ReBirth

What...and no stop to visit me?

Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Spam costs the average small business of 100 employees with email an average of $20,000 per year.

So, the children should starve because the mother is a fuck up? I don't get the upside to this kind of thinking.

Yes...I find that unacceptable. That indicates he is not willing to listen to differing view points. But that's pretty much his trademark, no?

That would be a first. This president has yet to veto a single damn thing. He's absentee when it comes to cost cutting.

You post a lot of threads wanting to punish people that you perceive of as taking advantage of welfare. Seems to be a pet topic of yours. They are an EXTREME MINORITY of the people that receive welfare. And, even if you assumed every person on welfare didn't deserve it, that's LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR TAXES going to them. If you want to be pissed about people ripping off your tax money, there are much more worthy causes.

That is a good thing. You seem to be forgetting which White House administrations allowed spending from SS funds. Yeah...but it's ok. He's going to fix SS anyway, so what he's using out of it now won't matter. Duh.

For you and me? Nothing. I like the idea of them. However, the cost of diverting that money from the existing program has to come from somewhere. And the majority of people would quickly invest it improperly meaning we still have to shoulder the burden later for them, or let them starve (although that could be mitigated by limiting choice) And that's not the point anyway. The point is that issuing ultimatums is not conducive to healthy debate or answers.

Again..that's the point you are missing. Rights are not created. They can be denied or they can be enumerated as in the Bill of Rights to make sure they are not infringed. The right to choose is the right that everyone has and always has had. If you want to deny someone that right by outlawing abortion, give it a shot. But as it stands now, it would violate their constitutionally guaranteed rights of privacy.

Bwhaahahah!! I guess you forget the part where he said he wouldn't consider ANY plan that didn't include voluntary personal savings. Issuing ultimatums doesn't usually lead to healthy debate, or answers.

Ahhh...I see...punish the unborn child by removing any ability for the mother to feed, clothe or shelter herself. Brilliant plan!! How about we get old people to stop leeching off social security first?

And besides...what we were discussing was fat people. So maybe you should have started a new thread

I'm not bashing at all. I seriously and honestly want to know if he's lived up to anything? Please enlighten me. I'm giving you the opportunity to espouse some of the good things about Bush. I have to believe there are some, I just personally haven't found any. If you can educate me, please do.

Is it really so impossible for someone to imagine that there's room for improvement in the US? That in reality, it's not the ultimate pinnacle, the Nirvana, of human existence on Earth? Yes...it's a fantastic, unique, powerfull, great nation. But it's not the best of everything possible for man kind. Why is it so offensive to learn others might be doing something better than us, and maybe learning from them instead of dismissing it as "foreign"?

Can you name a single goal that Bush stated he would accomplish actually getting done? Anything? Seems to me a lot of people support what he says, but those people seem to ignore the lack of any success in anything. Please, show me a single quote of his stating that he will do something, that he's actually done. And nothing unfinished. He said he'd attack Iraq, and he did. But I wouldn't call that a success quite yet (hopefully it will be soon). Seriously, I'm not trying to bait anyone. The promises that I remember Bush making, and that I thought would be great if he accomplished have not come to fruition. Off the top of my head... -Affordable healthcare -Fully funding Pell grants -Expanding Liheap -Funding a program to assist Russia in dismantling their nuclear weapons -CUT SPENDING!!! (this one really pisses me off) -focusing income tax cuts on low income families -HE PROMISED TO PAY THE DEBT DOWN TO HISTORICALLY LOW LEVELS -HE WILL LOCK AWAY THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The three in caps should be frustrating to conservatives, no? Anyway...those are the promises he's made that I recall being important to me. He hasn't accomplished any of them. Please, tell me he's done something (that doesn't involve killing people) that he said he'd do.

Yep....bravery and bravado are confused often. Usually by those with more of the latter.

Given the obesity epidemic, why do you claim it's a waste of time? Clearly these fatsos need something to stop their piggish ways, and the promise of better sex might just be it. You might think it common sense, but common sense is actually quite uncommon - just look at all the people who voted for Bush. Bad example. A better comparison would be-just look at all the people who voted against Bush. Is that the "I'm rubber and you're glue" comeback?

100% wrong.

No...they didn't. They may have said that the law was ambiguous and that the legislature should correct that with a law, but they never told them what law to write, and even if they did, they couldn't make them. OR to the PEOPLE. Funny how you skip over that part when you want to force others to capitulate to your views. Because it's a biased argument not worthy of debate. I could easily cite specific examples of judges striking down laws favored by liberals. But the conservatives jumped on the "blame the judges" band wagon first so they get to use it. We get to blame the executive branch, you get the judicial, and everyone can pick on the legislature. Did you read the rules?

Wow...that would be messed up. When did that happen? Oh that's right...it hasn't. What has happened is that courts have said that two existing laws conflict with each other. It is then up to the legislature to determine which way they want to go and get rid of the conflict. Would you prefer that judges ignored conflicts and just picked which laws they think they should follow? No where. Where does Roe v. Wade say that? All that Roe v. Wade said is that you can't prosecute someone for getting or giving an abortion. Not quite the same, now is it. What the constitution does say on the matter is...

Tell us what other opposing viewpoints you'd like to see stifled I thought that was the ACLU thread. Seriously, though. What exactly do you find objectionable about the view of living a long and happy life and not having children?

I think the word you were looking for is "realist".

Hugs and kisses from me to you Feel better!

Once you draw a line in the sand as to who deserves their constitutional rights or not, someone needs to define where the line gets put. Tell me...who has the right to decide where the line goes? IMO, no one. That's why the eradication of the line, no matter who is on the other side of it, is vitally important to our continued freedom.