Check factcheck.org

Be informed! Since it is an election year, people like Pink Slip will twist the truth and present it as fact, in order to score political points. Because it seems worse than ever before, be sure you are informed and check http://factcheck.org to see who is twisting the truth. You can also search the Internet and find other sources too. It is important to be informed in your choices and that includes having good information.

Remember, factcheck does not vet voting histories, they look at advertisements and allegations and see if they have any merits. You can still love or hate the real votes or positions and like Fred suggested below http://opensecrets.org .

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

I'd like to see a site that lists the candidates positions on the different issues, but without naming names or giving partisan hints one way or another?

Then someone coudl just go down the list and check off the values they agree with. I think there would be some surprises on both sides of the fence once the final tally was added up after you made your decisions

I love FactCheck.org!
http://factcheck.org/

Here is the main page today...

Belittling Palin?
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

Off Base on Sex Ed
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

FactChecking McCain
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.

GOP Convention Spin
Lieberman and Thompson make misleading claims about Obama on Day Two of the party in St. Paul.

Too funny...

This is a typical reply/ post on this site. It's one-sided partisan politics. I don't mean to single out you, SensorG, but this is just another clear expample. This one-sided thinking is very common on these boards.

You fail to mention any headlines that dispute Obama's approach and stance. They are there, but your post fails to acknowledge any of them.

Too funny....

This was purposeful since Chris told everyone to double check with FactCheck because “people like Pink Slip will twist the truth”… This wasn’t some public service announcement, this was some dig at “people like Pink Slip”…

We all know “people like ChrisMyers or LiberalsCanBlowMe” are more then honest and truthful in everything they and write and need absolutely no fact checking what’s so ever…

"people like Pink Slip"....it's starting to grow on me

People like Pink Slip, and Pink Slip likes people.

Pink Slip

It is easy to tell who is being paid by the Obama camp to "dispute" anything posted negative about Barak.

I think it is the same group of hired homeless people that used to stand outside WalMart and "protest".

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

If I could get paid to prove you wrong every day I'd quit my job tomorrow...

I couldn't imagine why you would defend a socialist if you weren't getting paid.

You must be another one of those people who think Obama is the 2nd comming.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I dont' think he's the second coming at all.

Considering how bad the "social and fiscal conservatives" have fucked over this nation, I can't believe there is any one left to defend them.

There is a consensus among people who like to discuss political issues and campaigns on an intellectual level:

A person on the right who uses the term "socialist" automatically loses the argument.

A person on the left that uses the term "Nazi" or "fascist" automatically loses.

With all due respect to the consensus, all Nazi's are socialists, but not all socialists are Nazi's, some socialists are Marxists, Maoists, Stalinists, Castroites, Clintonians et. al. The validity of arguments are not based on terms alone, neither are they won or lost based on labels.

Arguments are won or lost depending on whether or not they can be supported by evidence regardless of who makes the claim and which terms they use.

Suppose this so-called consensus that exists today, used this same criteria (from 1933-1945) of who uses these terms, then it would have been impossible for anyone to say who was a Nazi and who was some other kind of socialist, which was clearly not the case, it was possible to distinguish one kind of socialist from another kind of socialist. 

If the consensus says: 

A person on the right who uses the term "socialist" automatically loses the argument.

A person on the left that uses the term "Nazi" or "fascist" automatically loses.

Then the consensus is guilty of committing the genetic fallacy.

 

 

I stand behind my use of the word SOCIALIST in describing Barak. Had I used the word Communist (a member of the communist party) or MARXIST (a believer in the teachings of Karl Marx) that would fall into the framework you mentioned above.

so·cial·ist –noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialist

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[2][3]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; libertarian socialists advocate co-operative worker ownership of the means of production; most Marxists (some inspired by the Soviet economic model), advocate centrally-planned economies. By contrast, Social-Anarchists, Luxemburgists, the U.S. New Left and various forms of libertarian socialism favor decentralized ownership via co-operative workers' councils and participatory planning."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

And finally, DIRECT FROM THE CHICAGO DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA WEBSITE:
"Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA's National Political Committee."
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html

FactChecking Obama
August 29, 2008
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

More of the same, say what ever is needed to get elected and when in office, do the opposite of what was "promised."

And yet, we still think campaign promises, really mean anything.

Yes, please DO check out factcheck.org. The women that runs the Annenberg Center had a great interview on Bill Moyers' journal a couple of months ago---I hope some people caught it. As for this:

people like Pink Slip will twist the truth and present it as fact

That's bullshit. I offer my opinion like anyone else. What are you afraid of?

Pink Slip

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder about this myself.

Something has changed on this site in recent weeks, starting around the time Palin got the GOP VP slot.

The site administrator--Chris--has gone from being a mostly behind-the-scenes moderator, trouble-shooter and overall watchdog of the site to being an obvious cheerleader and blatant PR-provider of the political party he affiliates himself with.

Everyone on here--conservatives, liberals, whomever--is grateful to have a place to vent and express opinions. Thanks, Chris for providing that outlet. Maybe you don't hear that often enough and you should.

But this is a general public discussion board and not a personal blog, right? When I see you, Chris, mention a fairness doctrine, even if it was said in jest or just out of frustration (and I really don't think it was), I seriously wonder where you're headed with the site and what you're all about personally.

Your personal little pissing war with Pink has become grade-school like in tone and tenor. Mentioning him specifically in a topic-starting post about factcheck.org is way out of bounds.

There are plenty of other conservatives on here who can tell Pink he's full of crap if they feel like it. For the guy who runs the site to involve himself in this kind of juvenile food-fight is not what the nature of SB was when it first started out, that I'm certain of.

doing something that no one else is allowed to do?

Can't he comment and create posts that reflect his opinions and views?

in regards to this site, he seems to be using it more to reflect his own views instead of running a community board, and last and more importantly, I'd like to find out exactly whay he means by a 'fairness doctrine' and just who it's supposed to apply to...everyone who posts or just those whose political opinions differ from his. If this is really a change in the direction of the site I think people would like to know.

Too bad McCain is still in the picture, but look at the trends.

1) Sara Palin had a meteoric rise to political stardom. In about 12 years, she went from Wasilla City Council to Vice Presidential Candidate

2) Sara Palin is a "social conservative, and has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

She is for the Death Penalty.
She is PRO 2nd Amendment
She is against gay marriage
She is a a fiscal conservative
etc. etc. etc.
In short, Sara Palin is a REAL Conservative. A REAL Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

3) As evidenced by the almost 13 point bounce that MeCain received since picking Palin as his running mate (see http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/the-sarah-pal-1.html)

CONCLUSION:
Once again, it is proven that Conservatism is what the majority of Americans want.

NOW IF ONLY THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WOULD GET THAT MESSAGE.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Wouldn't that run contrary to less government, adding more advisors?

"As mayor, she passed a 40% property tax cut,[58] while supporting a city sales tax increase to 2.5% to pay for a new sports complex."

Cut taxes and yet raised the city sales tax? Cut and increase? (May give the Mayor here some ideas)

"While Mayor of Wasilla, the town paid a lobbying firm $24,000 to $36,000 per year to help secure federal earmarks for the town. She also personally went to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation. According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla (a town of 6,700 residents) benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office."

And now, she is against them.

Opensecrets.org is a great site to see how your candidate voted, where the money is coming from, etc. etc.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Who checks factcheck.org?

My problem is with this:
Off Base on Sex Ed
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

Factcheck refers to age appropriate content for kindergarten kids, exactly what is appropriate at that age? My daughter is 14 now but I don't want the schools talking to my fictional 5 yr old about sex.

I've heard the audio of Obama talking about this and his 2004 senate race. He said, "it's the right thing to do."

He voted for that bill. What was wrong with the McCain ad again?

A planned parenthood ad doesn't count. That's bs

There is no such thing as age appropriate for 5 yr olds.

So what Obama didn't sponsor the legislation. He voted for it and in the race with Keyes said it was the right thing to do.

I'll get my facts from FactCheck, you can keep getting yours from nut job Alan Keyes...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate."

Wow - medically accurate? That bastard!

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:

Why wouldn't conservatives want kids to know how to identify sexual predators? hmmm...

I'll take care of educating my kid at the age of 5 thank you. I don't need the state to do my job. The appropriate material for a 5 yr old is"0."

just because they are taking issue with the advertisement does not remove the fact that government has no business on being in sex education period. That is the family's domain and to draft an support a law like that is just idiotic. Someone who supports it supports government taking on the role of the family which is just wrong.

"government has no business on being in sex education period. "

What about reproductive rights?

Marraige?

And on and on.

These are social issues, and yet the candidates, all, want in some way, shape or form want to interject government into them and constituents want the government to do so, because some do not like the way things are now.

What to do, what to do, never worry agents of change are on the way.

And in mid 2010 we can review the change that has taken place.

Why wouldn't conservatives want kids to know how to identify sexual predators? hmmm...

Maybe this is why

People like Pink Slip

Pink Slip

highlighting the tricks of pulling one part out and ignoring the other parts. You are proving my point of the behavior people are sick of. I am sure this was the the exact dirty little trick put into the bill so if people were against it, then they can do exactly like pinkslip just did. If they had the guts they would put that part of the bill up separately.

Thanks for highlighting one of the other games that people are sick of.

Other sources reveal;

"The origins of this claim go back to Obama's days as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly.

In 2003, the Assembly considered a bill to expand sex education directives from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The legislation required the curriculum to be medically accurate and include information on the prevention of HIV and contraceptives. It also said abstinence must be taught and that students "shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/712/

But on the other hand, why is McCain proposing more spending on public education?

Smaller government = less spending?

"If elected president, Senator McCain would support private school vouchers, give full funding to the federal No Child Left Behind law, and push for an expansion of "virtual schools," the Republican candidate said yesterday in unveiling his education plan during a speech to the NAACP.

Senator McCain speaks to attendees at the 99th annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) yesterday.

The promise to "fully fund" No Child Left Behind was a departure; previously Mr. McCain has said he would freeze nondefense discretionary spending, including spending on education."

http://www.nysun.com/national/mccains-education-plan-includes-a-policy-d...

Off Base on Sex Ed
September 10, 2008
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

(ADMIN edit - auto play movie is not recommended)

And not the poster?

Everyone has an opinion.

right after the selection of Palin, Pink Slip and other posters, decided to have almost 55/60% of the all of the stories on the site are about her. That is not being fair to the other posters and not being entirely true to the mission of the site. You can combine some of your posts into one and if the site continues to be slanted, I will begin to combine stories to make the topics much more distributed. A majority of the topics on this site should be about Northwest Ohio, and when the majority are slanted against one person not only is it violating the mission of the site, but it is misleading. And maybe that is exactly the purpose of the posters in trying to do this.

Lot's of people are tired of politics as usual, and in watching some of the behavior, I am too. Some of my comments have been to highlight how poster's like PinkSlip are biased or to make others see that their points don't hold any water, because others are not.

If it does not stop, I will enforce it by manually by combining stories.

Unlike others on this site, I don't hide who I am and here and I am not afraid to link to a factcheck.org (which also destroys the argument of those who say that I am blindly partisian). While factcheck is checking McCain's allegations right now, Obama is the one in defensive mode and only saying one thing, so of course they are going to have more McCain stuff right now. There was a ton of anti-Obama stuff on the factcheck during the D's convention. I am first and foremost someone who believes in the process regardless of the outcome.

So when I speak up, you should take notice, because that means something is not right. Whine all you want, but I can see through these political games.

"A majority of the topics on this site should be about Northwest Ohio, and when the majority are slanted against one person not only is it violating the mission of the site, but it is misleading. And maybe that is exactly the purpose of the posters in trying to do this."

I'm hoping your 'fairness doctrine' goes into effect on this whenever you have 500 Carty bashers on here all at once. Remember now, we must be fair....

Christ, what a joke.

Hey, what about Jon Stainbrook? John Block? I think we should all expect posts on here regarding them to be fair and not so gosh awful negative!!

Right, Chris???

Much as I don't appreciate being inundated with what appears to be duplication, combining stories is beginning to sound like censorship to me.

And I don't hide behind a non de plume and wish others did not as well. I take personal responsibility for what I say because I use my own name. If others did as well, I think it would have a civilizing effect on the comments, language, etc.

Slanted - everyone can post and even it out. Seems to me that people get called rather regularly and for the most part it evens out.

Chris - your biases come out pretty clear to me. We all have opinions and that means we tend to fall on one side or the other. This is not a criticism - but being fair you have to realize that you really are not different from the rest of us even if you are the webmeister,

combining stories is not censorship. If posters posted more stories of substance then there would be no reason to even consider it. I will do it if posters will not.

What is a story of substance?

Seems that the comments about the elections are becoming verboten.

Kinda vague, other posters.

"Some of my comments have been to highlight how poster's like PinkSlip are biased or to make others see that their points don't hold any water, because others are not."

Dear god, who is not biased in some sense of the word and what candidate has a bucket that could hold water through the campaign cycle, both of them are resorting to the same crapola that the parties use.

"While factcheck is checking McCain's allegations right now, Obama is the one in defensive mode and only saying one thing,"

Personally I think people are taking the whole election and campaign, way to personally.

Northwest Ohio and Ohio are stated to be key to this years election, people are fired up about it.

"So when I speak up, you should take notice, because that means something is not right. Whine all you want, but I can see through these political games."

Political games in an election year! Gadzooks!

Yes

but not to the detriment of the site. I can imagine more posts about presidential politics right now, but the ratio is not right for this site.

I wonder how many McCain-Palin-related topics (all positive, naturally) you posted yourself since Palin was announced to be on the ticket a couple weeks ago?

I'm guessing about half a dozen, give or take.

yes

and some of those were posted to provide balance on some of the other posts. I have even posted some items about Obama and Clinton, not ringing endorsements but they were not negative either. I dare you or PinkSlip to do the same.

since that seems to be the topic of the day, you either remove the direct reference to Pink Slip on the beginning post of this thread or include 'LibsCanBlowMe' in the reference to those whose postings 'twist the truth'?

Then we can all really see just how balanced you wish to be.

LCBM gets to the point that pink slip was. No thanks.

I prefer to use Wikipedia.org instead of Factcheck. And, if you notice, I often will conveniently post the references to my research.

I find that Wikipedia tends to be unbiased. Normally they just post information NOT editorials posing as "facts", much like the Blade printing articles on the front page with a very small disclaimer or small label saying that the front page article is "News Analysis".

Analysis of the news on the front page? Analysis by whom? What are their qualifications to analyze the news? Why is their spin on the news worthy of the front page?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Chris, I really don't give a shit what you think

People like Pink Slip

Pink Slip

you posted a response. It is an odd response too.

Because in the words of the great Fred Thompson:

This business will get out of control!
It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it!

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy.

Not true. Not even close.

Summary
Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

Analysis
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production: (continued @ FactCheck.org)

People like Pink Slip

Pink Slip

---------

 

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

example of all that is wrong today. Thanks for posting it.

Kierkegaard is no better Nietzsche. Watch this:

We can't let this pervert get into office. Kierkegaard wants us to defile our own bodies on a regular basis. I don't want that sleazeball telling my kids to rub one out. And don't get me started on how he thinks the Christian faith is based on irrationality. If Kierkegaard wins, I will move to Canada. That is, unless the amount of people with ideas similar to mine emigrating to the Great White North overwelms the Canadian health care system. Under those circumstances, it doesn't make sense to move to Canada.

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

a little off task as far as the election goes. I don't understand why, other than the fact that in this election we could elect the first black president.

Not only the first black president but a president that will "fundamentally" change the way business is done in Washington and will address the real issues that I face. If Barack Hussein Obama was a white (male,female or other) Catholic from Georgia and had the platform of "change" and the slogan "Yes WE can," that would be my candidate.

I have not written on SB, just reading, for a couple of days because I said, that I will be the change that I want to see. I went out and registered 18 voters (in one day).

My little bit to keep McCain and Palin out of the White House.

Obama/Obiden/08

Great Job!!

Election talk is always big online leading up to an election.

Most of the web communities I frequented back in 2004 were temporarily taken over with Bush vs. Kerry and other political talk before the election too. You can't just say that its because Obama is black.

How many signed with an 'X' ?

My point is that if people were qualified and cared enough about the platforms and issues of a candidate, they would have been registered to vote already.

Without any help.

All you did was register a bunch of unqualified people to vote for yo candidate, girlfriend.

People that want someone else to change their life for them, instead of getting off their ass, puttin' down the pipe, quit drinking, go to work, and bringing about change themselves.

 

 

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

What "qualifications" does one need to cast a vote, other than being eligible to register?

Neither my vote nor your vote counts any more than a person who might happen to sit on their porch all day w/a 40 oz in hand.*

(*Not that I'm insinuating that those are the only sort of people purnhrt registered, of course...just rebutting el mahico's post)

is a proof of residence and proof of age.

You could be a wacked out drunken fired city employee , have 20 DUI's, possession charges, be on probation and still vote.

What's with the "stereotyping"?

once I came to town and he realized I don't lie when I make statements.

the antagonizing little bastard has nothing to say

but I see his name on the right side there...

but of course he'll "have other things more important" than posting, but that's to be expected, right?

well, it will be nice to enjoy the tranquility for the next 8 days :)

Uh oh. The uneducated castoff from Toledo must be back to try to involve himself in Toledo's affairs. Like I am supposed to track this loser's whereabouts. Glad to see he is in Lucas County. What's the address ? - Time for Warrant Service. I told you this time would come.

"but I see his name on the right side there"
I assume you mean the 'Who's online' feature. Our refugee must not have much of a life to be sitting there all day monitoring who is online, and barraging the blogs with his negative commentary. Yes, asshole - some people DO have a live beyond sitting in front of a computer, being supported by a cougar, and lazily drifting thru time spewing repressed anger from yesteryear as you try to become involved in the affairs of a town that you were banished from.

As I told you before - that feature stays on with the names of people that have their computers open to this website. Even if they get up to walk out to the kitchen, answer the door, or as in this case, when I get up to take a healthy shit and think of YOU.

Are you sure you turned the stove off ?
Better to get back to wherever your troll-ass came from and check.

you truly are an entertaining sot, Gary

still stuck on the same lame material? lol

shame there isn't a Cap't Hirams up here to hang with you ....but you don't get out much, do you, with probation and all? lol

Sorry - I don't 'hang' with losers.

I deal with the past and get on with improving the quality of my life. How about you ?

You miss the bar with their rum and cokes so much you even write about it.

You tell us why you are here, have told us all about your miserable encounters with Lucas County's judicial system - yet you keep coming back - in person and via internet.

Tell us what YOU have done to improve your life.

Merely relocating to another town and being supported by an older, educated woman does NOT constitute true change.

That is a locational change.

You can tell us about the ground shaking when rockets blast off, beauty of the ocean and intercoastals, etc., etc., but that is the location. YOU had nothing to do with that.

What changes have you done to yourself ?

You are a bitter and angry young man that soon will be a bitter and angry OLD man unless you learn to truly deal with your situation in life in a positive manner.

Unless you do, remember this -
Wherever you go - you always take you with you.

as well as your genuine mental state, it's crystal clear that you have no idea what you type.

odd tho, how you enjoyed looking forward to spending time with me in a bar in my state, yet change your mind when the offer is situated on your own turf.

what, the weak spine too much to confront your fear? I'll buy you iced tea instead, ok?

loser? watch what I do when Carty gives me a free job

How did you get from your making the statement "shame there isn't a Cap't Hirams to hang with you" to somehow twisting that to be an offer and refusal ?

If I can fit you into my schedule I would be delighted to confer with you and help you to get over your repressed anger.

Fool, I was never in Florida when I remarked in re Captain Hiram's. Just wanted to tease you about going to a bar. Alcohol must be a source of great comfort for your twisted mind.

What is your current location ?

dude, you're on probation, there's not much you can do, and that includes owning a gun lol

I can find someplace close to you that you can walk home from, unless imbibing alcohol is againt one your probationary rules.

I'm staying on Galena and Ontario Street, right across from Homer's Cycles.

we all knew you weren't in Florida, dumbass, yet you still believe you fooled everyone? roflmfao

you'd die if you saw my name fingered on your driver's window, wouldn't you?

Since the car is on my property...YOU would die.
A lot has changed since you were in Ohio last.

Check ALL your facts. That's what this thread is about.

Is there an address there ?

google me

find me before I find you

fun game, huh?

probation boys don't play with guns

bet the wife is happy now with the drama you played now, ain't she, seeing she's the only one in your rental allowed to have one.

I used ARIES to research that

;)

Great entertainment, but facts are facts.

A car w/ Florida plates is not observed at or near that location, so i must assume you flew in. What is the address ?

In your spare time, google 'U.S. Communication Decency Act of 1996'. Read it all, you will find yourself and your threats. Don't know the device you used to send the threats to me in email, but I DO know that I received it here in Lucas County, Ohio, by my computer that is connected by virtue of DSL, a telephonic communication device. You qualify.

BTW, you were looking for complaints filed in Toledo Municipal Court and Lucas County Common Pleas Court. The court that has jurisdiction in your case is the Federal Court. They are located on Spielbusch.

Normally, I might feel sorry for your lack of knowledge and throw your bail.

Not anymore !

You have not demonstrated a single behavior that leads me to believe that you are sincerely working on changing your repressed anger with corrective action.

Call the cougar for some more cash.

lol

awwwwwwwwwww come on Gary

talked a tough talk while I was down there, but now I'm here, all you're going to do is try to scare me off?

yep, seven more days of this lovely community

and don't worry, our paths will cross before I head home, I promise you.

You had a shitload of malicious intent and most of it is still on here, so get over yourself

turn about is fair play ;)

What is the "shitload of malicious intent" that you have conjured up in your rum-laden mind ?

BTW - what is the address where you are at now ?

make me tell you , Gary

beg me for the information

come here and lick my boot, freak

then maybe I'll share

but until then, just walk the streets, I'll be sitting on the stoop waiting for you...I know what you look like

love the thing about sending a search party out to find my car

that was fucking hilarious

you call two TPD uniforms a "search party" ?

You are hilarious.

This is called 'warrant service', asshole.
Quite literally, it means to serve an outstanding warrant on a suspect. That be you.

Bring your toothbrush.

as my posting time is monitored by a lush lol

that makes YOU the lush, right Goober ?

02:59 ?

Rippin' and runnin' the Toledo streets, just like always.

Get a life.

.

but instead they're doing YOUR bidding? ROFLMFO

dude, you're a nobody drunk on probation

sorry liar, there hasn't been but one cop all night, and he chatted with my buddy with me standing right there in the parking lot of Erie Foods

the hood has quiet nights like this one these days

man, even your LYING sucks Gary

must be out serving warrants to other figures you've conjured up in your head

to rid the streets of vermin such as yourself and to get them into the criminal justice system to answer for their actions.

Goober, how was the alcohol lastnight ?

Did it ease your pain ?

Did it change anything ?

You are the same asshole in Toledo that you are in Florida.

Get a life beyond pulling weeds, planting flowers, and living off the cougar.

I had the best time of my life, Gary

nooooo never drank a drop

i have no pain, my life is complete

I woke up this morning with such a clear conscience, it's a shame you'll never experience that lol

I'm just an asshole to you, Gary, get over it

I'm just dying to know what warrant you claim i'm being served with silly boy i was chillin with the police for a bit and to check and make sure my payment went through for my license renewal, seeing it expired on my birthday this year and almost missed it for the flight, i had the young man run it

and here I sit, typing to you

do the math

you keep making this stuff up, I may have to do something about it while I'm up here, Gaaaaaaaaaaary.

you want me, dontcha mmmmmmmmm

(and feel free to delete and hide your comments about that alleged "warrant", I've got it printed ;))

and "didn't touch a drop".

Goober, you are soooooooooo full of shit that you even believe yourself.

You usually begin to spew your venom at around 5 a.m. Had to sleep in till noon, today. And I really believe that you"didn't touch a drop". Yeah riiiiiiiiight.

Smokin' whaaaaaaaaaat ?

but ya usually don't drink or smoke pot in the company of law enforcement, usually.

I was with the reason I am up here and was up all night and haven't been to bed yet.

now, what about that alleged warrant?

make it quick too, I hate having to re-print this thread

or ya lying about that too, chubby?

at the Control window at Lucas County Jail with I.D.

Have a seat for a minute while Officer Friendly runs you.

Darn ! Booked again !

Call the cougar.

why would I go to more police?

monitoring my times when I log on lol

come on, tell everyone what the alleged warrant is, Gary

stop pussyfooting around and share with everyone

Technically, when they fit you for bracelets, you are not with THEM. They are with YOU. As in a custodial arrangement.

Did you have breakfast at Telb's Townhouse ?

http://noises.ytmnd.com/

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

"and was up all night and haven't been to bed yet".

See what I'm saying ? You talk sooooo much shit that even you don't know when you are telling the truth and when you are lying.

BTW - Being with a child that has taken two semesters
of 'Intro to Criminal Justice' at Owens Community College does NOT mean you "were with the police all night long".

stop wasting time and tell me what this warrant is

I know you like playing games and wasting time, but I implore you, tell meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lol

and check this out:

And BriannaInVeroFla is an expert at nothing but spewing venom and shooting his mouth off about everything political that he knows, which is, in short,
NOTHING.

There is no warrant, Gary.

and you've made a mess of thing, I must say

but the investment will be worth this. ;D

now, my entourage and I will be indulging upon the finest of what downtown has to offer in culinary delights

enjoy your fog!

after being called a racist, dumb, stupid, ridiculous and told that I need to cut my hair and other names on Sb and GCJ, I can not for the life of me see where you, Chris and LisaRenee have gotten your attitudes from, over these discussions about Gov. Palin.

I know I am not the brightest lightbulb in the pack but this boggles my brain!

Chris,
I believe that you have every right to comment on anything about which you want to comment. I don't get the criticism. Is one more free to express himself or herself on somebody else's site?? LisaRenee comments frequently on her Jungle site.

I may still be naive on this point, but I truly believe that when all views are aired, most of the people will select the best ideas expressed most of the time. It is a basic tenet of our country, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." And in your case, Chris, there's a lot of issues about which you and I disagree. A whole lot!!

with an X.

They are all uneducated, welfare usin' , unqualified to vote, lazy, baby mama's and daddies and they all had a crack pipe in their hands when I approached them. None of them had any idea as to who was running much less knowing what the issues are.

But I registered them anyway so that they can vote for MY candidate, Barack Obama!

Obama/Obiden/08

had felony records.

then I'll start posting McPalin promos. You don't want Chris to limit these charades, but it makes sense. We'll see.

There isn't any 'charade.'

The anti-Palin posts got under Chris' skin. Period, end of story.

It's a presidential year, it's what people are talking about. If Chris had any integrity, on his 'factcheck' post he could have easily tossed in the name of a conservative poster who 'twisted facts.' There has to one somewhere, doesn't there? But no, it's only Pink who does that? Only liberals or non-conservatives? LOL, please.

Chris is simply flying his own political colors and, in doing so, using this site as his own bully pulpit, just as the mayor uses his position as such, as the publisher of the daily newspaper uses his position as such as the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party uses his position as such, and Ben Konop uses his position as such...all favorite whipping boys on this site.

But hey, Chris has gone on record regarding this new-found 'fairness' policy, so I'm sure it will apply to all the favorite local SB villains, liberal and conservative alike.

Right, Chris?

Here, each of you take this *passing out foaming cups of green tea with turbinado sugar to thread participants*...

CALM DOWN

Hug your spouse
Hug your children
Look at a tiger lily
Pet your dog, cat, bird, lizard, etc.

Do something...and CALM DOWN

It ain't that serious

:-)

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

that in 55 days, this rhetoric isn't even going to matter.

You'd have all alienated yourselves, exposed yourselves and your true agendas, forced your perspectives and manipulated the facts to make your points, gone down each others throats, and what did it accomplish?

really?

many have decided for whom they're going to vote for and their reasons. Me? I'm voting Obama because he's not a republican.

That's it.

Nothing that was typed on these blogs influenced my decision. It was my educating myself and reading their websites, researching that information and cross referencing.

You're not going to find sites like "factchecker.com" in my history folder.

So while you guys duke this out, I'm just going to sit back and watch.

Have fun

you are right about the 2004 blogs or postings. I was not participating at that time on any blog so there well could have been the same kind of intensity.

Mrs. Phoenix,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ahhh, ............ that was......gooooooood.................

All the anxiety and rash comments about people instead of the issues and being a party member and supporting the party of your choice, at the end of the election cycle when all the votes are counted and whom ever wins and is seated in office, do we expect that we will be remembered and the debates here will make any difference in the end result.

I, personally, think not, it will be business as usual and life will go on.

libs said " 2) Sara Palin is a "social conservative, and has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be"."

I find it puzzling that somebody can claim to be pro life, and yet be pro death penalty, and pro 'let's shoot & murder defenseless animals for sport" (not like Palin needs to shoot a moose or something for food).

The government has no business involving itself in a woman's reproductive process or her body. Palin is against all abortions unless it's to save the life of the mother - not even in cases of incest or rape. I wonder how you explain to a 14 year old girl who was raped that she must carry the baby to term, and either become a teen mom or give it up for adoption (a choise many women grieve over the rest of their lives). Isn't that kind of like making her feel she's being punished for being raped?

Imagine if your 14 yr old daughter got pregnant, perhaps played around with drugs, the boyfriend is gone & it's discovered in the first trimester that the baby will be so profoundy retarded it will be childlike for life, or horribly deformed - that even surgeries won't fix so the child looks 'normal'. The 14 yr old girl does not want to have this baby, and it's not going to be an adoptable baby - so the burden will fall on YOU to raise this child, pay all hospital & medical expense - for the life of the child. Do you accept this mission? Or do you suggest she abort?

Fact - In the first trimester, the procedure is the same as a typical D & C that gyno's perform for many reasons besides abortion.
Fact - In the first trimester, it's impossible for the fetus to feel pain because the thalamus has not formed yet - no pain messages reach the brain.

I believe in a woman's right to choose an abortion in the first trimester, but by the forth month, only in cases of emergency, life saving, or newly discovered horrible deformities or defects. Few women use abortion as birth control - it's not an easy decision, and it should be the one chosen by the woman, not the government.

...or horribly deformed - that even surgeries won't fix so the child looks 'normal'. The 14 yr old girl does not want to have this baby, and it's not going to be an adoptable baby - so the burden will fall on YOU to raise this child, pay all hospital & medical expense - for the life of the child.

For while the child may look different from you or I who knows what their mental capacities may be? They could end up being genius, or become president, or solve all problems of the world. To abort a baby because of a deformity is just wrong. They are still God's children. A miracle of birth. Not a punishment lay-ed upon a misguided teenage girl for a night of indiscretion as some who are running for president may have you believe.

I had a handicapped nephew who contributed so much to this world in his short 18 years that would have been lost if his parents felt as you do.

So sorry Starling...while I agree with you on your stance against the smoking ban I must differ in your opinion on abortion.

- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

I find it puzzling that somebody can claim to be pro abortion, and yet be against the death penalty,

Killing an unborn child is OK, but terminating human vermin, who prey on society, kill people for fun, would not hesitate to shoot a convenience store clerk, would rape a woman or molest a child and/or break into your home and steal your personal possessions, is somehow a bad thing in the minds of some.

It makes absolutely NO sense at all to take the life of an unborn child who has not had a chance to take a breath of air, yet defend the criminals who have made it a lifelong career to live outside the laws of normal society and prey on those who live by the rules.

How can someone be pro-abortion but anti-death penality?

And thankfully, not everyone is willing to abort a baby with a disability.

I strongly suggest you look at this website. It is a list of the THOUSANDS of famous people with disabilities who have made some sort of impact on the world.
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_0060.shtml

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

There would be millions more people alive today.

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Ask that to a room full of people and wait for the stunned silence.

Then people will say, eye an for eye and if you take a life you forfeit your own.

Being pro-abortion can be about giving the person or persons, the right to decide for themselves what they want to do, but, the conversation turns dramatic with charges and counter charges of the methods used, yet we want a country with freedoms and rights and yet at the same time, we want to take rights away that some do not agree with.

Sorta like we want government out of the process, we want less interference, yet at the same time we want government to step in and deal with social issues.

Do we know what we want.

First of all, I've never met anyone who is pro-abortion. I am certainly not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, which means I support the ability to choose, based on the individual's circumstances. What I'd like to see is more people working together so that fewer women are ever in a position to have to make that choice. It's a battle that needs to be fought on many fronts.

Having said that, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Why? Because I don't believe in hell. I believe the death penalty is an easy way out for the criminal. To me, having freedom taken away, living out the rest of one's natural life in a tiny cell is a much higher price to pay for the crime committed.

I can't speak for everyone who is pro-choice/anti-death penalty, and I'm certain there are many who will disagree. But that's my perspective.

I also am pro-choice.

But I think it should be the hardest "choice" that someone will ever have to make in their lives.

So on to the next point. "living out the rest of one's natural life in a tiny cell is a much higher price to pay for the crime committed."

In the end, the criminal is removed from society for the rest of their lives. And If the "rest of one's natural life" were shortened to only a trial and one appeal, then the money saved feeding someone who is going to die in prison could be used on roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. etc.

Q: What is the difference between dying in prison in a week and dying in prison in 32 years?

A: About $608,000 PER INMATE
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html

We exterminate unwanted vermin, we exterminate unwanted babies; why not exterminate the worthless dredges of society?

If it makes you feel any better, we can call it a 4th trimester abortion.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

future appointments to the federal courts and the Supreme Court that will be picked by Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin.

Obama/Obiden/O8

krazy - I did not say abort due to a deformity - I said, in cases of extreme deformities that surgeries can't fix (I'm talking flipper arms, two heads), or profoundly retarded so the caregiver will be changing it's diapers into adulthood. It's a choise to be made - I simply asked, would you be up for the taxk (and pay all medical bills)? Clearly you seem to be up for the task - but many people are not, and many people don't have insurance or money to pay the bills.

I also did NOT call it a 'night of indiscretion' - I SAID, if it was a 14 year old girl who'd been RAPED. You'd expect her to re-live that rape every day of her life, the rest of her life - everytime she looked at that child? How self-righteous you are.

And I stand by my belief that the government has no business in a woman's body or reproductive life - it should be the woman's choise, not mandated by government.

child has no choice in whether they live or are sentenced to death by the women whose body they are being born from? If a women chooses to abort a pregnancy for anything less then her life be at risk, I do not consider this women the mother. What about the rights of a father who claims that if the baby is carried through to birth that they would take care of it and don't want it aborted. Do they get a say?
For you to make claims that a deformity somehow creates a monstrosity, a burden to society or somehow socially unacceptable due to a mental disorder is just wrong in my opinion. Whose being self-righteous when you play God and make these determinations?
- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

let me ask you a question...is abortion murder?

Definition of Murder from Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a: something very difficult or dangerous b: something outrageous or blameworthy

So...Is abortion murder?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm

Not all killing is murder, of course. Murder is actually a small subset of all killing, which includes accidental homicide, killing in self-defense, suicide, euthanasia, etc. When pro-life activists call abortion "murder," they are suggesting that abortion fits the definition of murder, namely, "illegal killing with malice aforethought." However, abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, mothers hardly feel malice towards their own unborn children.

Some might object the first point is overly legalistic. Just because killing is legal doesn't make it right. Exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany was certainly legal, but few doubt that it was murder.

Many pro-life advocates claim that the same reasoning applies to abortion. Although abortion is legal under current U.S. law, it is not legal when it is held up to a higher law, namely, the law of God.

So regardless whether abortion is murder by definition. I still believe it to be wrong.

- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

There is this, "Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the Bible is indeed the law of God. Unfortunately, this doesn't help the pro-life movement, because there is no Biblical law against abortion."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm

One can state that the books set out many statements with regards to murder, killing, etc., but is there an explicit passage that declares abortion to be a trespass of God's law?

This is not meant to speak against anyone's feelings or standing on the issue, but if we are accountable for our own actions when the end comes, that holds true for the people that use poor judgment with regards to aborting a fetus.

There is no clear language setting out the prohibition on abortion, but there is some references to killing, murder and so on, and just like our Constitution, that are those that will say, because it is not written, it does not mean they can or should.

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

http://www.bartleby.com/108/02/21.html

I also did NOT call it a 'night of indiscretion' - I SAID, if it was a 14 year old girl who'd been RAPED

I did not make the claim you said this. If you read carefully I said it was the opinion of BHO.

Obama statement...
...look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Since when did babies come to be regarded as some kind of "punishment"? If babies are a form of punishment, then they are a punishment from whom?

libs said - "Too bad McCain is still in the picture" and proceeds to praise Palin, as if she's his antidote.

But he IS in the picture. And Palin is one heartbeat away from being president & holding the nuclear codes & she's clueless about foreign affairs, and most everything else that I'd hope our president would be knowledgable on . She's winging it, with coaching, and yes, she's a good speaker & has that cheerleader 'rah-rah' attitude. Lots of people have those qualities & it didn't mean they were good, or honest, or smart, or quailfied to be president - in fact, some pretty evil people have had those same qualities.

In all honesty, I was on the fence between Obama & McCain - and fell off completely very fast to the Obama side when Palin was brought in. It had nothing to do with her being a religious woman with kids (in any order), no more than race had anything to do with any hesitation about Obama. There were many much more qualified women McCain could have chosen, and lots of politicans have kids. I don't think a candidate's religion should even be an issue - it has no place in an election or government. I am embarrassed for our country when there are people who admit Ithey will vote for McCain because Palin is 'hot', or religous, or 'just like us'. I do not want my president to be 'just like me' - I want him/her to be smarter, more informed, wiser - and if you want somebody just like you then you deserve any kind of horrible government you get. I simply do not think that Palin is qualified or informed enough, and I get the feeling that this is a huge ego trip for her - rather than admit she doesn't know something, she'll fake it, or ask somebody else - and I wonder if it's the right answer will she take credit & if it's the wrong answer it will be because she was badly advised?

I worry that Palin claims she 'never blinked' when offered the VP. I would imagine that most anybody would have blinked - and given it serious consideration before accepting. Impulsive? Her impulsive & McCains sometimes temper may be a horrible combination. I can't even imagine Obama calling his wife the "C" word in public. Temper, temper.

kat - not everybody is physically or finanically or emotionally capable of giving birth to a baby with severe birth defects (I"m not talking simple retardation or not being perfect looking). There are many far more serious birth defects - with grim results even if brought to term. How very noble & smug of you to presume that because you feel you're up to the task, the govt. should be allowed to mandate that every pregnant woman (regardless of her age, physical or mental health, finances, or how she got pregnant) be forced to bring a pregnancy to term. The woman is the one who will carry the baby in her womb for 9 months (sometimes knowing it will die soon), and yes, the baby's father should have a say - to a point, because more often than not, it is the woman who labors, gives birth, and often raises the child & get's little financial help from the dad (not all men are stand up guys - all too often they take off, even with healthy babies). I've seen far too many young girls barely able to make ends meet where the child's father took off & never pays a dime to help - one girl lived in her car with her 3 kids for a year.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/332/7536/256-b.pdf
An estimated 3.3 million children under the age of 5 die each year
from serious birth defects, a worldwide report says.

.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, June 10, 1997
Findings include the following:
"Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality, directly responsible for one out of every five infant deaths."
"Thousands of the 150,000 infants born with a serious birth defect annually face a lifetime of chronic disability and illness."
"Birth defects threaten the lives of infants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds."
"Birth defects can be caused by exposure to environmental hazards, adverse health conditions during pregnancy, or genetic mutations."
"Public awareness strategies, such as programs using folic acid vitamin supplements to prevent spina bifida and alcohol avoidance programs to prevent Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are essential to prevent the heartache and costs associated with birth defects."

For example, termination of pregnancy is very widespread for lethal conditions such as anencephaly, but the practice is much more variable for conditions such as spina bifida.
******************************************************************
"Certain birth defects were particularly deadly: For example, about 85 percent of babies born with anencephaly — that is, born without all or most of their brain and skull — died in the hospital. Most died within two days of birth."

"For many serious defects detected before birth, termination of pregnancy is presently the only option other than non-intervention. This is a difficult ethical choice for many people. However, it has had a significant impact"

"Attempts have been made to correct abnormalities by surgery on the babies before birth. While there have been some notable successes, there have also been failures. Opening the womb alone can cause serious difficulties for the mother, quite apart from the effect of the operation on the baby. Technological advances should make foetal surgery more successful, but it is likely to be reserved for serious conditions for some time."

http://www.folicacidnow.net/birthDefects.html
ypes of Neural Tube Defects

Spina bifida (spi′ nah bif′ ida) is the most common NTD. It occurs when the spinal column (backbone) fails to close completely during early development. The nerves of the spinal column can be exposed and open to possible damage.

* Spina bifida may cause leg paralysis, bladder and bowel problems and other serious health complications.
* The severity of disability depends on the size and location of the opening on the spine. Usually, the larger defects and those higher on the spine cause more disability.
* Children born with this condition usually need surgery in the first few days of life to close the open spinal area.
* Most people with spina bifida need to use a wheelchair or leg braces throughout their life.

Anencephaly (an″ en-sef′ ah-le) is when the brain and skull of the baby do not form properly.

* Unfortunately, this birth defect is always fatal.

Encephalocele (en-sef′ ah-lo-sēl″) is an opening in the skull that allows some of the brain to be outside the skull, covered only with a thin sac or tissue.

* Encephalocele can result in a range of mental disabilities or may be fatal.

******************************************************************************

Neural Tube defects (NTDs)

• Babies with an NTD can have a range of physical and mental disabilities. Some NTD-affected pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth.

• In the US, approximately 3,000 babies are born each year with an NTD (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2004). Ninety-seven (97) babies were born with an NTD in Florida in 2001 (Florida Department of Health 1997-2001).

• NTDs impact many people. Families and friends of children with NTDs must cope with the physical, emotional, and financial effects of these serious birth defects.

• Children born with NTDs usually need life-long medical treatment. The lifetime medical costs for just one child with spina bifida are estimated to be over $635,000 (Waitzman et al. 2005)
***************************************************************
I stand by my belief that this is a choise between a woman & her doctor - the govt. has NO business in her womb.
But Palin thinks these birth defects are no reason to abort - even in the first month when it's a mere tadpole. These babies won't 'grow up to be president' or see their dreams fulfilled, Requiring the births be brought to term will also leave the mother (and father) saddled with a horrific stack of medical bills - and either no baby at all to show for it, or a baby that is teminal & will suffer pain & no happy result.

Again - how self-righteous & smug the pro-lifers can be - to presume to know what is best for other women. Stay out of my uterus.

What two people decide to do with regards to a pregnancy.

Is it is anyone's business besides the mother and father, as an example.

I have a neighbhor who is unwed and has a number of children and is supporting them quite well. None of my business that the kids don't have a father.

I have known people who for what ever reason have aborted, they did so for their own reasons and they will live with the consequences.

We want government out of the process, we should also remove ourselves from the process, but that does not work and will not.

Many people feel they have to be involved, because they know was is right or feel they know what is right.

We want freedom, liberty and less interference, but yet we do the opposite.

Not because it is right or wrong, but because of the statement neighborhood_concerns made which indicated that Roe-v-Wade is a BAD SUPREME COURT DECISION.

"Is it is anyone's business besides the mother and father, as an example."

With Roe-V-Wade and subsequent decisions, the "right" of abortion is given strictly to the women. The rights of the father are not taken into account AT ALL. In fact, the woman does not even need to tell her husband she has had an abortion.
(see Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833)

Roe v. Wade WILL be overturned someday because a HUSBAND will want to keep the child. And, for that matter, if having a baby is STRICTLY a woman's "right", then why can a man be sued for Child Support for a baby that he did not want?

Either the "baby" is partially a man's choice, OR a man cannot be held financially accountable for that woman's "choice"

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

On those that foundation.

But, then we will have government, once again, telling us what we can and cannot do, with regards to personal decisions.

"...then why can a man be sued for Child Support for a baby that he did not want?"

Because it takes two to tango?

Once again, please read Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=...)

The "right" of abortion is given strictly to the women. The rights of the father are not taken into account AT ALL. In fact, the woman does not even need to tell her husband she has had an abortion. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, a man has NO RESPONSIBILITY in the decision to keep or not keep a baby.

Someday soon, a man will take a woman to court and using the arguement that keeping a baby was TOTALLY and STRICTLY a woman's "choice", he cannot be held financially responsible for her "choice".

Due to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it makes it the ABSOLUTE responsibility of a woman to have the choices. That includes the woman's choice to use birth control. That decision absolves men of ANY responsibility in the reproductive process and, since the man has no input what-so-ever in the "choice", some man somewhere will SUE in order not to pay 18 years worth of Child Support.

The amount of money involved over that 18 year period will make a Supreme Court showdown inevitable.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Then why to this day, are men still paying child support, if the decision does as is alleged?

Because, maybe, it is an opinion and not a legal ruling or precedent?

A symbolic fight against repression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

kat - abortion rights has been debated by smarter people than any of us, and everybody has an opinion - with many variables how their opinions got formed. I do resent that you implied that I am shallow enough to believe that any type of physical or mental deficiency means their lives aren't worth living, have value. That's an absurd & insulting accusation. Of course there are many, many people who have led amazing lives, dispite their disabilities. I was NOT referring to general birth defects & disabilities - I was referring to extremely severe birth defects. I know a woman who, before abortion was legal, carried a baby to full term, knowing it was stillborn by the 4th month Imagine dealing with that. That said, I can think of many women or circumstances, where the woman was just not physically, mentally, emotionally, or financially able to have a child. Sometimes, carrying the baby to term with intent to give it up for adoption, ends up being a mentally crippling act that the woman never gets over. My sister was forced to do just that, when abortion was illegal. Shuttled away in hiding so nobody would know - assume she was a 'tramp' - which is how women were branded years ago, whether an unwed mother kept the baby or not - she was seen as 'loose'. Times change though, fortunately.

Many people don't have health insurance, and are barely surviving financially as it is. Some simply can't afford the medical & childcare expenses. - they are living near poverty as it is. (not everybody's on welfare or has insurance).. Couple that situation with giving birth to a baby with extreme birth defects that will require surgeries, that maybe won't even help - the cost of that can be mind boggling. Some women already have more kids than they can afford & time enough to give them - maybe an accidental pregnancy will be the 'last straw' where they go under finanically, or the marriage fractures from the stress & expense. (NO birth control is 100 percent effective). Some of these are more children than women - kids hvaing kids, not from a boyfriend always, but by incest or rape. In that example, I think that child has been "punished" enough with the act that got her pregant.

I listened to Obama use that word "punished' - and my thoughts were, it looked to me like he just chose a bad word to use, wanted to take it back as soon as it got out of his mouth. Don't read too much into a word. There's been a lot of 'mis-speaking' by them all.

You're free to belive anyway that feels right to you. For me, in the first trimester, the fetus feels no pain, and can not live outside the womb - it is not a viable life to me, unless it can survive outside the womb. By the 4th month, it probably can't survive - but it's too fully formed for me to feel 'ok' about aborting it - and it can feel pain. We had a cat that we discovered was pregnant & had planned to have her fixed prior to learning she was pregnant - her pregnancy wasn't very far along, but you knew she was.. The vet aborted the kittens during the procedure. If I understand this whole pro life, anti aborton no matter what - then we did a horrible thing? As did the vet? Everybody says 'too many cats'. Very hard to find homes for them. How many anti abortion people are signed up to adopt other women's children with severe birth defects? How many have you adopted kat?

And why is it immoral to abort a 2 month fetus when it's not a viable (live outside the womb) life, and it's not immoral to murder innocent animals for sport? A life is a life - religious people say that God made them all.

Some interesting abortion history (just for interest) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5].......

Hippocratic Oath
The Oath is part of the Hippocratic Corpus. Often ascribed to Hippocrates, the Greek physician, the Corpus is believed to be the collective work of Hippocratic practioners. While the Oath forbids the use of pessaries (vaginal suppositories) to induce abortion, it did not prohibit abortion. Modern scholarship suggests that pessaries were banned because they were reported to cause vaginal ulcers.[11] This specific prohibition has been interpreted by some medical scholars as prohibiting abortion in a broader sense than by pessary.[12] One such interpretation is by Scribonius Largus, a Roman medical writer: "Hippocrates, who founded our profession, laid the foundation for our discipline by an oath in which it was proscribed not to give a pregnant woman a kind of medicine that expels the embryo/fetus."[13]

Regardless of the Oath's interpretaion, Hippocrates writes of advising a prostitute who became pregnant to jump up and down, touching her buttocks with her heels at each leap, so as to induce miscarriage.[14] Other writings attributed to him describe instruments fashioned to dilate the cervix and curette inside of the uterus.[15]

Christian texts
Tertullian, a 2nd and 3rd century Christian theologian, also described surgical implements which were used in a procedure similar to the modern dilation and evacuation. One tool had a "nicely-adjusted flexible frame" used for dilation, an "annular blade" used to curette, and a "blunted or covered hook" used for extraction. The other was a "copper needle or spike". He attributed ownership of such items to Hippocrates, Asclepiades, Erasistratus, Herophilus, and Soranus.[21]

Tertullian's description is prefaced as being used in cases in which abnormal positioning of the fetus in the womb would endanger the life of the pregnant women. Saint Augustine, in Enchiridion, makes passing mention of surgical procedures being performed to remove fetuses which have expired in utero.[22] Aulus Cornelius Celsus, a 1st century Roman encyclopedist, offers an extremely detailed account of a procedure to extract an already dead fetus in his only surviving work, De Medicina.[23]

In Book 9 of Refutation of all Heresies, Hippolytus of Rome, another Christian theologian of the 3rd century, wrote of women tightly binding themselves around the middle so as to "expel what was being conceived."[24]

A list of plants which cause abortion was provided in De viribus herbarum, an 11th-century herbal written in the form of a poem, the authorship of which is incorrectly attributed to Aemilius Macer. Among them were rue, Italian catnip, savory, sage, soapwort, cyperus, white and black hellebore, and pennyroyal.[17]

King's American Dispensatory of 1898 recommended a mixture of brewer's yeast and pennyroyal tea as "a safe and certain abortive". More recently, two women in the United States have died as a result of abortions attempted by pennyroyal, one in 1978 through the consumption of its essential oil and another in 1994 through a tea containing its extract.

A variety of juniper, known as savin, was mentioned frequently in European writings.[3] In one case in England, a rector from Essex was said to have procured it for a woman he had impregnated in 1574; in another, a man wishing to remove his girlfriend of like condition recommended to her that black hellebore and savin be boiled together and drunk in milk, or else that chopped madder be boiled in beer. Other substances reputed to have been used by the English include Spanish fly, opium, watercress seed, iron sulphate, and iron chloride. Another mixture, not abortifacient, but rather intended to relieve missed abortion, contained dittany, hyssop, and hot water.[28]

The root of worm fern, called "prostitute root" in the French, was used in France and Germany; it was also recommended by a Greek physician in the 1st century. In German folk medicine, there was also an abortifacient tea, which included marjoram, thyme, parsley, and lavender. Other preparations of unspecificied origin included crushed ants, the saliva of camels, and the tail hairs of black-tailed deer dissolved in the fat of bears.[25]

n France during the latter half of the 19th century, social perceptions of abortion started to change. In the first half of the 19th century, abortion was viewed as the last resort for pregnant but unwed women. But as writers began to write about abortion in terms of family planning for married women, the practice of abortion was reconceptualized as a logical solution to unwanted pregnancies resulting from ineffectual contraceptives.[34] The formulation of abortion as a form of family planning for married women was made "thinkable" because both medical and non-medical practioners agreed on the relative safety of the procedure.[34]

In the United States and England, the latter half of the 19th century abortion became increasingly criminalized. As access to medical abortions diminished, women often sought dangerous alternatives.[citation needed]

After a rash of unexplained miscarriages in Sheffield, England, were attributed to lead poisoning caused by the metal pipes which fed the city's water supply, a woman confessed to having used diachylon — a lead-containing plaster — as an abortifacient in 1898.[3] Criminal investigation of an abortionist in Calgary, Alberta in 1894 revealed through chemical analysis that the concotion he had supplied to a man seeking an abortifacient contained Spanish fly.[35]

Women of Jewish descent in Lower East Side, Manhattan are said to have carried the ancient Indian practice of sitting over a pot of steam into the early 20th century. [25] Dr. Evelyn Fisher wrote of how women living in a mining town in Wales during the 1920s used candles intended for Roman Catholic ceremonies to dilate the cervix in an effort to self-induce abortion.[3] Similarly, the use of candles and other objects, such as glass rods, penholders, curling irons, spoons, sticks, knives, and catheters was reported during the 19th-century in the United States.[36]

A few alleged examples of surreptitiously-marketed abortifacients include "Farrer's Catholic Pills", "Hardy's Woman's Friend", "Dr. Peter's French Renovating Pills", "Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound",[40] and "Madame Drunette's Lunar Pills". [3] Patent medicines which claimed to treat "female complaints" often contained such ingredients as pennyroyal, tansy, and savin. Abortifacient products were sold under the promise of "restor[ing] female regularity" and "removing from the system every impurity."[40] In the vernacular of such advertising, "irregularity," "obstruction," "menstrual suppression," and "delayed period" were understood to be euphemistic references to the state of pregnancy. As such, some abortifacients were marketed as menstrual regulatives.[36] "Old Dr. Gordon's Pearls of Health," produced by a drug company in Montreal, "cure[d] all suppressions and irregularities" if "used monthly".[41] However, a few ads explicitly warned against the use of their product by women who were expecting, or listed miscarriage as its inevitable side effect. The copy for "Dr. Peter's French Renovating Pills" advised, "...pregnant females should not use them, as they invariably produce a miscarriage...”, and both "Dr. Monroe's French Periodical Pills" and "Dr. Melveau's Portuguese Female Pills" were "sure to produce a miscarriage".[3] F.E. Karn, a man from Toronto, in 1901 cautioned women who thought themselves pregnant not to use the pills he advertised as "Friar's French Female Regulator" because they would "speedily restore menstrual secretions".[41]

WHILE ABORTION was illegal for decades, not all eras of illegality were the same.
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml

History shows that women have always tried to terminate unwanted pregnancies. When safe medical procedures are banned by law, they have resorted to dangerous--sometimes deadly--"back-alley" abortions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the 1930s, for example, abortion was widespread and extremely common. There was still tremendous risk involved, given that penicillin and antibiotics were not available until the Second World War. But even at this time, abortion was increasingly safe, relatively speaking.

The Great Depression produced an economic crisis that sharpened the need of women to control childbearing. Due to the 1920s campaign to make birth control available, by 1937, 80 percent of American women approved of using birth control. Moreover, the labor movement and socialist movements of that era produced an environment that largely supported women's reproductive rights. The fact that Russia following the 1917 revolution had been performing safe, legal abortions influenced radical doctors in the U.S.

In 1939, 68 percent of medical students in the U.S. reported that they would be willing to perform abortions if they were legal......

.....For these and other reasons--such as the availability of sulfa drugs--maternal mortality declined in the 1930s. Illegal abortion accounted for 14 percent of maternal mortality.

But by the early 1960s, the situation had reversed dramatically. In New York, for example, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of the maternal mortality rate. There were fewer abortionists in 1955 than there were in 1940. Across the U.S., larger and larger numbers of women died from illegal abortion after the Second World War than before.

In the post-Second World War era in the U.S., there was a backlash against women's rights, and women working outside the home and living independent lives. Central to this was a crackdown on illegal abortion that drove it underground and ushered in an era of tragedy and horror for women.

Clinics and midwives' homes and offices were raided and their patients' lives exposed publicly in show trials that mirrored the worst of the anti-communist witch-hunts of the McCarthyist era. Women were accosted by police detectives outside clinics and forced to testify against those who performed abortions. Anyone who didn't cooperate was likely to wake up the next morning with details of their personal lives splashed all over the pages of the newspaper.

As a result, most illegal abortions were increasingly self-induced by women, or performed by a back-alley butcher.

Both were nightmares in their own right. Women often tried to induce abortion or cause a miscarriage by throwing themselves down stairs or inflicting violence on themselves. They ingested, douched with or inserted into themselves a chilling variety of chemicals and toxins--from bleach to potassium permanganate to turpentine to gunpowder and whiskey. Knitting needles, crochet hooks, scissors and coat hangers were all among the tools used by women who had no choice but to resort to these means.

Women who sought abortions from back-alley butchers encountered similar horrors. Because of the crackdown, the clandestine nature of illegal abortion meant that women who sought them were often blindfolded, driven to remote areas and passed off to people they didn't know or couldn't see, often forced to get abortions from drunk abortionists, using unsanitary tools in filthy rooms and even the backseats of cars.

The humiliation and isolation imposed on women because of the illegal nature of abortion meant that many women, after receiving one, feared going to a doctor when they suffered complications.. Nearly all middle- and upper-class white women who sought abortions were able to obtain one in hospitals or outside the U.S.

But the vast majority of women faced deplorable conditions, and women of color suffered the worst. Nearly four times as many women of color died from illegal abortions as white women. Before 1970, when abortion was legalized in New York City, Black women accounted for 50 percent of deaths due to illegal abortions. Puerto Rican women accounted for 44 percent.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade...

Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn't, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again.

libs - I do agree that the man should have a say. But you seem to believe that all men would want the baby, and that's far from the truth. And of the men who do say they want the baby, many of those bail after the baby is born - not up to the task. Sad, but true. And there are some women who know the guy will bail if he finds out she's pregnant. And there are also some men who want more & more kids & the woman just can't handle anymore (my mom-in-law's neighbor had 11 boys, he kept wanting a girl).

and tomorrow she will meet me for the first time in her nineteen year old life.

by the way, starling, you'd be surprised how many women are out there "stealing" these children from their fathers...

how those statistics were gathered. If abortions were illegal and a crime, how were the statistics gathered? I find it hard to believe that before legalized abortions that more black females had more abortions than white females. If I remember correctly during my time before Roe V Wade, black females had their babies whereas white females disappeared and reappeared without a baby and a really unexplained absence.

When I worked in a building that had an office (either the first or onr of the first) where abortions were done, the vast majority of females having abortions in Toledo, Ohio were white. Now maybe nationwide this was different.

The doctor was black, as were the nurses but the patients were white, very, very few blacks. This went on for years.

As a footnote, I almost lost my job when I refused to enter the office where the abortions were done.

The bottom line in the abortion debate is argued by Scott Klusendorf who is a bio-ethicist of the Life Training Institute.

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life. In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

Here's the full article

Substitute organized religion for government and we still have people telling us what we should do, instead of allowing us to make our own decisions.

Actually, and the groups, political and religion are working together, and expouse individual freedoms and rights, and yet they seek to limit and restrict choices, liberties and freedoms.

Thanks for posting a very good example of how to commit the genetic fallacy I mentioned above.

Religion has nothing to do with how LTI argues the pro-life position. Obviously, the Pro Life Institute as an organization, is religious. So what? They don't hide that fact.

How does being a religious organization invalidate their non-religious pro-life arguments?

As it just so happens LTI makes their case based on science and philosophy. You would have known that if you would have visited the site.

Well, I did visit the site, and there I saw,

"Life Training Institute trains pro-life advocates to persuasively defend their views in the marketplace of ideas.

This is accomplished by clearly presenting the pro-life position in schools, colleges, churches, and pregnancy center sponsored events. Media appearances on such radio programs as Focus on the Family, The Bible Answer Man, American Family Radio, and others are put to great use in reaching the masses."

http://www.prolifetraining.com/Mission.htm

"Abortion & Moral Chaos: The Role of the Clergy in Building Christian Thinkers.

$5.95 (tape only)

Scott Klusendorf addresses why church leaders avoid teaching controversial and outlines five steps they must take to provide leadership on abortion."

"LTI makes their case based on science and philosophy"

Yes, religious philosophy and some handy dandy merchandising of the philosphy.

http://www.prolifetraining.com/Pro-Life_Products.htm

And,

"Prior to launching LTI, Scott served as Director of Bioethics for Stand to Reason (1997-2004), and Director of Education for Center for Bioethical Reform (1991-1997)."

"Our mission here at Stand to Reason is to train Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square."

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Register

Nope, no religious influences in the LTI.

Yes, obviously those places are the venues. They do have a target audience, so what? Venues don't have anything to do with the actual arguments they make.

The question that must be answered is what are they saying in those venues? What have they said on Dr. Dobson's program? How many references have they made to religion while presenting their pro-life case? Answer? None!

The arguments that they make purposely leave out any reference to religion. Why? Because they don't think it's necessary and detrimental to their case.

Here you have religious people advising other religious people at religious venues not to bring religion into the arguments for the pro-life position.

I don't see how anyone would fail to find that to be quite remarkable.

It would be like asking Jesse Jackson not to talk about race. It would be like asking a block watch group not to talk about "eyesores" in the midst of a decaying neighborhood among neighbors concerned about "eyesores."

And the religious people advise those that they wish to convert or help to see the light and follow the way they believe, and influence the politicians that make the laws and seek to influence the executive branch that makes recommendations and establishes agencies and efforts like the Office Of Faith Based Initiatives and uses tax payer dollars to fund the efforts, and yet the government grows larger and is influenced by outside groups, lobbyists and religious leaders to push the agenda the groups seek.

Dr. Dobson does not make more money with the same group of people sending in donations, he needs new blood for donations and new people to influence.

The religious groups are looking to influence our country, Jesse Jackson could influence people to be like him if he wanted, and a block watch group is doing something that government is failing to do, protect our neighborhoods.

LTI and others are pushing a social agenda for the country and they are actively seeking the help of the government in that quest, by influencing the politicians.

Do we want government involved more.

Or, do we want government involved less.

In our life's?

There are those that say yes, get it out, and yet at the same time let other groups influence the way we go about our daily life's.

purnhrt, I have no idea - I just copied the article from wikipedia, and other websites. I did find a couple of websites that grossly misquoted the number of women who died from abortions - that NOW had used, but many, many women died from self aborting, or back alley abortionists. The way I understood it was that the more wealthy or the whites had the cash to secure abortions through discrete doctors, so the death rate was far less, and minorities & the poor were reduced to medical school drop out abortionists or "helpful" friends, or do it yourself abortions, which led to a higher death count. I imagine they figured the numbers out by the coroner's office - cause of death. The fact remains that prior to legal abortion, women have always found a way to end, or attempt to end unwanted pregnancies. And if Roe vs Wade was overturned, history would repeat itself - like it or not. Desperate people resort to desperate measures - regardless of religious or societal beliefs.

jayott - I consider 'viable' when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and that seems to be the historic standard. Comparing the size of an embryo to a grown person is absurd to me - even with diseases, etc - if they survived outside the womb, the life was viable. If a fetus was removed from the womb in the first trimeste, it would not survive - no more than an egg once cracked will become a chicken. I understand & respect that your religious & other beliefs determine how you feel about abortion.

For me, by the forth month I share your beliefs that the life is viable. In historic times, the standard used was when the woman felt the 'quickening' - after that, it was considered too late to abort - for medical & moral reasons. This is a subject that's been argued for centuries & won't be solved on this forum - it's a highly personal decision, that I feel belongs to the woman, and the father if he's going to be present in the child's life. I stand by my belief that the government has no business dictating to a woman about her body. If abortion is made illegal, history will repeat itself - the wealthier will simply go to other countries to abort, or afford doctors do it in secrecy. The poor will find ways - the same ways as in the past, and bleed to death or die of infection, using coat hangers, ice picks or whatever they hope will work. Even religious women & girls will die from illegal abortions - if desperate enough, so nobody learns of the pregnancy.

brian - I never advocated women to deny men the right to be fathers, or to hide the pregnancy from them. I suppose there are abusive & nasty enough men where some women may feel it's better they not know - but yes, I think the men should have a say. In the end - it is still the woman who will carry that child for 9 months, give birth, and be largly responsible for it. I realize many men are stand up guys, but sadly, many are not. If you look at most teen pregnancies, most of guys don't stick around for long, or the relationship wasn't sturdy or mature enough to handle the raising of a child. I've seen too many very young girls being the soul caregiver, with no child support or help. The father of my 36 yr old son paid me a total of $60 dollars in child support for the entire life of my child - didnt even send a birthday card - but he wanted the baby as much as I did. I was fortunate to have family to help - not everybody has that.

In response to two statements, here is the reasoning/rebuttle.

Statement #1: "Then why to this day, are men still paying child support, if the decision does as is alleged?

Because, maybe, it is an opinion and not a legal ruling or precedent?"
___________________________________
Simple answer. It has NOT been challenged in court yet. But eventually some man somewhere will decide that he will NOT pay child support. I look for that to happen in Ohio first. Ohio is unique in that if a man divorces his wife, he is obligated to pay child support EVEN IF THE WIFE HAD ANOTHER MANS BABY BECAUSE OF AN AFFAIR.

And when that court decision reaches the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will look to past precedent.
That is when whey will be forced to look at the decision rendered in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992). AND THAT is a legal ruling that the court will have to base this future decision on.

If you have not read the court brief, for Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I strongly suggest you do read it. It says "The joint opinion thus turns to what can only be described as an unconventional - and unconvincing - notion of reliance, a view based on the surmise that the availability of abortion since Roe has led to "two decades of economic and social developments" that would be undercut if the error of Roe were recognized. Ante, at 856. The joint opinion's assertion of this fact is undeveloped, and totally conclusory. In fact, one cannot be sure to what economic and social developments the opinion is referring. Surely it is dubious to suggest that women have reached their "places in society" in [505 U.S. 833, 957] reliance upon Roe, rather than as a result of their determination to obtain higher education and compete with men in the job market, and of society's increasing recognition of their ability to fill positions that were previously thought to be reserved only for men. Ante, at 856. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833

Bottom line of that statement, the Supreme Court found NO reason that a woman needs to inform her husband about an abortion SINCE THE WOMAN HAS NO FINANCIAL RELIANCE ON THE MAN. Therefore, it must be concluded that if one case were true, a woman can pay for her own abortion, then the other case is true, a woman can pay to raise her own baby.

Statement #2:"... you seem to believe that all men would want the baby, and that's far from the truth"

Actually, that is the basis of why Roe-v-Wade will be overturned. Because some man somewhere will NOT want to support a baby for 18 years. I see that happening.

Bottom line, (put into a sound bite for TV),
You can't have it both ways. Either a woman is in charge of her body or a woman is in charge of her life.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I know that.

So spending time discussing that has not been challenged and make suppositions that the case will come down this or that way, is an unproductive use of time, at least to me.

"Bottom line of that statement, the Supreme Court found NO reason that a woman needs to inform her husband about an abortion SINCE THE WOMAN HAS NO FINANCIAL RELIANCE ON THE MAN."

Ya, in legal theory that may be true, in the world I live in, a woman is dependant to some degree on herself and husband for mutual support.

"Therefore, it must be concluded that if one case were true, a woman can pay for her own abortion, then the other case is true, a woman can pay to raise her own baby."

Why must it be concluded this way?

The real bottom line seems to be, we want government out, but yet we invite government in, to decide for us, what we want.

This is the perfect example of a "hijacked thread"

Also a perfect example of an "Absentee Moderator"

CLASS DISMISSED

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)

right on the head.

and now everyone can see how far down this pathetic and worthless ex-city employee will reach to save face, as well as how persistant I am in getting information, no matter how false, and making the effort displaying what unemployed renters on probation do with their free time

look more stupid lol

warrant for my arrest? another delusion conjured up to scare me, which failed again. I'll never understand, really, why this idiot thinks he's intimidating me when he has no effect on my life and why I'm here, yet he focuses on me and he envies me.

just read his responses, it really should show you who has the issue and who is being the troll, I'm just defending my credibility.

myself? I made my point and succeeded in showing y'all how big a douche El Gary is, for the second time around, and if my credibility took a hit, I'll get over it.

But I've already spoken to Chris about this matter and Chris pretty much ignored it, so being left to my own creative designs, I made my point.

So Chris, thanks for letting Gary run amok and putting me in a position to excersize my juvenile creativity. Ban me if you wish, but remember this, Chris, I made the effort and you blew it off.

to ban you or concern himself with your drama with El.

Chris is doing an excellent job of dealing with all the various canaries that sing here.

You included.

you were going to buy me drinks and dinner at the 'Captains'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY_Fl78WKSI

any conversation about "dinner".

That amenity would have come from the local 'boast-host".

If you do not envy him too much.

BWA-HA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

if you're going to excersize "html script", try using it properly and close the tab behind that stupid laugh thing

you having left a tab open and asking Chris to close it for you.

But you want to jump my ass when I make a mistake.

Was it on your "CUBBONS" a.k.a. cubbon story or which "maladay"sic. was it ?

jump your ass? over something you failed to do?

seems like a trend. I call you out on one of many incompetent stunts you make and you turn around and blame someone else for it or ignore it instead of addressing it?

I learned my lesson and now pay closer attention

you chose to not fix it yet compare your stupidity to something I screwed up and had fixed because I couldn't access it?

Gary, evidence of how big a failure you truly are.

just hit edit and close the tab and quit making such a big production out of a menial task.

or is that too simple to wrap your head around too?

apparently so, cuz it still isn't closed.

inept scumbag.

that sometimes the 'edit' button disappears after awhile and can no longer be accessed.

I have asked the site administrator to close it, but he is probably busy living life and did not catch it yet.

He is living life and not sitting in front of a computer checking comments on a blogsite like some lifeless people do. Sound familiar ?

and flagged comments Gary placed which created the environment we find ourselves in today.

I also, during the emailing process, made sure Chris understood my position which if the behaviour ended, so would my interest in replying.

And Gary got a warning, then Gary kept going.

Chris knows what's up, and while my intent was to maintain the integrity of the site, I certainly wasn't going to allow an idiot such as Gary to lie about having a warrant for my arrest.

I have to publically call Gary out and have him explain this warrant that does not exist, but he chose to keep going around my request, against my better judgement. And as we found out, with everything Gary has posted, it was another douchebag fallacy that not only took up valuable space, it killed the time I had while waiting for my child to take some time for herself to absorb what happened to us this week.

Gary can continue to spew his vitriol without recourse from me. I've done my duty in sharing the ignorance Gary possesses and am continuing to enjoy my time in the city.

And if it wasn't for the douchebaggery Gary is so well known for, I'd have posted a picture of me and my child together for the first time in 19 years, 7 days, 1 hour and 32 minutes.

But Gary will just abuse himself and I can't have my child's image in that type of environment.

People do not want to hear your lame, non-sensical excuses that absolve you of any blame.  They know what time it is.....

Just SHUT THE FUCK UP !

lol

make me, freak

see? and you guys think I'm kidding lol

he has to have the last word, doncha

tell me to shut up and not have the balls to back it up

typical coward

Gary, do everyone a favor, delete the link to this site from your homepage, sell your computer and just sit in the corner and suck off your bottle...you haven't provided anything substantial relating any topic at hand since you've been here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.