Dems: We'll keep the House

Knock knock...who's there? Nobody, the house is under foreclosure because of Obama's "economic polices."

Sending volunteers to knock on doors is gonna be a tough gig for the Democrats.

I wouldn't take that gig for anything. I hope that the American people let them know how they feel about Chains You Can Believe In.

Not to be elitist about it, but voters don't generally think very carefully about "the bigger picture," focusing instead on the things that really matter,i.e., jobs and taxes. The Republicans are more than willing to stir up emotions around these very hot buttons, as if the Democrats could have done anything different to deal with the financial crisis of 2007/8, and as if the Republicans would have done anything different.

Not to be elitist about it, but voters don't generally think very carefully about "the bigger picture," focusing instead on the things that really matter,i.e., jobs and taxes. The Republicans are more than willing to stir up emotions around these very hot buttons, as if the Democrats could have done anything different to deal with the financial crisis of 2007/8, and as if the Republicans would have done anything different.

Sorry, the only thing they get to keep is Obama....
until 2012! After that they can send him to North Korea to get prisoners back just like Jimmy Carter.

Apparently Van Hollen has been smoking that hopium stuff. Even independent political analyst Charlie Cook is predicting at least 40 seats for the Republicans, which is one more than they need.
Now, one prognosticator predicted it could be as high as 80 seats, but I think that is farfetched. 45 to 55 seats will do with 10 in the Senate.

JM, yes.

Usually the "jingle jingle" rule applies: if voters don't got the jingle jingle in their pockets on election day, party in power is in trouble.

However, since we are obviously in a depression, it may be the more relevant precedent is something like 1934.

Where , even though the Depression was just as bad as 1932, voters still gave Roosevelt a ringing vote of confidence by electing even more Democrats.

69 Dems in the Senate. Feature that.

Obviously the stimulus and monetary policy have not raised aggregate demand and output as much as anticipated.

Wall St. is running scared and the last thing they'll go for is supporting a bunch of Tea Party Talibans whose announced policy would depress growth, aggregate demand and output.

So, don't start measuring for drapes, just yet, Reps......

Yep, the democratic base will be out in full force, after they lost their homes, cars and jobs and watch the vacationer-in-chief play golf on exclusive Marthaaaaa's Vineyard.
After he loses in 2012....he won't even be allowed in their club house.

Paulo

You arrogant "B.......S. You will
be eating a lot of humble pie, come November.

If the Democrats hold onto power, it will be due to the support of their core supporters--the media.
The Center for Public Integrity recently examined the 2008 political contributions of ABC, CBS and NBC employees. The results, as reported in yesterday's Washington Examiner: 88% of the contributions went to Democrats, 12% Republicans.

That's right--7+ to 1 Democrat. And the average contribution to Democrats was higher than the average Republican contribution.

More news Obama's Swamp buddies will try to censor....

Posted by: james mckinnon | August 27, 2010 4:25 PM

Yes you were being elitist about it. Because the one thing that this child president has accomplished in less than two years is he has woken tens of millions of voters and they are paying very close attention. And that is not good for liberals.

[quote]
Knock knock...who's there? Nobody, the house is under foreclosure because of Obama's "economic polices."
'
Posted by: Free To Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | August 27, 2010 4:15 PM
[/quote]
'
Please tell us which "economic polices." those are. The government's fiscal year of 2009 started in September of 2008 - remember who was the president then? Obama was stuck with someone else's budget for his first 7 months in office.

Uh, "BC", remember what party was in charge of Congress in 2008? And 2007?
The Congress that sets the budget? The Congress that sets tax policy?
And "BC", remember what senator, now president, was (and is) a member of that party?

Ornery,

Do you really think we are in a depression? I don't, but if you do, you buddy BO is to blame.

We see the results of 69 dems in the Senate from FDR. We have the programs, such as the Social Security Ponzi scheme, that are leading us to bankruptcy. Nice classy comparison of the Tea Party to the Taliban. When you don't have the facts...

Before CommonSense,

FY 2009 started in October 2008, not September. Yes, the budget of FY 2009 was President Bush's (with the dem Congress), but on top of that budget, BO added spending bills such as the Stimulus. So, who are you going to blame for FY 2010?

Speaking of democrats. Here is one of the main "authors" of teh HealthCare admitting he did not read it. If he didn't read it, how can he be the author of it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill

DEMS SPEAK! Knock, Knock! Who's There? John! John who! John! John who! We got TEA! Let's PARTAY! Who's There? John! John who? John McCain! Colo Solo Panama Canal Zone 1936 and the Birthers! Knock! Knock! Who's there! The Boehner! Who? The Boehner! Baby it's cold outside! We got YOU LIE! YOU LIE! Brown skin, Brown eyed "Actionable Intelligence" and you got to just let me in! Who's there! The Boehner and now the Blunt! Sarah too! Who! Her hips, Her lips, Her thighs, the one that got us all so "hypnotized." Knock! Knock! Who's there! Rand! Rand Who? Paul! Paul Who? SB1070 Paul! While walking, talking RAND PAUL at the workplace! At the jobsite! Who's there! It's a raid! YOU LIE! YOU LIE! Keep the GOP TEA coming! Keep the GOP TEA propaganda coming! I think we're going to have to go through the backdoor! Who's there! TEAM GOP! Oh! We want REPEAT! We want THREEPEAT!

Sorry, the only thing they get to keep is Obama....
until 2012! After that they can send him to North Korea to get prisoners back just like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: conservativemaster | August 27, 2010 6:19 PM

From the tone of your stupid rant one would think you're upset that Carter was able to free this person. Um, can you explain to us all here why this was a bad thing?

Well, well, well... New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin (D), said today..."In retrospect, I should have evacuated the whole city!"

Gee, what did we say 5 years ago when the blame Bush left wing media mantra was at warp speed.
Added to that, Barney Frank (D), is basically blaming himself for the housing meltdown that led to the financial crisis.
Ahhh, seeing you democrat loons eat humble pie is so sweet...even if it cost your children and grandchildren a wasted 878 billion dollars.
Time to get a job!

Paulo

BC, where do you want to start? How about Barney the Frank's admission of guilt:

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said.
Remarkable.

And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”

He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”
"Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has come to a similar conclusion."

Frank also said that any federal housing guarantees should be transparently priced and put on budget. But he added that the private sector must be encouraged to re-enter housing finance just as the government gradually withdraws from it.
Some would say Frank’s mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where "Bailout Nation" and big government are Public Enemies No. 1 and 2. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.

And don't forget Bill Clinton telling us how Larry Summer and Robert Rubin Gave HIM bad advice about regulating derivatives. You DO know who Larry Summer is, right? He is Obama's economic top econ adviser. How long has Larry been around now? 20 years?

President Clinton was forthright on ABC's "This Week" yesterday when asked whether Larry Summers and Bob Rubin had given him bad advice about regulating derivatives (the advice was don't regulate them.)

Clinton accepted responsibility, but he also said the advice was lousy:

Joshua Zumbrun, Bloomberg:

“I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take” their advice, Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Their argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection,” Clinton said. “The flaw in that argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

“Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,” Clinton said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-bill-clinton-larry-summers-and-bob-rubin-gave-me-lousy-advice-about-derivatives-2010-4#ixzz0xwsp4U9u

Those would be the CONTINUING economic policies of Larry Summer, Robert Rubin, the Democrats in the legislature, Nancy, Harry, and Barry. You know, those people that you put in charge of destroying our economy. I'll save the post for the next time you ask.

Suppose they gave a tea party, and no one came?

Like today in DC.

T P really is a confection. Financed by Koch Bros. and friends, who don't want their taxes raised.

T P candidates will falter in Nov.

Wall St., as an important example, does NOT want the money spigot to be turned off.

Indeed, anyone with any sense realizes that Obama's measures--unemployment insurance extensions, propping up the housing market as Bernanke has signaled he must do, massive public works spending---these must be continued, or the economy will totally crash & burn.

That's really the big lesson of the Great Depression.

No World War in sight, so the spending will have to be domestic, won't it?

Won't do to bash some moslems who want to build a community center in NYC. That dog won't hunt.

So the T P ranting and raving about giving "their" country back to "them", about their poor grandchildren having a National Debt to pay, etc. etc., isn't going to register with Americans who can feel the tremors underfoot of an impending plunge into frank Depression.

Americans realized Roosevelt's measures were the only way out in the 1930's.

That's why they elected him President 4 times.

America has been dumbed down substantially since 1980, but not so far that Americans are going to buy that T P snake oil. We really don't care about their grandchildren and how much tax they might have to pay. The grandchildren they are worried about have trust funds.

Glen Beck can't draw 2 million people to the Mall.

In fact, there's only one political figure who can manage that.

That's right. You know who. He's in the White House right now.

And he's not going anywhere for a very long time.

BrainCramped, foreclosures have continued to spiral out of control all the day to the summer of 2010, 18 months into Obimbo's presidency.
Unemployment also continues to spiral out of control, 19 months into Obimbo's term. This economy is now Obama's, NOT Bush's!

Leftist Loons, are economically handicapped. They theorize that a dollar of stimulus has a mind of its own. All you have to do is flood the market with dollars and those dollars will do exactly what the Leftist Loon thinks it will.

Here's a clue: a dollar doesn't have to do anything.

Investors, business owners (you remember them, the people that you want to tax to death), banks, and corporations are sitting on their dollars, if they have any.

Why would they hire and expand in this environment? This environment is poisonous to business. You should know about poisonous environments,..it kills things. Obama has created, intentionally, a poisonous environment for business. He's an ideologue that hates capitalism.

Funny that last week i read in Politico that the Democratic insiders were fretting that the house was gone, now the hopium smoking Van Hollen says that they are going to keep the house? I guess he hasn't been watching the results of the primaries where the Republicans have been coming out sometimes 2-1 over the Democrats. keep "whistling past the graveyard" Chris! LOL

Scottie,

I guess you proved that former socialist presidents have a use - to deal with left-wing dictators.

I can see an Chavez-BO summit in 2014.

Posted by: Equal time | August 28, 2010 10:56 AM
'
Uh, "Equal time", remember who first submits the budget to Congress? Remember who has final approval of Congress, by accepting it or forcing Congress' hand? Did GW Bush ever submit a balanced budget to COngress in his eight years in office? Did GW Bush ever put his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, or did he run them through Congress "off budget"?
'
In 1974, Congress passed the Budget Reform Act, which stated that the president can refuse to spend or delay the spending of money, but he has to tell Congress about it. Congress then has the option to pass a resolution calling for the spending of the money. After the resolution passes, the president has to spend the money.

How Obama Spent (Some) of His Summer Vacation

“V-A-See-A-T-I-O-N, we’re on vacation, we’re gonna have a ball!” (Connie Francis)

It may be antiquated and not “with it” today but a popular back-to-school, first week assignment to get kids back to the grind used to be to have them write about how they spent their summer vacations. Most kids could write at least something on that easy topic.

If little Barry Obama were heading back to classes following summer vacation 2010, he would have a lot to write about. If he included where and how he spent this year’s vacations, to date, he could almost literally write volumes.

Compliments of IOwntheWorld.com, we present this pictorial insight into how our commander-in-chief, our president, our leader and chief bottle-washer, who had vowed, “I will not rest until everyone has a job, a good wage, and benefits,” has been spending his last vacation during this, America’s “recovery summer.”

Suffice to say, Obama, now being termed President Clark Griswold in a few quarters, has never, ever rested on his laurels nor on his vacations. Maybe he simply forgot that pledge to the American people and forgot those many millions of Americans still without a job, still without a good wage, and still without benefits.

Then, however, it would seem he has a surprisingly bad memory for such a smart dude since he’s forgotten any number of pledges and promises.

The pictures depict the president and First Lady thoroughly enjoying some ice cream during their vacation up there in the playground of the very rich and very famous, Martha’s Vineyard, where, for some very bizarre reason, GWB tee shirts were outselling BHO tee shirts. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1868)

In their dreams !!!

They are going to lose more seats this year than in 1994.

re-reading the headline...How ironic. Yes the Democrats will be keeping the house. The house that was built as a "right of homeowership"...sold to poor people that couldn't afford them, sponsored by Big Government Programs and Quasi-Government Mortgage Companies, Fannie and Freddie.

20 years of Democrat Party intervention into the housing industry results in them "Keeping Your House."

Yes, the government now owns your $500,000 house that they allowed a bank to sell you with a 50 year adjustable rate, interest only loan. And guess who NOW gets to pay off that loan? That's right, those people that you demonize. The taxpayer.

And now those very same people are in charge of healthcare, and are re-writing, again, the banking laws. (don't worry, I'm sure that NOTHING could go wrong this time. NOT like the last time.) This time those very SAME corrupt politicians will be SURE to take your last dime...ahhh, I mean take care of you.

Where is Dr. Kevorkian these days? That Dr Death, he's such a great guy. Never killed anybody that wasn't asking for it.

Oh, look he's on TV and his show "You Don't Know Jack" is being given award after award by those kindly leftists that hate the death penalty for Murderers, (It's understandable, those murderers DON'T want to die) but the same leftists love an abortion to kill off an innocent baby, and love to OFF old people. Yes, you could feel the love for Dr. Death. I Love consistency, don't you? Please, one of you spiritually enlightened leftists explain how you reconcile these contradictory views on who gets to live and who should be dead. Really. Tell me, not in Roger Morris language, but in English.

Please, one of you spiritually enlightened leftists explain how you reconcile these contradictory views on who gets to live and who should be dead. Really. Tell me, not in Roger Morris language, but in English.

Posted by: Free To Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | August 30, 2010 3:20 AM

Ok Moron,
1) Abortion is NOT against the law. And is not your choice to decide what to do with someone elses body get it?
2) Give me one example where the Liberals sanction killing off old people please I'm waiting
3) People who are dying with incurable diseases should have the right to die without being sustained in pain for months on end and no chance of surviving.

Obviously your points of view are based on your religious beliefs. This is The United States of America buddy not Iran. Remember separation of church and state?

You want to live in a theocracy? Go ahead and find one and please take all of your minions with you!

Terrie, your point is what? Nonsense as usual.

Scottie,

1) The individual has the right to with his/her body as he/she pleases? Go tell that to the drug-addicted hooker.

2) Ever hear of Barbara Wagner from Oregon?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html

3) Should the people who have an incurable disease have the right to live as long as they can? Should anyone have the right to take their own life?

As for my point above - BO will be a one-term president and thus will have time in 2014 to meet with a left-wing dictator - just like Jimmy. I din't think that would go over your head.

Scottie, the death penalty isn't against the law either, but liberals detest it. They would rather abort their own babies than put to death a savage murderer. But that makes sense to you.

It's amazing that liberals support planned parenthood and abortion clinics that are mainly located in poor neighborhoods, in fact they were first centered in black neighborhoods. You can google Margaret Sanger and eugenics, Hilliary Clinton's hero.

Here's the truth about Dr Death:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/20923/rehabbing-dr-death-hbos-revisionist-history-of-jack-kevorkian/

Obviously your points of view are not based on any real thinking, just going along with the liberal mindset.

I don't want to live in a liberal Green, Global Warming psuedo theocracy, but that's what we have. The mantra of green jobs was a like a religious revival sermon to environmentalists.

When you lift up the lid on the liberal cesspool of moral relativism and ask why you believe what you do, the first thing a liberal does is start name calling.

Posted by: Free To Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | August 31, 2010 4:26 AM

liberal cesspool hmm that was you who said that. Who's name calling?

I hate to break it to you wing nut but You are for the death penalty but not abortion? Where's the sense in that? Either your against murder or not period. You cant pick and chose as you WING NUTS always do.

And please enlighten me some more about how the liberals are against the death penalty. Could it be because the Constitution pretty much says its cruel and unusual punishment? Oh but thats right, you WING NUTS pick and chose what you like in the Constituiton again to suit your own agendas.

You dont care about the environment. You dont care about equal rights, you dont care about a womans right to chose what to do with her own body. You dont care about global warming (whether its caused by man or not it is happening). You dont care about anything that goes against your selfish WING NUT agenda. And yes I will name call as I see fit as I have been listening to you people call me a Liberal Loon, Socialist, Fascist, Muslim lover, etc etc etc. SO yes I will call you on it MORON!

Scottie,

Let's see - the guy on death row has murdered someone - probably multiple people, but just what was the crime committed by the fetus. Even in BO's case where he was in favor of killing a child that had survived an abortion attempt. What was the crime of that baby?

Where does the Constitution say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment? Are all of these states breaking the US Constitution?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-in-states/page.do?id=1101153

If the democrats are so concerned what the rights of a woman to do with her body as she pleases, then why aren't the dems pushing for the legalization of drugs and prostitution?

If Global Warming is not caused by man, as you stated, then just what do you want man to do?

* * * * *
“Could it be because the Constitution pretty much says its cruel and unusual punishment? Oh but thats right, you WING NUTS pick and chose what you like in the Constituiton again to suit your own agendas.”
* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | August 31, 2010 6:11 PM
.
I don’t mean to pick on you, Scot; nor do I wish to appear to be piling on after the comments of the others. However, I have to disagree with you that Constitution says that the death penalty is cruel or unusual punishment. Nor does it otherwise indicate that the death penalty is unconstitutional.
.
The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” It does not categorically identify the death penalty as a cruel or unusual punishment. In addition, both before and after the Eighth Amendment’s ratification, the death penalty was used throughout the country, and had been for many, many years. The common law deemed it an accepted form of punishment. Significantly, no case out of the U.S.S.C. (and not even a case out of the Court’s unusually liberal era of the 60s or 70s) ever declared that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual” under all circumstances.
.
Furthermore, one can glean from the Fifth Amendment that the Constitution’s framers did not consider the death penalty to be a “cruel and unusual” punishment. The Fifth Amendment includes language that requires an indictment for a “capital offense,” “due process of law” to deprive a person of “life,” and which prohibits jeopardy “of life” to one instance. If the state could never constitutionally deprive a person of his or her life, then why would the Fifth Amendment impose three conditions which, if met, would make the infliction of the death penalty constitutional? The Constitution, like all other laws, cannot be construed in a manner that makes entire words or phrases superfluous verbiage. One would have to ignore almost three fifths of the Fifth Amendment to conclude, as you have, that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. And remember: The Fifth Amendment made it into the Constitution the very same moment as the Eighth Amendment; meaning that one has to temper one’s understanding of the Eighth Amendment by reference to the language of the Fifth.
.
Personally, I don’t like the death penalty, but not because I think it is unconstitutional in some abstract sense. I don’t like it because the process that leads to a finding of guilt, and the process that leads to the penalty, are both extremely flawed. In the first place, people suffer from the misguided belief that trials consist of fact finding on almost a clinical level of accuracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, all trials are emotional story-telling events, and even more so in cases involving serious crimes (like homicide or sex offenses). A jury’s identification with, and acceptance of, the wrong narrative can lead to grave injustice. History has shown that a lot of people have been wrongfully convicted and sent to death row as a result of this process. Another problem peculiar to capital cases involves the jury selection process. That process in a capital case slants the jury toward finding a person guilty on less evidence (or less convincing evidence) than in other cases. That’s because prosecutors are entitled to exclude everyone who objects to the death penalty. It is simply a fact that those who express no objection to the death penalty are more likely to identify with the state and accept the state’s evidence with a lot less scrutiny. And, yes, racism still plays too much of a role in all guilt and punishment decisions. A white man who kills a black man is still less likely to get the death penalty than a black man who kills a white man. All of this is just unacceptable, and no one wants to try to fix it.
.
I must also disagree with you that aborting an unborn child is the moral equivalent of executing a murderer (i.e. that one or both are murder). Unborn children commit no crimes. They merely exist. In contrast, the only persons subject to the death penalty under U.S. law are those who have murdered another human being under aggravating circumstances (such as killing during robbery, rape, burglary, torture, arson, in furtherance of drug dealing, etc.; or because of the victim’s peculiar traits). So, is mere existence the moral equivalent of aggravated murder? Most rational folks would say no, it isn’t. I suspect you agree that the two are not the same. There is also some logic to inflicting death as a punishment on a killer, to the extent that it will prevent him or her from killing again, and it might actually deter someone else from killing (however unlikely). There is simply no equivalent reason for killing a perfectly innocent, unborn child. That you could equate the two events is troubling.

Scottie, I said "When you lift up the lid on the liberal cesspool of moral relativism and ask why you believe what you do, the first thing a liberal does is start name calling."

You are claiming it. What else can I say.

Posted by: John W. | September 1, 2010 2:40 PM

Agreed !

You seem to be well versed with the Constitution, I find that great and quite educational. But as convoluted as the Constitution is, the 2nd amendment doesnt clarify that everyone can carry a gun or bazooka either ;o)

Posted by: Free to Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | September 1, 2010 4:03 PM

Bla Bla Bla. Any useful insights or just the usual rhetoric?

John W, I agree with your assessment. However, I do believe in the death penalty, only with the certainty of DNA evidence. It is a horrible thing to realize that people have been framed, put to death because of prejudice, and corruption. The Cosmic justice that awaits those responsible for killing an innocent...

There is no perfect system, law, or justice dispensed by man. To believe there is makes one delusional.

* * * * *
Posted by: Free To Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | September 2, 2010 4:56 AM
.
I don’t disagree in principle with what you’ve said. However, it’s hardly unreasonable or delusional to suggest that obvious changes could be made to vastly improve the fairness and accuracy of the criminal justice system, and particularly the process for imposing the death penalty. You see, it’s not as though there is nothing to be done to make things better. It’s that people in power have been working hard to make it less fair and accurate. The courts are way too cavalier with the jury selection process and the admission of evidence. Legislatures are not inclined to help because certain improvements would be too expensive, and others would not be “tough” enough on crime. (And the trend right now is to make criminal trials vastly more unfair for defendants.) Legislators would never agree, for example, to your suggestion of imposing the death penalty only with the certainty of DNA evidence. “Why even require DNA evidence,” they would ask, “when many murders involve no DNA transfer?” Nor would they like my ideas involving the use of separate juries for the guilt and punishment determinations, rules excluding testimony of jailhouse informants, and prohibiting certain bad-conduct evidenced so that a defendant doesn’t get executed for reasons extraneous to his guilt. This is why I am disgusted.

As usual with Scottie - Game, Set, Match.

Terry, that's a disturbing article about assisted suicide.

F2W,

And they besmirched Gov Palin for her "death panels"?

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | September 1, 2010 6:23 PM
.
Don't think for a moment that I believe that whoever posted this is the real Scot Blakeley. Scot and I have had this discussion before, and he's quite adamant that state sanctioned executions are immoral. So he wouldn't give up that easily. The real Scot wouldn't so easily agree with me on the constitutional issues either.
.
It's not funny to mimic Scot. I'd rather have a real exchange with Scot than deal with a bunch of posers. So knock it off.

John W,

You might be right. Scottie usually doesn't give-up that easily. Sort of like a pit-yorky.

Hey John, very funny. However that was me. I admire your knowledge of the Constitution whether we agree on certain aspects of it or not.
And true, I am adamant about the death penalty for exactly your reasons.
FTW: I am also against abortion personally but I am against telling someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body. Late term abortions are very rare and mostly only done when the mothers life is in danger. Regardless, that sack of cells or later term baby is still inside someones body and that person has every right to do what they need to do and will live with that decision the rest of their lives.

Killing is killing, no matter how you put it. The death penalty is killing. Abortion is killing. There's no difference. You cant be for one and not the other regardless of the circumstances.
Terrie, nobodies listening to you so give your game set match a rest already.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | September 3, 2010 8:42 PM
.
I’m sorry, Scot. I wasn’t trying to be funny. I honestly thought it wasn’t you. As you well know, some people like to use other people’s names on this board to make points exactly opposite of what the real person would say. We all live and learn, right?

Scot, Executing a Murderer is not comparable to abortion. If you really believe that it is, I would say that your logic has been corrupted by popular culture and the desires of pro abortion politics.

Our society has left the father out of the abortion issue. Then magically when there is a birth, the father is considered, not as an equal, but as a wallet.

To continue your "group of cells" idea, your fingers are a group of cells, or let's say a kidney, you only need one to live. Would you want the government to be able to tell you what someone else can do with that group of cells? In the case of abortion a group of cells that once belonged to both parents are creating life, but ONLY ONE gets to make the decision on the future of the baby. There is no equality here, neither can an innocent life be compared with the execution of one that has no respect for the life of another. To compare the two is simplistic and naive. It equates innocent life with the most vile members of society.

Posted by: John W. | September 6, 2010 7:03 PM

John, I know you to be an honest man and did not for one minute think you were being "Funny" towards me. I appreciate your candor and yes, as you said, we all live and learn. Well, some of us do at least ;o)

Posted by: Free to Watch the Liberal's Summer Meltdown | September 7, 2010 5:01 PM

Most woman who seek an abortion consult with the father. Most woman and most fathers live with their decision throughout their lives. It is their choice not yours! Since the government doesnt tell me what to do with my kidney I will just ignore that moronic statement.