Your vote should be obvious

With two unpromising presidential candidates for election, many may not vote. But priorities count here. It’s a massive blunder if you think all issues have the same weight.

One makes himself a viable candidate by endorsing our most sacred principle, specified in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life. The Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enumerates five nonnegotiables, all considered intrinsically evil, with abortion [listed] first. In fact, the USCCB actually states that any Catholic has incurred latae sententiae (automatic excommunication) if they vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

McCain insists he will nominate judges to the Supreme Court who are most like Alito and Roberts. If every piece of legislation that Obama is for occurs, it will guarantee that abortion will always exist. If Obama is elected, it would be many years before a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Your vote will dictate several things: your priorities, and if life is considered first; understanding all issues have different weights, with abortion the highest; understanding abortion makes all other issues moot because the individual is dead; or, you’re OK with millions of deaths due to Roe vs. Wade.

McCain and Obama have come out on top, but many citizens should be highly upset with the obtuse citizenry who put these candidates in the primaries. Disturbingly, both would enact more global-warming regulations. But this is hardly the most important issue. How many are not voting because none of the candidates are in line with their beliefs? They should blame the voters who put them there.

A Democratic vote in November would mean you are voting for over 1 million deaths per year in America by abortion. The lines are being drawn by the voters. Some have no problem killing, as long as the woman doesn’t see it, or it might feel no pain, or maybe it is unwanted. People forget about the soul. But some people want the sex more.

Have we humans actually evolved, or devolved?

— Kevin Roeten
Asheville

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

103 thoughts on “Your vote should be obvious

  1. contentpersephone

    Kevin-

    1)Most Americans are not Catholic, and therefor don’t especially regard what a bunch of Catholic Bishops (all male, naturally) claim are the “rules” for existence.

    2)There are many ways to decrease the number of abortions in this country without making it illegal.

    We could start with better sex education for young people, better health care and affordable birth control (oh, wait – the catholics prohibit that too, don’t they?), and better assistance for single mothers with children (currently the largest group living under the poverty line in this country).

    3) While many religious folks might believe that life begins w/conception…many more do not. Therefor, a large percentage of americans don’t believe that terminating a pregnancy is “killing a soul” or “murder”.

    While I respect your right to offer your opinion, I do not think that you, or a few men in power, have the right to inflict your belief system on all the rest of us.

    We don’t, yet, live in a Theocracy. (That was actually part of what the founders of this country wanted to get away from). And disregarding the rights of over 1/2 of a population isn’t “democracy” in any way that I’ve been given to understand it.

    Personally, I plan to vote Democratic to help ensure my rights as a woman – and I plan to talk to every woman I know about the seriousness of some of these issues that most people aren’t talking about when they say how “similar” the two candidates are.

    So, I thank you very much, Sir, for providing me with such a clear example of women’s rights, tied in with Supreme Court nominees, being on the line. Very helpful.

    Have a great day.

  2. Eli Cohen

    Pity you people aren’t as concerned about the church facilitating child molesters as you are about a woman’s right to choose.
    And speaking of priests, what kind of sicko would forego sex as a condition of employment. That is the problem with those guys. They need to be allowed wives and same sex partners.

  3. entopticon

    Kevin Roeten was right about one thing; the choice of who to vote for could not possibly be any clearer… the pro choice candidate, Barack Obama. Considering that a large majority of the nation is pro-choice, he is the obvious pick.

    Thank goodness we don’t live in a theocracy. Personally, I find the whole abortion issue to be pretty ridiculous. An ant has a more developed brain than a fetus in the first trimester.

    If you want to believe some myth from an ancient Roman cult (“Christianity”) about a magical giant floating around in the sky, meddling in the outcomes of football games etc, etc, that’s your business, but when you try to legislate your cult’s beliefs into laws, we have a problem.

    Do whatever you want with your own, body, but it isn’t your business to be telling people who don’t share the beliefs of your cult what to do with theirs.

    A Republican in office would mean that the will of an anachronistic cult was pushed on the rest of us, taking away the right for women to choose what they could legally go with their own bodies. That would mean both countless unwanted pregnancies and countless women dying in back alley abortions. In other words, it would be an absolute nightmare, so if you care at all about women’s right to choose what to do with their own bodies, don’t vote Republican.

  4. travelah

    Wonders never cease .. I actually agree with Big E about something…

    Now, to the point. What differences does the liberal advocate of the right to kill babies still in the womb make with regard to killing a baby through a partial birth abortion (a hideous procedure) and stomping a new born baby to death? Our moral compass calls for the prosecution of the heinous criminal for killing an infant yet seeks to protect the doctor and woman who accomplish the same thing with part of the baby still in the birth canal. This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. Republicans have had executive power for 28 of the last 40 years and we have seen nothing but an expansion of abortions and facilities. It does not matter which party is in power. The lives of babies in the womb have the worth of less than dirt in the mindset of a nation that has lost it’s moral footing, Republican or Democrat.
    As for Roe v. Wade, it was a poor court decision yet even then I would not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. The matter should be left to the individual states as it was prior to 1973.

  5. entopticon

    I forgot to mention, the hypocrisy of this letter writer, saying he is pro-life, but arguing against regulations to curb the greatest threat to the planet in human history, global warming, is beyond despicable.

  6. travelah

    There is no hypocrisy in being against the killing of babies in the womb and opposing the political “global warming” movement. Blathering fools were bemoaning the same types of foolishness over thirty years ago with another form of chicken little albeit that time it was global cooling and the impending ice age if we didn’t “do something about it”. I would like to see the kooks do something about it this time by putting their heads on the line starting with a trip to the Saudis demanding they stop pulling oil out of the ground. Aren’t we all on the same planet, hypocrites?

  7. entopticon

    travelah, by definition, babies have been born. What you are talking about is fetuses.

    The partial birth abortion issue is particularly idiotic. It only applies in the case of women whose lives are threatened, it is not a selective surgery. For you or anyone else to try to make that decision for a woman is absolutely disgraceful.

    It is beyond hypocritical for you to advocate torture (waterboarding) and John McCain, the candidate who wants to keep us in the the illegal, unjust Iraq war, which has already killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and call yourself pro-life.

    If you are delusional enough to call a fetus without a frontal lobe, or even a working brain a baby when you are in your loopy Sunday cult that is fine, but there is absolutely no justification for any state telling women what to do with their own bodies.

  8. entopticon

    Ooooh travelah… good logic there… global warming is a conspiracy by edumacated scientists. Those scientists sure are a bunch of dummies. Not like travelah. He’s reeeel smuuurt.

    You sure are right travelah. Those edumacated scientists are a bunch of kooks, not like you. You Know waaaaay better than any silly old scientist could ever know. Those kooky wackos believe in dinosaurs too! And evolution! What a bunch of kooks.

    Geez, don’t they know that if global warming ever happened travelah would just build a really, reallly, really big boat for when the ice caps melt, just like Noah? Edumacated scientisty people are sooooo dumb. Why can’t they learn more anti-science from bible college like travelah? Dumb-dumb edumacated science dummies.

  9. contentpersephone

    revised- edited for clarity, grammar and general argumentativeness.

    ehm. excuse me, travelah, but:

    1) If “babies” in the womb have the worth of “less than dirt” because a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy…..what worth are you assigning to the woman who is carrying that (potential, not actual) child? less than, less than dirt, it seems to me.

    2) Associating *all* abortion with the “partial-birth” abortion procedure (which is already illegal)is just misleading. Late-term abortion of a theoretically viable fetus has been illegal for quite some time, unless there are very extreme circumstances, such as the life of the mother being at risk. Actually, a lot of the time, not even then in this country and many others.

    In the US, even *when* the late-term abortion procedure was legal – it was approximately 2,000 cases per year. I have no doubt that those two thousand women would never have chosen to undergo such a procedure if there were not very grave circumstances which made it medically necessary.

    Perhaps you think these women should just resign themselves to premature death so that their potential child *might* be born and survive? Who exactly is immoral here? Personally, I think it’s immoral to value a *potential* person, over one who has already been born and grown to adulthood.

    3) Finally, returning this decision to the “States” as you seem to advocate would result in large swathes of American women being denied their rights to do as they choose with their own bodies based solely on where they happen to have been born/raised. That’s how the whole abortion question ended up in the Federal Supreme Court in the first place.

    As things are today, abortion services are barely available and severely restricted in most of the “bible belt” (including your home state,I believe.). Frankly, it doesn’t seem like it’s working real well for them.

    Well, maybe it works alright for the *men* in those States – they’re not the ones taking care of all these children whom they so love to argue on behalf of. But for women (whom none of us would be here without) it’s just one more patriarchal power play.

    And for these unplanned and often undesired children who are born into abject circumstances….well, at least they’re alive, right? Maybe the pro-life argument would gain some traction if the children who’ve already *been* born had some sort of rights that were actually put into practice, rather than a bunch of lip-service and moralizing.

    Equal rights and representation under the law? Equal rights for fetuses, apparently a big issue for lots of Men.
    Eual rights for Women, apparently not so much.

    meh.

  10. travelah

    If you are delusional enough to call a fetus without a frontal lobe, or even a working brain a baby when you are in your loopy Sunday cult that is fine, but there is absolutely no justification for any state telling women what to do with their own bodies.

    It isn’t what they are doing to their bodies that is the issue. It is what they are doing to another innocent’s body that matters.

    Global warming? The same bunch of people were warning against a coming Ice Age 30 some years ago.

  11. entopticon

    That “bunch” you referred to are called scientists. A huge international coalition of the World’s leading scientists all got together to agree that global warming is absolutely real beyond any doubt.

    The ice age talk was a novel theory based on the evidence that ice-ages happen in cycles, and it turns out that the theory was right, but now it’s coming a whole lot faster than it was supposed to. If you were not such a right-wing yahoo you would know that global warming actually leads to an ice age.

    The North Pole was water for the first time in half of a billion years you lunatic. The ice caps are melting multiples upon multiples more faster than at any other time in history, which is a concrete fact.

    Despite your ignorant right-wing extremist twaddle, there is no debate if global warming is real or not. The only remaining debate is the extent of humanity’s effect on the process, and among the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists on the issue that is no longer a legitimate debate either.

    People like you crack me up. You have no problem believing that a vindictive magical giant flooded the Earth, killing every man, woman, child, infant, and animal that can’t live under water, but you think that a scientific fact according to virtually all of the leading scientists on the planet.

    I know, I know, that same bunch of edumacted people called them thar scientisty types also believe in dinosaurs and everybody knows that them thar dinosaurs are just a liberal Jew commie pinko conspiracy that that gall dang Stephen Spielberg made up with his outerspace illegal alien friend E.T.. Hee-haw.

  12. travelah

    That “bunch” you referred to are called scientists. A huge international coalition of the World’s leading scientists all got together to agree that global warming is absolutely real beyond any doubt.

    Actually most of the people involved were politicians and not scientists. Secondly, are these the same people that were running around like chicken little 30 years ago warning everybody of an impending Ice Age?

  13. travelah

    If you were not such a right-wing yahoo you would know that global warming actually leads to an ice age.

    That suggests that global warming would be a natural earth cycle and that rather than the ocean lapping at your doorstep, as the clownish Al Gore suggests, the oceans would recede. Do the liberal clowns such asa Al Gore actually think before presenting this foolishness?

  14. entopticon

    Like I said travelah, by definition a person has been born, and certainly by definition a person has a frontal lobe. A fly has a vastly more developed brain than a first trimester abortion, so unless you get up in arms every time a fly dies you are a hypocritical joke.

    Potential to be a human being is not the same as being a human. Unless you have a funeral every time you have a wet dream your argument is hypocritical twaddle, and of course it would still be twaddle if you did, so either way; twaddle.

    I don’t try to stop religious nutjobs like you from procreating, as much as I would like to, so don’t tell people who don’t believe your mumbo jumbo fairytale what to do.

  15. entopticon

    travelah are you just trying to be a caricature of an ignorant redneck? Actually, over a thousand of the world’s top climate scientists, not politicians, got together to say that there is absolutely no question that global warming is real and that although there are warming and cooling cycles happen naturally, what is happening now is happening at an extremely accelerated rate, multiple times faster than at any other point in the history of the planet.

    Do you think you sound smart when you say things about the oceans receding etc and how foolish you think Al Gore is? You sound like a ludicrously ignorant, pathetic yahoo.

    Al Gore won the Nobel frickin’ prize for his work on the issue. I seriously doubt you have taken even one measley undergraduate course in environmental science, so who do you think you are calling HIM foolish on the issue?

    What major award have you ever won? Best fried squirrel recipe in the whole trailer park?

  16. david

    travelah,

    A man with an opinion about abortion is silly. It’s a women’s choice, unless of course it’s your seed, in which case it’s still pretty much her choice. Get a hobby. I know you yankee transplants like to tell others how to live, but down here in the south, we respect citizens rights to make their own decisions.

    entop-I read your posts even less than than travelah’s. You are annoying and whiny.

  17. entopticon

    david, the feeling is mutual. You are not only annoying and whiny, you are arrogant and ignorant. Only a total moron would argue that the South doesn’t have a history of trying to tell people how to live. If Roe v wade is overturned, the South will get rid of abortion in a heartbeat, despite your imbecilic ignorance.

  18. david

    wow, travelah, i see what you’ve been dealing with. Dudeman is pretty testy. Almost as bad as you.

    entop-You might get a more intelligent conversation if you avoided such terms as “morans” and “imbecilic”. It’s intriguing that the moderators allow you and travelah and willy p (yes, I group you three together) to post these kinds of inarticulate, flame-baiting accusations.

    Incidentally, you seem to not see the sarcasm in my above post addressed to the travelah. More evidence that you jump the gun too quick? Hmmm?

    I might have more respect for your rants against travelah if you didnt scream RACIST! so loud every freaking time. It’s like you want the PC police to come arrest him for being an absurd caricature of himself.

  19. travelah

    The North Pole was water for the first time in half of a billion years you lunatic. The ice caps are melting multiples upon multiples more faster than at any other time in history, which is a concrete fact.

    After I stopped laughing I thought it a good thing to point out that the past two winters in the northern hemisphere wiped out half a century of alleged “global warming” (a whole 1 degree).

  20. entopticon

    travelah, you should be laughing at yourself. There is no debate among major scientists. When you say you know more than the people who one the Nobel Prize on the subject, despite the fact that you haven’t so much as taken a piddly “introduction to environmental science 101” class, you just prove yourself to be an absolutely laughable, pathetic joke.

    Yeah, why trust all of the World’s leading scientists when a Christian apologist who reads idiotic right-wing extremist conspiracy rags wants to let us in on how dumb those edumacated scientisty types are. Dumb dumb scientisty edumacated dummies. Why can’t they all be more smartish like travelah. travelah is special cus he is a little like a smartypants scientitsty type only without the edumacation or smarty smart dumb dumb Nobel Prize winner stuff.

  21. david

    entop-

    again with the demeaning name-calling? You really only feed into travelah’s posturing with your equally condescending tone.

  22. entopticon

    david, yo are the one that insulted me first, you ridiculous hypocrite. I just pointed out the truth, that your claim that the South doesn’t like to meddle in people’s personal business is imbecilic and dangerous, because if the choice is left to the states, the South will abolish Roe v Wade faster than you can whistle Dixie.

    By the way, as far as name calling goes, anyone that is not dressed in a confederate war uniform as part of a civil war reenactment, who still calls someone who once lived in a Northern state a “Yankee” in the year 2008 is absolutely pathetic. The civil war has been over for more than 140 years. Get over it.

    You really feed into your own posturing with your condescending tone you ridiculous hypocrite.

  23. Jon Elliston

    Entopticon, and everyone:

    Don’t call each other names. Don’t call each other “ridiculous” or a “hypocrite” or “pathetic.” If you want to critique each other’s ideas and assertions, we welcome that. But any further name-calling, and we will have to ban the person who is doing it.

    Thank you,

    Jon Elliston
    Managing Editor

  24. entopticon

    Jon, you have no problem with people using this as a forum to disseminate the rhetoric of white-supremacist organizations such as the League of the South (classified as a hate group since 2000), or at least not of an issue to mention it. And yet you take issue with someone calling someone a hypocrite for complaining about name calling after they just used the ridiculous, pejorative term “Yankee.”

    Looks like the Mountain Xpress has some seriously twisted priorities. Don’t worry. You don’t need to kick me off. I’m done. I’m also done defending the Mountain Xpress to all of the people that I encounter who badmouth it and I’ll leave this blog to the right-wing extremist trolls.

  25. Dionysis

    I wish to add to entopticon’s remarks. It is laudable to try and maintain a level of civil discourse, and to discourage personal attacks. However, when you have one or two people who seemingly have as their life missions to disparage, denigrate and insult people simply because they harbor differing views, who willfully perpetrate easily discredited propaganda (if one can be shown to be lying, is it permissible to call them a liar?), who impugn races of people, who promote hatred and division and who consistently post inflammatory diatribes, then it seems puzzling that such people are evidently given protected status and allowed to hijack entire threads. No one uses profanity here (that I’ve seen). If someone says or does something demonstrably hypocritical, why is it not reasonable to call them a hypocrite?

    So, if you choose to ban people for using such relatively innocuous terms, while preserving the ability of hate-mongers to ply their craft, that’s your right. You will, of course, ultimately lose some people as readers (it appears you’ve already begun to do so). It appears that is where your priorities are, however. That’s unfortunate.

  26. Jon Elliston

    Our goal is to promote a civil dialogue, even among people who disagree strongly. So we’re trying our best to keep out the name-calling and vitriol, while still letting people express their passions.

    There are many comments that don’t make it through moderation because of our criteria. If you find particular comments to be hateful or insulting, please work with us in pointing that out here. We’re doing our best to keep up with the flood of comments, and to enforce our standards as consistently as possible. Inevitably, some close judgment calls must be made, and we need the readers’ help in making them.

    To those who want to continue the discourse here, thanks for participating.

  27. William P Miller

    Great letter Kevin. “A Democratic vote in November would mean you are voting for over 1 million deaths per year in America by abortion. The lines are being drawn by the voters. Some have no problem killing, as long as the woman doesn’t see it, or it might feel no pain, or maybe it is unwanted. People forget about the soul. But some people want the sex more.

    Have we humans actually evolved, or devolved?”

    It is unfortunate that the party of FDR, Truman, and Skip Jackson has been taken over by such far leftwingers. Abortion is the stopping of a beating heart. We have to protect the most vulnerabble amongst us. And who more vulnerable than a baby in the womb?

    Vote for John McCain in November and keep the heat on the pro-abortion crowd. And keep the country moving along. Obama will ruin us.

  28. William P Miller

    Jon, thank you for your post. Let’s keep these debates on issue and not engage in name calling!

  29. William P Miller

    Mr e, from answers.com:

    Dictionary: baby (b?’b?) pronunciation

    n., pl. -bies.

    1. a. A very young child; an infant.
    b. An unborn child; a fetus.
    c. The youngest member of a family or group.
    4. A very young animal.

    2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.

    3. Slang. A girl or young woman.

    4. Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.

    5. Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

    Mr e, as you can see,, number 1. (b) says “An unborn child; a fetus”. Think about it. If your mother had aborted you, would you be here today?

  30. david

    Dio-

    Do you mean to imply that entop does not engage in these activities as well? Perhaps my words and posts make me a ‘hypocrite’, and I dont really mind the accusation, but my posts are meant in jest of low-brow “debate” on this forum of any kind.
    Persoanlly, I find it annoying to have to wade through self-important drivel from so many on here, just to get small tidbits of actual news. Threads like the “Beer Garden” topic contained some interesting sources in regards to said ‘fishiness’ of Miller’s activities, but one has to wade through pseduo-‘counterpoints’ from strawmen like travelah and william p to get to these ideas. I enjoy the blogs because it allows a more in-depth look into the article and topics at hand. But they are annoying when they become overwhelmingly hijacked by partisan name calling from people like entopticon and travelah. Both of them have vaild points, at times, but the need to scream and yell at each other, completely off-topic, is annoying. My only point is that when I read these ridiculous posts on either ‘side’, I am usually left with a bad, embrassed taste in my mouth when I read entops posts. If those of us within the perspective loosely known as “Left” cant critique each other’s approaches and stances, then we only prove trolls like travelah and willy p correct. Personally (and I feel the need to emphasize “PERSONALLY”), I am embarrassed by the need for entop to scream “Ignorant Bigot” anytime he is presented with some of travelah’s flame-baiting nonsense. I think it is fair to point this out. For someone so prone to calling names, he sure did get offended at being told my perspective. Sheesh.

    With that said, I think the fact that travelah gets away with his nonsense on this sight is proof that the MX mods heartily approve of his activities, if for no reason other than it vastly improves the ‘hits’ they can use as a selling point for ads.

    Personally, I find Dio’s posts to be the most-informed, level-headed responses to the flame-baiting of perpetual, hourly posters like travelah. So I hope she isnt calling me out personally.

    Maybe this conversation should move to the forums? Or are the forums safer with the conversation being held here?

    david

  31. david

    “And yet you take issue with someone calling someone a hypocrite for complaining about name calling after they just used the ridiculous, pejorative term “Yankee.””

    And yet, entpticon, I take issue with how quickly you jumped at the opportunity to attack me when I was using the term tongue-in-cheek in direct response to the exact same issues you are complaining about. In other words, I was mocking travelah’s style of posting, and attempting to push the MX mods to look at this apparent hypocrasy, and YOU jumped in and attacked ME.

    In my opinion, this seems to show how quickly you feel the need to amp up a conversation,, without even taking the time to look at a comment in context.

    In my opinion, your ‘kind’ is an embarrassment and detriment to many of us on the so-called ‘left ‘ who may take the time to point out the hypocrasies of the travelahs of the world without stooping to their level.

    sorry to get you so worked up.

  32. Dionysis

    “to enforce our standards”

    What are your ‘standards’? I posed two examples:

    1.if one can be shown to be lying, is it permissible to call them a liar?

    2.If someone says or does something demonstrably hypocritical, why is it not reasonable to call them a hypocrite?

    How do these questions comport with your standards? These are legitimate questions. Can a direct answer be provided?

    “To those who want to continue the discourse here, thanks for participating.”

    Well, you can count on at least two. One of them, with HYPOCRITICAL gusto, wrote:

    “Jon, thank you for your post. Let’s keep these debates on issue and not engage in name calling!”

    This coming from someone who just hijacked a thread and changed the entire subject to reliving the Civil War.

    Your standards are clear as mud.

  33. Jon Elliston

    To reiterate, here are our terms of service:

    “All messages posted at this site express the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners and administrators of this site.

    By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws. We will permanently ban all users who do so.

    We reserve the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.”

    Regarding your questions, Dionysis, please feel free to say that a statement is a lie, or that it is hypocritical. You can do that without calling anyone a name.

    Looking forward to discussing this more tomorrow, but for tonight, I must sign off.

    Thanks for reading and writing …

  34. travelah

    Mr. Elliston, thank you for your clarification and desire to return the forum to some measure of civility.

  35. travelah

    david, I think referring being referred to as a troll is very much in line with what the administration of the board is trying to eliminate. I am far from being a troll in light on my many years of readership of this publication and my active participation in the community this publication serves. You would do well to try another approach in presenting your objections to what I post on the forum. Address my comments with civility and you will encounter a far more academic and intellectual response to your contributions.

  36. travelah

    Dionysis, to accuse people of being hate-mongers, right wing wackos or any other absurd pejorative is an example of what the administration is referring to. I believe I have recently used the term knuckleheaded and have publically vowed not to use it again. The only other personal ad hom I can think of is with referring to a couple of souls in the past as living under the bridge somewhere imnplying they are a troll. Other than that perhaps you could peruse my posts and provide examples of the hate filled speech and personal attacks against participants on the board that I have made?

  37. travelah

    There is no debate among major scientists. When you say you know more than the people who one the Nobel Prize on the subject,

    While global warming is not the topic of the thread, I think it would be interesting to see how the phrase “major scientists” is defined. The team that was awarded the Nobel Prize was comprised mostly of politicians and not academic scientists. Of that relatively small percentage of scientists, several do not support the radical notions forwarded by political Global Warming champions. With regard to Al Gore, yes, I know more on the topic than he AND I know how much of a hypocrite he is regarding his own personal “carbon footprint”. He has made many millions from this sham and his lifestyle is not impinged in any manner all the while blustering for the readers of the MountainX to sacrifice so that he can partake of their sacrifices.

    It is all a sham.

  38. William P Miller

    Mr t, as usual, you say it well. have a good night. We are here to debate issues, not call each other names.

    The issue at hand is abortion. There are at least two legitimate arguments on this issue. I personally take the side of life beginning at conception. part of my reasoning is that I would rather be wrong on this than be complicit in the death of a beating heart. And research has shown that a “fetuses” heart IS beating early on in the pregnancy.

    Let us protect life whenever possible. Let us accept the cards the Higher Power has dealt us. If you are female, and in love, and have sex, and get pregnant, it is right to have the baby. And fathers, it is right for you to take responsibility and help support the child. If you still feel it is too inconvenient to a career, or whatever, to keep the child, then put the child up for adoption. But deliver the child to LIFE! Do the right thing y’all!

  39. Jon Elliston, may I make a suggestion. The one comment rule you may want to consider adopting and enforcing rigourously is that all comments must be relevant to the original posters or letter writers topic. That one rule well enforced could do wonders.

    On topic: As a lapsed Catholic, related to many Catholics I can assure you Mr. Roeten that the “right to life” is not a moral issue confined to the topic of abortion in many Catholic minds. I seriously doubt that phrase in the Declaration of Independence had any thing at all to do with abortion.

    Catholics being of the cafeteria style adherence to vatican doctrine, I bet the largest percentage will vote for Obama who shows more concern for the living.

  40. Eli Cohen

    Don’t worry bout dem little babies willie p., dey done all gone to heaben…it’s a bettah place fuh dem anyway. Travelah, please stop wagging your tail and humping Jon’s leg like you’ve done nothing to bring about all this chaos. I know you’re sitting home in your little trailer laughing about the trouble you’ve caused. Know this, McCain hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election and there’s nothing you fox news watching smarmy pseudo-intellectuals can do about it. The abortion issue is the final nail in your coffin. (ironically enough) So tell me to get back under my bridge or whatever slimy reply you’d like to make, but just remember this on election day…victory is ours!

  41. William P Miller

    Eli, you are a consistent deliverer of a good laugh. -:)

    Christopher. Obama shows more concern for the living? And what gives you that idea? Because he SAYS so? Obama is a gifted orator, but he has done nothing of substance on the federal level as a junior senator. He has only laid out a few sound-bite specifics about “change” when pressed to do so, then often has to backtrack when he is criticized as not knowing what he is doing. He has flip-flopped many times because of this. Pretty soon the political humor websites will have a picture of Obama in front of a Waffle House. -:)

    If Mr Obama was concerned about others, I would pay more attention to him if he WALKED his talk. Obama lives in a mansion in a wealthy Chicago neighborhood, Hyde park. He shops at places that charge $100 a pound for fancy meat. He strikes me as just another latte drinking limosine liberal. The only different between him and Nancy Pelosi is that he is a fresh face and is a charasmatic speaker. You know, in the early 1930s there was another mezmerizing speaker who swept to power in Germany on a platform of “change”. And we know how badly that turned out. People who are considering voting for Obama, MAKE him get very specific about what and how he plans to effect “change” in this country. Because if you vote him in on a feel-good basis only, you just may be helping elect a guy who will be a disaster for the USA.

    God bless Catholics for standing up for the unborn baby’s right to life. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the shrill lefties who think it is perfectly natural for a woman to go to the doctor, have a “medical procedure”, then go back to the office and continue her career. I mean, a woman must prove she is as worthy as a man by pushing against that glass ceiling right? Even at the cost of her own offspring’s life. Ripping a baby from the womb of it’s mother, then allowing that baby to die in a stainless steel pan at the operating table side, is about as cold-hearted and neanderthal as it comes.

    Babies deserve life. Stand up for the most vulnerable amongst us and support unborn baby’s right to live! Vote for Senator John McCain.

  42. Do you think John McCain the owner of the Waffle House franchise would let Obama pose in front of one of his stores?

    Only the desperate would criticize the perfect example of the American Dream in action of dedication and hard work leading to success as a limosine liberal. Starbucks, an American business success story is not likely to look highly on the denigration of it’s product either.

    These are the same people who think George Bush, born into priviledge, lived a life of priviledge, partied as a spoiled rich priviledged kid and used his daddy’s connections all his life, is a regular kind of guy. Johm McCain is only slightly better having lived off the government in the navy and Senate and his rich heiress wife his entire life.

    Yea, the child of a lower class single mother whose hard work, not his connections, made him a success is an out of touch, rich liberal American success story.

  43. William P Miller

    Christopher says: “John McCain is only slightly better having lived off the government in the navy and Senate and his rich heiress wife his entire life.

    John McCain “lived off the government”? LOL, you’ve got to be kidding. And you obviously have not served in our military. Military service is difficult and the pay low. Yes, you are right that McCain made out on the government dole while being tortured in a communist prison in Hanoi. Yeah, right. But you gave me a good chuckle Chris…thanks for the absurdity!

    Barack Hussein Obama has made the most of his opportunities as far as college, etc goes. BUT he has never had a real job outside of “community organizer”, a stint in the Illinois legislator, and a very short exposure on the federal level as senator. He started running for president soon after arriving in Washington, and as a result has done nothing important in the Senate. Obama flat out does not have the experience to be president. McCain does.

    Nancy Pelosi didn’t work hard to ride in her limosine while sipping a Starbucks double mocha decaf. She married into money…money gotten through capitalism using the very republican rules she wants to deny others of having. Limosine liberals talk about fairness and economic parity for all, yet they themselves live the country club life. It is the hypocrisy that stinks so bad. And Barack Hussein Obama is one himself.

    So the vote here is obvious. Senator John McCain is the only sane choice. I predict he will win in November. The Obama fluke win in the primaries will not translate in the general election because the majority of the American people will not take a chance on an inexperienced man who vaguely talks of change but doesn’t say HOW and WHAT the change will be.

    And by the way, the difference between changing one’s mind and waffling is actually clear. Waffling is changing position in a short period of time for political expediency. Changing one’s mind is predicated on the variables changing and the person being open enough to change with them. His McCain changed his mind on off-shore drilling. When he opposed it in the past, gasoline was relatively inexpensive. Now is is very expensive and our nation is being held hostage by the Mideast. Other countries are drilling off the shores of Florida. Anyone in their right mind would notice these changed variables and change their minds about off shore drilling. McCain has, and it is not a waffle. Obama does waffle, and frequently.

  44. Dionysis

    “Personally, I find Dio’s posts to be the most-informed, level-headed responses to the flame-baiting of perpetual, hourly posters like travelah. So I hope she isnt calling me out personally.”

    Thanks, and my comments were not directly at you in any way. I thought it was pretty evident which two I meant (by the way, I’m a ‘he’, not a she).

    “I think the fact that travelah gets away with his nonsense on this sight is proof that the MX mods heartily approve of his activities…”

    My point exactly.

    “Maybe this conversation should move to the forums? Or are the forums safer with the conversation being held here?”

    A good idea. If I ever want to get a fix of extreme right-wing bilge, I can always come here in the future.

  45. William P Miller

    Christopher, I was hoping for a reasoned response from you. All I got was bumper sticker bs. Come on, you can do better. Research details to back up your argument then get back to us.

    The choice is plain in this election. The experienced Senator John McCain will be elected president. The inexperienced Obama will return to the Senate to perhaps build a real resume for the future.

  46. travelah

    It is a brave new world when the same people who complain about one politician (Bush) being unwilling to change and adapt yet crucify another (McCain)for being willing to reconsider issues based on changed circumstances. Having said that, it’s another matter altogether when a politician changes his public stance when it is politically expedient to do so as with Obama and this latest Court decision.

  47. Mr. Miller, even considering my current state of unfortunate under-employment, I have much more productive things to do with my time than circular bickering on forums with acolytes of Karl Rove.

  48. bluegrassbrad

    BUT he has never had a real job outside of “community organizer”, a stint in the Illinois legislator, and a very short exposure on the federal level as senator.

    This is wrong. He worked as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project before law school. After graduating Harvard law school (where he was the first black man elected president of the Harvard Law Review). He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years and during that time also wrote his first book. It was also during this time that he was elected to the state legislature. He served in the state legislature from 1997-2004. As for In his time in the US Senate, he has been a sponsor of well over 100 pieces of legislation, including several reaching across the aisle to the Republicans. These include: the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced with Republican John McCain of Arizona, the “Lugar–Obama” expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines, and The “Coburn–Obama Transparency Act” authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov a website which tracks government spending so citizens can see where their moneu goes. He has also held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans’ Affairs. His resume is already very real and many on the fence voters are already taking notice. The polls all show a close contest. Gallup shows them tied, but in all the others Barack leads by at least 3 (and sometimes by as much as 12) points. Gallup (www.gallup.com) is a non-affiliated pollster and is a great resource with daily polls on the candidates. Rasmussen (www.rasmussenreports.com), another unaffiliated group also has a daily poll. as of 9:30am today it stands with Obama leading McCain by 4 points. Both of these help one to keep an eye on the pulse of the nation during this race. I suspect that once the vice-president nominees are announced you will see some real changes in the polls. Here is a recent article from Bloomberg which lays out some good points on why Barack has an advantage in this election season , it is clearly and concisely written and worth a read. You can speculate all you want but even top conservative activists like Bay Buchanan (Pat’s sister) don’t like what they are seeing. Here is a quote from her blog: “John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation. Since McCain has become the presumptive nominee, I have spoken at more than two dozen Republican gatherings. The sentiment everywhere can best be summarized in the words of one of the activists, “No matter who wins in November, we lose.”

  49. david

    “May I make a suggestion. The one comment rule you may want to consider adopting and enforcing rigourously is that all comments must be relevant to the original posters or letter writers topic. That one rule well enforced could do wonders.”

    YES! This would eliminate off-topic left vs right nonsense. Please!

    But, maybe, leave room for a little Bugg-style irreverence sprinkled in every once in a awhile.

  50. travelah

    bluegrass, you left out Obama’s 126 “present” votes on issues he did not want to take a position on.

  51. bluegrassbrad

    Hey, at least he showed up to give a present vote. He could have just been like John McCain who has missed 61% of the votes this past session. That put him way ahead of anyone else, including Tim Johnson who had a brain hemorrhage.

  52. bluegrassbrad

    I’m off to the beach for vacation, so It’s unlikely I’ll be answering anything you post for a few days.

  53. travelah

    Have a good vacation. Meanwhile, how much of the past session did Obama miss? Additionally, how many of those votes were critical issues votes?

  54. William P Miller

    Christopher C said: “Mr. Miller, even considering my current state of unfortunate under-employment, I have much more productive things to do with my time than circular bickering on forums with acolytes of Karl Rove.”

    LOL, Mr CC, just what I thought. Don’t bother you with the facts, you’re quite comfortable being a programed parrot for liberal democrat bumper sticker slogans. Hey, for the educated, the research I mentioned doesn’t take that long. That is, if you attended any college that made you work for your sheepskin.

    So if you cannot backup your arguments with valid details, then don’t post bumper sticker slogans. Most of us here are too smart to listen.

    It is the bumper sticker partisanship of the left that keeps the killing of unborn babies going. Let us give the babies a new deal. Elect John McCain president in November. He is the only safe and sane choice.

  55. “Most of us here are too smart to listen.”

    That statement sums up the main problem of the radical right and commenters of your ilk, Mr. Miller.

  56. travelah

    That statement sums up the main problem of the radical right and commenters of your ilk, Mr. Miller.

    Christopher, the full context of Mr. Miller’s statement suggests that intelligent people are not beguiled by “bumper sticker slogans”. Such sloganeering represents the current state of our political climate that has substituted absurd, factless rhetoric for substance and truth, a problem most significantly observed among the leftist-liberal elements even here on this board.

  57. contentpersephone

    and once again, a thread which began as a respectful discussion of a meaningful and relevant difference between the two presidential candidates completely degenerates into name-calling and disparagement.

    super.

    ps. trav- I’m pretty sure that leftest-libs don’t have any special lock on the problem of substituting “absurd, factless rhetoric for substance and truth”.

    Fox “news”, anyone? ’nuff said.

  58. tatuaje

    So to bring this thread back on topic (isn’t that what the moderators are for?), here’s a little bit from George Carlin:

    “If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there’s a miscarriage they don’t have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say ‘we have two children and one on the way’ instead of saying ‘we have three children?”

  59. travelah

    content, I read these accusations regarding Fox News on a regular basis and every single one of the accusations come from the leftist-liberal end of the political spectrum. The accusations are never from the middle or conservatives. Can you identify how Fox News engages in “absurd, factless rhetoric for substance and truth”? Just an example from today’s news would do or something from this past week that demonstrates an inherent bias in reporting and stories offered on that network.

  60. tatuaje

    From Slate.com:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

    A little older than your requirements, but the fact that one of their own bureau chiefs said it….not the “leftist-liberals”…

    The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase “fair and balanced” (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase “not a crook”). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as “a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans.” Getting one of this country’s most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can’t admire Fox News’ candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.

    Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell’s comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal’s European edition. But Chatterbox’s agents are everywhere.

    Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

    Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren’t subsidizing Bill’s bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don’t enjoy that peace of mind.

    Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That’s our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb’s institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

    Norvell never says the word “conservative” in describing “where [Fox’s anchorpeople] stand on particular stories,” or what Fox’s viewers “know … they are getting.” But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn’t subsidized by the public (as his op-ed’s target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell’s little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is “honest” about its conservative slant; perhaps he’s so used to Fox’s protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)

    Just shuttin’ you down left & right these days t…

  61. travelah

    tatuaje, I asked for a news example from Fox News rather than a hatchet job from Slate. Norvell was speaking tongue in cheek. Now, please offer a news example that supports all the slander and libel presented regarding Fox News.

  62. tatuaje

    Norvell was speaking tongue in cheek.
    No. Uh, no, he wasn’t. Read it again.

    Amazing that one of their OWN bureau chiefs admits to INHERENT bias and you STILL try to deny what EVERYONE knows….

    But, I’ll give you another great example anyways…the “terrorist fist jab.”…priceless…This story APTLY demonstrates an INHERENT bias…Every media outlet in the WORLD called Fox News out on this one…

    From the New york Times:
    http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/fox-news-regrets-again/?scp=5&sq=terrorist%20fist%20bump&st=cse

    Is Fox News going soft? The network known for the slash-and-burn stylings of Bill O’Reilly has been full of apologies lately.

    A couple of weeks ago, Fox contributor Liz Trotta apologized for her mirthful reference to how unfortunate it was that Osama Bin Laden and Barack Obama couldn’t both be assassinated.

    Now Fox broadcaster E.D. Hill has apologized for her bizarre–and over-the-top offensive–suggestion that the “fist bump” Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle did recently could be a “terrorist fist jab.”

    It is, of course, one of those non-apology apologies. Ms. Hill says she was simply reporting how the gesture was “characterized in the media” — without any reference to where she had seen it reported that way. It’s a shameless dodging of personal responsibility for an ugly act.

    Media Matters, the liberal media watchdog, is calling for a real apology. They’re right to do so. It’s interesting, though, that Fox has felt the need, twice in the last few weeks, to make even half-hearted apologies to Mr. Obama.

    Could it have occurred to them that advocating assassination and sliming a very popular politician as a terrorist do not play well in the sizable non-hate-filled right-winger demographic?

    Are they afraid Mr. Obama will become President, and remember some of the more egregious statements about him made on the network?

    game.set.match.

    now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got places to be…

  63. travelah

    tatuaje, do you for a moment suggest that this demonstrates an inherent bias at Fox worthy of the extreme vitriol the left has towards that network? You have provided a blog opinion and an extremely biased post from Slate. Are you willing to castigate MSNBC for it’s own occasional forays into activities that were apologized for? Where is the inherent bias? This is the result every time this matter is discussed. You cannot look at a story from today or this week in the normal course of events and demonstrate anything nearly close to justifying the animosity you display.

  64. contentpersephone

    travelah-

    I would rather scoop out my own eyeballs and eat them than watch a week’s worth of Fox “news” in order to provide you “current” examples of bias there.

    I have seen enough of what Murdock does to “news coverage” (and yes, *most* of the big American networks, imo, are also guilty to some extent) to see it for the ridiculous sham it is.

    Remember in school when we learned the term “lowest common denominator” ?

    Yeah, that’s pretty much *all* network TV these days. It’s whatever will shock the most people into watching for a few minutes.

    Even so, I did google a couple links for you that weren’t bloggers.

    Here’s a very comprehensive Wiki article (extremely well referenced) and some youtube clips.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

    enjoy.

  65. William P Miller

    Content… said “ps. trav- I’m pretty sure that leftest-libs don’t have any special lock on the problem of substituting “absurd, factless rhetoric for substance and truth”. Fox “news”, anyone? ‘nuff said.”

    I find it comical that the left constantly disparages Fox News when it is obvious that none of them actually watch it. For anyone who samples all the major networks on a regular basis, it is plain that Fox is more “fair and balanced” than any other network. MSNBC & CNN, in particulr, slant hard news with a leftwing agenda. I guess if you are knee-jerk liberal and have watched slanted news all your life, it is a shock to actually see balanced news broadcasts. Democrats, shock yourself and actually tune into Fox sometime.

    On thread, Senator John McCain just visited the Rev Billy Graham here in Montreat. It is obvious McCain is much more in the camp that would like to defend the unborn babies right to life. Senator Barack Hussein Obama is obviously beholden to the cold hearted extreme feminist lobby who is in favor of killing more babies through abortion of convenience. Vote the logical choice in November. Vote McCain.McCain can!

  66. Eli Cohen

    No, willie p., it’s not a left wing slant, it’s a smart people slant, which is something you wouldn’t understand. Fox news is for you people who need someone to tell you what to think. (that would be you willie p.) My only problem with abortion is that your mom did not have the right to have one.

  67. William P Miller

    Well Elie, my mom is from the greatest generation. back then, women proudly birthed the next generation, being guided by decency and Cjhristian ideals. It appears your liberal nihilist anarchists have succeeded in debasing society…to a point. Fortunately, the majority of Americans still hold life to be precious. Especially in the South and Midwest…flyover country to people from your haunts.

    Life is special. We cannot kill the most vulnerable amongst us. Vote McCain. He can get the job done, including winning right to life rights for unborn babies!

  68. I think we liberals should all just admit we all want to kill babies and surrender our country to Radical Islam. Come on guys, William P Miller is on to our Yankee/Socialist plot. He found us out.

  69. William P Miller

    You were saved were you not Trey? The next generation deserves life too.

  70. William P Miller

    Atruth, any relation to entopticon? -:) Yes, liberals should admit to themselves that abortion stops a beating heart. The heart of the most vulnerable. I know 2 ladies who got abortions when they were young. They are both haunted with guilt about it. They are nice people with normal feelings. I wonder about some of the NE metropolitan “cool” women who think nothing of killing their unborn baby so they can keep that career going up in Manhattan. it’s never too late to gain a conscience.

    Everyone deserves a life. Stop abortion of convenience. Vote for a true American. John McCain can!

  71. travelah

    fishy?

    are you implying i am posting from the middle of the ocean, in my secret socialist think tank?

    Nope … the sock puppet started dancing to a familiar jingle.

  72. C

    Regarding ‘answers.com’/ definition of ‘baby’:
    Use of a more accurate dictionary is in order.
    If you were to cite ‘answer.com’ for a professional paper, you would be laughed at. Not unlike Wikipedia…
    Try the OED or the American Heritage, and leave the defining up to the experts.

  73. Eli Cohen

    “fishy?

    are you implying i am posting from the middle of the ocean, in my secret socialist think tank?

    Nope … the sock puppet started dancing to a familiar jingle.”

    Did your mammy name you travelah, or are you a sock puppet?

  74. William P Miller

    I agree Mr T. I’d say atruth sounds a lot like a guy banned with a former name starting with “e”. Check Malaprop’s or The Drip and see if you see anyone glued to their laptop with grim determination. -:) But e,keep it up. I think it is hilarious you have to leave home to indulge your obsession with posting on this BB. And I find many of your posts very entertaining!

    On thread, let us above all else protect the most innocent amongst us. Unborn babies deserve life. Vote McCain in November! Obama will keep the killing going. McCain CAN stop it and will!

  75. Eli Cohen

    Willie p. , you’re like a little girl gleefully passing gossip to your girlfriend. (travelah)

    But, back on thread, let’s kill as many babies as possible and vote for Obama who will take away your guns, tax only the working class, outlaw business profits, bring on world communism, wreck the economy,(whoops that’s already been done)…yes willie, I find your simpleminded drivel very unentertaining. Why don’t you let your gf travelah come up with the material and you just try to follow along with a few , “oh travelah you’re such a smart girl, I agree with you totally”

  76. entopticon

    I am not atruth…. atruth is david. He said as much in another thread. The irony is absolutely hilarious though. I can’t think of a more perfect way for david/atruth’s self-righteous hypocrisy to have been exposed than for travelah and William P Morris to have thought he was me. As I said all along, david/atruth seems to be naively and shamefully oblivious of his own glaring hypocrisy.

    david/atruth things I am as bad as travelah and William P Morris. Well I think david/atruth is as bad as Yanni and Carrot Top. So there :^P

  77. William P Miller

    Mr e you are back! Let us kill the fatted turnip and make lots of sawmill gravy! We thought you’d been offed because of your frequent violations of post policy. I am so glad they gave you a repreive. I so much enjoy your posts. Always good for a chuckle. Welcome back…your dreams were your ticket out…welcome back and thanks for staying!

  78. david

    entop-

    whoa, buddy. What did I ever do to you? You make travelah seem level headed.

    I do think it’s funny that willy and travel-ha could think I am you, seeing as how we write with a completely different style and tone. I guess they think everybody who reads these must agree with them, and the few who take the time to point out the inaccuracies in their ‘facts’ are really just the same person in multiple disguises. Maybe you, entop, are actually Dionysis, as well as me. Whoaa, trippy.

    “I can’t think of a more perfect way for david/atruth’s self-righteous hypocrisy to have been exposed than for travelah and William P Morris to have thought he was me”

    Does that make sense to anyone else? How does that expose one’s hypocrisy? And, pray tell, what hypocrisy is it showing? What have I said or done that was hypocritical? “Naively and shamefully oblivious”? Jeez, buddy. You act like I have addressed you with more than one post. You dont even know me.

    Carrot top and Yanni? Ouch That is slanderous, for sure. I’m contacting the authorities.

    Eat some ice cream.

    William-It’s okay to admit you used to be nam vet, and were finally banned for acting like, well, yourself. I guess that’s why you got so giddy when entop stopped posting for a week and you assumed he was ‘banned’. But, no, I think you, nam vet/vinnie/willy milly are one of the few to actually be banned on this site. But it’s okay. Your sense of humor has a bit of a redeeming quality to it. Barely. When it’s not dirisive and pompous.

  79. lumina

    on the original subject of abortion, there are a few points:

    1) popular opinion cannot and should not define our collective morality. there was a time when the social order of our country allowed that blacks were sub-human and therefore not deserving of rights, remember. i’m not convinced that the numbers favor abortion anyway … there are so many states right now with laws enacted and poised for when roe v. wade gets overturned (and it will, eventually, as we ARE evolving, however slowly) and they represent vast numbers of persons who value life at every stage.

    2) pro-choicers consistently cite the separation of church and state and use this argument to label any pro-lifer as a christian zealot, which is not the case. many of us are not christian and hold this truth to be as fundamental as the thoughts that keep us from killing, hurting, stealing in our daily lives. we have laws against murder and theft too … are those grounded in christian morality or a mere common respect for each other that is common to “believers” and “nonbelievers” alike? this is no more a “religious” issue than those laws that keep us from embezzling, cheating on our taxes, beating our children and stealing from the grocery store. using the church/state argument is tired, old and worn-out smoke-n-mirrors rhetoric that doesn’t hold up in the court of logic.

    3) a baby’s body is not a mother’s body just because it’s inside of it and dependent on it. to call a baby a “fetus” is to attempt to reduce both the spirituality AND the hard science of that which is “life” to a biological function. this cannot be logically compared to spent sperm as those sperm are not fertilized and therefore not a human being.

    it pains me that again, as a pro-life voter, i am given only a choice between two evils. one party disregards the lives of babies and the other the lives of our foreign neighbors (war) and criminals (death penalty). we are a country swathed in rationalizations and self-interest …

    mr. roeten, i appreciate your letter and the issues it clarifies. slowly, surely, this movement is gaining ground and weight in the media and the day will come, somehow, when all human life is respected and protected, regardless of one’s political or religious affiliations. because it’s the right thing to do …

  80. William P Miller

    Lumina said: “a baby’s body is not a mother’s body just because it’s inside of it and dependent on it. to call a baby a “fetus” is to attempt to reduce both the spirituality AND the hard science of that which is “life” to a biological function.”

    Agreed Lumina. It is so flatout logical that to abort a baby in the womb is to kill the baby. Let us protect the most vulnerable amongst us. The unborn baby. If women don’t want to be bothered raising a child, either don’t have sex or make sure there are contraceptions being used. Otherwise, if you find yourself pregnant, the right thing is to not kill your baby for your own “convenience”, but to bring the baby to term. Every baby deserves to live.

  81. entopticon

    I have to respond to david/atruth’s outright lies. I’ll be sure to be civil to keep the moderator happy. I can never understand how people such as david/atruth, who have a clearly compulsive need to lie, choose to use a forum such as blogging because their lies are so easily exposed.

    Amazingly, david/atruth had the nerve to say: “whoa, buddy. What did I ever do to you?” and… “Jeez, buddy. You act like I have addressed you with more than one post.”

    That is some very funny stuff. One post?!? Liars really do bug me, and that is why I will take the time to incontrovertibly prove that david/atruth is a liar, and not just a small one.

    In this threrad alone, in multiple posts, david/atruth said:

    “entop-I read your posts even less than than travelah’s. You are annoying and whiny.”
    (the feeling is mutual)

    and

    “wow, travelah, i see what you’ve been dealing with. Dudeman is pretty testy. Almost as bad as you.”
    (ummmm…. whatever, “dudeman”)

    and

    “entop-You might get a more intelligent conversation if you avoided such terms as “morans” and “imbecilic”. It’s intriguing that the moderators allow you and travelah and willy p (yes, I group you three together) to post these kinds of inarticulate, flame-baiting accusations.”

    (well david/atruth, you might get a more intelligent conversation if you stopped lying and made intelligent arguments for a change. By the way, morons isn’t spelled with an “a.” As for being inarticulate, your hypocrisy really is a gas)

    and

    “Incidentally, you seem to not see the sarcasm in my above post addressed to the travelah. More evidence that you jump the gun too quick? Hmmm?”

    (once again, your hypocrisy is mind-boggling. You really think my posts lack sarcasm?)

    and

    “again with the demeaning name-calling? You really only feed into travelah’s posturing with your equally condescending tone.”

    (the fact that your hypocrisy is completely lost on you is absolutely hysterical)

    and

    “I am usually left with a bad, embrassed taste in my mouth when I read entops posts.”

    (everybody insert your own joke here)

    and

    “And yet, entpticon, I take issue with how quickly you jumped at the opportunity to attack me when I was using the term tongue-in-cheek in direct response to the exact same issues you are complaining about. In other words, I was mocking travelah’s style of posting, and attempting to push the MX mods to look at this apparent hypocrasy, and YOU jumped in and attacked ME.”

    (Seriously, do you go out of your way to be as hypocritical as humanly possible? You really think I am any more or less tongue-in-cheek or condescending than you or Dionysis (whose posts I enjoy)? I didn’t jump in an attack you. That is yet another lie because you had already attacked me several times by that point, as evidenced above. It is amazing that someone can be so blind to their own hypocrisy. By the way, hypocrisy is not spelled with an “a” either.)

    and

    “In my opinion, your ‘kind’ is an embarrassment and detriment to many of us on the so-called ‘left ‘ who may take the time to point out the hypocrasies of the travelahs of the world without stooping to their level.”

    (Well there david/atruth, I think you are projecting, and it is a riot. As I have clearly shown, I am not the hypocritical one. Not even when speled with an “a.”)

    and it was particularly ironic when you said:

    “I might have more respect for your rants against travelah if you didnt scream RACIST! so loud every freaking time. It’s like you want the PC police to come arrest him for being an absurd caricature of himself.”

    (that one was particularly funny. Especially considering that you called me a racist in another thread when you said:

    “In my opinion, entop, this is a thinly veiled rascist insult. You denigrate yourself by sinking to (or below) your “competitor’s” level. Although without your apparent anger, this might make a funny joke. But I know you are not making a joke. You are too serious for that.”

    and you asked:

    “Why is it that, in making fun of people from Appalachia, racist, anti-white jokes are tolerated, but other racist jokes arent?

    The level of your hypocrisy and projection is as astonishing as it is hilarious. Somehow when I do it it is not ok, but when you do it it is just fine. You are just too much.

    The fact is that I live pretty deep in a rural area and my neighbors are amazingly cool, caring people, not bigoted cliques. I am white, and I have every bit as much of a right to make fun of my own ethnic group as you do. The fact that you of all people would give me a hard time for making fun of someone for directly spouting the rhetoric of a known white supremacist hate group (the League of the South) takes hypocrisy to a bizarre extreme, to say the least.

    Travelah and William can’t even tell the difference between your comments and mine, and that is certainly hilariously obvious evidence of your outlandish hypocrisy.

    As I have unassailably proven, not only did you start attacking me and calling me names, completely unprovoked, your claim that you only did it once was a huge lie. You attack me repeatedly and then act surprised when I defend myself. Give me a break. Every attack you have ever made on me applies more aptly to you… dudeman.

    Just one last ridiculous attack from you on another thread:

    “I refuse to be pulled into such absurd, off-topic debates, but I do not wish to wade through another month of entop vs travalha and william p to get a nugget of truth about Agent Miller’s history of drunkeness on the job.”

    Ok there inspector gadget, you can go back to searching for nuggets about Agent Miller’s drinking habits. Knock yourself out, sport. That’s not high on my list of interests and despite your bizarre claim, agent Miller’s drinking habits is not something that I have ever been compelled to take a stance on.

    Have a nice day.

  82. William P Miller

    LOL, Mr e, you just don’t get it do you? Repeatedly calling someone a liar, then ending with “have a nice day” does make you civil. people here have different points of view. Just because they disagree with you doesn’t make them “liars”. Hey, just try arguing your point on the merits, and leave the comments about truthfulness out of it. Then you just may get this right. -:)

  83. Eli Cohen

    willie p.

    A liar is someone who “knowingly” communicates a falsehood. So perhaps, by the strictest definition, you aren’t a liar…do you just not know any better? I mean, your chasing your sister around the outhouse doesn’t qualify you to be a long distance runner does it? If you don’t like abortion, too bad…it’s legal. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, try supporting sex education in the schools. Sex does not equal sin!

  84. travelah

    f you don’t like abortion, too bad…it’s legal.

    DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) formed a basis of the law once. What’s your point, Big E?

  85. Eli Cohen

    Oh, so it’s love it or leave it? No thanks, I’d rather stay here and kill babies…

  86. david

    the only place to converse is the forums, lumina. steve moderates fairly.

  87. Jim Shura

    This thread looks a little odd now.

    The post that got Lumina and many other people upset is gone now and the member that made it seems to have rejoined the ranks of the moderated members.

    Good job, mods.

  88. travelah

    The discussions here on the boards are fine until the ad hominem attacks begin against other participants.

  89. entopticon

    “The discussions here on the boards are fine until the ad hominem attacks begin against other participants.”

    …….. Said the man who regularly refers to Obama supporters as Obamunists. Irony doesn’t get much funnier than that.

  90. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    Mr. Yuck
    I think the censorship that is now occurring on this forum, is totally repugnant to the concept of freedom and reality.
    I spent almost one hour preparing a rebuttal to a certain poster (who concentrates on typos and form, rather than substance, the epitome of anal-retentive) that clearly showed the fallacies and flaws in his compartmentalized, governmental, regimental programming and pharisaical thinking. I supported the post with facts, it in NO way was a personal attack, the post never even made it to the board, as it was completely censored, By the Mountain Express Homeland Security thought police

    The policy of censorship that x press is now using is probably a result of a pseudo conservative element asking that posts be censored, because it offended their religious and government thought and image training.

    What is now occurring in this forum, is select subjective sanitation and censorship of ideas. This phenomenon is simply a mircocooosm of what’s is happening on a national and international scale, here in the land of the fee and home of the slave
    Posts being removed, edited and simply deleted, is completely antithetical to what the xpress should be doing, which is being an alternative and a beacon of light and free speech to the controlled corporate neocon media

    I have warned people, the most dangerous people in this county, are these pious, conservative, pseudo, imposter Christians, who would censor the world and all freedom, to conform to their religious image training.

    These Pseudo conservative, sanctimonious people will play a greater role in the future, as the county descends deeper into a total Orwellian police state. They drape themselves in the flag and their creation, Republican F-16 bombing Jesus, however; their actions are completely in conflict with the foundational constitutional principals of what this nation should be.

    These Pseudo conservative, neocon Americans / Born again, corporate evangelicals, support things like national ID cards, traffic stops road blocks ( which have ruled in some states as unconstitutional), think that law enforcement should never be monitored, and that all must have government issued licenses, these minions of ignorance, can easily be manipulated by governmental fear tactics. They view all government as being ordained by God; they also believe in blanket obedience to all government and think that taxes must be paid to government as tribute.This a direct conflict to the very principals country was founded. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON A TAX REVOLT!

    They will censor you, tattle tale on you to government agencies and flat out censor you, believing the entire time they are doing the will of God.
    They are described in the Bible, a book they quote but don’t understand. ”Synagogues” are courts look at where these censors/ conservatives/ neocons will be sending you.
    Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
    Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

  91. bobaloo

    Wait a minute. Was the post removed the one that called Eli Cohen a pedophile?
    Or the one that said William Miller had incestuous feelings for his sister?
    No, that’s still there.

    I’m confused.

    Whatever, Mountain X has become the Man!!!!11!!

    Plus, my Jesus totally has a stealth bomber.

  92. Jim Shura

    Dr Anti,

    If we are talking about the same post, you were far from the only one to spend that kind of time replying. MtnX chose to delete the offensive post and all replies to it because the replies would have no context.

    Maybe they should have left it up or just deleted certain passages. Maybe they should have explained what they were doing and why. Maybe that would have taken more time than the mod had. I don’t find anything insidious about some guy trying to have an evening while keeping an eye on a forum.

    If anyone is curious about why posts don’t get through, I suggest a quick PM or e-mail to one of the mods. They need to know if things are not working and most of the time it is not what you think.

  93. DR.ANTINEOCONUS

    The U.S. has killed 50 million unborn children, this much is true, so every time I see some neoconservative with a God bless America bumper sticker, I wonder, how it is some neocon can command God to bless a baby-killing nation.

    Roe vs. Wade did not legalize abortion, if U.S. citizens were educated and read the case; they would know it is about private property and the right of a woman over what happens with her own body.
    The case did not legalize abortion, it merely up held a woman’s right to choose and consider, a medical option available to her long before Roe vs. Wade.

    The case is actually a good decision by the court in terms of its implications of the protection of private property. Certainly better than the Kelo decision. But then again, the Supreme court is not a constitutional Article 3 court, since people don’t know what Article 3 courts are, Ill just skip over that for the sake of brevity

    Abortion is Murder, just add the 50 million to the millions of others killed in government run cold war operations and it looks like judgment is coming quickly for the U.S. Inc.

    Think about that the next time you slap a bumper sticker on your car commanding God to Bless America, as far as I know Murdering innocent Iraqi’s Vietnamese, Koreans, etc is no different from murdering children in U.S, abortion clinics.

    The hypocrisy comes into play, when government run churches sanction one form of murder in the name of democracy and freedom and condemns another in the name of pious protestations, designed to make religious institutions/corporations, look godly to their hapless, unassuming flocks of lemming hearted hordes, who sit in pews, in country club style churches, where pastors make 250k per year. These pastors need some issue to make them look good, abortion fits the bill nicely

    As far as I know, Murder is still murder, whether its bullets laced with depleted uranium fired from the U.S war machine or whether your life is sucked out before it begins by a government-licensed doctor.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.