Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
359 days ago.
by burningdownthehouse
Tinfoilhat
#1

There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

The silver tongued talking heads on the magic living room box would have us believe that the country is in an uproar over the alleged murders of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, CT. An investigation is still pending. But the allegations are flying. Generally speaking, the anti-constitutionalists who don't own guns, have never fired guns and certainly have limited ability to identify them, would be willing to take away one of our most important constitutional right because they believe it would make them more "safe". None of the gun violence in America has been committed in the name of gun rights. Also, keep in mind, these anti-constitutionalists generally are of the same demographic that also believes that murdering 1,200,000 American children in 2012 in the name of women's rights is acceptable.

 
 

Member Comments

mythravere

This would also be a good place to point out the Military Industrial Complex and the harm it is doing to this nation.

It all comes down to how their business is conducted. The MIC being populated by companies who need war to survive buy the politicians who make the decisions to go to war.

No wonder PNAC stated that America needed a Pearl Harbor like attack to justify this nation rebuild its defenses. PNAC had heavy ties to the defense industry by the way.

Then O'l Bushy and his warhawks come along by dang we get a Pearl Harbor like attack on our soil.

Rather convenient dont you think?

Nah our own folks wouldn't allow an attack to take place on our soil for political ends!

And money!

Posted 405 days ago.

mythravere

The simple fact is you can bellow till you lungs explode about abortion.

Until you show a total respect for life whether it be a baby or a military aged male etc. Until you get right with that then you will called out on your hypocrisy.

You say you care you might. But once their old enough to go die in war there are quite a few on the right who in a haze of war glorification are more than willing to send people to their deaths for lies and dead dinosaurs in the ground.

Posted 405 days ago.

mythravere

Who was the leader when the War in Iraq was decided on as a course of action?

Given what policies were put forth by PNAC. The Iraq war was in on the books for quite some time by the NeoCons.

Posted 405 days ago.

mythravere

Ahh I knew the deflections using examples of democrats agreeing to go to war were coming.

Pointless I say because my critique is squarely focused on the right.

I am talking about them and solely them.

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

Sorta shoots a hole in BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED BS now doesnt it

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Posted 405 days ago.

Tiredofit

MYTH SAID Deciding to lie about the facts surrounding WMD's forced 4000+ American soldiers and countless civilians into death. YEAH IT WAS ALL BUSH RIGHT????

Posted 405 days ago.

mythravere

A comment mentioned not too long after 9-11 by Bush sums it up best. "if you're not with us you're against us"

That in a nutshell perfectly frames the rightwing mindset.

Another righty mentioned that he can come to an agreement with liberals as long as they agree with what he says.

To me. This country will never move forward if we have one party that will in the name of politics set itself up in such a manner that their actions hinder the operation of this nation.

Whats really sickening is that the manner in which rightwing politicians and constituents conduct their "business" can be attributed directly to moneyed interests wanting things only their way and then setting out and buying the support to get what they want.

Posted 406 days ago.

mythravere

Deciding to lie about the facts surrounding WMD's forced 4000+ American soldiers and countless civilians into death.

Until a 100% rate regarding respect for life is shown by the right then anything said about saving unborn lives is simply going to be dismissed as nothing more than hollow words.

You say you care about life buts you really dont.

And dont spew the bs about soldiers volunteering. True they do and I thank them for it. But since they are volunteering to put there lives on the line for us then we owe it to them to only put them in harms way for the right reasons.

Not corporate sponsored resource grabbing!

Posted 406 days ago.

Tiredofit

Wonder if the child was a volunteer or was forced into death by some else's decision

Posted 406 days ago.

harryanderson

"so what are YOU willing to do to take your own personal responsibility then Harry?"

Whatever it takes.

Posted 406 days ago.

Mc doesn't seem to know what personal means.

And Ryan's plan will sure help more children than the" bankrupt America socialist democrats". And where is their budget? Oh that's right, it is one of those transparent secret deals of the obama bunch.

Posted 406 days ago.

harryanderson

"interesting how you forget your responsibility for your own actions"

That statement isn't true.

Posted 408 days ago.

Tiredofit

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each year in the United States, about 51,000 American children are placed for adoption. In addition, about 6,500 foreign children are adopted by Americans, for a total of a little under 58,000 children adopted per year. There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples.1

Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies give their children up for adoption. Suppose somehow, incredibly, we were able to increase this from 4% to 50% tomorrow. Even at that rate (and assuming that all these children could make their way through the social services burocracy overnight), it would still take two to four years just to satisfy the present waiting lists. That's not accounting for any new couples who would decide to adopt in that three years. And if that many children became a

Posted 408 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or