The Next President of the USA will be?

[zepyep]

Hi all,

>The father absolutely has a say. But it's HER uterus and HER pregnancy to terminate, not his. So ultimately, the decision lies with her. If she's pro-choice and he's not, he can't force her to have the baby against her will. <

What are you talking about?Her will ,was to have intercourse to begin with.The father has no right to tell a women what to do with her pregnacy,none.Other than,yes,have sex,the condom ripped or the damn pill failed,but there is now a morning after pill,...

Yep,it's her uterus,but it was his swimmers,but he has no rights.Sure she let HER uterus come in contact with his swimmers,that was her choice?Right?Or was it theirs?HER pregnacy,how did that happen?With a turkey baster?

__________________________________________________________________

And you don't know that it would be his money supporting the mother during the pregnancy. When my mom was pregnant with me, she was supporting the family because unemployment in 1982 was ridiculously high and my father was one of the casualties of that. There's a lot of women who support their family either because the man doesn't work or she makes more than he does.

Excuse me,have any of you ever heard of the 'Deadbeat Dad' laws?You don't have to be married to the women,but if you father the child and they prove it,guess what happens?

KB(I'm happy I'm not a fetus,no more,well,....maybe,...)

Sorry,is this better?

KB

[Electrophile]

Child support is not the same as supporting the family. Supporting the family implies you're either the sole breadwinner or the one whose money goes to the bulk of bill paying. So many times, the amount of money these men are forced to pay by the courts don't cover a fraction of the actual bills the mother is forced to pay on her own.

What am I talking about? Was I writing in Greek? If the woman gets pregnant, and decides she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and opts for an abortion, if the father is against abortion, he can't make that woman stay pregnant. He has no right to force her to continue with the pregnancy if she decides something he doesn't agree with.

[Del Zeppnile]

I'd like to ask a question on the whole abortion debate, and this question is one of the reasons my ex, and in fact almost all of the women I know, are pro-choice:

What if the woman is raped, and gets pregnant because of that rape? Should she be forced to have that child, a child that will only remind her of that rape? Or shouldn't she be allowed to abort something she never intended to have in the first place?

First we need to consider what/who that "thing" is?

Are you suggesting that there is some material change in the nature of a developing human being depending on wether that developing human being is wanted, not wanted, or the result of a crime?

For the sake of illustrating the point; let's all just assume that we were all conceived through a rape and were told otherwise our whole lives...

Would that make any one of us less of a person now?

I need to get some popcorn. I love hearing men debate what's best for me and my reproductive rights.

Years ago I heard someone say, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would not be an issue." Or something along those lines. Interesting to ponder.

Just YOUR rights Suz?

I've told this story before on the old board, but it is worthy of being repeated here now. But I have a very close friend, who for me has been one of the absolute joys of my life. This woman (who I will refer to as Susan) was adopted as a child, and she had known about being adopted for pretty much her whole life. Anyway to make a long story short, several years ago Susan had gotten to the point where she wanted find out about her birth mother. The whole process took about a year, and as it turned out, the birth mother (who I will refer to as Katherine) was also trying to find the daughter she had given up many years ago.

Both Susan and Katherine had so many questions about who each other was, and wether or not this was going to be a heartbreaking experience. Katherine had always figured that her daughter must have grown up to hate her and think little of her. While Susan was afraid she would be rejected once again by a woman who had given her up for adoption...

How wrong both women turned out to be.

Katherine's story and how she ended up in trouble is a typical one. But Katherine was given an option through a Salvation Army 'Booth Home' to live there and then keep or give the baby up for adoption. In the end, Katherine decided to give Susun up for adoption because Katherine had no job or way of caring for the baby.

Nearly 35 years later both mother and daughter were reunited. Each were able to finally hear the stories of each others' lives. They are now both wonderful friends and each has expanded on the others' family. Susan now has aunts and uncles that she never knew, and Katherine's two other children now have a big sister to share holidays, birthdays and other events with. And for people such as myself, I was able to witness this little miracle of humanity -- a story of mother and child.

Like I said before, Susan has been a very special part of my life. I can't imagine now what my life would been had I never known her, or can the family that adopted her. I am convinced that there would have been this unexplainable hole in my life had Susan never came to be. And that is true of everyone in Susan's life. She is just that special of a person.

A person who was given to us by a choice.

People need to accept and acknowledge just exactly what that choice is that you are talking about Suz. It's not just your "reproductive rights" that are at issue here. It is the fact that every developing human being is a unique and special miracle worthy of being loved.

Oh and BTW Nathan, 16 year old Katherine was raped by a man nearly twice her age. Not that Katherine was a virgin before that happened... as it turns out Katherine was a typical Hippie girl in Los Angeles back in the late 60's. But in any event, the nature of her getting pregnant matters nothing to Susan and the people who love her. Or the fact tha Katherine doesn't even remember the name of the father.

Something to think about.

[wanna be drummer]

The father absolutely has a say. But it's HER uterus and HER pregnancy to terminate, not his. So ultimately, the decision lies with her. If she's pro-choice and he's not, he can't force her to have the baby against her will.

And you don't know that it would be his money supporting the mother during the pregnancy. When my mom was pregnant with me, she was supporting the family because unemployment in 1982 was ridiculously high and my father was one of the casualties of that. There's a lot of women who support their family either because the man doesn't work or she makes more than he does.

On the flip side, if the father wants an abortion and ther woman is pro-life, she shouldn't expect any child support dollars and whatnot.

While the baby is inside her, it's the fathers sperm as well. He should have equal say and the two should reason. It shouldn't be just what the woman wants

[Suz]

On the flip side, if the father wants an abortion and ther woman is pro-life, she shouldn't expect any child support dollars and whatnot.

While the baby is inside her, it's the fathers sperm as well. He should have equal say and the two should reason. It shouldn't be just what the woman wants

I wish pregnancy upon you.

[wanna be drummer]

Be that as it may, using that as an excuse for everything is getting old. I know its tough, but that seriously gives you, the woman, the utimate right to say yes to an abortion or no? Thats bull shit IMO

[Electrophile]

On the flip side, if the father wants an abortion and ther woman is pro-life, she shouldn't expect any child support dollars and whatnot.

While the baby is inside her, it's the fathers sperm as well. He should have equal say and the two should reason. It shouldn't be just what the woman wants

Fathers can terminate parental rights in court to avoid paying child support for a child they don't want. The same as mothers can terminate parental rights. If the mother is pro-life and the father is not, and she has the child, he can go to court, tell the judge that he doesn't want to be financially responsible for a child he didn't want and that's that. She can't force him to pay child support, she can't come after him for a nickel.

But men don't have equal say in a pregnancy, because they are not pregnant. It's not like a marriage where both are active participants. He can have a say all he wants, but at the end of the day, it's her body. If she wants to have an abortion, he can't stop her. If it were reversed and men could have babies, the same would apply. You can't force someone to abort and you can't force someone not to abort.

Be that as it may, using that as an excuse for everything is getting old. I know its tough, but that seriously gives you, the woman, the utimate right to say yes to an abortion or no? Thats bull shit IMO

No offense, but that's a pithy phrase. You don't know how tough pregnancy is, you're male. Suz has had a child, so she would know all the ins and outs of being pregnant. So no, you don't know. Decisions regarding a woman's reproductive organs and health are HERS to make, not anyone else's. Would you want someone deciding for you what to do with your dick?

Input is one thing. An equal say is another. If I don't want to be pregnant anymore and my boyfriend says he wants me to be pregnant, I don't have to listen to him if I don't want to. He has no control over my body or what I do with it.

[wanna be drummer]

Fathers can terminate parental rights in court to avoid paying child support for a child they don't want. The same as mothers can terminate parental rights. If the mother is pro-life and the father is not, and she has the child, he can go to court, tell the judge that he doesn't want to be financially responsible for a child he didn't want and that's that. She can't force him to pay child support, she can't come after him for a nickel.

But men don't have equal say in a pregnancy, because they are not pregnant. It's not like a marriage where both are active participants. He can have a say all he wants, but at the end of the day, it's her body. If she wants to have an abortion, he can't stop her. If it were reversed and men could have babies, the same would apply. You can't force someone to abort and you can't force someone not to abort.

Not saying they should, but I think both parties need to talk long and hard before the decision is made

[Hermit_]

And my answer was that raising taxes, or looking to another Federal bureaucracy to solve social problems, is generally a step in the wrong direction. Just as the welfare policies of the "great society" did more to encourage women to have more children to get more welfare; while at the same time creating a disinsentive for fathers to remain in the home. Policies which turned out to be especially devastating to poor minorities over the last 40 years.

The bureaucracy already exists, muh-man.

I'm talking about raising taxes to better fund it.

And if ask me,.. so-called "faith-based programs" as touted by so-called

"compassionate conservatives" are a leap (of faith?) in the wrong direction.

So what's wrong with trying to educate people about WANTING TO PROTECT an innocent human life? Maybe if more people believed how wonderful their baby really is and deserving of love and nurture, by themselves or through adoption; then maybe people might be more responsible for their own baby. Maybe they will be more responsible all together. But sending the message that a baby is only a financial burden, and that "unwanted" is equal to unworthy... then no wonder we have the mess we have.

Your argument is nothing but yet another strawman argument. You argue against a point that no one has made. You fabricate a point that you then proceed to refute while inferring that someone else in the debate made the point you're refuting. Its a tactic used by someone who finds himself unable to argue the points that have actually been made by others in the debate.

Anyway,.. Afaic, there's nothing's wrong with "trying to educate people about WANTING TO PROTECT an innocent human life", Del. I've consistently indicated that I support guidance and counseling for women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, and I've consistently said I support adoption.. and adoption education.. as an option for women who feel they are not able to be a parent. [FYI.. Planned Parenthood offers adoption counseling and guidance to women. maybe you oughta consider donating to Planned parenthood, eh bud?]

As far as "educating people" goes, what's wrong with educating people about EVERY available method for preventing pregnancies, Delbert? Why limit that "education" to the one method ("abstinence only") that is entirely irrelevant to people who are sexually active.. you know,.. the very people who are at the highest risk for ending up with an unplanned pregnancy?

Why are your kind so opposed to birth control, muh-man?

Seems to be an indication of severely faulty wiring to me.

Well first of all, I never said my charitable support was only through my church. Although, the church we are members of is also involved in private adoptions and support to mothers who have elected to keep their babies-- even if on a smaller scale. But the many "faith based charities" like The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and any number of missions in cities across the country is what I was talking about. Besides, it may not always be a requirement that they must be "women of faith" before entering one of these programs anyway. I'm not saying that it is not also a goal that these missions lead these women to faith, but why fault them for that? Especially if they are there to help.

I know what "faith-based" programs means, Del. First and foremost it means "abstinence only"

Give a person a fish, you feed him for a day.

Teach a person to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.

This saying can be appllied to any number of situations that you feel must be solved by the goverment through taxes. I believe that by making goverment the answer all to people's problems, you only make the situation worse in the long run. But that being said, I already said that I was not against all goverment sponsered programs that step in to rescue children/mothers in dire need.

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give

to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"

~Matthew 19:21

You have your marching orders, Del,.. you best get to marching.. erm.. selling, bud.

Government doesn't "solve" social problems, Del. That's merely your right-wing oversimplification.. your silly caricature.. your mindlessly parroted neoconservative anti-government talking point.. of what government does for people.

I understand that you don't appreciate the value of social programs, Del, but the fact of the matter is that there are thousands and thousands of very caring, knowledgeable people.. ie, civil servants working for the government.. who are out there helping people who are caught up in any number of unexpected problems they face in their lives. Civil servants don't "solve peoples' problems", but they are there to help people deal with their problems as much as possible. Social programs are particularly essential for people who lack the skills (physically and/or intellectually) and resources (financial or otherwise) to adequately deal with their own problems. Civil servants go into places that you don't have the courage.. or the heart.. to go into; they work with the downtrodden and disenfranchised.. people you probably wouldn't even acknowledge as being human beings with inherent value. The services provided by civil servants working in social programs throughout our nation is valuable to our society at large and to millions of individual citizens and families who struggle to get through life,.. and the programs they work for should be fully funded. That funding comes through taxation, muh-man.

We are not targeting civilians in the middle east, but we all realize that in war innocent people sometimes are killed. Although, that does not mean that the war is unjust or unnecessary. You liberals always end up painting yourselves into a corner, but mostly because your moral compasses are so out of whack.

In June and July of 1944 the month long Allied invasion of France (not just D-Day alone, but the push inland from the sea) resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50,000 French civilians.

Are you going to argue that the invasion of Normany was not a just invasion?

I wonder how many more civilians in France, Poland, Russia and even Germany would have occurred if the D-Day invasion had failed and been delayed another year, month or even day?

I'm not taking your switch-and-bait bait, Del.

Regardless of what we are, or aren't, doing in the middle east.. you have personally

advocated the wholesale bombing of women and children in the middle east.

Regardless of what we are, or aren't, doing in the middle east.. you have personally

advocated the killing of innocent women and children in the so-called "war on terror".

You've said it, Del. You believe it, Del. So rather than obfuscate and hide,

why dont you step up like a man and take responsibility for your beliefs, Del?

[could it be that you're obfuscating and hiding because taking responsibility for your position of advocating the wholesale bombing of innocent women and children would reveal a wee bit of hypocrisy undermine your so-called "pro-life".. "every child has a right to life".. righteousness? ]

Like I said, you liberals are not wired correctly.

Liberals are wired differently, Del. For the better, I might add.

Afaic,.. ultra-conservatives' wiring is leading to widespread mental shortouts.

[Electrophile]

Not saying they should, but I think both parties need to talk long and hard before the decision is made

The decision to have an abortion is not a rash decision. You don't just up and decide to have one and go on with your day. Trust me when I say, there's a lot of thinking and debating and reasoning and thinking some more that goes on when the subject is broached.

No woman decides to have an abortion without thinking about it first. It's a serious decision to make and like any health-related decision, you don't rush into it.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

>Child support is not the same as supporting the family. Supporting the family implies you're either the sole breadwinner or the one whose money goes to the bulk of bill paying. So many times, the amount of money these men are forced to pay by the courts don't cover a fraction of the actual bills the mother is forced to pay on her own. <

Your takling about the extended family here.You get a women pregnant,and it your 'baby' you pay,do you know why?

The state of MA,has hunted these,a-holes out,you can debate forever,...

Every state/country has it's own laws regarding this.In many cases the law states,you got women with child,she had the child,you will pay.Since termating a birth is the law of our land,then why not?It is your right.It's or ****,sorry kids,...That said, have at it?

You didn't read about dead-beat dad laws did you?

---------------------------------------------------

What am I talking about? Was I writing in Greek? If the woman gets pregnant, and decides she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and opts for an abortion, if the father is against abortion, he can't make that woman stay pregnant. He has no right to force her to continue with the pregnancy if she decides something he doesn't agree with.

[Electrophile]

I have no clue what you're saying. Please use the quote tags right.

[Del Zeppnile]

The bureaucracy already exists, muh-man.

I'm talking about raising taxes to better fund it.

And if ask me,.. so-called "faith-based programs" as touted by so-called

"compassionate conservatives" are a leap (of faith?) in the wrong direction.

Your argument is nothing but yet another strawman argument. You argue against a point that no one has made. You fabricate a point that you then proceed to refute while inferring that someone else in the debate made the point you're refuting. Its a tactic used by someone who finds himself unable to argue the points that have actually been made by others in the debate.

Anyway,.. Afaic, there's nothing's wrong with "trying to educate people about WANTING TO PROTECT an innocent human life", Del. I've consistently indicated that I support guidance and counseling for women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, and I've consistently said I support adoption.. and adoption education.. as an option for women who feel they are not able to be a parent. [FYI.. Planned Parenthood offers adoption counseling and guidance to women. maybe you oughta consider donating to Planned parenthood, eh bud?] /qote]

As far as "educating people" goes, what's wrong with educating people about EVERY available method for preventing pregnancies, Delbert? Why limit that "education" to the one method ("abstinence only") that is entirely irrelevant to people who are sexually active.. you know,.. the very people who are at the highest risk for ending up with an unplanned pregnancy?

Why are your kind so opposed to birth control, muh-man?

Seems to be an indication of severely faulty wiring to me.

I know what "faith-based" programs means, Del. First and foremost it means "abstinence only"

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give

to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"

~Matthew 19:21

You have your marching orders, Del,.. you best get to marching.. erm.. selling, bud.

Government doesn't "solve" social problems, Del. That's merely your right-wing oversimplification.. your silly caricature.. your mindlessly parroted neoconservative anti-government talking point.. of what government does for people.

I understand that you don't appreciate the value of social programs, Del, but the fact of the matter is that there are thousands and thousands of very caring, knowledgeable people.. ie, civil servants working for the government.. who are out there helping people who are caught up in any number of unexpected problems they face in their lives. Civil servants don't "solve peoples' problems", but they are there to help people deal with their problems as much as possible. Social programs are particularly essential for people who lack the skills (physically and/or intellectually) and resources (financial or otherwise) to adequately deal with their own problems. Civil servants go into places that you don't have the courage.. or the heart.. to go into; they work with the downtrodden and disenfranchised.. people you probably wouldn't even acknowledge as being human beings with inherent value. The services provided by civil servants working in social programs throughout our nation is valuable to our society at large and to millions of individual citizens and families who struggle to get through life,.. and the programs they work for should be fully funded. That funding comes through taxation, muh-man.

Liberals are wired differently, Del. For the better, I might add.

Afaic,.. ultra-conservatives' wiring is leading to widespread mental shortouts.

[Hermit_]

Del,.. maybe if you consider aborted children "collateral damage", the abortion issue

will be of less concern to you. It may even be of no concern to you at that point, eh?

[As always.. it's been fun debating with you, bud.

Hope you enjoy your Sunday,.. I'm off to work.]

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Fetus: Ya know,I'd really like to find out what life is all about.

Hold on,not your choice.

Fetus: I'd like my say.

End of story.

KB

[Electrophile]

The law, as I believe it to be constructed, says that if you kill a woman past a certain point in her pregnancy, and the fetus dies along with the mother, you can be charged with a double homicide, thus making you eligible for the death penalty (special circumstances). I believe that point is 6 or 7 months, or at least in her third trimester. The law in that instances states you are responsible for the deaths of two human beings, as the child would survive outside the womb if the mother delivered prematurely.

However, if you kill a woman who is only in her first trimester, you are not guilty of two murders, but of one. I believe the charge is murder and then abortion in the first degree. So the law states you are only guilty of killing one human being, not two. In the first scenario, the fetus has all the rights of an already-born human being, as they are considered a human being under the law. In the second scenario, there is no human being in question other than the mother.

So abortion is not the murder of another human being UNLESS the fetus is aborted past 6 months and there is no grave threat to the life of the mother. This is why I do not support partial-birth abortions unless the mother's life is in imminent danger. If you are 5 or even 6 months pregnant and you don't know by then if you want to be pregnant anymore, you're shit out of luck. If you're going to have an abortion, that decision should have been made a long time before you got to that stage.

This is merely how I interpret things according to the law.

[Del Zeppnile]

The law, as I believe it to be constructed, says that if you kill a woman past a certain point in her pregnancy, and the fetus dies along with the mother, you can be charged with a double homicide, thus making you eligible for the death penalty (special circumstances). I believe that point is 6 or 7 months, or at least in her third trimester. The law in that instances states you are responsible for the deaths of two human beings, as the child would survive outside the womb if the mother delivered prematurely.

However, if you kill a woman who is only in her first trimester, you are not guilty of two murders, but of one. I believe the charge is murder and then abortion in the first degree. So the law states you are only guilty of killing one human being, not two. In the first scenario, the fetus has all the rights of an already-born human being, as they are considered a human being under the law. In the second scenario, there is no human being in question other than the mother.

So abortion is not the murder of another human being UNLESS the fetus is aborted past 6 months and there is no grave threat to the life of the mother. This is why I do not support partial-birth abortions unless the mother's life is in imminent danger. If you are 5 or even 6 months pregnant and you don't know by then if you want to be pregnant anymore, you're shit out of luck. If you're going to have an abortion, that decision should have been made a long time before you got to that stage.

This is merely how I interpret things according to the law.

How are the developing cells of a zygote any less 'human' than the developing cells of a fetus? In fact, each developing zygote contains the unique genetic blueprint which will determine each individual person FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.

There is no difference in the deliberate decision to end the development of a zygote than in a late term fetus. In each instance you are KILLING that developing human being.

The only difference in the later killing is that it tends to upset the sensibilities of people more than earlier on. It's so much easier to assign 'personhood' to a developing human that looks more like we do than a tadpole.

But make no mistake about it; that 'tadpole looking' embyo will not become a frog if it developes to full term. It will be what it is -- a human baby.

Anyone who aborts a developing human at any stage of development has killed a unique and special human being.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

If you kill a women>???????

Head, out of the anus ,

girly,....

KB (worry-er)

[zepyep]

Hi all,

When has any women given birth to a,........non-human?

Fetus(yes at one point,but I grew out of it)

When???

[Hermit_]

*I Want To Be Number Two: Mitt Romney*

Romney slipping John McCain a $20 million bill

According to Politico, in the jockeying for the Republican vice presidential slot, Mitt Romney has become the favorite—a word not often associated with MItt Romney. The article says that the development has caught many GOP insiders by surprise. Sure, nobody seems to like him, but on the other hand, unlike last week's "it" boy Bobby Jindal, at least Romney's religious weirdness hasn't involved exorcising a demon from somebody. In fact, the real reason for Romney's rise is that he could raise lots money from his wealthy a-hole banker friends. Inspiring, isn't it?

The full rundown on Romney in our VP guide...

Real Name: Willard Mitt Romney

Named after: Wealthy hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott,

best friend of his wealthy father George Romney.

Age: 61

Astrological sign: Pisces

Quick bio:

Born Mormon

Father was governor

Still Mormon

Starts Bain Capital

Gets wealthier

Has five Mormon sons

CEO of winter Olympics in Salt Lake

Runs for president

Talks a lot about winter Olympics

Doesn't talk about being Mormon

Spends a lot of money

Loses

Sucks up to John McCain

Still Mormon

Still wealthy

A-hole factor (1-10): 9

Vibe: Insufferable, unctuous, cloying

RGI (Regular Guyness Index): -17

Coddled rich boy: -3

Is now worth two hundred million dollars: -4

Deeply inauthentic: -3

Chickenhawk: -5

Five sons: +1

They have a blog: -3

Con: Is completely without principles.

Pro: Would be running on the GOP ticket.

Con: Is largely hated by America.

Pro: Would be running on the GOP ticket.

Con: Has zero chemistry with McCain.

Pro: No less so than Cindy.

Con: Mormons disliked by many evangelicals.

Pro: There are many other reasons to dislike him.

Con: Will take any position on any issue.

Pro: So will John McCain.

How Bangable by Opposite Sex (1-10): 6*

* If he's allowed to talk: 1.

How Bangable by Same Sex (1-10): 9*

* If he's allowed to talk: 2.

Brings to ticket: Could secure the obscenely-wealthy-New-England-Mormons-who-are-deeply-unprincipled voting block.

Most likely scandal: It is revealed that for decades Mitt Romney has been using using his considerable wealth to bribe people to spend time with him.

Odds of being chosen: 3 - 1.

How much do you wanna be John McCain's VP, Mitt?

"This much.

No,.. wait,..

..I'd say.. this much.

Umm.. then again..

maybe.. just..

..this much.

[but seriously,.. just between you and me..

..this much]."

[Del Zeppnile]

Obama's 50 lies

1.)” Selma Got Me Born ” - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 -

Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth,

who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most

corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga

has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in

Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in Decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily ” Salat “

prayers at 5 a.m. according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity

wouldn’t allow her to have been ‘one’ of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African; Swahili - LIAR, your Name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ ( from

which Barack came ) means ‘blessed’ in that language . Hussein is also Arabic, and so is

OBAMA .

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you

were Registered as a MUSLIM and kept that Faith for 31 years, until your wife made you

change, so You could run for Office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were Registered as MUSLIM

there, and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for ‘making faces’ ( check your own book ).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not One teacher says, You could speak that

Language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, You

were There from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language.

What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch Cartoons ?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa ( surprise ) and

the Middle East ( bigger surprise ), you have never been Anywhere else on the planet and have NO Experience with Our closest Allies .

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content

in High School to be “Barry” Obama, no mention of KENYA and no mention of ‘ struggle to

Identify ‘ - your classmates said You were just fine.

13.) An EBONY Magazine Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the

Article you mention in your Book . It doesn’t, and Never did , exist .

14.) A LIFE Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to

find the Article you mention in your Book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite

saying, “live” on TV, that You would Not have enough Experience by then, and You are all

about, having: ‘Experience First’ .

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but

not many others have 130 ” NO VOTES ” .

17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - LIAR, only when caught by Church groups and democrats,

did you beg to change your mis-vote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a ” senior lecturer “, ON LEAVE .

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a “senior lecturer” ON LEAVE !

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, You didn’t Write it,

Introduce it, Change it, nor Create it!

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from Start to

Finish .

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your Bill was Rejected by Your own

Party for its pandering and LACK of all Regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear

Donor, EXELON from which, DAVID AXELROD came .

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March 2008, State Bills You

sponsored or voted for, have Yet to be released, exposing all the ” special-interests pork “

hidden, within .

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens mess - LIAR, you were Part of a large

group of people who ‘remedied’ Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention Anyone else but

Yourself in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were

just combined into a Proposal which Lost 99 - 0 , and even YOU voted AGAINST Your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own Supporters claim

to have “not seen” BOLD action, on Your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were Not YOUR Bills,

but rather handed ‘ to ‘ You after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist You in a

Future bid for higher Office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About N.A.F.T.A. - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued

the names and ” a Memo of ” the CONVERSATION, Your Campaign had with Them .

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution Vote on

Terrorism and your good friend ALI ABUNIMAH supports the Destruction of Israel.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President, Yet - LIAR, after the N.A.F.T.A. Memo, a dead

terrorist in the F.A.R.C. in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how You and he, were

working Together on getting F.A.R.C. recognized Officially.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed National ads to run 8-12

times per Day, for TWO weeks - and you still : Lost .

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, No You Didn’t.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, NO You did NOT.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said: ” let the Delegates decide “.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer Caucuses that Limit the Vote,

Confuse the voters, Force a Public vote, and only operate during Small ‘windows’ of time .

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26 ; most of which

you didn’t write Yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to

sue if you Do Not stop Saying this. ( Obama ‘has’ stopped saying this. )

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used “Tactics” to eliminate

Alice PALMER from running against you.

39.) I Don’t Take P.A.C. Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don’t ‘have’ Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 Lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Advertisement - LIAR, your own campaign

worker made the ad’ on his Apple in one afternoon !

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom who started MySpace issued

a Warning about this advertising, to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with OTHER

people’s Words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U. S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed “A BILL”, in the U. S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t ‘in Office’ to vote against it, unlike Kucinich who seems to be out gutting You, Obama ; AND, you have voted to Fund it Every single time . You also seem to be ’stepping back’, from your Departure date - AGAIN .

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your ‘plan’ leaves us All to Pay the narrow 15,000,000 who ‘don’t have to’ Buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both Companies, You cite as having sent you letters about this Conflict, have ” No Record ” of Any such letter ever being created, or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won’t wear a Flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of WRIGHT and FARRAHKAN, in relation to their Contempt and hatred of America .

50.) WAL-MART Is a Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your WIFE has received nearly a Quarter of a Million dollars through ” TREEHOUSE “, which is connected to Wal-Mart

[wanna be drummer]

priceless

[TypeO]

a lot of not very subtle Mormon derision

wow, Hermit.

What's the deal with Mormons that they would bring out such pointed derision from you?

[Hermit_]

wow, Hermit.

What's the deal with Mormons that they would bring out such pointed derision from you ?

1. I got no problems with Mormons, TypeO, and

2. It was quite obviously a harmless spoof bit, and

3. "pointed derision" directed at Mormons? Puh-lease.

In the "brief bio" part of the spoof it says, among other things,:

"Born Mormon

Has five Mormon sons

Doesn't talk about being Mormon

Still Mormon"

No "pointed derision" directed at Mormons there, muh-man.

Being Mormon is in fact part of Romney's bio,.. aint it?

Re: Romney's pros & cons as a McCain VP candidate, it states:

"Con: Mormons disliked by many evangelicals".

No "pointed derision" there either, muh-man. That's pretty much

merely a simple statement of a commonly known fact,.. aint it?

The spoof goes on to say:

"Brings to ticket: Could secure the obscenely-wealthy-New-

England-Mormons-who-are-deeply-unprincipled voting block".

The "pointed derision" there is not directed at

Mormons, it's directed at Mitt Romney,.. aint it?

Methinks you're grasping at "pointed derision" straws, bud.

Having said that, however,.. afaic, Mormonism is no more

exempt from being poked fun at than any other religion is.

Frankly, I'm surprised the spoof didn't make

any mention of Romney's magic underwear.

[Electrophile]

wow, Hermit.

What's the deal with Mormons that they would bring out such pointed derision from you?

I'm speaking only for myself. My cousins are Mormon. My father and uncle were raised Catholic, but one day the Mormons came knocking on my uncle's door and he and my aunt bought their spiel and became Mormon and they raised their kids in the religion. That alone, I don't care about. You believe what you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on my ability to believe what I want.

That being said, they have a TON of problems with other Christian denominations, especially Catholicism. They wouldn't come to my grandmother's funeral....and that was his mother. They wouldn't go to the cemetery to bury her, they won't even go there to upkeep the graves of not only her, but my grandfather, great-aunt and great-uncle. They wouldn't come to my H.S. graduation, because it was in a Catholic church. They wouldn't go to my sister's graduation, even though hers was in a Baptist church just for spacial issues. There was no religious service at all, they just needed the room.

When my cousin David got married 2 years ago, various members of the church spent the whole of the reception trying to convert us. They kept sending people over with pamphlets, books, it pissed my father off to the point where he knocked a table over and stormed out. My cousin and his new wife were embarrassed to tears by what was going on, but what could they do? The church paid for all this, they weren't going to bite the hand that fed them.

I have family members who practice many different religions. My mom was raised Episcopalian and converted when she married my father. Her mother was Episcopalian, while my grandfather was a Methodist. My dad's father was Lutheran, and his parents were Catholic. Our family hasn't had 1/100th of the issues with the rest of our extended family as we've had with my uncle and his. It's to the point where my father and his brother don't speak anymore.

When we were living in Georgia, WEEKLY we'd have Mormon missionaries on our doorstep, even after WEEKLY we'd politely tell them to buzz off. No other religious group gave us that kind of grief. It's like they can't and won't take no for an answer. That's what I hate the most. I understand it's important for them to spread the word of God and all that jazz, but when I say I'm not interested, take that for what I'm saying and don't come back the next week. My mind will not change in that time.