PDA

View Full Version : Scum Cantor Can't Get Foot Out Of Mouth



Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 09:15 AM
<span style="color: #990000"> Just as I predicted, Irene did know the red states from the Blue states, and Eric Cantor is goint to pay for his blunder come the next election, thank goodness.

As all of that Repiglican bravado, goest straight out of the window, we they NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT&lt; THEY HATE SO MUCH TO COME TO THEIR AID IN THEIR STATES!

More proof of their gross hypocrisy! More proof that Cantor is as as much of a PIG, as hastard was when he said, ater Katrina, we should bulldoze the whole place. </span>


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gov-christie-...-suffering-now/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gov-christie-slams-congress-over-fema-budget-debate-people-are-suffering-now/)

Gov. Christie Slams Congress Over FEMA Budget Debate: ‘People Are Suffering Now’
video
by Jon Bershad | 12:03 pm, September 1st, 2011


Recently, there’s been a lot of debate over House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s assertion that any relief efforts for those affected by Hurricane Irene need to be offset by set spending cuts due to FEMA’s lack of money. Unsurprisingly, many weren’t thrilled with the idea of having to go through bookkeeping before trying to help Americans. However, at least one man who knows a thing or two about FEMA, Mike Brown, agreed with the need for Cantor’s pragmatic approach. Yesterday, though, another man who knows a thing or two about what’s happening right now chimed in as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie kindly requested that Congress waited to discuss budget cuts until after large portions of his state are completely flooded.
Christie appeared at a press conference with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. He said that this wasn’t a “Republican or a Democratic issue,” just one that needed to be handled as soon as possible, pointing out that there was no talks of offsetting any budgets when Joplin, Missouri was hit with devastating tornadoes a few months back and there shouldn’t be now until his state was safe.

“You’re going to turn it into a fiasco like that debt-limit thing where you’re fighting with each other for eight or nine weeks and you expect the citizens of my state to wait? They’re not gonna wait, and I’m going to fight to make sure that they don’t. I don’t want to hear about the fact that offsetting budget cuts have to come first before New Jersey citizens are taken care of.”

Christie has been vocal in his support of FEMA during this disaster, despite his previous fights with other federal organizations and employees and the feelings from some in his party that this situation can be used to push through necessary cuts.

Watch clips of some of Christie’s comments from Fox News below:







http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/republican-governors-split-eric-cantor-ove



Looks like Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is getting some push back from Republican governors in states ravaged by Hurricane Irene after his statements calling for budget cuts before funding for disaster relief.

As Ed Schultz discussed during this segment, it looks like Cantor may be backing away from his rigid stance, even if it's ever so slightly, now that he's being criticized from the likes of his state's Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

From ThinkProgress -- Republican Revolt: Virgina’s GOP Governor Splits With Cantor, Rejects Conditioning Disaster Aid On Budget Cuts:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), along with some of his House GOP colleagues, have been saying that disaster aid for the areas affected by Hurricane Irene must be offset by, in Cantor’s words, “savings elsewhere.” Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) said yesterday on Bloomberg News that budget cuts must be a prerequisite for disaster aid in order to reassure “the business markets.” Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) added that the days when disaster relief could be funded without offsetting budget cuts “are gone.”

However, not everyone in the GOP agrees that disaster funding should play second fiddle to the GOP’s budget-slashing agenda. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) yesterday broke with Cantor, saying that “I don’t think it’s the time to get into that [deficit] debate“:

Virginia GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell, breaking with Cantor, on Tuesday suggested that deficit-spending concerns should not be a factor as Congress and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) respond to the hurricane.

“My concern is that we help people in need,” McDonnell said during his monthly radio show. “For the FEMA money that’s going to flow, it’s up to them on how they get it. I don’t think it’s the time to get into that [deficit] debate.”







What a shame Eric Cantor has a carefully gerrymandered district that excludes demographically weaves in and out of neighborhoods to carefully exclude likely Democrats or even independents. Virginia's 7th CD was designed to give Republicans-- particularly Eric Cantor-- a guarantee of at least a 60% margin of victory. Bush took 61% both times and even McCain managed to scrape by with 53% in 2008. Cantor won his first race (in 2000) with 67% and last year was the first time he ever went below 60%, beating Rick Waugh 59-34%, Cantor's worst showing ever, but one that most incumbents would exult over. Waugh beat him in Caroline County and in the sliver of Richmond that the district encompasses. Cantor won in the 11 other counties-- with 70% in Spotsylvania Co., 73% in Page Co. and 67% in giant Hanover Co. Safe? Forever? Prominent Richmond attorney Wayne Powell doesn't think so. He's running against Cantor next year.

If Cantor is vulnerable, it's not because of his startlingly reactionary role in national politics per se. It's because how that could impact his constituents. As Paul Krugman put it yesterday, "Remember, Cantor isn’t denying something called “the government” the right to do something it wants to do. He’s denying disaster relief to people hard hit by a hurricane. That is, he’s holding suffering Americans hostage to his goal of smaller government. And the whole point of his offsetting spending cuts thing-- his invention of a nonsense principle-- is to obscure the ruthlessness of the blackmail involved." And Cantor is getting nervous that people in his district are getting fed up with his game-playing.



It was starting to sound like when he old crony Denny Hastert declared after Katrina that New Orleans should just be bulldozed and left to rot, pleasant enough red-meat Republican rhetoric when someone is talking about a place filled with minorities, but not what white conservatives expect to hear about their own neighborhoods... from their own congressman!

This is frightening quite a few congressional Republicans who are worrying that people will notice and associate them with an increasingly toxic Eric Cantor. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, some of whose state is underwater, probably wanted to strangle Cantor but settled for the same kind of solid rebuke that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell gave him instead.


Yesterday, the leading Republican in Cantor’s own state, Gov. Bob McDonnell, rebuked him and said disaster aid should not be held hostage for budget cuts. Now, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) is joining this chorus of Republican dissent, saying that aid should be delivered first and that possible cuts should be decided on later. “Our people are suffering now, and they need support now,” said Christie:






http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/09/eric-cantor-stepped-in-it-and-cant-wipe.html


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'> And NO SEV, you ignorant jerk, this was no make believe Hurricane!

TWIT! </span> </span>

llotter
09-04-2011, 10:32 AM
It makes me sick to hear stupid, pathetic Republicans agreeing with the Democrats and ignoring the Constitution which says nothing about distributing money just because someone is in need. It isn't in where the money comes from but that such redistribution shouldn't be done at all.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 10:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes me sick to hear stupid, pathetic Republicans agreeing with the Democrats and ignoring the Constitution which says nothing about distributing money just because someone is in need. It isn't in where the money comes from but that such redistribution shouldn't be done at all. </div></div>

The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years, but you had no problem with that?

Repigliocans redistribute wealth in every single policy they support, in subsidies for Big Oil, in pay offs for Big Pharma, in no bid congtracts for their crony war profiteering friends. None of that bothers you, but if it is to help people in an emergency situation, then government has gone too far?

Got it!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


The constitution doesn't say anything about allowing corporations to hide their money off shoure, either, does that make you sick?

The Constitution give women the right to control their own bodies.

Yet you have no respect for their Constitutional rights.


Our Constitution does not give a President the right to invade and occupy a foreign country, for regime change.

Did Bush make you sick when he did that?

Qtec
09-05-2011, 01:31 AM
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/09/bush%20and%20cantor.jpg


..or the bank bailout...or the Bush tax cuts.....or anything else spent under Bush.



Q

eg8r
09-05-2011, 06:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years</div></div>Hey llotter it is just as bad hearing stupid partisan lefties spout this type of BS over and over. Kind of tough redistributing wealth when you are allowing people to keep what they earned.

eg8r

Qtec
09-06-2011, 12:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years</div></div>Hey llotter it is just as bad hearing stupid partisan lefties spout this type of BS over and over. Kind of tough redistributing wealth when you are allowing people to keep what they earned.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush gave away money in tax cuts that he didn't have. Try and get your head around that. The country BORROWED a $1.3 Trillion in order to let the wealthiest Americans 'keep [ more of ] what they earned'.

Tax cuts you can't afford will have to be paid for.
Wars have to be paid for too.

Look around you, who is paying?

Q........not the banks.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2011, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years</div></div>Hey llotter it is just as bad hearing stupid partisan lefties spout this type of BS over and over. Kind of tough redistributing wealth when you are allowing people to keep what they earned.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush gave away money in tax cuts that he didn't have. Try and get your head around that. The country BORROWED a $1.3 Trillion in order to let the wealthiest Americans 'keep [ more of ] what they earned'.

Tax cuts you can't afford will have to be paid for.
Wars have to be paid for too.

Look around you, who is paying?

Q........not the banks.
</div></div>

Yes, and the interest on Bush's unprecedented borrowing, more than all previous administrations, COMBINED, has to be paid, and the debts paid off, as well.

His Prescription Drug giveaway cost us trillions.

His mismanaged wars, trillions.

His tax cuts for the wealthiest, cost us trillions, as well.

There is no denying, Bush destroyed the very healthy economy he inherited, and left the worst legacy since Roosevelt.

The sheep are too stupid to get it or too dishonest to admit it, or, IMO, too brainwashed to even consider it.

Repigs spend, and cut taxes, when we should't spend, during war time, and then after they crash the economy, they cut spending, and lose jobs, for political purposes, when it is essential that we spend to recover from their previous failed policies, to rebuild our economy.

Clearly, their goal has been to destroy any chance of a speedy recovery, for political purposes, as they themselves have stated.

That, alone, makes them as un-American as they come.



PIGS!

LWW
09-06-2011, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush gave away money in tax cuts that he didn't have.

Q</div></div>

So the burglar that didn't rob my house over the weekend gave away merchandise, to me, that he didn't have?

Try and get your head around that.

eg8r
09-06-2011, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush gave away money in tax cuts that he didn't have. Try and get your head around that.</div></div>Every time there is a natural disaster the President (irregardless of party) gives away money they don't have. Every time we send money to Africa to fight AIDS we give away money we don't have. At least in your reference of Bush he was giving it back to the people who actually earned it. You are just too stupid to wrap your head around it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush gave away money in tax cuts that he didn't have. Try and get your head around that.</div></div>Every time there is a natural disaster the President (irregardless of party) gives away money they don't have. Every time we send money to Africa to fight AIDS we give away money we don't have. At least in your reference of Bush he was giving it back to the people who actually earned it. You are just too stupid to wrap your head around it.

eg8r </div></div>

You're out of your tree!!!

We still don't have the final tally on what Bush spent during his administration!!!!

His expenditures for CIA, and HLS, and his hidden, secret government, are still being held secret!

He threw more money at those programs, than any president, EVER has spent, and we still do not have the figures!

http://WWW.Frontline.org

Top secret America

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

We won't have a full tally on Bush's spending, and the expenditures of the Blank Check Repiglicans, for decades!


Oh, and have you ever heard what caused Cheney's fire in his office?

Or where those missing thousands of e-mails went?

Your ability ot overlook all things Republican, render your opinions and accusations, to the absurd!

Bush was giving billions upon billions, to terrorists, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and losing billions more, while he was selloing this country out to China, to finance the biggest spending fiasco in history!

All that, and he never even got bin Laden!

A total failure as a president!

G.

eg8r
09-07-2011, 08:54 AM
LOL, blah blah blah. Lot of hot air up there in MD. Even after your rant you stated nothing contrary to what I posted.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, blah blah blah. Lot of hot air up there in MD. Even after your rant you stated nothing contrary to what I posted.

eg8r </div></div>

Nothing you ever post has any truth behind it.

Repiglicans are the ones who are saying they won't give any
FEMA money out, until spending cuts are found to pay for it.

Repiglicans are the ones who want to do away with FEMA!

Repiglican Governors are the ones with their hands out for FEMA money all the time!

Florida
ALA.
Miss.
TX.
Virginia
North and South Carolina
New Jersey

Who is begging for FEMA now?

Cantor blew his wad bashing about FEMA, and now, his own Governor is telling him to STFU!

You never get the point!

G.

eg8r
09-07-2011, 09:23 AM
The point is that qtip ran his mouth about spending money that is not there. I posted additional examples of this happening in a very non-partisan way. That schmuck did not get it and then you follow along just as clueless.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:25 AM
No, you didn't get it, as you never do!

G.

eg8r
09-07-2011, 09:26 AM
Keep on going it is funny to see you implode.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:27 AM
You're irrelevant.

LWW
09-07-2011, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're irrelevant. </div></div>

Keep trying ... snoopy believes you.

llotter
09-07-2011, 01:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes me sick to hear stupid, pathetic Republicans agreeing with the Democrats and ignoring the Constitution which says nothing about distributing money just because someone is in need. It isn't in where the money comes from but that such redistribution shouldn't be done at all. </div></div>

The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years, but you had no problem with that?

Repigliocans redistribute wealth in every single policy they support, in subsidies for Big Oil, in pay offs for Big Pharma, in no bid congtracts for their crony war profiteering friends. None of that bothers you, but if it is to help people in an emergency situation, then government has gone too far?

Got it!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


The constitution doesn't say anything about allowing corporations to hide their money off shoure, either, does that make you sick?

The Constitution give women the right to control their own bodies.

Yet you have no respect for their Constitutional rights.


Our Constitution does not give a President the right to invade and occupy a foreign country, for regime change.

Did Bush make you sick when he did that?

</div></div>

Your understanding of the Constitution and the purpose of our federal government is totally ignorant. Just to encapsulate, at the founding, their main concern was creating a government that was too powerful and thus lose the liberty that had just been won. Therefore, they enumerated specifically the powers of that government and stated that all other power and rights and freedoms were reserved to the states and to the people. As George Washington stated, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Basically, the federal government is supposed to protect our freedom so we, the citizens can go about our business with minimal government interference.

So, redistributing from the owners to the freeloaders or others, no matter what their need, is not an enumerated power and neither is interfering with the freedom to relocate wherever individuals or corporations desire.

Interfering with women who want to kill their unborn babies is also not within those listed powers and therefore Roe V Wade was wrongly decided and must be repealed. Murder is a state issue, not a federal one.

The Congress gave specific authority to GW Bush to take military action in Iraq, along with the UN. Though it didn't specifically
declare war as required in the Constitution, it is closer to a Declaration than any other since WWII. In fact, it seems little more than semantics given the title: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" passed overwhelming in both the House and Senate.

I'll grant you that corporate subsidy smacks of crony capitalism most of the time and I have never supported it nor have I supported most of the government spends our money on.

LWW
09-07-2011, 03:04 PM
What's amazing is that the statists in America can read this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. </div></div>

and see a clear cut right to abortion on demand for any reason, or no reason at all.

Yet, astoundingly, the same people can read this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. </div></div>

and be confused how anyone could interpret the words to mean that the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Furthermore the same folks can read this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people. </div></div>

and not believe that their are any restrictions at all on federal power, or that such a thing as state's rights actually exists.

Gayle in MD
09-08-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes me sick to hear stupid, pathetic Republicans agreeing with the Democrats and ignoring the Constitution which says nothing about distributing money just because someone is in need. It isn't in where the money comes from but that such redistribution shouldn't be done at all. </div></div>

The Bush Tax cuts redistributed wealth for the last eight plus years, but you had no problem with that?

Repigliocans redistribute wealth in every single policy they support, in subsidies for Big Oil, in pay offs for Big Pharma, in no bid congtracts for their crony war profiteering friends. None of that bothers you, but if it is to help people in an emergency situation, then government has gone too far?

Got it!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


The constitution doesn't say anything about allowing corporations to hide their money off shoure, either, does that make you sick?

The Constitution give women the right to control their own bodies.

Yet you have no respect for their Constitutional rights.


Our Constitution does not give a President the right to invade and occupy a foreign country, for regime change.

Did Bush make you sick when he did that?

</div></div>

Your understanding of the Constitution and the purpose of our federal government is totally ignorant. Just to encapsulate, at the founding, their main concern was creating a government that was too powerful and thus lose the liberty that had just been won. Therefore, they enumerated specifically the powers of that government and stated that all other power and rights and freedoms were reserved to the states and to the people. As George Washington stated, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Basically, the federal government is supposed to protect our freedom so we, the citizens can go about our business with minimal government interference.

So, redistributing from the owners to the freeloaders or others, no matter what their need, is not an enumerated power and neither is interfering with the freedom to relocate wherever individuals or corporations desire.

Interfering with women who want to kill their unborn babies is also not within those listed powers and therefore Roe V Wade was wrongly decided and must be repealed. Murder is a state issue, not a federal one.

The Congress gave specific authority to GW Bush to take military action in Iraq, along with the UN. Though it didn't specifically
declare war as required in the Constitution, it is closer to a Declaration than any other since WWII. In fact, it seems little more than semantics given the title: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" passed overwhelming in both the House and Senate.

I'll grant you that corporate subsidy smacks of crony capitalism most of the time and I have never supported it nor have I supported most of the government spends our money on.
</div></div>

The Constitution is a living document. The founders understood that they could not create a document that would address the issues of the future, for all time, going forward hundreds of years.

Hence, they provided that we include in The constition, through legislation, amendments to the Constitution.

Your ignorance, is stunning!

The Supreme Court found that a woman has the right to total control of her own body, that that basic control of one's own body, is the essence of human rights.

Your opinions, about the Constitution, and about Roe V.Wade, are unConstitutional, and your behavior, which you have written about right on this site, of approaching women, at abortion clinics, for ANY reason, is and was against the Federal laws.

Your praise of a cowardly murderer, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no respect for the law, OR for The Constitution.

Your attempts to dictate to women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, according to your philosophies, religious, or otherwise, intruding into their own personal lives, and seeking to dictate according to your views, about their own personal, private decisions, proves that you don't understand the Constitution, at all, AND that you are a misogynist.

Your views, prove that you have no respect for the Constitution nor understanding of it, or the Founders, who stated that the Federal Government had the right to levy taxes, for the common good.

Your opinions, and written words on this forum, praising a coward and a murderer, prove that you subscribe to, and approve of, cold blooded murder, and therefore have no respect for the law of the land, and that you have yourself, taken part in illegal activities, and broken Federal Laws, by approaching women, intruding into their space and privacy, at abortion clinics.

I think you are a dangerous person. I believe that any person who justifies murder, in their own mind, and does not respect the lasw of our land, is a dangerous person, without conscience.

G.

llotter
09-09-2011, 08:34 AM
The Constitution is a 'living document' to the extent that the Founders provided for an amendment process. That process is relatively difficult it insure that a 'tyranny of the majority' was far less likely. Merely changing the meaning through legislation is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The same applies to interpretations of those Men in Black sitting on the high court. As people learn early in life, most anything can be rationalized by bending the meaning of words and intentions. For example, the meaning of 'welfare' until the 1960's referred to a sense of general well being rather than the current meaning of being on the government dole.

Your continuous defense of abortion make me wonder how many babies you have murdered. Have you murdered any of your own? How many mass murderers do you associate with? Pre-meditated and cold blooded and profiteers fit all those involved in the baby killing industry and the accomplices who defend this gruesome practice.

Gayle in MD
09-09-2011, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Constitution is a 'living document' to the extent that the Founders provided for an amendment process. That process is relatively difficult it insure that a 'tyranny of the majority' was far less likely. Merely changing the meaning through legislation is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The same applies to interpretations of those Men in Black sitting on the high court. As people learn early in life, most anything can be rationalized by bending the meaning of words and intentions. For example, the meaning of 'welfare' until the 1960's referred to a sense of general well being rather than the current meaning of being on the government dole.

Your continuous defense of abortion make me wonder how many babies you have murdered.


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Your many years of priasing Domectic terrorism, and cold blooded murder, makes me wonder how dangerous you might be when left to your own devices, if you fall between the cracks~! </span> </span>

Have you murdered any of your own? How many mass murderers do you associate with? Pre-meditated and cold blooded and profiteers fit all those involved in the baby killing industry and the accomplices who defend this gruesome practice. </div></div>

With those words you prove only that you are a very unbalanced individual, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and hence, you think that YOUR reality, is THE reality.

That, of course, would match the same sort of mental condition exhibited by the cold blooded murderer whom you praised on this forum, for years, in every single post.

You are on the side of Domestic Terrorists, who hold no respect for The constitution, the rights of others, or our laws.



Additionally you distort our laws, and display disrespect for the law, and the rights of others, in your irrational, radical interpretations and condemnation of others, who are not breaking the law, but exercising their own Constitutional rights.

I have never had an abortion, as I have stated here a number of times, I don't think that would be my choice, but I am intelligent enough to realize, that I have no right to impose my values upon other Americans, who have every right to make their own personal, private decisions in their own lives, within the bounds of our laws, and that I cannot possibly condemn the decisions of others, or say for sure what my own decision would be, if I were walking in their shoes.

Additionally, no one is FOR abortion, they are for the order of our laws, respect for the rights of others, to make their own decisions in life, and appreciation for the Constitutional RIGHTS guarenteed to every American, including the legal right to choose, which is settled law, and has been for decades.

The Supreme Court, provides and insures those rights, through our LAWS, and our laws are the basis of a civilized society, where those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorders, are not given the right to take the law, into their own hands, or refuse to respect it and follow it, and those who do not, are punished to the full extent of the law, for taking the law into their own hands, and killing other innocent people, who are exercising their Constitutional rights.

Well balanced people respect our laws, even if they don't agree with them, and also respect the rights of others, who are abiding by our laws, and they do not seek to impose their personal views, religious or otherwise, into the private lives of others.

I suppose if you can justify praising a cowardly murderer, as you have done here for years, calling him a hero, for mowing down an innocent person, and additionally, displaying justification your own illegal actions, and behavior, breaking Federal Laws, as you have admitted you have done by invading the private, personal space of women outside of an abortion facility, then it's easy for you to also twist words, even words in the Constitution, into whatever definitions you think will justify your obscene accusations and illegal behavior.

Narcissistic personality disorder, is an illness, and is almost always present in violent behavior, and linked to other irrational mental disorders, by those who murder, and always includes disrespect for the rights of others, and the view that their reality, is THE reality.

THE reality, is actually the law of the land, not your version of what you want it to be.



G.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:25 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!