bullets13

I would not know. I am just saying that I can see the necessity of someone in a work program getting bus fare and a Reaganbush phone with limited minutes.

Looks like they're trying some sort of voluntary program. I'm not sure what it is, because after using the title to try and make the left look as stupid as possible, the author didn't actually mention anything about the plan itself.

I would hope so. Living in a halfway house work program is about as clear an example of someone "getting back on their feet" as I can think of.

Misleading in many ways. First, the "Obamaphone" program was started under Reagan and greatly expanded under Bush. The inventors of the term Obamaphone conveniently forget this. Despite that, is it really a bad thing for someone in a halfway house who's trying to get back on their feet to have a way to communicate with their boss and transportation to and from work? I feel better about that scenario than someone getting a free cellphone sitting in their government housing choosing not to work. I'm pretty positive someone in a work program HAS to work. As long as they're holding down a job, I think they're exactly the type of people who should get a little help while they get back on their feet, rather than those who just choose to sit on their butt.

It's a voluntary program. Who new a cow let off as much methane in a day as a car? Kind of a silly issue, but a perfect example of the types of articles that Smitty posts that I mentioned in the other thread.

A couple of those questions have "no" for an answer. I'm on record as not supporting him. People on here often confuse asking for truthful articles and not blindly supporting lies about liberals as being a "koolaid drinker." I find it ironic, because one of you guys will post a false article from western journalism, and everyone gulps it down, then gets pissed when I dispute it, even if I can prove it erroneous or misleading. Not supporting Obama does not mean I'm required to swallow every fake article about him, although you'd think so based on the responses I get whenever I choose not to blindly believe it. Smitty is the king of posting ridiculous articles that seldom have any validity, and even more seldomly do they come from a reputable source. That was the basis of my original comment, not any "drooling" over Obama.

Am I considered one of the "Obama droolers"?

almost done building our house and then i'll be ready to hit the water. i've only been twice since november. one trip we limited on trout in 45 minutes, and one trip we didnt catch a fish in 3 hours.

one point and two questions: the point: this is not a real news site first question: who really cares what Obama and the pope talked about? second question: isn't making sure that everyone has access to birth control a wonderful thing? if there's two things that conservatives hate, it's abortion and paying for handouts for the poor. free birth control is a wonderful preventative for both. i do not like Obamacare, but i think guaranteed access to birth control is one of the few things it actually got right, and i also think it's the one thing that Republicans ought to be able to look at as a positive.

    don't worry. several have kept up your tradition of posting blogs and forwarded emails and propaganda pieces under the guise of factual news articles.

        The problem i run into on this site sometimes is that being in the major minority of many issues, i often make one point and end up having to make rebuttals against many different responses. sometimes it makes me come off as more supportive of something than i actually am because i have to reply over and over and over and over again on something to address multiple people. So here it is... I AM pro choice. While some take the view that it is murder, i personally feel that something the size of a walnut inside of a woman's body is still part of her body and her's to do with as she pleases. I understand that many of you will never agree with me on this, and i can respect that. what i have not had a chance to say is that morally, i disagree with abortions. there are certain situations where i don't have a problem with them (such as in rape, known severe mental retardation, and severe health risk to the mother), but i do not agree with abortions as a convenient form of birth control. that being said, i do feel that a mother should have that choice, and i honestly can understand a 15 or 16-year-old making that choice. even though it's a choice i don't like, it's a choice that should be legal... and if you outlaw it, what about women that are raped? What about women who have health issues? I know a woman who became pregnant, then was diagnosed with kidney cancer. she had to choose between taking chemotherapy to survive, or having the baby. she chose to survive (and her husband and child who'd already been born) over an early-term fetus. So despite the fact that morally i disagree with the act, i don't see it as murder, and i feel that it MUST be kept legal for the few circumstances where it is understandable. So while i am in fact pro-choice, i don't want to give you guys the impression that i'm ready to throw parades outside of the clinics or anything like that.

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

Ok, so let the government enforce a tax to ensure they're all buried. Oh wait, the right's not going to go for that.

And many if not most of those would end up in bad situations, leading to increased crime rates, increased poverty, more government handouts, and... Even higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

    i know you'll disagree, but 55,000,000 extra unwanted children being born into poverty, unloving homes, or orphanages over the last 40 years would've caused a much larger problem for our country than abortions have.

    i agree that she did as well. that being said, what she went through is responsible for the great majority of the "burned babies" that the author of this piece is trying to use to get a gutteral response about abortion, and i also use her situation to show that this practice of "burning fetuses" is commonplace here in the US as well as Great Britain. i don't like the idea of a hospital using medical waste to heat it's buildings, but i don't have a problem with unwanted early-term fetuses, whether miscarried or aborted, being treated as medical waste, in order to prevent possible disease. Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, the fact remains that the remains of both aborted and miscarried early term fetuses are often treated the same way. and this article is about their disposal, not about abortion itself. the "article" is presented in such a way that one can be misled to believe that hospitals are somehow encouraging or supporting abortion in order to take advantage of a great heaping pile of fetuses that they will then use to heat their buildings to save money (i apologize for the imagery, but it's what one imagines when they see the titles being used). that, in fact, could not be further from the truth.

    oh, you misinterpret. sorry i wasn't clearer. i think it's kind of creepy to power a hospital with medical waste. tumors and amputations included. fortunately, this was only the case at 2 hospitals, it was not a widespread practice, as some would have you believe.

    in the matter of safety and disease control, there are only a couple of options. it's not practical to embalm and bury an early-term fetus (nor would most mothers want to), so the logical answer is usually incinerating the remains. my pro-life, conservative step-mother chose to have the remains of TWO early-term miscarriages incinerated rather than face the expense of a funeral for a fetus she'd carried less than ten weeks.

it's no surprise that every rightwing "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US. so while i'm not a fan of the practice of burning the remains in a fire that is used to provide heat for a hospital- two hospitals in England after the cost of professional cremation became too much for them to afford... from the title you'd think this was a common practice- i don't really understand what you'd have them do. if the mother does not want the remains, what should the hospital do with them? they're basically doing the same thing that a funeral home would do.

  because they should have the same rights to sin and not be judged that you and i do?  and they certainly should not have less rights because of what they legally choose to (are born as) do. i know many homosexuals, and many of them are far better people than other straight, heterosexual Christians that i know. i find it increasingly unfair that Christianity unites against them, often with very unChristian attitudes, and as a general whole ignores other sins that are as big or bigger problems in our society. its not that i don't think that homosexuality is a sin, it's that i know several homosexuals that are great people, and whether or not you agree with their lifestyle, they are NOT the reason that society is failing.

He can afford private care. He doesn't have to get Obamacare. He's merely making a point. It's not a bad point, but he's not affected the way that small business owners will be.

This is the type of biblical based, Christian response that would go a long way in these types of debates. A response that decries ALL sin, and also acknowledges that we should not be hostile or insulting. While you and I are on different sides of the argument, this is a breath of fresh air from the belligerent, often uneducated and hypocritical responses I often face. I'm not directing the more harsh adjectives at those I've gone back and forth with on here, either, so do not take offense. But this is by far the most appropriately worded, and appropriately attituded response I've seen against homosexuality in quite some time.

He's worth more than $100,000,000, but lacks healthcare and is tweeting complaints about paying a penalty for not having healthcare. It would be cheaper for him to pay for a low end plan than to pay the proposed 2015 penalty, yet he goes without healthcare, pays the penalty, and then complains about the penalty. It does not take a brilliant mind to deduce his motivation. That being said, small business owners who pay taxes the same way he does WILL truly be affected by this, which is why I wish the tone of the article was different. I don't see many non-righties seeing past the hate and vitriol to the point of the article, which holds some validity.

there's some meat to this article, but plenty of misdirection as well. when i went to one of the articles that it cited as being an "ignorant, stupid, liberal, moronic, etc." piece about Drudge's tweet,  it actually gives the same explanation that the author of this uber-propoganda piece gave as to what Drudge was referring to.  i guess it wasn't that moronic, unless the author of this piece is a moron as well.  this piece is too heavy on insults and criticism,  which is sad because is that what he's saying is actually true to some extent, although to be fair, Drudge has chosen not to get healthcare for the SOLE reason of being able to gripe about paying a penalty for not getting healthcare.  if it were written as if by a journalist, rather than by a bitter extremist, the message would be a good one for moderates to hear.  but presented this way, it will convince nobody but those that are already convinced. 

Does it not say that God himself gave them over to it?  And AFTER he gave them over to it, men lusted after men and women after women?  at least, that's what the verse said.  Before God gave them over to it, they were fools, and did many bad things, but no mention of homosexual acts was made.