Recent Comments

Interesting points,

I will mention this though. Roe is a federal government takeover of the abortion question. It forces people to make the proposition that nearly abortion on demand will exist. Roe complicates matters of abortion, it creates agitation, and it never radically decreased abortions at all. Also, we disagree on the view of choice as it relates to abortion. YOu believe Roe fulfills choices. I believe Roe eliminates choices, because abortion ends the choices that babies can make in life. I believe in making abortion a social problem. Yet, in certain times in history, many moral questions were answered in the political arena as you realize. For example, in the civil rights movement, people were getting assaulted, etc. Later, laws were created to try to stop oppression against human beings based on their skin color. These laws relate directly to moral issues.

I think that the U.S. will praise bush for the grat job he did. He
1) got us into a god foresaken was
2) we ar in trillions of dollars in dept
3) and we are loding industry
Wow he was truly an extrodanary man.

Also mnotaro Its sad you feel that way. I dont se a division considering that Oboma gives so many people hope.

We control the house, We control the Senate, we control the presidency and thats the way it will be for the next four years.

Better luck next time.

JM's speech was touching. Did you notice how when he said Barrak Obamas name they booed and When Oboma mentioned McCains name they cheered.

Thanks for the comments.

Unfortunately, there is a law legalizing abortion for almost any reason. It's called Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade imposes its morality on the populace without decreasing radically the number of abortions in America. It was only via some pro-life laws in the 1980's and the 1990's that you have seen a slight decrease in abortions inside of America. Laws enforcing morality have existed for thousands of years. Even the Bill of Rights have rules that impose morality in dealing with religion, free speech, etc. I certainly don't agree with imposing abortion on women in the federal level. Imposing destruction is the epitome of Roe, so eliminating Roe is one out of many logical solutions to get beyond the agitation in dealing with the abortion issue. Abortion isn't the only issue that should be discussed. You are right on that point.

Annie B,
I am not libral nor ignirant. I just believe that Sarah palin was a desparate attempt to win votes, she beaty pagent waved, and gave canned answers Also. you dont have to bite my head off. Really, how dare I have a contridictory view this must mean that I am.
A) Corrupted by Barrah Oboma
B) Ignorant
C) Uneducated
d) Born in anti america, which means I am not like you, or others who share your beliefs.
or E) all of the above.

F Y I Not everyone thinks and feels the same way that you do.

Quit compromising the moral, intellectual and legal basis for the pro-life movement, Jill, and we'll have unity.

The finest wine, mixed with lethal poison, is poison.

Such intelligence....but then I wonder why in the world can't we go back to the days when you had to be a landowner to vote! Maybe we wouldn't have this problem and be faced with the liberal illuminati running our country!

Wayne,

Thanks! If you don't mind, I cross-posted your comment on my blog: http://dontdrinkthekingswine.com I want to direct as many people as is possible to Blog Watch.

So, John, you think the scientists comprising England's "national academy of science" are funny and "rediculous" [sic]? You didn't even bother to read the study, did you? We don't make this stuff up. We don't have to. And a scientific journal put out by such scientific academies doesn't have their scientific peers review articles, then publish them after they pass scientific muster, if it's really just so "funny" and "rediculous."

Just to point out that Crisis Prengnancy Centers, which I would argue use coercive tactics, are also found in the poorest, more marginalized areas in the country.

I volunteered at a Planned Parenthood clinic and any woman expressing any discomfort or doubt about her abortion procedure was not operated on. There was nothing coercive about the procedure, and I watched it from beginning to end.

Unbelievable. You folks still have your heads in the sand about what you've just done.

John, Article I of the Constitution states that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

It's been much discussed in the blogosphere (where have you been?) but of course not on the "skews" media upon which you rely that the VP is "responsible for maintaining order in the senate and casting a tie-breaking vote so...yeah, she's actually correct in that regard." LOTS of people seem to know this. Not you, though. Again making the very point this poll makes.

According to an ABC article, "The vice president can also preside over floor debate in the Senate -- a role usually filled by the Senate president pro tempore, and more often done by first-term senators."

And isn't it interesting that when Joe Biden also said that he, as also reported by that same ABC story, "would seek to use his role as vice president to work actively with the Senate," not one Obama supporter has any. problem. with. that. whatsoever.

She explained her statement and what the Constitution allows the VP to do in much the same terms as Biden described. You don't know that either.

She misused the words "in charge" when she should have said "is President of the Senate."

But I'd take that any day over a blatant, lying two-time plagiarist. It's clear you take the plagiarist who has no integrity.

reality, sadly, you are professing your ignorance. You bought and quoted BO's party line hook, line and sinker (right from the "anti-Obama smears" playbook of David Axelrod). One more time, slowly: it isn't a smear if it's true, and it all is true. Did you miss all the times we showed you how Obama has lied or withheld the truth to you here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, AND
here?

Wow, the Democrats sure did a terrible job of educating their voters and telling them the truth about who they really just chose for President! Maybe they should try harder next time. Oh, that's right, they won't. Because it won them the White House.

Heads in the sand, heads in the sand.

Some are just plain ignorant.

In 2004 a group named Catalog for Philanthropy arranged the 50 US states in order of their charitable generosity.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

Someone else noticed that none of the states in the top half went for John Kerry. Every state that went for Kerry was below average.

Take a look at the states that switched from Republican to Dem this time and you'll find that they were Bush's least generous states. (There were a few exceptions. Arizona and Alaska stayed Rep. NC and FL went Dem this time. While they weren't at the bottom of Bush's states, NC and FL were in the lower half.)

If you want to find Republicans look in generous states. If you want to find Democrats look in cheap ones.

I'm not a Republican or Democrat, but even I know those statements are wrong.

Many Republicans care for the poor, but advance more free market solutions to help the poor. Tons of Republicans like Ron Paul are for diplomacy. Most Republicans hate pollution, but reject environmental extremism. Also, abortion destroys choice. Roe is a ruling that forces the abortion issue unto the American people. It shoves a certain view down the throats of Americans. Have views? The Constitution is the epitome of forcing morality down in America. There is nothing wrong with laws dealing with or are related with morality at all. If someone says, I'm morally opposed to slavery, but it fine for it to continue under certain circumstances, you're still pro-slavery. Therefore, the pro-choice definition is morally confusing.

THis is the funniest most rediculous thig I have ever heard. This should be on Saturday Night LIve.

Well, you have to take into consideration evrything.
Do republicans care for the poor? NO
Are republicans for diplomacy? NO
Republicans are for War not peacr.
Reps are for pollution.
Republicans lack in many areas and so do democrats
democrats throw money at problems to solve hen!
They believe in big goverment!
THey can be waste full.

Abortionis most certinally not the most important issue.

I also find htis comment somewhat ignorant. Pro coice is not Pro Abortion. I am pro choice, want people to choose life but not make people have my views by making a law.

Well here id the difference, those polled were normal americans. Sarah palin was running to be our vice president and was a heartbeat away from being the commander and chief. So she dident even know what her job was. She was asked what does the VP do and she said. "Well they are in charge of the senate and they get in there and make a lot of good policy changes." The VP is has 1 vote in the event of a tie and is first i line upon the presidents secussion or death.
Common people dont know the answers to polotical questions.
,but polotitions should. Its like a mechanic that doesent know how an engine works.

Let's just face it, those people were ignorant. If someone asks you what party controls Congress you have a 50% chance of getting it right. They were wrong more often than if they's guessed.

This proves ACORN and other get out the vote projects are eneimes of an informed electorate.

I think it's far worse than the poll pointed out. Those questions were about current events. The ignorance about our democratic foundations is likely much worse. What if they'd have asked:
- How many branches of government do we have? What are they?
- What is the Bill of Rights? Identify one of them.
- How many Senators in (pick a state)?
- What is the electoral college?
- How many justices on the supreme court? What kind of cases do they hear?
- What is the term limit on Presidents?
- What is the term limit on Senators and Representatives?
- Name one of more requirements to be President identified in the Constitution.

I think we'd find massive ignorance and not just among BHO's voters.
-

I'm afraid that I take a more-dim view of such things. Prop 8 doesn't have to have been voted down by people who love the traditional family, we were (let's be honest) helped by people who just don't like homosexuals.

Given that our society is pretty accepting of shacking up, and the popularity of adultery in entertainment, I think it's a bit much to hope that we've got a strong pro-family inclination.

Rather, I suspect that a lot of people voted for Prop 8 for the wrong reasons ... and it would be perfectly consistent for such people to deny protection for the unborn.

Could it by that while you regard pro-life/anti-gay-marriage and a grab-bag of other issues as all being 'pro-family,' the voters are failing to connect them in this way? It's a bit of a stretch to see how homosexuality and abortion are related... homosexuals, after all, do not get pregnent except by deliberate choice. Trying to cram them both under the label of 'family' is an artificial connection. Politically convenient, but ultimately just a constructed association that voters are able to reject.

Today's Republican party is feckless, weak, unprincipled, sycophantic, witless, essentially leaderless, and has a long way to go before they get my vote again. I recently dropped out of the party and registered as an Independent. You betrayed us, and deserved your loss. Perhaps someday you will learn to nominate somebody with conservative principles after the Socialists destroy the Supreme Court and Federal courts across the land, and take America broke in the process.
Until then, Goodbye Losers!

I think you're right.

Then let's do something about it! If someone hasn't already put up a website or blog to this end, let's do it ourselves. We can build off the marriage victories by showing people the consistency in protecting your family both before and after birth.

This is hardly an epiphany, I know. Someone has probably already made a website to this end. But if not, let's put it together!

Does anyone know anything about website creation? I have a blog but it is limited in its design features, etc.

Yet, this is my last response to you on this issue though in a fast fashion.

I don't name call. I've called you a liar for plenty of reasons. The reasons are that you falsely accuse me of being narrow minded and lacking comprehension skills. It's as simple as that. That isn't too bad.

My grammar is fine. Your run ons is typical for you. I don't make too many unfinished sentences at all. English is my first language. This is more of you slick ad hominem attacks. My ideas are concrete and my words are foreright.

I know the definiton of a fact. I don't need a thorough clarification of it at all. This is going to be interesting.

1. I'm not insecure at all about my abilities or my personal beliefs. You have attacked me by classifying me as being not able to comprehend words. Calling someone a liar with evidence is hardly a personal attack in my eyes. One instance where you lied is by saying that I have limited knowledge about vital issues going on in the world.

2. The world is not overpopulated and I've cited more than just about Texas situation to back my statements up. The Texas situation was an example about people fitting in the Earth's surface. It was never a means to describe a solution to answer all of our environmental crises. Overpopulation may be bigger than simply living space (i.e. survival of people and resources deal with populations as well). Yet, one aspect of overpopulation is living space. Population in essence deals with living space.

3. It's a fact that underpopulation exists in the world. Underpopulation is not an artifical term at all. Underpopulation refers to a radical decrease of populations, especially if the population's growth is radically below normal fertility levels. Overpopulation deals with issues beyond just Social Security. It deals with retirement and other economic problems related to underpopulation.

4. Other people may cite 9.5 billion in 2050. Ok, but still the UN predicts a leveling off and a decrease of world population growth in the decades to come.

5. I refer to Malthus and Paul Erlich. Paul Erlich made many false predictions of course. Erlich wrote the Population Bomb book in 1968. In it, he falsely said that the battle to feed all of humanity is over. He falsely said that population growth will be so bad that only 1.5 billion people would exist by 1985. Now, we live in 2008 without that number of people remotely existing in the world. He falsley written that American life expentacy will drop to 42 by 1980 because of pesticides. He's a deciever using half truths in promoting a radical anti-population growth agenda. He promotes environmental hysteria. Malthus was similar to Erlich. He believed that population growth would grow rapidly. Malthus also falsley believed that higher wages in an economy will increase birth rates. The truth is that economic development can stabilize birth rates. Malthus bashed the poor as well. You do know that researchers have proven that poverty isn't necessarily related to population growth at all. Also, much of our high food prices have been caused by ethanol subidies. Every single food problem is also not always a problem of scarcity as well.

6. The Conversation International group found that 46% of the Earth's surface is wide open wilderness. Those other percentages you cite apparently came from wikipedia. Since they come from accredited agencies, I will take your word for it.

7. Sorry, you didn't refute my views on overpopulation. You've cited environmental crises. These crises occur by a whole list of factors. Many of these factors have nothing to do with population growth at all. These factors include bad leaders, environmental factors, repressive governments, and other reasons. Mass starvation, wars, disease, and the other things you have cited existed for eons before 1900. Therefore, these things occur. No one denies that these things occur. Malthus is wrong in trying to promote possible population catastrophe in his models. The fact is that modern technology, real assistance, and other means can temper radical population growth in any society. As for global warming, many scientists have expressed dissent with certain aspects of man made global warming. Even the IPCC was caught using false data to overexaggerate October 2008 temperatures. Now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest ever temperatures for the month. The Arctic Sea ice has expanded by 30 percentage since the summer of 2007 (according to Dr. Michael Coffmann and satellite data). The reality is that climate change is a natural cycle in the Universe. Man does impact the environment, but not every part of the Earth. The sun, volcanoes, sunspots, and other natural forces have a huge impact in the environment as well.

8. This is the fun part. Obama is pro-war on terror and that is true. I define terrorism as the intentional murder of an innocent human being (without a legitimate reason at all). It's funny that you mention Al-Qaeda since Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11. Obama have desired to send more troops in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror. Obama even threatened to attack Pakistan at certain circustances. Bush is doing some strikes in Pakistan, but Obama is wrong on Pakistan as well. The war on terror is readily used as a justification to strip much of our civil liberties in America. Barack Obama supports the Mexico City Policy. That policy prevents taxpayers to fund abortions internationally. There is no justification for the government to force taxpayers to pay something destructive like abortion overseas. Therefore, that policy should stay. I've mentioned in other places that the Patriot Act and the FISA law are 2 seperate things. I don't agree with the Patriot Act or FISA.

I've cited plenty of evidence to prove that the Earth isn't overpopulated. That's another falsehood by you again. Here's simple examples yet again: The population growth percentage per decade has decreased since 1960 (i.e. From 1960-1970, the population growth percentages was from 22.0 to 20.2%. From 1990 to 2000, the population growth percentages were 15.2 to 12.6%). There has been consistent declining fertility rates the world over in Russia, Western Europe, Italy, and other nations. According to Stewart Brand, over a third of all countries have birthrates below replacement levels. All humans now can easily fit in the Earth's land mass. Environmental crises have nothing to do with population growth, but either nature or bad policies done by human beings. Legitimate modernization of society can stabilize population rates as well.

If you can't understand my last paragraph, you need to really know how to read other people's words. I just said that the same establishment you rail against, advance your Malthusian ideals. Anti-population paranoia is apart of the establishment's agenda. If you want Obama's change of pro-war on terror, pro-Patriot Act, Pro-FISA, and pro-FOCA (which even NARAL admits that FOCA can potentially end every abortion restriction in America), then you have a right to embrace. These are all facts. I rather respect Barack Obama as human being. Yet, I have a right to disagree with much of his CHANGE AGENDA.

This is my last response to you on this issue. I don't care if you make a 100 pages in a response. The reason is that I've made my point concisely.

TIMOTHY; I see you are back to your name calling and telling people they lie, and being unable to discern fact from fiction. Too bad!

As to grammar: I'll hold mine to yours any day. I do a lot of writing and find it is well understood. I've overlooked some of your unfinished sentences, thinking English wasn't your first language. The problem is that when you don't finish a sentence, sometimes one doesn't know where you're headed.

A bit of definition: a fact can be proven, or at least references (real ones) cited for it.

Since you wander, let's keep it clear and on track. I'll number and reference this, and if you have the intestinal fortitude to answer, please stick to the numbers.

1. ad hominem attack....sorry you're insecure, but no one is attacking you as this implies. I have carefully shown how the world does and doesn't work in relation to your statements. It is you who keep calling me a liar. If you think so, show me one instance where I've lied.

2. (the following from your 11/15, 4:24 comments) You say: "the world is not overpopulated". "truth is 6 billion people worldwide can fit in the state of Texas given 1,000 square feet each.....earth is not overpopulated at all."

LOOK UP OVERPOPULATION It has little to do with standing room only....get it?

3. You say..."there is an underpopulation CRISIS in Russia, Korea....." Well, not in Korea, unless they have all starved in N. Korea by now. But, underpopulation is an artificial term and has nothing to do with the carrying capacity of the area. It might be a problem for things like Social Security where wage earners pay for the retired. Otherwise it is an economic idea for a country only. (ref UN, Wiki)

4. You mention the UN and world population leveling off in 2050 at 9 billion. Careful, it has been revised by them to about 9.5, and US is up there also. (ref UN, CIA)

5. You refer to Malthus and Paul Erlich. Well, both right as I pointed out above, famine, starvation you see, lack of water, and disease, just as he said are out there. Also, the only reason it didn't come big and fast was the "green revolution". But that depends on fossil fuels for fertilizers and brings with it the problem of genetic tinkering for plants. Like I said above, one big bug, rust, or whatever and a vast amount of the earth's food goes away. (these are statistical refutes in case you don't recognize them....look them up)

6. Areas of wilderness: Wildlife Conservation Society says 26%, UCN/UNEP says 10.9%....qualifications for WCS:
- 70% + more of original vegetation
- covers at least 3,861 Sq. miles
- fewer than 5 people per sq. kilometer

These include things like the tundra, taiga, Amazon rain Forest, Tibetan Plateau, Australian Outback, deserts like the Sahara and Gobi

Which means a lot of these places are not where man can live nor where he can grow his food. (ref W, CS)

7. So, including your 11/17 comments, you say I'm not refuting your views and what I say is hypothetical. For those mastering comprehension, I've refuted your view of Overpopulation and nothing I said was hypothetical.........
- glaciers are melting
- seas are rising, some areas are already covered in sea water
- Malthus was correct, and there has been and is mass starvation, millions of deaths due to that, war, lack of clean water and disease. That news is out there for anyone who can read.

8. "...Obama being pro-war on terror..." you had not mentioned it, but maybe you should define "terror". A drunken driver on the highway? Kill 20,000 plus a year in the US! Al Qaeda? Do their share of terrorizing.
" Obama supporting banning Mexico City Policy..." I spoke to that, go back and read it.(ref G, MCP)
"...Obama agreeing with Patriot Act..." think you said FISA, not the same.

" .. my evidence earth isn't overpopulated..." YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE JUST AN OPINION USING THE TEXAS THING AND THEN WITHDRAWING IT??????

"...yet we have serious environmental issues wasn't refuted by you at all." I brought up the environmental issues, what's to refute?

Your last paragraph was a babble of prevarications and I have no idea what you're really trying to say.

So, answer the question I posed on the cows and you will understand Overpopulation.

When you resort to calling people liars, it just means you have no facts. So go get some!

Thank you for this blog, but you may not realize that what you are admitting is that Palin is woefully, woefully unprepared for this position. As intelligent and as educated as I am, I am smart enough to realize that "cramming" for interviews to be Vice Prez of the USA (and possibly soon Prez)is not enough to prepare one for the actual position. I would much prefer someone with integrity, experience, knowledge, of which Obama has all. No one is faulting Palin for being runner up in beauty contest or having a bunch of kids who desperately need their mother and guidance, but I do fault her for not putting her gall and hunger for power aside and just saying "I am not prepared for this position. I realize you want 'someone cute' and a 'female,' but i am not just not prepared -- at all! -- to run for this position, let alone assume this position." If she would have uttered these true words, I would have had respect for her.

Please go to FightFOCA.com and sign the petition!
This is trying to stop the Freedom of Choice Act to be passed which allows partial birth abortions, and would make taxpayers fund abortions and lead to around 125,000 more abortions a year...just to name a few things...check out the website to find out more!

~Go To FightFOCA.com