bob and weave bitches

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by bigred875

what's wrong with that? Or am i mistaken, is a teen from a well off family and about to married that will pay for that child instead of the tax payers the same thing as the teen with no resources that is going to rely on the tax payers money to raise her child?

yea isn't that the precursor for JRO's whole state subsidized abortion arguement?

[-jro-]

you people don't get it.... how can you be pro-life, then shut down shelters who protect young women who choose to keep their babies and need support? Young teens like Palin's daughter- she has a right to those services as well.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by -jro-

you people don't get it.... how can you be pro-life, then shut down shelters who protect young women who choose to keep their babies and need support? Young teens like Palin's daughter- she has a right to those services as well.

why do you continue to make other peoples problems my problems? if you cannot afford to have a baby...dont have a baby!!!

awesome...now welfare is a right?

I am so sick of hearing this kind of crap...talk about personal responsibility!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by -jro-

you people don't get it.... how can you be pro-life, then shut down shelters who protect young women who choose to keep their babies and need support? Young teens like Palin's daughter- she has a right to those services as well.

But WHY did she cut the funding? Are you just making assumptions off a six word headline or do you know the facts. It would be unlike you to take a position on something you are not completely informed about.

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by bigred875

why do you continue to make other peoples problems my problems? if you cannot afford to have a baby...dont have a baby!!!

awesome...now welfare is a right?

I am so sick of hearing this kind of crap...talk about personal responsibility!

Well thats the OTHER problem isn't it- Palin is a hardcore pro-lifer and wants abortions banned PERIOD. A lot of young women every day in this country make the hard decision so YOU don't have to pay for their "mistakes". Palin will make sure you WILL be paying for others peoples mistakes with that ban.

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by REDVTR1000

But WHY did she cut the funding? Are you just making assumptions off a six word headline or do you know the facts. It would be unlike you to take a position on something you are not completely informed about.

why did she cut the funding? Because she'd rather spend the money elsewhere most likely....whatever meets her agenda. The story is on WaPo if you want to read it.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by -jro-

Well thats the OTHER problem isn't it- Palin is a hardcore pro-lifer and wants abortions banned PERIOD. A lot of young women every day in this country make the hard decision so YOU don't have to pay for their "mistakes". Palin will make sure you WILL be paying for others peoples mistakes with that ban.

never going to happen...just because she wants abortions banned doesn't make it so..

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by -jro-

why did she cut the funding? Because she'd rather spend the money elsewhere most likely....whatever meets her agenda. The story is on WaPo if you want to read it.

spend elsewhere or is that part of her reform and cutting costs?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by -jro-

you people don't get it.... how can you be pro-life, then shut down shelters who protect young women who choose to keep their babies and need support? Young teens like Palin's daughter- she has a right to those services as well.

here are the facts for all who are interested

the house was not shut down

the line item in question was for the Covenant House Alaska which is the parent orginization for Passage House which is the center for the teen mothers

There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens.

funding was not "slashed". the alaskan state budget had an allocation of 5 million dollars to go to Covenant House. Pailin cut this to 3.9million. In 2007 they only received 1.3million from the state and in 2006 only 1.2million. in reality Palin gave them more this year than in the previous 2 years combined!

sounds like a monster to me!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by -jro-

why did she cut the funding? Because she'd rather spend the money elsewhere most likely....whatever meets her agenda. The story is on WaPo if you want to read it.

I wouldn't wipe my ass with the washington post! want the real story go here:

Sarah Palin did not slash funds for teen mothers — Warren Throckmorton

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by REDVTR1000

I wouldn't wipe my ass with the washington post! want the real story go here:

Sarah Palin did not slash funds for teen mothers — Warren Throckmorton

Ok....so you give us some obscure psychology professor instead? I don't like WaPo myself....but I do have some journalistic standards.

Originally Posted by REDVTR1000

here are the facts for all who are interested

the house was not shut down

the line item in question was for the Covenant House Alaska which is the parent orginization for Passage House which is the center for the teen mothers

There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens.

funding was not "slashed". the alaskan state budget had an allocation of 5 million dollars to go to Covenant House. Pailin cut this to 3.9million. In 2007 they only received 1.3million from the state and in 2006 only 1.2million. in reality Palin gave them more this year than in the previous 2 years combined!

sounds like a monster to me!

1) I never said the house was "shut down"- I said she cut funding. And you said it yourself here. The legislation wanted to give 5 million and Palin cut it to 3.9 million.....sounds like cutting funds to me, no matter what spin you put on it.

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by bigred875

never going to happen...just because she wants abortions banned doesn't make it so..

never say never....everyone knows the likelihood of losing two more justices over the next 4 to 8 years is high...all they need is one to fall out, replace them with a sympathetic judge to their cause, and yahtzee! thus begins the ban. Considering how the supreme court has ruled thus far, it wouldn't take much.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by -jro-

never say never....everyone knows the likelihood of losing two more justices over the next 4 to 8 years is high...all they need is one to fall out, replace them with a sympathetic judge to their cause, and yahtzee! thus begins the ban. Considering how the supreme court has ruled thus far, it wouldn't take much.

true, but there are a lot of "what if's" before that happens

[Slyder27]

Originally Posted by -jro-

never say never....everyone knows the likelihood of losing two more justices over the next 4 to 8 years is high...all they need is one to fall out, replace them with a sympathetic judge to their cause, and yahtzee! thus begins the ban. Considering how the supreme court has ruled thus far, it wouldn't take much.

She's right, thats how all these politicians work, unfortunately. Who will support me and make me rich, we'll do what they like so they gimme more $.

Hey I have an idea, lets just wait and see what happens and how bad the next idiot screws this country and its people up even more after Bush's reign of terror is over.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by -jro-

Ok....so you give us some obscure psychology professor instead? I don't like WaPo myself....but I do have some journalistic standards.




1) I never said the house was "shut down"- I said she cut funding. And you said it yourself here. The legislation wanted to give 5 million and Palin cut it to 3.9 million.....sounds like cutting funds to me, no matter what spin you put on it.

the are not required to give anything and she gave them 1.8 millon more than the combined 2006/2006 funding! but since she didn't give 5 million she cut funding? that is not how it works. if they had been receiving 5 million and then she gave them 3.7 then yes she cut funding, but she didn't. your arguement is completely ridiculous. and as far as the "obscure psychology professor" his facts check out, the WaPo's do not. how is that "journalistic standards"? if they truely had those standards then they would print the retraction. but since it serves your cause you don't need the truth right?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Slyder27

She's right, thats how all these politicians work, unfortunately. Who will support me and make me rich, we'll do what they like so they gimme more $.

Hey I have an idea, lets just wait and see what happens and how bad the next idiot screws this country and its people up even more after Bush's reign of terror is over.

another person who just says "george bush was a republican so i will vote for obama for no good reason". if you truely want to see "how bad the next idiot screws this country and its people" vote democrat!

[-jro-]

let's talk more about the speech- anyone notice the insane amount of baby passing going on??

Alaska!

[Cut to baby]

"Community organizers" suck.

[Cut to baby]

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

[Cut to baby]

John McCain=American hero.

[Cut to entire family onstage.]

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by -jro-

let's talk more about the speech- anyone notice the insane amount of baby passing going on??

Alaska!

[Cut to baby]

"Community organizers" suck.

[Cut to baby]

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

[Cut to baby]

John McCain=American hero.

[Cut to entire family onstage.]

couldn't hang with the last arguement so now you are on to the camera men? i expected more JRO

[bigred875]

oh man jro...your true colors are starting to show lol...we gonna have to lump you in with all the other moonbats? you may not agree with her positions but you can't deny she made a great speach and as a woman has a pretty impressive track record.

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by REDVTR1000

the are not required to give anything and she gave them 1.8 millon more than the combined 2006/2006 funding! but since she didn't give 5 million she cut funding? that is not how it works. if they had been receiving 5 million and then she gave them 3.7 then yes she cut funding, but she didn't. your arguement is completely ridiculous. and as far as the "obscure psychology professor" his facts check out, the WaPo's do not. how is that "journalistic standards"? if they truely had those standards then they would print the retraction. but since it serves your cause you don't need the truth right?

did you even read the link you posted?? "It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars." Straight from your source- Palin cut allocated funds, as I had stated previously. They were going to get 5 million until Palin cut it- read it and weep. Twist and turn it anyway you want, the bottom line stays the same.

[-jro-]

oh, and not to mention you pysch professor there works for a christian college that has a "go mccain" banner on its homepage....

Grove City College, Pennsylvania - Top-ranked affordable Christian College

I'm sure he has no bias at all ..... :::gag:::

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by bigred875

oh man jro...your true colors are starting to show lol...we gonna have to lump you in with all the other moonbats?

read above smarty pants..... and your black and white vision would never be able to comprehend the rainbow of my true color

[jnm988]

Originally Posted by -jro-

read above smarty pants..... and your black and white vision would never be able to comprehend the rainbow of my true color

you're gonna be a lil pinker after tonight, methinks

[-jro-]

Originally Posted by bigred875

oh man jro...your true colors are starting to show lol...we gonna have to lump you in with all the other moonbats? you may not agree with her positions but you can't deny she made a great speach and as a woman has a pretty impressive track record.

how many times are you going to change your quote here red? Her speech was subpar, and her track record??? what record would that be? mayor and then governor in the possibly the least populated state in the union? yea ok.

[hammadown]

I am so sick of politcs and politicians. I am sick of their rhetoric, contradicting stances on topics, and bending over backwards just to get a vote. I am sick of people defending these worthless power hungry lying sacks of shit like its their own brother or sister. They dont know you, you dont know them and they DONT CARE ABOUT YOU. Show me a candidate who is willing to to stop avoiding direct answers to direct questions, who will run on their own merits and not the lackings of their competition (and challenges his/her competition to do the same), and who has the guts to say "this is what I stand for, vote for me if you like it, don't if you don't." Of course the general american publc probably wouldn't know what to do with themselves if someone were actually that direct and honest.

\rant

Fortunately in the great state of massachusetts, my vote doesn;t really count since obama basically already won