virgil

A few posts up, there were a few references to Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood thing is just a bunch of bible freaks forcing their personal beliefs on the public. No amount of logic is going to change their views.

I'm not sure it's any more costly in this case, our tax dollars being given to planned parenthood and somehow there still is an increasingly rampant problem with unwanted pregnancy... that tells me that the tax dollars are being wasted because they haven't made a difference in the amount of bad choices being made. You do know that pregancy typically leads to childbirth, right? Unwanted children are most often on government assistance from day one. Many have special needs that are very costly to the taxpayer. You have to seperate your morality from the practicality on this one.

The problem exists and throwing more money and services at it hasn't worked. It has only gotten worse. I just don't know anymore. Agreed. I don't know either. But, the truth is that it's probably more costly in the long run to cut off the assistance. It's very frustrating. But, it's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' / 'don't cut off your nose to spite your face' kind of situation.

Seems to be a common theme of lack of responsibility and inability to make good choices....oh....and no consequenses for your actions. The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the fact that the consequences of these individuals' lack of responsibility are shared by all of us.

Maher curses because he can- he's on cable. Rush would too if he wasn't on regular radio. One of the main differences between them is that Maher is a comedian and a satirist- that's why he's entertaining. Limbaugh actually believes all the hateful lies and rhetoric that he pollutes the airwaves with.

What a shock. Another post slamming the President without any basis in fact. So funny how quickly some of you guys are to post nonsense as fact, without verifying it- as long as it makes you feel better by taking a cheap shot.

Virgil, you totally ignored the reference to NAMBLA in your reply. Why is that? That organization does exist, they do promote sex with minors and they are supported by the majority of the homosexual community. Prove the bolded part of that statement. It's utterly false and you should be ashamed to be so ignorant.

Here we go again! Early opens mouth, inserts foot...LOL... early you must also hate homesexuals for their acts of pedophilia... you must have heard of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... How could homesexuals let that happen?? You must be outraged by that as well!! Don't you think that homosexuals are an evil cult?? Like I said before, you really need to read your posts before you click the post button. I'll agree that Early seems to be just looking to pick a fight with this thread- not that I necessarily disagree with any of his/her statements. Anyway, Antler your repsonse is ignorant and absurd. Lumping together homosexuals and pedophiles is classic homophobia and ingnorance. Homosexuality is not a crime- pedophilia is. Homosexuals do not commit sexual assaults against children- pedophiles do. If your comparison were valid, then all male heterosexuals could be blamed for any sexual assaults against woman by men.

Im seeing alot of arguements on here, nickel and diming, over small issues.. This election ois about 1 thing.. THE ECONOMY.. one guy wants to revive it, the other wants 4 more years to continue to destroy it. These arent opinions they are facts You need to check the definition of 'fact' and 'opinion'.

I would be interested in seeing that source. I see a lot contrary to that but I can't find a source that supports that. Romney made the choice to abandon his earlier rejection of the human life amendment as he poured money and energy into winning the Ames caucus in Iowa, where Republican voters run strongly social conservative. "I do support the Republican platform and I do support that big part of the Republican platform, and I am pro-life," Romney said during an August 6 Republican debate, when asked whether he affirmed the human life amendment, a key part of the 2004 Republican pro-life platform that was written by his pro-life advisor James Bopp,Jr.. The human life amendment intends to change the US Constitution by expanding 14th Amendment protections - such as due process and equal protection clauses - to include unborn children. Such an amendment would ban abortions nationwide and repeal the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. However the Associated Press reports that Romney later qualified his support for a human life amendment. According to the AP, Romney said his advisor Bopp had told him "there are a wide range of possible human life amendments" ranging from a total ban on abortion to an amendment that let states make the decision. On top of that, getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment, Bopp told him, "is just not realistic." It is hard to pin him down on the subject because he's constantly changing or hiding his position on abortion, depending on who he's pandering to at the moment.

All Early did was state the GOP's position on two issues. Are you denying that the Romney opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest; and that they are clear in their opposition to equal marriage rights?

Many of you seem to dismiss the idea that abortion could change and say that to suggest otherwise is fearmongering. But, you make believe that Obama is going to single handedly change all of the gun laws and take away your guns.

Personally, I'd use the 20 and aim a little high.

Why should Americans start giving 2nd terms to failed presidencies? We did it in 2004.

If Obama gets re-elected, it may well turn out to be the election that ends America as we know Specifically what do you mean by this? I hear this type of fear mongering rhetoric all the time with nothing specific to back it up. Can you be specific?

What is that? My first thought was that it was an illuminated knock. But, I'm confused because the shooter is still drawn.

OK, if that's not the way you meant it to be interpreted, so be it. But, do you see how the title of the thread would lead someone to believe that you have already formed your opinion? Plus, the 'Armed With Pride, NRA logo' and the 'Hunt or be Hunted' screen name seem to imply that you might lean in this general direction.

When did I ever say he was Justified??? Quote me!! This is what you get when you defend yourself in NYS.

I was just wondering what other people thought not making him sound in innocent nor guilty. Judging by the title of the thread, it seems like you've decided that he was 'defending' himself.

The wingnuts will only be satisfied when 'shoot first, ask questions later' becomes law. I read the article. There's nothing that even suggests the guy was threatened or in danger.

I understand your point Steve but, if someone draws down on me I would much rather be armed than unarmed. It is that simple. This is a fair point. But, up until now, all of the posts on this thread have been about 'armed citizens' saving the day, not defending themselves. What many have advocated is more like vigilante justice than self defense. Big difference and a much greater potential to make a bad situation exponentially worse as far as I'm concerned.

That was funny. Can't quite figure why he got so upset.

Now they can flame us both.

For all you guys who like to believe that 'armed citizens' could prevent a thing like this, I have a few questions. How do you envision the scene unfolding when the police arrive to the scene of an active shooting and find a bunch of guys (not in police uniform), guns drawn, and firing shots at each other? How would they know who the shooter is and who the well-intentioned citizens are? When the police fire on the 'armed citizens' because they can't distinguish them from the criminals, what then?