteran of managing a newborn intensive care and has saved babies born in the second trimester. So how the hell is that not viable?

As the Wiki article states, 'subject to changing medical technology'.  30 years ago second trimester wasn't viable, now it is.

Still, some of us believe this choice should be left to the individual and not have society impress a singular viewpoint of it.  If we want to go into the "save a life" campaign then we should also ask where are all the anti-war demonstrators, because children suffer horribly in the hands of adults while they fight out their pretty squabbles over who is right, who is wrong and who will end up with all the riches and resources.

Again, a double standard.

If "life is precious" then that should apply everywhere you can make it so, to everyone equally, and not pick and choose where it is valid and where it is not.  THEN all of us will be glad, thrilled actually, to acknowledge the viewpoint that we are doing everything we can, everywhere, and when you have your child we will help you take care of it no matter your status or condition.  In the meantime for a society to say "protect our [unborn] children!", then dismissing millions of living ones because of social or economic convenience, is just hypocritical.

    So until all injustice can be stopped at once at the same time we should just live with the status quo. It would be hypocritical to stop killing our unborn while Syrian kids are dying. Now that makes perfect sense, why didn't I think of that? As a good friend once said, "You just can't fix stupid". Everyone can affix that saying to whomever and whatever they think if applies.

[Wizzard]

Is there a heartbeat?
My wife is a 39 year veteran of managing a newborn intensive care and has saved babies born in the second trimester. So how the hell is that not viable?

As the Wiki article states, 'subject to changing medical technology'.  30 years ago second trimester wasn't viable, now it is.

Still, some of us believe this choice should be left to the individual and not have society impress a singular viewpoint of it.  If we want to go into the "save a life" campaign then we should also ask where are all the anti-war demonstrators, because children suffer horribly in the hands of adults while they fight out their pretty squabbles over who is right, who is wrong and who will end up with all the riches and resources.

Again, a double standard.

If "life is precious" then that should apply everywhere you can make it so, to everyone equally, and not pick and choose where it is valid and where it is not.  THEN all of us will be glad, thrilled actually, to acknowledge the viewpoint that we are doing everything we can, everywhere, and when you have your child we will help you take care of it no matter your status or condition.  In the meantime for a society to say "protect our [unborn] children!", then dismissing millions of living ones because of social or economic convenience, is just hypocritical.

Oh,, so now that I prove that its viable then you must agree,, its now a viable living being so now it is murder eh?  You will justify whatever you want,,just like you accuse others of.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Is there a heartbeat?
My wife is a 39 year veteran of managing a newborn intensive care and has saved babies born in the second trimester. So how the hell is that not viable?

As the Wiki article states, 'subject to changing medical technology'.  30 years ago second trimester wasn't viable, now it is.

Still, some of us believe this choice should be left to the individual and not have society impress a singular viewpoint of it.  If we want to go into the "save a life" campaign then we should also ask where are all the anti-war demonstrators, because children suffer horribly in the hands of adults while they fight out their pretty squabbles over who is right, who is wrong and who will end up with all the riches and resources.

Again, a double standard.

If "life is precious" then that should apply everywhere you can make it so, to everyone equally, and not pick and choose where it is valid and where it is not.  THEN all of us will be glad, thrilled actually, to acknowledge the viewpoint that we are doing everything we can, everywhere, and when you have your child we will help you take care of it no matter your status or condition.  In the meantime for a society to say "protect our [unborn] children!", then dismissing millions of living ones because of social or economic convenience, is just hypocritical.

Oh,, so now that I prove that its viable then you must agree,, its now a viable living being so now it is murder eh?  You will justify whatever you want,,just like you accuse others of.

Man this topic sure went far afield. 

[f6john]

   Yes as many do, hopefully some serious thought has been brought to bear by our meandering.

[dinosnake]

So until all injustice can be stopped at once at the same time we should just live with the status quo. It would be hypocritical to stop killing our unborn while Syrian kids are dying. Now that makes perfect sense, why didn't I think of that? As a good friend once said, "You just can't fix srtupid". Everyone can affix that saying to whomever and whatever they think if applies.

Please don't play typical right-wing victim, it's unbecoming.

If America wants to stand up and say that abortions are wrong and must be regulated, then the rest of us have every damn right to say that maintaining Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and universal health care; keeping school lunch programs; maintaining school taxes and budgets, and limiting exorbitant drug prices are just as valid, because all those AND MORE affect more children every single day of their existence than how many 'lives are lost' to those abortions the fundamentalists whine about.

They don't have to fix the child problem in Syria...yet.  Just get your own backyard in order before you decide to throw stones and ignore your own glass house and don't play victim when someone calls (them) out on their ridiculous double standards.

[Wizzard]

So until all injustice can be stopped at once at the same time we should just live with the status quo. It would be hypocritical to stop killing our unborn while Syrian kids are dying. Now that makes perfect sense, why didn't I think of that? As a good friend once said, "You just can't fix srtupid". Everyone can affix that saying to whomever and whatever they think if applies.

Please don't play typical right-wing victim, it's unbecoming.

If America wants to stand up and say that abortions are wrong and must be regulated, then the rest of us have every damn right to say that maintaining Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and universal health care; keeping school lunch programs; maintaining school taxes and budgets, and limiting exorbitant drug prices are just as valid, because all those AND MORE affect more children every single day of their existence than how many 'lives are lost' to those abortions the fundamentalists whine about.

They don't have to fix the child problem in Syria...yet.  Just get your own backyard in order before you decide to throw stones and ignore your own glass house and don't play victim when someone calls (them) out on their ridiculous double standards.

Don't play right wing victim so you can play left wing victim,, makes perfect sense to me  NOT

[Daddie O]

Obama said he'd reduce the budget deficit by half?  The budget deficit was at 1.4 trillion a year when he took over.  It is now at just over 400 billion.  That is more than half.

When Obama took over, the unemployment rate was over 9% and quickly approaching 10%  The unemployment rate is now at just over 5% and continuing to fall.  From 800,000 jobs disappearing every month to hundreds of thousands of jobs being added a month.

When Obama took over, the Dow Jones was at just over 6000, and now it is at over 17,000

When Obama took over, home values were plummeting and people were being foreclosed on.  Now home values are skyrocketing, and people have been able to refinance at reasonable rates.

When Obama took over, health insurance companies were able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and were able to drop your policy when you got sick and needed it most.  Now you cannot be denied coverage.

When Obama took over, Chevrolet was going bankrupt, and now they are profitable.  They repaid their loan with interest.

When Obama took over, Osama Bin Laden was partying with his buddies in Pakistan.  Now he is at the bottom of the ocean.

I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could say Obama is a failure.  He has accomplished much of what he wanted to do, despite complete obstruction by the republicans.  The U.S. economy is doing very well.  Our personal fortunes have improved.  Is there more work to be done?  Of course!  That is why it is a good thing that the president for the next 8 years will be a democrat as well.

[Daddie O]

When Bush's budgeting fell short by 1.4 trillion dollars, and the government agreed to those debts, it is a bit dishonest to blame Obama for that spending.  In his presidency, Obama has cut deficit spending by about a TRILLION DOLLARS a year.

To claim that current unemployment numbers are not correct, because there are more unemployed people leaving the workforce than are being counted is being dishonest as well.  As baby boomers retire, they are technically not employed, but are not among the ranks of the unemployed looking for work.  They aren't people "giving up looking for work."

To say the government needs to stay out of our personal lives, but also say they need to tell a woman what to do with her body is hypocritical at best.

The government is not coming to take your guns.  Stop it already.  No one is trying to remove the 2nd amendment from the Constitution.  Obama hasn't tried to take your guns in the past 6.5 years, you think he's coming for them in the next 18 months?  Wanna bet?

Why are republicans against a social safety net?  Do you really think it benefits America to be uneducated, sick, and hungry?  Why be against a jobs program?  Do you really think it helps America to have unemployed people?  When you see billionaires, and multi-national corporations stacking billions of dollars of ADDITIONAL wealth, on top of what they already had, yet not hiring more people, why do you think they need BILLIONS more in tax breaks?  Why do you think it will suddenly cause them to start hiring, since the billions and billions before didn't?  When hedge fund managers gamble with money that YOU are backing in case they lose it, when they make money do you think it's fair that they get that income taxed as capital gains?  They get taxed at half the rate you or I do for our income.  You think that is fair?

[Varmintmist]

Tried to stay out, but this is bs.

Obama said he'd reduce the budget deficit by half?  The budget deficit was at 1.4 trillion a year when he took over.  It is now at just over 400 billion.  That is more than half.

Bush had about a 600B to which he added a Tarp that was partly repaid so his total deficit was about 800B. In that same fiscal year, Obama added 300B in his stimulus bring the total to 1.2T. He followed that with 4 consecutive trillion + years of deficit spending and in now at about the same rate that Bush was in his last term. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/79359-these-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t 
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

When Obama took over, the unemployment rate was over 9% and quickly approaching 10%  The unemployment rate is now at just over 5% and continuing to fall.  From 800,000 jobs disappearing every month to hundreds of thousands of jobs being added a month.

First, the max unemployment under GWB was about 7.5% the end of the fiscal year was 9.2% using the U6. The current U6 is 11.3%. Reporting the U3 vs the U6 as the admin is doing is like saying you are going faster than your buddy who is passing you because you are reading the KPH on the speedometer. http://useconomy.about.com/od/suppl1/f/real_unemployment_rate.htm

[/quote]When Obama took over, the Dow Jones was at just over 6000, and now it is at over 17,000[/quote] During the last year of GWB the dow hit 13.4K, the first two years of O it tanked to 8.8K. So it is higher now, it took us 4 years to get even before it went up again.

When Obama took over, home values were plummeting and people were being foreclosed on.  Now home values are skyrocketing, and people have been able to refinance at reasonable rates.

Home prices are still high. Interest rates are being artificially held down so we cant make any money and banks dont want to lend.

When Obama took over, health insurance companies were able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and were able to drop your policy when you got sick and needed it most.  Now you cannot be denied coverage.

You are still reading the pamphlet. You can now be denied care and you can still be denied for preexisting. Young people who dont NEED coverage are forced to buy coverage that they will never use, ie 22 y/o guys getting covered for pregnancy.

When Obama took over, Chevrolet was going bankrupt, and now they are profitable.  They repaid their loan with interest.

First, they broke the contract and screwed the bondholders (check your 401K). GM did NOT pay back the bailout in full. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/23/why-government-motors-still-owes-you.aspx

When Obama took over, Osama Bin Laden was partying with his buddies in Pakistan.  Now he is at the bottom of the ocean.

I will give him that one, even though he had to be dragged off the golf course and piddeled around until it was almost to late.

I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could say Obama is a failure.  He has accomplished much of what he wanted to do, despite complete obstruction by the republicans.

He got everything he wanted, even AFTER he lost both houses. Dont forget, he had nothing but Dems for quite a while, and still had the senate even after they lost the house. I am not sure how one does complete obstruction when one is not in power, but thats interesting doublethink.

 The U.S. economy is doing very well.  Our personal fortunes have improved.  Is there more work to be done?  Of course!  That is why it is a good thing that the president for the next 8 years will be a democrat as well.

The US economy was downgraded and is in danger of it happening again. The DEBT which is the true troll in the closet has gotten twice as large. Country's all around the world are trying to get away from the dollar as standard currency. The stock market has grown on average 7.25 (ish)% since O has been in charge. Average is 12%.

[Wizzard]

Obama said he'd reduce the budget deficit by half?  The budget deficit was at 1.4 trillion a year when he took over.  It is now at just over 400 billion.  That is more than half.

When Obama took over, the unemployment rate was over 9% and quickly approaching 10%  The unemployment rate is now at just over 5% and continuing to fall.  From 800,000 jobs disappearing every month to hundreds of thousands of jobs being added a month.

When Obama took over, the Dow Jones was at just over 6000, and now it is at over 17,000

When Obama took over, home values were plummeting and people were being foreclosed on.  Now home values are skyrocketing, and people have been able to refinance at reasonable rates.

When Obama took over, health insurance companies were able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and were able to drop your policy when you got sick and needed it most.  Now you cannot be denied coverage.

When Obama took over, Chevrolet was going bankrupt, and now they are profitable.  They repaid their loan with interest.

When Obama took over, Osama Bin Laden was partying with his buddies in Pakistan.  Now he is at the bottom of the ocean.

I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could say Obama is a failure.  He has accomplished much of what he wanted to do, despite complete obstruction by the republicans.  The U.S. economy is doing very well.  Our personal fortunes have improved.  Is there more work to be done?  Of course!  That is why it is a good thing that the president for the next 8 years will be a democrat as well.

Wow,, you are one of those who see things through rose colored glasses till a fist hits you in the face and breaks the glasses. Wake up man,, you are really drinking the coolaid.
BTW  that fist would be in the form of big govt.

[Daddie O]

Ha ha ha!  Cue the obligatory rose colored glasses/kool aid comment.  So original!  My statements are all fact.  You won't see me quoting non-scholarly sources like the above poster.  www.somedicksopinion.com or www.icanwritewhateveriwantonmyblogspot.com or some other nonsense.  When getting information, examine your sources people!

Try some of these sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/05/16/economically-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/obamas-numbers-july-2015-update/

Notice these aren't liberal nor conservative sites.  I mean forbes might be conservative leaning, but factcheck is neutral.  For the most part you should look at sites that end it .gov .org or .edu

[Wizzard]

I did not link to any sources as you refer, however you can find a source to support anything you want.
Give up everything and let the govt. take care of you. Worked out well for native americans didn't it.

[Daddie O]

No one is suggesting give up everything and let the government take care of you.  That is another straw man argument.  How about instead we get what we pay for already?  We pay as much or more in taxes as the "socialist" governments in Europe, but we hardly get jack for it.  Don't you think every American that wants to get a college education should be able to? Don't you think that in the largest economy in the world that the least would should be able to say is no child goes hungry?  Don't you think if an American gets sick he should be able to go to the doctor?  Why wouldn't you want your fellow Americans to be healthy, and well educated?