# "War on Women" #2



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You're a hero in my book. My _God_ Bless you and keep you.


*KPG and Gerslay, both of you ladies have true moxie and I'm proud of you for it !!

What the world thinks of me means nothing.

But the two of you are coming through this whole thing with flying colors. . . even if they are black and blue. Stand tall !!*


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Do you think he reads Chit Chat on KP, Purl? We can hope can't we? Maybe we could write to him. :thumbup:


He looks like he could be a knitter.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

cheeks,NJG,JC,PP,dame,huck....Do you believe in Partial Birth abortions, Late Term Abortions and if you were an Abortion Doctor at what week of a pregnacy would be the cut off week (if any) that you would not perform an abortion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

galinipper said:


> cheeks,NJG,JC,PP,dame,huck....Do you believe in Partial Birth abortions, Late Term Abortions and if you were an Abortion Doctor at what week of a pregnacy would be the cut off week (if any) that you would not perform an abortion.


When you ask "do you believe in ...," is that the same as asking "do you believe in God?" Or does it mean something else.

Your question isn't answerable because a) it's ambiguous and b) as far as I know, not one of us is a medical doctor and knows what an "abortion doctor" - to use your prejudging term - has studied or what his/her adult patients are suffering from. I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer a question from a pair of hooker shoes.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> When you ask "do you believe in ...," is that the same as asking "do you believe in God?" Or does it mean something else.
> 
> Your question isn't answerable because a) it's ambiguous and b) as far as I know, not one of us is a medical doctor and knows what an "abortion doctor" - to use your prejudging term - has studied or what his/her adult patients are suffering from. I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer a question from a pair of hooker shoes.


I love you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I love you.


Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.

Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> When you ask "do you believe in ...," is that the same as asking "do you believe in God?" Or does it mean something else.
> 
> Your question isn't answerable because a) it's ambiguous and b) as far as I know, not one of us is a medical doctor and knows what an "abortion doctor" - to use your prejudging term - has studied or what his/her adult patients are suffering from. I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer a question from a pair of hooker shoes.


You answered the questions. Thank You


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

galinipper said:


> You answered the questions. Thank You


I doubt that. You're inferring an answer, but I didn't give you one.

That makes us even, since you didn't answer mine.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


I was thinking that one of us might have posed a few questions that were not hypothetical.

1. how many computers have you supplied to children "saved" by the right to life movement?
2. how much have you contributed to the schooling of those same "saved" human beings?
3.How may coats, shoes, hair brushes, back packs, reading books, sets of Legos ... have you bought and given away to young children?
4.How many times have you paid the copay for an office visit for some mother who had to take their sick child to the doctor unexpectedly?
5.How many prescriptions for antibiotics?
6.How much have you contributed to additions to homes that were too small for an expanding family?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

galinipper said:


> You answered the questions. Thank You


Anyone still reading, understood her answer as well.

You had guts to even try to address her. She (and many others ) do not have the ability to understand what others believe nor do they bother to ask. They simply judge people on what they believe others believe.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> *KPG and Gerslay, both of you ladies have true moxie and I'm proud of you for it !!
> 
> What the world thinks of me means nothing.
> 
> But the two of you are coming through this whole thing with flying colors. . . even if they are black and blue. Stand tall !!*


 :lol: Thank you for your comment of support, GrannyGoode. What "they" think of me is meaningless to me as well, and I've stated same several times. Yet, "they" keep on insulting others and me. BTW: I love color so shall wear it happily!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> *KPG and Gerslay, both of you ladies have true moxie and I'm proud of you for it !!
> 
> What the world thinks of me means nothing.
> 
> But the two of you are coming through this whole thing with flying colors. . . even if they are black and blue. Stand tall !!*


Me too GrannyGoode...many thanks for the support!

What can you do when so-called 'progressive' women choose to see themselves as victims and choose to believe that more than half the population is against them? Without their "War on Women" crusade the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to demonize and they'd have no talking points to fuel the MSNBC circus clowns. It's really very sad that these seemingly intelligent women can't see how they're being used.

You can show them the fallacy of their thinking...but will they have an open mind? "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

You can speak truth to them...but will they listen? "There are none so empty as those who are full of themselves."


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Anyone still reading, understood as well; her answer.
> 
> You had guts to even try to address her and she (and many others ) do not have the ability to understand what others believe nor do they ever bother to ask. They simply judge on what they believe others believe.


I just wanted to know how they felt about those procedures, and if they were the doctor in charge, at what week would they draw the line on an abortion. Simple, straightforward questions and it was a simple straightforward answer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


Yes, it is pretty clear that there is no shifting of paradigms on that end. Sad, really, the whole point of life long learning is the ability to think and display some intellectual growth.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was thinking that one of us might have posed a few questions that were not hypothetical.
> 
> 1. how many computers have you supplied to children "saved" by the right to life movement?
> 2. how much have you contributed to the schooling of those same "saved" human beings?
> ...


I'm sure there are answers for some of those, because churches may have contributed those things. But those contributions would only cover a small fraction of the children involved. And copays? These women should have insurance or Medicaid and not need the copays.

Your 6th question is the best. I doubt that the answer is even in the high 1 digits.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

galinipper said:


> I just wanted to know how they felt about those procedures, and if they were the doctor in charge, at what week would they draw the line on an abortion. Simple, straightforward questions and it was a simple straightforward answer.


My answer? What was my simple straightforward answer? (Please refer to my wording when you give your answer.)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Me too GrannyGoode...many thanks for the support!
> 
> What can you do when so-called 'progressive' women choose to see themselves as victims and choose to believe that more than half the population is against them? Without their "War on Women" crusade the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to demonize and they'd have no talking points to fuel the MSNBC circus clowns. It's really very sad that these seemingly intelligent women can't see how they're being used.
> 
> ...


You've had trouble understanding messages before, so you've demonstrated an inability to think clearly. Additionally, you couldn't answer the question about the Tea Party being interested only in finances yet asking for not-for-profit tax status, which would imply their mission is social, which indicates that you either don't understand what you've written or what's being asked of you.

I'd love for you to show me "the fallacy of their thinking." In fact, I'd love an illustration of the "open mind" you seem to think you have and we haven't.

Where did any of us (here on KP) say she was a victim?And liberals are complaining about antagonism from REPUBLICAN men, who are far from half of the population. I'm surprised you needed someone as uninformed as I am to point that out.

I don't think you're the one who could convince us of the truth, since you don't appear to know what it is.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You've had trouble understanding messages before, so you've demonstrated an inability to think clearly. Additionally, you couldn't answer the question about the Tea Party being interested only in finances yet asking for not-for-profit tax status, which would imply their mission is social, which indicates that you either don't understand what you've written or what's being asked of you.
> 
> I'd love for you to show me "the fallacy of their thinking." In fact, I'd love an illustration of the "open mind" you seem to think you have and we haven't.
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking to you...I was talking to GrannyGoode.

Happy Needling!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I'm sure there are answers for some of those, because churches may have contributed those things. But those contributions would only cover a small fraction of the children involved. And copays? These women should have insurance or Medicaid and not need the copays.
> 
> Your 6th question is the best. I doubt that the answer is even in the high 1 digits.


I tried to cover a fairly broad spectrum of need. 
Since those folks don't read my posts I suppose it was a waste of time. Though, I am pretty sure that I know the answer to the questions, anyway. 
I don't think what goes through the church counts, the tithe is a requirement. 
I do suppose that volunteering for Habitat for Humanity could work for the housing question, a practical way to assist. Oh, I got so carried away I almost forgot that I have a new story to post.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Me too GrannyGoode...many thanks for the support!
> 
> What can you do when so-called 'progressive' women choose to see themselves as victims and choose to believe that more than half the population is against them? Without their "War on Women" crusade the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to demonize and they'd have no talking points to fuel the MSNBC circus clowns. It's really very sad that these seemingly intelligent women can't see how they're being used.
> 
> ...


Well done, Gerslay, well done.

BTW: love the last quote AND how you created Ichthys. May I have your permission to copy same?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

galinipper said:


> I just wanted to know how they felt about those procedures, and if they were the doctor in charge, at what week would they draw the line on an abortion. Simple, straightforward questions and it was a simple straightforward answer.


Yes, but to answer you politely and honestly while discussing personal beliefs would not give she who responds the opportunity to insult you, so why bother? It's a "War on Women" after all.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Well done, Gerslay, well done.
> 
> BTW: love the last quote AND how you created Ichthys. May I have your permission to copy same?


Of course!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I wasn't talking to you...I was talking to GrannyGoode.
> 
> Happy Needling!


If you don't want others to respond, use Private Messages. And don't talk about others in public. Remember about people living in glass houses?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I tried to cover a fairly broad spectrum of need.
> Since those folks don't read my posts I suppose it was a waste of time. Though, I am pretty sure that I know the answer to the questions, anyway.
> I don't think what goes through the church counts, the tithe is a requirement.
> I do suppose that volunteering for Habitat for Humanity could work for the housing question, a practical way to assist. Oh, I got so carried away I almost forgot that I have a new story to post.


Agreed. What's the new story?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> If you don't want others to respond, use Private Messages. And don't talk about others in public. Remember about people living in glass houses?


Again, I wasn't talking to you, but its an open forum and you are free to respond...as you obviously have.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Of course!


Thank you my friend!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

This is actually about the Republican War on Everyone, WOMEN get hit more than the rest, of course.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/02/gop-patient-care-act-worse-than-aca/

The Republicans have come out with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare. The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act (Patient CARE Act). Catchy anagram isnt it? But what does it really involve?

The GOPs Patient CARE Act is a band aid.
Well, for starters, its basically the same thing. But there are a few glaring differences. Keep in mind that the ACA is a hybrid of originally Republican ideas. If Democrats and liberals had their way we would be talking about single payer. A simple, proven way to provide healthcare to a countrys citizenry. But nothing in Congress is done because its simple or proven. The Patient CARE Act is no different.

10. Exclusion of coverage for those who just signed up.
In my opinion, Think Progress put it best.

Right off the bat, the Patient CARE Act would repeal Obamacare in its entirety, meaning that the three million Americans who have already enrolled in new plans through the laws state and federal marketplaces and the millions more deemed newly eligible for Medicaid coverage in states that expanded the program would lose their health coverage.

But thats not all. The Patient CARE Act would also change Medicaid as we know it. You had to know that was coming. Medicaid funding would suffer an imposition of a per capita cap. More simply stated a block grant. Which would only cover a selective group of people. Pregnant women, women with children and the disabled. Plus a few others. The majority of the working class, regardless of how poor they are would be required to purchase more expensive private insurance.

9. Fewer subsidies.
Youll like this one too. Instead of the sliding scale subsidies in the ACA, the Patient CARE has flat subsidies. Where Obamacare covers the needs of people up to four times the poverty rate, the Patient CARE Act only goes to three times the poverty rate. And as I mentioned the subsidies are flat. So whether youre below $ 11,000 a year or closer to $50k with a family, you get the same amount. When you figure out how that levels the playing field and makes things more inclusive for coverage you let me know. Im still scratching my head on that one.

8. Annual limit caps.
The Patient CARE Act does not have lifetime limits on coverage. In that way it is identical to the ACA.

BUT, what it does have are annual limits. Say for example you have a catastrophic incident or illness during the course of a single year. When your insurances annual limit is reached you are stuck with paying the entire remaining balance. So either way they gotcha. If you dont get sick they get your money. If you get really sick they dont cover you entirely and they get your money. You may not have a lifetime limit but if that means that you only have one or two incidents in your lifetime you could still go bankrupt in under a year. And THAT with full coverage. Nice huh?

7. Removing consumer protections.
Oh but it doesnt end with annual limits. All those consumer protections that come with the ACA are dismantled, divided or eliminated altogether. For example, you may be the most religious, sexually repressed right-wing radical on the planet but if your kid happens to rebel against your teaching Obamacare will cover the cost of your testing and/or contraception. Not so with the Patient CARE Act. If you didnt feel the need for that type of coverage when you purchased your health care plan or your employer didnt see fit to include it in theirs, youre out of pocket. Better yet, before it gets to that point you have availability to mental health care and the prescription drugs that come with it. So the whole family has the ability to live a healthier lifestyle. Sanity included. Damn that Obamacare!

6. No free preventative maintenance.
Under the ACA, all sorts of preventative testing and health maintenance services are totally free of charge. It is one of the foundations that Obamacare is built upon. By providing easy, cheap or free access to services and testing that can diagnose or prevent more serious health issues early the entire risk pool achieves lower costs across the board. Oh, and we are all just a little healthier because of it.

The Patient CARE Act has determined those tests should be included in only the best healthcare plans. And, of course, those plans are the most expensive. The rich get healthcare to identify serious medical issues before they become potentially catastrophic. Those who cannot afford the very best insurance will not receive the very best care.

5. A gaping loophole for pre-existing conditions.
If you have a pre-existing health condition you can get coverage with the Patient CARE Act with one stipulation. You must maintain continuous coverage. If you do not have coverage then insurance companies can refuse to cover you. If for example you leave a job and your insurance lapses, you can be refused for any reason. The Republicans say they support covering pre-existing conditions. The Patient CARE Act shows their true colors. High risk means low profits and that is not acceptable in the Republican world of healthcare.

4. Higher premiums for sick and elderly
Inside the Patient CARE Act the premiums for younger customers are cheaper. They dont have the health issues of older people. Therefore the likelihood of them actually using their insurance is lower. Sounds fair right? Except that if they dont use those premiums then the insurance companies are really being paid for nothing. But instead of making policies the same and spreading the costs across every citizen the Elderly and Sick will actually pay more. It is true that the Patient CARE Act provides higher subsidies for older people but that, in and of itself, isnt legal in all states. New York is a prime example. Chuck Todd asked Orrin Hatch about this very thing.

Chuck Todd  How do you prevent a spike for older Americans who, maybe just by default of genetics, are starting with a lot of health care problems, and because of that, end up getting charged more?

Orrin Hatch  Well, we have a formula in there that it cant go beyond a certain position. But the fact of the matter is, somebody has to pay for these things.

So, the older you get, the more difficult and expensive healthcare is going to be. Period. The attitude is not that the country will take care of its own. The attitude is if you cant pay you go bankrupt and then you die.

3. Higher costs for women.
No need for equal coverage that is spread across the risk pool. The Patient CARE Act is more than comfortable charging women for the things that are specific to their gender. Mammograms, maternity care, birth control, abortion coverage are all back in the dark ages of healthcare. The equality between men and women is over. Republican men dont need these things in their healthcare coverage so women will pay for these services themselves. And the additional $1 billion in healthcare costs that women exclusively use is theirs to exclusively purchase. Like it or not, the Republicans are bound and determined to continue discriminating against women. At this point, I dont believe they even know when or how they do it anymore. Discriminatory practices comes so naturally to them.

2. Higher costs for ALL.
As I mentioned before the Patient CARE Act does have lower premiums for younger buyers. But heres where the Republicans flip-flop on their ever present no taxes mantra. The Patient CARE Act increases taxes on employee healthcare plans. You will pay taxes on 35% of the premium. Thats a tax hike for 150 MILLION Americans. Currently, employer based plans are paid for with pre-tax dollars. Under the Patient CARE Act that would be capped at 65% of the premium. You pick up the tab for the rest of it.

Additionally, the Patient CARE Act is designed to sell plans that are less expensive. And, of course, those plans provide far less coverage. The mandate for quality of coverage has been removed. Buyer beware.

1. More people can be denied coverage.
This whole thing comes down to denial of coverage. The way the Patient CARE Act is structured, medical coverage is no longer a right. Its back to letting insurance companies control the market. Its medicine for profit at all costs. Dismantling and repealing Obamacare is what The Patient CARE Act is about. Its just in prettier packaging. There are some things that would stay the same. There are some things that may, in fact, work out better in the end. But unless and until Republicans stand for the health and well-being of the people before that of corporate interests any plan they put forward will contain these caveats. The Patient CARE Act is not an olive branch of peace and bi-partisanship. The Patient CARE Act is the same old approach with little compromise. And none of the things the American people truly want in their healthcare.

Author: Greg Miller
Vertically challenged, horizontally proficient heart transplant candidate. Self professed political junkie, TV addict, hockey aficionado & closeted chef. Former airline union mechanic, salesman, disc jockey, drag racer, biker. hockey player, coach & official. Constantly thirsting for knowledge w/ a twist of the zest whilst feeding on the marrow of life. Practicing to become a renaissance man in addition to being a student of the feminine mystique. Secretly a Superfriend in search of truth, justice & the American way. An agnostic theist who believes that peace is a lifestyle. Not a salutation. Heroes include Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Leonardo DaVinci, Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Steve Martin, Tina Fey, Dave Grohl, Jimmy Page, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Wayne Gretzky, & Stan "the man" Musial. You can follow me at:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If you don't want others to respond, use Private Messages. And don't talk about others in public. Remember about people living in glass houses?


It would seem that if your refusal to answer a hypothetical is an answer to a situation that is not only illegal but unlikely to have anything to do with anyone here in any capacity. 
The same could be said for the G person and her repeated inability to respond to a query that is real time and not abstract.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

U.S. News: There Is a War on Women, But Not From Republicans.

It seems that its perfectly acceptable to attack candidates like Palin, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachmann  call them crazy, stupid, you name it  those are just facts, right? When its Wendy Davis or Elizabeth Warren, its politics at its worst  its the GOP demonizing women once again. A story questioning the authenticity of Sarah Palins pregnancy is fair game; she made a choice to run for office. But, when Wendy Davis is questioned about whether the dates of her marriage that she publicly disclosed are accurate, its an attack on single women trying to move up in the world.

"Its almost as if the press is made up of Democratic operatives with bylines."

Indeed!

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/30/the-media-not-the-republican-party-is-waging-war-on-women?src=usn_tw


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

This is a joke, right? This is what the adults in the GOP have come up with? Essentially, the situation as it existed before ACA except for Medicare? Genius, I tells ya, genius.


Janet Cooke said:


> This is actually about the Republican War on Everyone, WOMEN get hit more than the rest, of course.
> 
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/02/gop-patient-care-act-worse-than-aca/
> 
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It would seem that if your refusal to answer a hypothetical is an answer to a situation that is not only illegal but unlikely to have anything to do with anyone here in any capacity.
> The same could be said for the G person and her repeated inability to respond to a query that is real time and not abstract.


Yes, it would seem so.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I'm sure there are answers for some of those, because churches may have contributed those things. But those contributions would only cover a small fraction of the children involved. And copays? These women should have insurance or Medicaid and not need the copays.
> 
> Your 6th question is the best. I doubt that the answer is even in the high 1 digits.


I'll bet a lot of these women are the working poor and probably do not qualify for medicaid, and since a lot of these republican states don't want them to be insured, they are kind of screwed. 
But what do these ladies do? They sit back and name call and play holier than thou like they have all the answers and the rest of us don't measure up. Little do they know about the real world, because of their republican attitude of I got mine and to he-- with you. But this too shall pass. When your party needs 4 responses to the SOTU speech, you are pretty fractured. Not many smart women and men want to be a part of that anymore. It is republican men who have declared a war on women and it is so sad that these republican women stand right behind them and back them up. Maybe that is the problem, republican women stand behind and democratic women stand with.
As far as answering questions, I have asked many many questions, that have never been answered.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> If you don't want others to respond, use Private Messages. And don't talk about others in public. Remember about people living in glass houses?


Take you own advice, you talk about others all the time.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Take you own advice, you talk about others all the time.


And we fully accept that the contingent of ********* will feel compelled to respond.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> *KPG and Gerslay, both of you ladies have true moxie and I'm proud of you for it !!
> 
> What the world thinks of me means nothing.
> 
> But the two of you are coming through this whole thing with flying colors. . . even if they are black and blue. Stand tall !!*


Add your name to that list GrannyGoode! :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> And we fully accept that the contingent of ********* will feel compelled to respond.


You shouldn't insult yourself so. But thanks for letting all know what you think of yourself, we have known it for quite some time.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> You shouldn't insult yourself so. But thanks for letting all know what you think of yourself, we have known it for quite some time.


Thanks for the perfect illustration of my point.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

galinipper said:


> cheeks,NJG,JC,PP,dame,huck....Do you believe in Partial Birth abortions, Late Term Abortions and if you were an Abortion Doctor at what week of a pregnacy would be the cut off week (if any) that you would not perform an abortion.


http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/pba.html

This is the data on partial birth abortions. I believe in late term abortions if the mother's life is in danger. I believe in 26 weeks as the standard limit for abortions. I am not pro abortion, I am pro choice for women. Do any of you believe that abortions will stop if they are made illegal? I also believe that children should be taught about life, including birth control, in school. Just say "NO" is not the answer to unplanned pregnancy and the spread of STD's. People will always have sex, it is a built in to our instincts. Dealing with those instincts has to be taught. The pregnancy rates in the Red states is much higher than in the Blue states, why do you think that is?

These are the top ten states:

Nevada (113)
Arizona (104)
Mississippi (103)
New Mexico (103)
Texas (101)
Florida (97)
California (96)
Georgia (95)
North Carolina (95)
Arkansas (93)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

This is what is going on in Iowa concerning abortion.

http://thegazette.com/2014/02/03/abortion-debate-to-heat-up-again-in-iowa-statehouse/


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/pba.html
> 
> This is the data on partial birth abortions. I believe in late term abortions if the mother's life is in danger. I believe in 26 weeks as the standard limit for abortions. I am not pro abortion, I am pro choice for women. Do any of you believe that abortions will stop if they are made illegal? I also believe that children should be taught about life, including birth control, in school. Just say "NO" is not the answer to unplanned pregnancy and the spread of STD's. People will always have sex, it is a built in to our instincts. Dealing with those instincts has to be taught. The pregnancy rates in the Red states is much higher than in the Blue states, why do you think that is?
> 
> ...


Yes, some abortions will stop if its illegal, and some will not.
Agreed, birth control needs to be readily available.
And men need to be held accountable.
It all depends on how the stats are counted; it might be because more pregnancies in Blue states end in abortion...I don't really know.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer a question from a pair of hooker shoes.


Well, now. . . aren't you just the snarkiest ray of sunshine this fine morning?


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

I maintain the firm belief that most of the so-called controversial issues we toss around in what we HOPE will be meaningful debate are not at all controversial to Almighty God. In His eyes, I believe, most of our opining words are pure nonsense and will float away with the next coming storm.

Mark me well, God's coming. . . and boy, is He pissed.



Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

galinipper said:


> You answered the questions. Thank You


Your gift of discernment is refreshing, as well as accurately placed.
BTW, love the patriotic heels. :thumbup:


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

"Life. . . has no one-word answers." Your own assertion, PP, in your own words.

I don't shoot from the hip, never have, never will.

Straightforward questions for you, PP:

1) Is your assertion an absolute truth? If so, be kind and cite your source.

2) Or is that your opinion? If so, be civil and state such, so as not to lead any of us astray from that which just might be an absolute truth.

Know this much, PP. . . however you choose to answer the questions, you will be doing so with cut and dried responses, assuming you answer in a straightforward manner. If your responses are anything other than clear cut and straightforward, we may accurately discern the level of your abilities for logic, reason, AND faith.



Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> I maintain the firm belief that most of the so-called controversial issues we toss around in what we HOPE will be meaningful debate are not at all controversial to Almighty God. In His eyes, I believe, most of our opining words are pure nonsense and will float away with the next coming storm.
> 
> Mark me well, God's coming. . . and boy, is He pissed.


Wouldn't be the first time G-d is pissed, and who will She pissed at the most?


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

I know what I can do, Gerri. I can depend on the Word of God as the very backbone for all my political beliefs.

Without apology to any human being, man or woman, I testify that abortion is a gross sin against the commandments of God. He commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth." That commandment is still in force today and has NEVER been rescinded or altered to accommodate the changing whims of His degenerate sons and daughters in these last days. I bear solemn witness to the world that He is angry with those who support Roe v. Wade and will not long be mocked, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ. Amen.



Gerslay said:


> Me too GrannyGoode...many thanks for the support!
> 
> What can you do when so-called 'progressive' women choose to see themselves as victims and choose to believe that more than half the population is against them? Without their "War on Women" crusade the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to demonize and they'd have no talking points to fuel the MSNBC circus clowns. It's really very sad that these seemingly intelligent women can't see how they're being used.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

The whole point of MY continual learning is to learn obedience to the laws of God. I reject your over-intellectualizing stance, as if the intellect itself is a law unto itself, which it is not.

*God forbid that I should subject His intellect to mine!*

That would be base arrogance on my part, and justify my being cast off from His presence forever. My goal in life is to return to His presence, from whence I came, and dwell with Him forever.

BTW, I neither need nor desire your blatantly hypocritical offer of pity ("...sad, really..." ). Rather, in true compassion for your own well being, I suggest you save your energies for the cataclysmic moment when you must face the One who gave His life to redeem you from your sins, if only you will repent of them.



Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, it is pretty clear that there is no shifting of paradigms on that end. Sad, really, the whole point of life long learning is the ability to think and display some intellectual growth.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Take you own advice, you talk about others all the time.


And I never object when they break into my conversations. Could you say the same?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> You shouldn't insult yourself so. But thanks for letting all know what you think of yourself, we have known it for quite some time.


How old are you? I've known 9-year-old boys who wouldn't stoop to that kind of insult.

I'm rubber, you're glue, neener neener (to paraphrase you).


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Well, now. . . aren't you just the snarkiest ray of sunshine this fine morning?


And you're going to give me a run for my money, sweetness?

At least I was polite enough to deal with her questions before insulting those shoes.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Again, PP, you presume authority where you have none. Yours is not the prerogative of determining what I "understand" or "couldn't" answer, or what I have "demonstrated" by not demonstrating a damn thing.

Don't you really dislike being told what YOU believe and understand, what YOU are capable of doing or not doing? 
Sure you do.

And oh! how you would "love" for me to show you [blah, blah, blah]. 
I can see right through your MO. 
Ain't taking your bait. 
This conversation is over.



Poor Purl said:


> You've had trouble understanding messages before, so you've demonstrated an inability to think clearly. Additionally, you couldn't answer the question about the Tea Party being interested only in finances yet asking for not-for-profit tax status, which would imply their mission is social, which indicates that you either don't understand what you've written or what's being asked of you.
> 
> I'd love for you to show me "the fallacy of their thinking." In fact, I'd love an illustration of the "open mind" you seem to think you have and we haven't.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> I maintain the firm belief that most of the so-called controversial issues we toss around in what we HOPE will be meaningful debate are not at all controversial to Almighty God. In His eyes, I believe, most of our opining words are pure nonsense and will float away with the next coming storm.
> 
> Mark me well, God's coming. . . and boy, is He pissed.


God is here and he is disgusted.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> "Life. . . has no one-word answers." Your own assertion, PP, in your own words.
> 
> I don't shoot from the hip, never have, never will.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I have no reason to answer your questions, which I don't even think are legitimate, and why would you think I'd accept your rules.

Please, tell me what my abilities are for "logic, reason, AND faith."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Wouldn't be the first time G-d is pissed, and who will She pissed at the most?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> The whole point of MY continual learning is to learn obedience to the laws of God. I reject your over-intellectualizing stance, as if the intellect itself is a law unto itself, which it is not.
> 
> *God forbid that I should subject His intellect to mine!*
> 
> ...


That is the difference between us. I am willing to grant anyone the freedom to believe as they choose. 
You, on the other hand, seem to need to control others' belief systems. 
I am not interested in what you accept or reject.

Addendum: I am tired of this meaningless discourse with some ignorant POS. 
You can have this thread until I am ready to return, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Got a news flash for you. . .

*Women Have Declared War On Each Other*



NJG said:


> I'll bet a lot of these women are the working poor and probably do not qualify for medicaid, and since a lot of these republican states don't want them to be insured, they are kind of screwed.
> But what do these ladies do? They sit back and name call and play holier than thou like they have all the answers and the rest of us don't measure up. Little do they know about the real world, because of their republican attitude of I got mine and to he-- with you. But this too shall pass. When your party needs 4 responses to the SOTU speech, you are pretty fractured. Not many smart women and men want to be a part of that anymore. It is republican men who have declared a war on women and it is so sad that these republican women stand right behind them and back them up. Maybe that is the problem, republican women stand behind and democratic women stand with.
> As far as answering questions, I have asked many many questions, that have never been answered.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Sorry, I have no reason to answer your questions, which I don't even think are legitimate, and why would you think I'd accept your rules.
> 
> Please, tell me what my abilities are for "logic, reason, AND faith."


There is no use answering these questions. No answer is acceptable to a person who only relies on Faith and obedience to a supreme being.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

And just who are you to command others as to what they should not say in public?



Poor Purl said:


> And don't talk about others in public.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Again, PP, you presume authority where you have none. Yours is not the prerogative of determining what I "understand" or "couldn't" answer, or what I have "demonstrated" by not demonstrating a damn thing.
> 
> Don't you really dislike being told what YOU believe and understand, what YOU are capable of doing or not doing? Sure you do.
> 
> And oh! how you would "love" for me to show you [blah, blah, blah]. I can see right through your MO. Ain't taking your bait. This conversation is over.


The message you're referring to was a response to Gerslay, not you. I have no idea what goes on in your head.

Especially since you speak in B-movie cliches. You don't shoot from the hip (whatever that means). You can see right through my MO.

I would like to point something out to you. When you first entered the discussion and told us about your hard life, I sympathized. When you announced you were a Republican, I let it go by.

In fact, I've never sent a message to you before today, when you called me snarky. If you feel the need to insult or threaten or lord it over me, fine. I hope it makes you feel good.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> There is no use answering these questions. No answer is acceptable to a person who only relies on Faith and obedience to a supreme being.


...and connects that with logic and reason.

Does she seem like a serious philosopher to you, Rocky?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> And just who are you to command others as to what they should not say in public?


Okay, this shows what your reasoning ability is. You took this out of context. Gerslay objected to my responding to a msg she wrote _to_ you, but _about_ us. If you read my entire answer, you might understand that I wasn't "commanding" anyone to do or not do anything. And after the rules you tried to lay out to me, who are you to object to anyone's commanding anything?

I'd love to continue this back and forth, but...wait, no I wouldn't. This is one of the more childish exchanges I've had in a long time.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> ...and connects that with logic and reason.
> 
> Does she seem like a serious philosopher to you, Rocky?


I am so confused by what she says....period. I have learned that talking to bible beaters is useless. Reason has no validity in their lives. If you are a "reasoning" person, you fall victim to their superior intelligence because their belief system is "faith" based and G-d is the penultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Therefore they are right and you are wrong. It is very tiring and time consuming explaining anything to them. Not to mention frustrating. Your answers to them are intelligent and witty, both lost on them. On the other side of this discussion, it must be nice to feel that you are "Right" all the time. No self doubt coming from any of their pronouncements. They are absolutely sure of everything they say. And their judgementalism is awe inspiring.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> I am so confused by what she says....period. I have learned that talking to bible beaters is useless. Reason has no validity in their lives. If you are a "reasoning" person, you fall victim to their superior intelligence because their belief system is "faith" based and G-d is the penultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Therefore they are right and you are wrong. It is very tiring and time consuming explaining anything to them. Not to mention frustrating. Your answers to them are intelligent and witty, both lost on them. On the other side of this discussion, it must be nice to feel that you are "Right" all the time. No self doubt coming from any of their pronouncements. They are absolutely sure of everything they say. And their judgementalism is awe inspiring.


Have you been reading my mind?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Have you been reading my mind?


Sorry, I failed mind reading at the beginning of my first marriage. I read the posts on this forum and just shake my head in disbelief, sometimes disgust. The more I read the more dismayed I get. I don't think there is hope for these people. Mired in a faith I don't understand. I try not to make value judgements, sometimes I fail, but I am trying not to let them slip out of my mouth before thinking. These women have no filter or boundary that they are unwilling to cross.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> I know what I can do, Gerri. I can depend on the Word of God as the very backbone for all my political beliefs.
> 
> Without apology to any human being, man or woman, I testify that abortion is a gross sin against the commandments of God. He commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth." That commandment is still in force today and has NEVER been rescinded or altered to accommodate the changing whims of His degenerate sons and daughters in these last days. I bear solemn witness to the world that He is angry with those who support Roe v. Wade and will not long be mocked, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ. Amen.


I stand in total agreement with that statement. Amen and Amen!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Sorry, I failed mind reading at the beginning of my first marriage. I read the posts on this forum and just shake my head in disbelief, sometimes disgust. The more I read the more dismayed I get. I don't think there is hope for these people. Mired in a faith I don't understand. I try not to make value judgements, sometimes I fail, but I am trying not to let them slip out of my mouth before thinking. These women have no filter or boundary that they are unwilling to cross.


...even to the extent of comparing their situation to that of Jesus.

I wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are. It's depressing. In fact, I think the Taliban are about as objective as the people here.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> ...even to the extent of comparing their situation to that of Jesus.


I only compare myself to Jesus in my desire to be made over in His image. Always striving...always failing.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> ...even to the extent of comparing their situation to that of Jesus.
> 
> I wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are. It's depressing. In fact, I think the Taliban are about as objective as the people here.


Do they really know what Jesus preached? I don't recall all this judging. They will never even be close to emulating Jesus, holier than thou maybe, but clearly not what he actually believed.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Feminists for Life


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Have you ever heard the phrase: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts"?

Unfortunately there are people who have been brainwashed from their early years and not taught to think critically. Those people will not digress from what they believe. It is scary for them. If they have unshakeable beliefs they do not have to think or take responsibility for their decisions.

Whether I agree or disagree with any comments made on these (so far) 104 (!!) pages, I try to keep an open mind and try to understand where people are coming from. I will not argue where I think ears and minds will be closed. People are, after all, entitled to their opinions.

I do, however, have greater respect for those who keep their comments civil. People who have to attack others weaken their arguments to the point of invalidating them.

To a great degree, this has been an amusing topic to keep me occupied on a day when I am snowed in. Got the laundry washed, dried, and folded. Got the dishwasher emptied and am now refilling it with each meal. Got one preemie hat done and another started. Finished a book and started one by another author. It has been a productive day.

Even got a 2 drawer file cabinet emptied out so DH can file his hi fi and automotive files instead of having them all over a few tables. Whee!

All of you hit by this winter, drive carefully and I hope your power stays on.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

Bill on issue of Military Rape of U S women soldiers.

For the women KP members who do understand there is a war on women please take note of the message below and contact the named U S Senators. Thank you

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Action Needed Now to Pass Military Justice Improvement Act

A vote in the Senate on Senator Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) as a stand-alone bill will happen, and it could be as early as next week. 53 Senators publicly support the bill, but we need 60 for a filibuster-proof majority! The President has yet to take a public stand in support of the MJIA, and we need his outspoken leadership to help the bill pass!

The MJIA creates an independent, objective and non-biased military justice system worthy of the men and women in uniform. We all know that prosecuting sexual assault and domestic violence requires specialized training, and the MJIA would ensure that prosecutors have expertise in these crimes. This is about safety for every soldier. This is about military readiness. This is about justice for the survivor who wears the uniform. The NTF also supports Senator McCaskill's legislative proposal to empower survivors and many of the policy provisions that passed in the FY 2014 National Defense Reauthorization Act. But without the MJIA, survivors of military sexual assault will not have the protections they truly need.
Action 1: Call and tweet the Senators below.

Phone message: "I am urging you to vote yes on the bipartisan Military Justice Improvement Act sponsored by Senator Gillibrand. Advocates and enlisted troops need and want you to pass this legislation to ensure survivors are protected."

Sample tweet: @Sen___ Survivors deserve specialized prosecutors & protection from retaliation. Support the MJIA! #MJIA #PassMJIA #EndMilitaryRape.
Baucus, Max - (D - MT)

511 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2651 www.baucus.Senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Twitter: @MaxBaucus

Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)

530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2921 www.whitehouse.Senate.gov/contact/

Twitter: @SenWhitehouse
Barrasso, John - (R - WY)

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6441 www.barrasso.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conta...

Twitter: @SenJohnBarrasso

Coburn, Tom - (R - OK) 
172 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5754 www.coburn.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactsenatorcobu...
Twitter: @TomCoburn

Cochran, Thad - (R - MS) 
113 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5054 www.cochran.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me
Twitter: @SenThadCochran

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT) 
104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5251 www.hatch.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email-Orrin
Twitter: @SenOrrinHatch

Johnson, Ron - (R - WI) 
328 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5323 www.ronjohnson.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Twitter: @SenRonJohnson

Lee, Mike - (R - UT) 
316 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5444 www.lee.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Twitter: @SenMikeLee

McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY) 
317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2541 www.mcconnell.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact
Twitter: @McConnellPress

Moran, Jerry - (R - KS) 
361A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6521 moran.Senate.gov/public/index.
cfm/e-mail-jerryTwitter: @JerryMoran

Rubio, Marco - (R - FL) 
284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3041 www.rubio.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Twitter: @marcorubio

Toomey, Patrick J. - (R - PA) 
248 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4254 www.toomey.Senate.gov/?p=contact
Twitter: @SenToomey

Warner, Mark - (D-VA)
457 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2023 http://www.warner.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?p=ContactPage
Twitter: @MarkWarner

Action 2: Send your tweets to the President asking him to support the MJIA.

Sample tweets:

@BarackObama I urge you to publicly support the Military Justice Improvement Act! Survivors needs your leadership now! #PassMJIA

@WhiteHouse Survivors deserve specialized prosecutors and protection from retaliation. We need you to support the MJIA today! #EndMilitaryRape

Follow us on Twitter at @NTFVAWA and "like" our Facebook page. If you aren't on one of the VAWA email lists or want to add members of your staff or state/community leaders to our grassroots alerts e-mailing list, send names and contact information including email to [email protected] For more info, go to www.4vawa.org.

Join NCADV in saying NO MORE!


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Peace Goddess, thank you for this information. I am happy to see that my NJ senators are not on the list, indicating that they are supporting the bill. 

It is important to send a message to protect our women in the military and in military academies. I was pleased to see that the issue of under reported rape on college campuses is also coming out of the shadows. This is the sort of issue where, if we women stick together, we can make a difference for all the young women out there so they can pursue their academic and career dreams without having nightmares.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Peace Goddess, thank you for this information. I am happy to see that my NJ senators are not on the list, indicating that they are supporting the bill.
> 
> It is important to send a message to protect our women in the military and in military academies. I was pleased to see that the issue of under reported rape on college campuses is also coming out of the shadows. This is the sort of issue where, if we women stick together, we can make a difference for all the young women out there so they can pursue their academic and career dreams without having nightmares.


I agree Marilyn. Have you heard of the Eve Ensler project One Billion Rising? If not, check it out you will be encouraged and thrilled!


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

galinipper said:


> cheeks,NJG,JC,PP,dame,huck....Do you believe in Partial Birth abortions, Late Term Abortions and if you were an Abortion Doctor at what week of a pregnacy would be the cut off week (if any) that you would not perform an abortion.


galinipper my name is Cheeky Blighter or Cheeky. Please show some civility. Only my close friends call me Cheeks and you are not one of them. Remember, familiarity breeds contempt. 
Aesop's Fables


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> When you ask "do you believe in ...," is that the same as asking "do you believe in God?" Or does it mean something else.
> 
> Your question isn't answerable because a) it's ambiguous and b) as far as I know, not one of us is a medical doctor and knows what an "abortion doctor" - to use your prejudging term - has studied or what his/her adult patients are suffering from. I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer a question from a pair of hooker shoes.


Not only do those shoes look like something a street walker would wear but I thought people weren't suppose to denigrate the flag in any way and yet she wears them on her feet and steps in who knows what.... for shame. I guess she just doesn't know any better, poor thing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Not only do those shoes look like something a street walker would wear but I thought people weren't suppose to denigrate the flag in any way and yet she wears them on her feet and steps in who knows what.... for shame. I guess she just doesn't know any better, poor thing.


Ever since "hooker shoes" got a mention, all I can think of is all the reports of "ladies of the evening" who travelled down to be available at the last Republican Convention. 
Wouldn't those have been just the thing a hooker would wear to impress some nationalistic SuperPatriot?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


Their world is a pretty ugly place. No rainbow for them and just grasping at straws hoping in the end their silly ideas will lead them to some fantasy land that doesn't exist. Sure glad I don't suffer from their delusions. I wonder what they think brains are for?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Ever since "hooker shoes" got a mention, all I can think of is all the reports of "ladies of the evening" who travelled down to be available at the last Republican Convention.
> Wouldn't those have been just the thing a hooker would wear to impress some nationalistic SuperPatriot?


When the GOP had their convention in St. Paul the prostitutes came from all over the country. Those shoes would be a real turn on to a red blooded SuperPatriot. Those Patriots love all that illicit activity, what wifey doesn't know won't hurt her. Wink wink ;-)


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Ever since "hooker shoes" got a mention, all I can think of is all the reports of "ladies of the evening" who travelled down to be available at the last Republican Convention.
> Wouldn't those have been just the thing a hooker would wear to impress some nationalistic SuperPatriot?


Did you notice that all the women on FOX have that hooker look about them. I'm sure with the demographics of their audience that plays real well with the viewers. They probably don't even listen to what those women are saying. The righties don't even get how disrespectful men are towards them or maybe that's part of that men being smarter and having to be top dog in the family hierarchy. They are in need of some self-esteem.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> When the GOP had their convention in St. Paul the prostitutes came from all over the country. Those shoes would be a real turn on to a red blooded SuperPatriot. Those Patriots love all that illicit activity, what wifey doesn't know won't hurt her. Wink wink ;-)


In many cases wifey is probably very happy about it. After all, if you don't believe in birth control how does one keep that family so small?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Ever since "hooker shoes" got a mention, all I can think of is all the reports of "ladies of the evening" who travelled down to be available at the last Republican Convention.
> Wouldn't those have been just the thing a hooker would wear to impress some nationalistic SuperPatriot?


IIRC, someone said those were Sarah Palin's shoes. So the answer to your question is "yes." (This *was* a really simple question, because it's not about life.)


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> IIRC, someone said those were Sarah Palin's shoes. So the answer to your question is "yes." (This *was* a really simple question, because it's not about life.)


 :thumbup:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Ever since "hooker shoes" got a mention, all I can think of is all the reports of "ladies of the evening" who travelled down to be available at the last Republican Convention.
> Wouldn't those have been just the thing a hooker would wear to impress some nationalistic SuperPatriot?


Did you notice that all the women on FOX have that hooker look about them. I'm sure with the demographics of their audience that plays real well with the male viewers. They probably don't even listen to what those women are saying. The righties don't even get how disrespectful men are towards them or maybe that's part of that men being smarter and having to be number one in the family hierarchy. They are in need of some self-esteem. I thought they teach that everyone is equal in the eyes of G-d. Maybe some are just more equal?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Their world is a pretty ugly place. No rainbow for them and just grasping at straws hoping in the end their silly ideas will lead them to some fantasy land that doesn't exist. Sure glad I don't suffer from their delusions. I wonder what they think brains are for?


Sautéed Cerveaux (Fried Brains) Recipe is at http://www.amyglaze.com/offal_truth_sau/


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Everything - and I mean *everything* is cut and dried to them. All questions are yes/no questions or 1-word fill-ins.
> 
> Life, on the other hand, has no one-word answers. We really don't speak the same language they do. Not to mention that they're missing all the colors other than black and white.


If you really believe that there are no black and white answers in life then you are self-deceived.

Death is absolute! And after death comes another absolute - judgment.

There will be two judgments - one for believers and another for unbelievers.

(1) The Judgment Seat of Christ
The first judgment is for believers - entrance into eternal life is already settled for those who have placed their trust in Jesus (John 3:16). However, at the judgment seat of Christ, He will determine the degree of eternal rewards believers deserve based on their deeds.

(2) Great White Throne Judgment
The second judgment involves unbelievers - those who lived independently of the Lord. It evaluates the deeds of those who never accepted Jesus offer of a new life in Him. The books will be opened and every single evil thought, word, and action will be revealed.

Wise men and women will prepare for Jesus judgment by living today, when mercy is the active principle, in light of eternity, when justice will be the active principle.

Eternity only happens once. Absolutely!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Did you notice that all the women on FOX have that hooker look about them. I'm sure with the demographics of their audience that plays real well with the male viewers. They probably don't even listen to what those women are saying. The righties don't even get how disrespectful men are towards them or maybe that's part of that men being smarter and having to be number one in the family hierarchy. They are in need of some self-esteem. I thought they teach that everyone is equal in the eyes of G-d. Maybe some are just more equal?


I was wondering if the women who do "report" on Fox Noise are required to be blonde and busty.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The simple answer is yes. Do you know any who aren't blonde and busty?



BrattyPatty said:


> I was wondering if the women who do "report" on Fox Noise are required to be blonde and busty.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was thinking that one of us might have posed a few questions that were not hypothetical.
> 
> 1. how many computers have you supplied to children "saved" by the right to life movement?
> 2. how much have you contributed to the schooling of those same "saved" human beings?
> ...


Why don't you answer your own question? You can't because you are so dependent on others for your daily living expenses, all you can do is sit around all day in your bedroom (aka home) and spew hate.

I believe in being humble when it comes to declaring my gifts to others. Suffice it to say that Catholic Charities is one of my favorite organizations.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Why don't you answer your own question? You can't because you are so dependent on others for your daily living expenses, all you can do is sit around all day in your bedroom (aka home) and spew hate.
> 
> I believe in being humble when it comes to declaring my gifts to others. Suffice it to say that Catholic Charities is one of my favorite organizations.


"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: . . .

Therefore when thou doest thine alms alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. . .

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

Matthew 6:1-4 KJV


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> If you really believe that there are no black and white answers in life then you are self-deceived.
> 
> Death is absolute! And after death comes another absolute - judgment.
> 
> ...


Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I only compare myself to Jesus in my desire to be made over in His image. Always striving...always failing.


Sorry, Ger. I was referring to someone else. Pity you don't read all the messages; you would have seen it.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Some of the pronouncements made here by the religious scare the life out of me. I am not a believer in any deity but I don't scorn those who are. What frightens me is the intolerance I see time and time again. It's no different from the Taliban. Why do they assume power they are not entitled to?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Why don't you answer your own question? You can't because you are so dependent on others for your daily living expenses, all you can do is sit around all day in your bedroom (aka home) and spew hate.
> 
> I believe in being humble when it comes to declaring my gifts to others. Suffice it to say that Catholic Charities is one of my favorite organizations.


Lovethelake. I just went back and read Janet's posts yesterday to understand what you're addressing.

Feb 3rd


Janet Cooke said:


> We ALL agree that it would be better, the provocation is too great sometimes.
> *Hell, I have actually prayed that people would not respond.
> And yet, most of the time we manage not to make it personal when someone does answer.*


Feb 3rd


Janet Cooke said:


> *That is the difference between us. I am willing to grant anyone the freedom to believe as they choose. *
> You, on the other hand, seem to need to control others' belief systems.
> *I am not interested in what you accept or reject.*
> 
> ...


Janet, wrote the above posts yesterday and immediately after posting asks those who believe in the God she doesnt, several questions she wants answered. Janet also posted for the first time Ive seen, also on Feb 3rd, a list of hypothetical questions, for which she complained no answers have been posted. Hello?

Here are my observations:

1) The Christians God proved _He_ in fact, exists, by answering Janets prayer! No one responded. Janet didn't recognize her prayer _was_ answered. (Me thinks Janet prayed to the wrong God, and it was proven such. 
Because the Christian God answered! :-D )

2) Janet lies repeatedly again by stating (1) she isnt interested in others beliefs, she doesnt make it personal (2), yet continues to quote replies (3) directly to those she claims to ignore (4) yet keeps on (5) questioning. (6) All are personal.

3) Janet doesnt know what Janet believes.

4) Janet believes she has the authority and control over a specific KP thread.

5) Janet wont tolerate what Christians believe (says she does though) yet is happy to tell Christians how to act and what they are to believe about Christianity. Janet doesnt understand much about Christianity.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


She knows an awful lot about what happens after death. Did she learn from experience?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


For which, I thank God, having those people around would surely spoil any plan that God has in mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was thinking that one of us might have posed a few questions that were not hypothetical.
> 
> 1. how many computers have you supplied to children "saved" by the right to life movement?
> 2. how much have you contributed to the schooling of those same "saved" human beings?
> ...


You finally got some answers to these questions, and they were exactly the same answers one would give if she/he never gave anything. It's fine that LTL gives money to Catholic Charities, since they do accomplish a lot, though not as much as a living wage and expanded medical care would accomplish.

On the other hand, quoting from the NT is a copout. Nobody's asking them to sound a trumpet; a simple "I help out the best I can" would have served. Instead we get a trumpet blast showing us how well they know how to look things up. Me, I'm really impressed.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> The simple answer is yes. Do you know any who aren't blonde and busty?


Yes.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


Really? You believe by your faith, your physical body won't die and eternity is finite? How many colors do you believe exist; more than black and white?

Interesting. Well, not really.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Janet, wrote the above posts yesterday and immediately after posting asks those who believe in the God she doesnt, several questions she wants answered. Janet also posted for the first time Ive seen, also on Feb 3rd, a list of hypothetical questions, for which she complained no answers have been posted.
> 
> Here are my observations:
> 
> ...


Here's my response: 

You're full of it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Some of the pronouncements made here by the religious scare the life out of me. I am not a believer in any deity but I don't scorn those who are. What frightens me is the intolerance I see time and time again. It's no different from the Taliban. Why do they assume power they are not entitled to?


Hello, aw. Welcome back.

I'm even more scared, because here they have some control over politics, and therefore over the law, so that in effect they have that power, at least in some parts of the country. What they seem to think is that it extends to the entire population. Our constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech and religion don't measure up to their need to proselytize and keep others silent.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Here's my response:
> 
> You're full of it.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> She knows an awful lot about what happens after death. Did she learn from experience?


Perhaps you'll finally learn what you don't understand which is in the Christian Bible and hopefully being taught to an open heart (yours), in the _Bible_ class you are presently auditing.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Sorry, Ger. I was referring to someone else. Pity you don't read all the messages; you would have seen it.


Her answer is mine as well. Pity you don't know that. You would if you understood that which you read and what Christians believe.

BTW: How do you know Ger doesn't read all the messages? Hint; you don't.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> On the other hand, quoting from the NT is a copout. Nobody's asking them to sound a trumpet; a simple "I help out the best I can" would have served. Instead we get a trumpet blast showing us how well they know how to look things up. Me, I'm really impressed.


That is *exactly* how LTL responded, "Suffice it to say that Catholic Charities is one of my favorite organizations."

You simply insist on insulting everyone you do not agree with or like. You tried to blame another poster for LTL's words. Pathetic on your part. Me, I'm really impressed with your antics. NOT.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Here's my response:
> 
> You're full of it.


The Holy Sprit and the Love of _God_, yep, you betcha! Thanks for noticing.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


My statement is not a matter of faith. My statement was in reply to those who claim there are no absolutes in life. I was just reminding everyone that there is an absolute...death.

I did go on to matters of faith by explaining a further absolute in the Christian faith but that doesn't negate the absolute fact that death will take us all.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Sorry, Ger. I was referring to someone else. Pity you don't read all the messages; you would have seen it.


Sorry...I pity the Poo who cares, but I'll be careful never to do that again.

:::slapping myself on the wrist:::


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Sorry...I pity the Poo who cares, but I'll be careful never to do that again.
> 
> :::slapping myself on the wrist:::


Gerslay, PoorPurl was referring to me. I reported I once rode a donkey (as a tourist) within a post that in an earlier paragraph referenced that the Son of God did as well. I further stated there is a purpose of all _God's _ creations. (You may have read my post on page 174 in the Obamacare #9 thread - *a completely different thread no less!*) Of course, my reply was to Damemary who had insulted those on the Right that she called "wackadoodles" riding their donkeys.

PP believes I, therefore, compared myself to the one most high. She is trying to start an argument while insulting me. Ridiculous and without cause. PoorPurl will go to any end to insult.

Besides, we are made in his image and strive to be like _Him_ which is why I agreed to what you said.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Thanks knitpresentgifts...understood!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

IMHO I much prefer galinipper's sexy patriotic shoes to the ghetto sneakers Wendy Davis stands in to support late term abortion. This blot on womanhood actually believes there should be NO LIMITS on ABORTION...ABSOLUTELY!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> IMHO I much prefer galinipper's sexy patriotic shoes to the ghetto sneakers Wendy Davis stands in to support late term abortion. This blot on womanhood actually believes there should be NO LIMITS on ABORTION...ABSOLUTELY!


Who said "no limits on abortion"?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Thanks knitpresentgifts...understood!


I knew you would! Any time. Isn't this fun? :roll:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> IMHO I much prefer galinipper's sexy patriotic shoes to the ghetto sneakers Wendy Davis stands in to support late term abortion. This blot on womanhood actually believes there should be NO LIMITS on ABORTION...ABSOLUTELY!


They remind me of watermelons; not a good look when advocating for killing children and/or fetuses.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I knew you would! Any time. Isn't this fun? :roll:


More fun than the Super Bowl, that's for sure!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> More fun than the Super Bowl, that's for sure!


No kidding. I don't like to watch any teams compete without competition. The entire game was a bust after the first two minutes. Still, I watched every second.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No kidding. I don't like to watch any teams compete without competition. The entire game was a bust after the first two minutes. Still, I watched every second.


Not me...I left in the 3rd quarter and went to Downton Abbey...came back when it was over and the game had only gotten worse.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> They remind me of watermelons; not a good look when advocating for killing children and/or fetuses.


Children are not fetuses. Babies are not fetuses. If you mean a woman's choice is abortion on demand, I do not think you are correct. Remember that abortion is legal, you may not like it, but it is a fact. Do not have an abortion, but don't use inflammatory language to make a point. You appeal to emotion, not intellect. Your belief system is yours, don't try to make it everyone's. Why do you insist on proselytizing you beliefs on others? The arrogance you portray about your belief system is unflattering at best. Remember all religion's basic philosophy is based on love, peace and harmony. Making yours above all else is pure arrogance.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Who said "no limits on abortion"?


Wendy Davis said that abortion is "sacred ground," and there should be no restrictions at all placed upon it.

(During a press conference at the National Press Club, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, known and even heroized for her 11-hour filibuster defending late-term abortion in June, stood by her pro-choice activism by calling it sacred.)


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Children are not fetuses. Babies are not fetuses. If you mean a woman's choice is abortion on demand, I do not think you are correct. Remember that abortion is legal, you may not like it, but it is a fact. Do not have an abortion, but don't use inflammatory language to make a point. You appeal to emotion, not intellect. Your belief system is yours, don't try to make it everyone's. Why do you insist on proselytizing you beliefs on others? The arrogance you portray about your belief system is unflattering at best. Remember all religion's basic philosophy is based on love, peace and harmony. Making yours above all else is pure arrogance.


Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, if she lost a child or if she lost a fetus. Ask a couple whose baby was stillborn, if it was just a fetus.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, if she lost a child or if she lost a fetus. Ask a couple whose baby was stillborn, if it was just a fetus.


That is what I have asked them but only got smart remarks back. Funny the law here says if you have a miscarriage after 5 months you have to have a burial. They do not have a burial for a fetus but a baby. Why dress up a fetus?


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> There is no such thing as a "living wage." People have to live according to the "wages they earn." The market, a person's ability, and the job availability determine the wages they are paid. If you read history, when the minimum wage was established in the 20's unemployment exploded. Then later the depression. Are headed for another one?
> 
> Remember "Make do or do without."


What?!? Read some history. The minimum wage act was established in *1938*. And it helped the entire country. The Great Depresson began with the stock market crash of 1929--which was brought on due to the unregulated banking and stock industries. Which is why they were regulated thereafter. The recession we are currently recovering from was caused by the *deregulation* that the right insisted upon. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> What?!? Read some history. The minimum wage act was established in *1938*. And it helped the entire country. The Great Depresson began with the stock market crash of 1929--which was brought on due to the unregulated banking and stock industries. Which is why they were regulated thereafter. The recession we are currently recovering from was caused by the *deregulation* that the right insisted upon. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.


Its not as simple as you suggest. There were many causes of the crisis, with commentators assigning different levels of blame to financial institutions, regulators, credit agencies, government housing policies, and consumers, among others.

Heres something that wont get any play in the liberal mediaA new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democrats are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis. To quote their report: We find that adherence to that act (Community Reinvestment Act) led to riskier lending by banks......


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> And I never object when they break into my conversations. Could you say the same?


Yes.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

GrannyGoode said:


> And just who are you to command others as to what they should not say in public?


It's the old double standard, GG. She can do as she pleases, but no one else is allowed to.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Really? You believe by your faith, your physical body won't die and eternity is finite? How many colors do you believe exist; more than black and white?
> 
> Interesting. Well, not really.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, if she lost a child or if she lost a fetus. Ask a couple whose baby was stillborn, if it was just a fetus.


Yes, and measure the disappointment and grief of a woman who miscarries at eight weeks with that of parents who lose a child eight weeks post-birth to SIDS or some other malady. There is a difference between a child and a potential child, which is why most pro-lifers are willing to forgive women who've had abortions but clamor for Susan Smith's head.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Its not as simple as you suggest. There were many causes of the crisis, with commentators assigning different levels of blame to financial institutions, regulators, credit agencies, government housing policies, and consumers, among others.
> 
> Heres something that wont get any play in the liberal mediaA new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democrats are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis. To quote their report: We find that adherence to that act (Community Reinvestment Act) led to riskier lending by banks......


I balked with one word in your post about the study; new. I've known for years the Democrats are primarily responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. Look at the Chris Dodd (Dem) - Barney Frank (Dem) regulations for an easy call of what was coming well in advance!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

EveMCooke;

Well you managed to insult PeaceGoddess with your posted image that I presume, you tried to make relevant to the discussion at hand, it isn't. 

Don't worry, though, PeaceGod is a Pacifist and won't come after you in retaliation.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

I lost three children who were stillborn. Raised the other five to maturity. That makes eight children in all.

*How does anybody dare classify the fruit of my womb according to the standards of degenerate human society when I know full well who I carried in my womb and from whence they came?*



Gerslay said:


> Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, if she lost a child or if she lost a fetus. Ask a couple whose baby was stillborn, if it was just a fetus.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

I shall use inflammatory language if I so desire.

I shall appeal to both emotion and intellect at all times.

I shall proselytize my Christian values because I am commanded of God to do so.

I shall risk the appearance of arrogance to unbelievers and not care one whit for the outcome.

I shall continue to reject all forms of flattery.

I shall assert that not all religions are based on love, peace and harmony. Google the Moslem faith and do your own homework.

*Furthermore, I shall say whatever I damn well please to any person, at any time, in any place, under any circumstances.
And Heaven help anybody who tries to stop me!!!!!

FIRST AMENDMENT, BABY!*



rocky1991 said:


> Children are not fetuses. Babies are not fetuses. If you mean a woman's choice is abortion on demand, I do not think you are correct. Remember that abortion is legal, you may not like it, but it is a fact. Do not have an abortion, but don't use inflammatory language to make a point. You appeal to emotion, not intellect. Your belief system is yours, don't try to make it everyone's. Why do you insist on proselytizing you beliefs on others? The arrogance you portray about your belief system is unflattering at best. Remember all religion's basic philosophy is based on love, peace and harmony. Making yours above all else is pure arrogance.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Comment withdrawn.



GrannyGoode said:


> "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: . . .
> 
> Therefore when thou doest thine alms alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. . .
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Excellent reminder peacegoddess.



peacegoddess said:


> Your statements given here are matters of faith. there are many faiths and yours is valid for you and others who believe as you believe, but....not everyone shares your beliefs and faith.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It appears that this intolerance appears in man to frighten us all.



aw9358 said:


> Some of the pronouncements made here by the religious scare the life out of me. I am not a believer in any deity but I don't scorn those who are. What frightens me is the intolerance I see time and time again. It's no different from the Taliban. Why do they assume power they are not entitled to?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

<<<whispering...observations of no consequence.>>>



knitpresentgifts said:


> Janet, wrote the above posts yesterday and immediately after posting asks those who believe in the God she doesnt, several questions she wants answered. Janet also posted for the first time Ive seen, also on Feb 3rd, a list of hypothetical questions, for which she complained no answers have been posted. Hello?
> 
> Here are my observations:
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bull feathers.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a family was able to live on the wages of one person working 40 hours per week in an average job. This did not lead to the fall of civilization. Actually it benefited our economy by enabling people to buy houses, cars, etc and providing the demand that supported growth.

It is the lack of this demand that threatens our economy, not a living wage.



joeysomma said:


> There is no such thing as a "living wage." People have to live according to the "wages they earn." The market, a person's ability, and the job availability determine the wages they are paid. If you read history, when the minimum wage was established in the 20's unemployment exploded. Then later the depression. Are headed for another one?
> 
> Remember "Make do or do without."


----------



## west coast kitty (May 26, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, if she lost a child or if she lost a fetus. Ask a couple whose baby was stillborn, if it was just a fetus.


Those with a social agenda have mastered word games -- the biological term fetus is used when they want to dehumanize human life. Or use other terms such as product of conception or worse, someone on this thread calling the unborn a parasite. Recognizing the unborn as human life questions those euphamisms.

I understand that some situations require a very difficult decision to be made. I see a difference between those situations and someone not being ready, can`t afford a baby, not the right gender, and so many other reasons given for abortion. There is irony in people expecting informed consent in other medical procedures and truth in advertising from the business community - but feel that it is wrong to bring truth and informed consent to those deciding to terminate human life.

Because something is legal, doesn`t make it right. Slavery was also legal along with any other number of historical atrocities - and in time, abortion will take a place on that list too.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put Rocky. Thanks for sharing.



rocky1991 said:


> Children are not fetuses. Babies are not fetuses. If you mean a woman's choice is abortion on demand, I do not think you are correct. Remember that abortion is legal, you may not like it, but it is a fact. Do not have an abortion, but don't use inflammatory language to make a point. You appeal to emotion, not intellect. Your belief system is yours, don't try to make it everyone's. Why do you insist on proselytizing you beliefs on others? The arrogance you portray about your belief system is unflattering at best. Remember all religion's basic philosophy is based on love, peace and harmony. Making yours above all else is pure arrogance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> <<<whispering...observations of no consequence.>>>


She can't help it, Empress, she is sinking deeper.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you sumpleby. Much better time line.



sumpleby said:


> What?!? Read some history. The minimum wage act was established in *1938*. And it helped the entire country. The Great Depresson began with the stock market crash of 1929--which was brought on due to the unregulated banking and stock industries. Which is why they were regulated thereafter. The recession we are currently recovering from was caused by the *deregulation* that the right insisted upon. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and measure the disappointment and grief of a woman who miscarries at eight weeks with that of parents who lose a child eight weeks post-birth to SIDS or some other malady. There is a difference between a child and a potential child, which is why most pro-lifers are willing to forgive women who've had abortions but clamor for Susan Smith's head.


Susan Smith deserves forgiveness also...she must be very sick to have done what she did...no one in their right mind does such a thing.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Susan Smith deserves forgiveness also...she must be very sick to have done what she did...no one in their right mind does such a thing.


No doubt--but the fact remains that even pro-lifers don't view women who've had abortions as murderers, and most are willing to make exceptions for cases of rape and incest. To me it shows that they do recognize the difference between an eight-week old fetus and and eight-day old newborn, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> That is what I have asked them but only got smart remarks back. Funny the law here says if you have a miscarriage after 5 months you have to have a burial. They do not have a burial for a fetus but a baby. Why dress up a fetus?


Law??


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Dear Ladies of the Left, ...
> 
> 1) VocalLisa >> I misread your post about the RNC skit and I got angry and I retaliated. I'm not happy with my behavior. I posted an apology but I think you must have missed it because you went on for several pages castigating me for my misplaced retaliation.


Yes, I did indeed miss your apology, and in return, I apologize for doing so and thank you for your's.



Gerslay said:


> I have one other post to comment on and that is the above quote stating that the only thing that people should vote is their wallet. I really believe this. I think that everything else is victimizing minorities about social issues causing them to think that change is accomplished in the voting booth. Change is never accomplished in the voting booth, although it is the tool that finally implements the change, it is the rise of awareness in the people that brings about social change.


Well, of course. People vote develop/have a conscience before they vote it. I'm not sure who would say otherwise.

Ultimately, change IS accomplished in the voting booth.

But, I would agree, with the "anthropomorphizing" of corporations money IS changing our democracy and turning it into a fascist - plutocratic society and that yes, because of that, our votes are growing less effective every day and that a government of, by and for the people has been grossly weakened.

However, it's mostly the Right that is responsible for supporting that sort of non-democratic society. Particularly since Reagan.

This is why I believe so many on the Right are down-right sado-masichists. They seem to get off on inflicting pain not only to others, but to themselves.

Who in heck would complain about "government intrusion" and then advocate forcing women into gestation and childbirth?

Who in heck would complain that all that's left to our government is money, our vote has no power... and then support the team that advocates unlimited corporate money into our democratic/representative system so that THE PEOPLE, (particularly the average person who makes up this country's majority) have no say in what happens because they won't and never will have enough money.

Only people who like to cause THEMSELVES pain and humiliation and take others down with them would behave in such a manner.



Gerslay said:


> For example: It was a progressive movement (mainly women's suffrage and rural temperance groups) that brought about prohibition. However, it was the resistance of the people and subsequent enforcement problems that undid prohibition. The voting booth did not bring about either; in both instances change was brought about by the rising consciousness of the people.


Actually, it was not completely really a "progressive" women's movement. It was typically religious churches that pushed for prohibition, and because there were not adequate laws or enforcement of the laws that were there to protect women from male violence, some in the progressive women's community signed on.

Not because they were "against" alcohol the way the religious community was, but because it was the quickest way to keep women from getting hurt.

In other words, it was easier to get prohibition passed then it was to get tougher laws punishing men for violence against women.

Still I'm not sure what point you're making here. Sometimes the change that's implemented has unintended consequences. So what?

It still was the ONLY option left to women back then as far as reducing violence against women.



Gerslay said:


> All a person has to give is their time, talent, and treasure.


Well, at least you're expanding your original narrow statement.

Originally you said _all_ they have to give is their money. But clearly they AT LEAST also have time and talent to give.

So pretty much, you've reversed your original statement.

Giving of our time and talent and intelligence and hard work CAN change things.

But I will say this. If you feel frustrated because you feel like even though you've fought for anti-choice laws, you've failed. It's not because the "monied interests" have won. It's because the majority of people in this country ultimately do not agree with you and the monied interests that are mostly on the anti-choice side, have yet to buy enough elections.

We have legal abortion in this country because as a people we CHOOSE to have it.

Even people who pretend to be anti-choice, when it comes down to it... many of them will be driving (and have) THEIR OWN 15 year old daughter to get HER abortion. It's SOOO FREQUENTLY the preacher's daughter that is the most promiscuous and the most likely to abort the baby in secret to prevent the preacher's reputation from getting tarnished.



Gerslay said:


> These three things we give voluntarily by donating of our own free will to our families, churches, schools, communities, etc.


Typically not enough to effect the kind of help to make a serious difference.



Gerslay said:


> Its a very different story with the government. The government mandates what it will take from us and all we can do is comply;


The government IS us, and no, we only have to "comply" until we CHOOSE to do otherwise.

Rightist need to understand it's not the 18th century anymore and we're no longer ruled by a monarchy.

Again, I repeat, It's not because the "monied interests" have won. It's because the majority of people in this country ultimately do not agree with you and the monied interests that are mostly on the anti-choice side, have yet to buy enough elections.


Gerslay said:


> we do not give, we allow it to take.


No we give. We as a UNITED government choose what we will give.



Gerslay said:


> And what is the only thing that the government takes from any one person - from all of us? Money! (When the draft is enacted it also takes our young men.)


No, we voluntarily give the money by choosing to remain a citizen of our country and when things are not going as we like, we change those things when necessary.



Gerslay said:


> And so the only thing that we should consider when we enter the voting booth is what amount of money does the government want to take...and what does it claim it wants to spend it on...and do we agree or disagree. If you think your vote is about something other than your wallet, you've been blind sided. Smoke and mirrors!


I understand that Rightists are often incapable of thinking beyond money. But, it's more complex than that.

There's no doubt, especially for a selfish sect of citizenry that they see EVERYTHING through the lens of a dollar bill. But, we ARE more than that, and so are the principles of this country.



Gerslay said:


> There is no War on Women. Women are doing very well. Obama was wrong about the 77 cents that women earn compared to a man's $1. Job for job, skill set for skill set, hour for hour, the real pay differential for women is closer to 87 cents and rising.


Exactly the kind of hogwash that self-chauvinists tell themselves. That you can argue that women are doing "very well" because they're making 87¢ vs. 77¢ is EXACTLY what the warriors against women would WANT you to argue. Quibble over the 10 ¢ difference.



Gerslay said:


> The glass ceiling is breaking in all fields, including high political office.


Oh for goodness sake, only those with the lowest respect for women would consider 20% nearly "satisfactory".

This is another reason why women have such a hard time succeeding. Not only do they have to worry about a patriarchy, but they have to deal with other women with such a low bar for what women deserve that they make arguments like



Gerslay said:


> Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.


The mere fact that you think because Roe v. Wade exists is proof that there is no war on women is a perfect example of the illogical bassackwards thinking on the Right.

The mere fact that there HAS to be a law/ruling to protect women from a male dominated government dictating what she should be able to choose with her own body is proof that there IS a war on women.

If there wasn't a war on women, there wouldn't have been a need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling in order to PROTECT women from those who think they should be able to force her into gestation and childbirth.



Gerslay said:


> For example: Now we have the case for "after birth abortion." Princeton's ethicist, Peter Singer, claims that infants, while human, are not "self-aware" therefore they are not "persons". If they are not persons, then they have no independent moral status, no automatic right to life, and no claim to the protections of law. Therefore, the case is made for killing children after they are born if circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion... that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the cases where abortion would be.Surely, ladies of the left, you do not support this atrocity...this choice...this war on our children.


I would not support the atrocity of "convenience" late term/after-birth abortions IF it existed. But it doesn't.

Another ridiculous argument. When the Right can prove there's a trend of (or maybe been ANY) late term abortion performed out of mere "convenience" instead of for the health of the mother.

This is an invented bull-crap topic that doesn't even really exist.

I'm not going to debate with you some sort of "phantom" issue of "drive-thru late term abortions" when it doesn't really exist.



Gerslay said:


> I'll be unwatching this thread.


Promise? Because no honest argument can be had with someone who profligates the lie of after birth/late term abortions that don't really happen as if women have this sort of procedure done for willy-nilly reasons.

Peter Singer is only a philosopher, philosophers frequently come out with new outrageous ways to think about things.

There have been many philosophers who have claimed that there's nothing wrong with murder, or rape or any number of things.

To argue as if Peter Singer's thoughts are somehow at risk at becoming mainstream thinking is so beyond paranoiac is sick.

Late term abortions only happen on the rarest of occasions, and ONLY to protect the health of the mother or for other VERY VERY serious suffering of the eventually born child, or an abortion that went VERY badly.

I understand that sometimes philosophers and even some scientist raise extreme issues and possibilities and that those things need to be discussed and considered... but to argue them as if it's anything more than an academic discussion of extreme situations is simply hyperbolic ignorance.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Law??


Yes!!! I have had 2 cousins that had to buy a grave plot and coffin for their 5 month old boys. I don't lie.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Yes!!! I have had 2 cousins that had to buy a grave plot and coffin for their 5 month old boys. I don't lie.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Hey Janet,
> 
> You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publically.
> 
> ...


I don't think she was nasty. I think she stated something that she suspected. And I suspect she did it publicly because she has nothing to hide.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Yes!!! I have had 2 cousins that had to buy a grave plot and coffin for their 5 month old boys. I don't lie.


Actually you're correct--a stillbirth (defined as 20+ weeks and/or 400 grams) has to receive either a burial or a cremation. But I don't know what that has to do with anything--late-term abortions are very rare and only performed if something has gone seriously wrong with the pregnancy.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Yes.


Baloney! You've given me grief when I objected to something you said to someone else, as if I shouldn't have read your publicly posted message. I could do what you do and call that typical Conservative waffling, but I won't. I'll give you the respect of thinking of it as your own personal waffling.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Eve, your picture caption was wonderful.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Promise? Because no honest argument can be had with someone who profligates the lie of after birth/late term abortions that don't really happen as if women have this sort of procedure done for willy-nilly reasons.
> 
> Peter Singer is only a philosopher, philosophers frequently come out with new outrageous ways to think about things.
> 
> ...


Lisa, what a well-reasoned, beautifully argued piece this is. And thanks for showing us the front of your head - much prettier than the back.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> It's the old double standard, GG. She can do as she pleases, but no one else is allowed to.


Huh? When have I even attempted to stop you from telling your typical Conservative lies? Or anyone? GG didn't bother to read the whole message, and neither did you. So you continue to lie about what I said. That's also a typical Conservative tactic.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Lisa, what a well-reasoned, beautifully argued piece this is. And thanks for showing us the front of your head - much prettier than the back.


Thank you. Although, if I do say so myself, the back of my head ain't too bad for what it is! LOL!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> I shall use inflammatory language if I so desire.
> 
> I shall appeal to both emotion and intellect at all times.
> 
> ...


to whom you want.

Keep doing what you are doing.  Luckily we don't have to listen.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Huh? When have I even attempted to stop you from telling your typical Conservative lies? Or anyone? GG didn't bother to read the whole message, and neither did you. So you continue to lie about what I said. That's also a typical Conservative tactic.


Especially ironic given the topic of this discussion.

Seriously, the only group here who advocates laws that force women, against their will, into gestation and childbirth, are the anti-choicers.

I haven't see you try to prevent anyone here from doing or saying anything. So, it's just some more imagined affronts by which some can claim martyrdom I guess. You're right, typical Conservative tactic


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Yes!!! I have had 2 cousins that had to buy a grave plot and coffin for their 5 month old boys. I don't lie.


Perhaps they chose to bury the 5 months old boys. I can not find a law. Perhaps in the state where they live???


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Perhaps they chose to bury the 5 months old boys. I can not find a law. Perhaps in the state where they live???


Right, it is a state reg thing. I found several listings of hospitals being responsible for incineration or internment. 
The figures that Susanmos2000 gave of 20 weeks and a given weight (350-500) were on target. 
I found no requirement of parents purchasing a plot. Though, I cannot imagine cremating such a tiny fetus. 
BTW, still births were consistently referred to as a fetus.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Especially ironic given the topic of this discussion.
> 
> Seriously, the only group here who advocates laws that force women, against their will, into gestation and childbirth, are the anti-choicers.
> 
> I haven't see you try to prevent anyone here from doing or saying anything. So, it's just some more imagined affronts by which some can claim martyrdom I guess. You're right, typical Conservative tactic


In truth, the person I sent this message to has stated that she's taken two friends to get abortions. I don't think she's strongly anti-choice. What she is is anti-Obama and anti-Liberals, but that's enough for her to treat me as an enemy.

The martyrdom always makes me laugh. Like the war on Christmas - if the majority can't have absolutely everything it wants, it's a victim. Unlike minorities, which rarely get anything they want.

I have no doubt that the back of your head is pretty, but it's kind of rude to keep your back turned to the audience while you're preaching at them and insulting them. You know how to show respect.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Perhaps they chose to bury the 5 months old boys. I can not find a law. Perhaps in the state where they live???


Do you remember the story about Rick Santorum? I don't know whether it's true, but supposedly when his wife had a still-born baby, they brought the body home with them so their other children could meet their (dead) little sibling. Maybe I should go to Snopes.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Did I accuse you of lying? Country Bumpkins


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you remember the story about Rick Santorum? I don't know whether it's true, but supposedly when his wife had a still-born baby, they brought the body home with them so their other children could meet their (dead) little sibling. Maybe I should go to Snopes.


I believe I read that also.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you remember the story about Rick Santorum? I don't know whether it's true, but supposedly when his wife had a still-born baby, they brought the body home with them so their other children could meet their (dead) little sibling. Maybe I should go to Snopes.


I went to Snopes. It was worse than I thought. Ms. Santorum miscarried a 20-week fetus, which the parents brought home for the other children to meet. The parents also had the death certificate changed to read "20 week old baby" instead of "20 week old fetus," thereby falsifying a public document.

It doesn't sound as though the mother was given any time to mourn. Such a sad thing to happen, and the senator turns it into a PR event and a lie.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you remember the story about Rick Santorum? I don't know whether it's true, but supposedly when his wife had a still-born baby, they brought the body home with them so their other children could meet their (dead) little sibling. Maybe I should go to Snopes.


Apparently it's true--Ask.com had this to say:

"In 1996, the Santorums' son Gabriel was born prematurely after 20 weeks of pregnancy and died in the hospital two hours later. Karen wrote that she and Rick slept with the dead infant between them in the hospital that night, then brought him home the following day and introduced him to their other children as "your brother Gabriel". Fifteen years later, their handling of their infant son's death attracted scrutiny in January 2012 following Santorum's success in the Iowa caucuses. One psychologist interviewed by ABC News said what the Santorums did was encouraged at the time, although no longer recommended; another told the media outlet: "It's not far out of the norm at all ... There is nothing pathological about it or particularly alarming."

Myself, I think it's a bit strange. Nothing unusual about wanting to spend a little time with one's stillborn child--but to sleep with it all night and then take it home the next day? I'm trying to be respectful toward the Santorum's very real anguish, but I can't help wondering if they had a preemie car seat on hand for the occasion.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Eve, your picture caption was wonderful.


I sent a PM to Peacegoddess with an apology, explaining that I did not intend to insult her. I had not realised that I had insulted Peacegoddess until KPG pointed it out to me.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I went to Snopes. It was worse than I thought. Ms. Santorum miscarried a 20-week fetus, which the parents brought home for the other children to meet. The parents also had the death certificate changed to read "20 week old baby" instead of "20 week old fetus," thereby falsifying a public document.


Actually, the more I think about this the more it smacks of hypocrisy. Mr. and Mrs. Santorum wanted to make the point and no doubt felt that the stillborn was every bit a member of the family as their other children. OK, that's their right--but would anyone really treat an older child or adult who had passed away like that? Who in their right mind would buckle a deceased eight-year old into the back seat and drive them around in the car? Who would carry, jounce, and cuddle the body of parent the day after he or she had passed? It seems very disrespectful to me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, the more I think about this the more it smacks of hypocrisy. Mr. and Mrs. Santorum wanted to make the point and no doubt felt that the stillborn was every bit a member of the family as their other children. OK, that's their right--but would anyone really treat an older child or adult who had passed away like that? Who in their right mind would buckle a deceased eight-year old into the back seat and drive them around in the car? Who would carry, jounce, and cuddle the body of parent the day after he or she had passed? It seems very disrespectful to me.


That was how I saw it. Here is something sad and terrible that happened, and you're right - what they did was disrespectful.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> OK Gerri, I'm gonna give you a little advice, don't make threats like that when they can so easily come back to bite you in the butt. You're not the only nice person.quote]
> 
> I have to say that you've misunderstood me again. I was very sincere in my advice to Janet...it contained no threat. It was only after I made that post that I was informed of Janet's back story in regard to her use of her real name. And I completely understood then why she reacted to me the way she did. As she had already rejected my first apology I didn't make any further attempts with her feeling that it wouldn't be accepted either and it would be better for all concerned if I just let the subject die down.
> 
> So I'm not sure what your point is. There is no possibility of mistaking your post and that it is a real threat. What kind of evil are you?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

double post...sorry!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > OK Gerri, I'm gonna give you a little advice, don't make threats like that when they can so easily come back to bite you in the butt. You're not the only nice person.quote]
> ...


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It is no more a threat than your statement.
> We all know, or should, that we are vulnerable at any time even if we think we are being careful.
> Those who think they are protecting themselves by altering their name or not listing their information create a situation where it takes 10 minutes rather than 5 for someone who wants to do what you suggested would be done.
> There is absolutely no reason to feel threatened, just as there was no reason for you to attempt to intimidate.


I'm truly sorry you feel that way...I admit that my previous comments about my place at the lake were sarcastic in tone but I was really just trying to be funny in order to make light of the situation. My 'advice' post was sincere. I'm sorry for what you may have gone through previously...had I known I would have never made that comment to you.

Again, believe it or not...I was genuine, sincere, and without threat.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I'm truly sorry you feel that way...I admit that my previous comments about my place at the lake were sarcastic in tone but I was really just trying to be funny in order to make light of the situation. My 'advice' post was sincere. I'm sorry for what you may have gone through previously...had I known I would have never made that comment to you.
> 
> Again, believe it or not...I was genuine, sincere, and without threat.


You almost sold me, then I went and looked at a few of your posts. 
You seem to honestly believe that you are a nice person. 
Why not take a few minutes and review some of that sincere sarcasm of yours? 
We all take advantage of the anonymity that we share on the internet and say things that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. At least admit it to yourself if to nobody else.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Yes, I've been sarcastic and "punny" because I like playing with words ... maybe I took it a little too far sometime but when I did I was quick to apologize and/or retract my remarks. What you will not see in any of my posts are derogatory comments made to you or about you...or your friends. 

The vitriol on this thread is almost hard to believe...but it didnt come from me.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Yes, I've been sarcastic and "punny" because I like playing with words ... maybe I took it a little too far sometime but when I did I was quick to apologize and/or retract my remarks. What you will not see in any of my posts are derogatory comments made to you or about you...or your friends.
> 
> The vitriol on this thread is almost hard to believe...but it didnt come from me.


What you say is true. You can almost visualize their faces scrunched faces full of rage when someone disagrees with them.

But then again, this is a group that supports Obamacare, that is going to increase the debt and the loss of over 2.3 million more jobs. But I guess in the Obamacultist world that is okay.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, the more I think about this the more it smacks of hypocrisy. Mr. and Mrs. Santorum wanted to make the point and no doubt felt that the stillborn was every bit a member of the family as their other children. OK, that's their right--but would anyone really treat an older child or adult who had passed away like that? Who in their right mind would buckle a deceased eight-year old into the back seat and drive them around in the car? Who would carry, jounce, and cuddle the body of parent the day after he or she had passed? It seems very disrespectful to me.


I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body. You mention on another site your bother is dieing, will you not attend his furneral? or mourn for him and your lost? Will you not look at his body and remember him and cry. That is called mourning, we all do it. We try to hold on to that which we have lost. It is very hard to let go of some one who was so percious to us.
Unless you walk in their shoes you should not, nor do you have the right to judge these people or any one who has lost a love one like the lost the Santorum's felt. You have been bless to have your child to be born and health.
In the days gone by and still today the love one who has died body is kept in the home for servral days, before burial.

Your last pragraph is so off the wall and just horrible I can not believe you even posted that. Where you there do you actual think that that baby was toss around and in a car seat. If you do which I don't. You said it to draw attention to your words. I do not want to believe you posted them for anything else as to feel the need to be smart and nasty. 
You were wrong in posting that and you and I both know it.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

My feelings are very similar to yours, Susan. Notwithstanding the emotional agony with each stillborn child, I could never ever take the route of grief that the Santorums chose. I believe it would have only added to my personal grief, and would not have benefitted my other children at all. Just saying.



susanmos2000 said:


> Apparently it's true--Ask.com had this to say:
> 
> "In 1996, the Santorums' son Gabriel was born prematurely after 20 weeks of pregnancy and died in the hospital two hours later. Karen wrote that she and Rick slept with the dead infant between them in the hospital that night, then brought him home the following day and introduced him to their other children as "your brother Gabriel". Fifteen years later, their handling of their infant son's death attracted scrutiny in January 2012 following Santorum's success in the Iowa caucuses. One psychologist interviewed by ABC News said what the Santorums did was encouraged at the time, although no longer recommended; another told the media outlet: "It's not far out of the norm at all ... There is nothing pathological about it or particularly alarming."
> 
> Myself, I think it's a bit strange. Nothing unusual about wanting to spend a little time with one's stillborn child--but to sleep with it all night and then take it home the next day? I'm trying to be respectful toward the Santorum's very real anguish, but I can't help wondering if they had a preemie car seat on hand for the occasion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What you say is true. You can almost visualize their faces scrunched faces full of rage when someone disagrees with them.
> 
> But then again, this is a group that supports Obamacare, that is going to increase the debt and the loss of over 2.3 million more jobs. But I guess in the Obamacultist world that is okay.


Okay, I used to take what you say seriously. More fool I. You're nuts.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

You truly and absolutely grant no quarter and continually insist on going for the jugular. 
Well, at least I can tell what evil you are.



Janet Cooke said:


> You almost sold me, then I went and looked at a few of your posts.
> You seem to honestly believe that you are a nice person.
> Why not take a few minutes and review some of that sincere sarcasm of yours?
> We all take advantage of the anonymity that we share on the internet and say things that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. At least admit it to yourself if to nobody else.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
> But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body. You mention on another site your bother is dieing, will you not attend his furneral? or mourn for him and your lost? Will you not look at his body and remember him and cry. That is called mourning, we all do it. We try to hold on to that which we have lost. It is very hard to let go of some one who was so percious to us.
> Unless you walk in their shoes you should not, nor do you have the right to judge these people or any one who has lost a love one like the lost the Santorum's felt. You have been bless to have your child to be born and health.
> In the days gone by and still today the love one who has died body is kept in the home for servral days, before burial.
> ...


Susanmos2000's post was the most disgusting I've ever read on this site.

Who is she to judge or dictate how anyone mourns the death of a loved one?

I'm so grateful she'll never have the courage to be a military member, a policeman, a fireman, an EMT, a pallbearer, a priest, a pastor, a rabbi, a doctor, a mortician, a Nokanshi, etc., to be in the position to not only touch, prepare, search for and carry a dead body, sometimes for hours or days, but also to serve, save, or care for another to HONOR the deceased. Hell, she isn't even human as evidenced by her words.

Her words were despicable. She stated the Santorum family was disrespectful for how they mourned THEIR child?

Susanmos2000 doesn't know the meaning of the word "respect." She is dead to me.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Love The Lake, you speak Truth.



lovethelake said:


> What you say is true. You can almost visualize their faces scrunched faces full of rage when someone disagrees with them.
> 
> But then again, this is a group that supports Obamacare, that is going to increase the debt and the loss of over 2.3 million more jobs. But I guess in the Obamacultist world that is okay.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

That's right, Susan. "Who in their right mind. . .?" indeed.
Only those in their right mind with a social agenda, despite their grieving.
In my view, it adds up to hypocrisy perpetrated by grieving parents who really were "in their right mind" so as to pull it off so well in the public arena.



susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, the more I think about this the more it smacks of hypocrisy. Mr. and Mrs. Santorum wanted to make the point and no doubt felt that the stillborn was every bit a member of the family as their other children. OK, that's their right--but would anyone really treat an older child or adult who had passed away like that? Who in their right mind would buckle a deceased eight-year old into the back seat and drive them around in the car? Who would carry, jounce, and cuddle the body of parent the day after he or she had passed? It seems very disrespectful to me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Your last pragraph is so off the wall and just horrible I can not believe you even posted that. Where you there do you actual think that that baby was toss around and in a car seat. If you do which I don't. You said it to draw attention to your words. I do not want to believe you posted them for anything else as to feel the need to be smart and nasty.
> You were wrong in posting that and you and I both know it.


You are correct, Yarnie, Susan made up things she "thought" the Santorums may have done for her selfish purpose to incite others; she doesn't know what actually was done nor does it matter.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

YarnLady, I truly understand your feelings for I have lost a few children and other loved ones as well, while still in my own childhood. God Bless You for having a tender, yet strong and brave heart. I also empathize for Susan's feelings, and hope that syntax will not stand in the way of our mutual understanding that it is so very difficult to endure the loss of loved ones. 
*I believe we can all at least agree on that much, don't you?*



theyarnlady said:


> I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
> But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body. You mention on another site your bother is dieing, will you not attend his furneral? or mourn for him and your lost? Will you not look at his body and remember him and cry. That is called mourning, we all do it. We try to hold on to that which we have lost. It is very hard to let go of some one who was so percious to us.
> Unless you walk in their shoes you should not, nor do you have the right to judge these people or any one who has lost a love one like the lost the Santorum's felt. You have been bless to have your child to be born and health.
> In the days gone by and still today the love one who has died body is kept in the home for servral days, before burial.
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Republicans are using nasty tricks to scam people out of their money. This website makes you think you are donating money to elect this lady to congress, but in the fine print it says money is being used to defeat Kyrsten and candidates like her. The ads were placed by the Republican congressional campaign committee.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
> But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body. You mention on another site your bother is dieing, will you not attend his furneral? or mourn for him and your lost? Will you not look at his body and remember him and cry. That is called mourning, we all do it. We try to hold on to that which we have lost. It is very hard to let go of some one who was so percious to us.
> Unless you walk in their shoes you should not, nor do you have the right to judge these people or any one who has lost a love one like the lost the Santorum's felt. You have been bless to have your child to be born and health.
> In the days gone by and still today the love one who has died body is kept in the home for servral days, before burial.
> ...


Sorry I offended you or anyone else, Yarnie--that was definitely not my intent. The death of a loved one is a difficult subject to discuss, and I'm struggling to convey my feelings and my disapproval of the way the Mr. and Mrs. Santorum handled this without coming across as flip, rude, or sarcastic (and obviously not succeeding very well).

There's no question that the Santorums were wracked with grieve over their loss, and they have my and certainly everyone else's full sympathy. But I simply don't believe they gave their stillborn son's body the respect it deserved.

A deceased loved one should be treated with the utmost care--his or her earthly shell isn't a parcel to be passed around, handled excessively, fondled, or carried around like a doll.. Certainly the couple needed to mark their stillborn son's passing and to acknowledge their very real grief, but why wouldn't a formal viewing and a funeral Mass have been sufficient for that? I truly don't believe the Santorums would have acted this way had one of their older children (God forbid) passed away. Why should their tiny son have been treated any differently?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > OK Gerri, I'm gonna give you a little advice, don't make threats like that when they can so easily come back to bite you in the butt. You're not the only nice person.quote]
> ...


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry I offended you or anyone else, Yarnie--that was definitely not my intent. The death of a loved one is a difficult subject to discuss, and I'm struggling to convey my feelings and my disapproval of the way the Mr. and Mrs. Santorum handled this without coming across as flip, rude, or sarcastic (and obviously not succeeding very well).
> 
> There's no question that the Santorums were wracked with grieve over their loss, and they have my and certainly everyone else's full sympathy. But I simply don't believe they gave their stillborn son's body the respect it deserved.
> 
> A deceased loved one should be treated with the utmost care--his or her earthly shell isn't a parcel to be passed around, handled excessively, fondled, or carried around like a doll.. Certainly the couple needed to mark their stillborn son's passing and to acknowledge their very real grief, but why wouldn't a formal viewing and a funeral Mass have been sufficient for that? I truly don't believe the Santorums would have acted this way had one of their older children (God forbid) passed away. Why should their tiny son have been treated any differently?


You need to drop this subject. It is of no use in this topic.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

For years the left-wing has been saying that Fox News viewers are uneducated or misinformed, but now a study has come out that might confirm those suspicions.

According to a new survey of Fox News viewers by Reuters, this is what Fox News viewers believe:



67% Believe Barack Obamas name sounds suspicious.

45% Believe that homosexuals are polygamists

2% Believe that science is more important than faith

90% Believe that all of the Founding Fathers were born in the United States of America, even though it had not yet been created when the Founding Fathers were born.

56% Believe Sarah Palin went to an Ivy League Law school.

99% of Fox News viewers who were Medicare recipients said they opposed socialized medicine.

94% Believe Reagan lowered the National Debt.

15% Believe that George Washington defeated the King of England in a duel for America.

88% Believe that Bill Clinton failed as a President, because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

75% Believe that people on welfare are lazy.

24% Believe Santa Claus is real.

36% Believe the Bill of Rights is legislation introduced by the Republican Party to stop Barack Obamas socialist agenda.

99% Believe that communism, socialism, fascism and tyranny are all the same.

70% Believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya

38% Believe Barack Obama was born in Indonesia

85% Dont think Hawaii was even a state when Barack Obama was born

76% Believe Sarah Palin has an Alaskan accent.

92% Believe that Bill Clinton left Barack Obama with a surplus, which he spent.

96% Believe the economy was doing great when Barack Obama took office.

84% Believe the Tea Party is a grassroots movement without any corporate sponsorship.

94% Believe the Constitution mentions Jesus Christ as Americas savior.

23% Believe FEMA is building concentration camps.

63% Believe Glenn Beck is a healthy weight

37% Believe Nancy Pelosi is a witch, and that she can cast spells.

25% Believe Hillary Clintons resignation was good for the economy.

74% Believe that unemployment is higher now than it was during the Great Depression.

92% Couldnt find Iraq on a map.

9% Believe that homosexuals are trying to take over America with glitter.

93% Couldnt name the 7 continents.

12% Believe John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father.

99% Believe that the Government doesnt create jobs, but 95% of those surveyed credit Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) with creating 1 million jobs as Governor of Texas.

While some of these might seem comical, the most shocking result from the study was this:

100% of Fox News viewers said they wouldnt care if the entire country fell apart as long as Barack Obama doesnt get anything he wants.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

KPG, the ferocity of your feelings is justified and understood, at least by me and I hope by others.

So how, all of you may wonder, is it possible for this ol' hillbilly hen to empathize with so many of you who hold such (seemingly) opposing viewpoints? My answer is simple and without ambiguity: I care about each of you, first and foremost; and I've been there as to grief.

*Each and every one of you have valid points worthy of sincere consideration.*



knitpresentgifts said:


> Susanmos2000's post was the most disgusting thing I've ever read on this site.
> 
> Who is she to judge or dictate how anyone mourns the death of a loved one?
> 
> ...


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Yes I had the wrong date. But there was a rise in unemployment after the minimum wage was established. I searched and found a chart on http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm; but when I started working in the 1960's at minimum wage jobs, my wages were lower than what was in the chart. This minimum wage was just for certain jobs.
> 
> There is still not a minimum "living wage." What it costs someone to live in New York City is totally different than it is in central Arkansas.


The Dept. of Labor chart you cite gives no labor statistics. It does show the figures after the '61 and '66 amendments. That is the Federal figures--the states often have their own minimum wage laws. While here in California we adhere to federal levels, in many states they are lower. And the fact is that minimum wage is not worth as much today as it was back in the day. In 1971, I earned the $1.60/hr of the time. Even working only part-time it was more than enough for me to pay all my tuition and book costs at university, including UCLA. Today that would certainly not be possible, because minimum wage is worth so much less. If I'd been working full-time I could have paid for an apartment but fortunately I was allowed to live at home as long as I was going to school full-time.

The Dept. of Labor does also give employment information that shows that minimum wage increases do not affect job numbers: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/pay.htm

Other sites that support this: 
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/press/20120209_illinois.html


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

When congressman Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma was meeting with constituents one of them said that President Obama should be executed as an enemy combatant, and she also called him a moron. Another lady complained about congress doing nothing and the only thing we could do was change the senate and then impeach the S.O.B. Mr. Bridenstine said nothing against those statements and everyone laughed.

Wonderful Christians, aren't they? Sounds like our fellow KP posters talking, doesn't it?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Susanmos2000's post was the most disgusting I've ever read on this site.
> 
> Who is she to judge or dictate how anyone mourns the death of a loved one?
> 
> ...


Well, every cloud has a silver lining...perhaps you'll speak of me with a bit more respect now that you've classified me as one of the unliving? :wink:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> KPG, the ferocity of your feelings is justified and understood, at least by me and I hope by others.
> 
> So how, all of you may wonder, is it possible for this ol' hillbilly hen to empathize with so many of you who hold such (seemingly) opposing viewpoints? My answer is simple and without ambiguity: I care about each of you, first and foremost; and I've been there as to grief.
> 
> *Each and every one of you have valid points worthy of sincere consideration.*


Thanks, GrannyGoode. I appreciated the opportunity to express my views on this--easily one of the most difficult subjects ever discussed on the thread.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

NJG said:


> When congressman Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma was meeting with constituents one of them said that President Obama should be executed as an enemy combatant, and she also called him a moron. Another lady complained about congress doing nothing and the only thing we could do was change the senate and then impeach the S.O.B. Mr. Bridenstine said nothing against those statements and everyone laughed.
> 
> Wonderful Christians, aren't they? Sounds like our fellow KP posters talking, doesn't it?


Freedom of speech, that's what they keep telling me. They are allowed to say anything and everything, even if is disrespectful and untrue.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Freedom of speech, that's what they keep telling me.


Yes they can claim that if they want, but it is very unchristian to show so little respect for another person, let alone the President. I think A person in congress should be christian enough to call these people out on talk like that. McCain is the only one I ever heard say anything.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> For years the left-wing has been saying that Fox News viewers are uneducated or misinformed, but now a study has come out that might confirm those suspicions.
> 
> According to a new survey of Fox News viewers by Reuters, this is what Fox News viewers believe:
> 
> ...


 BIG YAWN!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, every cloud has a silver lining...perhaps you'll speak of me with a bit more respect now that you've classified me as one of the unliving? :wink:


That'll teach you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> BIG YAWN!


You knew this already. No wonder you're bored.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> In truth, the person I sent this message to has stated that she's taken two friends to get abortions. I don't think she's strongly anti-choice. What she is is anti-Obama and anti-Liberals, but that's enough for her to treat me as an enemy.
> 
> The martyrdom always makes me laugh. Like the war on Christmas - if the majority can't have absolutely everything it wants, it's a victim. Unlike minorities, which rarely get anything they want.
> 
> I have no doubt that the back of your head is pretty, but it's kind of rude to keep your back turned to the audience while you're preaching at them and insulting them. You know how to show respect.


Playing the victim I see. It would mean more if you would get the story straight from the beginning as it had nothing to do with your paranoia.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Playing the victim I see. It would mean more if you would get the story straight from the beginning as it had nothing to do with your paranoia.


What???
Victim? Paranoia? All that message was about was showing that you weren't one of the unthinking, automatic anti-choice people but have at times acted on your own. Sorry if that offended you. I'll try not to do it again.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

You know the insidiousness of lies is that they gain so much currency among those who wish to believe them true rather than wish to NOW the actual truth, and it's very hard to get the truth out there.

Like the story that a Dr. Laura (remember her?) told about gossip: To do penance for having gossiped about someone (and no gossip is benign or friendly!), the gossip was told to take a pillow up to the top of a mountain, rip it open and release all the feathers to the winds, then return for instructions for Part 2.

When the gossip had done that and returned for the next piece of the penance, she was told to now go gather up all those feathers. A look of horror crossed her face at the absolute impossibility of doing that, and she was told: "THAT is how difficult it is to undo the damage of gossip."

The lies that are told about Obama and his wife are bad (and morally wrong) enough, but the corrosive effect they have on our nation to have the electorate encouraged to believe all these lies, and to pass them on to others, does untold damage which hurts ALL of us -- including Republican voters like yourselves. You may not see that in the short term, but ANY time you are told a lie that you believe about anyone is not just a betrayal of your trust, but an affront to you and your integrity.

The people who are responsible know very well what they are doing: they THRIVE on your distrust of government and hatred of the people in the other political party; they THRIVE on the divisiveness which keeps you distracted and unable to notice their wrongdoing. The bottom line is that you trade what's in the best interests of your nation (and your own!) -- and you do it all too willingly -- for a fleeting and ephemeral opportunity to feel superior to someone holding high office, and to laugh at him and others in his party.

Don't remember where I got this, but it is so true.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> You know the insidiousness of lies is that they gain so much currency among those who wish to believe them true rather than wish to NOW the actual truth, and it's very hard to get the truth out there.
> 
> Like the story that a Dr. Laura (remember her?) told about gossip: To do penance for having gossiped about someone (and no gossip is benign or friendly!), the gossip was told to take a pillow up to the top of a mountain, rip it open and release all the feathers to the winds, then return for instructions for Part 2.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Okay, I used to take what you say seriously. More fool I. You're nuts.


Neither, she


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> BIG YAWN!


Ya, yawn if you want, but it shows that a lot of republicans aren't too smart, and the last thing listed tells me the most about the republican party. I would say that is not something to be proud of. True Americans do not want their country to fall apart.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> EveMCooke;
> 
> Well you managed to insult PeaceGoddess with your posted image that I presume, you tried to make relevant to the discussion at hand, it isn't.
> 
> Don't worry, though, PeaceGod is a Pacifist and won't come after you in retaliation.


What image was supposedly insulting to me?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> That'll teach you.


Believe me, I'm crushed.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

An interesting piece. I'll post the beginning; it's pretty long:

*Religious Groups Take A Stand For Reproductive Rights: Its Time To Change The Conversation
BY TARA CULP-RESSLER* ON JANUARY 29, 2014 AT 9:10 AM

On Wednesday, several religious leaders are launching a new campaign to reorient the conversation around religion and sexuality. Specifically, the coalition of faith groups is interested in speaking up in favor of abortion rights, contraception access, and comprehensive sex ed. Theyre encouraging their fellow religious Americans to join them.
At a press conference on Wednesday morning, representatives from several faith traditions will join with advocates from secular reproductive justice groups to kick off Its Time To Talk, an effort to model a new way forward on these issues.
A religious call for reproductive rights may seem like a contradiction. Many Americans assume that these issues are always in conflict with faith, particularly when it comes to Christianity. But Rev. Harry Knox, the president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), doesnt think thats true.
Part of the conversation is not getting out there in this country, Knox explained in an interview with ThinkProgress. For too long, the extreme Religious Right has dominated the public conversation about religion and sexuality. But the truth is that most people of faith, like the majority of Americans overall, support access to contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, and reproductive health care  including abortion.
Indeed, the majority of religious groups dont actually support overturning Roe v. Wade. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, many religious Americans are able to separate their own beliefs from other womens bodily autonomy  so even though theyre personally opposed to abortion, they dont want to make the medical procedure unavailable. Some faith traditions officially recognize a womans right to choose. And some churches even teach sex ed on Sunday mornings.

See the whole piece at http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/29/3217771/religious-groups-reproductive-rights/


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

advocate said:


> You people need to stay out of our Doctor's offices, out of our bedrooms and out of our politics.
> Bye Pattie


Exactly. I agree.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Here is something worth listening to, especially for anyone who was outraged by the coke commercial during the super bowl. I even heard of people complaining how terrible it was to let our national anthem be sung in a foreign language. America the beautiful isn't our national anthem. Maybe those idiots need to go back to school.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1274959/-A-beautiful-classy-succinct-and-a-totally-brutal-takedown?detail=email


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Neither, she


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Here is something worth listening to, especially for anyone who was outraged by the coke commercial during the super bowl. I even heard of people complaining how terrible it was to let our national anthem be sung in a foreign language. America the beautiful isn't our national anthem. Maybe those idiots need to go back to school.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1274959/-A-beautiful-classy-succinct-and-a-totally-brutal-takedown?detail=email


It would certainly be good if they would go somewhere.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> OK Gerri, I'm gonna give you a little advice, don't make threats like that when they can so easily come back to bite you in the butt. You're not the only nice person.quote]
> 
> I have to say that you've misunderstood me again. ...


I misunderstood nothing. What you did was a not so well veiled threat and you're not fooling anyone.

You publicly made an "announcement" to the whole board that she might be using her real name as a user name and therefore, she better be nice to you _OR ELSE_.

I merely showed you that you were actually doltish enough to think that you were somehow anonymous compared to her.

Unlike YOU, I provided no information to anyone here about your identity. YOU purposely informed the board that she's using her real name in hopes that someone "not as nice as you" may do something to Janet. A threat that was meant to entice OTHERS here to use the information, with the pretense that you're above such things.

That was particularly sleazy and uncalled for.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Well at least one republican is trying to understand how this country works. He said it, but does he really care about any of it. Not sure about that.

Quote from Eric Cantor

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Cantor's presentation was that it included a recognition that in the past Republicans have focused more on the nation's employers than employees, have talked about small business owners and entrepreneurs to the exclusion of the far greater number of Americans who don't own their own businesses.

"Ninety percent of Americans work for someone else," Cantor said, according to a source in the room. "Most of them not only will never own their own business, for most of them that isn't their dream. Their dream is to have a good job, with an income that will allow them to support their family."


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The vitriol on this thread is almost hard to believe...but it didnt come from me.


No one here stooped to the level of threats the way you did. No one here "announced" to the board that a member could be "gotten to" if they don't stop criticizing you.

*That was ALLLL 100% you.*

You have a habit of saying/doing nasty things, claiming that you're "clueless" about how rotten you were being or that you're constantly being "misunderstood" and that it was unintentional, "Apologizing" and then throwing more crap right out again.

Again, you're not fooling anyone here. Not buying it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

theyarnlady said:


> I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
> But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body.


That's not what they did, and pretending it's the same thing and not REAAAALLY creepy and failing to acknowledge how psychologically abusive that was to the other children indicates to me some serious issues with understanding the difference between normal behavior and what is pathologically sick.

And your presumption that she or anyone else hasn't experienced the pain of losing a loved one is a tenuous presumption at best.

What I know is, if I had ever crossed the line into creepy behavior the way they did, I would hope MY friends and family would care about me enough to be concerned and help me get medical help because it would be desperately needed.

Instead what we have is a creepy senator trying to put his own creepy pathology upon the rest of the nation.

And that not even getting into his homophobia that really does cross the line into a true psychological disorder. It's so bad, I think it could be a classic case of self-loathing latent homosexuality.

I seriously worry about how people can't see what a psychologically messed up dude this guy is that people actually thought or think he should be a presidential contender.

This doesn't even get into the likelihood that Santorum's father, a psychologist, (_and likely his mother who was a nurse_) was likely a part of MKUltra, a CIA operation that used military members to conduct psychological experiments on them and caused many deaths because of the the uncontrolled nature of the experiments.

Both parents worked at the Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital in Butler and the family lived on the VA hospital post. His father became licensed as a clinical psychologist in August 1974.

The hospital was confirmed as a CIA mind control center (MK ULTRA) which also conducted experiments on CHILDREN.

This is one SICKO family.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your first inclination was right. Don't comment.



theyarnlady said:


> I was not going to comment on this site. My thoughts are it does no good to even comment as the people who do not understand my veiw would just end up calling me names and telling me how wrong I am.
> But Susan you have step over the line as to understanding what happens to people who lose a love one. Do you not remember going to a home or funeral home and veiwing a body. You mention on another site your bother is dieing, will you not attend his furneral? or mourn for him and your lost? Will you not look at his body and remember him and cry. That is called mourning, we all do it. We try to hold on to that which we have lost. It is very hard to let go of some one who was so percious to us.
> Unless you walk in their shoes you should not, nor do you have the right to judge these people or any one who has lost a love one like the lost the Santorum's felt. You have been bless to have your child to be born and health.
> In the days gone by and still today the love one who has died body is kept in the home for servral days, before burial.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My sympathy lies with the children who retain the image of their dead sibling.



GrannyGoode said:


> My feelings are very similar to yours, Susan. Notwithstanding the emotional agony with each stillborn child, I could never ever take the route of grief that the Santorums chose. I believe it would have only added to my personal grief, and would not have benefitted my other children at all. Just saying.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're right.



Poor Purl said:


> Okay, I used to take what you say seriously. More fool I. You're nuts.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't agree. I see Janet's comments as frank answers to crazy posts. Just difference of opinions.



GrannyGoode said:


> You truly and absolutely grant no quarter and continually insist on going for the jugular.
> Well, at least I can tell what evil you are.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I find it impossible to find one most despicable comment here.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Now this is one of the funniest posts I've seen.



GrannyGoode said:


> Love The Lake, you speak Truth.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

How the Santorums grieve is their business. I do question the effect of bringing siblings into the process.



knitpresentgifts said:


> You are correct, Yarnie, Susan made up things she "thought" the Santorums may have done for her selfish purpose to incite others; she doesn't know what actually was done nor does it matter.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Kysten Sinema and Ann Kirkpatrick are both targets of similar ads in Arizona. Big money must be behind it. Many, many repeated ads.



NJG said:


> Republicans are using nasty tricks to scam people out of their money. This website makes you think you are donating money to elect this lady to congress, but in the fine print it says money is being used to defeat Kyrsten and candidates like her. The ads were placed by the Republican congressional campaign committee.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

OMG It's worse than I feared.



NJG said:


> For years the left-wing has been saying that Fox News viewers are uneducated or misinformed, but now a study has come out that might confirm those suspicions.
> 
> According to a new survey of Fox News viewers by Reuters, this is what Fox News viewers believe:
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Stupid is as stupid does.



soloweygirl said:


> BIG YAWN!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I find it impossible to find one most despicable comment.


I appreciate the support. Facts are facts, I am one who will make the harsh remark that others will think and not say. 
I am sure that is especially distressing to those who believe that God has created some special duty for them to batter people into worshiping as they do. 
It must be extremely difficult to be such a huge failure at this vocation sent from on high.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hope!



Poor Purl said:


> An interesting piece. I'll post the beginning; it's pretty long:
> 
> *Religious Groups Take A Stand For Reproductive Rights: Its Time To Change The Conversation
> BY TARA CULP-RESSLER* ON JANUARY 29, 2014 AT 9:10 AM
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I misunderstood nothing. What you did was a not so well veiled threat and you're not fooling anyone.
> 
> You publicly made an "announcement" to the whole board that she might be using her real name as a user name and therefore, she better be nice to you _OR ELSE_.
> 
> ...


Thank you Vocal. Well put.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Key to understanding how our country works.



NJG said:


> Well at least one republican is trying to understand how this country works. He said it, but does he really care about any of it. Not sure about that.
> 
> Quote from Eric Cantor
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, every cloud has a silver lining...perhaps you'll speak of me with a bit more respect now that you've classified me as one of the unliving? :wink:


This is truly your lucky day, mark the date. Trouble is she will be responding to something you say later today.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

duplicate


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Republicans are using nasty tricks to scam people out of their money. This website makes you think you are donating money to elect this lady to congress, but in the fine print it says money is being used to defeat Kyrsten and candidates like her. The ads were placed by the Republican congressional campaign committee.


This action fits right in with actions of various individuals and groups in the GOP in such deception as sending notices out that voting dates were different than the true date. Mini-campaigns for the mean to use in concert with gerrymandering and voter role purges and repression of voting rights. 
A trickle down policy that hasn't worked any better than trickle down economics.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> An interesting piece. I'll post the beginning; it's pretty long:
> 
> *Religious Groups Take A Stand For Reproductive Rights: Its Time To Change The Conversation
> BY TARA CULP-RESSLER* ON JANUARY 29, 2014 AT 9:10 AM
> ...


I think it is particularly interesting that there is mention of teaching sex ed in classes on Sundays. It seems a great way to have children learn values that match parents' ideals, a wonderful system to find a hook between love and sex, intimacy and demonstrating love in safe ways.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> I find it impossible to find one most despicable comment here.


So many contenders.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> So many contenders.


Don't I wish I were a collector of emoticons.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Stupid is as stupid does.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> My sympathy lies with the children who retain the image of their dead sibling.


I agree. It would have been much easier for them to accept the loss by not having seen the baby. Now they have that image in their head. I would not wish that for any child.

I wonder what Santorum would have done if his wife had she not gone into spontaneous labor? She would have needed an abortion (or induced labor of a nonviable fetus) to save her life  and Santorum's politics wouldn't have let that happen. Would he have let her die?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Don't I wish I were a collector of emoticons.


Please, help yourself:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Please, help yourself:










[/URL][/quote]


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> I agree. It would have been much easier for them to accept the loss but not seeing the baby. Now they have that image in their head. I would not wish that for any child.


That is what keeps running through my head, what happened to that idea that young children are unable to understand and are too young for funerals, etc?

Only took 3 times to figure out that was supposed to be "and are"


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That is what keeps running through my head, what happened to that idea that young children are unable to understand are are too young for funerals, etc?


The baby died in 1996. I wonder how old his other kids were then.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> The baby died in 1996. I wonder how old his other kids were then.


Former 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate 
Former US Senator from Pennsylvania

Rick Santorum
Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

Santorum Children

Santorum is blessed with seven children, three daughters and four sons, from his marriage to Karen.
Elizabeth Anne (1991)
Richard John Jr. (1993)
Daniel James (1995)
Sarah Maria (1998)
Peter Kenneth (1999)
Patrick Francis (2001)
Isabella Maria (2008)

This is what a family that doesn't use birth control typically looks like.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Former 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
> Former US Senator from Pennsylvania
> 
> Rick Santorum
> ...


I looked for that but obviously not smart enough to find it. Thanks. 
They had a 1, 3 and 5 year old when they brought that dead baby home. Were any of those children able to understand any of it. I have a 5 year old grand daughter and if I try to imagine her in that situation, I see her in tears. She has a 3 year old brother and to see a dead baby would have devastated her. She is a very sweet little girl and has great compassion and love for her brother. I would never do that to a child.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> I looked for that but obviously not smart enough to find it. Thanks.
> They had a 1, 3 and 5 year old when they brought that dead baby home. Were any of those children able to understand any of it. I have a 5 year old grand daughter and if I try to imagine her in that situation, I see her in tears. She has a 3 year old brother and to see a dead baby would have devastated her. She is a very sweet little girl and has great compassion and love for her brother. I would never do that to a child.


It certainly isn't what I would choose, I bet that there are members on KP who remember seeing their relatives laid out at home, though.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> I looked for that but obviously not smart enough to find it. Thanks.
> They had a 1, 3 and 5 year old when they brought that dead baby home. Were any of those children able to understand any of it. I have a 5 year old grand daughter and if I try to imagine her in that situation, I see her in tears. She has a 3 year old brother and to see a dead baby would have devastated her. She is a very sweet little girl and has great compassion and love for her brother. I would never do that to a child.


No, frankly I can't see it either. The sight of a deceased infant would be difficult enough for a child to deal with--one that had been dead for some twenty-four hours and the ensuing physiological changes (no need to spell them out) is the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It certainly isn't what I would choose, I bet that there are members on KP who remember seeing their relatives laid out at home, though.


No doubt--but that's a "look/don't touch" situation (with the exception of a ceremonial kiss on the cheek). And the deceased family members had probably been "prettied up" beforehand. The look of a dead human body _au natural _ can be pretty startling.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, frankly I can't see it either. The sight of a deceased infant would be difficult enough for a child to deal with--one that had been dead for some twenty-four hours and the ensuing physiological changes (no need to spell them out) is the stuff of nightmares.


How the hell did they even get to take the fetus out of the hospital? 
It seems to me that there are all kinds of regulations surrounding death. 
I don't think we could have just walked out of the nursing home with my mother's body.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> How the hell did they even get to take the fetus out of the hospital?


Probably the same way they got the wording of the stillbirth certificate changed to register a twenty-two week old "infant" rather than a fetus.--major string pulling.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It certainly isn't what I would choose, I bet that there are members on KP who remember seeing their relatives laid out at home, though.


I remember attending funerals when I was younger, but not viewing the body, as I remember, and certainly not holding it and not as young as age 5. I do remember going to the viewing of a very good friend of mine. Other friends were there and someone commented that her hair wasn't the way she liked it. Since I use to cut her hair for her, her mother-in-law asked me to fix it. I didn't want to tell her no so I took a comb and changed it a little. The thing I remember is the comb touching her head and her head felt rock hard. I will never get over that feeling, I can still feel it today. Now of course the baby hadn't been embalmed, but the memories these children can have for life, I don't think is fair to them.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> No doubt--but that's a "look/don't touch" situation (with the exception of a ceremonial kiss on the cheek). And the deceased family members had probably been "prettied up" beforehand. The look of a dead human body _au natural _ can be pretty startling.


And the body in the normal situation was older than a 20-week fetus, which even if alive doesn't look quite human yet. (And now they start throwing bricks at me, but it's the truth.)


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

I worked in a retirement community for a time. The residents lived their own apartments but were required to either come to the main dining room for meals or to call the front desk beforehand. Every so often a resident didn't turn up or notify us, and we'd have to go up to their apartment, unlock the door, and search for them.

Most of the time it was nothing--they were fine and had just forgotten to come down--but occasionally we walked in on someone who had died overnight. It took but a split-second glance to determine that, but even then our supervisor was the only one allowed to touch them. She'd come up to the apartment, reach one arm way out, and prod the deceased with a single finger. Not a pleasant task, but it had to be done before the undertaker could be called.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

Granny Goode said, "I shall assert that not all religions are based on love, peace and harmony. Google the Moslem faith and do your own homework."
This is a false statement about Islam. Note that Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Camacho said:


> Granny Goode said, "I shall assert that not all religions are based on love, peace and harmony. Google the Moslem faith and do your own homework."
> This is a false statement about Islam. Note that Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets.


@Granny Godde
There is no "Moslem" faith. There is a Muslim faith.
What right do you feel you have to diss them? If you googled the 'Moslem" faith, you would see no love, peace or harmony. You would more than likely find a correction. 
It's obvious that you know nothing about them to put forth a statement like that.
There are Muslim _extremists_ as well as there are Christian _extremists_. You know, the ones who bomb abortion clinics and maim the people who use them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't think it's an exaggeration to call this child abuse.



susanmos2000 said:


> No, frankly I can't see it either. The sight of a deceased infant would be difficult enough for a child to deal with--one that had been dead for some twenty-four hours and the ensuing physiological changes (no need to spell them out) is the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks Patty. Well put.



BrattyPatty said:


> @Granny Godde
> There is no "Moslem" faith. There is a Muslim faith.
> What right do you feel you have to diss them? If you googled the 'Moslem" faith, you would see no love, peace or harmony. You would more than likely find a correction.
> It's obvious that you know nothing about them to put forth a statement like that.
> There are Muslim _extremists_ as well as there are Christian _extremists_. You know, the ones who bomb abortion clinics and maim the people who use them.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Camacho said:


> Granny Goode said, "I shall assert that not all religions are based on love, peace and harmony. Google the Moslem faith and do your own homework."
> This is a false statement about Islam. Note that Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets.


It's fear talking. All she had to do was google Islam. But the RW listens to Fox news and conservative idealogues.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> @Granny Godde
> There is no "Moslem" faith. There is a Muslim faith.
> What right do you feel you have to diss them? If you googled the 'Moslem" faith, you would see no love, peace or harmony. You would more than likely find a correction.
> It's obvious that you know nothing about them to put forth a statement like that.
> There are Muslim _extremists_ as well as there are Christian _extremists_. You know, the ones who bomb abortion clinics and maim the people who use them.


I have also found that if you use Google Scholar you get articles that are more reliable. I know there is a person that goes by the name lazyman that gets paid for every time lazyman is clicked on and it makes no difference if he tells the truth or makes something up. I sometimes wonder where the republicans get their info, maybe it is lazyman!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

deleted as picture would not go through. Picture not on pc.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

This message is to Pecegoddess. This is the picture I sent that someone said I had insulted another KPer with. I tried to attach it to a PM but it would not attach. I have it stored on ipad, not the pc, so I had to come back to the ipad to find it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

EveMCooke said:


> This message is to Pecegoddess. This is the picture I sent that someone said I had insulted another KPer with. I tried to attach it to a PM but it would not attach. I have it stored on ipad, not the pc, so I had to come back to the ipad to find it.


I think that the person who believed that was insulting has lost her sense of humor.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> I looked for that but obviously not smart enough to find it. Thanks.
> They had a 1, 3 and 5 year old when they brought that dead baby home. Were any of those children able to understand any of it. I have a 5 year old grand daughter and if I try to imagine her in that situation, I see her in tears. She has a 3 year old brother and to see a dead baby would have devastated her. She is a very sweet little girl and has great compassion and love for her brother. I would never do that to a child.


I bet you dollars to donuts that the 5 year old will have said something like they were glad to be able to have grieved their brother. Then again being raised by "off balanced" people psychologically can't bode well for the children's psychological norms. Being from a cultist family, you'll find their children will insist that the abnormal behavior is normal to them.

I hate to be gross too but, Rick and the wife had slept with the fetus overnight and THEN brought the fetus home... I can't imagine it looked too good at that point.

_I'm sorry, but I consider that extremely psychologically abusive. _

I understand that adult parents often need to hold the baby/fetus and will do so at the hospital and that hospitals even often have special rooms to help families do this.

However, they brought the baby home. And they can claim it was for the "mass" or whatever, but I don't buy it. Irish don't have masses at home like that anymore. They just don't. I think the wife was a NICU nurse and had a husband that was freakishly theocratic and they did to force their living children to humanize that fetus more than they would've NATURALLY. It was political psychological manipulation.

There's other ways to help children learn from such a tragedy than to do something THAT psychologically traumatic.

I'm sure the 5 year old son or daughter has been sufficiently programmed to say how glad she is that her parents did that for her.

But, again, it's simply NOT an appropriate thing to do to a 5 year old child. It's downright abusive.

And I'm sorry, there are those who may believe they shouldn't judged. But when it comes to psychologically abusing children in this way, I think it needs to be judged and outwardly socially admonished.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> And the body in the normal situation was older than a 20-week fetus, which even if alive doesn't look quite human yet. (And now they start throwing bricks at me, but it's the truth.)


No, I know what you're saying. If it's potentially too traumatic for us here to even MENTION what the visual might've looked like, one can only imagine the trauma the visited upon a 1, 3 and 5 year old sibling.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No, I know what you're saying. If it's potentially too traumatic for us here to even MENTION what the visual might've looked like, one can only imagine the trauma the visited upon a 1, 3 and 5 year old sibling.


It must have been terrifying to at least the 3 year old. You're right, it's abuse, and no matter how they try to cover it over, it was very, very wrong.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> I don't think it's an exaggeration to call this child abuse.


Absolutely agreed. Therefore it just doesn't cut it to say in this sort of situation that their personal grieving choices should just be respected and not judged.

No, if there's child abuse happening people need to say it and not dance around it.

I find what they did absolutely psychological child abuse.

Given that his father was a psychologist for the CIA, you'd think they'd know that.

Then again, Rick's father was a psychologist at a VA hospital that was known to engage in conducting secret CIA experiments on the UNWITTING military patients (MKUltra) at the very time those experiments were being conducted. BOTH Rick's mother and father were working there and the family LIVED on the base.... (_It's not uncommon for the CIA to insist that a family live "onsite" to help prevent secrets from getting out_) so that might give us some idea of the Santorum psychological make-up. (_Not to mention to what degree the Santorums depended upon the government for sustenance_)


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> I think that the person who believed that was insulting has lost her sense of humor.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I bet you dollars to donuts that the 5 year old will have said something like they were glad to be able to have grieved their brother. Then again being raised by "off balanced" people psychologically can't bode well for the children's psychological norms. Being from a cultist family, you'll find their children will insist that the abnormal behavior is normal to them.
> 
> I hate to be gross too but, Rick and the wife had slept with the fetus overnight and THEN brought the fetus home... I can't imagine it looked too good at that point.
> 
> ...


Well put. I agree.


----------



## Xay-Zays.auntie (Aug 26, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Where you there do you actual think that that baby was toss around and in a car seat. it.


My son was born at 38 weeks, and weighed 5 lbs, 14 oz, and he was jostled quite a bit in his car seat until I bought the head support for him.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

The dead baby or dead fetus issue is so totally creepy!

To me the idea of displaying a dead body is creepy. I am less creeped out by the way Jewish people do funerals, closed casket with sometimes a picture of the deceased the way he or she would want to be remembered. At open casket funerals the deceased are too often gotten up to look like wax dummies from a wax museum, not like the animated people one wants to remember. Just doesn't seem respectful to be out on display like that.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I bet you dollars to donuts that the 5 year old will have said something like they were glad to be able to have grieved their brother. Then again being raised by "off balanced" people psychologically can't bode well for the children's psychological norms. Being from a cultist family, you'll find their children will insist that the abnormal behavior is normal to them.
> 
> I hate to be gross too but, Rick and the wife had slept with the fetus overnight and THEN brought the fetus home... I can't imagine it looked too good at that point.
> 
> ...


I believe your are being too judgmental. First of all, you know nothing about Catholicism, because if you did you would know Mass is a formal word that is capitalized. You do not know how much the five year old knew about the arrival of her new sibling. Maybe she went to see ultra sounds and saw the baby move. Maybe she felt the child move within her mother and read to him/her. Maybe she helped get the baby's room ready. Maybe she helped name the baby. You just don't know. Maybe if they had just buried the child without allowing the 5 year old to understand the circle of life, she would think her sibling was just tossed into the garbage, and not loved. She had seen other babies brought home, so in her mind she may not have been able to understand the abstract concept of death. But having seen Rick with his severely handicapped child, leaving the campaign trail to be with her when in the hospital, dropping out of the race to be with her, I can't imagine that he would do anything to harm his children.

I am not saying I would do the same thing, since I have never had to make that decision. But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive, but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive. You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I believe your are being too judgmental. First of all, you know nothing about Catholicism, because if you did you would know Mass is a formal word that is capitalized. You do not know how much the five year old knew about the arrival of her new sibling. Maybe she went to see ultra sounds and saw the baby move. Maybe she felt the child move within her mother and read to him/her. Maybe she helped get the baby's room ready. Maybe she helped name the baby. You just don't know. Maybe if they had just buried the child without allowing the 5 year old to understand the circle of life, she would think her sibling was just tossed into the garbage, and not loved. She had seen other babies brought home, so in her mind she may not have been able to understand the abstract concept of death. But having seen Rick with his severely handicapped child, leaving the campaign trail to be with her when in the hospital, dropping out of the race to be with her, I can't imagine that he would do anything to harm his children.
> 
> I am not saying I would do the same thing, since I have never had to make that decision. But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive, but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive. You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


First of all, the Santorums willingly went public with their story--I think that leaves it and them open to discussion.

And as for the pleasant fiction that Rick wouldn't do anything to harm his children--what are you talking about?! He and his wife were completely selfish. They knew from the beginning that their son had serious life-threatening defects and did everything they could to prevent nature from taking its course.

Granted, they're Catholics, so no abortion--but that also means not going to extraordinary lengths to prolong life when there is no hope. Against their doctors' advice they insisted on inter-uterine surgery, which ultimately failed and led to massive infection. Even when Mrs. Santorum went into premature labor they wouldn't give up--she did everything she could to try to slow down labor and keep that child inside her, even though by then it was beyond hopeless.

Do you think that child ever felt a moment's comfort or peace? Imagine resting in a womb, covered with fresh sutures, while your mother-to-be almost smokes with fever. And, after an agonizing two hours of so-called "life", laying in a bed for eight or ten hours while your limbs stiffen, being transported in a car, being passed from person to person, being handled and poked and prodded, having your picture (in all its post-surgical and post-mortem glory) snapped and displayed for everyone to see...and ultimately having your parents tell the world the entire story and say (with tears rolling down their cheeks) what a marvelous experience it was. :hunf:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> First of all, the Santorums willingly went public with their story--I think that leaves it and them open to discussion.
> 
> And as for the pleasant fiction that Rick wouldn't do anything to harm his children--what are you talking about?! He and his wife were completely selfish. They knew from the beginning that their son had serious life-threatening defects and did everything they could to prevent nature from taking its course.
> 
> ...


But Susan, VocalLisa didn't capitalize "mass."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> :hunf:


Whoa, I just noticed your avatar. Does it whistle?

Shouldn't the plural of Santorum be Santora?

And do you remember him dropping out of the race to spend time with his child? I remember him getting a lot of money from that Las Vegas guy but losing so much ground in the polls that there was no point in sticking around.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> But Susan, VocalLisa didn't capitalize "mass."


Oh yes, I forgot about that. How dare Lisa express any opinions on Catholics until she learns to hit the shift key?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Whoa, I just noticed your avatar. Does it whistle?
> 
> Shouldn't the plural of Santorum be Santora?
> 
> And do you remember him dropping out of the race to spend time with his child? I remember him getting a lot of money from that Las Vegas guy but losing so much ground in the polls that there was no point in sticking around.


Vaguely--I didn't know though until I looked it up that the child suffered from Trisomy 18, which is a horrible horrible chromosomal abnormality. No doubt that was what was wrong with Gabriel, the one who died. Knowing all that makes me realize that they're even more selfish than I thought.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I believe your are being too judgmental. First of all, you know nothing about Catholicism, because if you did you would know Mass is a formal word that is capitalized. You do not know how much the five year old knew about the arrival of her new sibling. Maybe she went to see ultra sounds and saw the baby move. Maybe she felt the child move within her mother and read to him/her. Maybe she helped get the baby's room ready. Maybe she helped name the baby. You just don't know. Maybe if they had just buried the child without allowing the 5 year old to understand the circle of life, she would think her sibling was just tossed into the garbage, and not loved. She had seen other babies brought home, so in her mind she may not have been able to understand the abstract concept of death. But having seen Rick with his severely handicapped child, leaving the campaign trail to be with her when in the hospital, dropping out of the race to be with her, I can't imagine that he would do anything to harm his children.
> 
> I am not saying I would do the same thing, since I have never had to make that decision. But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive, but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive. You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


Catholics may know which words to capitalize, but they've demonstrated that they know nothing about child abuse - or else they know too much.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Oh yes, I forgot about that. How dare Lisa express any opinions on Catholics until she learns to hit the shift key?


Can you image the s***storm you would have created had you made a type and omitted the "f" key in "shift?"

My mother and her family are as Catholic as they come, and they wouldn't have imagined bringing a dead baby home for any sort of closure. Of course, Mom is elderly, but she isn't a politician and doesn't need to make any statements.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

maysmom said:


> Can you image the s***storm you would have created had you made a type and omitted the "f" key in "shift?"
> 
> My mother and her family are as Catholic as they come, and they wouldn't have imagined bringing a dead baby home for any sort of closure. Of course, Mom is elderly, but she isn't a politician and doesn't need to make any statements.


Another "oops," meant "typo"


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> too judgmental .
> 
> I am not saying I would do the same thing, since I have never had to make that decision. But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive, but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive. You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


LTL, we need not waste any time with the Lefties in this thread. Not only do they not understand Mass, but also and more importantly they dont understand or know _God_ their Father.

Im going on my memory, but, frankly none of it matters. For people to even suggest child abuse is beyond belief. I agree with you; those here believe it is OK to go ahead and kill a child and throw the remains in a plastic bag but don't allow children to understand and acknowledge the circle of life and death; that is supposed to be swept _under_ the dumpster. Let's not acknowledge a living child who died, just forget about him, even though he was part of a family and other children's lives for five months. What a bunch of crap they post.

The Santorum family, a Godly Christian family, has the right to grieve the death of their son anyway they wish.

I remember Rick talking about the death of his son (Gabriel) when running for President. Rick is a believer who lives his beliefs. When he and his wife learned their son had a fatal diagnosis and probably would not live until his birth, and that he would not live even if born, the Santorums chose life (their sons) and did not abort.

When Ricks wife became gravely ill and hospitalized, again they were recommended to kill the child. Rick and his wife chose life again! When Karen (the mother) was told an alternative to the babys death was a risky uterine surgery that had a very slight chance of success, the Santorums again chose life over murder and the surgery was performed with the hopes of saving the child and offering a better life to him.

After the surgery Karen became fatally ill with a massive infection. The Santorums were faced again to choose abortion or Karens death knowing that their baby would also die.

The Santorums were struggling over choosing the mothers life (that could be saved) vs. the babys life who would die. During that time of contemplation, _God_ had something to say and chose life times two! Karen went into actual labor (22 weeks I believe) and birthed a living baby! The baby was not stillborn as has been suggested, and the baby, fully formed and developed, survived for two hours outside the womb *on his own.*

The parents were able to meet their son and were touched by his brief life and grieved his loss. _God_ was in that hospital room and confirmed that only _He_ has the power and authority to decide on life and death. You are correct, the Santorums have a severely handicapped child and as much as she is loved, the one most high, decided not to allow their son to live. The Santorums recognize the two most precious and greatest gifts of all we are given; Love after Life.

Because Rick was at that time debating his positions on abortion against many in his own political party, Rick lived the question of you dont know what you would do until your are in that situation. Then and now, Rick walks the walk and advocates for his strong pro-life position. (I think he also has rare exceptions to his beliefs as do most pro-lifers.)

The reason those in this thread choose to insult, defame and mock the decisions the Santorum family made not to murder their fatally diagnosed child and how the family grieved, is because they have no regard or respect for God, life, human suffering or following the path God has chosen for them. They fear death and, therefore, attempt to take the position of authority and most often choose death or murder for a fetus and/or child they deem not convenient, worthy or timely because they believe they are entitled to take control over their lives and the lives of others.

_"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." _ 1 Corinthians 15:55-57

No wonder they all fear death, they dont know anything about living.

BTW: This discussion reminds me to read Karens book, _Letters to Gabriel._ Ive heard it is a celebration about love, life and _Gods_ infinite love, wisdom and grace.

ETA: I just read that Karen's book has a forward written by Mother Theresa.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> I believe your are being too judgmental. First of all, you know nothing about Catholicism, because if you did you would know Mass is a formal word that is capitalized. .


I was raised Irish Catholic, and am a _true_ catholic.

And actually no, it's not formal. It's something that Catholics are taught to do, but it's not a formal grammatical rule.

Depends on what dictionary you use. Some capitalize it, others say things like " often capitalized", which means people are free to capitalize it IF THEY WISH.

I don't always capitalize words just because they're religious which _I_ think is the only reason the word mass is capitalized. It's nothing more than a noun to me, not a proper noun, and that's how I used it. Big 'M' may be the formal way to spell it, I simply don't agree.

I MIGHT choose to capitalize it if I was using the term "High Mass/Low Mass" because in context, that does seem like a more proper noun usage.

But *A* mass is just another religious service, no more deserving of being capitalized than any other religious service. Insisting on capitalizing it is like forcing people to attribute a higher respect, to sanctify or automatically consecrate the word itself. I choose what I believe is worthy of such capitalization thank you very much.

But, since certain religious people a prone to do these things because they're TOLD to, not because they CHOOSE to, I'm not surprised that you're not aware that it's not _actually_ a proper noun unless USED as such, given the context of a sentence. (_Even though it's often claimed as such_).

It's similar to why some people CHOOSE to capitalize "Him". (as I have). It's not because it's _formally_ a proper noun, it's to show a higher or religious respect.

That's a matter of CHOICE, not a grammatical rule.

However, it's ironic that someone so prone to petty spelling-policedom would criticize judgmentalism.

Yes, I'm judging, but I'm not being too judgmental. I'm being appropriately judgmental against child abuse.

When someone chooses to minimize child abuse, that's being INSUFFICIENTLY judgmental.


----------



## west coast kitty (May 26, 2012)

One of our nieces lived for 6 days in NICU (1991) and her 2 pre-school brothers visited her in the hospital before and after her death. Their memories of her are fuzzy - but they're real memories, she's a real person to them - not just a name on a grave marker. 

The extended family were also permitted to visit and I'm grateful that I was able to see and hold her before she died. Not everyone felt comfortable doing that, but no one made the sort cruel and offensive speculation and comments that I've read here. 

Your original posts quoted psychologists as saying the situation was recommended and not unusual or alarming at the time. That's consistent with the advice given to my SIL and BIL in 1991. Small children fear uncertainty and a drastic change in their routine. Involving them in the grieving process at whatever level they can accept is less frightening than whispers, tears and isolation.

The group of you have hit an all time low in mocking and speculating on the expression of grief. Your comments are extremely hurtful and offensive to anyone who has ever gone through a similar experience. You've allowed your personal hatreds to let your behaviour sink to such an offensive level - and that is what I find disrespectful.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> The dead baby or dead fetus issue is so totally creepy!
> 
> To me the idea of displaying a dead body is creepy. I am less creeped out by the way Jewish people do funerals, closed casket with sometimes a picture of the deceased the way he or she would want to be remembered. At open casket funerals the deceased are too often gotten up to look like wax dummies from a wax museum, not like the animated people one wants to remember. Just doesn't seem respectful to be out on display like that.


And it is TOTALLY creepy to display an unembalmed corpse to children. Enough said.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> I believe your are being too judgmental. First of all, you know nothing about Catholicism, because if you did you would know Mass is a formal word that is capitalized. You do not know how much the five year old knew about the arrival of her new sibling. Maybe she went to see ultra sounds and saw the baby move. Maybe she felt the child move within her mother and read to him/her. Maybe she helped get the baby's room ready. Maybe she helped name the baby. You just don't know. Maybe if they had just buried the child without allowing the 5 year old to understand the circle of life, she would think her sibling was just tossed into the garbage, and not loved. She had seen other babies brought home, so in her mind she may not have been able to understand the abstract concept of death. But having seen Rick with his severely handicapped child, leaving the campaign trail to be with her when in the hospital, dropping out of the race to be with her, I can't imagine that he would do anything to harm his children.
> 
> I am not saying I would do the same thing, since I have never had to make that decision. But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive, but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive. You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


To me it just seems like way too much information for a 3-5 year old child.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> LTL, we need not waste any time with the Lefties in this thread. Not only do they not understand Mass, but also and more importantly they dont understand or know _God_ their Father.
> 
> Im going on my memory, but, frankly none of it matters.
> 
> ...


Very nice little speech, KPG--except you left out the fact that Mrs. Santorum eventually accepted Pitocin, which in this case acted as an abortifacient by guaranteeing that her sluggish labor resulted in a preterm baby unable to survive outside the womb.

Of course few would blame her, given the circumstances...with perhaps the notable exception of her husband. His stand against abortion is absolute: no exceptions for rape, incest, fetal deformity, or if the mother's life is seriously at risk. It doesn't surprise me a bit that he was able to sweep all that aside when it was HIS wife whose life was on the line--he's a hypocrite to end all hypocrites and always has been.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

west coast kitty said:


> One of our nieces lived for 6 days in NICU (1991) and her 2 pre-school brothers visited her in the hospital before and after her death. Their memories of her are fuzzy - but they're real memories, she's a real person to them - not just a name on a grave marker.
> 
> The extended family were also permitted to visit and I'm grateful that I was able to see and hold her before she died. Not everyone felt comfortable doing that, but no one made the sort cruel and offensive speculation and comments that I've read here.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: WCK, I'm so very sorry for your loss of your niece.

Nothing more should be said to those individuals who live without a heart in their body in my opinion. They are deserving of Hell on earth, and I don't know of any sane person who speaks to writing zombies.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I come from a practicing Catholic family, and never heard of this sort of 'closure (?)' or should I say performance?



maysmom said:


> Can you image the s***storm you would have created had you made a type and omitted the "f" key in "shift?"
> 
> My mother and her family are as Catholic as they come, and they wouldn't have imagined bringing a dead baby home for any sort of closure. Of course, Mom is elderly, but she isn't a politician and doesn't need to make any statements.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put Vocal. Thank you for taking time to respond so clearly.



VocalLisa said:


> I was raised Irish Catholic, and am a _true_ catholic.
> 
> And actually no, it's not formal. It's something that Catholics are taught to do, but it's not a formal grammatical rule.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think there is a pertinent distinction between visiting in the hospital (which is forbidden by some hospitals) and viewing an unembalmed corpse.



west coast kitty said:


> One of our nieces lived for 6 days in NICU (1991) and her 2 pre-school brothers visited her in the hospital before and after her death. Their memories of her are fuzzy - but they're real memories, she's a real person to them - not just a name on a grave marker.
> 
> The extended family were also permitted to visit and I'm grateful that I was able to see and hold her before she died. Not everyone felt comfortable doing that, but no one made the sort cruel and offensive speculation and comments that I've read here.
> 
> ...


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> You do not know how much the five year old knew about the arrival of her new sibling. Maybe she went to see ultra sounds and saw the baby move. Maybe she felt the child move within her mother and read to him/her. Maybe she helped get the baby's room ready. Maybe she helped name the baby. You just don't know.


None of those things would justify the psychological abuse.



lovethelake said:


> Maybe if they had just buried the child without allowing the 5 year old to understand the circle of life, she would think her sibling was just tossed into the garbage, and not loved.


Then that would speak to the kind of character she presumed her parents to have and/or the total lake of ability of her parents to adequately communicate with her.

Showing 1, 3 and 5 year olds the decaying corpse of a incompletely formed fetus would be grossly traumatic for any child of that age.

I could post pictures of what it would look like here, but that would quite obviously be too traumatic for the adults HERE to be subjected to. So much so, I have no doubt that I'd be immediately banned for doing so... and rightly so.

I would be sick in the head to force that kind of trauma on anyone. LEAST of all, toddlers.



lovethelake said:


> She had seen other babies brought home, so in her mind she may not have been able to understand the abstract concept of death.


All children have to learn about the existence of death/loss whether they're "ready for it" or not when death happens in their lives not matter how abstract the concept is. There's no avoiding it.

Choosing to do it in THIS manner is absolutely psychologically abusive. If someone lacks the judgement to KNOW how traumatic that would be for such young children, no... BABIES THEMSELVES, and thinks "we can't know" how traumatic that would be, is lacking SERIOUS discernment abilities.



lovethelake said:


> But having seen Rick with his severely handicapped child, leaving the campaign trail to be with her when in the hospital, dropping out of the race to be with her,


Oh, how saintly of him. Like that's something no other candidate would have done. :roll:



lovethelake said:


> I can't imagine that he would do anything to harm his children.


We don't have to "imagine", that IS harmful, whether he was too insensitive and crazy to understand it was or not.



lovethelake said:


> .... But I find it interesting that you think grieving a dead sibling is abusive,


That is a completely shady, underhanded and unscrupulous comment.

_No one said that grieving a dead sibling is abusive_. NO ONE.

But showing a partially deformed decaying fetus to 1, 3 and 5 year olds is self-evidently and unNECESSARILY traumatic and frightening.



lovethelake said:


> but if the 5 year old knew her mom was pregnant and knew the mom aborted the baby that would be okay and not abusive.


Again, ANOTHER example of a shamelessly fraudulant and duplicitous claim. Who in the heck here was arguing they should've aborted the baby and who in hell here is arguing that 1, 3 and 5 year olds would or should be TOLD of abortion if they had done so?



lovethelake said:


> You just don't know what the child needed to help her heal the death of her sibling.


Of course, I know that it's inappropriate to display the rotting corpse of an underdeveloped fetus to a child.

In fact, the serious question is how could anyone NOT be cognizant of how awful and self-evidently psychologically traumatic and abusive that is?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> I think there is a pertinent distinction between visiting in the hospital (which is forbidden by some hospitals) and viewing an unembalmed corpse.


So true, Dame--particularly when the body in question shows severe physical deformities and surgical trauma . I truly can't imagine what got into them--maybe a severe case of the guilties after flip-flopping at the last moment on the abortion issue?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Vocal Lisa,

Can you EVER speak the truth?

The Santorum baby was fully formed (body systems and major organs developed albeit tiny in size).

The *baby* lived ON ITS OWN for two hours (we are told) and at 22 weeks every potential life LOOKS LIKE A BABY and is NOT a FETUS even by Liberal medical definitions and standards.

So who believes any of your lies and propaganda?

No one, except some Libs/Dems/Lefties in this thread and I presume thousands of others who are un-educated and ill informed and do not seek or speak the truth.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

susanmos2000 said:


> First of all, the Santorums willingly went public with their story--I think that leaves it and them open to discussion.
> 
> And as for the pleasant fiction that Rick wouldn't do anything to harm his children--what are you talking about?! He and his wife were completely selfish. They knew from the beginning that their son had serious life-threatening defects and did everything they could to prevent nature from taking its course.
> 
> ...


Wow. Thank you for the frank description of the situation. It needs to be said as the discussion about the Santorum's grieving process is often discussed through very sentimental lenses, but the REALITY of what was going on is much more graphic than that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you. It's a pleasure to hear the voice of reason.



VocalLisa said:


> Of course, I know that it's inappropriate to display the rotting corpse of an underdeveloped fetus to a child.
> 
> In fact, the serious question is how could anyone NOT be cognizant of how awful and self-evidently psychologically traumatic and abusive that is?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> But Susan, VocalLisa didn't capitalize "mass."


I hope the Santorum's can get over the trauma of my having done that.

BTW, I was raised Irish Catholic. I'm perfectly aware of the traditions.

I'm also aware of what nut bags are involved in Opus Dei like Santorum is.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Whoa, I just noticed your avatar. Does it whistle?
> 
> Shouldn't the plural of Santorum be Santora?
> 
> And do you remember him dropping out of the race to spend time with his child? I remember him getting a lot of money from that Las Vegas guy but losing so much ground in the polls that there was no point in sticking around.


Yes, there IS that. Good point. The exploitation of the situation as a vehicle to bow out of the race is absolutely a possibility with this creep.

It's not discussed enough in the media about how failing candidates can collect the money given to them, and then use it as a slush fund by "gifting" it to other candidates, thereby giving yourself the opportunity for quid pro quo type deals.

Rick collected that money, and then by quitting ASAP, he was able to retain more of that money in the till instead of spending it on his own dying campaign.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I think there is a pertinent distinction between visiting in the hospital (which is forbidden by some hospitals) and viewing an unembalmed corpse.


I think that the person you respond to mentioned some people *choosing* not to visit that newborn baby, the group that this person associates herself with was all up in arms not so long ago about the *choice* of an embryo about being aborted. 
It seems that children who are already in the world once again lack the same consideration that the anti-choicers would allow a fetus. Where was the informed consent and ability to choose given those poor little Santorum children?

As a side note: not only was this a fetus at 20 weeks that these children had to view, it was their brother who had been operated on in utero.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> LTL, we need not waste any time with the Lefties in this thread. Not only do they not understand Mass, but also and more importantly they dont understand or know _God_ their Father.


I understand that "mass" is NOT a proper noun and just because the Catholic church capitalizes it, doesn't mean I'm required to do so.

And I also understand that God is Good, and not as ugly as certain"christians" make him out to be.

I appreciate Christians, the cultism of certain christiantites, however, can be quite disturbing.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Wow. Thank you for the frank description of the situation. It needs to be said as the discussion about the Santorum's grieving process is often discussed through very sentimental lenses, but the REALITY of what was going on is much more graphic than that.


Yes, it is--to the point where my mind has only been able to accept the physical realities of the homecoming scene one detail at a time. When this particular discussion started I somehow envisioned a plump rosy cherub that appeared to be sleeping in its mother's arms. *Gulp* It wasn't like that at all, I've been forced to conclude. It's simply too awful--truly the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> LTL, we need not waste any time with the Lefties in this thread. Not only do they not understand Mass, but also and more importantly they dont understand or know _God_ their Father.
> 
> Im going on my memory, but, frankly none of it matters. For people to even suggest child abuse is beyond belief. I agree with you; those here believe it is OK to go ahead and kill a child and throw the remains in a plastic bag but don't allow children to understand and acknowledge the circle of life and death; that is supposed to be swept _under_ the dumpster. Let's not acknowledge a living child who died, just forget about him, even though he was part of a family and other children's lives for five months. What a bunch of crap they post.
> 
> ...


I am okay with "living your beliefs". I am not okay with making "your beliefs" mine. He wants to impose his belief system on EVERYONE.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> I am okay with "living your beliefs". I am not okay with making "your beliefs" mine. He wants to impose his belief system on EVERYONE.


Everyone but his own wife, apparently.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I understand that "mass" is NOT a proper noun and just because the Catholic church capitalizes it, doesn't mean I'm required to do so.
> 
> And I also understand that God is Good, and not as ugly as certain"christians" make him out to be.
> 
> I appreciate Christians, the cultism of certain christiantites, however, can be quite disturbing.


I do not care anything about what you do to capitalize or not the word "mass." I'm not a Catholic and wouldn't judge you on how you treat the word if I were. I know what I've been taught and believe and have expressed same.

I do acknowledge that you claim to be a "true" Catholic (Christian) and yet, often, do not speak the truth.

More importantly, however, _God_ knows what you speak and how you act. I can assure you _He _ cares and doesn't condone false witnesses.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> First of all, the Santorums willingly went public with their story--I think that leaves it and them open to discussion.
> 
> And as for the pleasant fiction that Rick wouldn't do anything to harm his children--what are you talking about?! He and his wife were completely selfish. They knew from the beginning that their son had serious life-threatening defects and did everything they could to prevent nature from taking its course.
> 
> ...


There is something seriously wrong with you to dream up this gory tale that you just made up. And you write children's books? What for Grimm's Fairy tales?


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> The dead baby or dead fetus issue is so totally creepy!
> 
> To me the idea of displaying a dead body is creepy. I am less creeped out by the way Jewish people do funerals, closed casket with sometimes a picture of the deceased the way he or she would want to be remembered. At open casket funerals the deceased are too often gotten up to look like wax dummies from a wax museum, not like the animated people one wants to remember. Just doesn't seem respectful to be out on display like that.


I do not agree with you. People who have a closed coffin at the funeral will often have a private viewng of the bod either the night before or just prior to the funeral so friends and family can say their last goodbyes. An open casket at the funeral allows everyone to say their last goodbye. I know I wold have been devestated if I had not been allowed to kiss my mother goodbye in the church. This is entirely different from sleeping with the corpse of the loved one, or taking it home to show young children as if it were a living baby. It also avoids the possibility of the wrong body being in the casket and this has happened.

I also strongly disagree that the bodies of the deceased are 'gotten up like wax dummies'. If the person was very ill before death the mortician will make the person's appearance to be similar to how they looked when they were in better health and that is how relatives and friends wish to remember the deceased person. They do not want to remember the often gaunt face but the happier face. It is not disresptful to view a dead body, nor is is disrespectful to give the loved one a farewell kiss. I find attending a closed casket funeral does not offer the same closure as an open casket funeral.

I ask you, have you attended an open casket funeral?

So many people are so removed from the realities of death, they hand over all responsibilities for the funeral to outsiders who are only there to make money. It was not many generations ago that the women of the family prepared the body for the funeral, washing, dressing the body etc. Funerals started from the house. Today people seem afraid of the dead body and want to hide it away and would never touch it. Funerals today start either at the church or funeral home. The dead person does not start their final journey from familiar surroundings, their home.

But I find actually sleeping with the dead body is taking things too far, as is taking the body home in order to introduce it to young children as their brother.

These are my personal feelings and I know a lot of people will disagree with me. They prefer a closed casket funeral. That is their right and I would not take that right, the right to hold a different opinion from me, away from them. We just see things differently.

I was five years old when my favourite uncle died. Mum asked me if I wanted to say goodbye before they closed the casket in the church before they took it to the cemetery. I was so glad I could say goodbye and kiss his cheek. I remember talking to him, telling him how much I would miss him, so much more personal than saying the words to a closed casket. We were given the choice and one of my sisters did not want to see him in the casket. She was 6 years older than me and her wishes were honoured. But, he was a person and not a foetus that had been born very early and would only be very small in size.

Uncle Kevin was killed Easter 1946 and I still remember and miss him. He was my mother's brother and a very special person. Yes, I am crying whilst I am typing, sometimes the pain never goes away.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Former 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate
> Former US Senator from Pennsylvania
> 
> Rick Santorum
> ...


In your judgement of the Santorums, you obviously don't consider that ALL of their children are loved. Who cares the size of their family, as long as they love and provide for their children.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> In your judgement of the Santorums, you obviously don't consider that ALL of their children are loved. Who cares the size of their family, as long as they love and provide for their children.


One might ask "Who cares that you are unable to consider context or continuity?". I do so hope that your family loves you and provides for you.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I worked in a retirement community for a time. The residents lived their own apartments but were required to either come to the main dining room for meals or to call the front desk beforehand. Every so often a resident didn't turn up or notify us, and we'd have to go up to their apartment, unlock the door, and search for them.
> 
> Most of the time it was nothing--they were fine and had just forgotten to come down--but occasionally we walked in on someone who had died overnight. It took but a split-second glance to determine that, but even then our supervisor was the only one allowed to touch them. She'd come up to the apartment, reach one arm way out, and prod the deceased with a single finger. Not a pleasant task, but it had to be done before the undertaker could be called.


Why not just poke her with a stick with all the compassion she and you showed toward the deceased. She certainly wasn't in the right profession, most people would check for a pulse. And to think you criticize another for the way they deal with the death of a loved one.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

west coast kitty said:


> The group of you have hit an all time low in mocking and speculating on the expression of grief.


First of all, I don't accept what the Santora did is the same as you describe as what your family did, or a mere benign expression of grief.

And I think the group of "you" have hit an all time low excusing psychological child abuse and calling it a mere "expression of grief".

What's next? Berating us for criticizing child molestation and accusing us of hitting an all time low speculating on the expression of love?

I think it's very sad that people think the viewing of an under-developed decaying fetus is a "real memory".

Of course, if you're an adult, I suppose that's your choice. But to foist that upon little children, who are barely more than babies themselves, is abusive.

I think it's also very sad that the Santora apparently don't know how to "humanize" the baby, or make it "real" in any other way.

To me, if your naturally empathetic, it's EASY to feel the realness of the baby.

I think NEEDING to see the corpse to "prove" it's real only speak to one's lack of ability to humanize?

Children, maybe even MORE than adults are capable of "imagining" what their little sibling might've been like or feeling the existence of their souls. With mere words families can EASILY honor the existence of that baby to children.

There simply is NO NEED to show corpses to children. I think it's nothing more than the projection of the parent's pathologies onto the children in very harmful manner.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

In response to EveMCooke,

I have been to open casket funerals and to pay respects to the families at funeral facilities where there is an open casket. I personally do not find the open casket appealing. However, I certainly respect your thoughts and feelings regarding your need to show your love and respect in a way that is comfortable to you. I also respect the custom of those friends and colleagues who needed comforting by people who cared about their loved one. 

I also had a special uncle, my mother's only brother, who was very dear to me, and I miss him very much. I empathize with you about your uncle.

It is a special feature of countries such as the United States where different religious customs are accommodated and there is mutual respect among all of us with different nuances of belief. 

That is why it is sometimes scary when some fervent believers of one sect or cult or denomination try to force their beliefs on people with different beliefs, rather than engage in respectful exchanges of thoughts such as this one between you and me. We see in other parts of the world the war and strife that can result when one religious group tries to prevail and subjugate "heathen". We need to remember the Inquisition, Saracen invaders, the Holocaust, and other historical horrors inflicted upon people in the name of religion if we are to progress in the world as civilized people. And so often it was not really religion. It was a power hungry individual or cabal firing up the populace to think it was in the name of the Faith and using the honestly heartfelt beliefs of people to grasp control of their world.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Why not just poke her with a stick with all the compassion she and you showed toward the deceased. She certainly wasn't in the right profession, most people would check for a pulse. And to think you criticize another for the way they deal with the death of a loved one.


Did you miss that the policy of the employer was to call a supervisor? 
In death is a bit late to show compassion. Dead people don't need or feel a compassionate approach. The vessel is empty.

Personally, I have prepped plenty of bodies post mortem.I don't find it creepy. It was a way to earn a living. It is just a piece of meat at that point. 
The part that we liked, deplored, loved and adored is gone.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Why not just poke her with a stick with all the compassion she and you showed toward the deceased. She certainly wasn't in the right profession, most people would check for a pulse. And to think you criticize another for the way they deal with the death of a loved one.


She was checking how cold these folks were and, based on that, trying to estimate when they had passed. There was no question that any of these ladies were dead, of course--you could just tell at a glance. And no possibility of reviving them, either--they were in their 80s and 90s and in poor health, which is why they'd chosen an assisted-living setup.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

west coast kitty said:


> Your original posts quoted psychologists as saying the situation was recommended and not unusual or alarming at the time.


Yes. These "psychologists" tend to be of the " Marcus Bachmann" ilk, or for that matter, an "Aldo Santorum", who was practicing psychology at TWO VA hospital (Butler, PA, Illinois and West Virgina) at the very same time it was later revealed to have been conducting secret CIA experiments on UNWITTING veterans at those hospitals. It was called "Project MKUltra". They used all kinds of chemicals (including LSD) to manipulate the patients mental states. Some people committed suicide and there were other suspicious unexplained deaths.

I'm sorry, but anyone who needs a "psychologist" to tell them whether something like that would be grossly harmful to a very young child needs to have their head examined .. pun intended.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

soloweygirl said:


> In your judgement of the Santorums, you obviously don't consider that ALL of their children are loved.


None of us have any way of knowing of all of their children are actually loved.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> LTL, we need not waste any time with the Lefties in this thread. Not only do they not understand Mass, but also and more importantly they dont understand or know _God_ their Father.
> 
> Im going on my memory, but, frankly none of it matters. For people to even suggest child abuse is beyond belief. I agree with you; those here believe it is OK to go ahead and kill a child and throw the remains in a plastic bag but don't allow children to understand and acknowledge the circle of life and death; that is supposed to be swept _under_ the dumpster. Let's not acknowledge a living child who died, just forget about him, even though he was part of a family and other children's lives for five months. What a bunch of crap they post.
> 
> ...


KPG, if I did not read your post, it would be hard to believe someone could be as closed-minded and ignorant as yourself. Pick choose, and pull out all the quotes from your bible as you can, equate the Santorums with "saints" and preach their wonderfulness from the highest pulpit, and all any intelligent people will see is your sanctimonious, ultra-right wing parroting and inability to think for yourself. The Santorums are using their children as props for the ultimate purpose of indoctrination and legislation of their beliefs on every other American. There is so much ignorance and deliberate misinformation from you. Simply unbelieveable.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

ETA: I just read that Karen's book has a forward written by Mother Theresa.

And if you really want to open a can of worms, read up on Mother Theresa. Christopher Hitchen's book, to be exact.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

EveMCooke said:


> I do not agree with you. People who have a closed coffin at the funeral will often have a private viewng of the body ....


I think we need to stop talking as if this is about your average grieving process or traditional Irish wakes.

It's a dishonest argument.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

soloweygirl said:


> Why not just poke her with a stick ....


If she had, that would be nothing compared to what the Santora did to that fetus in and out of the womb.

And I won't even get into some of the "techniques" used to try to get bodies to "look natural" for open caskets. Being "poked" with a stick would be down right loving and compassionate in comparison.

So please, let's not get into a discussion of treating dead bodies with respect. It could get too ghastly.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I do not care anything about what you do to capitalize or not the word "mass." I'm not a Catholic and wouldn't judge you on how you treat the word if I were. I know what I've been taught and believe and have expressed same.
> 
> I do acknowledge that you claim to be a "true" Catholic (Christian) and yet, often, do not speak the truth.


I didn't claim to be a true Catholic.

I said I was raised Catholic but am a TRUE catholic.

And Catholics have no particular claim on truth or Truth.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Country Bumpkins said:


> There is something seriously wrong with you to dream up this gory tale that you just made up. And you write children's books? What for Grimm's Fairy tales?


Nope, that's just the truth of what happened.

But, I agree it's not unlike Grimm's Fairy Tales.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> First of all, I don't accept what the Santora did is the same as you describe as what your family did, or a mere benign expression of grief.
> 
> And I think the group of "you" have hit an all time low excusing psychological child abuse and calling it a mere "expression of grief".
> 
> ...


What you accept is of no importance to me. It may not have been your decision, but it was theirs. I thought all you lefties love Relativism, and agree to disagree.

Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

A message from Clay Aiken. I think worth listening to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/05/1275295/-Wow-Clay-Aiken-Who-knew?detail=email#


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

The NRCC is not getting away with their dirty tricks.

This is probably not what the National Republican Congressional Committee was expecting when they decided to make the contribution page on their websites targeting Democratic candidates mimic the Democrats' websites. First, after public backlash, they had to start offering refunds to donors who'd been misled, and now, Google has put a "reported phishing website" warning on at least the anti-Alex Sink site.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> What you accept is of no importance to me. It may not have been your decision, but it was theirs. I thought all you lefties love Relativism, and agree to disagree.


Yes, I agree they made the "decision" to be abusive to their children and it wouldn't be mine.

And just so you understand, when I say I don't "accept", it means I'm not buying into your FALSE premises and arguing from them as if they were true.

I won't accept them because they're untrue, and I already understand you don't care whether people accept your premises, because I understand it's not important to you to have an HONEST discussion.



lovethelake said:


> Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight.
> Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses.


Yes, anti-choicers just believe in protecting fetus in the womb. Once they're born all bets are off and it's OK to abuse them and proverbially flush them down the toilet then.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

lovethelake said: "Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses."

Hope that was just facetious. Otherwise it is really truly stupid. and the comment about "pro abortionists" shows your slant. Not everybody who is pro choice is pro abortion. Just pro giving women authority over their own bodies, instead of letting a bunch of sanctimonious old men decide for them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> lovethelake said: "Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses."
> 
> Hope that was just facetious. Otherwise it is really truly stupid. and the comment about "pro abortionists" shows your slant. Not everybody who is pro choice is pro abortion. Just pro giving women authority over their own bodies, instead of letting a bunch of sanctimonious old men decide for them.


Interesting that all of that love, cherish, and respect for the embryo/fetus just went out the window when she wanted to make her usual nasty point about abortions. Suddenly, that "baby" is no more than a dead goldfish.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> lovethelake said: "Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses."
> 
> Hope that was just facetious. Otherwise it is really truly stupid. and the comment about "pro abortionists" shows your slant. Not everybody who is pro choice is pro abortion. Just pro giving women authority over their own bodies, instead of letting a bunch of sanctimonious old men decide for them.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares.


Well, that would show a marked sensitively towards the feelings of others--certainly a more appropriate response than Barbara Bush's fetus-in-a-jar that she liked to show visitors.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I didn't claim to be a true Catholic.
> 
> I said I was raised Catholic


No you did not if referring to the recent post we are referring to - just further proof of another of your lies.



VocalLisa said:


> but am a TRUE catholic.


So am I; a TRUE catholic.

I'm also intelligent enough to recognize all your lies and propaganda as well as your regular manipulation of words.

You do not fool me; but I repeat myself.

I suggest you look up the definition of "claim" that *I* used in my sentence because you've shown no comprehension how I used that word in context.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

damemary said:


> My sympathy lies with the children who retain the image of their dead sibling.


Hello Damemary,
Yes, indeed. My heart jumped into my throat when I first read that part. The impact was such that I had to withdraw from the front lines, so to speak, for awhile; and when I came back I was not quite so sane or nice in a few comments I made. While I do not apologize for the strength of my feelings, I certainly should have behaved myself better.

I learned from a dear friend many years ago that "whatever MUST be said CAN be said in a nice way." 
Thank you, Shana Rae Grant. I miss your wisdom.

My sincere love to all of you. Truly, we are not enemies. xo


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Interesting that all of that love, cherish, and respect for the embryo/fetus just went out the window when she wanted to make her usual nasty point about abortions. Suddenly, that "baby" is no more than a dead goldfish.


Yep. Sometimes people's own words betray them. This is one of those cases.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

One of the other topics I am following had a good thought for the self righteous who twist other people's words. 

The gist of the comment is people who get up on their high horses show what big asses they are.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> So am I; a TRUE catholic.


Since when?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't claim to be a true Catholic.
> ...


P.S. Edit: I've noticed you've edited your post to this:



> No you did not if referring to the recent post we are referring to - just further proof of another of your lies.


To clarify, yes, I'm referring to the recent post we are referring to and still, said I was raised (Irish) Catholic TWICE.

I NEVER said I was a true Catholic.

Nope, it's what I said

TWICE

I _never_ said or claimed I was a TRUE Catholic.



knitpresentgifts said:


> I suggest you look up the definition of "claim" that *I* used in my sentence because you've shown no comprehension how I used that word in context.


Sweetie, I suggest YOU take a look at the dictionary.

Again, I _never_ said _or claimed_ I was a TRUE Catholic.

I said I was raised (Irish) Catholic.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> What you accept is of no importance to me. It may not have been your decision, but it was theirs. I thought all you lefties love Relativism, and agree to disagree.
> 
> Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses.


We know what is said about arguing with idiots LTL!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> None of us have any way of knowing of all of their children are actually loved.


And *you* have no way of knowing "if" all of the Santorum children were actually abused although you insist they were.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> We know what is said about arguing with idiots LTL!


Agreed. For instance, I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even understand what a catholic is.

But I have to admit I'm having fun with you! :lol:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> And *you* have no way of knowing the Santorum children were actually abused although you insist upon it.


No, they've openly admitted they abused them. That they (or you) don't understand that it's abuse notwithstanding.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> One of the other topics I am following had a good thought for the self righteous who twist other people's words.
> 
> The gist of the comment is people who get up on their high horses show what big asses they are.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Since when?


As long as I've been alive and knowledgable of the meaning of the words.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Sweetie, I suggest YOU take a look at the dictionary.
> 
> Again, I _never_ said _or claimed_ I was a TRUE Catholic.
> 
> I said I was raised (Irish) Catholic.


See, Vocal, that is what happens when you regularly lie and manipulate your own words; it is very difficult to remember that what you have said.

You told me you wrote you were raised Catholic. I told you you did not.

Your posted initial words, that later you manipulated, were you were raised as an Irish Catholic.

I'm sorry you cannot follow the conversation. If you spoke the truth you might fare slightly better.

Remember now? Bless your sorry heart.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think this is a perfect occasion to say, "Go to Heaven."



rocky1991 said:


> I am okay with "living your beliefs". I am not okay with making "your beliefs" mine. He wants to impose his belief system on EVERYONE.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She's learned her place apparently.



susanmos2000 said:


> Everyone but his own wife, apparently.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sick.



soloweygirl said:


> In your judgement of the Santorums, you obviously don't consider that ALL of their children are loved. Who cares the size of their family, as long as they love and provide for their children.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

west coast kitty said:


> One of our nieces lived for 6 days in NICU (1991) and her 2 pre-school brothers visited her in the hospital before and after her death. Their memories of her are fuzzy - but they're real memories, she's a real person to them - not just a name on a grave marker.
> 
> The extended family were also permitted to visit and I'm grateful that I was able to see and hold her before she died. Not everyone felt comfortable doing that, but no one made the sort cruel and offensive speculation and comments that I've read here.
> 
> ...


Obviously you didn't bother to read before you criticized. That's not unusual for right-wingers. One of us pointed out that it was disrespectful to the poor unborn baby to carry it around and show it off; another said it was more important for the mother to be given time to grieve than for the father to turn the situation into a PR event. As for the children, they should have been allowed to view their brother, but in the hospital, where he would have been kept in optimal conditions - there had been no embalming, and human tissues begin to decompose quickly.

Your family's situation was different in many ways. First, the baby was actually born and drew breath and was available for a few days to be kissed and loved. Second, she was in a hospital, where the PR aspect would not have worked.

The disrespectful people were the ones who tried to make the situation sound like any other open-casket funeral instead of treating it as the very sad, sorrowful, personal situation that it was. But I doubt that you've read this far.

Just in case you haven't stopped reading, may I point out that you don't know any of the people who disagreed with you and have no business speaking of "hateful," "mocking," or "disrespectful." Of the father we may have expressed such opinions, but that's because he holds himself up to public view whenever he can. I don't think anyone was at all disrespectful to the mother, the siblings, or the unborn Gabriel.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> See, Vocal, that is what happens when you regularly lie and manipulate your own words; it is very difficult to remember that what you have said.
> 
> You told me you wrote you were raised Catholic. I told you you did not.
> 
> ...


Maybe a nap would help. You are not making sense.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Agreed. For instance, I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even understand what a catholic is.
> 
> But I have to admit I'm having fun with you! :lol:


I understand and understood perfectly. It is you who didn't realize you were played and made to look the fool you are.

I'll admit it was fun at the time, yet tedious now, explaining to you the joke was on and is you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for the perspective.



MarilynKnits said:


> In response to EveMCooke,
> 
> I have been to open casket funerals and to pay respects to the families at funeral facilities where there is an open casket. I personally do not find the open casket appealing. However, I certainly respect your thoughts and feelings regarding your need to show your love and respect in a way that is comfortable to you. I also respect the custom of those friends and colleagues who needed comforting by people who cared about their loved one.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And the question changes to, "What is love?"



VocalLisa said:


> None of us have any way of knowing of all of their children are actually loved.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We can only consider the source.



maysmom said:


> KPG, if I did not read your post, it would be hard to believe someone could be as closed-minded and ignorant as yourself. Pick choose, and pull out all the quotes from your bible as you can, equate the Santorums with "saints" and preach their wonderfulness from the highest pulpit, and all any intelligent people will see is your sanctimonious, ultra-right wing parroting and inability to think for yourself. The Santorums are using their children as props for the ultimate purpose of indoctrination and legislation of their beliefs on every other American. There is so much ignorance and deliberate misinformation from you. Simply unbelieveable.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Absolutely true.



VocalLisa said:


> I think we need to stop talking as if this is about your average grieving process or traditional Irish wakes.
> 
> It's a dishonest argument.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Happy Dance!



NJG said:


> The NRCC is not getting away with their dirty tricks.
> 
> This is probably not what the National Republican Congressional Committee was expecting when they decided to make the contribution page on their websites targeting Democratic candidates mimic the Democrats' websites. First, after public backlash, they had to start offering refunds to donors who'd been misled, and now, Google has put a "reported phishing website" warning on at least the anti-Alex Sink site.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> As long as I've been alive and knowledgable of the meaning of the words.


So, you've been alive for less than 3 hours? Wow that's a freakishly fast evolution!

Because before that, you definitely don't seem to know the meaning of the word catholic.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> lovethelake said: "Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses."
> 
> Hope that was just facetious. Otherwise it is really truly stupid. and the comment about "pro abortionists" shows your slant. Not everybody who is pro choice is pro abortion. Just pro giving women authority over their own bodies, instead of letting a bunch of sanctimonious old men decide for them.


I vote for stupid. I've been reading this for a long time, and I feel confident to judge. (It is like watching a train wreck.)


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Once again, perspective gives knowledge.



MarilynKnits said:


> One of the other topics I am following had a good thought for the self righteous who twist other people's words.
> 
> The gist of the comment is people who get up on their high horses show what big asses they are.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She/he/it is always right, omnipotent and narcissistic. A psychiatrist could use her for a research paper.



VocalLisa said:


> Since when?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> So, you've been alive for less than 3 hours? Wow that's a freakishly fast evolution!
> 
> Because before that, you definitely don't seem to know the meaning of the word catholic.


So, I lied, sue me.

I actually was a TRUE catholic while a fetus; I'm a quick study.

_God _ only knows how you first came up with 24 hours for your post and now changed it to three, but you don't live in reality anyway, so who cares. I don't.

Oh, and you are supposed to spell out any number less than or equal to ten. I know you should know that, too, at your age.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your posted initial words, that later you manipulated, were you were raised as an Irish Catholic.


That's a lie.

Sadly, you kept arguing with me, because you never understood the difference between a Catholic (_Irish or otherwise_) and a TRUE catholic.

But it was fun playing with you as you kept digging your hole deeper and deeper!!

:lol:

Other members here saw my posts and we were laughing behind the scenes at how it was going right over your head. :lol:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> So, you've been alive for less than 3 hours? Wow that's a freakishly fast evolution!
> 
> Because before that, you definitely don't seem to know the meaning of the word catholic.


Sometimes I don't believe she/he/it is alive. At least I hope not. A figment of our imagination is bad enough. It's not just the endless quibbling that bothers me most. There is evidence of pathology. There's a book or movie in this, I tell you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> That's a lie.
> 
> Sadly, you kept arguing with me, because you never understood the difference between a Catholic (_Irish or otherwise_) and a TRUE catholic.
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: True indeed Vocal.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> I vote for stupid. I've been reading this for a long time, and I feel confident to judge. (It is like watching a train wreck.)


Oh watching the news about Obamacare again? Now there is a continuing train wreck.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> So, I lied, sue me.
> 
> I actually was a TRUE catholic while a fetus; I'm a quick study.


I see you STILL haven't bothered to peruse the dictionary!

So, you're not a quick study after all..

I thought you were starting to catch on... but apparently not!

:lol:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: True indeed Vocal.


So, she's still professing to be a true catholic!

From the WOMB even!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Sweetie, I suggest YOU take a look at the dictionary.
> 
> Again, I _never_ said _or claimed_ I was a TRUE Catholic.
> 
> I said I was raised (Irish) Catholic.


KPG

She could never be a Catholic in good standing. Her pro abortion support would seal that fate.

Her poor Irish grandparents must be either rolling over in their graves or can never leave Church out of humiliation and disgrace. But then again as my dad says, 'The Irish can never die, they can never give up their grudges", so her grandparents and parents are immortal.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> KPG
> 
> She could never be a Catholic in good standing. Her pro abortion support would seal that fate.


I never claimed to be a good or true Catholic.

Sweetie, you don't seem to be catching on either.

I'm almost embarrassed for you.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I understand and understood perfectly. It is you who didn't realize you were played and made to look the fool you are.


Nice try at the back-pedaling. But we all saw it transpire.

You have truly been great for a good laugh.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Oh watching the news about Obamacare again? Now there is a continuing train wreck.


LOL. OK. You keep telling yourself that.

Of course, we all know, if you're not availing yourself of Obamacare, you're probably availing yourself of the REAL single payer health care system.

Hence, nose deep in hypocrisy.

Did you know that 54% percent of people THINK that they don't avail themselves of government programs but the reality is that 96% of Americans do?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What you accept is of no importance to me. It may not have been your decision, but it was theirs. I thought all you lefties love Relativism, and agree to disagree.
> 
> Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses.


Do you think you're being amusing when you make up lies about us? You're not.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> lovethelake said: "Well, I guess I should cancel my open casket viewing of my goldfish tonight. Might cause the children to have nightmares. Maybe flushing it down the toilet would be okay, just like you pro abortionist do to fetuses."
> 
> Hope that was just facetious. Otherwise it is really truly stupid. and the comment about "pro abortionists" shows your slant. Not everybody who is pro choice is pro abortion. Just pro giving women authority over their own bodies, instead of letting a bunch of sanctimonious old men decide for them.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

west coast kitty said:


> One of our nieces lived for 6 days in NICU (1991) and her 2 pre-school brothers visited her in the hospital before and after her death. Their memories of her are fuzzy - but they're real memories, she's a real person to them - not just a name on a grave marker.
> 
> The extended family were also permitted to visit and I'm grateful that I was able to see and hold her before she died. Not everyone felt comfortable doing that, but no one made the sort cruel and offensive speculation and comments that I've read here
> Your original posts quoted psychologists as saying the situation was recommended and not unusual or alarming at the time. That's consistent with the advice given to my SIL and BIL in 1991. Small children fear uncertainty and a drastic change in their routine. Involving them in the grieving process at whatever level they can accept is less frightening than whispers, tears and isolation.
> ...


Yes I agree with you they use everything or anybody to further their words of hate . But more so with what they have done in the last four or five pages.


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

GET A LIFE AFTER 25 PAGES OF LEFT VERSES RIGHT KNITTING AND CROCHET ARE DECLARED THE WINNER.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Nice try at the back-pedaling. But we all saw it transpire.
> 
> You have truly been great for a good laugh.


No back pedaling with her, and you need to laugh as we all saw what you posted and are. The word hateful comes to mind.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you think you're being amusing when you make up lies about us? You're not.


These non-catholics often think they're being amusing.

But it's like when FoxNews tried to produce a "Daily Show" clone.

They simply don't have the wit to produce anything really clever.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

theyarnlady said:


> theyarnlady said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I agree with you they use everything or anybody to further their words of hate . But more so with what they have done in the last four or five pages.
> ...


And this is where the whining begins because they're out argued.

So predictable. :lol:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> These non-catholics often think they're being amusing.
> 
> But it's like when FoxNews tried to produce a "Daily Show" clone.
> 
> They simply don't have the wit to produce anything really clever.


That's okay. Their viewers aren't clever either.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> LOL. OK. You keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Of course, we all know, if you're not availing yourself of Obamacare, you're probably availing yourself of the REAL single payer health care system.
> 
> ...


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

damemary said:


> That's okay. Their viewers aren't clever either.


You should try C Span you may learn something other then your one liners.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Ooopsie YarnLady just "replied" to my post, but forgot to type anything.

Truly, this is a nimble bunch! :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I figure that's all you're worth.

Ps. It's "something other THAN."



theyarnlady said:


> You should try C Span you may learn something other then your one liners.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

theyarnlady said:


> You should try C Span you may learn something other then your one liners.


See that's the difference between catholics and non-catholics. We (catholics) can watch C-Span AND maintain a sense of humor at the same time.

That's OK FauxViewers are rarely capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, so we don't expect too much from ya.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Ooopsie YarnLady just "replied" to my post, but forgot to type anything.
> 
> Truly, this is a nimble bunch! :thumbup:


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Watch it or she'll be blaming you for one-liners too. It's just too easy sometimes.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That's a lie.
> 
> Sadly, you kept arguing with me, because you never understood the difference between a Catholic (_Irish or otherwise_) and a TRUE catholic.
> 
> Other members here saw my posts and we were laughing behind the scenes at how it was going right over your head. :lol:


Lisa, Lisa, Lisa, More lies? :shock: I'm shocked.

Heres you: at 11:43:41 today



Vocal Lisa said:


> I was raised Irish Catholic, and am a _true_ catholic.


at 12:29:44 I asked you if you ever speak the truth.

Heres you again at 12:35:11 repeating;



Vocal Lisa said:


> BTW, I was raised Irish Catholic.


You commented at 12:46:19 about my post to LTL telling her they (inclusive of YOU), dont understand or know _ God _ their Father.

at 12:58:38 After I explained to you I didnt care how you used capitalization or not of a particular word, I acknowledged your  claim  of being a true Catholic (Christian) and again, said, most often, you do not speak the truth.

You have now confirmed you didnt understand nor notice I use the word claim and did not understand its meaning within my sentence. You also didnt notice I quoted  every word  you used in a completely different format.

I surrounded the word true with quotation marks rather than use italics as you did. I capitalized the word catholic when you did not. I even added the word Christian in parentheses so youd notice.

You didnt.

Dont critique me because you cannot see the obvious.

You were bested in what you believe is a clever way to manipulate words and didnt even realize it happened (to you). So sad.

Better luck next time! :XD:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You commented at 12:46:19 about my post to LTL telling her they (inclusive of YOU), dont understand or know _ God _ their Father.


Right. So as I said. I never claimed I was a TRUE catholic. But I did say I was raised Catholic.

And what does my comment at 12:46:19 have to do with being Catholic?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Other members here saw my posts and we were laughing behind the scenes at how it was going right over your head. :lol:


Wanna wager a guess at how many private communications I've received complaining about the disgusting post initially written by an idiot on this topic? An argument that the Lefties along with you have continued and managed to make more offensive?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wanna wager a guess at how many private communications I've received complaining about the disgusting post initially written by an idiot? An argument that the Lefties have continued?


Yes, but we're still laughing at your LAST post. Things are still going over your head Sweetie.

Keep tryin' though. It's fun to watch! :lol:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Oh watching the news about Obamacare again? Now there is a continuing train wreck.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> KPG
> 
> She could never be a Catholic in good standing. Her pro abortion support would seal that fate.
> 
> Her poor Irish grandparents must be either rolling over in their graves or can never leave Church out of humiliation and disgrace. But then again as my dad says, 'The Irish can never die, they can never give up their grudges", so her grandparents and parents are immortal.


I've sent you a message.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Nice try at the back-pedaling. But we all saw it transpire.
> 
> You have truly been great for a good laugh.


You are truly a joke; check the date and time stamps for what transpired; I just wrote a post for you so you'll get it, perhaps, finally.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I've sent you a message.


Ooooh, everybody. KPG is letting us know she's figured out how to use the Private Messaging system (_that she thinks is called "private communications"_)

Are we all now sufficiently impressed?!!? 
:twisted:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are truly a joke; check the date and time stamps for what transpired; I just wrote a post for you so you'll get it, perhaps, finally.


I saw that.

We're very amused by it!


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

"Catholic" with a capital C refers to a particular denomination or Church, but with a lower case C, "catholic" means universal. There is a difference, and one must be careful with one's capitalization. A sentence can change its meaning entirely if the capitalization is switched.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> No back pedaling with her, and you need to laugh as we all saw what you posted and are. The word hateful comes to mind.


Thank you Yarnie for acknowledging the truth. The times indicated on the posts and the archives show the truth and everyone's words. No worries about me; no back peddling necessary nor done! 

I do love riding a bike though or other such equipment.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Right. So as I said. I never claimed I was a TRUE catholic. But I did say I was raised Catholic.
> 
> And what does my comment at 12:46:19 have to do with being Catholic?


Poor, poor, poor attempt by you to back peddle and attempt to focus on something not in dispute.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thank you Yarnie for acknowledging the truth. The times indicated on the posts and the archives show the truth and everyone's words. No worries about me; no back peddling necessary nor done!


And what do the numbers 12:46:19 have to do with being raised Catholic?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Yes, but we're still laughing at your LAST post. Things are still going over your head Sweetie.
> 
> Keep tryin' though. It's fun to watch! :lol:


You should've kept your day job. Oh, wait, you're retired, no wait, you are working a day job as your profile states, no wait, that's not true either.

Hmmm, which one did you say was the lie vs. truth? So little time, so many lies. :-D :-D :-D


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Poor, poor, poor attempt by you to back peddle and attempt to focus on something not in dispute.


Too bad you can't come up with even ONE quote of me claiming or saying I was a TRUE Catholic.

Never happened.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You should've kept your day job. Oh, wait, you're retired, no wait, you are working a day job as your profile states, no wait, that's not true either.
> 
> Hmmm, which one did you say was the lie vs. truth? So little time, so many lies. :-D :-D :-D


Says the gal who's afraid to show her face! :lol:

Oh, you poor thing. What does having a day job have to do with being or not being retired?

You do know there's a difference between a career and a job, right?

So what will it be if you ever have the guts to show your face? Missing teeth or craggy worts?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Ooooh, everybody. KPG is letting us know she's figured out how to use the Private Messaging system (_that she thinks is called "private communications"_)
> 
> Are we all now sufficiently impressed?!!?
> :twisted:


Ooooh, everybody. Vocal doesn't know what a message sent on an iPhone is called!

Dearie, it is called a text *m-e-s-s-a-g-e* and it is possible to send to someone other than using the private messaging system on KP that offers no privacy. BTW: where did I mention the word "private"? Oh, that's correct, I didn't.

My smart phone is smarter than you.

You assume an awful lot, and I assume you know what that means.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Too bad you can't come up with even ONE quote of me claiming or saying I was a TRUE Catholic.
> 
> Never happened.


How trite. I never claimed otherwise. Never happened.

You should do whatever floats your boat; hope you can swim 'cause you are easily confused.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ooooh, everybody. Vocal doesn't know what a message sent on an iPhone is called!
> 
> Dearie, it is called a text *message*


Oh, Sweetie. You didn't say anything about text messages. Just private communications.

And no, no one sending a text calls them "private communications".

:lol:

ANOTHER pathetic attempt at backpedaling.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Oh, Sweetie. You didn't say anything about text messages. Just private communications.
> 
> And no, no one sending a text calls them "private communications".


Really? Show me. I'll wait.

Here's a hint: I said * m-e-s-s-a-g-e * and never the word "private." Yes, I didn't say "private communication" either.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Camacho said:


> "Catholic" with a capital C refers to a particular denomination or Church, but with a lower case C, "catholic" means universal. There is a difference, and one must be careful with one's capitalization. A sentence can change its meaning entirely if the capitalization is switched.


Oh, Camacho, you spoiled the fun we were having. Now everyone knows what VocalLisa meant. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> How trite. I never claimed otherwise. Never happened.


How dishonest.

Of course you did.



knitpresentgifts said:


> I acknowledged your claim of being a true Catholic


That's a direct quote of you saying I claimed I was a "true" Catholic.

And then provided some time stamp of me saying absolutely NOTHING about being Catholic, true or otherwise.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You commented at 12:46:19 about my post to LTL telling her they (inclusive of YOU), dont understand or know _ God _ their Father.
> 
> at 12:58:38 After I explained to you I didnt care how you used capitalization or not of a particular word, I acknowledged your  claim  of being a true Catholic (Christian) and again, said, most often, you do not speak the truth.
> 
> ...


KPG

Good one. Wonder if she believes if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? Wonder if she got that $2,500 savings from Obamacare yet?

Off to say the Rosary for my goldfish before the wake. Thank goodness it isn't Lent yet.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Really? Show me. I'll wait.
> 
> Here's a hint: I said * m-e-s-s-a-g-e * and never the word "private." Yes, I didn't say "private communication" either.


ssshhhhhhh got it. She still doesn't get it (or one)


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

As I said,

You cannot prove I said I sent a "private communication" to LTL as you claimed because I NEVER DID, so naturally you have back peddled to another topic again falsely claiming I said something I never said.

Great job VocalLoser.

What a complete waste of time to prove what I already knew to be true.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Really? Show me. I'll wait.
> 
> Here's a hint: I said * m-e-s-s-a-g-e * and never the word "private." Yes, I didn't say "private communications" either.


Here ya go:

Screenshot of you saying "private communications"


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> As I said,
> 
> You cannot prove I said I sent a "private communication" to LTL as you claimed


I never said you sent a private communication to LTL.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> KPG
> 
> Good one. Wonder if she believes if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? Wonder if she got that $2,500 savings from Obamacare yet?
> 
> Off to say the Rosary for my goldfish before the wake. Thank goodness it isn't Lent yet.


Oh, LTL, you are too funny! Of course, she believes she can keep her doctor. Don't be fooled, she has enough money (said she's rolling in it in her retirement) so she can pay whatever Dr she wants and is probably pleased to give $2,500 to even me!

Hold the wake until I get there please; I'm not afraid of looking at touching or even eating a dead fish.

Yes, it is only Thursday!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

It's OK, Camacho, everyone other than KPG understood. It is the reason I always refer to Roman Catholic or use RCC.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> ssshhhhhhh got it. She still doesn't get it (or one)


Apparently she doesn't understand the difference between the words "sent" and "received." That's a problem for her IMO.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Here ya go:


News flash for ya!

I said I RECEIVED private communications ..

I said I SENT a message .

then I told you how I SENT a message

You then proceeded to tell me what SENDING a text is called (not private communications).

Then you claimed and implied me as saying I SENT private communications through KP while attempting to embarrass me to other KPers also by saying I didn't know what KP's messaging system to SEND private messages was called.

I NEVER SAID I SENT PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS as you said I did.

I said I SENT a * message.*

Got it?

As I stated correctly and prior: YOU ARE EASILY CONFUSED.

I'll now add "dense."

and I'm done communicating with you.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> That's a lie.
> 
> Sadly, you kept arguing with me, because you never understood the difference between a Catholic (_Irish or otherwise_) and a TRUE catholic.
> 
> ...


Way to go, Lisa! KPG knows how to shovel it alright and she doesn't have a clue how amusing she is with her pompous attitude. She doesn't get it that she is like the naked emperor, her associates are too afraid of her to tell her to put something on and everyone else is ROFL as she loves to say. Personally, all I have to say is TBBC! You can PM me if you need to know. I am honored to know that when I was absent from KP that KPG thought I was you,Lisa. Thanks for the compliment tin man! I'm doing my happy dance!


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was thinking that one of us might have posed a few questions that were not hypothetical.
> 
> 1. how many computers have you supplied to children "saved" by the right to life movement?
> 2. how much have you contributed to the schooling of those same "saved" human beings?
> ...


I have said this over and over, but I'll say it again. Personal responsibility!! Not my problem to provide for children saved from abortion. If you want someone else to pay for them then give them up for adoption. Somethings in life aren't planned for, somethings just come and if you could be an open person then it doesn't need to be the end of the world. Sometimes you think it will be but it rarely is. Grow up and take what comes your way. And if anyone thinks I don't know what I am talking about, think again!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

implied me; neither, I


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have said this over and over, but I'll say it again. Personal responsibility!! Not my problem to provide for children saved from abortion. If you want someone else to pay for them then give them up for adoption. Somethings in life aren't planned for, somethings just come and if you could be an open person then it doesn't need to be the end of the world. Sometimes you think it will be but it rarely is. Grow up and take what comes your way. And if anyone thinks I don't know what I am talking about, think again!


No would suffice, I really don't care why you are selfish. Just that you don't really care about children.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I never said you sent a private communication to LTL.





VocalLisa said:


> And no, no one sending a text calls them "private communications".


I told you I *sent* a message. I NEVER implied or said it was "private communications." You ASSUMED I sent a PM through KP and told me so.

Get over yourself.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet you can bite me! You are making assumtions about me that you have no idea about. Again don't debate the facts, just call names. That is all liberrals are good for. And if no would have sufficed I would have said it, it didn't and doesn't.
Anytime liberals get into a debate it quickly results in name calling because you can't debate the facts so name calling as all you have left. The war on women isn't real by any stretch of the imagination.
I had a child when it wasn't a good time in my life but I never took anything for her and I to survive. PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY. Maybe you are hard of hearing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I told you a sent a message. I NEVER called it "private communications." You ASSUMED I sent a PM through KP and told me so.
> 
> Get over yourself.


Not necessarily through KP, many services call private messages PMs, or have called them that.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Oh, Camacho, you spoiled the fun we were having. Now everyone knows what VocalLisa meant. :lol: :lol: :lol:


 :-D But I also see from the rest of page 27 that not quite "everyone" realized the fact that I stated. Or they decided to ignore it. So maybe I haven't spoiled "all" the fun. I'm sort of enjoying reading this thread.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet you can bite me! You are making assumtions about me that you have no idea about. Again don't debate the facts, just call names. That is all liberrals are good for. And if no would have sufficed I would have said it, it didn't and doesn't.
> Anytime liberals get into a debate it quickly results in name calling because you can't debate the facts so name calling as all you have left. The war on women isn't real by any stretch of the imagination.
> I had a child when it wasn't a good time in my life but I never took anything for her and I to survive. PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY. Maybe you are hard of hearing.


The thing is, it is ignorant to claim that only your choice is opting for personal responsibility. 
I don't make assumptions about you, I don't even care about you. 
I laid out questions based on all of the talk about how an embryo or fetus is a child; in your response you made it quite clear that you are not really interested in assisting the children born after young women are coerced into accepting childbirth as their just punishment for having sex. 
If you don't agree that is selfish (which is not a name, btw) I can't help that.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> Sometimes I don't believe she/he/it is alive. At least I hope not. A figment of our imagination is bad enough. It's not just the endless quibbling that bothers me most. There is evidence of pathology. There's a book or movie in this, I tell you.


I think there have already been a couple of movies made about this individual. The first one that comes to mind is Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum as a demented religious fanatic, The Bad Seed, Patty McCormick as evil little Rhoda and Tony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho. Remember how they always showed Norman's mother from the back and all you saw was the back of her head? Just like KPG's avatar. Coincidence? I think not. Then when the rocking chair was turned around, the horror!!!!! KPG knows I love to laugh at her expense as she is a never ending source of . You can't have a civil or intelligent conversation with her as she is totally self absorbed so why bother.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> She/he/it is always right, omnipotent and narcissistic. A psychiatrist could use her for a research paper.


It would necessarily be a lengthy one.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think there have already been a couple of movies made about this individual. The first one that comes to mind is Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum as a demented religious fanatic, The Bad Seed, Patty McCormick as evil little Rhoda and Tony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho. Remember how they always showed Norman's mother from the back and all you saw was the back of her head? Just like KPG's avatar. Coincidence? I think not. Then when the rocking chair was turned around, the horror!!!!! KPG knows I love to laugh at her expense as she is a never ending source of . You can't have a civil or intelligent conversation with her as she is totally self absorbed so why bother.


All too true, one of these days I have to go to their special little spot to see what sort of communications she carries out over there.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> That's okay. Their viewers aren't clever either.


Not even close.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have said this over and over, but I'll say it again. Personal responsibility!! Not my problem to provide for children saved from abortion. If you want someone else to pay for them then give them up for adoption. Somethings in life aren't planned for, somethings just come and if you could be an open person then it doesn't need to be the end of the world. Sometimes you think it will be but it rarely is. Grow up and take what comes your way. And if anyone thinks I don't know what I am talking about, think again!


So you only care about babies until they are born? Of course! It's all about making those promiscuous females pay for their sins. And to hell with the children.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think there have already been a couple of movies made about this individual. The first one that comes to mind is Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum as a demented religious fanatic, The Bad Seed, Patty McCormick as evil little Rhoda and Tony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho. Remember how they always showed Norman's mother from the back and all you saw was the back of her head? Just like KPG's avatar. Coincidence? I think not.


You may be onto something, Cheeky. Losing a few hairpins can make all the difference--and what gal doesn't change her style from time to time?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Did it ever occur to anybody that that may not be the *back* of her head?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet you can bite me! You are making assumtions about me that you have no idea about. Again don't debate the facts, just call names. That is all liberrals are good for. And if no would have sufficed I would have said it, it didn't and doesn't.
> Anytime liberals get into a debate it quickly results in name calling because you can't debate the facts so name calling as all you have left. The war on women isn't real by any stretch of the imagination.
> I had a child when it wasn't a good time in my life but I never took anything for her and I to survive. PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY. Maybe you are hard of hearing.


You go SometimesaKnitter! I wish I could give you some or even one name of a Liberal on this (or any) KP thread who could politely and/or intelligently spar with you over a topic of choice *without* resorting to name calling and a personal attack.

Alas, I've yet to encounter but one!

Send me a PM if you'd like me to provide you some of the most egregious name calling I've seen to date by Libs/LWNs on KP.

You'll be apprised of their hate and ignorance but probably not surprised.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Did it ever occur to anybody that that may not be the *back* of her head?


You don't mean *gasp*--?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

WCK, I'm so very sorry for your loss of your niece. 

Nothing more should be said to those individuals who live without a heart in their body in my opinion. They are deserving of Hell on earth, and I don't know of any sane person who speaks to writing zombies.


KPG said above to WCK that "nothing more should be said to those individuals who live without a heart in their body" and "I don't know of any sane person who speaks to writing zombies"

Obviously, KPG doesn't listen to the voices in her head as she continued to post on this thread over 20 more times. Which of her multiples is in control of her demonic, albeit, tiny brain today? You should go in for a complete psychological profile TM as many of your synapses are not firing and your thought processes are no longer logical or reasonable. Bless your heart.
I am doing my happy dance, TM. I know you love my happy dance. Don't hate me because I am such a great dancer and you have two left feet. :-D


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

# 12



knitpresentgifts said:


> You commented at 12:46:19 about my post to LTL telling her they (inclusive of YOU), dont understand or know _ God _ their Father.
> 
> at 12:58:38 After I explained to you I didnt care how you used capitalization or not of a particular word, I acknowledged your  claim  of being a true Catholic (Christian) and again, said, most often, you do not speak the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> You don't mean *gasp*--?


Susan she does have multiple personalities and I guess they all have their own do's. :-D


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She spends a lot of time pouring over old posts trying to make them say what she wants. She's always right too, you know. NOT!



VocalLisa said:


> Right. So as I said. I never claimed I was a TRUE catholic. But I did say I was raised Catholic.
> 
> And what does my comment at 12:46:19 have to do with being Catholic?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please, please keep to PMing among yourselves.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Wanna wager a guess at how many private communications I've received complaining about the disgusting post initially written by an idiot on this topic? An argument that the Lefties along with you have continued and managed to make more offensive?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Susan she does have multiple personalities and I guess they all have their own do's. :-D


Hmm...in that case a buzz cut might do wonders for her personality.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Maybe she should share it.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Really? Show me. I'll wait.
> 
> Here's a hint: I said * m-e-s-s-a-g-e * and never the word "private." Yes, I didn't say "private communication" either.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

maysmom said:


> So you only care about babies until they are born? Of course! It's all about making those promiscuous females pay for their sins. And to hell with the children.


Yea liberal crap!!! Not what I said so if you can't understand or comprhend english maybe you had better be quiet.
I can't believe anyone would put it in the context you did!!! I didn't but you did!!! You only believe what you want to believe about conservatives so it fits your narative. You don't care for the born, they are just a talking point to you.BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
OH HELP US CAUSE WE CAN'T BE AN ADULT ABOUT OUR LIVES SO YOU HAVE TO!! AND IF YOU DON'T WE'LL JUST CALL YOU NAMES UNTIL YOU DO!!! WAA WAA WAA
Take care of your own!!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Very good Vocal. But she still says she's right. I think she's deluded.



VocalLisa said:


> Here ya go:
> 
> Screenshot of you saying "private communications"


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> All too true, one of these days I have to go to their special little spot to see what sort of communications she carries out over there.


Janet, be afraid, be very afraid. KPG is like Lon Chaney the silent screen actor, called the man of a thousand faces. Now we know why she has the wig/hair obsession.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cheeky and Vocal have both been complimented by KPG's confusion. Glad to have you both about.



Cheeky Blighter said:


> Way to go, Lisa! KPG knows how to shovel it alright and she doesn't have a clue how amusing she is with her pompous attitude. She doesn't get it that she is like the naked emperor, her associates are too afraid of her to tell her to put something on and everyone else is ROFL as she loves to say. Personally, all I have to say is TBBC! You can PM me if you need to know. I am honored to know that when I was absent from KP that KPG thought I was you,Lisa. Thanks for the compliment tin man! I'm doing my happy dance!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have said this over and over, but I'll say it again. Personal responsibility!! Not my problem to provide for children saved from abortion. If you want someone else to pay for them then give them up for adoption. Somethings in life aren't planned for, somethings just come and if you could be an open person then it doesn't need to be the end of the world. Sometimes you think it will be but it rarely is. Grow up and take what comes your way. And if anyone thinks I don't know what I am talking about, think again!


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No one cares. Isn't it cocktail time for you?



knitpresentgifts said:


> I told you I *sent* a message. I NEVER implied or said it was "private communications." You ASSUMED I sent a PM through KP and told me so.
> 
> Get over yourself.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Did it ever occur to anybody that that may not be the *back* of her head?


At least one has floated that balloon.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I thought people from Nebraska were nice. That'll teach me to avoid stereotypes.

Damn children. Damn anyone who thinks differently. Liberal is bad, although I can't define the word. Say everyone else is bad to call names & tell Janet to bite you.

Do you know you're on the side of this debate against women? Who/what are you?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet you can bite me! You are making assumtions about me that you have no idea about. Again don't debate the facts, just call names. That is all liberrals are good for. And if no would have sufficed I would have said it, it didn't and doesn't.
> Anytime liberals get into a debate it quickly results in name calling because you can't debate the facts so name calling as all you have left. The war on women isn't real by any stretch of the imagination.
> I had a child when it wasn't a good time in my life but I never took anything for her and I to survive. PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY. Maybe you are hard of hearing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think there have already been a couple of movies made about this individual. The first one that comes to mind is Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum as a demented religious fanatic, The Bad Seed, Patty McCormick as evil little Rhoda and Tony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho. Remember how they always showed Norman's mother from the back and all you saw was the back of her head? Just like KPG's avatar. Coincidence? I think not. Then when the rocking chair was turned around, the horror!!!!! KPG knows I love to laugh at her expense as she is a never ending source of . You can't have a civil or intelligent conversation with her as she is totally self absorbed so why bother.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I've missed you. I did a happy dance in your honor today.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And the women deserve to wear a scarlet letter. Little b***** deserve what they get.

Honestly, how do these people get so heartless?



maysmom said:


> So you only care about babies until they are born? Of course! It's all about making those promiscuous females pay for their sins. And to hell with the children.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think she's got it!



susanmos2000 said:


> You may be onto something, Cheeky. Losing a few hairpins can make all the difference--and what gal doesn't change her style from time to time?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I had a thought too terrible to share.



susanmos2000 said:


> You don't mean *gasp*--?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Wonder if she believes if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? Wonder if she got that $2,500 savings from Obamacare yet?


Of course you can keep your doctor and you can keep your insurance. (_Unless you were stupid enough to buy a scam plan that really isn't insurance, it's something that CLAIMS to be insurance and then doesn't really pay out as promised._).

And I'm lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare.

As is often the case the people who claim to be against such gummint programs are typically the ones that tend to need and utilize them the most.

FEW groups have benefited from gummint programs as a group more than Teabaggers for instance.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Shake those hips.



Cheeky Blighter said:


> WCK, I'm so very sorry for your loss of your niece.
> 
> Nothing more should be said to those individuals who live without a heart in their body in my opinion. They are deserving of Hell on earth, and I don't know of any sane person who speaks to writing zombies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Hmm...in that case a buzz cut might do wonders for her personality.


Sure would require a lot less up keep but I think her hair might be her identity and what would she do if she lost that? We know how shallow she is. There really isn't any substance to her as she so immaturely displays to us daily.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cocktail time for you? You sound drunk.

Ps. It's English.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yea liberal crap!!! Not what I said so if you can't understand or comprhend english maybe you had better be quiet.
> I can't believe anyone would put it in the context you did!!! I didn't but you did!!! You only believe what you want to believe about conservatives so it fits your narative. You don't care for the born, they are just a talking point to you.BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
> OH HELP US CAUSE WE CAN'T BE AN ADULT ABOUT OUR LIVES SO YOU HAVE TO!! AND IF YOU DON'T WE'LL JUST CALL YOU NAMES UNTIL YOU DO!!! WAA WAA WAA
> Take care of your own!!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

At least we always know what to expect, but it does get boring.



Cheeky Blighter said:


> Sure would require a lot less up keep but I think her hair might be her identity and what would she do if she lost that? We know how shallow she is. There really isn't any substance to her as she so immaturely displays to us daily.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Apparently she doesn't understand the difference between the words "sent" and "received." That's a problem for her IMO.


Apparently you don't seem to know I didn't claim that you sent anything. I just said:



> KPG is letting us know she's figured out how to use the Private Messaging system (that she thinks is called "private communications")


So it's YOU that doesn't understand the difference between "USE" and "Sent/Recieved".

It's still HILARIOUS that you used the term "Private Communications"!

What's next, you and Ted Stevens are going to teach some online classes on how to use the "Series of Tubes"??? :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> News flash for ya!
> 
> I said I RECEIVED private communications ..
> 
> I said I SENT a message . .


Who cares?

I never claimed whether you sent or received anything specifically. Only that you wanted to let us know you've figured out how to use the "series of tubes" you think is called "Private Communications".


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> I had a thought too terrible to share.


Heehee--I think I know what you're getting at. No, that thought hadn't crossed my mind, but you could be right. It sure would explain a lot.
:thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Who cares?
> 
> I never claimed whether you sent or received anything specifically. Only that you wanted to let us know you've figured out how to use the "series of tubes" you think is called "Private Communications".


Two Dixie cups and a string, no doubt.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> I thought people from Nebraska were nice. That'll teach me to avoid stereotypes.
> 
> Damn children. Damn anyone who thinks differently. Liberal is bad, although I can't define the word. Say everyone else is bad to call names & tell Janet to bite you.
> 
> Do you know you're on the side of this debate against women? Who/what are you?


You wouldn't care. All you care about is your liberal agenda. People don't matter to you, all that matters is you is getting people to agree to your way of thinking. Yea I told her to bite me! So what? I tell it like it is. Go figure. 
You guys can't figure out anything written to you, just go back to your talking points. No one has mentioned personal responsibility, and where that figures into things........No that doesn't fit your agenda does it? Maybe I need to type in all caps so you can hear me???
Your heads are so full of propaganda you can't absorb any logic. Like how many of your parents were on welfare???? HMMM? Not many I would wager. That generation beleived it was their resposibility to work and take care of their families. And if they ever were on welfare they got off as soon as possible. People now think it is their right to have things handed to them. I work hard for my family, you need to work hard for your family.
And people that think that killing a baby is the right thing to do has limited brain cells that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. Many other options out their but this option of killing is so darn easy and available that they don't want to be bothered about silly things like an innocent being killed. And then liberals think the death penalty is just awful. Heaven forbid if an innocent is put to death but you will defend a woman's right to abort to your death...........Makes no sense at all.
I don't care if you think Nebraskans are nice or not.....Hope you never set foot here.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Way to go, Lisa! KPG knows how to shovel it alright and she doesn't have a clue how amusing she is with her pompous attitude. She doesn't get it that she is like the naked emperor, her associates are too afraid of her to tell her to put something on and everyone else is ROFL as she loves to say. Personally, all I have to say is TBBC! You can PM me if you need to know. I am honored to know that when I was absent from KP that KPG thought I was you,Lisa. Thanks for the compliment tin man! I'm doing my happy dance!


Oh, I hadn't heard that. You and I are one and the same??

I will send you one of those fancy-schmancy "private communications" now.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Two Dixie cups and a string, no doubt.


So now, the big choice...and I don't mean abortion or not. 
Do I say that I think KPG has once again made enough of a fool of herself to disappear for a while and hope for the best or should I not post this and figure she might just stay away?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> implied me; neither, I


Okay, this one I didn't get. Were you answering someone? <I've been too busy chuckling about the earth-shaking message in which it was said that VocalLisa's "catholic" was capitalized (to correct her).>


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> Cocktail time for you? You sound drunk.
> 
> Ps. It's English.


No... if she was drunk there would've been three "r"s in the word narrative instead of one.

High on crack is more like it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Camacho said:


> :-D But I also see from the rest of page 27 that not quite "everyone" realized the fact that I stated. Or they decided to ignore it. So maybe I haven't spoiled "all" the fun. I'm sort of enjoying reading this thread.


No, there's still some fun coming out of it. I'm glad you joined us.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I told you I *sent* a message. I NEVER implied or said it was "private communications." You ASSUMED I sent a PM through KP and told me so.
> 
> Get over yourself.


I don't care whether you sent or received a message, never did.

I only said/claimed you were trying to impress us with your USE of "private communications" on the "Series of Tubes".


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Okay, this one I didn't get. Were you answering someone? <I've been too busy chuckling about the earth-shaking message in which it was said that VocalLisa's "catholic" was capitalized (to correct her).>


Oh gee, let me check what the context was. LOL


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think there have already been a couple of movies made about this individual. The first one that comes to mind is Night of the Hunter, Robert Mitchum as a demented religious fanatic, The Bad Seed, Patty McCormick as evil little Rhoda and Tony Perkins as Norman Bates in Psycho. Remember how they always showed Norman's mother from the back and all you saw was the back of her head? Just like KPG's avatar. Coincidence? I think not. Then when the rocking chair was turned around, the horror!!!!! KPG knows I love to laugh at her expense as she is a never ending source of . You can't have a civil or intelligent conversation with her as she is totally self absorbed so why bother.


Never thought of her in connection with Robert Mitchum (who was a very down-to-earth person), but that character, with LOVE on one hand and HATE on the other, is a pretty good match. And thanks also for the reminder of the back of Mother Bates's head.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> News flash for ya!
> 
> I said I RECEIVED private communications ..
> 
> ...


Not only was she done communicating with VL, she "implied me" someone really smart can interpret that for me, perhaps.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

MarilynKnits said:


> Did it ever occur to anybody that that may not be the *back* of her head?


Cousin IT!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not only was she done communicating with VL, she "implied me" someone really smart can interpret that for me, perhaps.


Yeah, I love that one. "Implied me as saying..."

Evidently she's off to drunken "private communicate" instead of continuing with the slurred rants on this "public communication" thing-a-ma-bob.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> Cocktail time for you? You sound drunk.
> 
> Ps. It's English.


Glad to know you think you are perfect...Besides I don't drink, but I guess a drunk would know what sounds drunk wouldn't they???


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> You may be onto something, Cheeky. Losing a few hairpins can make all the difference--and what gal doesn't change her style from time to time?


Susan. Wonderful.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Did it ever occur to anybody that that may not be the *back* of her head?


Well, now that you mention it...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> # 12


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yea liberal crap!!! Not what I said so if you can't understand or comprhend english maybe you had better be quiet.
> I can't believe anyone would put it in the context you did!!! I didn't but you did!!! You only believe what you want to believe about conservatives so it fits your narative. You don't care for the born, they are just a talking point to you.BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
> OH HELP US CAUSE WE CAN'T BE AN ADULT ABOUT OUR LIVES SO YOU HAVE TO!! AND IF YOU DON'T WE'LL JUST CALL YOU NAMES UNTIL YOU DO!!! WAA WAA WAA
> Take care of your own!!


Overly dramatic, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Very good Vocal. But she still says she's right. I think she's deluded.


Of course she's right. Even though she used the phrase, it was about private communications sent *to* her, not from her. Can't you read? Wait, can't you comprehend "that which" you read?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You wouldn't care. All you care about is your liberal agenda. People don't matter to you, all that matters is you is getting people to agree to your way of thinking. Yea I told her to bite me! So what? I tell it like it is. Go figure.


Do you always speak to strangers like this?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Oh, I hadn't heard that. You and I are one and the same??
> 
> I will send you one of those fancy-schmancy "private communications" now.


The first few times you posted, some of them decided that you must be Cheeky, who'd been away a long time. They think everybody else is Huckleberry.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not only was she done communicating with VL, she "implied me" someone really smart can interpret that for me, perhaps.


It's an example of speaking in tongues.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> ...Besides I don't drink, ...


Yep, that's what many internet drunks say in the midst of their addiction.

Of course, their crazy-butt posts give them away every time.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Overly dramatic, n'est-ce pas?


Must have struck a chord.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> The first few times you posted, some of them decided that you must be Cheeky, who'd been away a long time. They think everybody else is Huckleberry.


LOL. Yup, that lot really are prone to conspiracy theories and paranoia.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you always speak to strangers like this?


I think she is trying to play 2nd fiddle to the wig master. She makes about as much sense. I hope she finds her way off the thread OK. Looks like KPG had to leave and regain her composure. After another one of her dying swan renditions I was hoping she would finally stop lying and leave us for good as she has promised us sooooooooo many times that she would before. I can dream can't I? I know as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so is it with KPG. TBBC


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Glad to know you think you are perfect...Besides I don't drink, but I guess a drunk would know what sounds drunk wouldn't they???


So nice that you don't throw out insults, sometimesanasty*****


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> It's an example of speaking in tongues.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It's an example of speaking in tongues.


Thank you, now it is all becoming clear.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> So nice that you don't throw out insults, sometimesanasty*****


You started it, besides only way to beat a nasty person is use something they understand, more nastiness.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


>


Which reminds me, Pat Robertson was chiding someone this week about seeming too far out there due to their creationist timeline. 
HAHAHHAAAA

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/even-pat-robertson-thinks-young-earth-creationism-joke


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You started it, besides only way to beat a nasty person is use something they understand, more nastiness.


Exactly why some Liberals RESPOND as they do.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think she is trying to play 2nd fiddle to the wig master. She makes about as much sense. I hope she finds her way off the thread OK. Looks like KPG had to leave and regain her composure. After another one of her dying swan renditions I was hoping she would finally stop lying and leave us for good as she has promised us sooooooooo many times that she would before. I can dream can't I? I know as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so is it with KPG. TBBC


This new one is worse. KPG can stick to a topic and go over it again and again and again. This one walks into a room with strangers and starts accusing us of all kinds of irrelevant things, shouting as she does it. And after that, she accuses us of being mean to her. Okay, they all do that, but the new one does it more.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


>


Wow. Those are wacky. But now we know how her hair came to cover her face.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Exactly why some Liberals RESPOND as they do.


Exactly why I responded the way I did. I was called the drunk first, guess that doesn't matter and I should just lay down and take it??? Nope, sorry, not gonna. 

Liberals are so stupid sometimes you have to point out every little thing to them......
And still no one has answeredd where personal responsibility plays a role or whose parents were on welfare???? Doesn't it fit into your agenda????


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> This new one is worse. KPG can stick to a topic and go over it again and again and again. This one walks into a room with strangers and starts accusing us of all kinds of irrelevant things, shouting as she does it. And after that, she accuses us of being mean to her. Okay, they all do that, but the new one does it more.


I am beginning to worry about you, you are understanding this syndrome much too well.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am beginning to worry about you, you are understanding this syndrome much too well.


No need to worry. I'm a trained professional, and I don't do this at home.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You started it, besides only way to beat a nasty person is use something they understand, more nastiness.


May I ask how you came upon this thread and why if it disturbs you so much do you stay? Are you a masochist then, deriving some sick pleasure out of interaction with us?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Exactly why I responded the way I did. I was called the drunk first, guess that doesn't matter and I should just lay down and take it??? Nope, sorry, not gonna.
> 
> Liberals are so stupid sometimes you have to point out every little thing to them......
> And still no one has answeredd where personal responsibility plays a role or whose parents were on welfare???? Doesn't it fit into your agenda????


Are you naturally this rude or is it chemically induced. Maybe an imbalance in your brain? If you were "normal" you would just leave the thread and go to another one. What's your shtik?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> May I ask how you came upon this thread and why if it disturbs you so much do you stay? Are you a masochist then, deriving some sick pleasure out of interaction with us?


You can ask anything you want. It disturbs me not. Besides this thread was started by a person who believes the abortion people are not right. So if anything I belong here, not you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You can ask anything you want. It disturbs me not. Besides this thread was started by a person who believes the abortion people are not right. So if anything I belong here, not you.


LOL, the abortion people.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Exactly why I responded the way I did. I was called the drunk first, guess that doesn't matter and I should just lay down and take it??? Nope, sorry, not gonna.
> 
> Liberals are so stupid sometimes you have to point out every little thing to them......
> And still no one has answeredd where personal responsibility plays a role or whose parents were on welfare???? Doesn't it fit into your agenda????


How true! Everyone knows who speaks the truth and who posts propaganda and lies.

No Liberal refuted or attempted to refute my post about the disgusting initial comments regarding the Santorum family.

So what do the Libs do? They posts lies and BS in an attempt to deflect attention to another topic, any topic, in order to avoid the truth from staring them in the face.

When the truth is forced to the forefront they'll make personal attacks and then post pretty pictures to please their simple minds.

So glaringly obvious and childish. That's precisely when we (you) know you've won. :thumbup: (Don't forget to shout BINGO :lol: )

When they are attacking you and trying to defame or embarrass you, you'll know you're correct, on track and have stopped them cold.

Delightful! Thanks for your input Sometimes. You got through to them, and we all know it.

Don't ever expect them to speak the truth or take personal responsibility for their words or actions; that is beneath them and never within them.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> How true! Everyone knows who speaks the truth and who posts propaganda and lies.
> 
> No Liberal refuted or attempted to refute my post about the disgusting initial comments regarding the Santorum family.
> 
> ...


Totally agree. They have no brain between them and so can only parrot what they have been told, anything else is beyond their comprehension. They can't bring themselves to debate the actual merits of an arguement, so they sling mud and resort to the childish behavior.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> LOL, the abortion people.


Such an intelligent answer!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Totally agree. They have no brain between them and so can only parrot what they have been told, anything else is beyond their comprehension. They can't bring themselves to debate the actual merits of an arguement, so they sling mud and resort to the childish behavior.


Have you ever wondered how many rotations (RPMs) one Lib/LWN makes in one minute during a "spin" diatribe? I have! :lol:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You can ask anything you want. It disturbs me not. Besides this thread was started by a person who believes the abortion people are not right. So if anything I belong here, not you.


This is an open forum. The person who started this thread wanted opinions and she got them. My, you sound like KPG bitching about Libs posting in a thread started by a RWN.
The original poster failed to say that she wanted only anti choice opinions. Seeing your posts, I can't see how anything can disturb a person that is obviously already disturbed. Have a pleasant evening.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sometimes I feel so sheltered.



VocalLisa said:


> No... if she was drunk there would've been three "r"s in the word narrative instead of one.
> 
> High on crack is more like it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

TBBC



Janet Cooke said:


> Not only was she done communicating with VL, she "implied me" someone really smart can interpret that for me, perhaps.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Glad to know you think you are perfect...Besides I don't drink, but I guess a drunk would know what sounds drunk wouldn't they???


Oh heavens, no! It's the sober ones who would know. 
Drunks always lie about being drunk. But you already know that, right?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Drama Queen indeed.



Poor Purl said:


> Overly dramatic, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Have you ever wondered how many rotations (RPMs) one Lib/LWN makes in one minute during a "spin" diatribe? I have! :lol:


What ever trips your trigger, KPG.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Silly me.



Poor Purl said:


> Of course she's right. Even though she used the phrase, it was about private communications sent *to* her, not from her. Can't you read? Wait, can't you comprehend "that which" you read?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It is a well known fact that people are brave and nasty when confronted on the Internet.



Poor Purl said:


> Do you always speak to strangers like this?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Or Ingried.

Pick a personna and roll.



Poor Purl said:


> The first few times you posted, some of them decided that you must be Cheeky, who'd been away a long time. They think everybody else is Huckleberry.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> This is an open forum. The person who started this thread wanted opinions and she got them. My, you sound like KPG bitching about Libs posting in a thread started by a RWN.
> The original poster failed to say that she wanted only anti choice opinions. Seeing your posts, I can't see how anything can disturb a person that is obviously already disturbed. Have a pleasant evening.


I don't care if you post on here, I won't leave tho either. Just pointing out to some dumb lib what should have been obvious. I never bitched about it either-she did. Boy libs sure are stooooooooped.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I don't care if you post on here, I won't leave tho either. Just pointing out to some dumb lib what should have been obvious. I never bitched about it either-she did. Boy libs sure are stooooooooped.


Last reply to you. Go out and shop for an IQ, then come back.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What a hoot!



Janet Cooke said:


> Which reminds me, Pat Robertson was chiding someone this week about seeming too far out there due to their creationist timeline.
> HAHAHHAAAA
> 
> http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/even-pat-robertson-thinks-young-earth-creationism-joke


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> No need to worry. I'm a trained professional, and I don't do this at home.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Looney Tunes.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> You can ask anything you want. It disturbs me not. Besides this thread was started by a person who believes the abortion people are not right. So if anything I belong here, not you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And we laugh at people who can't discuss anything intelligently.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I don't care if you post on here, I won't leave tho either. Just pointing out to some dumb lib what should have been obvious. I never bitched about it either-she did. Boy libs sure are stooooooooped.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Dat's All Folks!!!!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Me too GrannyGoode...many thanks for the support!
> 
> What can you do when so-called 'progressive' women choose to see themselves as victims and choose to believe that more than half the population is against them? Without their "War on Women" crusade the Democrats wouldn't have anyone to demonize and they'd have no talking points to fuel the MSNBC circus clowns. It's really very sad that these seemingly intelligent women can't see how they're being used.
> 
> ...


Great self- description!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> It is a well known fact that people are brave and nasty when confronted on the Internet.


Both brave and nasty? This person was certainly nasty, but she didn't seem brave.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No... if she was drunk there would've been three "r"s in the word narrative instead of one.
> 
> High on crack is more like it.


And I can only imagine who's crack it is!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> And I can only imagine who's crack it is!


Hey, do you kiss your granddaughter with that mouth?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Hey, do you kiss your granddaughter with that mouth?


Did you just turn into KPG? I wasn't referring to butt cracks, silly.
I was referring to who's supplying the crack.
Yes, I kiss her 100 times a day with this mouth.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I meant that many people who are usually quiet and polite in person can scream epithets at the top of their lungs when they are not face to face. They're brave until they feel vulnerable.



Poor Purl said:


> Both brave and nasty? This person was certainly nasty, but she didn't seem brave.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> I meant that many people who are usually quiet and polite in person can scream epithets at the top of their lungs when they are not face to face. They're brave until they feel vulnerable.


I love it when libs have to explain themselves to other libs! Ha

And when I wrote stoooooped I thought that the stupid libs might be able to sound it out and maybe get the meaning because after all I am sure they have heard that word describing them many many times.

And again nothing posted by libs of any substance whatsoever.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Exactly why I responded the way I did.


Thank you for confirming what I said.

It's VERY unusual and refreshing to have a conservative admit to their hypocrisies and failing to practice what they preach.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Exactly why I responded the way I did. I was called the drunk first ...


Which was a response to your nastiness.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Such an intelligent answer!


It _would_ kind of be pointless to offer anything too erudite in a response to a poster that would actually type an illiterate phrase like "abortion people".


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BrattyPatty said:


> knitpresentgifts said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever wondered how many rotations (RPMs) one Lib/LWN makes in one minute during a "spin" diatribe? I have! :lol:
> ...


But, she's letting you know she done darned learned what "R" stands for in RPM.

Are you impressed yet?

She's a regular Einstein, ain't she?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> I meant that many people who are usually quiet and polite in person can scream epithets at the top of their lungs when they are not face to face. They're brave until they feel vulnerable.


I understand, although in this case I think the terms "Booze Bravado", "Rum Rants" "Inebriant Imbecility" and "Tequila Talk" might be even more apropos.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Of course you can keep your doctor and you can keep your insurance. (_Unless you were stupid enough to buy a scam plan that really isn't insurance, it's something that CLAIMS to be insurance and then doesn't really pay out as promised._).
> 
> And I'm lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare.
> 
> ...


Love it, "I am lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare". Sounds like an admission that it is a train wreck. Sounds like you just admitted that it is okay for anyone that isn't an elitist like yourself. And why call people stupid for buying insurance that fit their needs? Can't help yourself. You appear so desperate when you rely on name calling (stupid, teabaggers).


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You can ask anything you want. It disturbs me not. Besides this thread was started by a person who believes the abortion people are not right. So if anything I belong here, not you.


Good for you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> This is an open forum. The person who started this thread wanted opinions and she got them. My, you sound like KPG bitching about Libs posting in a thread started by a RWN.
> The original poster failed to say that she wanted only anti choice opinions. Seeing your posts, I can't see how anything can disturb a person that is obviously already disturbed. Have a pleasant evening.


She also sounds like KPG in the way she writes. She uses dated forms of speech. Maybe she thinks that Nebraska is the backwoods.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Love it, "I am lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare". Sounds like an admission that it is a train wreck. Sounds like you just admitted that it is okay for anyone that isn't an elitist like yourself. And why call people stupid for buying insurance that fit their needs? Can't help yourself. You appear so desperate when you rely on name calling (stupid, teabaggers).


1.I am also lucky enough not to have to seek and make decisions from dozens of plans that are available and as you have been sure to let me know I have no chance of being elitist.

2. It is pretty stupid to buy a plan that at best returns the money you have paid into it.

3. Being stupid is a state of being, as you are showing us so well, it is not name calling.

4. Teabaggers was a determination that crazies chose for themselves.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Love it, "I am lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare". Sounds like an admission that it is a train wreck. Sounds like you just admitted that it is okay for anyone that isn't an elitist like yourself. And why call people stupid for buying insurance that fit their needs? Can't help yourself. You appear so desperate when you rely on name calling (stupid, teabaggers).


Yes, that is exactly what she admitted.

Yes, she cannot help herself.

Yes, she regularly appears desperate and resorts to name calling.

I'll add she thinks she is so clever and interesting the way she manipulates her words and litters them with lies. Yes, *she* does.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> 1.I am also lucky enough not to have to seek and make decisions from dozens of plans that are available and as you have been sure to let me know I have no chance of being elitist.
> 
> 2. It is pretty stupid to buy a plan that at best returns the money you have paid into it.
> 
> ...


Was not talking to you. And even if I was, that was a lame answer trying to justify the Obamacare train wreck. Since you get subsidies and you are mooching off of others, you have no right to tell me what plan I choose to pay for or how I spend my money. Since I do not receive a handout, and because I do not want to quit my job to 'find myself' stay off my ladder of success and paint yourself a candle.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Since I do not receive a handout, and because I do not want to quit my job to 'find myself' stay off my ladder of success and paint yourself a candle.


 :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Was not talking to you. And even if I was, that was a lame answer trying to justify the Obamacare train wreck. Since you get subsidies and you are mooching off of others, you have no right to tell me what plan I choose to pay for or how I spend my money. Since I do not receive a handout, and because I do not want to quit my job to 'find myself' stay off my ladder of success and paint yourself a candle.


All of us receive handouts. It is part of being within any society. Do you ever drive? The price of gas is low due to subsidies. 
Do you use the internet? 
Do you watch a television? 
Do you use any type of phone?

Baby? Your ladder of success is short a few rungs. 
Nice try, though.

Get the picture?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> All of us receive handouts. It is part of being within any society. Do you ever drive? The price of gas is low due to subsidies.
> Do you use the internet?
> Do you watch a television?
> Do you use any type of phone?
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

YSF, what else do people mean by handouts?

EVERYTHING is paid for by tax payers since we are all taxpayers.

And yes, we all know that you know how to search records. BFD.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You wouldn't care. All you care about is your liberal agenda. People don't matter to you, all that matters is you is getting people to agree to your way of thinking. Yea I told her to bite me! So what? I tell it like it is. Go figure.
> You guys can't figure out anything written to you, just go back to your talking points. No one has mentioned personal responsibility, and where that figures into things........No that doesn't fit your agenda does it? Maybe I need to type in all caps so you can hear me???
> Your heads are so full of propaganda you can't absorb any logic. Like how many of your parents were on welfare???? HMMM? Not many I would wager. That generation beleived it was their resposibility to work and take care of their families. And if they ever were on welfare they got off as soon as possible. People now think it is their right to have things handed to them. I work hard for my family, you need to work hard for your family.
> And people that think that killing a baby is the right thing to do has limited brain cells that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. Many other options out their but this option of killing is so darn easy and available that they don't want to be bothered about silly things like an innocent being killed. And then liberals think the death penalty is just awful. Heaven forbid if an innocent is put to death but you will defend a woman's right to abort to your death...........Makes no sense at all.
> I don't care if you think Nebraskans are nice or not.....Hope you never set foot here.


Do you know that the abortion rate has gone down, under the administration of Obama? Your emotions get in the way of your intellect. I do not believe anyone here on the lib side is Pro abortion. We are pro choice. 
We are not trying to forcibly change yo views, that is impossible because you only use emotion not reason. We just represent a different viewpoint. I do not believe that anyone here told you to have an abortion. But it seems that you want to punish those women who choose to have one. You would force a woman to have a baby then condemn her to raise that baby without adequate food and shelter if she does accept the responsibility of raising that child. Must be grand to go to sleep at night knowing that you are doing god's work, of loving your fellow man.
I have been through Nebraska, and if most of the people there are like you, it is a place to avoid.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have said this over and over, but I'll say it again. Personal responsibility!! Not my problem to provide for children saved from abortion. If you want someone else to pay for them then give them up for adoption. Somethings in life aren't planned for, somethings just come and if you could be an open person then it doesn't need to be the end of the world. Sometimes you think it will be but it rarely is. Grow up and take what comes your way. And if anyone thinks I don't know what I am talking about, think again!


The problem is, it is always easy to tell someone else what they can do, or should do or should have done. You may be able to handle something, that someone else has a way harder time with, than you. So many things figure into how an individual handles a certain situation. Judge not least ye be judged, comes to mind.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> The thing is, it is ignorant to claim that only your choice is opting for personal responsibility.
> I don't make assumptions about you, I don't even care about you.
> I laid out questions based on all of the talk about how an embryo or fetus is a child; in your response you made it quite clear that you are not really interested in assisting the children born after young women are coerced into accepting childbirth as their just punishment for having sex.
> If you don't agree that is selfish (which is not a name, btw) I can't help that.


I agree Janet. It is easy to tell a 15 year old girl, no abortion, you must have your baby, and then walk away and never think again of what happens to her or the baby. The right always seems to want to take the easy way out---for them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Do you know that the abortion rate has gone down, under the administration of Obama? Your emotions get in the way of your intellect. I do not believe anyone here on the lib side is Pro abortion. We are pro choice.
> We are not trying to forcibly change yo views, that is impossible because you only use emotion not reason. We just represent a different viewpoint. I do not believe that anyone here told you to have an abortion. But it seems that you want to punish those women who choose to have one. You would force a woman to have a baby then condemn her to raise that baby without adequate food and shelter if she does accept the responsibility of raising that child. Must be grand to go to sleep at night knowing that you are doing god's work, of loving your fellow man.
> I have been through Nebraska, and if most of the people there are like you, it is a place to avoid.


Many of the people from Nebraska are just great. This one must be a transplant.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Do you know that the abortion rate has gone down, under the administration of Obama? Your emotions get in the way of your intellect. I do not believe anyone here on the lib side is Pro abortion. We are pro choice.
> We are not trying to forcibly change yo views, that is impossible because you only use emotion not reason. We just represent a different viewpoint. I do not believe that anyone here told you to have an abortion. But it seems that you want to punish those women who choose to have one. You would force a woman to have a baby then condemn her to raise that baby without adequate food and shelter if she does accept the responsibility of raising that child. Must be grand to go to sleep at night knowing that you are doing god's work, of loving your fellow man.
> I have been through Nebraska, and if most of the people there are like you, it is a place to avoid.


Only a lib would phrase raising a child as being condemned. No one needs to raise a child if they don't want to. 
Please do avoid Nebraska-we do not suffer fools gladly and do not want any of your liberal crap spoiling our great state.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

NJG said:


> I agree Janet. It is easy to tell a 15 year old girl, no abortion, you must have your baby, and then walk away and never thing again of what happens to her or the baby. The right always seems to want to take the easy way out---for them.


And please do not repeat that tired old cliche, give the baby up for adoption. That does not always work and can cause so much stress and heartache to both the mother and the child. Just watch or read the stories of mothers who were forced to hand their child over for adoption. Theory is one thing but experience is another. Many adopted children search so hard to find their birth mother.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

maysmom said:


> So you only care about babies until they are born? Of course! It's all about making those promiscuous females pay for their sins. And to hell with the children.


Yes, those females must learn to control their libidos, don't you know. And all those women on birth control, they want the pills for free so the right has pay for them to have sex.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Only a lib would phrase raising a child as being condemned. No one needs to raise a child if they don't want to.
> Please do avoid Nebraska-we do not suffer fools gladly and do not want any of your liberal crap spoiling our great state.


Only a truly stupid person could miss the reference to adequate resources, only a truly hateful one would see it and dismiss it. 
I did not avoid, Nebraska, NONE of the people I met were so awful as you.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> And please do not repeat that tired old cliche, give the baby up for adoption. That does not always work and can cause so much stress and heartache to both the mother and the child. Just watch or read the stories of mothers who were forced to hand their child over for adoption. Theory is one thing but experience is another. Many adopted children search so hard to find their birth mother.


Oh so you are for KILLLING because it causes so much less stress and heartache for the mother (never mind that many who have abortions have unqualified grief and regret later), and of course the child is dead so it can't feel any stress or heartache. 
Yes many do find their birth parents, so what?? An adopted child is at least a wanted child that their parents weren't 'condemned' to raise.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Only a truly stupid person could miss the reference to adequate resources, only a truly hateful one would see it and dismiss it.
> I did not avoid, Nebraska, NONE of the people I met were so awful as you.


Well if you were well behaved in public many probably don't know you believe in killing innocent unborn children, but don't believe in putting a convicted criminal to death because i guess you think that is cruel. So even if you met me you wouldn't have seen me as awful because I wouldn't have had anything to be awful to you about.
You are the awful one for wanting to always call names and make personal attacks because you can't or won't debate the merits of the argument.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> YSF, what else do people mean by handouts?
> 
> EVERYTHING is paid for by tax payers since we are all taxpayers.
> 
> And yes, we all know that you know how to search records. BFD.


KPG, she has resorted to vulgar language. Wonder if she needs my 'success ladder' to climb out of that sewer?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Do you know that the abortion rate has gone down, under the administration of Obama? Your emotions get in the way of your intellect. I do not believe anyone here on the lib side is Pro abortion. We are pro choice.
> We are not trying to forcibly change yo views, that is impossible because you only use emotion not reason. We just represent a different viewpoint. I do not believe that anyone here told you to have an abortion. But it seems that you want to punish those women who choose to have one. You would force a woman to have a baby then condemn her to raise that baby without adequate food and shelter if she does accept the responsibility of raising that child. Must be grand to go to sleep at night knowing that you are doing god's work, of loving your fellow man.
> I have been through Nebraska, and if most of the people there are like you, it is a place to avoid.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh so you are for KILLLING because it causes so much less stress and heartache for the mother (never mind that many who have abortions have unqualified grief and regret later), and of course the child is dead so it can't feel any stress or heartache.
> Yes many do find their birth parents, so what?? An adopted child is at least a wanted child that their parents weren't 'condemned' to raise.


You are only seeing half the issue. You would have either or both mother and child spend a life of heartache and misery? I do not believe you have ever been in that situation, having an illegitimate child, therefore you can only repeat what other have said, you do not speak from experience. And yes,before you go any further, I have been there, I do speak from experience. I will not relate my experience to you because you will only twist the words to suit your own viewpoint.

Please open your mind to other people's experience.

I feel so sorry for you, you have such a narrow, warped view on life. But worse than that, you believe your point of view is the only valid one. Such a narrow minded outlook on life.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Well if you were well behaved in public many probably don't know you believe in killing innocent unborn children, but don't believe in putting a convicted criminal to death because i guess you think that is cruel. So even if you met me you wouldn't have seen me as awful because I wouldn't have had anything to be awful to you about.
> You are the awful one for wanting to always call names and make personal attacks because you can't or won't debate the merits of the argument.


She probably follows the old saying "never argue with fools or idiots as they will always twist the argument to their warped viewpoint and beat you over the head with their stupidity".

I see the people on your side of the argument arguing against freedom of choice, demonstrating for their point of view and even exploding pipe bombs at the Olympics that were held in America a few years ago, but I have not seen them demonstrate to stop capital punishment and war. Both of those kill living people. 1996 Atlanta Olympics. It was OK to kill and injure those innocent people?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> You are only seeing half the issue. You would have either or both mother and child spend a life of heartache and misery? I do not believe you have ever been in that situation, having an illegitimate child, therefore you can only repeat what other have said, you do not speak from experience. And yes,before you go any further, I have been there, I do speak from experience. I will not relate my experience to you because you will only twist the words to suit your own viewpoint.
> 
> Please open your mind to other people's experience.
> 
> I feel so sorry for you, you have such a narrow, warped view on life. But worse than that, you believe your point of view is the only valid one. Such a narrow minded outlook on life.


I have been in that position and do speak from experience and like you I don't trust you enough to relate my experience because I am sure you would twist my words too.
Your point was it is better to KILL one than to condemn a woman to raise a child she doesn't want. "A life of heartache and misery" really?????? A bit over dramatic but if you stated the truth about someone's life it wouldn't prove your point.
Your life is what you make of it, live it happily or live it with heartache and misery is your choice. Many people are absolutely happy is spite of their poorness. Money doesn't buy happiness. I am not rich and never have been. I see many more possibilities for life than you do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> KPG, she has resorted to vulgar language. Wonder if she needs my 'success ladder' to climb out of that sewer?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Even I did not know that my 'success ladder' was that long


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> She probably follows the old saying "never argue with fools or idiots as they will always twist the argument to their warped viewpoint and beat you over the head with their stupidity".
> 
> I see the people on your side of the argument arguing against freedom of choice, demonstrating for their point of view and even exploding pipe bombs at the Olympics that were held in America a few years ago, but I have not seen them demonstrate to stop capital punishment and war. Both of those kill living people. 1996 Atlanta Olympics. It was OK to kill and injure those innocent people?


Never seen an anti war demonstration??? Live under a rock do you? Never said innocents should be killed at all. 1996 is a bit farther back than a 'few years' ago......you are reaching pretty far back to make an invalid argument.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Edit:

Sorry for the double post. This has happened a couple of times to me. I've noticed other people have been doing the same thing. I'm not sure how I'm doing it. Is it something I'm doing, or something to do with this board's software?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Love it, "I am lucky, I don't need to utilize Obamacare". Sounds like an admission that it is a train wreck. .


It would only sound like that to a complete and utter imbecile.

All I mean is that I have healthcare through other means at this time. But, if God forbid something happens and I need to, it's a huge relief to know that because of Obamacare, I will have other affordable ways to get healthcare.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Well if you were well behaved in public many probably don't know you believe in killing innocent unborn children, but don't believe in putting a convicted criminal to death because i guess you think that is cruel. So even if you met me you wouldn't have seen me as awful because I wouldn't have had anything to be awful to you about.
> You are the awful one for wanting to always call names and make personal attacks because you can't or won't debate the merits of the argument.


Oh baby, I can smell your nasty from a mile away.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> And why call people stupid for buying insurance that fit their needs? .


Only a complete imbecile would think that an insurance plan that is specifically designed to rip them off "meets their needs".

These plans are scams _that don't pay out as purported._

These insurance plans used loopholes in past laws and use all kinds of tactics to NOT pay out NEARLY as much as people were lead to believe they would. Or if they would, they would use tactics like automatically denying claims and making people re-submit their claims over and over and over and over again with the aim of wearing the patient down (_or taking advantage of their illness_) and lose hope and stop filing claims.

_They'll deny a claim on a whim for surreptitious reasons. They'll deny a claim say because you used blue ink instead of black ink when you filled out the form. Then they'll deny a claim because you put dashes --- between the date (1-23-2012), instead of forward slashes. Then they'll deny the claim because you used a M/D/YY format instead of a MM/DD/YYYY format. Then of course... the old "we can't find your claim" scam is an oldie but baddie classic.

Then if you're lucky they might pay the claim, but they only pay 10% of it instead of the 90% as promised, then you have to resubmit the claim to get the other 80%... but then your claim got lost AGAIN... and you have to re-submit again... and then they won't pay it out at all.... because in the fine print of your contract they said once a claim is 345 days old... it expires and they won't pay at all They won't pay out a claim more 344 days old._

That's how those insurance companies operated. People might get SOME of their claims paid, but they were often not what was promised, or they put so many unreasonable roadblocks up DESIGNED to you wear you out and keep you from going through with the claim.

THEY'RE SCAMS.

But Obamacare put in some regulations that will prevent them from doing that to you anymore, therefore the plans were being grandfathered out.

How exactly is a SCAM "insurance that fits their needs"?

Unless your NEED is to be conned, bamboozled and victimized, you're a SERIOUS MORON if you think these plans ACTUALLY "meets your needs".


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, that is exactly what she admitted.


That's not at ALL what I said.

And BTW... saying that someone is stupid is not "name calling", it's an adjective that describes someone's self-evident lack of keenness of mind.

Calling someone "a name" requires using a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing.

If I ADDRESS you as Stupid, then I'm using the word AS a noun.

But if I say you or someone else IS stupid, then it's being used as an adjective.

I use it as an adjective, a descriptive, not an noun.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Never seen an anti war demonstration??? Live under a rock do you? Never said innocents should be killed at all. 1996 is a bit farther back than a 'few years' ago......you are reaching pretty far back to make an invalid argument.


MOST domestic terrorist events that harm innocent people come from the Right.

There are some eco-terrorists and Animal Rights extremists that commit crimes against companies, or steal animals from laboratories. But it is comparatively RARE that they actually threaten people's lives.

There were some liberal groups in the 60's that hurt individuals, but as you just said, you have to reach reaching pretty far back to make an argument about that.

The ONLY violent liberal group TODAY, is a VERY VERY VERY small group of radicals that splintered off of BPP called the Black Liberation Army. And even at that, most of the BLA's activities was in the 70's 80's. They are TRULY a tiny, tiny tiny group now.

Otherwise, just about ALLLLL threats of domestic terror to INDIVIDUALS come from RW groups, especially when their fueled by "religion" and/or white supremacy.

Again, I'm talking about NOW.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It would only sound like that to a complete and utter imbecile.
> 
> All I mean is that I have healthcare through other means at this time. But, if God forbid something happens and I need to, it's a huge relief to know that because of Obamacare, I will have other affordable ways to get healthcare.


tsk tsk tsk. Oh again with the name calling. Seems like you need to borrow my 'success ladder' to get out of your sewer.

If Obamacare is so wonderful and not a train wreck, why not avail yourself of it now? If it accomplishes all it promises, why not use it now? Not going to save you $2,500? Higher deductible? Can't use your doctor? Premiums higher? I mean, if it is so wonderful you should be using it now. But I guess in your elitist world, it is only for people that need handouts and oppose religious freedom.

Put your money where you potty mouth is, sign up for Obamacare if you support it. If you don't use it, explain for all of us why you are too good for it. Betcha you do not have the courage.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Oh baby, I can smell your nasty from a mile away.


A usual liberal response, all nasty no substance.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> A usual liberal response, all nasty no substance.


You have posted nothing of substance since you showed up here. Just petty Lib bashing. Like I said before, when you find an IQ come back and post something worth reading.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> tsk tsk tsk. Oh again with the name calling. Seems like you need to borrow my 'success ladder' to get out of your sewer.
> 
> If Obamacare is so wonderful and not a train wreck, why not avail yourself of it now? If it accomplishes all it promises, why not use it now? Not going to save you $2,500? Higher deductible? Can't use your doctor? Premiums higher? I mean, if it is so wonderful you should be using it now. But I guess in your elitist world, it is only for people that need handouts and oppose religious freedom.
> 
> Put your money where you potty mouth is, sign up for Obamacare if you support it. If you don't use it, explain for all of us why you are too good for it. Betcha you do not have the courage.


Keep trying LTL. People who are already covered by insurance do not need Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep trying LTL. People who are already covered by insurance do not need Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


Right, ACA is meant for those who have no access to affordable health insurance. It is not for those of us who already have coverage. 
Anyone calling for those with affordable coverage to alter that through the exchanges are just looking for more of mess, they are concerned because health care is now accessible to so many.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> If Obamacare is so wonderful and not a train wreck, why not avail yourself of it now?


That is such a stupid question it reveals you don't seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of what Obamacare is.

Why would _anyone_ refuse benefits from their job? That's part of their compensation that they earning.

That's like asking "_Well, if you have 10 million dollars in the bank, why are you accepting a pay check -- why don't you just work for free_?"

And given that I've noticed that effectively the same plan with the same insurance company is now affordable BECAUSE of Obamacare ... it's great to know, if for some reason I or my husband leaves our job before medicare kicks in... we'll _be able_ to afford and buy THE SAME INSURANCE with the same amount of coverage. (yes, I looked into it)

But right now, I have fun at my day job, I like extra money instead of just eating into our retirement account. So it's just easier to stay with what I've got.

It's nice to know though, if I change my mind, I won't be LOCKED into that job. I can choose to leave with the peace of mind that *BECAUSE of Obamacare,* I won't be losing health insurance in the process.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Edit:
> 
> Sorry for the double post. This has happened a couple of times to me. I've noticed other people have been doing the same thing. I'm not sure how I'm doing it. Is it something I'm doing, or something to do with this board's software?


We all believe it is KP. Who knows? 
It doesn't happen to me anywhere else.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> A usual liberal response, all nasty no substance.


You provided no argument of substance for her to respond to.

Goose>>>Gander.

Why do you think people should respond to YOUR nastiness as if you're not being nasty?

You're just getting BACK what YOU put out there.

Liberals are actually accused of not having a spin because they DON'T typically fight back IN KIND.

But, like a typical bully, when someone does give you a taste of _your own_ medicine, you moan and whine and simper like the little milksop cowards conservative hypocrites always are at their core.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> MOST domestic terrorist events that harm innocent people come from the Right.
> 
> There are some eco-terrorists and Animal Rights extremists that commit crimes against companies, or steal animals from laboratories. But it is comparatively RARE that they actually threaten people's lives.
> 
> ...


Oh my stupid Lisa! The most current school shooter in Colorado was a flaming liberal. Didn't hear about him?? That is because you only lisrten to what you want to believe.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep trying LTL. People who are already covered by insurance do not need Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


It's self-evident now she literally doesn't understand what Obamacare really is.

Anyone who actually understood how the system is set up would not ask such a completely non-sensical question like that.

I actually think she doesn't understand that there ISN'T such a thing as an insurance plan called "Obamacare". She doesn't even seem to understand there isn't even a public option. But she's speaking as if she thinks that's what Obamacare is. She might even think it's the same thing as "Medicare for All" She doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the differences.

I think ALL of them "against" Obamacare don't even have the slightest rudimentary clue as to what it actually is and how it operates.

We are really dealing with some people here that are so grossly uninformed, at such a basic rudimentary level, it's like having to explain things to them like they're LITERALLY developmentally disabled.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh my stupid Lisa! The most current school shooter in Colorado was a flaming liberal. Didn't hear about him?? That is because you only lisrten to what you want to believe.


What exactly is "most current"?
What does it mean for something to be current? 
How about providing some supporting data that the young man was a liberal?
How about the domestic terrorists messing with the electrical grid in California? Which end of the political joy stick do you suppose they are on?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep trying LTL. People who are already covered by insurance do not need Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


I guess the 5 million people that have been dropped by their insurance companies would disagree. They had insurance, but Obama thought it was substandard, so they had to buy different insurance. Insurance that most of the time has higher premiums, higher deductibles and less access to their doctors and hospitals.

Another Obama lie, and all the cultists believe it. But why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> What exactly is "most current"?
> What does it mean for something to be current?
> How about providing some supporting data that the young man was a liberal?
> How about the domestic terrorists messing with the electrical grid in California? Which end of the political joy stick do you suppose they are on?


Besides, --- she just proved my point.

Even if she can support her claim , she could only come up with ONE. I never said there aren't a few token liberals here and there.

_Almost_ ALL THE REST are Rightists.

Not to mention that IMO, George Zimmerman is akin to a Domestic Terrorist, and the sad thing about that is I don't think Zimmerman is a rare person at all. I think he's your typical ignorant bubba, like Michael David Dunn who will kill a boy because they were playing their music too loud. Or like the guy who shot the other guy because he was texting during a movie preview.

(_Purposely leaving race out of this, I'm talking in general about ignorant bubbas who are hair-trigger armed and dangerous, who probably aren't even responsible enough to wipe their butts sufficiently after defecating much less are responsible enough to own and use firearms._)

I think there are THOUSANDS if not millions of these dangerous ignorant bubbas (bubbettes) in this country that are truly armed and dangerous.

They may not be technically and specifically labeled domestic terrorists because they're not a formally organized group (although a majority of them are probably NRA members), but they are a HUGE threat to this country.)

They are just as dangerous as the so-called pathologically mentally unbalanced people with guns.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It's self-evident now she literally doesn't understand what Obamacare really is.
> 
> Anyone who actually understood how the system is set up would not ask such a completely non-sensical question like that.
> 
> ...


I know what it is. It is a train wreck. The president lied to the American people. It is a tax. It is a web site that does not work. It is a website riddled with security holes. It does not have any way to fix the problems that the website created for people.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> You provided no argument of substance for her to respond to.
> 
> Goose>>>Gander.
> 
> ...


I have provided many things for people to respond to. Maybe you don't have any good arguments left because no one has addressed what I said. You casually ignore it until you want to call me out on it. I guess you need ADD meds so you can rmember what has been posted.
And you are your own kind of nasty. You are the bullies that cry about choice ehn you don't mean choice at all. You mean the right to kill an innocent unique being that might just get in the way of what you want for your life. If you haven't noticed no one can engineer their lives. Life takes you and you need to learn how to deal with the unfairness that may come your way. Be an adult and deal with things, you might find you can learn something from it.
And women have all kinds of choices, before they need to harm another. I don't know what kind of being raised you to believe that killing of any kind is a good thing to do. You want to protest war and I hate war too but with evil in the world it is necessary to defend yourself from evil. That is war.
If you don't think there is a need for war the next time someone wants to kill an American, you can tell them where you live. Just see if someone that you mean something to doesn't want to kill who killed you.
You are the stupidest nastiest liberal that bullies by nasty words and comments. I really don't care what you think of me. I care that you promote the killing of innocent children.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have provided many things for people to respond to. Maybe you don't have any good arguments left because no one has addressed what I said. You casually ignore it until you want to call me out on it. I guess you need ADD meds so you can rmember what has been posted.
> And you are your own kind of nasty. You are the bullies that cry about choice ehn you don't mean choice at all. You mean the right to kill an innocent unique being that might just get in the way of what you want for your life. If you haven't noticed no one can engineer their lives. Life takes you and you need to learn how to deal with the unfairness that may come your way. Be an adult and deal with things, you might find you can learn something from it.
> And women have all kinds of choices, before they need to harm another. I don't know what kind of being raised you to believe that killing of any kind is a good thing to do. You want to protest war and I hate war too but with evil in the world it is necessary to defend yourself from evil. That is war.
> If you don't think there is a need for war the next time someone wants to kill an American, you can tell them where you live. Just see if someone that you mean something to doesn't want to kill who killed you.
> You are the stupidest nastiest liberal that bullies by nasty words and comments. I really don't care what you think of me.


That's fortunate--the image you're projecting of yourself is far from flattering.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> What exactly is "most current"?
> What does it mean for something to be current?
> How about providing some supporting data that the young man was a liberal?
> How about the domestic terrorists messing with the electrical grid in California? Which end of the political joy stick do you suppose they are on?


How about being able to understand words and what they mean. I didn't know you were too stupid to understand. How about looking into it yourself? I guess for someone as stupid as you are you wouldn't know where to look. I have given plenty of arguments on here but no one will respond to them. Why would I put myself to any trouble to have any facts I post ignored? All you would do in respond the only way you know how. With nastiness and hate.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep trying LTL. People who are already covered by insurance do not need Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


I really hate to break it to you but Obamacare is not a thing to get or not get. It is a set of laws that the POS POTUS wll or will not enforce at his whim. 
Stupid Stupid liberals.........................


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> How about being able to understand words and what they mean. I didn't know you were too stupid to understand. How about looking into it yourself? I guess for someone as stupid as you are you wouldn't know where to look. I have given plenty of arguments on here but no one will respond to them. Why would I put myself to any trouble to have any facts I post ignored? All you would do in respond the only way you know how. With nastiness and hate.


That is an interesting way to avoid answering any direct questions. 
You posted that the young man who killed in CO recently (see how easy that is?) was a liberal. Saying that indicates that you have some reason to consider that true. If that were the case why would you have to look it up? 
You have provided no facts, you have supplied plenty of invective. You have vomited up spite and scorn from the moment you joined this thread.

Why not admit that you were just typing for the sake of responding and that you haven't actually considered anything new or that could be considered "most current" in probably two decades.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> .
> If you don't think there is a need for war the next time someone wants to kill an American, you can tell them where you live. Just see if someone that you mean something to doesn't want to kill who killed you.
> You are the stupidest nastiest liberal that bullies by nasty words and comments. I really don't care what you think of me. I care that you promote the killing of innocent children.


War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left.

Change the record, consult a thesaurus, find new words. You keep calling people stupid and nasty. Come on, you can think of more vitriolic words if you really try hard. But in the meantime all your rants are doing is providing comic relief. Just an aside. Have youever thought what the rest of the world think about your rants. Unfortunately some people judge all American women by your ill informed statements. Not everyone thinks that you speak for all American women, they just think you shout the loudest. The 'ugly American' symdrome fitsyou to a T.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> I know what it is. It is a train wreck. The president lied to the American people. It is a tax. It is a web site that does not work. It is a website riddled with security holes. It does not have any way to fix the problems that the website created for people.


Wow... you just proved you have VERY little idea what it is. You just regurgitated FauxNews talking points and threw them together in a Palin-esque word salad.

Actually, it's a tax CUT for middle class families.

MILLIONS of middle class families will get large tax credits to make health insurance affordable. *These credits FAR outstrip* the shared responsibility payments paid by a TINY percentage _who VOLUNTARILY turn down affordable health insurance. Only 1.2 percent will be expected to pay this penalty._

But what you we all WILL be paying for will have is the care for the people who refuse to get health insurance.

Then again, we have ALWAYS been subsidizing these people's health care, there will just be LESS of them because of Obamacare.

Bottom line, it's a tax CUT for the middle class. (_Click on the thumbnail below for a chart that helps explain_)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I guess the 5 million people that have been dropped by their insurance companies would disagree. They had insurance, but Obama thought it was substandard, so they had to buy different insurance. Insurance that most of the time has higher premiums, higher deductibles and less access to their doctors and hospitals.
> 
> Another Obama lie, and all the cultists believe it. But why is that so hard for you to understand?


You listen to too much Fox News. They have had people on quite a few times complaining about loosing their plans and then having to pay a higher premium. But when someone else does the search for them, cause they are too lazy or just want to complain, they find something that gives better coverage at the rate they were paying or less. The woman that was part of the republicans rebuttal to the SOTU speech the other night was one such case. It was a big poor me story, but when looked in to. her numbers didn't add up, and that is all it was, just another poor me story. When there are numbers in black and white that prove them wrong, you never hear another word out of them. They crawl back under their rock.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Kindly provide some specifics for your opinion.



SometimesaKnitter said:



> Oh my stupid Lisa! The most current school shooter in Colorado was a flaming liberal. Didn't hear about him?? That is because you only lisrten to what you want to believe.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What are you trying to say? I don't see your point.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have provided many things for people to respond to. Maybe you don't have any good arguments left because no one has addressed what I said. You casually ignore it until you want to call me out on it. I guess you need ADD meds so you can rmember what has been posted.
> And you are your own kind of nasty. You are the bullies that cry about choice ehn you don't mean choice at all. You mean the right to kill an innocent unique being that might just get in the way of what you want for your life. If you haven't noticed no one can engineer their lives. Life takes you and you need to learn how to deal with the unfairness that may come your way. Be an adult and deal with things, you might find you can learn something from it.
> And women have all kinds of choices, before they need to harm another. I don't know what kind of being raised you to believe that killing of any kind is a good thing to do. You want to protest war and I hate war too but with evil in the world it is necessary to defend yourself from evil. That is war.
> If you don't think there is a need for war the next time someone wants to kill an American, you can tell them where you live. Just see if someone that you mean something to doesn't want to kill who killed you.
> You are the stupidest nastiest liberal that bullies by nasty words and comments. I really don't care what you think of me. I care that you promote the killing of innocent children.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Most people would agree that calling people stupid is nasty and hate-filled. You've proven that you are unable to hold and intelligent discussion. Goodbye.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> How about being able to understand words and what they mean. I didn't know you were too stupid to understand. How about looking into it yourself? I guess for someone as stupid as you are you wouldn't know where to look. I have given plenty of arguments on here but no one will respond to them. Why would I put myself to any trouble to have any facts I post ignored? All you would do in respond the only way you know how. With nastiness and hate.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ignored.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I really hate to break it to you but Obamacare is not a thing to get or not get. It is a set of laws that the POS POTUS wll or will not enforce at his whim.
> Stupid Stupid liberals.........................


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> War doesn't prove who is right, only who is left.
> 
> Change the record, consult a thesaurus, find new words. You keep calling people stupid and nasty. Come on, you can think of more vitriolic words if you really try hard. But in the meantime all your rants are doing is providing comic relief. Just an aside. Have youever thought what the rest of the world think about your rants. Unfortunately some people judge all American women by your ill informed statements. Not everyone thinks that you speak for all American women, they just think you shout the loudest. The 'ugly American' symdrome fitsyou to a T.


Actually the only response many of you liberals give are the same words repeated time and time again. If you don't know what most current means how do you know what vitrolic means? Did some one look it up for you? Must have because you are too STUPID to know what it means. BTW I don't care what you think of me at all. I am not ill informed about anything. You are the ones who think killing is good when the person can't defend themselves and horrible when they can. Haven't you got that backwards?????
You are the ugliest American that only taunts and bullies people because their opinion doesn't agree with yours. I have not thrown anything out that wasn't thrown my way first.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Actually the only response many of you liberals give are the same words repeated time and time again. If you don't know what most current means how do you know what vitrolic means? Did some one look it up for you? Must have because you are too STUPID to know what it means. BTW I don't care what you think of me at all. I am not ill informed about anything. You are the ones who think killing is good when the person can't defend themselves and horrible when they can. Haven't you got that backwards?????
> You are the ugliest American that only taunts and bullies people because their opinion doesn't agree with yours. I have not thrown anything out that wasn't thrown my way first.


Oh my bad!! Not an American at all!! That explains it.

BTW it is syndrome. not symdrome...................


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have provided many things for people to respond to. Maybe you don't have any good arguments left because no one has addressed what I said. You casually ignore it until you want to call me out on it. I guess you need ADD meds so you can rmember what has been posted.
> And you are your own kind of nasty. You are the bullies that cry about choice ehn you don't mean choice at all. You mean the right to kill an innocent unique being that might just get in the way of what you want for your life. If you haven't noticed no one can engineer their lives. Life takes you and you need to learn how to deal with the unfairness that may come your way. Be an adult and deal with things, you might find you can learn something from it.
> And women have all kinds of choices, before they need to harm another. I don't know what kind of being raised you to believe that killing of any kind is a good thing to do. You want to protest war and I hate war too but with evil in the world it is necessary to defend yourself from evil. That is war.
> If you don't think there is a need for war the next time someone wants to kill an American, you can tell them where you live. Just see if someone that you mean something to doesn't want to kill who killed you.
> You are the stupidest nastiest liberal that bullies by nasty words and comments. I really don't care what you think of me. I care that you promote the killing of innocent children.


So are you saying you approve of us going into Iraq and the fact that 4486 American men and women were killed was necessary? If the republicans had their was right now we would be in Syria and getting ready to go into Iran. Stupid

I don't think killing of any kind, is a good thing to do. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need for an abortion nor has anyone in my family. but if the need should ever arise, I want it to be their decision, not some right wing nut case that believes they have the right to make that decision for them. I don't want some republican in congress saying after a woman has been raped that it was the will of God that she become pregnant. The God that I worship does not operate that way.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

This kind of explains it all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/26/1103368/-The-One-Comic-That-Explains-Just-How-Screwed-America-Is?detail=email#


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Ladies, can you imagine any of the righties posting on this forum doing something like this? I must say I don't think it would happen. I think they would just say they need to work harder!

Most of you know about the disgraceful scene last week at a Salt Lake City elementary school, where 40 kids had their lunches thrown away because they had negative balances in their accounts. When Kenny Thompson, a longtime tutor at Valley Oaks Elementary School in Houston, found out that several kids at his school had negative balances, he was determined to prevent a repeat performance of what happened in Salt Lake City. So Thompson stepped up and fully funded the accounts.

"I'm like, 'Wow. I know that's probably a situation at my school, and the school my son goes to, and the other schools I mentor at.' So I came in and inquired about it," Thompson said.

He not only inquired about it, Thompson learned that many of the kids were already on reduced lunch. Children whose parents couldn't afford the meals that cost just 40 cents a day. He took $465 of his own money and zeroed out the delinquent accounts of more than 60 kids.

"These are elementary school kids. They don't need to be worried about finances," said Thompson. "They need to be worried about what grade they got in spelling."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/06/1275655/-Houston-man-funds-lunch-accounts-for-several-kids-with-negative-balances?detail=email


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> This kind of explains it all.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/26/1103368/-The-One-Comic-That-Explains-Just-How-Screwed-America-Is?detail=email#


It is simply astounding that people here can be so nationalistic when our priorities are so screwed up.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

NJG said:


> This kind of explains it all.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/26/1103368/-The-One-Comic-That-Explains-Just-How-Screwed-America-Is?detail=email#


I love that poster. Free public education through the university level has always been very important to me. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Packing dollars and humans into prisons and the military just promotes a violent society, more and more filled with inequality.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Actually the only response many of you liberals give are the same words repeated time and time again. If you don't know what most current means how do you know what vitrolic means? Did some one look it up for you? Must have because you are too STUPID to know what it means. BTW I don't care what you think of me at all. I am not ill informed about anything. You are the ones who think killing is good when the person can't defend themselves and horrible when they can. Haven't you got that backwards?????
> You are the ugliest American that only taunts and bullies people because their opinion doesn't agree with yours. I have not thrown anything out that wasn't thrown my way first.


You missed something there sweetie. You cannot call me the ugliest American because I am not an American and I do not live in the USA or South America either. You just proved that either you cannot read or you do not read.

Your last paragraph describes you perfectly.

Bye bye little girl.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> You missed something there sweetie. You cannot call me the ugliest American because I am not an American and I do not live in the USA or South America either. You just proved that either you cannot read or you do not read.
> 
> Your last paragraph describes you perfectly.
> 
> Bye bye little girl.


I guess you can't read either!?!? I said oh my bad, not American at all. That explains it.
Also that your word was misspelled. What a dummie!
Ok I should have said Ugly Aussie.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I have provided many things for people to respond to.


Nothing of any substance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Actually the only response many of you liberals give are the same words repeated time and time again. If you don't know what most current means how do you know what vitrolic means? Did some one look it up for you? Must have because you are too STUPID to know what it means. BTW I don't care what you think of me at all. I am not ill informed about anything. You are the ones who think killing is good when the person can't defend themselves and horrible when they can. Haven't you got that backwards?????
> You are the ugliest American that only taunts and bullies people because their opinion doesn't agree with yours. I have not thrown anything out that wasn't thrown my way first.


For one thing, you are talking to the wrong person about "not knowing" what most current means. 
The point was, since you totally missed it, that something is either current or not current. At the rate that hostile acts are taking place in public these days nearly 2 months can hardly be considered current. 
And there we have the end, I am tried of this ridiculous volley of nothing.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> How about being able to understand words and what they mean.


No she's right. You type words but you don't seem to understand how words go together.

I'm curious, do you have some sort of brain injury that mixes things up in your mind? Something even worse than dyslexia.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I really hate to break it to you but Obamacare is not a thing to get or not get. It is a set of laws that the POS POTUS wll or will not enforce at his whim.
> Stupid Stupid liberals.........................


I hate to break it to you but she is not the one that's been speaking of Obamacare as a thing you get or not get.

She said people who have insurance don't NEED Obamacare. In other words you don't need Obamacare to help you get affordable insurance.

You and other conservatives that don't seem to understand that Obama is not a thing you get or don't get.

But then again, I just informed you of that in another post I recently made... which explains you're sudden "understanding".


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I guess you can't read either!?!? I said oh my bad, not American at all. That explains it.
> Also that your word was misspelled. What a dummie!
> Ok I should have said Ugly Aussie.


What is wrong with you?


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh my bad!! Not an American at all!! That explains it.
> 
> BTW it is syndrome. not symdrome...................


OK I made a typo, thanks for picking it up. When you are 73 years old your eyesight is not as good as it used to be and you miss typos, especially very early in the morning. I did not realise that a typo or spelling mistake was a capital offence, but apparently it is to you. Not to worry I have written the word out 100 times, just as I did in primary school. A 'bad' for you but not for others. I still think you are whacko even if your spelling is 100% perfect.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No she's right. You type words but you don't seem to understand how words go together.
> 
> I'm curious, do you have some sort of brain injury that mixes things up in your mind? Something even worse than dyslexia.


I think you have the problem because you see things that aren't there. All you know how to do is hate.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> OK I made a typo, thanks for picking it up. When you are 73 years old your eyesight is not as good as it used to be and you miss typos, especially very early in the morning. I did not realise that a typo or spelling mistake was a capital offence, but apparently it is to you. Not to worry I have written the word out 100 times, just as I did in primary school. A 'bad' for you but not for others. I still think you are whacko even if your spelling is 100% perfect.[/q
> 
> You like to point out others mistakes so why can't I? All I am doing is using you for a role model-NOT. You are the WHACKO.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> What is wrong with you?[/qu
> What is wrong with YOU?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I hate to break it to you but she is not the one that's been speaking of Obamacare as a thing you get or not get.
> 
> She said people who have insurance don't NEED Obamacare. In other words you don't need Obamacare to help you get affordable insurance.
> 
> You and other conservatives that don't seem to understand that Obama is not a thing you get or don't get.


Wow you make up things just to make people look good.

"She said people who have insurance don't NEED Obamacare. In other words you don't need Obamacare to help you get affordable insurance."

She did think Obamacare was a thing. I wish Obama was a thing-in fact an out of work thing. He will be soon enough...........


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

IF you had read my previous post you would know that I know what Obama care is. A set of laws that the POS POTUS will or not enforce.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

sumpleby said:


> AlwaysAKnutter said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you can't read either!?!? I said oh my bad, not American at all. That explains it.
> ...


AlwaysAKnutter is a bigot and xenophobe. There is no other type of person who would type a phrase like "Ugly Aussie", whether she "SometimesKnits" or not. There's no other explanation for it than that.

And I want to applogize for all rational US citizens for her bigoted comments.

MOST American LOVE our Aussie friends. We actually have a lot in common. Australia not only loves knitting ... but it has it's cowboys, "Barbie-Q" and love of the arts in a way we Americans do. You also have a large population of Irish immigrants that helped to build your country the way Irish did here (_although they came to each place under very different circumstances_). The people of Australia are no-nonsense hard working people.

Not to mention it's such a BEAUTIFUL place. It's definitely one of my "bucket list" places to visit.

So again, I apologize for the ugliness of KPG. There IS such a thing as "the Ugly American" that has given this country a really bad rap around the world and KPG is a prime example of why that reputation came to fruition.

But I promise you, we're not all that way, and KPG and those like here are a true embarrassment to this nation.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Camacho said:


> I love that poster. Free public education through the university level has always been very important to me. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Packing dollars and humans into prisons and the military just promotes a violent society, more and more filled with inequality.


And all the right talks about is vouchers and privatizing public schools. That would leave those in poor neighborhoods out in the cold again, because that isn't where the money could be made. I know things will turn around eventually. The republican party is destroying themselves, and with the increase in minorities, things will change, but it just won't happen fast enough and they can wreck so much havoc in the mean time, that it is very scary. They are trying to take the vote away from as many as they can, and with the redistricting is hard to change the makeup of congress. I think it has to start with getting the states out of repb control in order to change the redistricting, and the rest shall fallow. Inequality as bad as it is getting is not healthy for this country.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> IF you had read my previous post you would know that I know what Obama care is. A set of laws that the POS POTUS will or not enforce.


I've read your posts and you had real no idea what it was until you read it in OUR posts.

The mere fact that you regularly attributed to it attributes that could only be if you thought of it as a a "thing" you could get, rather than a set of laws, _proves_ you had absolutely no idea what it was until we made fun of you for not knowing.

You're welcome for the DESPERATELY needed education.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> And all the right talks about is vouchers and privatizing public schools. That would leave those in poor neighborhoods out in the cold again, because that isn't where the money could be made.


I think they are unbelievably and irresponsibly ignorant if they think a voucher and some good grades will get otherwise disenfranchised children into decent, never mind _top_ schools. (Other than a few token cases).


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Wow you make up things just to make people look good.
> 
> "She said people who have insurance don't NEED Obamacare. In other words you don't need Obamacare to help you get affordable insurance."
> 
> She did think Obamacare was a thing. I wish Obama was a thing-in fact an out of work thing. He will be soon enough...........


No sweetie, that was YOU until we started making fun of you for thinking so. Now you're backpedaling. Problem for you is your posts are there for us all to review and you can't do anything to change that that unless you're Admin.

And you already think Obama is "a thing" as the RW has a serious problem of thinking of ALL black people in that manner.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I've read your posts and you had real no idea what it was until you read it in OUR posts.
> 
> The mere fact that you regularly attributed to it attributes that could only be if you thought of it as a a "thing" you could get, rather than a set of laws, _proves_ you had absolutely no idea what it was until we made fun of you for not knowing.
> 
> You're welcome for the DESPERATELY needed education.


I get no usable education from the ugly likes of you. I knew that years ago. I don't care if you believe me or not. I never thought i t was a thing so you must have mixed up logic and thinking...............Oh that explains it!!
Quote a post where I "The mere fact that you regularly attributed to it attributes that could only be if you thought of it as a a "thing" you could get, rather than a set of laws" 
Dummie, have to make stuff up................


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No sweetie, that was YOU until we started making fun of you for thinking so. Now you're backpedaling.
> 
> And you already think Obama is a thing as the RW has a serious problem of thinking of ALL black people in that manner.


OOHHHH MYYY HERE COMES THE RACE CARD!!!!! 
And no it wasn't me you first started making fun of thinking Obamacare was a thing................How stupid are you exactly?????
The best part of Obama ran down his mama's leg. All he is is an emtpy suit. I make no reference to race, only stupid liberals do that. I would think of him the same if he wasn't part black......


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Vocal Lisa (Ugly Lisa to the rest of us) thinks she knows everything, when in fact she doesn't know who posted what on here. And then she has to fall back to the good old race card to defend odummer.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Also Ugly Lisa never read anything I posted to make her think I didn't know what hte ACA is. She can't post a quote from me that has that in it because it never happened. Maybe you need some more KOOL-ADE


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I really hate to break it to you but Obamacare is not a thing to get or not get. It is a set of laws that the POS POTUS wll or will not enforce at his whim.
> Stupid Stupid liberals.........................


Excuse me. NO ONE is a "POS." EVERYONE is a child of God. Even people you don't like. Even people you go beyond not liking. Everyone. Even people whom you disagree with for any reason. And even people you didn't vote for who got elected anyway are children of God.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> OOHHHH MYYY HERE COMES THE RACE CARD!!!!!
> And no it wasn't me you first started making fun of thinking Obamacare was a thing................How stupid are you exactly?????
> The best part of Obama ran down his mama's leg.


An unbelievably ill-bred and nasty comment. If you were my child I'd wash your mouth out with soap for that.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Hilarious!









Great job with that post. What's doing it tonight, rum, vodka or Vicodin?


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> sumpleby said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with you?[/qu
> ...


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Ok 
Stupid Ugly Lisa is at the ugly comments again!!! I guess she got the fourth grade class prize.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> Nothing. I'm not the one spitting out unthinking vitriol left, right, and down the center. Your post was not only vicious, it sounded unbalanced. My question stands.


I don't know how it can with out you to prop it up. I called her what she called me....What is good for the goose.....Well you know....My question still stands.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I get no usable education from the ugly likes of you.


That's self-evidently untrue.

You just learned from me and the other Liberals here that Obamacare is not a thing you get... and then you went ahead and used that knowledge to try and cover your ignorant butt...

And I think my avatar shows the "ugly" charge to be untrue as well. Makes me wonder why you're afraid to show YOUR face in your avatar.

Then you went ahead and called a black man a "thing". Which is of course how southern conservatives justified owning slaves. Black people were just things to be owned.

Sorry Sweetie, at least when it comes to slavery, the South will not rise again and the territory of Nebraska was relatively welcoming to African Americans when they arrived en masse in the territory. Thankfully the southern conservative farmers that went to Nebraska did not get their way.

Then again, that was another reason for the civil war, to keep the southern conservatives from spreading slavery into the new territories.

Lemme guess, you're a decedent of the Nuckolls, Alexander Majors or Samuel Black??? You definitely don't seem very Mayhew-esque.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> The best part of Obama ran down his mama's leg.


What!!!!! Such sweet and gentle words this poster does speak. I think these words should be reported to Admin as they are totally unnecessary.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Camacho said:


> Excuse me. NO ONE is a "POS." EVERYONE is a child of God. Even people you don't like. Even people you go beyond not liking. Everyone. Even people whom you disagree with for any reason. And even people you didn't vote for who got elected anyway are children of God.


Oh sure,that's why I get called names on here. Just playing by thier rules.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> What!!!!! Such sweet and gentle words this poster does speak. I think these words should be reported to Admin as they are totally unnecessary.


And everything you say on here in necessary???


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> . And everything you say on here in necessary???


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Even I did not know that my 'success ladder' was that long


That is because you are on the other end of that ladder with a completely different point of view; and have risen high above another:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I get no usable education from the ugly likes of you. I knew that years ago.....


So, I guess some short term memory problems happened when you started posting in this thread? Because if you knew that years ago, you certainly didn't as you were posting in this thread.

Just curious, are you part of the IAMAW, or do you think the unfair labor practices in your state can be resolved by the free market alone?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> And everything you say on here in necessary???


I think she was being polite. I'll translate: your comment was incredibly crude and vulgar.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> That's self-evidently untrue.
> 
> You just learned from me and the other Liberals here that Obamacare is not a thing you get... and then you went ahead and used that knowledge to try and cover your ignorant butt...
> 
> ...


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think she was being polite. I'll translate: your comment was incredibly crude and vulgar.


Like I care what you think?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> tsk tsk tsk. Oh again with the name calling. Seems like you need to borrow my 'success ladder' to get out of your sewer.


Hey LTL,

VocalLoser is the priest preaching to the pastor so to speak. Can I get a backup choir in here?

She is shouting from her bully pulpit about me calling her stupid when I didnt.

Perhaps she can do a voice over and shout at herself about the noun I didnt use or the names I didnt call her when I said she is easily confused! Boy, is she ever.

Thats what happens when you talk too much and lie always. 
H - I - L - A - R - I - O - U - S!


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Sure is a sad state of affairs when I can post about someone killing an innocent child and no one gets upset, but heaven forbid you say something ran down someone's leg. You people are without morals in anyway shape or form.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Sure is a sad state of affairs when I can post about someone killing an innocent child and no one gets upset, but heaven forbid you say something ran down someone's leg. You people are without morals in anyway shape or form.


Who is killing children? The Syrians? or the republicans who have taken away SNAP?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think she was being polite. I'll translate: your comment was incredibly crude and vulgar.


Like your avatar?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

No the people who kill innocent children are people who have an abortion. (like you didn't know that already!)
I know what is coming next......Semantics.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Liberals are so predictable. Like they don't know that having an abortion kills a totally unique and innocent child. They will try to call it something else but we all know what it does. They try to ease their guilt by calling it a name that won't remind them they have killed a human being without cause.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T HERE TO RUN YOUR LIFE!!! OR TO TAKE CARE OF YOU. IT IS HERE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENRY, THE LAND, AND OUR WAY OF LIFE. NOT TO HAND YOU THINGS YOU COULD DO YOURSELF BUT REFUSE TO DO!!!!
Thought if I shouted someone would hear it.....Maybe not.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Like your avatar?


Gee, CB, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Why don't you clarify?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That is such a stupid question it reveals you don't seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of what Obamacare is.
> 
> *Why would anyone refuse benefits from their job? That's part of their compensation that they earning.*
> 
> ...


Hey Stupid Lisa (that's what you like - adjectives, not nouns?),

I realize I'm not _anyone_ to you, but my family and I, get this, and probably HALF of my working friends, refuse health insurance benefits from their employers; you are not offered health insurance from a "job" BTW as you wrote. GASP!

Health Insurance is *not* part of one's compensation, and we all negotiate higher earnings/wages/rates in place of that fringe benefit. Imagine that!

BTW: I don't have 10 million in the bank yet, but do that drastic plan just the same.

You should get out more.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hey LTL,
> 
> VocalLoser is the priest preaching to the pastor so to speak. Can I get a backup choir in here?
> 
> ...


Well what do you expect from someone that only regurgitates the Dem playbook? Always attacks by calling people names. Always plays the race card. Always parses words to divert the attention away from her incorrect comments. She is such an elitist that she believes that she can speak for everyone and apologize for people that have done nothing wrong. Let's not forget she is too good for Obamacare, but she demands that others get it if their policies don't rise to what she thinks they should have. Narcissists with an elitist attitude are really fun to watch, even though annoying.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Well what do you expect from someone that only regurgitates the Dem playbook? Always attacks by calling people names. Always plays the race card. Always parses words to divert the attention away from her incorrect comments. She is such an elitist that she believes that she can speak for everyone and apologize for people that have done nothing wrong. Let's not forget she is too good for Obamacare, but she demands that others get it if their policies don't rise to what she thinks they should have. Narcissists with an elitist attitude are really fun to watch, even though annoying.


LTL, when you have a clue or even one teensiest bit of knowledge about what Obamacare is about and who it benefits, then come back and debate. Right now you are looking very foolish.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> So are you saying you approve of us going into Iraq and the fact that 4486 American men and women were killed was necessary? If the republicans had their was right now we would be in Syria and getting ready to go into Iran. Stupid
> 
> I don't think killing of any kind, is a good thing to do. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need for an abortion nor has anyone in my family. but if the need should ever arise, I want it to be their decision, not some right wing nut case that believes they have the right to make that decision for them. I don't want some republican in congress saying after a woman has been raped that it was the will of God that she become pregnant. The God that I worship does not operate that way.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Perfect image of how the world views America now. I'm ashamed of ourselves.

Ps. Daily KOS article for explanation.



NJG said:


> This kind of explains it all.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/26/1103368/-The-One-Comic-That-Explains-Just-How-Screwed-America-Is?detail=email#


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bravo!



NJG said:


> Ladies, can you imagine any of the righties posting on this forum doing something like this? I must say I don't think it would happen. I think they would just say they need to work harder!
> 
> Most of you know about the disgraceful scene last week at a Salt Lake City elementary school, where 40 kids had their lunches thrown away because they had negative balances in their accounts. When Kenny Thompson, a longtime tutor at Valley Oaks Elementary School in Houston, found out that several kids at his school had negative balances, he was determined to prevent a repeat performance of what happened in Salt Lake City. So Thompson stepped up and fully funded the accounts.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Are you trying to be funny? You're not (funny, everything else you are. )



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I guess you can't read either!?!? I said oh my bad, not American at all. That explains it.
> Also that your word was misspelled. What a dummie!
> Ok I should have said Ugly Aussie.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're right. She's a certified Wackadoodle.



EveMCooke said:


> OK I made a typo, thanks for picking it up. When you are 73 years old your eyesight is not as good as it used to be and you miss typos, especially very early in the morning. I did not realise that a typo or spelling mistake was a capital offence, but apparently it is to you. Not to worry I have written the word out 100 times, just as I did in primary school. A 'bad' for you but not for others. I still think you are whacko even if your spelling is 100% perfect.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> EveMCooke said:
> 
> 
> > OK I made a typo, thanks for picking it up. When you are 73 years old your eyesight is not as good as it used to be and you miss typos, especially very early in the morning. I did not realise that a typo or spelling mistake was a capital offence, but apparently it is to you. Not to worry I have written the word out 100 times, just as I did in primary school. A 'bad' for you but not for others. I still think you are whacko even if your spelling is 100% perfect.[/q
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If you cannot provide proof of a learning disability, I'm going to say what I think. And you won't like it. I wonder how many others will join in?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> sumpleby said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with you?[/qu
> > What is wrong with YOU?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put. I feel more in tune with global friends than these right-wing nuts in the USA. Sorry.



VocalLisa said:


> AlwaysAKnutter is a bigot and xenophobe. There is no other type of person who would type a phrase like "Ugly Aussie", whether she "SometimesKnits" or not. There's no other explanation for it than that.
> 
> And I want to applogize for all rational US citizens for her bigoted comments.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are a disgrace. I'm done trying to laugh you away.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I get no usable education from the ugly likes of you. I knew that years ago. I don't care if you believe me or not. I never thought i t was a thing so you must have mixed up logic and thinking...............Oh that explains it!!
> Quote a post where I "The mere fact that you regularly attributed to it attributes that could only be if you thought of it as a a "thing" you could get, rather than a set of laws"
> Dummie, have to make stuff up................


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you claim the same excuse?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> OOHHHH MYYY HERE COMES THE RACE CARD!!!!!
> And no it wasn't me you first started making fun of thinking Obamacare was a thing................How stupid are you exactly?????
> The best part of Obama ran down his mama's leg. All he is is an emtpy suit. I make no reference to race, only stupid liberals do that. I would think of him the same if he wasn't part black......


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You have no class at all. I guess when you're uneducated, that isn't a problem for you.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Vocal Lisa (Ugly Lisa to the rest of us) thinks she knows everything, when in fact she doesn't know who posted what on here. And then she has to fall back to the good old race card to defend odummer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What are you when you're not a knitter?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Also Ugly Lisa never read anything I posted to make her think I didn't know what hte ACA is. She can't post a quote from me that has that in it because it never happened. Maybe you need some more KOOL-ADE


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Let's adopt her and educate her.



susanmos2000 said:


> An unbelievably ill-bred and nasty comment. If you were my child I'd wash your mouth out with soap for that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If you quit calling people names, what will you do with yourself? Why not give it a try? You really sound like you need a nap.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Ok
> Stupid Ugly Lisa is at the ugly comments again!!! I guess she got the fourth grade class prize.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We can't understand anything you try to say.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> I don't know how it can with out you to prop it up. I called her what she called me....What is good for the goose.....Well you know....My question still stands.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> That's self-evidently untrue.
> 
> You just learned from me and the other Liberals here that Obamacare is not a thing you get... and then you went ahead and used that knowledge to try and cover your ignorant butt...
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

:XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Go toward the light.



knitpresentgifts said:


> That is because you are on the other end of that ladder with a completely different point of view; and have risen high above another:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> So, I guess some short term memory problems happened when you started posting in this thread? Because if you knew that years ago, you certainly didn't as you were posting in this thread.
> 
> Just curious, are you part of the IAMAW, or do you think the unfair labor practices in your state can be resolved by the free market alone?


No sir! she said. Clever comeback #2


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hey Vocal, I think sometimesaknitter (sometimessomethingelse) tried to answer you, but couldn't manage to decipher the words. She just copied your comments. I guess she really liked them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hey LTL,
> 
> VocalLoser is the priest preaching to the pastor so to speak. Can I get a backup choir in here?
> 
> ...


You are hilarious!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you know what morals are?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> Sure is a sad state of affairs when I can post about someone killing an innocent child and no one gets upset, but heaven forbid you say something ran down someone's leg. You people are without morals in anyway shape or form.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put rocky!



rocky1991 said:


> Who is killing children? The Syrians? or the republicans who have taken away SNAP?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Sometimesaknitter said:


>


*Ummmm you forgot to type.*


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> VocalLoser is the priest preaching to the pastor so to speak. Can I get a backup choir in here?


Thank you for admitting I'm speaking the Gospel.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Sure is a sad state of affairs when I can post about someone killing an innocent child and no one gets upset


... because you did no such thing.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No the people who kill innocent children are people who have an abortion.


Oh, I see, you only believe in killing children once they're born.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Like they don't know that having an abortion kills a totally unique and innocent child.


Conservatives are so predictable, they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand science.

No, abortion is a medical procedure that removes a fetus that is not viable outside the womb under very personal circumstances that you have no business either preventing or commanding.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I see the war is still going on.Those two dear, dear good, wonderful Christians, LTL and KPG, are joined by a third wonderful Christian. Yes, they still are anti-abortion, but they're actually anti-poor people because they don't want to be Christ-like and actually aid the poor.. If you vote repub at every chance, you are, in effect, saying "I agree with the party principles of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and cutting aid to the poor and unemployed." So Christian! I wonder if the Pope would vote repiblican.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

alltimesaknutter said:


> Also that your word was misspelled. What a dummie!


BTW... that's dumm_*y*_, dummy.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T HERE TO RUN YOUR LIFE!!!


First of all, typing in all caps like that is indicative of mental illness.

Secondly, YOU'RE the one supporting government forcing gestation and childbirth on women.

YOU'RE the big government person here more than anyone else.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hey Stupid Lisa (that's what you like - adjectives, not nouns?),


Sweetie, if you wanted to use it as an adjective, you needed to say "Lisa, who is stupid ..." Or at the very least not capitalize the word "Stupid".

But saying "Stupid Lisa" in the context you did means "Stupid" was not used as an adjective.

Holy God, it is quite obvious that you didn't even get educated beyond a third grade level.

That is so very, very sad.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> First of all, typing in all caps like that is indicative of mental illness.
> 
> Secondly, YOU'RE the one supporting government forcing gestation and childbirth on women.
> 
> YOU'RE the big government person here more than anyone else.


First of all I was shouting at you. Didn't you hear it? You are sos tupid to not even know what all caps actually means.
No you are promoting big government by having everything legislated. 
I couldn't care less what you think of me, just so you don't kill innocent unique humans.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> Do you know what morals are?


I do but it is sure evident you don't.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> ... because you did no such thing.


In your next post you actually quoted me talking about it...............DUMMIE


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Sweetie, if you wanted to use it as an adjective, you needed to say "Lisa, who is stupid ..." Or at the very least not capitalize the word "Stupid".
> 
> But saying "Stupid Lisa" in the context you did means "Stupid" was not used as an adjective.
> 
> ...


What is sad is that you have nothing to contribute to this thread but name calling and hate. You have no morals either.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Conservatives are so predictable, they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand science.
> 
> No, abortion is a medical procedure that removes a fetus that is not viable outside the womb under very personal circumstances that you have no business either preventing or commanding.


No an abortion is the killing of an innocent unique human being, that if left alone would grow into an adult human being. You can play the semantics game all you want but the killing of a baby in utero means that person will NEVER exist. And yes I do have business preventing it if I can. You may believe that murder is ok but I don't.
Killing a baby at twelve weeks is ok but not as an adult?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Health Insurance is not part of one's compensation, and we all negotiate higher earnings/wages/rates in place of that fringe benefit. Imagine that!












You just contradicted yourself. You just admitted, that you can get your compensation via a health benefit or you'll negotiate a higher wage/salary compensation. That means that you just admitted that the health benefit is considered interchangeable with your/salary... which basically means ITS PART OF YOUR COMPENSATION, no matter what semantics you say otherwise.

If the employer is paying 100% of the premium cost they not only _can_ force you to be on their medical plan, under federal law they MUST. would be discriminating against you if they did not. But, if you are paying ANY portion of the premium, most employers will likely allow you to waive off the policy. In fact, an employer can force its employees to accept the health coverage and pay out of pocket. They may offer waivers, but they are not required to by law.

But no, if you have "refused" health insurance from your employer, it's because you're taking it from your spouses' employer, or are on medicare. If you're living off your spouse's employer healthcare, then that was part of HIS compensation.

And why would he get rid of part of the compensation he "negotiated" for to go on an Obamacare plan?

So my point still stands.

But if you ARE one of those people who has no health insurance at all... then you are one of the moochers of society. We, the rest of us all end up paying for your healthcare when you get sick or have an accident and get treatment. Except because if it's not via insurance, there are no negotiate costs and we, the taxpayers pay exorbitant amounts for your irresponsible behavior of not insuring yourself.

That's why there's a mandate.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> no matter what semantics you say otherwise.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, she does know what semantics means or did she just look it up in the dictionary because I just used the term??? HMMMMM


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No an abortion is the killing of an innocent unique human being,
> Killing a baby at twelve weeks is ok but not as an adult?


No, it's removing a fetus and doing so at 12 weeks is not a killing of a human being whether it's unique or not.

Pictures is not science. The fact that you posted one like that tells me even YOU know you can't depend on facts to support your position.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Well what do you expect from someone that only regurgitates the Dem playbook? Always attacks by calling people names.


No, I RESPOND _in kind_. Always have. And you're still whining like a baby because of it.

BTW, I'm not a "Dem".


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No, it's removing a fetus and doing so at 12 weeks is not a killing of a human being whether it's unique or not.
> 
> Pictures is not science. The fact that you posted one like that tells me even YOU know you can't depend on facts to support your position.


Removing a "fetus" is killing life. Not killing a human being? whether unique or not???? OMG You really have no morals.
All you have to do is look at the site The Endowment for Human Development which is run by the the National Institute of Health and is in no way connected to the pro-life movement. Here at this link you can see a video of a 9 week old unborn baby moving her arms and legs around in the womb http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=54 Its really a very remarkable video.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> OOHHHH MYYY HERE COMES THE RACE CARD!!!!!


First, as I said earlier, writing whole sentences and paragraphs in all caps is indicative of a mental disorder. It's akin to a homeless person with schizophrenia yelling nonsense at anyone who walks by.

So that's just another example of your mental instability showing through on this board.

And "race card" and "black grievance" and other similar terms are talking points straight out of white supremacists and the KKK. They claim it every time someone points out their racism.

Every racist calls out "race card" anytime their racism is pointed out. I expected you to do the same... and you didn't disappoint.

BTW. Abortion is at it's lowest rate in 30 years, and studies have tied it specifically because of the increased availability of birth control.

Now that Obamacare makes contraception "free", the abortion rate will go down even lower. Obama is the "Babe Ruth" of lowering abortion.

People like you aren't actually interested in stopping or lowering abortion. If you were, you'd use science, facts and numbers to discover what's working instead of regurgitating old lies and putting up dramatic pictures.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Pictures may not be science but there are pictures of perfectly formed humans cut up to abort them. They open their mouths in pain during the abortion. Just because we can't hear them doesn't mean it isn't a cry of pain. 
The reason a unique human is important is that no other being like that will ever exist. And that is ok with you????

Look at this web site if you have the guts. And if you do and tell me it is no big deal you are truly not human yourself.
http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-at-9-weeks-pictures/


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

http://youngcons.com/life-12-unborn-animals-in-the-womb-you-have-to-see-to-believe/


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> First, as I said earlier, writing whole sentences and paragraphs in all caps is indicative of a mental disorder. It's akin to a homeless person with schizophrenia yelling nonsense at anyone who walks by.
> 
> Again you saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> ...


What lies? And the picture I put up isn't dramatic. Just a pic of a baby in utero. No biggie. If you think it is dramatic it may be because it makes you uncomfortable knowing that the age that baby is can be still aborted (killed).


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Pictures may not be science but there are pictures of perfectly formed humans cut up to abort them. /


But they're not fully formed humans, they just look that way to you. That's why it's so deceptive.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Don't you love it? At least she's quiet for whatever reason.



VocalLisa said:


> *Ummmm you forgot to type.*


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And there's a rousing choir of angels singing.......A-a-men. A-a-men amen.



VocalLisa said:


> Thank you for admitting I'm speaking the Gospel.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I see the war is still going on.Those two dear, dear good, wonderful Christians, LTL and KPG, are joined by a third wonderful Christian. Yes, they still are anti-abortion, but they're actually anti-poor people because they don't want to be Christ-like and actually aid the poor.. If you vote repub at every chance, you are, in effect, saying "I agree with the party principles of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and cutting aid to the poor and unemployed." So Christian! I wonder if the Pope would vote repiblican.


Not this Pope.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> BTW... that's dumm_*y*_, dummy.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: There are typos and there is ignorance. Some of us know the difference.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> First of all, typing in all caps like that is indicative of mental illness.
> 
> Secondly, YOU'RE the one supporting government forcing gestation and childbirth on women.
> 
> YOU'RE the big government person here more than anyone else.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Sweetie, if you wanted to use it as an adjective, you needed to say "Lisa, who is stupid ..." Or at the very least not capitalize the word "Stupid".
> 
> But saying "Stupid Lisa" in the context you did means "Stupid" was not used as an adjective.
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I think it's very, very funny. Or should I write 'funnie?'


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please try to rest. You're too upset.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> First of all I was shouting at you. Didn't you hear it? You are sos tupid to not even know what all caps actually means.
> No you are promoting big government by having everything legislated.
> I couldn't care less what you think of me, just so you don't kill innocent unique humans.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

damemary said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I think it's very, very funny. Or should I write 'funnie?'


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> What is sad is that you have nothing to contribute to this thread but name calling and hate. You have no morals either.


Next thing you know, you'll be saying my mother wears army boots. How low will you go?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Next thing you know, you'll be saying my mother wears army boots. How low will you go?


NO morals, my darling Empress, that's N U N!


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Actually the only response many of you liberals give are the same words repeated time and time again. If you don't know what most current means how do you know what vitrolic means? Did some one look it up for you? Must have because you are too STUPID to know what it means. BTW I don't care what you think of me at all. I am not ill informed about anything. You are the ones who think killing is good when the person can't defend themselves and horrible when they can. Haven't you got that backwards?????
> You are the ugliest American that only taunts and bullies people because their opinion doesn't agree with yours. I have not thrown anything out that wasn't thrown my way first.


Poor thing. Sad that you've been bonked on the head too often. Hope that your family loves you enough to keep you safe from harming yourself.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> And all the right talks about is vouchers and privatizing public schools. That would leave those in poor neighborhoods out in the cold again, because that isn't where the money could be made. I know things will turn around eventually. The republican party is destroying themselves, and with the increase in minorities, things will change, but it just won't happen fast enough and they can wreck so much havoc in the mean time, that it is very scary. They are trying to take the vote away from as many as they can, and with the redistricting is hard to change the makeup of congress. I think it has to start with getting the states out of repb control in order to change the redistricting, and the rest shall fallow. Inequality as bad as it is getting is not healthy for this country.


The motto of the Republican party is "I got mine, now you get your own." Sad but so true.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> But they're not fully formed humans, they just look that way to you. That's why it's so deceptive.


WOW so glad you cleared that up. What a dumba**. 
And all the rest of your posts are the same crap over and over. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
You didn't look did you??? Not human then.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

maysmom said:


> The motto of the Republican party is "I got mine, now you get your own." Sad but so true.


What is wrong with expecting you to get your own?????? No talking to people so stupid as Libs.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

maysmom said:


> Poor thing. Sad that you've been bonked on the head too often. Hope that your family loves you enough to keep you safe from harming yourself.


What a joke of a post, same liberal crap, over and over and over again.........Poor May


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> First, as I said earlier, writing whole sentences and paragraphs in all caps is indicative of a mental disorder. It's akin to a homeless person with schizophrenia yelling nonsense at anyone who walks by.
> 
> So that's just another example of your mental instability showing through on this board.
> 
> ...


Hey Sometimesaknitter, did you know that if you are a blabbering liberal you feel the need to diagnose people, or should I say 'judge'?

Did you know that contraception is free? Yes it is like manna from the sky it just arrives? Who in their right mind thinks it is free???? It has to be made, so who is paying for it???? Not the moochers that is for sure. 
Also bet that 'free' birth control will lead to more 'free' STD's. But don't worry, somehow the 'free' medicine will fall from the sky to cure them.

Don't you love how the Obamacultist think? Pathetic


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Hey Sometimesaknitter, did you know that if you are a blabbering liberal you feel the need to diagnose people, or should I say 'judge'?
> 
> Did you know that contraception is free? Yes it is like manna from the sky it just arrives? Who in their right mind thinks it is free???? It has to be made, so who is paying for it???? Not the moochers that is for sure.
> Also bet that 'free' birth control will lead to more 'free' STD's. But don't worry, somehow the 'free' medicine will fall from the sky to cure them.
> ...


Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
Of course only you would think more STD's. 
It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I guess it might be affected by whom you said it to. Children? Sick people unable to "get their own." Elderly?

Does that touch your heart?



SometimesaKnitter said:


> What is wrong with expecting you to get your own?????? No talking to people so stupid as Libs.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

May's fine. She's an intelligent woman with heart and soul. It's you I wonder about.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> What a joke of a post, same liberal crap, over and over and over again.........Poor May


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Not smart enough to be factious would be my guess.



BrattyPatty said:


> Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
> Of course only you would think more STD's.
> It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
> I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
> Of course only you would think more STD's.
> It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
> I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


And, of course, that "free" label is a misnomer. It pays for itself many times over in prevention of childbirth and child care costs so it is a cost effective expense for the health insurance companies who are paid for their product. 
It is also a cost saving measure for the US taxpayer. Not only do we save money when a person on medicaid or medicare does not use those products for child related health care expense, we save money on school costs. We save money on every child related expense we pay for. 
It just makes sense all the way around for any woman who wants to use contraception to have it provided, copay free, through that health care vehicle. Heck, I would be tempted to say that we should make some people who don't want it take it.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
> Of course only you would think more STD's.
> It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
> I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?

But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?

Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


How do you determine that those who are protecting the environment are "Lefties"?
Was Teddy Roosevelt a "Lefty"? 
I believe that concern for losing species of animal falls outside any political designation, I find it quite interesting that you would seperate yourself from a course that would help to continue the ecosystems. After all, what is the point of forcing women to reproduce if there is no earth left to inhabit?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> You just contradicted yourself. You just admitted, that you can get your compensation via a health benefit or you'll negotiate a higher wage/salary compensation. That means that you just admitted that the health benefit is considered interchangeable with your/salary... which basically means ITS PART OF YOUR COMPENSATION, no matter what semantics you say otherwise.
> 
> If the employer is paying 100% of the premium cost they not only _can_ force you to be on their medical plan, under federal law they MUST. would be discriminating against you if they did not. But, if you are paying ANY portion of the premium, most employers will likely allow you to waive off the policy. In fact, an employer can force its employees to accept the health coverage and pay out of pocket. They may offer waivers, but they are not required to by law.
> 
> ...


In your words: "Holy God, it is quite obvious that you didn't even get educated beyond a third grade level. That is so very, very sad."

(You have shown you don't know where to place a period in a sentence, write "sentences" by leaving out the verb, capitalize incorrectly, cannot identify an adjective when one is used, use incorrect words, and do not even understand how to correctly use "not only . but also." I wouldn't and didn't mention such errors to you but since you did to me, I'm now bringing _your_ errors to your attention.)

So, yes "your point still stands." You are stupid, Lisa.

I did not contradict or admit anything as you claimed.

Oh, stupid, stupid, vocal Lisa. (see what I did there?)

A *fringe benefit * (health insurance which I defined as such for this discussion) means it is *NOT part of one's compensation*, and further means it is NOT interchangeable with compensation which I said was earnings/wages/rates. (I didn't mention every type of compensation).

As usual, you used words different that I and attempted to argue what I said. Regardless of the words you used, your argument is wrong, uninformed, flawed and worthless.

IF health insurance *benefits* WERE part of compensation, as you stated, the IRS would not treat them differently; yet the IRS DOES. In the USA the IRS is king when defining compensation and benefits.

Health insurance benefits are NOT subject to SS or Medicare or Unemployment taxes (yet) and are EVEN reported within different boxes on a W-2 for EMPLOYE*ES.*

As a matter of FACT, some states do not allow corporations (employers) to provide health insurance IF only one employee.

I pay 100% of the premium for my health insurance as does my spouse. Neither of us are on Medicare, neither of us are moochers BECAUSE we pay 100% of our health insurance premiums, neither have even thought about getting our insurance through Obamacare and no taxpayers are responsible for either of our health care costs.

BTW: both of us are still working, so we're not retired either.

If you had an education or _some _ business sense, or could learn to speak the truth you would understand how to express yourself without intended manipulation of words, and semantics (your new favorite word) would not regularly sink your ship. :XD:

As I said a couple of days ago when I bested you, better luck next time! You certainly blew it this time *big time*. If I were you, I'd quit 'cause you're making yourself really look foolish.

I thought you said you once had your own business; no wonder you weren't successful. Keep your day job.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It doesn't surprise me that you would twist saving a species from extinction and a woman excercising her legal right t o a medical procedure. Too complicated for you?



lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> How do you determine that those who are protecting the environment are "Lefties"?
> Was Teddy Roosevelt a "Lefty"?
> I believe that concern for losing species of animal falls outside any political designation, I find it quite interesting that you would seperate yourself from a course that would help to continue the ecosystems. After all, what is the point of forcing women to reproduce if there is no earth left to inhabit?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> What is wrong with expecting you to get your own?????? No talking to people so stupid as Libs.


You are in desperate, obvious need of help. Please seek it soon.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> What a joke of a post, same liberal crap, over and over and over again.........Poor May


That's quite funny, especially since you don't know either May or her mom. Then again, it's apparent you don't know much about anything at all except how to spew hatred.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> May's fine. She's an intelligent woman with heart and soul. It's you I wonder about.


Thanks for the thumbs-up, Dame. May says hi!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
> Of course only you would think more STD's.
> It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
> I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


It's amazing, isn't it Patty? I never realized before that conservatives fear "safe" sex (or sex without consequences, in their view) every bit as much as they do abortion. It's no wonder abortion and STD rates in this country as still so high. They have a lot of emotional investment in keeping a baby and/or a whopping case of gonorrhea the possible consequence of unmarried sexual activity.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> In your words: "Holy God, it is quite obvious that you didn't even get educated beyond a third grade level. That is so very, very sad."
> 
> (You have shown you don't know where to place a period in a sentence, write "sentences" by leaving out the verb, capitalize incorrectly, cannot identify an adjective when one is used, use incorrect words, and do not even understand how to correctly use "not only . but also." I wouldn't and didn't mention such errors to you but since you did to me, I'm now bringing _your_ errors to your attention.)
> 
> ...


You must have sat up until the wee hours of the morning generating this one, KPG. No wonder it makes no sense.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Right back at you.



maysmom said:


> Thanks for the thumbs-up, Dame. May says hi!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Perfect reply. What a twisted mess it is.



susanmos2000 said:


> You must have sat up until the wee hours of the morning generating this one, KPG. No wonder it makes no sense.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Only a lib would phrase raising a child as being condemned. No one needs to raise a child if they don't want to.
> Please do avoid Nebraska-we do not suffer fools gladly and do not want any of your liberal crap spoiling our great state.


Must grow a lot of stupid in Nebraska.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh so you are for KILLLING because it causes so much less stress and heartache for the mother (never mind that many who have abortions have unqualified grief and regret later), and of course the child is dead so it can't feel any stress or heartache.
> Yes many do find their birth parents, so what?? An adopted child is at least a wanted child that their parents weren't 'condemned' to raise.


Prove the "unqualified grief and regret later".


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Well if you were well behaved in public many probably don't know you believe in killing innocent unborn children, but don't believe in putting a convicted criminal to death because i guess you think that is cruel. So even if you met me you wouldn't have seen me as awful because I wouldn't have had anything to be awful to you about.
> You are the awful one for wanting to always call names and make personal attacks because you can't or won't debate the merits of the argument.


Killing "children" RW talking point. You'd rather kill them when they are older and can fight in your wars.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


A fetus can be prevented, owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs need to be protected, remember we all share this planet. Animals are here for a purpose too. Man is the most dangerous animal, selfish and uncaring of the world around us.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No an abortion is the killing of an innocent unique human being, that if left alone would grow into an adult human being. You can play the semantics game all you want but the killing of a baby in utero means that person will NEVER exist. And yes I do have business preventing it if I can. You may believe that murder is ok but I don't.
> Killing a baby at twelve weeks is ok but not as an adult?


Not a baby a fetus. Just rw inflammatory talking points


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Not a baby a fetus. Just rw inflammatory talking points


 :thumbup: :thumbup: 
And the same territory we have been going over for a week. YIKES.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Generic birth control is free under the ACA. If they want a brand named BC then there will be a copay. You should be over the moon about this, LTL. With more women on birth control, it will lower the number of abortions in the US.
> Of course only you would think more STD's.
> It seems that you still haven't read up on it yet. Try it and learn something about it. You have a very perverted outlook on almost everything. Most smart people are more responsible when it comes to having safe sex. Condoms were invented to stop the sperm from entering the womans body and to protect themselves from STD"S.
> I thought you knew that. Or you just beeing facetious again?


The number of abortions has already come down, due to birth control, but the right isn't satisfied with that either. Not sure what they want.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> How do you determine that those who are protecting the environment are "Lefties"?
> Was Teddy Roosevelt a "Lefty"?
> I believe that concern for losing species of animal falls outside any political designation, I find it quite interesting that you would seperate yourself from a course that would help to continue the ecosystems. After all, what is the point of forcing women to reproduce if there is no earth left to inhabit?


It just goes back to the same idea of I have mine, and to he-- with you. She believes the earth will work for her as long as she lives and for those after her, let them figure it out for themselves.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Killing "children" RW talking point. You'd rather kill them when they are older and can fight in your wars.


Of course, outlaw abortion, but if that child has no food because the right cuts the snap program, well too bad, so sad. Your parents should have gotten a better education!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Killing "children" RW talking point. You'd rather kill them when they are older and can fight in your wars.


The innocent child or fetus is not asked nor is given a choice whether he/she will be killed. A soldier who enters the military only kills when engaged not by choice when he/she feels like it. The solider also chose of his/her own will to 1) enter and serve in the military and 2) kill ONLY in an act of war under command.

Even when the draft was in place; a solider does not commit murder when following orders.

That is why no solider is ever convicted of murder if done under military command and in the act of war. Murder is illegal in the USA. Engaging in an act of war or self-defense is not murder.

Wouldn't it be nice if a child or fetus could act in self-defense before being killed by another? Yet, presently, the law allows a child or fetus to be killed within the guidelines in place.

Learn to compare apples to apples with logic and facts instead of your weak Liberal talking points.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Wouldn't it be nice if a child or fetus could act in self-defense before being killed by another?


Just as nice it would be if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused. Really, what would be nice is if you would indeed act like the Christian you trumpet yourself as and follow the golden rule. Oops, was I supposed to capitalize that?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan: No Scalia, No Rumsfeld, No Cheney. No Bushes and all of their appointments and disasters. No funding of dictators like Saddam Hussein (Reagan propped him up big time) or psychopaths like Osama Bin Laden (that worked out well). 

An America far less dependent on oil. A superpower respected for skilled diplomacy in ending conflicts, instead of starting them. And a healthy economy with a strong middle class instead of a world where the labor movement has been viciously attacked, and the middle class is systematically being dismantled. Under Reagan, corporations gained massive power to the point today where they have become "people". Unions, the worker's last protection, were severely weakened, and the socioeconomic gap exploded. He also bankrupted us, pouring hundreds of billions into wasteful spending, like the failed and ridiculous Star Wars missile-defense system. All in just 8 short years.

Reagan created the modern plutocracy. He introduced us to the whole "take from the poor, give to the rich" supply-side economics that we still suffer today. He turned compassion to the less fortunate to villianization... created the mythical "welfare queen", mocked AIDS patients, and let his fellow "Christians" know it was okay to belittle the homeless.

CEOs before Reagan made 78 times their minimum wage workers. Today, its almost 3500 times! Without Reagan, America might have had the same income distribution we had in the 1970s, which would mean we would be averaging $120,000 annually--not $40,000. 

REAGAN: 
Reagan APPEASED terrorists. 
IRAN-CONTRA. Reagan was so bad he SECRETLY TRADED F*^KING arms for HOSTAGES! DO I really need to say more?? Can you just imagine the wingnut explosion if Obama did that?

Reagan also met with our enemies without preconditions (1985, Soviet Union)... something that Obama was attacked for saying he just wanted to do.

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.
-Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984

No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these law should be held accountable.
-Barack Obama July 2010

REAGAN: 
He got through a big tax cut once he took office. But to hear conservatives talk, that's where the story ends. They forget he raised income taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

Actually, he raised taxes 11 times to include four MASSIVE tax increases!

Whether you are looking at the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, reigning in the deficit was clearly of no concern. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. Reagan soared the spending, Clinton brought in back down a bit, and W. took it way back up. To be fair to the Gipper, NO ONE did deficit like W. He spent the Clinton surplus like a drunken sailor. Because the GOP loves to throw money at their base...tax cuts for Big Oil and the wealthiest amongst us which add hundreds of billions to the debt but create nothing. 

ABORTION
OBAMA: 
Believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. And they are. Abortions under Obama are at their lowest rate since 1973. Granted, as the article says it has more to do with advances in birth control than anything a politician does, but once again shows conservatives to be liars when they claimed abortions would skyrocket under Obama.

REAGAN:
Staunchly forced-birth. Yet wingnuts never talk about his policies as governor. Reagan signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" only six months as California governor. There were 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, and the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagans two terms. 

REAGAN:
COMPLETELY supported the Brady Bill, the holy grail of gun control. Reagan even wrote an op-ed piece for it in the evil NY Times.

OBAMA:
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence flunked Obama on every single gun control issue. Proposed nothing for federal gun control laws when he had a super majority Dem Congress. When he had that Dem majority, in fact, federal gun rights EXPANDED by allowing guns on trains and in our national parks. Yet the NRA still told their idiot members that Obama was coming to take their guns.... and gun sales skyrocketed.

I submit it was REAGAN who was the illegal amnesty-supporting, gun control loving, deficit spending, tax raising, terrorist coddling coward. (As for support of "traditional family values", Obama has a great relationship with his family--Reagan was the first divorced president and was estranged from his children.)


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

To win control of the USA by whatever means necessary.



NJG said:


> The number of abortions has already come down, due to birth control, but the right isn't satisfied with that either. Not sure what they want.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Is it murder when a young soldier is killed by the enemy?



knitpresentgifts said:


> The innocent child or fetus is not asked nor is given a choice whether he/she will be killed. A soldier who enters the military only kills when engaged not by choice when he/she feels like it. The solider also chose of his/her own will to 1) enter and serve in the military and 2) kill ONLY in an act of war under command.
> 
> Even when the draft was in place; a solider does not commit murder when following orders.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

maysmom said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if a child or fetus could act in self-defense before being killed by another?
> 
> Just as nice it would be if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused. Really, what would be nice is if you would indeed act like the Christian you trumpet yourself as and follow the golden rule. Oops, was I supposed to capitalize that?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan: No Scalia, No Rumsfeld, No Cheney. No Bushes and all of their appointments and disasters. No funding of dictators like Saddam Hussein (Reagan propped him up big time) or psychopaths like Osama Bin Laden (that worked out well).
> 
> An America far less dependent on oil. A superpower respected for skilled diplomacy in ending conflicts, instead of starting them. And a healthy economy with a strong middle class instead of a world where the labor movement has been viciously attacked, and the middle class is systematically being dismantled. Under Reagan, corporations gained massive power to the point today where they have become "people". Unions, the worker's last protection, were severely weakened, and the socioeconomic gap exploded. He also bankrupted us, pouring hundreds of billions into wasteful spending, like the failed and ridiculous Star Wars missile-defense system. All in just 8 short years.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well put. Family values from a man who never saw his grandchildren. Indeed.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Is it murder when a young soldier is killed by the enemy?


Did the enemy kill the soldier under the rules of war and engagement or against an enemy combatant or in self defense?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if a child or fetus could act in self-defense before being killed by another?





maysmom said:


> Just as nice it would be if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused.


Yes, it would be nice if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused. However, like the aborted fetus or infant, the child/fetus/infant cannot defend or act on its own behalf.

I'm glad you are beginning to see the light!

_Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative._ Glenn Beck


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> It doesn't surprise me that you would twist saving a species from extinction and a woman excercising her legal right t o a medical procedure. Too complicated for you?


Nope

Ask a California farmer how his/her life is being destroyed over a Delta Smelt.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Nope
> 
> Ask a California farmer how his/her life is being destroyed over a Delta Smelt.


Awwww, suddenly we have compassion. 
Why aren't we talking about poor life choices? 
How has God let this happen? Does the man not live in God's grace?


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


???????? Is this person a congenital idiot or did they take lessons?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

EveMCooke said:


> ???????? Is this person a congenital idiot or did they take lessons?


Could the answer be both?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?

If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


That is something I can not understand either. Why?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


Millions of women have had abortions, I think the numbers are something like 50% of women of childbearing age.

From what I understand it isn't about being happy, it is about doing what one thinks is best for oneself and anyone else at the time. 
I think you just recounted a situation where you did something you didn't really want to do, you did it, though, because you thought it was right. Other women make the same sort of decision at the beginning of their pregnancies.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hypothetically, let's say this soldier was deployed by order from the president alone on his own one sided discretion. Thank you.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Did the enemy kill the soldier under the rules of war and engagement or against an enemy combatant or in self defense?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Nope. Greater good. One person's good versus a change in the environment of all.


lovethelake said:


> Nope
> 
> Ask a California farmer how his/her life is being destroyed over a Delta Smelt.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Awwww, suddenly we have compassion.
> Why aren't we talking about poor life choices?
> How has God let this happen? Does the man not live in God's grace?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Bravo!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Got me. I vote for idiot. I can't imagine anyone teaching this....but a right wing zealot? Perhaps.



EveMCooke said:


> ???????? Is this person a congenital idiot or did they take lessons?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Have you ever had a lobotomy?



theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Nope. Greater good. One person's good versus a change in the environment of all.


Not to mention that farmer's (or those farmers') familiar mode of making a living is derailed. 
They are not dead, however, I do hope they receive some help.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Awwww, suddenly we have compassion.
> Why aren't we talking about poor life choices?
> How has God let this happen? Does the man not live in God's grace?


Why doesn't your God help? Too busy, no power, no interest in mankind, what?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why doesn't your God help? Too busy, no power, no interest in mankind, what?


God is not mine, God just is.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Millions of women have had abortions, I think the numbers are something like 50% of women of childbearing age.
> 
> From what I understand it isn't about being happy, it is about doing what one thinks is best for oneself and anyone else at the time.
> I think you just recounted a situation where you did something you didn't really want to do, you did it, though, because you thought it was right. Other women make the same sort of decision at the beginning of their pregnancies.


Why didn't you answer Yarnie's questions?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Hypothetically, let's say this soldier was deployed by order from the president alone on his own one sided discretion. Thank you.


Answer my question if you expect me to answer yours. You simply repeated your same question and gave more info about the solider. Your initial question asked my opinion about the enemy. I cannot answer until you give me the information about the enemy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why didn't you answer Yarnie's questions?


Quite frankly, my medical history is mine to share when I choose to. I thought it was a question that she asked without thinking as it is similar to asking a woman's age or maybe... 
if I as how many times you have had the clap. 
Hey! How many times have you had the clap? gonorrhea?
Was it before or after the strains that are resistant to treatment developed?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> First of all I was shouting at you. Didn't you hear it? You are sos tupid to not even know what all caps actually means.


Sos tupid.










I guess the Sos was you slurring your words again.

And yes, as I pointed out, you were shouting like a homeless schizoid. ALL CAPS is universally known on the "series of tubes" as behavior indicative of an unbalanced mind.

The more you type, the more you reveal your disorder.



damemary said:


> Please try to rest. You're too upset.


Yup... just what someone might say to a homeless schizoid screaming nonsense to passer-bys.

Poor thing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Answer my question if you expect me to answer yours. You simply repeated your same question and gave more info about the solider. Your initial question asked my opinion about the enemy. I cannot answer until you give me the information about the enemy.


You are so full of doggie do, you make pronouncements about things you don't have any knowledge of every day that you post.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Nope. Greater good. One person's good versus a change in the environment of all.


The environment for all in the vicinity has been drastic destroyed for the good of a worthless fish. Soon, the entire population of the USA will be impacted. Really smart decisions by some wacko Libs. NOT


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Have you ever had a lobotomy?


Typical slam when you cannot answer intelligently. Well, that's always the case I guess.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not to mention that farmer's (or those farmers') familiar mode of making a living is derailed.
> They are not dead, however, I do hope they receive some help.


Obama is heading to CA soon, presumed to bring the rain.

He said he'd part the waters and change the tides when he first became President, let's see him perform a miracle and make it rain in CA.

If Obama fails, I'll chalk it up to the regular Lib rhetoric regularly heard on these threads, "he has no compassion for the poor and needy." CA is a bluer than blue state, so Obama wouldn't fail them would he?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Typical slam when you cannot answer intelligently. Well, that's always the case I guess.


We can't all be as practiced as you at the twists and turns and lies it takes to pretend to answer and then deny it 15 minutes later. 
Some of us are innately honest and lack your gift for deceit.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Howdy! Is everyone behaving themselves tonight?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> WOW so glad you cleared that up. What a dumba**.


I see you're now resorting once again to profanity. Another thing that schitzophrenics "shout" out at passerbys.

As I said, the more you type, the more you reveal your disorders.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> God is not mine, God just is.


Uh, huh. Your God has no interest in any human, nor the environment. Some God.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Quite frankly, my medical history is mine to share when I choose to. I thought it was a question that she asked without thinking as it is similar to asking a woman's age or maybe...
> if I as how many times you have had the clap.
> Hey! How many times have you had the clap? gonorrhea?
> Was it before or after the strains that are resistant to treatment developed?


Didn't answer the 2nd question either. What's the excuse for that one?

Don't bother, I know.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

I want to call your attention to a few rules of this forum...namely:

- Please be polite.

(This means YOU and ME!)

- Do not post images with copyrighted patterns or other content of others without their permission.

(This includes pictures of people, people's homes, and people's relatives that are posted without that person's permission.)

- Just because somebody else is breaking the rules [or you think they are] doesn't mean you can do it too. Pointing out another user "doing the same thing" as a defense to a violation is in itself a bannable offense. If you decide to start breaking rules because you saw someone else doing it, you are compounding the problem.

(This includes the deliberate posting of the above mentioned images as a means of publicly threatening a person.)

- Administration reserves the right to disable any user account at our own discretion without prior notice at any time and for any reason. While this is usually a measure of the last resort, we disclaim any and all responsibility for your inability to use this website due to disabled account.

(Above-mentioned poster should look back and discover that images of said person that she posted without permission have been removed.)

(Said poster should consider herself lucky that her account has not been disabled.)

(Above-mentioned poster should keep in mind that the long-necked geek in Miami has her number.)


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Uh, huh. Your God has no interest in any human, nor the environment. Some God.


There is only one God, you claim to adore God.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You are so full of doggie do, you make pronouncements about things you don't have any knowledge of every day that you post.


I'm sorry you cannot understand simple sentences nor have the ability to express yourself intelligently.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> What is wrong with expecting you to get your own?????? No talking to people so stupid as Libs.


Because that's the philosophy of unevolved, primitive, soulless animals. Enlightened human beings in a civilized society help care for one another and don't whine about it every step of the way.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

::::: crickets :::::


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> We can't all be as practiced as you at the twists and turns and lies it takes to pretend to answer and then deny it 15 minutes later.
> Some of us are innately honest and lack your gift for deceit.


Uh, huh. HAHAHAHAHA. I'm keeping it simple so even you'll understand.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


When I was in high school, my good friend's cousin had an illegal abortion and died. The girl was 15 years old. That story is enough for me to believe that abortions should be legal. If she had carried a child to full term in those days as an "unwed mother" she would have been ostracized and her life made miserable by the condemning Christians.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Howdy! Is everyone behaving themselves tonight?


The Libs are telling the Christians what/how/when to believe/in their opinions/always.

They won't answer a single, simple question nor speak the truth.

They talk a lot but say nothing. They have hate but no love. They haven't come up with many new names to call us but are still in full force name-calling mode.

Other than that, it has been a barrel of laughs.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> ::::: crickets :::::


I see you're hearing voices and weird sounds in your head again Gerri. Time to take your meds.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The Libs are telling the Christians what/how/when to believe/in their opinions/always.
> 
> They won't answer a single, simple question nor speak the truth.
> 
> ...


Seems like not much has changed while I've been away!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I want to call your attention to a few rules of this forum...namely:
> 
> I suggest you do not go back and read prior posts by Susanmos2000 in particular. You'll become very disgusted and angry.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I see you're hearing voices and weird sounds in your head again Gerri. Time to take your meds.


That post was for you...did you read it?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I want to call your attention to a few rules of this forum...namely:
> 
> (This includes pictures of people, people's homes, and people's relatives that are posted without that person's permission.)
> 
> (This includes the deliberate posting of the above mentioned images as a means of publicly threatening a person.)


Woah! I could name some KP posters who have recently violated these rules.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Exactly the point KPG!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> There is only one God, you claim to adore God.


Why doesn't your God like humans?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm sorry your cannot understand ....


Yes, Janet, I'm sorry "your" cannot understand "KPG speak".


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Seems like not much has changed while I've been away!


I changed; I missed hearing from you!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Exactly the point KPG!


 :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BRB...gonna change my avatar!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Yes, Janet, I'm sorry "your" cannot understand "KPG speak".


You typed "here" when you meant "her." It is your weakness, I know.

I've already corrected my mistake seconds ago, without your input. You let your error remain because you don't believe you make mistakes.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Hey Sometimesaknitter, did you know that if you are a blabbering liberal you feel the need to diagnose people, or should I say 'judge'?


Doesn't take a doctor to diagnose an OBVIOUS mental disorder, and yes, I think, therefore I judge.

To judge means to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess. It's what intelligent thinking people are able to do well.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

So....who likes my new avatar?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-1-1.html#63


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Did you know that contraception is free? Yes it is like manna from the sky it just arrives? Who in their right mind thinks it is free???? It has to be made, so who is paying for it????


Yes, just like many other medications that are needed by the disenfranchised in society.

Why should contraception be any different? The effects of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies is often DEVASTATING to women and families.

Being pregnant, and gestating a baby and giving birth are literally life-threatening at times, ESPECIALLY for women who are poor or have other health issues.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa...what about you...you like my avatar?

You know who it is, don't you?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

::::: crickets :::::


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Food must be good - Mighty quiet at the table!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


That is none of your business asking that question. MYOB.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, stupid, stupid, vocal Lisa. (see what I did there?).


Yes, I see that you're demonstrating you still don't know which words to capitalize or the difference between an adjective and a noun.



knitpresentgifts said:


> A *fringe benefit * (health insurance which I defined as such for this discussion) means it is *NOT part of one's compensation*,


Not effectively. Everyone who takes a job with insurance considers health insurance as a part of their compensation regardless of the legal semantics.

And the point still remains that the reason I'm not using Obamacare at the moment is because I'm still utilizing the benefits and/or compensation that come with the job.

When I no longer have access to that, I will certainly be thankful that Obamacare has made it possible for me to get comparable affordable insurance.

As a matter of fact, I've already researched it, and I would indeed have access to the EXACT SAME BENEFITS I have now for LESS than what it costs the employer now. As is the case for thousands of other people in this country, thanks to Obama and Obamacare.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

TheYarnLady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


Because some people are incapable of making wise decisions for themselves, is not a salient argument for denying that choice to OTHER women who can.

Maybe you and women like you need to be protected from yourselves, but I and the women I know, do not.



EveMCooke said:


> That is none of your business asking that question. MYOB.


I've talked with quite a few women who have had abortions, and of course NO ONE is happy to have had to do it.

However, very, very few of them regret the choice. They only regret being in such circumstances where they had to make that difficult decision.

The mere fact that TYL would even phrase the situation that way goes to show how completely ignorant she is of the issue.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Whenever you're ready to declare a truce, VocalLisa, I'm ready too!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

tap tap tap tap tap


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why doesn't your God like humans?


He likes humans, he just doesn't agree with conservatives.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

What you're experiencing right now is that I really am a nice person. You're confounded though...you don't know if you can believe it, or not.

You can believe it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I changed; I missed hearing from you!


Push that rat's nest off your face and pull the snarls out of your ear canals, you might find your hearing improves.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I've already corrected my mistake seconds ago,


Not until after I pointed them out to you.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Its a 5-letter word: TRUCE

All you have to do is type it. (Course you have to mean it too.)


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BRB GGP


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> I want to call your attention to a few rules of this forum...namely:
> 
> - Please be polite.
> 
> ...


You're not supposed to threaten other posters with harm either... and that's actually ILLEGAL --- but you did that. (_And no, just because you did it in a passive-aggressive manner doesn't erase the fact that it was self-evidently a threat against that poster._)

You shouldn't threaten others if you don't want it to come back to bite you in the butt.

(_The above mentioned poster should keep in mind that she's fortunate she probably hasn't YET been reported to the authorities BEYOND this board._)

And BTW, what makes you think that a "canceled account" actually prevents people from posting here if they wish?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

I haven't posted anything about you VocalLisa...what are you talking about?

Certainly not like what YOU DID TO ME!!!!!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

So...you don't want a truce?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

susanmos2000 said:


> You must have sat up until the wee hours of the morning generating this one, KPG. No wonder it makes no sense.


Poor thing. She mustn't have even a high school education because she couldn't get a job that would give her any health insurance. (_Oh, that's right, she and her husband "negotiated" themselves a great deal!... _ :thumbup: _That's the story and she's stickin' to it!!!_







)

Instead she's bought one of those scam plans and when she gets sick and she finds out it won't pay out for her as she thought it would, the rest of us will be picking up the bill for her $10,000 a pop X-rays while she claims bankruptcy.

TOTAL moocher off society.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

C'mon...don't be so stubborn!

Let's agree to a truce, and let's agree to tone down the rhetoric on this thread.

Whadayasay?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The innocent child or fetus is not asked nor is given a choice whether he/she will be killed. ... Wouldn't it be nice if a child or fetus could act in self-defense before being killed by another?


In great part, IT can't because it's not a child or human and can't answer.

But a woman can answer because she really IS a human being (innocent or not), and she SHOULD be asked what she wants and her wants should be honored.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Deflect all you want...I can wait.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> I haven't posted anything about you VocalLisa...what are you talking about?
> 
> Certainly not like what YOU DID TO ME!!!!!


I have ignored you for a couple of days, you'd think that would've been truce enough, but YOU have decided to stir the pot again.

No, it was another poster that you threatened, I merely came in defense.

After you threatened her by trying to incite the crazies here on the board to look up her name and do something to her, it took me all of 10 seconds to show you, the same COULD be done to you.

However, I didn't show ONE THING that identified you. Not one. The pictures I posted could of been of anything or anyone, including blurred faces. Only YOU would know if they applied to you or not. No identifying information AT ALL.

That is nothing like what you did to that other poster. Which was to try and inform people of her real name and insinuate to her that unless she shut up someone not "as nice as you" might look her up and do something to her.

And no, I'm not going to mention that other poster even though you are once again trying to get her name put out there so someone might do something to her.

Stop trying to make veiled threats against that poster (_or denying that's not what you're doing_) or you can be reported to the authorities. You know I have the information with which to do so. So cut it out, and I will consider you having followed through on your offer to "truce".

Cut it out and I'll ignore you again as I have been for a couple of days now until you came in to stir the pot again. Deal?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

You're the poster being referenced...no one else.
You're the poster who put up my pictures without permission.
You're the poster who was reported, along with the whole story and back story about a certain third party.
You're the poster whose post was removed.

Now you're twisting in the wind...to no avail.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Cut it out and I'll ignore you again as I have been for a couple of days now until you came in to stir the pot again. Deal?


You've been ignoring me? 
That's a miracle...I haven't been online in days!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The long-necked geek in Miami has your number.
And so do I!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

You're a smart woman.
You're a good-looking woman.
You're a talented woman.
You've had more than a modicum of acclaim and even awards.

Given all your gifts, you still need to get your jollies off by coming into these threads and reaming out new a$$hole$ in your knitting sisters...and simply because they have a different opinion than you do?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

We all know it is so... here's another charmer in the human rights wars...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/garys-chicaros-oklahoma-restaurant-serve-gays_n_4746095.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554910/Oklahoma-restaurant-owner-declares-wont-serve-freaks-*******-unemployed-offensive-TV-interview.html


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

What a shame!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> You're the poster being referenced...no one else.
> You're the poster who put up my pictures without permission.
> You're the poster who was reported, along with the whole story and back story about a certain third party.
> You're the poster whose post was removed.
> ...


You're the poster that announced that person's real name on this board to scare her into shutting up.

You're the poster that has informed the whole board those were your pictures. They could've been anyone's pictures. That's how stupid you are.

You're the poster that put those pictures up on a public forum with absolutely no settings to make them private.

You're the poster that then told another poster she was stupid for putting her private information out there and told how she should be afraid and shut up because someone not as "nice as you" could hurt her. (A not so veiled threat)

And yes, when you broke that rule _and law_, I dealt with you directly instead of reporting you as I could have. But then again I'm not a whiny crybaby like you.

As far as the "backstory" of a third party, I honestly have no idea to what you're referring. But, if you think I do, that's your prerogative.

If you're gonna be that sort of paranoiac though, maybe you should stop threatening other posters with potential harm.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Given all your gifts, you still need to get your jollies off by coming into these threads and reaming out new a$$hole$ in your knitting sisters...


I think it's very cute and oh so naive that you are so sure you know who I am.









Oh, I certainly reamed a butthole. A butthole who threatened another member of this board.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> You're the poster that announced that person's real name on this board to scare her into shutting up.
> 
> (No, I didn't she said as much herself...perhaps you missed it.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Okay VocalLisa...let me ask you a question?

Ready?

What do you call the ceremony for a Jewish infant's circumcision?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

::::: crickets :::::


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> ::::: crickets :::::


You just don't know when to stop, do you? Do you not understand a word that she had expressed to you?
If I was Lisa I would report you to Admin for harassment.
Threats are not taken lightly around here.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Okay, VocalLisa, anytime you want to talk is fine with me. Public or PM, it doesn't matter.

I am serious about toning down the rhetoric on this thread and trying to have a debate on the issues without the constant, ad nauseum, nastiness and denigration of one another.

Its up to you.

Goodnight.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama is heading to CA soon, presumed to bring the rain.
> 
> He said he'd part the waters and change the tides when he first became President, let's see him perform a miracle and make it rain in CA.
> 
> If Obama fails, I'll chalk it up to the regular Lib rhetoric regularly heard on these threads, "he has no compassion for the poor and needy." CA is a bluer than blue state, so Obama wouldn't fail them would he?


Here goes the pathological liar/drama queen again!
Instead of bitching to us about Obama, why not put this all down in a letter to him?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Okay, VocalLisa, anytime you want to talk is fine with me. Public or PM, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I am serious about toning down the rhetoric on this thread and trying to have a debate on the issues without the constant, ad nauseum, nastiness and denigration of one another.
> 
> ...


As it is up to you as well. I guess you can't take a hint.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> No, I didn't


Yes, you did. You were threatening that she shut up and behave herself or someone not "as nice as you" could do something to her.



Gerslay said:


> (I don't care about that now - they're long gone.)


Oh, really? I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.



Gerslay said:


> I never called anyone stupid...I just gave her good advice


No, if it was advice you were giving, you would/should have done it privately. You did it publicly, announcing it to the board knowing it could put her in deeper risk.

And yes, you essentially called her stupid for having private information so easily accessible. That's in part, why I showed YOU how you had made a similar "stupid" mistake.



Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, when you broke that rule and law, I dealt with you directly instead of reporting you as I could have. But then again I'm not a whiny crybaby like you.
> ...


Yup, that about sums it up. You went "Waaa Waaa Waaa".



Gerslay said:


> (Obviously you don't know what you're talking about...you made assumptions and acted on them...in error.)


Yes, I just said that. I don't know anything about a "third party".

I didn't make assumptions, I saw you made a threat and I let you know that you shouldn't be making THOSE KINDS of threats when it so easily could come back to bite you in the butt.



Gerslay said:


> I'm not threatening anyone. I'm seeking peace with you.


No, there WAS peace, it was over, and you you publicly (_and freakishly obsessively I might add_) stalked me in this thread to stir the pot.

And you've gotten what you wanted. So stop complaining.

BTW, nice job using the board's quoting system! Figured out how to use it yet?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> As it is up to you as well. I guess you can't take a hint.


<smh> I have to wonder who she thinks she is going to control and how.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Again how is it free? Who is paying for it?
> 
> But then again, this is coming from a lefty group that supports abortion, but will stop a person from building a home if a Bald Eagle or a Spotted Owl has a nest in one of their trees. So with logic one could conclude that Lefties find a fertilized bird egg that could become a bird (Isn't it at this time just biological material?) more precious than a fertilized egg that could become a person? If abortion is a choice, shouldn't a person be able to build a home on property of their choice without governmental interference?
> 
> Why are owls, eagles, salamanders, frogs........more important than a fetus?


And this ridiculous repeated over and over question is coming from a RWN. 
Read the ACA bill, LTL. I am sure you will learn something from it. You have spent months bitching about it, but have no true idea of why you are bitching. When and if you read it, you might just stop all the nonsense.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Okay, VocalLisa, anytime you want to talk is fine with me. Public or PM, it doesn't matter.


Yes it does. If you did it privately, there'd be no "rhetoric" between you and I at all. YOU are the one that came into this thread to stalk me.

You came in whining about how YOU were victimized, but you were going to be so gracious as to offer to ME a "truce"?

Admit to and apologize for YOUR part in the issue, and THEN we can talk about "truce". Otherwise, your offer is insincere.



Gerslay said:


> I am serious about toning down the rhetoric


Oh bull. Don't threaten people, or if you do, _admit to it and apologize instead of playing the sole victim_ if you're SERIOUS about "toning down the rhetoric".

Coming into this thread, stalking me, *taking no accountability for your own actions* is NOT seeking peace or trying to tone down the rhetoric.

It's crap stirring.

Keep in mind, the nastiness started with your threatening another poster.

If you acknowledge what you did as inappropriate, and then apologize, _then_ maybe I can consider your supposed "peace seeking" sincere and respond in kind.

It's up to you -- Otherwise, you're full of crap.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


Actually, I have had three. These were spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages. And while I don't think any woman is thrilled to have a therapeutic abortion, the women I know who did were grateful that they had the choice.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

maysmom said:


> Actually, I have had three. These were spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages. And while I don't think any woman is thrilled to have a therapeutic abortion, the women I know who did were grateful that they had the choice.


Funny,isn't it? I wasn't happy about my options when I needed dental work and chose to have a root canal, I was mighty glad that I had some options when it became necessary.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Just as nice it would be if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused.


Yes, it would be nice if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused. However, like the aborted fetus or infant, the child/fetus/infant cannot defend or act on its own behalf. 

I'm glad you are beginning to see the light! 

Wrong, KPG. There is no light emanating from any of your thoughts and/or opinions (unless knitting is involved, maybe.)
It seems like most "pro-lifers," you only care about the fetus before birth. Where is your righteous indignation about the plight of deprived children already born?


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Quite frankly, my medical history is mine to share when I choose to. I thought it was a question that she asked without thinking as it is similar to asking a woman's age or maybe...
> if I as how many times you have had the clap.
> Hey! How many times have you had the clap? gonorrhea?
> Was it before or after the strains that are resistant to treatment developed?


Perhaps you may have the wrong disease here, perhaps it was syphilis.

In its late stages, untreated syphilis can cause heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, other neurological problems


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


But it was her choice. We all have choices to make and then we have to live with them. No I have never had an abortion. Have you?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Not effectively. Everyone who takes a job with insurance considers health insurance as a part of their compensation regardless of the legal semantics.


WRONG - I've proven it and told you of many who do not including my husband, my friends, my associates, the IRS and me. You are wrong and don't have the sense to admit it.



VocalLisa said:


> And the point still remains that the reason I'm not using Obamacare at the moment is because I'm still utilizing the benefits and/or compensation that come with the job.


WRONG - your point was health insurance = compensation. You were wrong then and now. I proved it. You cannot admit you were wrong.



VocalLisa said:


> When I no longer have access to that, I will certainly be thankful that Obamacare has made it possible for me to get comparable affordable insurance.


Probably a lie. You said you were rolling in the $ in your retirement. If that were true, you wouldn't be concerned with substandard or overpriced health insurance bought through an exchange or the gov website so you could receive subsidies or something affordable. Besides didn't you state Obamacare isn't a "thing" and doesn't "get" you anything?



VocalLisa said:


> As a matter of fact, I've already researched it, and I would indeed have access to the EXACT SAME BENEFITS I have now for LESS than what it costs the employer now. As is the case for thousands of other people in this country, thanks to Obama and Obamacare.


Big whoop. You're not concerned what you're present employer pays on your behalf and neither is any other employee. You're and other employees are concerned with what *you* will have to pay for comparable coverage. Most often, an employer pays a portion if not all of an employees' health insure premiums, so, OF COURSE, you buying a policy will cost LESS than what it costs the employer "now."

Poor attempt, Vocal Lisa, to manipulate your words again. You don't fool me.

LIE # who knows how many since you tell so many. Millions are paying more for less coverage IF they can even get coverage. Most policies are written with higher premiums and deductibles and different Drs. IF the consumer can even find a doctor to accept them as a new patient; likewise with a hospital. Come Sept/Oct 2014 the # in the same predicament has been estimated at 664% more policies impacted. Note POLICIES, not people.

That is a guarantee crisis in the USA and a *failure* of ObamaCare.

Buy gallons of Kool Aid; you're going to need it.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

The ACA will increase the deficit by 6.6 trillion dollars by 2016 and thirty million Americans will still have no insurance. The same number as before the ACA.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Not until after I pointed them out to you.


It was corrected by me before you opened your big mouth. It was corrected before I even read your post.

Get over yourself and remove the beam from your eye.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Poor thing. She mustn't have even a high school education because she couldn't get a job that would give her any health insurance. (_Oh, that's right, she and her husband "negotiated" themselves a great deal!... _ :thumbup: _That's the story and she's stickin' to it!!!_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Envy got the best of you! I have a fine health care plan with access to some of the world's best doctors. It's a private plan, and you, too, could buy the same type of coverage if you can afford the premiums. I've never bought a scam plan in my life nor intend to.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

maysmom said:


> Just as nice it would be if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused.
> 
> Yes, it would be nice if a child could act in self-defense instead of being abused. However, like the aborted fetus or infant, the child/fetus/infant cannot defend or act on its own behalf.
> 
> ...


Deprived by whom? What have you done for those same children lately? I haven't deprived nor abused any children. Have you?

You assume you know what I care about. That is a fool's prerogative.

Why didn't you post my entire post; you know, including Glenn's quote? Truth hurts too much for you to hear it?

BTW: Don't bother answering considering the way you have spoken about me and to me prior. You disgust me how you abuse others.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Funny,isn't it? I wasn't happy about my options when I needed dental work and chose to have a root canal, I was mighty glad that I had some options when it became necessary.


Nice. A woman just told you she had three miscarriages and you chose to talk about yourself and your need to make it equivalent to your root canal. Then, too, your first word in response to her was, "funny."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're talking about the same God.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Why doesn't your God help? Too busy, no power, no interest in mankind, what?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Deprived by whom? What have you done for those same children lately? I haven't deprived nor abused any children. Have you?
> 
> Why didn't you post my entire post; you know, including Glenn's quote? Truth hurts too much for you to hear it?
> 
> BTW: Don't bother answering considering the way you have spoken about me and to me prior. You disgust me how you abuse others.


Day-umm, woman, you give me waay too much credit here. I abuse others? That's a good one. I don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops what I do for others, but I do in fact contribute to many different causes, abused and poor children being but two. As for including Beck's post, I don't consider him worth responding to. Along with most every other person calling him or herself "conservative," all he does is throw verbal gasoline on political fires. Shame, shame on you for your nastiness and having the gall to quote the Bible as if you followed Jesus' message.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And when did you stop beating your husband, if you have stopped?



Janet Cooke said:


> Quite frankly, my medical history is mine to share when I choose to. I thought it was a question that she asked without thinking as it is similar to asking a woman's age or maybe...
> if I as how many times you have had the clap.
> Hey! How many times have you had the clap? gonorrhea?
> Was it before or after the strains that are resistant to treatment developed?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> You're talking about the same God.


No, we are not. Janet claims there is only one God. Janet said she is a Deist. Janet has repeatedly said she doesn't agree with the one I state is most high and worship.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nice. A woman just told you she had three miscarriages and you chose to talk about yourself and your need to make it equivalent to your root canal. Then, too, your first word in response to her was, "funny."


Sheesh, KPG, no need to spin anything on my account. I know exactly the point Janet was making and agree with her. I wonder what other life choices you would take away from people. Never mind, I have a few ideas there.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

maysmom said:


> Day-umm, woman, you give me waay too much credit here. I abuse others? That's a good one. I don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops what I do for others, but I do in fact contribute to many different causes, abused and poor children being but two. As for including Beck's post, I don't consider him worth responding to. Along with most every other person calling him or herself "conservative," all he does is throw verbal gasoline on political fires. Shame, shame on you for your nastiness and having the gall to quote the Bible as if you followed Jesus' message.


Check your words to me maysmom. I don't even respond to you and you insulted and shamed yourself with your evil words about me. I feel exactly about you as you do Glenn Beck: not even worthy of responding to.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Here goes the pathological liar/drama queen again!
> Instead of bitching to us about Obama, why not put this all down in a letter to him?


I'm sure he could use a good laugh. That, or be glad that the letter writer could qualify for mental health care under his plan.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Check your words to me maysmom. I don't even respond to you and you insulted and shamed yourself with your evil words about me.


KPG, KPG...oh, never mind.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

maysmom said:


> KPG, KPG...oh, never mind.


Good call. Don't ever bother.

Remember this maysmom? I do. You wrote this recently just because you wanted to share your hate. I don't *ever * remember communicating with you. What a piece of work you are.



maysmom said:


> KPG, if I did not read your post, it would be hard to believe someone could be as closed-minded and ignorant as yourself. Pick choose, and pull out all the quotes from your bible as you can, equate the Santorums with "saints" and preach their wonderfulness from the highest pulpit, and all any intelligent people will see is your sanctimonious, ultra-right wing parroting and inability to think for yourself. The Santorums are using their children as props for the ultimate purpose of indoctrination and legislation of their beliefs on every other American. There is so much ignorance and deliberate misinformation from you. Simply unbelievable.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nice. A woman just told you she had three miscarriages and you chose to talk about yourself and your need to make it equivalent to your root canal. Then, too, your first word in response to her was, "funny."


Unlike you, maysmom is intelligent enough to recognize that I was reacting to the part of her post that addressed those women who needed to make a choice regarding pregnancies. 
An abortion is a medical procedure, period. And unless you want to tell us about your experience having an abortion so that you can give a different viewpoint that is how I will continue to view it. For that matter, as I don't believe anything you say, I would still maintain my opinion.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> WRONG - I've proven it and told you ...


WRONG: You haven't proven anything. A liar has told a couple of anecdotes that's all.

It's becoming clearer and clearer you have the kind of job that doesn't even offer health insurance and have been forced to get SCAM insurance and are too stupid to get better quality insurance for the same price through Obamacare.

You cannot admit you're a rube.



knitpresentgifts said:


> WRONG - your point was health insurance = compensation.


WRONG. My point was it's part of what people consider part of their compensation so why would anyone give up part of their "salary"? Makes absolutely no sense to do it.

I never used the word as a legal term, I used it to point out that no one in their right mind would forfeit something they are earning.

I'll use Obamacare when or if I no longer have or want the insurance that has been earned through employment. I've found a comparable plan that will cost ME less than my current insurance costs.



> Big whoop. Most often, an employer pays a portion if not all of an employees' health insure premiums, so, OF COURSE, you buying a policy will cost LESS than what it costs the employer "now."


WRONG. I'm saying when it's added up how much I and my employer pays, the total cost of the plan is more expensive than what the EXACTLY comparable plan in terms of coverage will cost me when or if I need it.

That insurance (at whatever price) wouldn't even be available to me before Obamacare.

And that IS a big whoop, because that is the point. There is now AFFORDABLE insurance MADE AVAILABLE to MILLIONS of people who could not afford and would not be eligible for it before Obamacare.



> LIE # who knows how many since you tell so many. Millions are paying more for less coverage IF they can even get coverage. Most policies are written with higher premiums and deductibles and different Drs. IF the consumer can even find a doctor to accept them as a new patient; likewise with a hospital. Come Sept/Oct 2014 the # in the same predicament has been estimated at 664% more policies impacted. Note POLICIES, not people.


LIE: FauxNews has tried 1001 times to find people to prove those lies, and they can't find anyone. When they DO put people on that make those kinds of claims... they get called by REAL reporters who look up their REAL options, and time and time again, people indeed ARE able to get the same coverage with the same doctors and hospitals for less.

That's why y'all are panicking. Your "Health Care Armageddon" predictions ain't comin' to fruition Sweetie.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wonder if the existence of 'that worthless fish' holds answers to the drought issues in the Western States. But due to the extinction of the snail darter, food production, the economy and life as we know it is destroyed. Hypothetically, of course.



knitpresentgifts said:


> The environment for all in the vicinity has been drastic destroyed for the good of a worthless fish. Soon, the entire population of the USA will be impacted. Really smart decisions by some wacko Libs. NOT


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Doc Delivers Baby Still in Amniotic Sac, Would Abortion be OK?
> 
> _A Greek doctor posted this incredible picture on his Facebook page of a baby he delivered. And as you can see it was no ordinary delivery.
> 
> ...


Beautiful Joey!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

When did President Obama make these pronouncements? Or is this another exaggeration/lie of yours?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama is heading to CA soon, presumed to bring the rain.
> 
> He said he'd part the waters and change the tides when he first became President, let's see him perform a miracle and make it rain in CA.
> 
> If Obama fails, I'll chalk it up to the regular Lib rhetoric regularly heard on these threads, "he has no compassion for the poor and needy." CA is a bluer than blue state, so Obama wouldn't fail them would he?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Uh, huh. Your God has no interest in any human, nor the environment. Some God.


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: What are you trying to say? Never mind. Nobody cares.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Is there a new Admin in our midst?



Gerslay said:


> I want to call your attention to a few rules of this forum...namely:
> 
> - Please be polite.
> 
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> The ACA will increase the deficit by 6.6 trillion dollars by 2016 and thirty million Americans will still have no insurance. The same number as before the ACA.


A total lie. If the repubs had succeeded in repealing the ACA, that would have increased the deficit. They knew that and didn't care. They still tried to repeal so as to make Obama fail. Party first, country last, republican motto.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa:

In regards to your absolute and complete obsession with me. Hear this:

VL: WRONG: You haven't proven anything. A liar has told a couple of anecdotes that's all.

>>>>>> I haven't lied. Obama has lied plenty. Not sure to whom you refer.

VL: It's becoming clearer and clearer you have the kind of job that doesn't even offer health insurance and have been forced to get SCAM insurance and are too stupid to get better quality insurance for the same price through Obamacare. 

>>>>>>> It is becoming clearer and clearer you are always wrong and too stubborn to admit it and keep showing your lack of understanding. I am an entrepreneur, own my own businesses, don't receive a "salary" and therefore, cannot buy health insurance from any employer. I already told you I've never bought SCAM insurance. Frankly, I don't much believe in insurance. Swallow that apple. I have ZERO interest in getting anything through Obamacare.


VL: WRONG. My point was it's part of what people consider part of their compensation so why would anyone give up part of their "salary"? Makes absolutely no sense to do it.

>>>>>> My dear, you are WRONG once more. I'll not repeat what you cannot understand after three tries you're out.

VL: I never used the word as a legal term, I used it to point out that no one in their right mind would forfeit something they are earning.

>>>>>>> No one can forfeit something they aren't earning either as I explained to you about those I wrote about. You simply cannot use both sides of your brain I guess. 


VL: And that IS a big whoop, because that is the point. There is now AFFORDABLE insurance MADE AVAILABLE to MILLIONS of people who could not afford and would not be eligible for it before Obamacare.
>>>>>> Lie. You bought what the Dems and Obama are selling. I don't and won't. PERIOD

VL: LIE: FauxNews has tried 1001 times to find people to prove those lies, and they can't find anyone. When they DO put people on that make those kinds of claims... they get called by REAL reporters who look up their REAL options, and time and time again, people indeed ARE able to get the same coverage with the same doctors and hospitals for less. 

>>>>>>More lies by you. Do you get all your news from Fox? Obama has been proven a liar regarding his ObamaCare law. Kathleen S as well. The present Admin has lied or manipulated the number of folks signing up for the FIRST time for health insurance and feeding lies to the American public. The majority of enrollees to date are the older folks (sicker folks) and those re-enrolling BECAUSE ObamaCare caused the cancellation of the policies they already had. In addition, the high numbers that HAVE signed up for ObamaCare are not near what is necessary to allow the plan/law to succeed, and the majority are enrollees in Medicaid. GUARANTEED TO FAIL because the premium income, when collected finally, is not accurate to the actuary tables and will go higher to keep the Ponzie scheme alive. It will not work; it will fail.


VL: That's why y'all are panicking. Your "Health Care Armageddon" predictions ain't comin' to fruition Sweetie.

>>>>> Dear Sweet Cakes, I don't have a dog in the fight so no need to panic. I have excellent health coverage as do all my family members and to-date my friends, employees and associates. However, thank you for your faux concern.

Wait until say Sept/Oct and we'll see how well ObamaNoCare is faring shall we? Bless your Heart, I hope you can afford your coverage then and beyond.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think you've tried your best to create as much havoc as you can. You've twisted the truth. Everyone knows. Stick to your friends. Or not.



Gerslay said:


> You're the poster being referenced...no one else.
> You're the poster who put up my pictures without permission.
> You're the poster who was reported, along with the whole story and back story about a certain third party.
> You're the poster whose post was removed.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And no one missed you.



Gerslay said:


> You've been ignoring me?
> That's a miracle...I haven't been online in days!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Secret Service would not think 'free speech.'



BrattyPatty said:


> Here goes the pathological liar/drama queen again!
> Instead of bitching to us about Obama, why not put this all down in a letter to him?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

NJG said:


> A total lie. If the repubs had succeeded in repealing the ACA, that would have increased the deficit. They knew that and didn't care. They still tried to repeal so as to make Obama fail. Party first, country last, republican motto.


No lie


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> And no one missed you.


Dame Mary, you are a silly woman with your one liners that you throw out. You must have a treasure trove of templates that you just drop in with a click. Rarely do you post anything original or interesting. Take your pom poms to the sideline!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Dame Mary, you are a silly woman with your one liners that you throw out. You must have a treasure trove of templates that you just drop in with a click. Rarely do you post anything original or interesting. Take your pom poms to the sideline!


Come on, Gerslay. Stop painting such visuals!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Come on, Gerslay. Stop painting such visuals!


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No lie


 :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wait until say Sept/Oct and we'll see how well ObamaNoCare is faring shall we? Bless your Heart, I hope you can afford your coverage then and beyond.


My, how the deadline for Armageddon keeps getting pushed back. First October 1st...then the end of November...then January 1st. And now the sky is going to fall in September/October. Keep hoping, dear.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Odd. I get complimentary PM's from many who appreciate my quick acerbic answers. Not your style huh? You prefer to drone on until people scream in frustration. To each his own.

No templates here. It actually takes time and thought to be concise. I have other things to do with my pom poms.



Gerslay said:


> Dame Mary, you are a silly woman with your one liners that you throw out. You must have a treasure trove of templates that you just drop in with a click. Rarely do you post anything original or interesting. Take your pom poms to the sideline!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Answer my question if you expect me to answer yours. You simply repeated your same question and gave more info about the solider. Your initial question asked my opinion about the enemy. I cannot answer until you give me the information about the enemy.


My question was not about the enemy. I'll be more direct.

First of all, I think GW Bush murdered our soldiers by deploying them preemptively without adequate equipment. (We fight with what we got.) And then there were soldiers like Pat Tillman who were killed by friendly fire.

Bothers me much more than a legal procedure.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

maysmom said:


> Day-umm, woman, you give me waay too much credit here. I abuse others? That's a good one. I don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops what I do for others, but I do in fact contribute to many different causes, abused and poor children being but two. As for including Beck's post, I don't consider him worth responding to. Along with most every other person calling him or herself "conservative," all he does is throw verbal gasoline on political fires. Shame, shame on you for your nastiness and having the gall to quote the Bible as if you followed Jesus' message.


That is what conservatives on this forum tend to do. They try to make everyone believe they are Christians, but their words give them away. They pretend to be nice and then in the next breath accuse someone of opening their big mouth. Sounds really Christian doesn't it. Glenn beck is the lowest of the low. It is pretty bad when you get fired from Fox News. They wouldn't recognize a message from Jesus if it bit them in their butt. Just a big bunch of phonies.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Have any of you ladies on the left every had an abortion?
> 
> If not how do you know what it is like for a women to go through it. Have you every talk to a women who has had one. I have and she was not very happy about it.


I've had one spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and have talked to many, many women who have had abortions both spontaneous and elective. The ones who had elective abortions did it for many reasons, some because neither would survive a pregnancy. I will not speak any further on other people's abortions, elective or spontaneous, as most were told to me in confidence and I refuse to violate that confidence by giving details or any sort of identifying information.

Am I to think that because you said, "she was not very happy" that you are basing your opinion of how all women feel about their abortions based on one woman?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> My question was not about the enemy. I'll be more direct.


Your question *was* about the *enemy.*

Here's your question: "Is it murder when a young soldier is killed by the enemy?"

A solider cannot murder himself. So your question can only be answered from the observations of the actions of the enemy. Which is precisely why I TWICE asked you for more info about the enemy. So, of course, you blabbed away with more info about the solider and your viewpoints on war which you have no understanding about either.

How amusing you confuse yourself and cannot even understand your own words. Next you'll tell me about how concisely you worded your post as you just told Gerslay yesterday. :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> When did President Obama make these pronouncements? Or is this another exaggeration/lie of yours?


It must be working since Cali is being drenched as we type.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Dame Mary, you are a silly woman with your one liners that you throw out. You must have a treasure trove of templates that you just drop in with a click. Rarely do you post anything original or interesting. Take your pom poms to the sideline!


Well, there she is again. 
That "I am really a very nice person" has returned.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does. 

I may or may not have voted for the gentleman, I may or may not approve of any, all, a minority or a majority of his stances. That is my personal business in a country with a secret ballot.

But I wonder how much is based on the fear some people have of Black men in general due to generational or cultural bias, or who are so terribly uncomfortable that a Black person has equal opportunity to become our President.

Some of the comments from the radicals on each end of the bell curve of opinion reek of ignorance and prejudice of one sort or another, and a deep distrust of what people do not understand.

I may not agree with much of what has passed for discourse on this topic. But I respect that each person has a right to her or his opinion and a right to express that opinion. When that expression descends into name calling or "my religion is better than your religion" it demeans the person making such statements. 

By the way, the circumcision ceremony for a child whose family follows Jewish tradition is called a bris (or brith if one uses that pronunciation) millah. 

There have been bigots over the years who have tried to have laws passed to prevent this ritual on the basis of "health" issues. Sort of the way the Inquisition and the Syrian Greeks of Maccabbean days tried to illegalize the practice of Judaism. 

What was the point of bringing that subject to this forum? What did it have to do with the basic original precept of the forum regarding the issue of legalized abortion? Why can't people realize that like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the Land because a majority who had the votes in the appropriate forum decided that women had the right to make a personal choice regarding personal issues.

The politicizing of women's health issues can be viewed as an intrusion in one's freedom and a means to keep women subjugated. Women who choose not to have abortions have the to their decision as well. 

The insults, veiled threats, rudeness, snarkiness, demean us all. If we cannot be civil to one another, how mature as adults are we?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Oops, missed a proofread. I am sure that the thought police will jump on that one:

The politicizing of women's health issues can be viewed as an intrusion in one's freedom and a means to keep women subjugated. Women who choose not to have abortions have the (insert)- - - -right- - - - -to their decision as well.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Well, there she is again.
> That "I am really a very nice person" has returned.


This is between DameMary and myself...and she knows why...but you don't. Stepping into other people's business can make one jump to faulty conclusions. I've been guilty of it myself in the past.

Please don't post to me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your question *was* about the *enemy.*
> 
> Here's your question: "Is it murder when a young soldier is killed by the enemy?"
> 
> ...


Our nation's enemies come in many forms. 
Some being those that pray our governmental policies fail in order to have their viewpoint proved correct. 
Others being those who duped a gullible nation into going to war and instituting an occupation that was useless and harmful to our national security.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.
> ?


When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.

Now that's it looking like a fiasco, he's stopped doing that.

I wonder why. Hmm...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> This is between DameMary and myself...and she knows why...but you don't. Stepping into other people's business can make one jump to faulty conclusions. I've been guilty of it myself in the past.
> 
> Please don't post to me.


There is a sure way to make that little wish successful. Stop posting, I will have nothing to remind me that the woman who tried to frighten and intimidate me exists. 
OR you could just actually act like that NICE person you claim to be and I would have no reason to remember your threats.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.
> 
> Now that's it looking like a fiasco, he's stopped doing that.
> 
> I wonder why. Hmm...


1. It hardly looks like a fiasco, millions of people have health insurance who didn't have access. 
2. Why post a response to a post and then not address what the post says, Nice Lady?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> The politicizing of women's health issues can be viewed as an intrusion in one's freedom and a means to keep women subjugated. Women who choose not to have abortions have the (insert)- - - -right- - - - -to their decision as well.


...and the right to express their opinions in opposition to abortion as well.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet, please stop...I don't want trouble with you.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.
> 
> I may or may not have voted for the gentleman, I may or may not approve of any, all, a minority or a majority of his stances. That is my personal business in a country with a secret ballot.
> 
> But I wonder how much is based on the fear some people have of Black men in general due to generational or cultural bias, or who are so terribly uncomfortable that a Black person has equal opportunity to become our President.


It's true, Marilyn--and it completely astounds me. Obama should be the dual poster boy for the pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps crowd, and for those who either insist that racism doesn't exist in this country OR that, if it does, it can be overcome with a little extra effort. Instead the bigots denigrate his remarkable achievements by claiming he got through Columbia and Harvard by selling drugs, selling his body, affirmative action, bribery, cheating etc etc. Astonishing, as I said before--and very sad.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Janet, please stop...I don't want trouble with you.


What possible trouble could you have with me?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I've had one spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and have talked to many, many women who have had abortions both spontaneous and elective. The ones who had elective abortions did it for many reasons, some because neither would survive a pregnancy. I will not speak any further on other people's abortions, elective or spontaneous, as most were told to me in confidence and I refuse to violate that confidence by giving details or any sort of identifying information.
> 
> Am I to think that because you said, "she was not very happy" that you are basing your opinion of how all women feel about their abortions based on one woman?


I should have posted my words better. Forgive me I was very tired.

The reason I wanted to know why is to find out if you did why you did it. I am trying to understand your reason for believing in Abortions.

I am not doing this to start a fight of words. I am trying to find a middle ground and understand why you believe as you do.

I posted my opinion of what I saw with my friend that she feels bad about her decision.

I wanted to know how you felt and what lead to it. As some have answered me in a kind manner I do appreiciate thank you.

It was your right to do so if you had to decide to do it. As I have said a while back . I still love my friend she did what she thought was right for her. I just wish there were some way I could help her understand that it was o.k. and it was not a sin that God could not or would not forgive. As she carry's guilt about it.

I too lost baby who I could not carry to term. I did not have an aboration. I will always feel blame and hurt that I could not carry that little one to term. I will for the rest of my days on this earth.

I am not asking out of unkindness I am trying to understand.

I do not appreicate being called names when all I was trying to do was understand why some feel that abortion is right and how they felt.

As I said I stated my opinion, I just want to understand yours.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama is heading to CA soon, presumed to bring the rain.
> 
> He said he'd part the waters and change the tides when he first became President, let's see him perform a miracle and make it rain in CA.
> 
> If Obama fails, I'll chalk it up to the regular Lib rhetoric regularly heard on these threads, "he has no compassion for the poor and needy." CA is a bluer than blue state, so Obama wouldn't fail them would he?





damemary said:


> *When did President Obama make these pronouncements?* Or is this another exaggeration/lie of yours?


Hello? Anyone home? Didn't think so.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hello? Anyone home?


yes but I have to leave before I am attack again. Finding it is not worth the time to find middle ground. so sure they will be happy and post something about my leaving and how happy they will be.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> yes but I have to leave before I am attack again. Finding it is not worth the time to find middle ground. so sure they will be happy and post something about my leaving and how happy they will be.


Is that your way of aligning yourself with that group, TYL?
Could you show us where and when you were attacked? You would have had to be attacked to be attacked again, right?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hello? Anyone home? Didn't think so.


Hightlighting the portion that you did really answers nothing, isn't that correct?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Our nation's enemies come in many forms.
> Some being those that pray our governmental policies fail in order to have their viewpoint proved correct.
> Others being those who duped a gullible nation into going to war and instituting an occupation that was useless and harmful to our national security.
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, HAHA HA HAA HA.


Refer to your point #2: you do it constantly, ignore questions addressed directly to you, go off on tangents and repeatedly tells us you'll not respond to us at all.



Janet Cooke said:


> 2. Why post a response to a post and then not address what the post says, Nice Lady?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Is that your way of aligning yourself with that group, TYL?
> Could you show us where and when you were attacked? You would have had to be attacked to be attacked again, right?


Leave her alone bully.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Hightlighting the portion that you did really answers nothing, isn't that correct?


No dog xxxxxxxx (isn't that what you call others). Damemary asked me about something already answered before she asked.

Why it that your business or a problem for you? Don't answer; I couldn't care less what you have to say.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

One word for you, madame KPG--meshugganah.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

See pm


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No truth.



SometimesaKnitter said:


> No lie


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> 1. It hardly looks like a fiasco, millions of people have health insurance who didn't have access.
> 2. Why post a response to a post and then not address what the post says, Nice Lady?


Those millions of people had access before. They either chose not to pay for HI or couldn't afford it. But they did had access to it.

It is a fiasco since most of those millions have signed up for Medicaid, not individual HI policies. Why it is not surprising that the administration doesn't let us see the break down of enrollees. It's such a wonderful thing, they should be proud to show the real numbers.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.
> 
> I may or may not have voted for the gentleman, I may or may not approve of any, all, a minority or a majority of his stances. That is my personal business in a country with a secret ballot.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well Said.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I have an opinion about sharing personal facts with strangers. I think boundaries are important. Until trust has developed, I don't share. Remember we are all basically strangers here. Judge accordingly.



Lkholcomb said:


> I've had one spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and have talked to many, many women who have had abortions both spontaneous and elective. The ones who had elective abortions did it for many reasons, some because neither would survive a pregnancy. I will not speak any further on other people's abortions, elective or spontaneous, as most were told to me in confidence and I refuse to violate that confidence by giving details or any sort of identifying information.
> 
> Am I to think that because you said, "she was not very happy" that you are basing your opinion of how all women feel about their abortions based on one woman?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Leave her alone bully.


Pot, meet kettle


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put. Thanks for taking time to share your thoughts.



MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.
> 
> I may or may not have voted for the gentleman, I may or may not approve of any, all, a minority or a majority of his stances. That is my personal business in a country with a secret ballot.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I guess this means I have your permission to post to you. I don't know what you're talking about. You have only been a part of this discussion for a brief time....unless you have been here longer under another name.

I repeat, what do you think I know that Janet has no knowledge of?



Gerslay said:


> This is between DameMary and myself...and she knows why...but you don't. Stepping into other people's business can make one jump to faulty conclusions. I've been guilty of it myself in the past.
> 
> Please don't post to me.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Our nation's enemies come in many forms.
> Some being those that pray our governmental policies fail in order to have their viewpoint proved correct.
> Others being those who duped a gullible nation into going to war and instituting an occupation that was useless and harmful to our national security.


Well put! That's the sort of thing that infuriates me. You've probably noticed.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Deluded.



Gerslay said:


> When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.
> 
> Now that's it looking like a fiasco, he's stopped doing that.
> 
> I wonder why. Hmm...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What game are you playing? Poor little me. Keep baiting. Get a response and back to 'poor me, these nasty people are picking on me.' Bully.



Gerslay said:


> Janet, please stop...I don't want trouble with you.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Those millions of people had access before. They either chose not to pay for HI or couldn't afford it. But they did had access to it.
> 
> It is a fiasco since most of those millions have signed up for Medicaid, not individual HI policies. Why it is not surprising that the administration doesn't let us see the break down of enrollees. It's such a wonderful thing, they should be proud to show the real numbers.


Well since inequality has gotten so bad in the US, is it really so hard to understand that there would be so many people on Medicaid? Do you really believe that the government should be proud to show how many enrolled in Medicaid? You are sick.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We are all strangers with confidences of close friends. I understand your reason for asking......but I don't think this is the place. I hope you understand my position.



theyarnlady said:


> I should have posted my words better. Forgive me I was very tired.
> 
> The reason I wanted to know why is to find out if you did why you did it. I am trying to understand your reason for believing in Abortions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

damemary said:


> We are all strangers with confidences of close friends. I understand your reason for asking......but I don't think this is the place. I hope you understand my position.


damemary
Always a pleasure to see you. Always amusing to read the SOS
from the ill-equipped. Huck


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I meant when did the President claim he would part the waters etc. I was just pointing out to reasonable people that you were lying and exaggerating as usual. Your lack of respect offends me.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Hello? Anyone home? Didn't think so.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ignored worthless rudeness.



knitpresentgifts said:


> No dog xxxxxxxx (isn't that what you call others). Damemary asked me about something already answered before she asked.
> 
> Why it that your business or a problem for you? Don't answer; I couldn't care less what you have to say.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Those millions of people had access before. They either chose not to pay for HI or couldn't afford it. But they did had access to it.
> 
> It is a fiasco since most of those millions have signed up for Medicaid, not individual HI policies. Why it is not surprising that the administration doesn't let us see the break down of enrollees. It's such a wonderful thing, they should be proud to show the real numbers.


Taking an unrealistic position doesn't really constitute an answer, it just makes all of us happy that you are not wasting ink. 
When you talk about people having access to something they cannot possibly afford you sound like the bankers who OKed mortgages for people who didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of paying the mortgage payments. 
That is why the law is known as the ACA, it put health care coverage within reach of people who couldn't otherwise afford it; in other words, they did not realistically have access.

Here is that information you claim cannot be accessed. 
http://m.pianet.com/issues-of-focus/healthcare/2014/acaenrollment2.2million011514


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hi Huck. Right back at you.



Huckleberry said:


> damemary
> Always a pleasure to see you. Always amusing to read the SOS
> from the ill-equipped. Huck


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Taking an unrealistic position doesn't really constitute an answer, it just makes all of us happy that you are not wasting ink.
> When you talk about people having access to something they cannot possibly afford you sound like the bankers who OKed mortgages for people who didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of paying the mortgage payments.
> That is why the law is known as the ACA, it put health care coverage within reach of people who couldn't otherwise afford it; in other words, they did not realistically have access.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well put!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well put!


Thanks, Empress, I really don't understand all of this chatter of about different facets of allowing/forcing people to show some personal responsibility. 
Ultimately it doesn't cost the US taxpayer any more than it already was, insurance companies and hospitals/doctors' corporations have become more efficient. 
If their objection is that it smacks of socialism that has been conceded years ago. 
We the people who have a little are helping those the people who have less. I think that is called a successful society. 
So why the infintessimal, nasty, niggling nits revolving around semantics?
It is so tiresome.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree. Using labels with no understanding of the issues bore me.



Janet Cooke said:


> Thanks, Empress, I really don't understand all of this chatter of about different facets of allowing/forcing people to show some personal responsibility.
> Ultimately it doesn't cost the US taxpayer any more than it already was, insurance companies and hospitals/doctors' corporations have be become more efficient.
> If their objection is that it smacks of socialism that has been conceded years ago.
> We the people who have a little are helping those the people who have less. I think that is called a successful society.
> ...


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Beautiful Joey!


What's beautiful about it?

The issue is about whether the government can force medical procedures on a woman's body against her will.

This story has nothing to do with that.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

maysmom said:


> KPG, KPG...oh, never mind.


So KPG is attacking people again, and then whining like a cowardly baby when she's responded to _in kind_. They're never capable of evolving past their puerile hypocritical imbecility, are they??


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> What's beautiful about it?
> 
> The issue is about whether the government can force medical procedures on a woman's body against her will.
> 
> This story has nothing to do with that.


You have to understand, VocalLisa, for the most part the RWers don't check out the links or read any C&P articles. 
I think they are congratulating each other on learning the skill of sharing a link or accomplishing the actually copy and paste of a piece. 
That these pieces originate at some far right nutjob's conspiracy pushing website is all the better.

I do like going to see what the source is as the articles and ads there are very amusing.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.







Obama, himself, nicknamed the ACA, ObamaCare. So most referring to it in the same way, including Dems and Repubs. No mystery there whether or not one supports the law.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> Is there a new Admin in our midst?


Evidently.

God forbid she just come in and say, "I was wrong to do what I did, and I wish you didn't do what you did in response, but let's just BOTH admit we were wrong and move on".

I would've been fine with that.

Nope... all she could do is come in and whine and take absolutely no personal responsibility for her own actions.

The truth is, that regardless of the "two wrongs don't make a right" hypocrisy, I did what I did because she was making a threat towards someone and it needed to be addressed ASAP.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay wrote:
When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.

Now that's it looking like a fiasco, he's stopped doing that.

I wonder why. Hmm



damemary said:


> Deluded.


Truth: (one example by video)


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I admire your spunk.



VocalLisa said:


> Evidently.
> 
> God forbid she just come in and say, "I was wrong to do what I did, and I wish you didn't do what you did in response, but let's just BOTH admit we were wrong and move on".
> 
> ...


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> I meant when did the President claim he would part the waters etc. I was just pointing out to reasonable people that you were lying and exaggerating as usual. Your lack of respect offends me.


I answered; twice. You didn't listen either time. Look it up yourself rather than accusing me of lying.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> A total lie. If the repubs had succeeded in repealing the ACA, that would have increased the deficit. They knew that and didn't care. They still tried to repeal so as to make Obama fail. Party first, country last, republican motto.


Not to mention that not only is what she said essentially a lie, but the small grain of truth that not EVERYONE will be covered... is completely and totally because the Republicans refuse to do so. To get 100% coverage, it requires a single payer system. It's simply logistically and statistically impossible to do any other way.

Even allowing a public option would've gone a LONG way into covering those who might not be covered right now.

The Republicans have done everything they can to prevent people from being able to get the coverage they need and now they whine because Obamacare isn't going FAR ENOUGH while at the same time they sabotage the whole process?

The hypocrisy is ASTOUNDING.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> VocalLisa:
> 
> In regards to your absolute and complete obsession with me.


I RESPOND to you. Whatever obsession is going on here it's your's with me.

And you're either a gross liar or a FauxNews rube because most everything you say is so wrong, it's shocking.

And Holy God. You're not even bright enough to figure out the quoting system/code on this board. So, how could you POSSIBLY have the brains to figure out the complexities of the ACA?

Everytime you post, you demonstrate exactly why no one can trust what you say, because you haven't even managed to figure out how to use this board's coding tags.

When you show you can AT LEAST do that on a consistent basis, maybe we'll consider you have the capacity to learn about Obamacare. Until then... it's self-evidently WAY over your head.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No lie


You're FULL of lies.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDmIlfn6_d8
> 
> Obama, himself, nicknamed the ACA, ObamaCare. So most referring to it in the same way, including Dems and Repubs. No mystery there whether or not one supports the law.


Actually, he didn't. But he did embrace the term after right-wing pundits began sarcastically using it when talking about the ACA. Much like we embraced the term "Yankees" and "Yankee Doodle" during the Revolutionary War after British troops used it and the song to make fun of us.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Dame Mary, you are a silly woman with your one liners that you throw out. You must have a treasure trove of templates that you just drop in with a click. Rarely do you post anything original or interesting. Take your pom poms to the sideline!


Gonna threaten her now too?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup:


One of you lies and the other swears to it......way to go!!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> Odd. I get complimentary PM's from many who appreciate my quick acerbic answers. Not your style huh? You prefer to drone on until people scream in frustration. To each his own.
> 
> No templates here. It actually takes time and thought to be concise. I have other things to do with my pom poms.


That is exactly right. It takes high intelligence to know how to get to the point and have such a strong wit.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Hi everyone,

But don't let me interrupt...continue talking about me.

Must be a slow news day!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your question *was* about the *enemy.*
> 
> Here's your question: "Is it murder when a young soldier is killed by the enemy?"


That's not "about the enemy" it's about the topic of murder and the young soldier and merely mentions the enemy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> This is at the bottom of one page:
> _Numbers in the chart are estimates provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. For several states, enrollment and Medicaid eligibility numbers could change as data is further refined. _
> 
> Then in a further page there are numbers for plan *selection*. There are no numbers of those who paid and actually have coverage. These numbers really mean nothing.


Of course they are estimates. Aren't you the one who claims to do tax consultations? 
How much time does a take a large corporation to get firm numbers for a project?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

The "President" is not my president. I will do everything in my power to not abide by his acts. These things are shoved down our throats and we are expected to be happy about it. He is the devil in disguise. He thinks it is his right to enforce only the laws he want to enforce and not only ignore other laws but willingly breaks those laws. Please don't tell me about all the other presidents (probably all republican) that have done the same things before. This president is in his second term and should be past all the blame game. But of course he is not. He thinks himself above the law and this is after he has twice taken the oath of office. That oath says he will enforce all the laws and defend the constitution. Maybe some other presidents of both parties have done some of these things but he has done them all. He brags about being able to take care of things by the pen he cannot get legislated. You may condemn the House for the government shutdown, or other things but these men are representing the people that voted them into office. Then of course even he blames his lack of popularity on racism. I really am not a racist, I try to judge everyone by the same standards and I believe that I accomplish that. Besides I hate Joe Biden as much as Obama, in fact I can name other white people that I hate just as much as both of them. They are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I would hope that this post is taken as my opinion and not be attacked as I have been before on this thread. The US has always been based on a two party system (for the most part) and having disagreements is natural. 
The ACA is not the plan for this nation, it expects the middle class to pay for the subsidies of the poor. When the poor can afford better insurance than the person paying the subsidy there is something wrong. I am not saying they should have crap insurance at all, it is just that the person paying their way be able to at least pay for the policy they want. 
So in summation, please treat me as you would want to be treated and I will do the same. I really don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Gerslay wrote:
> When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.
> 
> Now that's it looking like a fiasco, he's stopped doing that.
> ...


Still haven't figure out the board code yet, eh?

And it's not looking like a fiasco at all. It's doing what it was designed to do.

And no he never said Obamacare was the panacea, a single payer system was closer to the panacea... but in order to compromise, he instead agreed to and adopted _THE REPUBLICAN plan_.

Whatever "faults" there are in Obamacare, it's because the Republicans wouldn't even allow a public option, much less the single payer system, "Medicare for All".

Obamacare is effectively the Heritage Action plan that was adopted by Romney and put in place in MA.

It's definitely NOT the panacea that Liberals wanted. But, we wanted to get as many people covered as we could DESPITE Republican sabotage.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Gerslay wrote:
> When President Obama thought the ACA was going to be a panacea and the answer to our health care problems he was proud to call it Obamacare; which he did...numerous times.


President Obama was all about hawking Obamacare: t-shirts, buttons, cups, magnets, bumper stickers...you name it, he was all over it...and especially proud to attach his name to it!

I rest my case >>>>>


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> The hypocrisy is ASTOUNDING.


It is not unexpected, though.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> President Obama was all about hawking Obamacare: t-shirts, buttons, cups, magnets, bumper stickers...you name it, he was all over it...and especially proud to attach his name to it!
> 
> I rest my case >>>>>


Woo hoo, and I have a similar button that says I Love Geico, and I would guess you wore something similar touting something or some political candidate. What's your point?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

My point is that once upon a time Obama was proud to call it Obamacare. However the Ladies of the Left are into calling out the Ladies of the Right for continuing to use the name...now that its no longer PC.

Its a small point really, but like a dog with a bone, they won't let go of it.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Small point is correct, but it seems you are the one who is not letting it go, IMHO


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> Woo hoo, and I have a similar button that says I Love Geico, and I would guess you wore something similar touting something or some political candidate. What's your point?


Cindy S, are you aware of anyone chastising anyone else about using the term Obamacare? 
I know that I switch back and forth between one term and the other, I haven't noticed anyone complaining, though.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Cindy S, are you aware of anyone chastising anyone else about using the term Obamacare?
> I know that I switch back and forth between one term and the other, I haven't noticed anyone complaining, though.


Nope


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> Nope


I do believe it was MarilynKnits [among others] in a conversation on page 59:



MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" ...


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

A. The nickname Obamacare was coined by Republicans in 
Congress and
B. She was curious about people condemning the program and
C. Your interpretation or comprehension is way off base.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> A. The nickname Obamacare was coined by Republicans in
> Congress and
> B. She was curious about people condemning the program and
> C. Your interpretation or comprehension is way off base.


A. That could be...I don't know or really care.
B. ...and about people calling it Obamacare
C. Your interpretation ended when it was convenient

The point is at one time Obama loved that we were calling it Obamacare...hence the selling of products...it was all part of his legacy building.

Let's move on folks, there's nothing here to see.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, we are not. Janet claims there is only one God. Janet said she is a Deist. Janet has repeatedly said she doesn't agree with the one I state is most high and worship.


Therefore yours is the ONLY god?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Therefore yours is the ONLY god?


It is so odd, isn't it?
Though, I repeat, I have never actually read KPG say that she is a Christian only that others don't understand whatever she thinks we should be understanding that day.

Christianity agrees with me that there is one God. The details of that presentation and worship differ. The monotheism, however, is the same. 
The major difference is that I am happy to have others worship or not in any form that works for them. 
None of us KNOW what is truth, we believe, we have faith. 
I have known some atheists who were so heavily inured in not believing that they would not consider any deity at all ever, regardless of any discussion. 
Then there are the religionists who are on the other end of the spectrum, having in common the inability to see any other viewpoint.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> But don't let me interrupt...continue talking about me.
> 
> Must be a slow news day!


Thought you were "moving on"?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The point is at one time Obama loved that we were calling it Obamacare...hence the selling of products...it was all part of his legacy building.


... and his legacy WILL be great.

As opposed to Bush who will go down as the stupidest, most incompetent, immoral POTUS ever. That will be his legacy.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

EveMCooke said:


> This message is to Pecegoddess. This is the picture I sent that someone said I had insulted another KPer with. I tried to attach it to a PM but it would not attach. I have it stored on ipad, not the pc, so I had to come back to the ipad to find it.


I can only imagine that KPG thinks I have no sense of humor. I laugh all the time at many things some of the things I laugh about are her remarks about issues and other people. Conservatives are an endless source of amusement and laughter for me and my friends...otherwise we would cry.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> I can only imagine that KPG thinks I have no sense of humor. I laugh all the time at many things some of the things I laugh about are her remarks about issues and other people. Conservatives are an endless source of amusement and laughter for me and my friends...otherwise we would cry.


LOL, i was looking for the like button.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

it is also interesting that KPG assumes so much about me...that I would be insulted, that I have no sense of humor......


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> it is also interesting that KPG assumes so much about me...that I would be insulted, that I have no sense of humor......


There has been a whole lot of assuming going on this weekend.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDmIlfn6_d8
> 
> Obama, himself, nicknamed the ACA, ObamaCare. So most referring to it in the same way, including Dems and Repubs. No mystery there whether or not one supports the law.


Another lie KPG. The republicans called it Obamacare to make it sound bad and President Obama said ok, I like that, because I do care. Stop telling lies.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Another lie KPG. The republicans called it Obamacare to make it sound bad and President Obama said ok, I like that, because I do care. Stop telling lies.


I remember that now.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/15/great-news-obama-says-its-okay-to-use-the-term-obamacare/


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> The "President" is not my president. I will do everything in my power to not abide by his acts. These things are shoved down our throats and we are expected to be happy about it. He is the devil in disguise. He thinks it is his right to enforce only the laws he want to enforce and not only ignore other laws but willingly breaks those laws. Please don't tell me about all the other presidents (probably all republican) that have done the same things before. This president is in his second term and should be past all the blame game. But of course he is not. He thinks himself above the law and this is after he has twice taken the oath of office. That oath says he will enforce all the laws and defend the constitution. Maybe some other presidents of both parties have done some of these things but he has done them all. He brags about being able to take care of things by the pen he cannot get legislated. You may condemn the House for the government shutdown, or other things but these men are representing the people that voted them into office. Then of course even he blames his lack of popularity on racism. I really am not a racist, I try to judge everyone by the same standards and I believe that I accomplish that. Besides I hate Joe Biden as much as Obama, in fact I can name other white people that I hate just as much as both of them. They are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I would hope that this post is taken as my opinion and not be attacked as I have been before on this thread. The US has always been based on a two party system (for the most part) and having disagreements is natural.
> The ACA is not the plan for this nation, it expects the middle class to pay for the subsidies of the poor. When the poor can afford better insurance than the person paying the subsidy there is something wrong. I am not saying they should have crap insurance at all, it is just that the person paying their way be able to at least pay for the policy they want.
> So in summation, please treat me as you would want to be treated and I will do the same. I really don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do.


You say the president is the devil in disguise and then say you don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do. Pretty hypocritical of you, don't you think?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> The "President" is not my president. I will do everything in my power to not abide by his acts. These things are shoved down our throats and we are expected to be happy about it. He is the devil in disguise. He thinks it is his right to enforce only the laws he want to enforce and not only ignore other laws but willingly breaks those laws. Please don't tell me about all the other presidents (probably all republican) that have done the same things before. This president is in his second term and should be past all the blame game. But of course he is not. He thinks himself above the law and this is after he has twice taken the oath of office. That oath says he will enforce all the laws and defend the constitution. Maybe some other presidents of both parties have done some of these things but he has done them all. He brags about being able to take care of things by the pen he cannot get legislated. You may condemn the House for the government shutdown, or other things but these men are representing the people that voted them into office. Then of course even he blames his lack of popularity on racism. I really am not a racist, I try to judge everyone by the same standards and I believe that I accomplish that. Besides I hate Joe Biden as much as Obama, in fact I can name other white people that I hate just as much as both of them. They are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I would hope that this post is taken as my opinion and not be attacked as I have been before on this thread. The US has always been based on a two party system (for the most part) and having disagreements is natural.
> The ACA is not the plan for this nation, it expects the middle class to pay for the subsidies of the poor. When the poor can afford better insurance than the person paying the subsidy there is something wrong. I am not saying they should have crap insurance at all, it is just that the person paying their way be able to at least pay for the policy they want.
> So in summation, please treat me as you would want to be treated and I will do the same. I really don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do.


You say the president is the devil in disguise and then say you don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do. Pretty hypocritical of you, don't you think?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Cindy S, are you aware of anyone chastising anyone else about using the term Obamacare?
> I know that I switch back and forth between one term and the other, I haven't noticed anyone complaining, though.


No, sounds like it is just the right trying to start a new talking point. You know if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth, {in their dreams anyway.}


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> You say the president is the devil in disguise and then say you don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do. Pretty hypocritical of you, don't you think?


Lots of hate talk in that post, no?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Marilynknits was wondering about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" ...

As we all know that would be republicans and they are definitely something to be wondered about. They named it Obamacare and President Obama said ok, because I do care, so now they would rather not call it Obamacare. Does that sound kind of hypocritical?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> A. That could be...I don't know or really care.
> B. ...and about people calling it Obamacare
> C. Your interpretation ended when it was convenient
> 
> ...


Yes, lets move on, cause you lost another one.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

NJG said:


> Yes, lets move on, cause you lost another one.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> I can only imagine that KPG thinks I have no sense of humor. I laugh all the time at many things some of the things I laugh about are her remarks about issues and other people. Conservatives are an endless source of amusement and laughter for me and my friends...otherwise we would cry.


You got that right. I have so many phone conversations with my daughter and all we do is laugh about all the stupid things we have heard republicans say.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Lots of hate talk in that post, no?


Lots of hate talk in that post, yes!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDmIlfn6_d8
> 
> Obama, himself, nicknamed the ACA, ObamaCare. So most referring to it in the same way, including Dems and Repubs. No mystery there whether or not one supports the law.


Lie. BIG LIE.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> This is between DameMary and myself...and she knows why...but you don't. Stepping into other people's business can make one jump to faulty conclusions. I've been guilty of it myself in the past.
> 
> Please don't post to me.


If you don't want to be recognized or responded to, then don't post or leave. Both would be wonderful!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> But don't let me interrupt...continue talking about me.
> 
> Must be a slow news day!


No thanks, we would rather not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Lie. BIG LIE.


Or just plain stupidity, it was August of 2011 when President Obama made the comment about the misnomer Obamacare. 
I think we had been hearing that term for quite a while by that time.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

ginniknit said:


> Are you on the hunt for a springtime gown yet, BrattyPatty?
> That one is lovely, but, maybe something in a daffodil yellow?


I will change my gown when the cold weather leaves my state.
Until then, this one is is warm. I do love the color yellow, though. 
Hmmm...She removed her post.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

ginniknit said:


> I cut yours short and was trying to fix it.


Okie dokey


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Just a reminder what the real issue is:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

War on babies.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> War on babies.


You can say that again, CB!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ain't that the truth, the whole truth?



VocalLisa said:


> Not to mention that not only is what she said essentially a lie, but the small grain of truth that not EVERYONE will be covered... is completely and totally because the Republicans refuse to do so. To get 100% coverage, it requires a single payer system. It's simply logistically and statistically impossible to do any other way.
> 
> Even allowing a public option would've gone a LONG way into covering those who might not be covered right now.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh, I hope she does.



VocalLisa said:


> Gonna threaten her now too?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you.



VocalLisa said:


> That's not "about the enemy" it's about the topic of murder and the young soldier and merely mentions the enemy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Did you see the people who swore Obamacare is bad, bad, bad. ACA is okay? Love it. A rose by any other name.....just confuses people.



Janet Cooke said:


> Cindy S, are you aware of anyone chastising anyone else about using the term Obamacare?
> I know that I switch back and forth between one term and the other, I haven't noticed anyone complaining, though.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> You say the president is the devil in disguise and then say you don't think name calling and arguing is the best thing we could do. Pretty hypocritical of you, don't you think?


Something to laugh at if you can force yourself to read more than a sentence.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I find myself just ignoring her.

Cindy, does your avatar mean you knit sweaters? I'm trying but frogging.



Cindy S said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I should have posted my words better. Forgive me I was very tired.
> 
> The reason I wanted to know why is to find out if you did why you did it. I am trying to understand your reason for believing in Abortions.
> 
> ...


I do hope you don't think I was being mean in my post. I was not trying to, just answering the question.

To answer why I "believe in abortion" I think I need to explain the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I don't necessarily believe in abortion. I think it is tragic when, through any circumstances, it is needed. That is why I strongly believe contraception should be widely available for all. We have had free or $4 prescriptions for antibiotics for years and years around here through programs at the pharmacy and insurances if they chose. Yet birth control, until just recently, didn't even need to be offered to women by the insurances and it often wasn't covered. So antibiotics (which in and of themselves caused harm in creating drug resistant bacteria when so freely available and having been prescribed for so long for anything) were ok, but birth control was not.

So I am not pro-abortion (in truth I know nobody who is), I am pro-choice.

I believe that every woman should have the choice to decide whether, in her religious and moral code, to have an abortion.

I believe that no person other than the doctor and the pregnant woman should make the decision if an abortion is necessary (not that long ago a woman laying dying in a hospital bed asking for an abortion because she was dying from a rare pregnancy disease and was turned down, not because of doctors but because of lawmakers/law interpreters)

I believe that a woman should not be further traumatized by carrying a rape caused pregnancy. For those who are not intimately familiar with rape, it can leave you with the same type of psychological issues that the veterans come home with from wars. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term would only prolong the feeling of helplessness. Not all women go to the hospital after a rape (remember some haven't had insurance and couldn't afford a visit to a doctor or the ER, much less the cost of pregnancy). I have seen children born from a rape, raised by the mother,only to later in life suffer so many problems when they find out.

Different religions have different opinions on when life starts. Some think right away with a fertilized egg (which would make any contraception a violation of their beliefs as there is always a failure rate and if the egg is fertilized the birth control pill is designed to not only stop ovulation but if it does happen the egg won't implant but be flushed out), some believe it is after a few months, some don't believe the soul in rooted in the body until they are born and breath their first breaths. Science as of yet has not given us a factual statement of when life begins, and I doubt they ever will since human life involves a soul and sentient thought and the soul in not a scientific fact either. So for science to find out when human life begins they must first prove the existence of a soul.

I have met some women who regret their elective abortions, some who don't, and some who are indifferent, just as in any major life decision.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

damemary said:


> I have an opinion about sharing personal facts with strangers. I think boundaries are important. Until trust has developed, I don't share. Remember we are all basically strangers here. Judge accordingly.


Oh I have boundaries too. There is much about me that is unknown here and probably always will be


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> Pot, meet kettle


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

NJG said:


> Marilynknits was wondering about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" ...
> 
> As we all know that would be republicans and they are definitely something to be wondered about. They named it Obamacare and President Obama said ok, because I do care, so now they would rather not call it Obamacare. Does that sound kind of hypocritical?


Yep. Obama said in a speech in December that as soon as the ACA becomes as accepted and depended upon as Medicare, the right would immediately *stop* calling it "Obamacare." And that he would be fine with that. :-D


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Just thinking of all the hypocrisy in the GOP....


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

Remember how I said a few pages back that no one is a POS? well, no one is the devil in disguise, either.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War on Women:

Despite feminist claims to the contrary, womens rights are not under attack in the U.S. By every measurable standard, American women enjoy more freedom, safety, security, public engagement and access to health care and education than most of the women on planet earth. And many of the gains made for American women in the last half-century have come about because of the actions of conservative political leaders.

Such is not the case for women in Afghanistan.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War on Women:

Further, the unrelenting political push for reproductive rights all but ensures that men will relinquish more and more sexual responsibility. There is no need for them to attend to something that is a womens issue.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/09/3919214/the-real-war-on-women-more-insidious.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War on Woman


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Most liberals dont like the fact that more women disagree than agree with them on abortion and other so-called womens issues, but the right that American women hold most sacred is their God-given right to express themselves.

Even if it means disagreeing with the mullahs at the National Organization for Women.

Indeed!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War Being Waged Between a Woman and her Child:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War on Woman: The Progressive Female Manifesto

1) You are "sexually liberated" and have the "right" to be as slutty as you please, sleep with multiple partners whenever you desire, and to have taxpayers subsidize your behavior through "free" birth control, contraception, and abortion on demand. 

2) Democrat politicians are allowed to grope, abuse, harass, and occasionally rape you, and you're not to speak out, because a) these men support your "right" to be sluts, and b) it's a small price to pay for the benefits procured.

3) You are "beyond" the stale tradition of "family," beyond the tired "homemaker" caricature, and, as such, should focus on defining yourself as breadwinner (or, alternatively, welfare dependent) while doing everything possible to erase gender differences.

Don't be shocked. This is the party that booed God at their 2012 convention; that gave us baby-daddy John "I'll take a paternity test" Edwards; and that repackaged abortion as "reproductive freedom." 

Yes, "freedom"--now defined by contraceptive subsidies forced on taxpayers via mandates on private firms. But be warnedthe pill doesn't protect you against STDs; 

...nor, arguably, against self-delusion, serfdom, or stupidity. 

(The American Thinker)


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Real War on Women


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

and this piece of work...


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

:thumbup: :thumbup: 

This is how I feel too- I am not for abortion, I am for free choice - so that each of us can decide for ourselves, if someone chooses to have an abortion so be it . But if they for whatever reason decide not to have one that is their right. I just believe that women should be able to choose what they do with their own lives and body. Government and Religious leaders should not tell them what to do, any more than Anyone should tell any one else what is right for that person. They should be able to decide themselves as it is their life and their body.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Woman: The Progressive Female Manifesto
> 
> 1) You are "sexually liberated" and have the "right" to be as slutty as you please, sleep with multiple partners whenever you desire, and to have taxpayers subsidize your behavior through "free" birth control, contraception, and abortion on demand.
> 
> ...


You are really something!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> You are really something!


Thanks...I appreciate your kind words of support.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> This is how I feel too- I am not for abortion, I am for free choice - so that each of us can decide for ourselves, if someone chooses to have an abortion so be it . But if they for whatever reason decide not to have one that is their right. I just believe that women should be able to choose what they do with their own lives and body. Government and Religious leaders should not tell them what to do, any more than Anyone should tell any one else what is right for that person. They should be able to decide themselves as it is their life and their body.


Does a person have the right to amputate one of their arms or legs because they deem it inconvenient for one reason or another?


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Does a person have the right to amputate one of their arms or legs because they deem it inconvenient for one reason or another?


one thing has nothing to do with another - no point in arguing -- that is not why I posted. I know that you prefer to take me on, but I am not going to take the bait. You have your opinion , I have mine.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> one thing has nothing to do with another - no point in arguing -- that is not why I posted. I know that you prefer to take me on, but I am not going to take the bait. You have your opinion , I have mine.


Fair enough! I think its an interesting question that does have some analogy though.

Peace!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I RESPOND to you. Whatever obsession is going on here it's your's with me.
> 
> And you're either a gross liar or a FauxNews rube because most everything you say is so wrong, it's shocking.
> 
> ...


Good Morning to you as well, Cheeky! Still singing the same tune I see.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Just a reminder what the real issue is:


Nice work (on the chalkboard) Gerslay!

Maybe everyone could write that out 100 times and think about what they are writing, and act on their convictions and millions of children would be saved and alive today.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Lie. BIG LIE.


Yep, President Obama *earned* and richly deserved the 2013 Liar of the Year Award he was given.

Bravo - that's one thing he can take credit for doing.

An amazing legacy awaits him. snort


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Thank you.


You couldn't answer nor clarify your own question could you Dame. No help from the drama troupe either. Oh, well . you'll survive.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Yep. Obama said in a speech in December that as soon as the ACA becomes as accepted and depended upon as Medicare, the right would immediately *stop* calling it "Obamacare." And that he would be fine with that. :-D


And the Dem party leaders gave out the talking points and instructions to all the Dem faithful and told them (including Pres Obama) to no longer call it Obamacare.

So it was written, so it shall be done.

Read Nancy Pelosi's words of panic telling reporters (note not journalists) that a name change was necessary NOW.

From that point on, even Obama stopped calling it ObamaCare 'cause he be in a heap of trouble in the polls and something, _anything_ had to stop his slide. 

Didn't work, because not all the American people are stupid, and they do not believe the lies Obama tells. In fact, somewhere between 72-85% of Americans who voiced their opinion, presently do not like Obamacare/ACA and want it gone.

I agree with them no matter what you call it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Woman


Gerslay - so true. Can you imagine, the Libs are crying because they *might* have to spend $3/mo for birth control and they complain someone else isn't paying the tab, when some women around the world aren't allowed to even speak their mind or look at someone without fear of being killed.

(BTW: Laura Bush has an incredible heart for helping these women and has done remarkable charitable work for them.)

Puts "WOW" into perspective doesn't it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Woman: The Progressive Female Manifesto
> 
> 1) You are "sexually liberated" and have the "right" to be as slutty as you please, sleep with multiple partners whenever you desire, and to have taxpayers subsidize your behavior through "free" birth control, contraception, and abortion on demand.
> 
> ...


Bravo - said better than Sandra the Flake.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Women


Yes - the air is sooooo much cleaner now with that Lib off the air. I only ever heard maybe three comments from him, that was enough!

Apparently, others thought as I do/did!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> and this piece of work...


oooh . I just mentioned her. Wonder (well, not really) if she has a job yet or is still on the back of taxpayers.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Thanks...I appreciate your kind words of support.


Designer, has repeated ad nauseam, like some of the other Libs, she'll stay away from posting in the controversial threads, yet, here she is again. Amazing? Nope, typical and predictable.

Welcome back Designer.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Designer, has repeated ad nauseam, like some of the other Libs, she'll stay away from posting in the controversial threads, yet, here she is again. Amazing? Nope, typical and predictable.
> 
> Welcome back Designer.


Good to see you again...thanks for the bravos!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Good to see you again...thanks for the bravos!


Can I borrow your shoes? I'd like to try breaking my neck dancing in them, and look good going down trying. 

I've even provided plenty of fodder for the Libs to critique. Ask me if I care. :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for your practical reasoned opinions.



Lkholcomb said:


> I do hope you don't think I was being mean in my post. I was not trying to, just answering the question.
> 
> To answer why I "believe in abortion" I think I need to explain the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I don't necessarily believe in abortion. I think it is tragic when, through any circumstances, it is needed. That is why I strongly believe contraception should be widely available for all. We have had free or $4 prescriptions for antibiotics for years and years around here through programs at the pharmacy and insurances if they chose. Yet birth control, until just recently, didn't even need to be offered to women by the insurances and it often wasn't covered. So antibiotics (which in and of themselves caused harm in creating drug resistant bacteria when so freely available and having been prescribed for so long for anything) were ok, but birth control was not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Can I borrow your shoes? I'd like to try breaking my neck dancing in them, and look good going down trying.


Nothing like a smashing pair of red shoes!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> Yep. Obama said in a speech in December that as soon as the ACA becomes as accepted and depended upon as Medicare, the right would immediately *stop* calling it "Obamacare." And that he would be fine with that. :-D


In other words, our President is more interested in doing the right thing for everyone than in receiving credit for it. This is one of the reasons I think history will treat him kindly.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa, does it get crowded sharing the same body? KPG has pronounced that you are the same person, and you know she knows everything. (Or will she hurry and edit her posting? )


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Did you see the people who swore Obamacare is bad, bad, bad. ACA is okay? Love it. A rose by any other name.....just confuses people.


And that, my dear Damemary as you already know, is exactly what they intend. 
It is just as with those stupid notices the evil doers send out at election time about the wrong date. It is just too easy to confuse the uninvolved and keep them at home. 
It is equally as simple to confuse people about health care coverage and keep them from signing up. 
People HATE to feel stupid in front of others, so will hold back rather than go out and seek information. 
(Which is, of course, why our little adversaries here love to say that we are stupid.)

I say that we can see who the really stupid ones are. They cling to badmouthing a program that is providing affordable health care (yes, we are subsidizing it, as we should), their idols are wasting millions upon millions advertising against it. Still!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa, does it get crowded sharing the same body? KPG has pronounced that you are the same person, and you know she knows everything. (Or will she hurry and edit her posting? )


No need to edit ANY of my posts, because Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa *are* one and the same. You know it and we all have known it. Where have you been? Out to lunch again I guess.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> I will change my gown when the cold weather leaves my state.
> Until then, this one is is warm. I do love the color yellow, though.
> Hmmm...She removed her post.


I was SO disappointed today to go outside and have true winterlike weather again. 
I think yellow is a great color, so few can wear it well, though.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Can I borrow your shoes? I'd like to try breaking my neck dancing in them, and look good going down trying.
> 
> I've even provided plenty of fodder for the Libs to critique. Ask me if I care. :XD:


Promise???


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> oooh . I just mentioned her. Wonder (well, not really) if she has a job yet or is still on the back of taxpayers.


knitpresentgifts
have not followed the postings recently. You must be speaking of Michelle Bachmann.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No need to edit ANY of my posts, because Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa *are* one and the same. You know it and we all have known it. Where have you been? Out to lunch again I guess.


knitpresentgifts
still up to your old assumptions I see. Nothing like being consistent.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> knitpresentgifts
> have not followed the postings recently. You must be speaking of Michelle Bachmann.


It must be Michele Bachmann. But then again, it is KPG posting, Huck! Good to see you!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> And that, my dear Damemary as you already know, is exactly what they intend.
> It is just as with those stupid notices the evil doers send out at election time about the wrong date. It is just too easy to confuse the uninvolved and keep them at home.
> It is equally as simple to confuse people about health care coverage and keep them from signing up.
> People HATE to feel stupid in front of others, so will hold back rather than go out and seek information.
> ...


Janet Cooke
speaking of health care coverage. Local - already large Hospitals with Doctor Buildings - are expanding since their Patient loads already are growing. Hurray for Obamacare.
Finally we are becoming a 1st rate nation. Now we need to get a 21st Century Infrastructure to climb to the top.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was SO disappointed today to go outside and have true winterlike weather again.
> I think yellow is a great color, so few can wear it well, though.


One week and I am off to Vegas to get warm! I can't wait to see my sister and meet my grand nephew. He has Asbergers syndrome. I have talked to him quite a few times and he is such a smart kid and funny too. Lucky for him, he has a great teacher who understands the syndrome and knows how to work with it. He gets all A's & B's.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Janet Cooke
> speaking of health care coverage. Local - already large Hospitals with Doctor Buildings - are expanding since their Patient loads already are growing. Hurray for Obamacare.
> Finally we are becoming a 1st rate nation. Now we need to get a 21st Century Infrastructure to climb to the top.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Did you just turn into KPG? I wasn't referring to butt cracks, silly.
> I was referring to who's supplying the crack.
> Yes, I kiss her 100 times a day with this mouth.


I know. But I never let an opportunity go by to be silly.

Somehow, I don't get reminders for this thread, either. Someone's gone and snipped all my threads. I thought this one had been abandoned.

Cute mouth you've got there.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I love it when libs have to explain themselves to other libs! Ha
> 
> And when I wrote stoooooped I thought that the stupid libs might be able to sound it out and maybe get the meaning because after all I am sure they have heard that word describing them many many times.
> 
> And again nothing posted by libs of any substance whatsoever.


I love it when Cons don't have to explain themselves to each other because they all say the same thing, as given down by their masters.

Not an original thought in the bunch.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I know. But I never let an opportunity go by to be silly.
> 
> Somehow, I don't get reminders for this thread, either. Someone's gone and snipped all my threads. I thought this one had been abandoned.
> 
> Cute mouth you've got there.


Why thank you, Purl! Silliness can sometimes break up the absurdness of this thread.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Women:
> 
> Further, the unrelenting political push for reproductive rights all but ensures that men will relinquish more and more sexual responsibility. There is no need for them to attend to something that is a womens issue.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/09/3919214/the-real-war-on-women-more-insidious.html#storylink=cpy


On February 1 this same person said:

I'm a wordsmith by nature and an editor by profession and sometimes I edit my speech (written and typed) so much that, in choosing to be concise, I don't explain myself enough and I am often misunderstood. This is not the first time this has happened to me.

I'm not going to continue this discussion in public. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of abortion. You choose the mother, I choose the child. Perhaps neither of us is altogether right nor altogether wrong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Janet Cooke
> speaking of health care coverage. Local - already large Hospitals with Doctor Buildings - are expanding since their Patient loads already are growing. Hurray for Obamacare.
> Finally we are becoming a 1st rate nation. Now we need to get a 21st Century Infrastructure to climb to the top.


Yes, there are medical facilities expanding and being built all over. Isn't it great?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> On February 1 this same person said:
> 
> I'm a wordsmith by nature and an editor by profession and sometimes I edit my speech (written and typed) so much that, in choosing to be concise, I don't explain myself enough and I am often misunderstood. This is not the first time this has happened to me.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this discussion in public. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of abortion. You choose the mother, I choose the child. Perhaps neither of us is altogether right nor altogether wrong.


Its nasty to make a public post out of a PM.
I long ago told you I was not posting to you anymore.
I now remove all boundaries of courtesy.
You are evil!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

:::::::::: WARNING::::::::::

DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Its nasty to make a public post out of PM.
> I remove all boundaries from my posts to you.
> You are evil!


I don't think anyone needs to worry about that. We have all been part of your "You misunderstood me" PM's.
We have come to the conclusion that you are bat s--t crazy and will ignore you from now on.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> :::::::::: WARNING::::::::::
> 
> DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


Go take your meds, honey. How immature you are.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Go take your meds, honey. How immature you are.


Retort, Rejoinder, Reply...Pick One:

I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> knitpresentgifts
> have not followed the postings recently. You must be speaking of Michelle Bachmann.


Oh, dear, Huck, I mean, Ingried, but you _have_ just stated today, as a matter of fact, that you keep up on reading the threads although you may not always post your thoughts.

Don't you remember, Sandra Fluke isn't a Congresswoman and Michelle Bachmann is VocalLisa/Cheeky Blighter's Congresswoman.

Don't want you to be so confused, so I decided to help you out.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Its nasty to make a public post out of a PM.
> I long ago told you I was not posting to you anymore.
> I now remove all boundaries of courtesy.
> You are evil!


Go tell it to Donnie K.
And Honey, you removed all boundaries of courtesy and decency when you encouraged people to search my info out on the internet and do me harm.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> *No need to edit ANY of my posts, because Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa *are* one and the same. You know it and we all have known it.





Huckleberry said:


> knitpresentgifts
> still up to your old assumptions I see. Nothing like being consistent.


Why, thank you Huck, I am rather consistent and will take your words as a compliment. You know me, I don't assume, I go with the facts.

BTW: there are a few facts for you quoted above (see *)


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, dear, Huck, I mean, Ingried, but you _have_ just stated today, as a matter of fact, that you keep up on reading the threads although you may not always post your thoughts.
> 
> Don't you remember, Sandra Fluke isn't a Congresswoman and Michelle Bachmann is VocalLisa/Cheeky Blighter's Congresswoman.
> 
> Don't want you to be so confused, so I decided to help you out.


Wrong again, dimwit. Bachmann is NOT Cheeky's congresswoman. No help at all there KPG. Why don't you scoot off and find some of your so called *facts* before you post again. If you get even one thing right, you may not look so foolish. You really don't want to go up against Huck when it comes to *facts* do you?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> This is how I feel too- I am not for abortion, I am for free choice - so that each of us can decide for ourselves, if someone chooses to have an abortion so be it . But if they for whatever reason decide not to have one that is their right. I just believe that women should be able to choose what they do with their own lives and body. Government and Religious leaders should not tell them what to do, any more than Anyone should tell any one else what is right for that person. They should be able to decide themselves as it is their life and their body.


Thank you!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Wrong again, dimwit. Bachmann is NOT Cheeky's congresswoman. No help at all there KPG. Why don't you scoot off and find some of your so called *facts* before you post again. If you get even one thing right, you may not look so foolish. You really don't want to go up against Huck when it comes to *facts* do you?


Oh, silly, me. We all know Huck was only slamming Michelle Bachmann because she hates Michelle as much as you do.

Besides, what does it matter if Cheeky/Vocal Lisa's Congressmen is Erik Paulsen or Keith Ellison, etc. We all know it is someone elected to serve Minnesota and certainly not Sandra Flake.

Hmm, remember, when you told us elected State Representatives were *not* Congressmen and they were "Congress" or something like that? So funny, you were.

Just the facts, madame, just the facts.

You're right, on one point though, no one should compete with Huck over facts, because Huck wouldn't have a chance as she recites none.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, silly, me. We all know Huck was only slamming Michelle Bachmann because she hates Michelle as much as you do.
> 
> Besides, what does it matter if Cheeky/Vocal Lisa's Congressmen is Erik Paulsen or Keith Ellison, etc. We all know it is someone elected to serve Minnesota and certainly not Sandra Flake.


Of course it matters--the Golden Calf made an error, which indicates the morning offering wasn't quite up to par. Quick, someone drum up an emergency bale of hay.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, silly, me. We all know Huck was only slamming Michelle Bachmann because she hates Michelle as much as you do.
> 
> Besides, what does it matter if Cheeky/Vocal Lisa's Congressmen is Erik Paulsen or Keith Ellison, etc. We all know it is someone elected to serve Minnesota and certainly not Sandra Flake.
> 
> ...


You are so full of it. And still can't admit when you are wrong. Keep back pedaling. You have no facts nor have you ever. Just your usual BS. 
That's why I never take anything you post seriously.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Of course it matters--the Golden Calf made an error, which indicates the morning offering wasn't quite up to par. Quick, someone drum up an emergency bale of hay.


How about some slop instead? Hay is expensive. I think she is more used to being served slop in the pigpen.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> You are so full of it. And still can't admit when you are wrong. Keep back pedaling. You have no facts nor have you ever. Just your usual BS.
> That's why I never take anything you post seriously.


I'm not wrong. Ask Vocal Lisa/Cheeky Blighter.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm not wrong. Ask Vocal Lisa/Cheeky Blighter.


Yes, you are. Now , shoo, and go find some TRUE facts to post. I don't need to ask Cheeky or Vocallisa anything.
We know who our Congressmen and women are, Cherf. Obviously, you don't.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> How about some slop instead? Hay is expensive. I think she is more used to being served slop in the pigpen.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


>


My link didn't load. Darn!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> My link didn't load. Darn!


Hmm...looks like some Being is displeased. An offering of a few golden shekels might be enough to rectify the matter...some tokens for the nearest car wash might appeal to It even more.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> :::::::::: WARNING::::::::::
> 
> DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


My goodness, I send private messages occasionally, but have no issue with the content being shared. The message belongs to the recipient once I send it. I never send threats, condemnations, or other content that would embarrass me if it were shared. What is YOUR problem?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Hmm...looks like some Being is displeased. An offering of a few golden shekels might be enough to rectify the matter...some tokens for the nearest car wash might appeal to It even more.


Does anyone know what Norman is talking about?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Does anyone know what Norman is talking about?


Rest assured, CB--It does.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Does anyone know what Norman is talking about?


Nope, but I know what a CHRISTIAN talks like now.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nope, but I know what a CHRISTIAN talks like now.


HAHA good one.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sometimes I wonder about people who condemn "Obamacare" or who have even nicknamed the comprehensive affordable health care act "Obamacare" and who condemn everything the President does.
> 
> I may or may not have voted for the gentleman, I may or may not approve of any, all, a minority or a majority of his stances. That is my personal business in a country with a secret ballot.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> :::::::::: WARNING::::::::::
> 
> DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


Uh oh, violation of the rules, no posts in caps, remember? Or does that rule only apply to someone other than yourself? Just curious who exempted you from the rules.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> Uh oh, violation of the rules, no posts in caps, remember? Or does that rule only apply to someone other than yourself? Just curious who exempted you from the rules.


Is it against the rules for her to imply that anyone could ever have thought that she and I were friends?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Is it against the rules for her to imply that anyone could ever have thought that she and I were friends?


Darned if I know but someone would have to be pretty stupid to think that


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Just thinking of all the hypocrisy in the GOP....


Quite a collection, Cheeky. Each one a gem.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> You are really something!


Sorry, Designer, but you're wrong. She is really nothing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, there are medical facilities expanding and being built all over. Isn't it great?


But what about all those doctors who have to leave the profession because of Obamacare? Will they become homeless?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Its nasty to make a public post out of a PM.
> I long ago told you I was not posting to you anymore.
> I now remove all boundaries of courtesy.
> You are evil!


I saw that post a couple of weeks ago. Seems to me it must have been public.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I saw that post a couple of weeks ago. Seems to me it must have been public.


You are right, Empress, and so is she, I suppose. 
I posted it the first time when she sniped at me about an apology that she supposedly made in that PM, which she didn't make. 
So as she had brought it up and lied about what was in it. I posted it to say, in so many words, "what apology?".

So it has been out there for a week or so. It was originally a PM, though.

Just to keep the record straight so that those who like to go wandering through the archives can better spend their time studying the Holy Bible...

Hey Janet,

You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publically.

FYI > I spend the summer at my cottage on White Island Pond in East Wareham...I grew up in the Bridgewaters and Norton...I know an awful lot about Taunton.

Wicked pissah, eh? Let's do lunch!

Gerri

Gerslay wrote:
Hey Janet,

You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publicly.

FYI > I spend the summer at my cottage on White Island Pond in East Wareham...I grew up in the Bridgewaters and Norton...I know an awful lot about Taunton.

Wicked pissah, eh? Let's do lunch!

No thanks, I don't spend time with nasty and/or selfish people who cannot answer a civil question. 
Why would I respect anyone who insults in public and apologizes in private? Your PM was not viewed, are you pretending that you could not see that it was unread?
Now we know what to add to the rest of YOUR colors.

"Our journey is not complete..."
FYI: Nobody is forcing you to be mean, you freely enter into it.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck
Janet Cooke wrote:
No thanks, I don't spend time with nasty and/or selfish people who cannot answer a civil question. 
Why would I respect anyone who insults in public and apologizes in private? Your PM was not viewed, are you pretending that you could not see that it was unread?
Now we know what to add to the rest of YOUR colors.

Are you pretending you didn't respond to my PM with your own? You might want to look back on that.

Apparently you don't want to do lunch and so I'm not inviting you over for a sunset cruise. So there!

Lighten up a little, will ya?

Gerri

Gerslay wrote:
Are you pretending you didn't respond to my PM with your own? You might want to look back on that.

Apparently you don't want to do lunch and so I'm not inviting you over for a sunset cruise. So there!

Lighten up a little, will ya?

And the second, I deleted. 
Now, please, go enjoy your little place ... I am NOT interested in joking with you, I don't think you are a nice person.

The reason for my confusion is that the following is hardly an apology. It is an excuse.

Gerslay wrote:
I apologize for a poorly expressed question. When you asked me to compare the relative cost of living I was a little confused. When I said "relative to what", I was just seeking clarity. I didn't know if you meant compared to the $10,000, the $50,000, the poverty level in the US, the poverty level in the rest of the world, etc. I wanted to respond to you but I wanted to better understand your question.

I'm a wordsmith by nature and an editor by profession and sometimes I edit my speech (written and typed) so much that, in choosing to be concise, I don't explain myself enough and I am often misunderstood. This is not the first time this has happened to me.

I'm not going to continue this discussion in public. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of abortion. You choose the mother, I choose the child. Perhaps neither of us is altogether right nor altogether wrong.

Peace!

That has little to do with your choice to avoid the reality that being poor is being poor. Poverty hurts children. You choose niether parent nor child. <shrug>

"Our journey is not complete..."
FYI: Nobody is forcing you to be mean, you freely enter into it.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And here's hoping that the poor, victimized, little soul goes where those beings go.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You are right, Empress, and so is she, I suppose.
> I posted it the first time when she sniped at me about an apology that she supposedly made in that PM, which she didn't make.
> So as she had brought it up and lied about what was in it. I posted it to say, in so many words, "what apology?".
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is the one I saw sometime back. So why is she complaining *today* about something made public a week or two ago?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Yeah, this is the one I saw sometime back. So why is she complaining *today* about something made public a week or two ago?


Because she is looking for a fight and that seemed easy, I suppose. 
Maybe she forgot that it was already on the public record. 
Maybe she thinks, as most abusive people do, that she can make someone else look like an aggressor. 
Maybe she is just plain loco. 
The abuser thing sounds about right, now that I know she has been playing the PM game with others, cross the line...be nice, cross the line a bit more, be nice... slap someone around, act like it was their fault...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> But what about all those doctors who have to leave the profession because of Obamacare? Will they become homeless?


That would only happen if they made poor life choices.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Women:


You're DEFINITELY losing the argument when you resort to a "_at least Republicans don't throw acid in women's faces, therefore women should shut up and stop complaining_" type of argument.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That would only happen if they made poor life choices.


Like the choice to quit being doctors because of Obamacare?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Hey, did y'all see Gersley's latest "wisdom"?



> The Real War on Women:
> 
> Further, the unrelenting political push for reproductive rights all but ensures that men will relinquish more and more sexual responsibility.


You know that you're losing the argument when you resort to a "_don't take birth control pills because you won't be able to trust men any more_" kind of argument.

HILARIOUSLY absurd.

The "thinking" evidently is if women STOP pushing for reproductive rights, suddenly men WILL start taking sexual responsibility.

Hey gals... if you just relinquish and stop making such a big deal about your own reproductive rights, you can just lay back and trust that men will "take care of things" for ya!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Hey, did y'all see Gersley's latest "wisdom"?
> 
> You know that you're losing the argument when you resort to a "_don't take birth control pills because you won't be able to trust men any more_" kind of argument.
> 
> ...


Sure, like they always have.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Woman
> 
> http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2014/2/10/thumb-1392028043951-real_wow4.jpg
> http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2014/2/10/thumb-1392028044010-real_wow_1.jpg


See ladies? Ya all need to STHU. You have no right to demand reproductive rights from men in THIS country and just be thankful the GOP doesn't do what it REALLY wants to do and start trafficing you into the sex trade against your will!!

Hell, the real head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh even took his Viagra over into the child sex trafficking capitol of the world and did some research on the matter... remember?

Seriously people. What _was_ Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn't have his name on it?

Oh, that's right. I forgot "Gersley's Rule". If an American man does it, don't complain and just remember it could be worse and those deeds COULD'VE been done by some NON-American.

Think about it. Isn't having your right's taken away by American men, in a way a GOOD thing??


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gersley said:


> :::::::::: WARNING::::::::::
> 
> DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


Actually, this is an incomplete warning the warning should be:

"Don't threaten potential physical harm to someone on a public board and then write them via PM and expect them to treat you like you're best friend".

After what you did to her, she owes you NOTHING.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Most liberals dont like the fact that more women disagree than agree with them on abortion and other so-called womens issues,


That's a lie or just another one of your imbecilic claims.

Even according to the CONSERVATIVE leaning Rassmussen, their polls indicate that 57% Are Pro-Choice/undecided, 43% anti-choice.

However, Rassmussen is infamous for skewing their polls RW and will poll know "conservative" areas.

So, in all likelihood the real number is probably much worse for the anti-choice crowd than that indicates.

When you review ALLLLLL the polls, in the end it comes out to this: Basically 25% pf Americans say they support abortion without restrictions, most polls show. 20% oppose abortion in nearly all cases. The rest of the country  roughly 55% percent of it  supports abortion in some circumstances and not others.



Gerslay said:


> but the right that American women hold most sacred is their God-given right to express themselves.


There isn't ONE person here that has EVER claimed you don't have every right to express yourself, no matter how ignorant you are.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War Being Waged Between a Woman and her Child:


There is no war between a woman and her child.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Woman: The Progressive Female Manifesto
> 
> 1) You are "sexually liberated" and have the "right" to be as slutty as you please, sleep with multiple partners whenever you desire, and to have taxpayers subsidize your behavior through "free" birth control, contraception, and abortion on demand.


Shaming women for their sexuality is part of the war on women.

You just proved how true it is.



Gerslay said:


> 2) Democrat politicians are allowed to grope, abuse, harass, and occasionally rape you, and you're not to speak out, because a) these men support your "right" to be sluts, and b) it's a small price to pay for the benefits procured.


It's not OK for any male to grope, abuse, harass, and occasionally rape you.



Gerslay said:


> 3) You are "beyond" the stale tradition of "family," beyond the tired "homemaker" caricature, and, as such, should focus on defining yourself as breadwinner (or, alternatively, welfare dependent) while doing everything possible to erase gender differences.


No Liberal every argues this. Just that a woman should be free AND HAVE THE POWER OVER HERSELF to choose



Gerslay said:


> Don't be shocked. This is the party that booed God at their 2012 convention;


If they "booed God" (_given how much this guy lies, I doubt that's exactly true_), but if they did, they would be booing the INVENTED god by the RW, who has managed to distort God into a hateful, vengeful God.

Who _wouldn't_ boo such blasphemy against God?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Like the choice to quit being doctors because of Obamacare?


That was pretty much what I was thinking, yes.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The Real War on Women
> 
> http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2014/2/10/thumb-1392028340430-real_wow5.jpg


Right. In other words... MSNBC fired his ass.

However, nearly ALL of the FoxNews hosts have said equally hateful things against women and they still have their jobs.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Right. In other words... MSNBC fired his ass.
> 
> However, nearly ALL of the FoxNews hosts have said equally hateful things against women and they still have their jobs.


Gerslay is an embarassment to our gender. If she wants to play June Cleaver, so be it. But I disagree with her on every point she has posted about there not being a war on women.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Think about it. Isn't having your right's taken away by American men, in a way a GOOD thing??


This comes uncomfortably close to fundamentalist dogma.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

> and this piece of work...
> 
> http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2014/2/10/thumb-1392030089981-real_wow6.jpg


I love how that ignorant caption equates the government physically assaulting and molesting of women's bodies, with The People CHOOSING to help poor women out with a relatively SMALL amount of money

It's typical RW-think. And only complete utter morons could make that sort of association and think it's rational.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and such a detriment to our country.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I love how that ignorant caption equates the government physically assaulting and molesting of women's bodies, with The People CHOOSING to help poor women out with a relatively SMALL amount of money
> 
> It's typical RW-think. And only complete utter morons could make that sort of association and think it's rational.
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and such a detriment to our country.


Do you live in Oz pretending to be Dorothy and singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" when dreaming about Obamaville?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Does a person have the right to amputate one of their arms or legs because they deem it inconvenient for one reason or another?


Off topic and completely incomperable.

I doubt few (if any) women has an abortion for convenience sake.

That's just another RW talking point that is based in ignorance of reality.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Designer1234 said:


> one thing has nothing to do with another - no point in arguing -- that is not why I posted. I know that you prefer to take me on, but I am not going to take the bait. You have your opinion , I have mine.


You are one smart cookie Designer1234! As far as not taking the bait, you have proven yourself much wiser than I.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Good Morning to you as well, Cheeky! Still singing the same tune I see.


Good Morning to you, Creepy.

Still hearing voices in your head I see.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You couldn't answer nor clarify your own question could you Dame. No help from the drama troupe either. Oh, well . you'll survive.


She didn't need to. Just because you need everything spoonfed to you doesn't mean the rest of the board does.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> And the Dem party leaders gave out the talking points and instructions to all the Dem faithful and told them (including Pres Obama) to no longer call it Obamacare.


So what?

The difference between RW and Dem talking points is that the Dems use truth and facts to form theirs.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Gerslay - so true.


Except not one thing she posted contained truth.

I see now your "job" on the board is to cheer on lies and disinformation besides just telling them.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> So what?
> 
> The difference between RW and Dem talking points is that the Dems use truth and facts to form theirs.


Okay Dorothy, you need to heal from your concussion,wake up Obamaville/OZ is a nightmare and you know 'because there is no place like home'


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Hey, did y'all see Gersley's latest "wisdom"?
> 
> You know that you're losing the argument when you resort to a "_don't take birth control pills because you won't be able to trust men any more_" kind of argument.
> 
> ...


Since condoms for women never really caught on men still have to take the STD responsibility, it would seem that duty lasts a lifetime.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Nothing like a smashing pair of red shoes!


I guess Admin asked you to take down the Avatar of your face. They must have been getting a lot of complains about the "indecency" rules here on the board.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa, does it get crowded sharing the same body? KPG has pronounced that you are the same person, and you know she knows everything. (Or will she hurry and edit her posting? )


LOL. I guess she doesn't know that Admin would be able to tell if we had duplicate accounts... unless...

Oh, that's it.. It's a CONSPIRACY and Admin is in on it!!!


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> See ladies? Ya all need to STHU. You have no right to demand reproductive rights from men in THIS country and just be thankful the GOP doesn't do what it REALLY wants to do and start trafficing you into the sex trade against your will!!
> 
> You are delusional.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> {quote=VocalLisa}See ladies? Ya all need to STHU. You have no right to demand reproductive rights from men in THIS country and just be thankful the GOP doesn't do what it REALLY wants to do and start trafficing you into the sex trade against your will!!
> 
> You are delusional.


What is it about these RWrs that they have SUCH a hard time figuring out the BB tags here on the board.

EVERYONE makes a mistake here and there with it... but with them it's CONSTANT.

Is it that they're too stupid, or is it just laziness?

Speaking of lazy... I'm getting tired of trying to read all the posts made since my last visit, so I'm skipping ahead.

If I post in redundancy, I apologize ahead of time!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> What is it about these RWrs that they have SUCH a hard time figuring out the BB tags here on the board.
> 
> EVERYONE makes a mistake here and there with it... but with them it's CONSTANT.
> 
> ...


My guess would be functional illiteracy due to mental illness.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I guess Admin asked you to take down the Avatar of your face. They must have been getting a lot of complains about the "indecency" rules here on the board.


Huh? Her red shoes remind me of Dorothy in Oz. You make no sense


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> What is it about these RWrs that they have SUCH a hard time figuring out the BB tags here on the board.
> 
> EVERYONE makes a mistake here and there with it... but with them it's CONSTANT.
> 
> ...


You are really delusional.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You are really delusional.


What do you expect from someone that worships Oz and lives in Obamaville


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What do you expect from someone that worships Oz and lives in Obamaville


Boy, when you get what you think is an idea, you repeat and repeat and repeat it, don't you. Look, it's a dead horse; stop beating it.







.......







.......







.......


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

There is nothing as sad as someone trying to be funny and not be funny at all. Give up LTL. That didn't even earn a courtesy laugh.

3 Bronx cheers for you


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> What do you expect from someone that worships Oz and lives in Obamaville


What? Wait!

Wasn't it Dorothy who wore the red shoes and loved Oz? Wouldn't the person sporting the red shoes be ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Boy, when you get what you think is an idea, you repeat and repeat and repeat it, don't you. Look, it's a dead horse; stop beating it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have seen this so many times before, Poor Purl, there is some disconnect that blocks the understanding that while something may be funny once or even twice... maybe ... that after that the only people who think it is funny are 6 year olds.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

So happy for you Patty.



BrattyPatty said:


> One week and I am off to Vegas to get warm! I can't wait to see my sister and meet my grand nephew. He has Asbergers syndrome. I have talked to him quite a few times and he is such a smart kid and funny too. Lucky for him, he has a great teacher who understands the syndrome and knows how to work with it. He gets all A's & B's.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gotta run. Brynn has arrived. See ya all later!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Gotta run. Brynn has arrived. See ya all later!


Enjoy!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't get reminders for some sites either. Is there some funny business going on? Is anyone else having trouble?



Poor Purl said:


> I know. But I never let an opportunity go by to be silly.
> 
> Somehow, I don't get reminders for this thread, either. Someone's gone and snipped all my threads. I thought this one had been abandoned.
> 
> Cute mouth you've got there.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You, however, are completely right about one thing. The decision should reside with the woman and her physician, not with the opinions of pro-life strangers.



Janet Cooke said:


> On February 1 this same person said:
> 
> I'm a wordsmith by nature and an editor by profession and sometimes I edit my speech (written and typed) so much that, in choosing to be concise, I don't explain myself enough and I am often misunderstood. This is not the first time this has happened to me.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this discussion in public. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of abortion. You choose the mother, I choose the child. Perhaps neither of us is altogether right nor altogether wrong.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What are you afraid of?



Gerslay said:


> :::::::::: WARNING::::::::::
> 
> DO NOT EXCHANGE PRIVATE MESSAGES WITH JANET COOKE...EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE FRIENDS...YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN SHE'LL MAKE THEM PUBLIC!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sounds much worse to me than making PM public. Don't they say there's nothing private on the Internet?



Janet Cooke said:


> Go tell it to Donnie K.
> And Honey, you removed all boundaries of courtesy and decency when you encouraged people to search my info out on the internet and do me harm.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Of course it matters--the Golden Calf made an error, which indicates the morning offering wasn't quite up to par. Quick, someone drum up an emergency bale of hay.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

lovethelake said:


> Huh? Her red shoes remind me of Dorothy in Oz. You make no sense


I make no sense to YOU. Then again, you're often confused by even the simplest of writings on this board, so, that's not particularly surprising.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My thoughts agree with yours.



MarilynKnits said:


> My goodness, I send private messages occasionally, but have no issue with the content being shared. The message belongs to the recipient once I send it. I never send threats, condemnations, or other content that would embarrass me if it were shared. What is YOUR problem?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Does anyone know what Norman is talking about?


Who's Norman? What are you talking about?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> Uh oh, violation of the rules, no posts in caps, remember? Or does that rule only apply to someone other than yourself? Just curious who exempted you from the rules.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BrattyPatty said:


> There is nothing as sad as someone trying to be funny and not be funny at all. Give up LTL. That didn't even earn a courtesy laugh.
> 
> 3 Bronx cheers for you


LOL. It's so true.

What is it with conservatives?

When you see them with clever, quick witted people on TV, and they "compete" by trying to be funny too... they ALWAYS do that thing where NO ONE laughs at what they say because it's so weird and UNfunny... and then there's that "silence" and gut wrenching feeling of embarrassment FOR them.

It would be downright humiliating for anyone who values being respected. But they don't. They often have NO IDEA how ridiculous they are coming off to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

I'd feel pity for them if they weren't so often rotten human beings who are not worthy of sympathy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Don't worry Janet. No one would ever believe that lie. You're safe.



Janet Cooke said:


> Is it against the rules for her to imply that anyone could ever have thought that she and I were friends?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Most liberals dont like the fact that more women disagree than agree with them on abortion and other so-called womens issues, but the right that American women hold most sacred is their God-given right to express themselves.
> 
> Even if it means disagreeing with the mullahs at the National Organization for Women.
> 
> Indeed!


Where do you get the "fact" that more women disagree than agree about abortion and women's issues? I can proudly say I've talked with many, many women, read many, many articles, and even read many a study (I'm a sucker for scientific studies). I was also raised in a fundamentalist church, and then a self-declared less legallistic church (ha! That was a joke!), and met tons of faith reasoning home schoolers. When I was amongst those folks I honestly thought, because that was what was taught and showed to us, that those who believe in pro- * choice * were very few. Then I went to college. I went to nursing school. I was quiet, I listened, I learned. Through that quiet observation and occassional questioning I found that the majority of women did believe in choice and other women's issues. But had I continued to only expose myself to those who decided what to show us, or had tried to evangelize everybody who didn't agree, thus shutting them down from actually sharing their opinion, I would never have been able to see for myself. Unfortunately the agressive evangelizing shuts people off from sharing about themselves and leaves anybody who truly wants to listen in the dark.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm thinking that you must have missed me real bad because the whole time I've been gone (lunch, the doctors, the grocery store, the gas station, home again, put the groceries away, read the mail, took some phone calls, AND just made a fabulous Chicken Marsala for dinner)...I'll repeat in case you've lost your way... the whole time I've been gone y'all have been talking about me.

You do know I take it as a compliment when you ladies of the left hate and malign me, don't you? It means I'm under your skin...and that's right where I want to be. 

Why in the world would I care if you don't like me? You who have no values, no convictions, and low standards. You to whom everything is relative. Why, even your gods are according to your own making. 

Since you all raked me over the coals for apologizing too much and explaining myself too much in the past I certainly don't intend to go that route again. You'll have to reconstruct or deconstruct the past to suit yourselves... which it seems you've been spending all afternoon trying to do.

So sputter and fart and spit and sh*t, I'm honored!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The part that concerns me are the references to specific locations. I would never ever agree to meet anyone in person that I didn't trust. Take notice.



Poor Purl said:


> Yeah, this is the one I saw sometime back. So why is she complaining *today* about something made public a week or two ago?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Don't forget the real issue:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Because she is looking for a fight and that seemed easy, I suppose.
> Maybe she forgot that it was already on the public record.
> Maybe she thinks, as most abusive people do, that she can make someone else look like an aggressor.
> Maybe she is just plain loco.
> The abuser thing sounds about right, now that I know she has been playing the PM game with others, cross the line...be nice, cross the line a bit more, be nice... slap someone around, act like it was their fault...


That's why sane people shout, "Don't trust her."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> That would only happen if they made poor life choices.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Does a person have the right to amputate one of their arms or legs because they deem it inconvenient for one reason or another?


Well, yes, should a doctor agree to perform the procedure. I know many people who had an arm or leg become inconvenient (usually because unhealing ulcers were draining the body). They are called amputees.

And then there is the whole new thing called body modification (well it's not really new). All sorts of things I may never dream of doing with my body, and I may cringe at, can be done to those people who choose it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Don't forget the real issue:


That's not the real issue _at ALL_


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> What? Wait!
> 
> I can see in my minds eye VL holding Bo in a Longaberger Basket surrounded by obamacultists on a yellow brick road, and in her best Judy Garland imitation singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" for some reason


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> That's not the real issue _at ALL_


Hoisted on her own petard...eh Vocalizer?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Huh? Her red shoes remind me of Dorothy in Oz. You make no sense


Didn't the shoes belong to the green Witch of the West first?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Boy, when you get what you think is an idea, you repeat and repeat and repeat it, don't you. Look, it's a dead horse; stop beating it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

At 8pm I'll be leaving to put my feet up, lift a nice Cab, turn on the Olympics, pick up my WIP, and spend the evening with HubbaHubba. So, you have about 45 minutes to rail into me...that is if you intend that I read your insults tonight!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> Didn't the shoes belong to the green Witch of the West first?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Janet Cooke said:
> 
> 
> > What? Wait!
> ...


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

damemary said:


> In other words, our President is more interested in doing the right thing for everyone than in receiving credit for it. This is one of the reasons I think history will treat him kindly.


I think that those who will be treated unkindly by history are those people who resolutely refused to allow the President to accomplish anything good. It could be me, but I think they were stuck back in the "good o'le days" of no tv or no record being taken of what they said in those meetings, like the one right after the president was elected where they swore they would block things he did to prevent his legacy. I think they may need to remind themselves that this is the age of fast spreading information.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Didn't the shoes belong to the green Witch of the West first?


I kinda think they belong to the ***** now.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BRB...gonna change my avatar...seems you don't like my pretty shoes!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Somebody doesn't seem to understand how a message board works. 
Some of us are lucky enough to have access to a computer, phone, tablet, whatever so that we can be at the site whenever we want. I think that is because we are not working. 

Other people are working, they have to divvy up their time depending on the demands of their work day. If someone has a job that allows for contact on the internet they can communicate when that works for them. If they don't have that luxury they see MANY pages of exchanges when they log on to a message board. They respond. 

Some people have partners, they spend time with their partners when they get a free moment they check in, perhaps. 
And on and on and on.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> LOL. It's so true.
> 
> What is it with conservatives?
> 
> ...


You are delusional


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

There now...is that better?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Of course it matters--the Golden Calf made an error, which indicates the morning offering wasn't quite up to par. Quick, someone drum up an emergency bale of hay.


I thought that they melted down the golden calf in the old testament when Moses came down with the original ten commandments and had a hissy fit when he saw them all dancing round it and broke them. Of course then the father (God) had to do it all over again (probably telling Moses he should control his temper like He does...... Oh wait a minute,lol). So of course nobody is giving offerings! Silly Susanmos2000

Sorry, couldn't resist, it was too easy.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> My goodness, I send private messages occasionally, but have no issue with the content being shared. The message belongs to the recipient once I send it. I never send threats, condemnations, or other content that would embarrass me if it were shared. What is YOUR problem?


 :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Something y'all may not have noticed but,

Everytime I post to the thread, VocalLisa goes offline!

When I'm not here she talks up a storm about me...but when I show up, she skedaddles!

Your vaulted leader is Chickenspit!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I saw that post a couple of weeks ago. Seems to me it must have been public.


I thought so too, but didn't want to be the first to say it, lol :wink:


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Something y'all may not have noticed but,
> 
> Everytime I post to the thread, VocalLisa goes offline!
> 
> ...


Ever cross your mind that Lisa is tired of you and studiously ignoring you? Your descending to vulgarity whenever you don't have anything worth saying says so much about you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Something y'all may not have noticed but,
> 
> Everytime I post to the thread, VocalLisa goes offline!
> 
> ...


Yeah well... I can see up your skirt.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Ever cross your mind that Lisa is tired of you and studiously ignoring you? Your descending to vulgarity whenever you don't have anything worth saying says so much about you.


Aw, Marilyn, you beat me to it!!!

:-D


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> You're DEFINITELY losing the argument when you resort to a "_at least Republicans don't throw acid in women's faces, therefore women should shut up and stop complaining_" type of argument.


Yeah, last I knew if a man slapped his wife or if a man beat the sh$& out of her and hospitalized her they were both domestic abuse and both not good. Perhaps I'm a little confused, but I thought that comparing the severity of it just makes the one who is slapped around more likely to stay because she "doesn't have it so bad" and then the abuse escalates, whereas if she is told to take all abuse seriously and leaves early when first slapped she is less likely to face worsening violence. That's all I can think of when people do the "acid in a women's face" argument.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Ever cross your mind that Lisa is tired of you and studiously ignoring you? Your descending to vulgarity whenever you don't have anything worth saying says so much about you.


Oh hell, I haven't even noticed any such thing. 
LOL, who spends their time looking to see who is on or off line? 
Unless you are checking to see if a particular person is online to see if you can catch them for a PM or whatever... sheesh, someone needs to spend more time on her hubbahubba. <smh>


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> And that, my dear Damemary as you already know, is exactly what they intend.
> It is just as with those stupid notices the evil doers send out at election time about the wrong date. It is just too easy to confuse the uninvolved and keep them at home.
> It is equally as simple to confuse people about health care coverage and keep them from signing up.
> People HATE to feel stupid in front of others, so will hold back rather than go out and seek information.
> ...


And if there were more equality in the US, we wouldn't have to subsidize it. The right is so hypocritical. They want those at the top to receive all the breaks, pay less in taxes and keep all their money, get rid of unions and pay lower wages, deregulate everything, don't worry about the environment, just let the rich get richer. Does that help the economy and the US. Of course not, it helps those at the top.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Ever cross your mind that Lisa is tired of you and studiously ignoring you? Your descending to vulgarity whenever you don't have anything worth saying says so much about you.


VocalLisa put up pictures of my dead mother and aunt and you call me vulgar?

Wake up!

(and her name isn't Lisa)


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> And if there were more equality in the US, we wouldn't have to subsidize it. The right is so hypocritical. They want those at the top to receive all the breaks, pay less in taxes and keep all their money, get rid of unions and pay lower wages, deregulate everything, don't worry about the environment, just let the rich get richer. Does that help the economy and the US. Of course not, it helps those at the top.


Yup, that, too!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa put up pictures of my dead mother and aunt and you call me vulgar?
> 
> Wake up!
> 
> (and her name isn't Lisa)


Nobody gives a hairy rat's butt what her name is. She is smart, she is funny, and she is on the right side politically. 
What world are you living in?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa put up pictures of my dead mother and aunt and you call me vulgar?
> 
> Wake up!
> 
> (and her name isn't Lisa)


Actually, she put up pictures of faceless entities that could have been men in drag.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Someone please tell Cookie that I'm not talking to her.

Yada Yada Yada!


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa put up pictures of my dead mother and aunt and you call me vulgar?
> 
> Wake up!
> 
> (and her name isn't Lisa)


How would she have pictures of your mother and aunt? Not being sarcastic, really curious as to how she would have those.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yeah well... I can see up your skirt.


Janet Coke
I hear someome feeling terribly important, don't you?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

maysmom said:


> Think about it. Isn't having your right's taken away by American men, in a way a GOOD thing??
> 
> This comes uncomfortably close to fundamentalist dogma.


It's more than uncomfortably close, it is liberal fundamentalist dogma (the non liberal go with the "you need to agree with everything your husband/father says, if you don't agree you "wisely appeal" the decision and if he stays with the original decision you shut your mouth and go along with it..... Period, even if (an example from a church I went to) he tells you to "wash the dishes in gasoline"... Yes that was an exact example from the pastor's wife). Once they get you in the liberal fundamentalist dogma, then the non liberal will follow.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Jolly Green Giant says, "Piss on you!"


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> How would she have pictures of your mother and aunt? Not being sarcastic, really curious as to how she would have those.


Cindy S
Some folks here are psycho and dig up anything.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Toodle-ooo!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Janet Coke
> I hear someome feeling terribly important, don't you?


I think that the terms may be self involved and egotistical.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Cindy S
> Some folks here are psycho and dig up anything.


LOL, don't talk about yourself that way, huck.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Toodle-ooo!


Whew, she's gone folks. 
Have a ball.
I think that she thinks she is in a chat room. 
The other day it was ggp. 
I have never felt the need on a message board to say that I needed to pee. Who will know you are gone?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yeah well... I can see up your skirt.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Me too. giggle giggle


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Don't forget the real issue:


 :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Me too. giggle giggle


HAHAHAHA, sniffle sniffle, she isn't talking to me.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Cindy S
> Some folks here are psycho and dig up anything.


No kidding.....strange how she disappears when she can't answer a simple question.....oh well, I am sure she will return to lose another round


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The Jolly Green Giant says, "Piss on you!"


Indeed, I will stay with vulgar.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Indeed, I will stay with vulgar.


o my


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nobody gives a hairy rat's butt what her name is. She is smart, she is funny, and she is on the right side politically.
> What world are you living in?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: My allegiance does not depend on superficial things.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> No kidding.....strange how she disappears when she can't answer a simple question.....oh well, I am sure she will return to lose another round


Who the heck calls their husband "hubbahubba"?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Fooled me. You sound like some teenager who lost their BFF.



Gerslay said:


> Someone please tell Cookie that I'm not talking to her.
> 
> Yada Yada Yada!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I hear someone trying to feel important.



Huckleberry said:


> Janet Coke
> I hear someome feeling terribly important, don't you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: My allegiance does not depend on superficial things.


This woman is really cracking me up. How naive is she?
Does she think that KPG's first name is Knit?
LOL, or that crazy is announcing that she is?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh, that's what's the matter with his tights.



Gerslay said:


> The Jolly Green Giant says, "Piss on you!"


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Whew, she's gone folks.
> Have a ball.
> I think that she thinks she is in a chat room.
> The other day it was ggp.
> I have never felt the need on a message board to say that I needed to pee. Who will know you are gone?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: She tells so much more than anyone wants to know.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lucky you!



Janet Cooke said:


> HAHAHAHA, sniffle sniffle, she isn't talking to me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Oh, that's what's the matter with his tights.


That was the real reason she had to go. 
Her hubbahubba is out with his gf but she had to change out of those nasty tights that smell like a litter box.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WOW, bamboo circulars for $4.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> That was the real reason she had to go.
> Her hubbahubba is out with his gf but she had to change out of those nasty tights that smell like a litter box.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I'm giggling toooooooo much.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Time to call it a day here. 

Got a hat done today (Stephen West's Dustland Hat) in dark turquoise Encore. It is going to a charity for a silent auction. 

Almost done with a preemie hat in bright colors. Wednesday is our group meeting to make preemie hats and Warm Up America rectangles, so I hope to have two hats by then and work on the rectangle at the meeting. Great way to contribute to charity and try out different stitches.

And the socks go on. An inch up the ankle past the heel, working on them between other projects. Daughter gave me some outrageously colored Noro sock yarn and bought me the fish lips heel instructions, so I want to clear the decks for them.

It is such fun being retired and able to pick up a book or knit whenever I want and especially not have to pick up the phone whenever it rings. Reading the Margaret Maron series about Deborah Knott and enjoying getting a feel for North Carolina. Really like books where the author takes the time and trouble to research authentic background for a book and has the imagination to craft a good mystery.

Good night, all. Back to the battlefield tomorrow.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Time to call it a day here.
> 
> Got a hat done today (Stephen West's Dustland Hat) in dark turquoise Encore. It is going to a charity for a silent auction.
> 
> ...


That's the great thing about Preemie hats, they work up so fast.
I cannot picture ever knitting socks. Nope.

I just started Life on the Mississippi on the recommendation of one of the lib ladies.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd love to hear your reading list.



MarilynKnits said:


> Time to call it a day here.
> 
> Got a hat done today (Stephen West's Dustland Hat) in dark turquoise Encore. It is going to a charity for a silent auction.
> 
> ...


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That was the real reason she had to go.
> Her hubbahubba is out with his gf but she had to change out of those nasty tights that smell like a litter box.


Can any of you actually post without this kind of attack?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Can any of you actually post without this kind of attack?


No they can't.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Can any of you actually post without this kind of attack?


Nope, can you stay away from a thread where you say nothing relevent?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> So sputter and fart and spit and sh*t, I'm honored!


It's your klass we want to emulate. We didn't miss you at all, but you put all those "Hey, look at me" messages all over the place, which made them hard to avoid, much as we wanted to.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Wrong again, dimwit. Bachmann is NOT Cheeky's congresswoman. No help at all there KPG. Why don't you scoot off and find some of your so called *facts* before you post again. If you get even one thing right, you may not look so foolish. You really don't want to go up against Huck when it comes to *facts* do you?


Patty KPG has everything half ass backwards as we have all known about her from day one. Don't tell KPG that she hasn't a clue as to what office Bachmann held or she would know that she didn't represent me or Lisa ever and I thank God she never did. Does KPG not know what Bachmann is or is not doing these days? Silly me, of course she doesn't have a clue. I am flattered that she believes that Lisa and I are one and the same. Lisa expresses herself so eloquently but I must admit I am a better dancer but you already know that too, Patty. I must admit I am only slightly better than you and that is why I always ask you to be my partner. I can hardly wait to see the spectacle of KPG falling and hopefully she will land way back in the swamp that she crawled out of and never ever return to KP. I hope she takes the Jolly Green Giant with her when she goes. I guess Gersly or whatever she calls herself enjoyed my photo gallery as she paid me the highest compliment by imitating me with her own pictures. Thank you, I accept your compliment. I think when dealing with the right it is easier for them to understand pictures as they don't have a good grasp of the spoken word. :-D


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Well, yes, should a doctor agree to perform the procedure. I know many people who had an arm or leg become inconvenient (usually because unhealing ulcers were draining the body). They are called amputees.
> 
> And then there is the whole new thing called body modification (well it's not really new). All sorts of things I may never dream of doing with my body, and I may cringe at, can be done to those people who choose it.


You may be able to answer this question:

Does the law _require _the parents of a child whose kidneys are failing to have one of their kidneys transplanted in their child? I see this as similar to forcing a woman to put her entire body at the service of a fetus.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nope, can you stay away from a thread where you say nothing relevent?


You sure don't say anything relevant.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I can see you taking a long walk off that very short pier.
> You first.


Aren't you polite? :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You may be able to answer this question:
> 
> Does the law _require _the parents of a child whose kidneys are failing to have one of their kidneys transplanted in their child? I see this as similar to forcing a woman to put her entire body at the service of a fetus.


Did the parent make the kidneys fail? If they did then yes, but not if they didn't. Same with a fetus.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> It's your klass we want to emulate. We didn't miss you at all, but you put all those "Hey, look at me" messages all over the place, which made them hard to avoid, much as we wanted to.


Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead. Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Janet Coke
> I hear someome feeling terribly important, don't you?


More like a 2-year-old who hates being ignored and keeps coming over to Mommy and pulling on her skirt. Terribly *un*important, I'd say.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead. Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


All of you are disgusting.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Aren't you polite? :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


Is that cat ready to jump or race?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Cindy S
> Some folks here are psycho and dig up anything.


VocalLisa was demonstrating how easy it is for someone with smarts to get information on you even if they don't know your real name. It was the psycho's info she posted (but it's been disappeared).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> All of you are disgusting.


If you don't want to see disgusting, just unwatch. It works wonders.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Can any of you actually post without this kind of attack?


That was an attack, but "I piss on you" isn't?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Did the parent make the kidneys fail? If they did then yes, but not if they didn't. Same with a fetus.


I asked about the law, not your uneducated opinion.

But you must be okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest, since the pregnancy would be a forced one.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead. Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


I wish you were right, Cheeky, but I'm afraid you're not. Look at what Gerslay resorted to in trying to get our attention. She'll come up with something else in the same vein.

As for KPG, I have stopped reading her messages entirely - just scroll past them at high speed - so I can't speak about her.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Is that cat ready to jump or race?


She flies. She weighs all of 6 pounds and looks down on us.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> She flies. She weighs all of 6 pounds and looks down on us.


They are so much fun, aren't they? I think Yes, then I think No.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Did the parent make the kidneys fail? If they did then yes, but not if they didn't. Same with a fetus.


Your answer doesn't even make any sense. Maybe you should reread again and try again. Think carefully before you reply. I'm routing for you. :thumbup:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You may be able to answer this question:
> 
> Does the law _require _the parents of a child whose kidneys are failing to have one of their kidneys transplanted in their child? I see this as similar to forcing a woman to put her entire body at the service of a fetus.


No, no it does not (nor should it).


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Did the parent make the kidneys fail? If they did then yes, but not if they didn't. Same with a fetus.


No, even if the parents made the kidneys fail, whether through illness passed on by the parents or by a genetic condition, the parents are not legally required to give a kidney.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yeah well... I can see up your skirt.


If you mean the Jolly Green Giant...seems he's missing vital parts of his anatomy...


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead. Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


What? How dare you insult witches! I just may start getting offended

;-)


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I wish you were right, Cheeky, but I'm afraid you're not. Look at what Gerslay resorted to in trying to get our attention. She'll come up with something else in the same vein.
> 
> As for KPG, I have stopped reading her messages entirely - just scroll past them at high speed - so I can't speak about her.


You are probably correct, Purl. It reminds me of Big Bang and "Needy Baby, Greedy Baby". The pair of them will go to any lengths for attention, anybody look at me and what a big ass I am making of myself! fits both. Skipping over them is the best thing to do but there are those times when I just want to be amused and sometimes they are funny in a perverse sort of way. :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> What? How dare you insult witches! I just may start getting offended
> 
> ;-)


I have nothing against good witches or Wicca. It's phoneys like the crazy "pair" who I can't abide. I doubt you are one of them. You are too intelligent for the crap they believe. :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

maysmom said:


> If you mean the Jolly Green Giant...seems he's missing vital parts of his anatomy...


Nope--he just carries them in his arms.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Guess the smaller they get, the easier they are to hide...


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

maysmom said:


> If you mean the Jolly Green Giant...seems he's missing vital parts of his anatomy...


I think she stole him from the Valley in Minnesota. She probably hates men and took it out on the poor giant or maybe it is how she sees herself, a eunuch. That may explain a few things. :hunf:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nope--he just carries them in his arms.


I like my theory better, Susan. I have seen the giant several times and he was all man until someone "fixed" him.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> No, even if the parents made the kidneys fail, whether through illness passed on by the parents or by a genetic condition, the parents are not legally required to give a kidney.


If the parents did something to make them fail, and knew it might happen because of their actions then yes.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

You all are disgusting ands delusional.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If the parents did something to make them fail, and knew it might happen because of their actions then yes.


Okay, I asked my daughter who is an attorney the original question and mentioned your responses. Legally, the answer is absolutely not. Even if they procreated knowing that their genes would cause a child to have an organ failure the answer is still a big fat NO. A person, for any reason, cannot be required to give up a part of their body. Now, once you graduate from law school and pass the bar in Nebrasky, you can try to find a different answer.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The Libs are telling the Christians what/how/when to believe/in their opinions/always.
> 
> They won't answer a single, simple question nor speak the truth.
> 
> ...


Guess what, dear? There is such a thing as a Christian "Lib." There are plenty of progressive-thinking people who are also Christian. And if you were to act as Jesus did, you would even be a progressive, just like Jesus. Even a socialist!!!
By the way, calling someone a "lib" the way you do IS name-calling, dear. So there are some good Christians who resort quite frequently to name-calling.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> Okay, I asked my daughter who is an attorney the original question and mentioned your responses. Legally, the answer is absolutely not. Even if they procreated knowing that their genes would cause a child to have an organ failure the answer is still a big fat NO. A person, for any reason, cannot be required to give up a part of their body. Now, once you graduate from law school and pass the bar in Nebrasky, you can try to find a different answer.


I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.

When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.

If you all get through this by beliveing that then good luck, but many who abort come to believe otherwise and it tears them apart. Yea it may be hard and what you may not want at the time but I still think that if you can get past thinking that then you may come to believe that having the child is the best thing that ever happened to you.
Haven't you ever thought of something that way and maybe years down the road you remember it way different than it turned out to be?? Haven't you ever heard anyone way "at the time I thought it was the end of the world but it turned out to be the best thing." ?
Preganacy is not the scoourge of a woman's life. It is not all that dangerous. No one can say how dangerous an abortion is because the doctors are not required to report those facts.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Guess what, dear? There is such a thing as a Christian "Lib." There are plenty of progressive-thinking people who are also Christian. And if you were to act as Jesus did, you would even be a progressive, just like Jesus. Even a socialist!!!
> By the way, calling someone a "lib" the way you do IS name-calling, dear. So there are some good Christians who resort quite frequently to name-calling.


I do not believe any Christian would uphold the Liberal notion of abortion. I think they may think they would be pardoned but I think they would think it is a sin.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, silly, me. We all know Huck was only slamming Michelle Bachmann because she hates Michelle as much as you do.
> 
> Besides, what does it matter if Cheeky/Vocal Lisa's Congressmen is Erik Paulsen or Keith Ellison, etc. We all know it is someone elected to serve Minnesota and certainly not Sandra Flake.
> 
> ...


Because you are so backwards a fool I will explain to you the obvious as you pretend to do for others (we are still waiting for you to get one thing correct and fact based vs the loose marbles rolling around under your "wig hat"). Patty was referring to state congressmen vs U.S. congressmen. You don't seem to grasp that their is a big difference. I wonder if you even know who represents you on the different governmental levels? I doubt it. You just like to slap your gums together. You sure are desperate for attention aren't you. Sad, really. :?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I do not believe any Christian would uphold the Liberal notion of abortion. I think they may think they would be pardoned but I think they would think it is a sin.


And do Christians think it's a sin to deny welfare or food stamps or free health care or food or shelter or unemployment insurance to needy people?
Do they think it's a sin to deny people their right to vote or make it difficult for them to vote?
Do they think it's a sin to gerrymander districts to skew elections?
Do they think it's a sin to hate (the president)?
Do they think it's a sin to start wars?
Do they think it's a sin to accept gifts and bribes while in public service?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
> And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.
> 
> When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.
> ...


You can think and feel whatever way makes you feel better about a postion that aids legislators in making it more and more difficult for women to have a legal medical procedure that would help her avoid a situation that she doesn't want to be in; that would be a situation that is none of anyone else's business. 
Two women died last month in Massachusetts in childbirth, so do some reasearch. I think you will find it is not so safe as you would like to think. 
That isn't really the point, though. 
The point is that it is legal for a woman to choose when and how and with whom she wants to have a child. 
We have child abuse and child murders every day of the week. Just maybe we would have less if it were easier for women to afford and procure an abortion.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
> And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.
> 
> When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.
> ...


If you think that is snarky, buckle your seatbelt lady, I haven't even begun to get snarky yet.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And do Christians think it's a sin to deny welfare or food stamps or free health care or food or shelter or unemployment insurance to needy people?
> Do they think it's a sin to deny people their right to vote or make it difficult for them to vote?
> Do they think it's a sin to gerrymander districts to skew elections?
> Do they think it's a sin to hate (the president)?
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And do Christians think it's a sin to deny welfare or food stamps or free health care or food or shelter or unemployment insurance to needy people?
> Do they think it's a sin to deny people their right to vote or make it difficult for them to vote?
> Do they think it's a sin to gerrymander districts to skew elections?
> Do they think it's a sin to hate (the president)?
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> If you think that is snarky, buckle your seatbelt lady, I haven't even begun to get snarky yet.


I am waiting Cindy. It's amazing how Sometimes knows how everyone else feels when she can really only speak for herself and that is just her opinion and nothing more. Does she really think women are going to come out here and share their own personal stories of abortions, miscarriages etc. ? She seems to be a very sheltered and naive person but that is also just my opinion. Those on the right are always so quick to "understand" everything when they usually have very little or no personal life experience at all but they are never shy to tell all others how they should lead their lives and what is and isn't acceptable to G-d. Funny isn't it?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I am waiting Cindy. It's amazing how Sometimes knows how everyone else feels when she can really only speak for herself and that is just her opinion and nothing more. Does she really think women are going to come out here and share their own personal stories of abortions, miscarriages etc. ? She seems to be a very sheltered and naive person but that is also just my opinion. Those on the right are always so quick to "understand" everything when they usually have very little or no personal life experience at all but they are never shy to tell all others how they should lead their lives and what is and isn't acceptable to G-d. Funny isn't it?


Nothing surprises me from them. Their "men" tell them what to do, when to do it etc. Back to the 1800's!!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
> And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.
> 
> When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.
> ...


Thanks for the admission to the reading error. Not many would admit that.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> Nothing surprises me from them. Their "men" tell them what to do, when to do it etc. Back to the 1800's!!!


If they really had to go back in time I doubt that they would really like it much at all. I don't think people were any better or worse than they are now. Only difference today is the immediacy of the media and we hear and see much more that used to be so easily hidden from the public. JMO


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I like my theory better, Susan. I have seen the giant several times and he was all man until someone "fixed" him.


Yup, that was one honkin' huge "pee pod" he had!!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> No, even if the parents made the kidneys fail, whether through illness passed on by the parents or by a genetic condition, the parents are not legally required to give a kidney.


Then it's clear to me. If a parent is not required by law to keep a living, breathing child alive by giving up part of his/her body, why should she be required by law to do that for a potential child? But, as we've seen, the actual, post-birth children are unimportant to the anti-choice group.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> If they really had to go back in time I doubt that they would really like it much at all. I don't think people were any better or worse than they are now. Only difference today is the immediacy of the media and we hear and see much more that used to be so easily hidden from the public. JMO


I'll tell you one thing that would be different, there wouldn't be rooms and cabinets and rooms and closets and bins and rooms and drawers and armoires and more rooms full of stash for the ordinary person.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> You are probably correct, Purl. It reminds me of Big Bang and "Needy Baby, Greedy Baby". The pair of them will go to any lengths for attention, anybody look at me and what a big ass I am making of myself! fits both. Skipping over them is the best thing to do but there are those times when I just want to be amused and sometimes they are funny in a perverse sort of way. :twisted: :twisted:


Well, we each have our own idea of fun. Enjoy, Cheeky.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nope--he just carries them in his arms.


Snort. I was drinking tea. Now I'm changing my clothes.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> If you think that is snarky, buckle your seatbelt lady, I haven't even begun to get snarky yet.


Cindy S
applause to you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Thanks for the admission to the reading error. Not many would admit that.


But, of course, not many would go on to lecture us on right and wrong after making that error.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You can think and feel whatever way makes you feel better about a postion that aids legislators in making it more and more difficult for women to have a legal medical procedure that would help her avoid a situation that she doesn't want to be in; that would be a situation that is none of anyone else's business.
> Two women died last month in Massachusetts in childbirth, so do some reasearch. I think you will find it is not so safe as you would like to think.
> That isn't really the point, though.
> The point is that it is legal for a woman to choose when and how and with whom she wants to have a child.
> We have child abuse and child murders every day of the week. Just maybe we would have less if it were easier for women to afford and procure an abortion.


I guess you would just rather they were killed ahead of time. Then you wouldn't have to think of it as murder even tho it is.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And do Christians think it's a sin to deny welfare or food stamps or free health care or food or shelter or unemployment insurance to needy people?
> Do they think it's a sin to deny people their right to vote or make it difficult for them to vote?
> Do they think it's a sin to gerrymander districts to skew elections?
> Do they think it's a sin to hate (the president)?
> ...


Answer for yourself....it is eveident all of you have all the answers......just appoint yourselves judge jury and executioner. Be done with it.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> If you think that is snarky, buckle your seatbelt lady, I haven't even begun to get snarky yet.


Oh boy shaking in my boots!? Ha! Big deal. It takes nothing to be mean and nasty, someting else to remain calm and debate it like an adult....................................guess you can't handle it. Just try for once to be a decent person with ideas to debate and you might, just might, get someone to see things your way. You will never do it this way.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I guess you would just rather they were killed ahead of time. Then you wouldn't have to think of it as murder even tho it is.


Yes, yes I would.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh boy shaking in my boots!? Ha! Big deal. It takes nothing to be mean and nasty, someting else to remain calm and debate it like an adult....................................guess you can't handle it. Just try for once to be a decent person with ideas to debate and you might, just might, get someone to see things your way. You will never do it this way.


Take your own advise.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
> And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.


I think even you would admit to being a giver as well as a receiver of snark (and may I point out, since you're such a lover of correct spelling, that "addition" has only one t?).

As to those dreadful parents, they certainly are guilty of child abuse, but I think cutting out a part of one's body would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. You could probably petition lawmakers to enact such a law, but I doubt you'd get anywhere.



> When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.


What makes you think anyone does want to "kill the child"? For most women, this is a very hard decision to make, it's not something they do on a whim, and it shows a total lack of understanding of people that you describe it as such.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh boy shaking in my boots!? Ha! Big deal. It takes nothing to be mean and nasty, someting else to remain calm and debate it like an adult....................................guess you can't handle it. Just try for once to be a decent person with ideas to debate and you might, just might, get someone to see things your way. You will never do it this way.


You seem to forget we have all been here while you called people crazy. You do understand that delusional is nuts, right?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I do not believe any Christian would uphold the Liberal notion of abortion. I think they may think they would be pardoned but I think they would think it is a sin.


Many Christians have had abortions themselves as well as Republican Christians. Wow, you are blind if you think abortion is only performed on Liberals.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Take your own advise.


I have, Bratty.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Many Christians have had abortions themselves as well as Republican Christians. Wow, you are blind if you think abortion is only performed on Liberals.


Doesn't matter to me. But I still think they regaurd it as a sin.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I do not believe any Christian would uphold the Liberal notion of abortion. I think they may think they would be pardoned but I think they would think it is a sin.


There's big difference between allowing other women the choice of terminating a pregnancy and having an abortion yourself. Plenty of women, Christian or otherwise, would not have an abortion themselves but recognize that it's not up to them to tell other women what to do. I don't think you understand what "pro-choice" means.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You seem to forget we have all been here while you called people crazy. You do understand that delusional is nuts, right?


You are just as delusional as you think I am. I have stopped the name calling for the most part. I think you coould too! I have never called anyone crazy.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead. Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You are just as delusional as you think I am. I have stopped the name calling for the most part. I think you coould too! I have never called anyone crazy.


You called someone delustional at least twice on this very thread.

Look it up, please. You really shouldn't use words if you have no idea of the definition.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I'll tell you one thing that would be different, there wouldn't be rooms and cabinets and rooms and closets and bins and rooms and drawers and armoires and more rooms full of stash for the ordinary person.


I would go for something along the lines of refrigerators and washing machines. I think they had rooms and furniture even in the 18th century. And sheep, so they could keep the stash on the hoof.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Answer for yourself....it is eveident all of you have all the answers......just appoint yourselves judge jury and executioner. Be done with it.


Couldn't answer her question honestly, could you?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Oh boy shaking in my boots!? Ha! Big deal. It takes nothing to be mean and nasty, someting else to remain calm and debate it like an adult....................................guess you can't handle it. Just try for once to be a decent person with ideas to debate and you might, just might, get someone to see things your way. You will never do it this way.


Waitaminnit! Are you implying you've been calm and adult and Cindy hasn't?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> At 8pm I'll be leaving to put my feet up, lift a nice Cab, turn on the Olympics, pick up my WIP, and spend the evening with HubbaHubba. So, you have about 45 minutes to rail into me...that is if you intend that I read your insults tonight!


You are very wrong if you think any one of us here give a crap about your evening.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Okay Dorothy, you need to heal from your concussion,wake up Obamaville/OZ is a nightmare and you know 'because there is no place like home'


LTL, you have lost your mind. I knew you were close, but it is obvious today that you have gone berzerkers. 
Nobody's laughing dear.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> After what you did to her, she owes you NOTHING.


Ah, this is rich Cheeky Blighter, particularly because Gerslay did nothing to Janet and owes nothing to Janet, but you did something to Gerslay that was corrected by Admin because what you did isn't allowed.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Good Morning to you, Creepy.
> 
> Still hearing voices in your head I see.


No, it's Cheeky Blighter, not to be confused with a person by any other name.

Thank goodness I cannot hear your voice across a KP thread.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> What is it about these RWrs that they have SUCH a hard time figuring out the BB tags here on the board.
> 
> EVERYONE makes a mistake here and there with it... but with them it's CONSTANT.
> 
> ...


Oh, no! Then you missed a very important post. Here it is, I've saved you the trouble of wading through so many posts:

"No need to edit ANY of my posts, because Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa are one and the same. You know it and we all have known it."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Don't forget the real issue:


Excellent message Gerslay!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Who the heck calls their husband "hubbahubba"?


What did you call yours?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> This woman is really cracking me up. How naive is she?
> Does she think that KPG's first name is Knit?
> LOL, or that crazy is announcing that she is?


I don't think Vocal Lisa's name is Lisa, do you? In fact, I know it isn't. Don't you?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Can any of you actually post without this kind of attack?


Never, Sometimes, they never can unless speaking to one another. Even then, you can read how they imploded each time that Cheeky Blighter/Vocal Lisa began threads exclusive to the Progressives and folks on the Left. Every group failed. Read all about it on KP.

P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Patty KPG has everything half ass backwards as we have all known about her from day one. Don't tell KPG that she hasn't a clue as to what office Bachmann held or she would know that she didn't represent me or Lisa ever and I thank God she never did. Does KPG not know what Bachmann is or is not doing these days? Silly me, of course she doesn't have a clue. I am flattered that she believes that Lisa and I are one and the same. Lisa expresses herself so eloquently but I must admit I am a better dancer but you already know that too, Patty. I must admit I am only slightly better than you and that is why I always ask you to be my partner. I can hardly wait to see the spectacle of KPG falling and hopefully she will land way back in the swamp that she crawled out of and never ever return to KP. I hope she takes the Jolly Green Giant with her when she goes. I guess Gersly or whatever she calls herself enjoyed my photo gallery as she paid me the highest compliment by imitating me with her own pictures. Thank you, I accept your compliment. I think when dealing with the right it is easier for them to understand pictures as they don't have a good grasp of the spoken word. :-D


Yawn. You're the same old Vocal self I see. Why is it your sole purpose in life to post ugliness to insult others? Don't you have anything nice to post or express? Try it, it will lighten your mood and heart.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl we are doing a marvelously well. Gersley and KPG have both totally lost any sense of decorum they may once have possessed. Maybe the problem is their demons have finally taken over total control of their souls and they both are zombies. I don't know if they need an exorcism or a stake through their blackened hearts. Ding dong the witches are dead. Sing it HI sing it LOW ding dong the wicked old witches are dead.  Is that sulphur and brimstone I smell? Yup, Satan has come to claim two of his less remarkable minions. Adios, sayonara and bye bye!


You are sick.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> All of you are disgusting.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> VocalLisa was demonstrating how easy it is for someone with smarts to get information on you even if they don't know your real name. It was the psycho's info she posted (but it's been disappeared).


Most of us know VocalLisa's real name and don't care. VocalLisa was the one to post private info about another KP member.

At least attribute the term "psycho" you used to the correct person.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

I think all you people are not able to do anything as an adult. I'll let you continue your hateful ways. I never said I would legislate actually making someone give anyone else a body part. I think it might be right but can't be legislated. I have tried to be a better debater with you tonight but you won't allow it. I am done with trying to have a conversation with you about this. You may think you have won but I have just had enough of you. I can't continue to talk to people who only have bad things to say about everyone.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> As for KPG, I have stopped reading her messages entirely - just scroll past them at high speed - so I can't speak about her.


 but you will and just did.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I do not believe any Christian would uphold the Liberal notion of abortion. I think they may think they would be pardoned but I think they would think it is a sin.


Don't be fooled by Alcameron, she isn't a Christian but she is a Liberal. She is just trying to incite you and others.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I think all you people are not able to do anything as an adult. I'll let you continue your hateful ways. I never said I would legislate actually making someone give anyone else a body part. I think it might be right but can't be legislated. I have tried to be a better debater with you tonight but you won't allow it. I am done with trying to have a conversation with you about this. You may think you have won but I have just had enough of you. I can't continue to talk to people who only have bad things to say about everyone.


Please don't stop posting on the threads because of those who cannot speak politely to others. There are many who are interested in your comments, me included.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good question.



Janet Cooke said:


> Nope, can you stay away from a thread where you say nothing relevent?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ah, this is rich Cheeky Blighter, particularly because Gerslay did nothing to Janet and owes nothing to Janet, but you did something to Gerslay that was corrected by Admin because what you did isn't allowed.


You are certifiable. I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Once again, I am Cheeky Blighter and no one else. I am flattered you are so fascinated by me but your obsession borders on a mental illness. I did nothing to Gersley. Did you? Perhaps you now think I am one of your multiples? Get a life where somebody cares about your rants. :lol:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, it's Cheeky Blighter, not to be confused with a person by any other name.
> 
> Thank goodness I cannot hear your voice across a KP thread.


Seriously, you are need of an intervention. Maybe you and your other personalities can get a group rate. :lol:


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, no! Then you missed a very important post. Here it is, I've saved you the trouble of wading through so many posts:
> 
> "No need to edit ANY of my posts, because Cheeky Blighter and Vocal Lisa are one and the same. You know it and we all have known it."


Keep listening to the little voices in your head. You are the only one suffering from this strange delusion that no one but you suffers from. Get yourself checked out.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't think Vocal Lisa's name is Lisa, do you? In fact, I know it isn't. Don't you?


Why not Lisa? Mine is Cheeky. We all know what your's is too.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Never, Sometimes, they never can unless speaking to one another. Even then, you can read how they imploded each time that Cheeky Blighter/Vocal Lisa began threads exclusive to the Progressives and folks on the Left. Every group failed. Read all about it on KP.
> 
> P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!


What sick thrill do you get out of continually bringing up my previously used names on KP? Nobody cares about it but once again your obsession is not normal and you need help from a professional. The only person who looks dumb is you and you don't even get it. I and my friends could care less what you think about anything. Where did all your "friends" disappear to anyway? Must have tired of trying to save your sinking ship, huh?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You are just as delusional as you think I am. I have stopped the name calling for the most part. I think you coould too! I have never called anyone crazy.


No, only stooooooped, or however you spelled it. And that was today, so it's probably been about 2 hours that you've stopped name calling. See you tomorrow.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Never, Sometimes, they never can unless speaking to one another. Even then, you can read how they imploded each time that Cheeky Blighter/Vocal Lisa began threads exclusive to the Progressives and folks on the Left. Every group failed. Read all about it on KP.
> 
> P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!


We haven't failed. You are the failure. Our threads are going along just fine. Why don't you ever start a thread? I think you know how long it would last and you would look even more foolish than you do know. You make it so easy. You are your own worst enemy. Once again your obsessions are very creepy and you have lost your grasp on reality.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yawn. You're the same old Vocal self I see. Why is it your sole purpose in life to post ugliness to insult others? Don't you have anything nice to post or express? Try it, it will lighten your mood and heart.


Yawn is right. You are a disgusting, pathetic, self absorbed bore. You are the one who is ugly. What do you do if not insult? That's all you do. Read your own posts. I admit I do. You had better be concerned about your own mood and your own heart and more importantly your wicked soul. You have said more disgusting and hurtful disturbing things to so many people out here that I can't begin to hold a candle to you for nastiness. I have nothing to prove to you because you mean nothing to me.
Now I will say to you what you have said to me so many times in the past. Do not pay any attention to me and do not call me by anyone else's name. I am only one person and that is Cheeky Blighter. Satan get thee behind me. Yes, she is gone.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's like the malware she spreads.



Cheeky Blighter said:


> Keep listening to the little voices in your head. You are the only one suffering from this strange delusion that no one but you suffers from. Get yourself checked out.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You may want to check out "BB" (Brian Boitano) and "What do you do?" Later.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

alcameron said:


> And do Christians think it's a sin to deny welfare or food stamps or free health care or food or shelter or unemployment insurance to needy people?
> Do they think it's a sin to deny people their right to vote or make it difficult for them to vote?
> Do they think it's a sin to gerrymander districts to skew elections?
> Do they think it's a sin to hate (the president)?
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Religion is absolute and belongs to each individual. Politics is relative and the way the government is run at all levels. That is why I am pro-Life and vote pro-choice. That's Life, capital L, absolute, and choice, small c, relative.
Someone asked about parents having to give up body parts for their children. I have relatives who are O+ and whose daughter is O-, and other relatives who are B+ and have children who are B-. Those individuals couldn't even donate blood to their own children if the kid needed so much as blood, let alone anything else. (On the other hand, those children could donate blood to their parents, if necessary...)


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

KPG keeps talking about us imploding. Does she have any idea what she is lying about this time? We are all here and all good friends. What's her problem?
Oh nevermind. There are too many to list.
Cheeky and I had some words in the past, but that's where everything was left, in the past. Doesn't it say somewhere in her bible that forgiveness is a virtue?
I doubt she's ever opened her bible once.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are sick.


Projecting your traits on other people again, KPG?
You really need to stop that. You look very disturbed.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> We haven't failed. You are the failure. Our threads are going along just fine. Why don't you ever start a thread? I think you know how long it would last and you would look even more foolish than you do know. You make it so easy. You are your own worst enemy. Once again your obsessions are very creepy and you have lost your grasp on reality.


Totally agree Cheeky. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If the parents did something to make them fail, and knew it might happen because of their actions then yes.


No, and it makes no sense either. To donate a kidney they need to match the children on more than DNA. The parents may have different blood types, or they may not match up on other tests. It would make absolutely no sense to require someone to donate a body part that would be rejected anyway. That is not even considering that some cultures and religions don't believe in donating or accepting donated body parts. Requiring something like that would encroach on their freedom of religion.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I read it as should it be required..I misread the question . But I never said anything about an inherted disease. I only spoke of an action by the parents (after the birth) to the child. That is what I was referring to. It should be legal to make them do it.
> And in addtition I get the snarky answer too.
> 
> When a person has sex, and that results in a pregnancy, I am not sure why anyone would want to kill the child. I maintain it is not just a bunch of cells to be disposed of on a whim. Maybe people don't think of it like that, but I have seen reference to the belief that it is only cells. I would not be able to live with myself if I had sone that to any person. You all maintain it isn't a person but I do maintain it is.
> ...


Pregnancy isn't dangerous or "all that dangerous"? I don't know you, so I will ask politely, do you have a medical degree or nursing degree? Pregnancy always has significant risks, the birth itself being one. I know of many women who have died from a pregnancy related disease or complication. I know even more who had severe and long lasting issues during the pregnancy and some that even had issues after that were caused by the pregnancy. I for one was hospitalized during my first pregnancy and in and out of the hospital for treatment. My second pregnancy I almost died. Literally. I was hours away from death and the doctors wrote for me to be admitted to ICU.

Of all the arguments against choice surrounding abortion the "pregnancy isn't all that dangerous" would be laughable if it wasn't so deadly serious.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I'll tell you one thing that would be different, there wouldn't be rooms and cabinets and rooms and closets and bins and rooms and drawers and armoires and more rooms full of stash for the ordinary person.


And they'd spin their stash by themselves instead of a fun trip to the store.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> How true! Everyone knows who speaks the truth and who posts propaganda and lies.
> 
> No Liberal refuted or attempted to refute my post about the disgusting initial comments regarding the Santorum family.
> 
> ...


*TRUTH IN EVERY WORD. IT'S WORTH RE-READING AT LEAST A FEW TIMES MORE. WELL DONE, KPG.* :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Hiya, Blighter!

One of KPG's friends is still on board. Miss me? Doesn't matter.

KPG, you're doing just fine. Kudos, Kiddo. Know what? She named herself rather accurately, didn't she? I mean, "Blighter" and all. . . I'll not speak of her self-designated adjective. Your own Ship of State is not sinking at all. Those on the other side, however, are busily rearranging deck chairs on a cruise liner that is rapidly going down. You can be sure of that.



Cheeky Blighter said:


> Where did all your "friends" disappear to anyway? Must have tired of trying to save your sinking ship, huh?


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

The following article truthfully explains the differences between Christianity and Islam, in that the former is based on love, peace and harmony while the latter is founded and maintained on fear, forced obedience and human treachery.

*Placed here for the benefit of those who attacked me for my stance re: the Islamic faith. Dare to read it?*

*The Nazarene and the Prophet*

By Glenn Fairman
It should not seem surprising that as the curtain begins to close on the History of Men, that two great universal systems of apprehending the Divine have commanded center stage: Christianity and Islam. Although both posit their ends in the worship of the One God, when one scratches beneath the surface, the stark differences become manifest. One need only look to the personalities that are held out as templates for their acolytes to emulate. Jesus, the humble and meek, (yet possessing the power to create and dissolve the material universe), suffers unto death the penalties that man has been so deserving of -- sacrificially performing that magnanimous act of love that reverberates across the Universe. He calls us to forsake our carnal lives -- not as an empty act of nihilism, but as a means to shed our hatreds, pettiness, and the worm of resentment and pride that gnaws at our unregenerate cores. Jesus commands that we renounce every vestige of the world that would war with all things emergent from the light. In Christ, and in the fullness of his love, we are the transformed sons and daughters ransomed back from the folly of our desire to flee and disconnect -- reveling in that unruled passion to be the final arbiter of our own faltering trajectories.

And in the Prophet we have the antithesis of the Christ. Mohammad stands as the great archetype of every Muslim. He is the warrior, the sublimator -- the fanatic incarnate who draws the line: "submit, convert or perish." Islam reinforces human distinction, elevates human pride and normalizes the earthly and vicious. All is permitted in waging the grand jihad that will inexorably lead to the submission of the earth under the monolithic law of a terrible and distant god -- a deity whose cold hand and dark gaze inject an anxiety and terror into every believer. Mohammad can murder. He can engage in rape and theft. He views women as chattel and children as his playthings. He can engage in treachery and genocide for the sake of his dark vision of the lord god. Christ paved the way for flesh to be made spirit, for rebels to become children and heirs to His kingdom. Mohammad promises a voluptuary paradise of sensual delight -- the Celestial Whorehouse of God for unquestioning slaves who enact his bidding -- men who unquestioningly shed human blood in the fearful name of their exacting and vengeful lord.

So many centuries hence, we can discern in our matured civilizations the ripened fruit of these two men. Indeed, it seems as if the West, which is wildly intent upon shedding the Nazarene's ethos, is centrifugally spinning into spiritual darkness, while Mohammad's maddened distortion of orthodox fire and wreckage is ascending long past the point of no return. From the Christian ethos, the Logos of ordered architectonic genius has permeated our understanding of causality and rationality. Christianity has given us science, opened our eyes to the existence of transcendent truth, kindled our knowledge of man's worth in the eyes of God, and in the final reckoning, upended the wickedness affirming the lie that one man exists for the sake of another's arbitrary will. The aesthetic of the loving God has uplifted and imbued our poetry, philosophy, and politics with the sublime and ironclad foundations from which we have constructed our interpretation of the Good Life. Moreover, our enlightened positions as sons and daughters of the Most High have shown us that grace and mercy can be reconciled, at least for a time, upon the pillars of liberty, equality, and wisdom.

But it is in the action of affixing its flinty resolve against the spirit of Jerusalem's heritage that Islam-Rising casts its opaque veil over the human heart, just as it unleashes that same savage vigor that lurks so cruelly within the unrestrained children of men. In the Fundamentalist Muslim's worldview, the notions of tolerance, democracy, and political equality are scarcely allowed the honor and authority that the West so foolishly takes for granted, except for that smothered and squalid egalitarianism that languishes at the bottom of a boot. And although slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia a generation ago, it exists now, through the blessing of Koranic legitimacy, in its myriad forms throughout the many prison windows of the Islamic world. In truth, we would be liars if we were to ignore Islam's ancient internal battleground that condemns its silent and subjugated women to the receiving end of its own political/theological mailed fist.

The god of Mohammad remakes nothing, redeems nothing, and loves nothing. He demands obedience through the instrumentalities of blood and divine hatred. As a Capricious Wraith of Unmixed Terror, he cultivates fear in the subjects and slaves who blindly follow his lead through the unwavering Orthodoxy of Despair. But in Christ, we see a revelation of God altogether "other" than we should suspect: Deny your hatreds, place yourself last, shed your pride, love your enemy, and pray for those who wish you evil. And if you must perish for your beliefs, let it be with clean hands and the blessing of Christ's love on your lips. For we are not commanded in service to a devil who demands that the flesh of innocent women and children should be sacrificed by means of a bomb vest to quell a tyrant's ancient bloodlust. It has been said that ye shall know the tree by its fruits. Let us take this wisdom to heart as we labor to plumb the mystery contained within the Character of God.

Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at [email protected] and appears at www.stubbornthings.org.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/02/the_nazarene_and_the_prophet.html at February 11, 2014 - 03:07:08 AM CST


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Perhaps this will help some of you understand that the word "Moslem" is indeed a valid appellation to one who espouses the Islamic faith. The word itself is simply an older version of the word "Muslim." Again, placed here for the benefit of those who preferred attacking me instead of doing their own Wikipedia homework.

*In other words, "toe_MAY_toe" . . . "toe_MAH_toe".*

*Etymology*

See also: Islam#Etymology and meaning
The word muslim (Arabic: مسلم‎, IPA: [ˈmʊslɪm]; English /ˈmʌzlɨm/, /ˈmʊzlɨm/, /ˈmʊslɨm/ or moslem /ˈmɒzləm/, /ˈmɒsləm/[19]) is the participle of the same verb of which islām is the infinitive, based on the triliteral S-L-M "to be whole, intact".[20][21]

Adherents.com. Retrieved 2007-07-03. dictionary.reference.com: muslim /ˈmʌzlɨm/, /ˈmʊzlɨm/, /ˈmʊslɨm/; moslem /ˈmɒzləm/, /ˈmɒsləm/

*Other words for Muslim*

The ordinary word in English is "Muslim". It is sometimes transliterated as "Moslem", which is an older spelling.[23] The word Mosalman (Persian: مسلمان‎, alternatively Mussalman) is a common equivalent for Muslim used in Central Asia.

Burns & Ralph, World Civilizations, 5th ed., p. 371. Entry for lm, p. 2067, Appendix B: Semitic Roots, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000, ISBN 0-618-08230-1. Also known as "infinitive", cf. Burns & Ralph, World Civilizations, 5th ed., p. 371


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> The following article truthfully explains the differences between Christianity and Islam, in that the former is based on love, peace and harmony while the latter is founded and maintained on fear, forced obedience and human treachery.


Interesting read, GrannyGoode--thanks for posting.

Frankly, I see many similarities between mainstream Islam and our fundamentalist (for lack of a better word) Christian groups--it's surprising they don't cooperate more often for the common good. Both disavow a separation of church and state and view men as the undisputed heads of both family and society. In both groups a man has a God-given authority to rule, to the extent that he gives a thumbs' up or down on his wife's use of contraception. He also has the right to mete out physical chastisement to erring family members--the "spare the rod and spoil the child" precept to Christians (not sure how Muslims paraphrase the idea).

And as for the "conversion through peace and love" notion--well, I wouldn't say the Crusaders or Conquistadors held all that firmly to it. I suppose they felt it was fine if the "heathen" could be converted by the use of persuasion and good example--but if that failed then out came the sword and threats of being burned alive. Like many Muslims, fundamentalist Christians feel that the entire world would be better off if all are the same religion--namely, theirs. God meant it to be so, they believe--and they're willing to bring considerable effort to bear in achieving it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Never, Sometimes, they never can unless speaking to one another. Even then, you can read how they imploded each time that Cheeky Blighter/Vocal Lisa began threads exclusive to the Progressives and folks on the Left. Every group failed. Read all about it on KP.
> 
> P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!


"Sometimes, they never can..."? That's right up there with "Neither, I".


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> KPG keeps talking about us imploding. Does she have any idea what she is lying about this time? We are all here and all good friends. What's her problem?
> Oh nevermind. There are too many to list.
> Cheeky and I had some words in the past, but that's where everything was left, in the past. Doesn't it say somewhere in her bible that forgiveness is a virtue?
> I doubt she's ever opened her bible once.


I think her issue is, Bratty Patty, that she just doesn't understand that people can disagree and have that be OK. 
She really ought to try it. 
We, the libs, have misunderstood what another has said; we have disagreed vehemently; we have thought that others went too far and called them on it; and in the end it is all just what it is. After all, nobody agrees about everything.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> And they'd spin their stash by themselves instead of a fun trip to the store.


They probably wouldn't though. 
I think, and this is just my opinion, based on my own fairly sizable stash that it is all about the shopping, America's newest national sport.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Janet Cooke " it is all about the shopping said:


> Well, there went my big secret!!!
> 
> Good morning!!!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> "Sometimes, they never can..."? That's right up there with "Neither, I".


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> "Sometimes, they never can..."? That's right up there with "Neither, I".


It is truly unfortunate you are too stupid to recognize I was directly responding to someone who goes by the name "Sometimes .," and that you also could not recognize the capitalization I used appropriately for her name along with the commas that surrounded her name, indicating a direct address of someone.

I suggest you and your BFF, Poor Purl, who just agreed with you in your stupidity, take lessons in writing and speaking proper English.

Notice, how, once more, I capitalized someone's name and surrounded it with commas in my last sentence above?

Consider this your first free lesson from me and a public service. You're welcome.

Oh, take the beam out of your eye.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting read, GrannyGoode--thanks for posting.
> 
> Frankly, I see many similarities between mainstream Islam and our fundamentalist (for lack of a better word) Christian groups--it's surprising they don't cooperate more often for the common good. Both disavow a separation of church and state and view men as the undisputed heads of both family and society. In both groups a man has a God-given authority to rule, to the extent that he gives a thumbs' up or down on his wife's use of contraception. He also has the right to mete out physical chastisement to erring family members--the "spare the rod and spoil the child" precept to Christians (not sure how Muslims paraphrase the idea).
> 
> And as for the "conversion through peace and love" notion--well, I wouldn't say the Crusaders or Conquistadors held all that firmly to it. I suppose they felt it was fine if the "heathen" could be converted by the use of persuasion and good example--but if that failed then out came the sword and threats of being burned alive. Like many Muslims, fundamentalist Christians feel that the entire world would be better off if all are the same religion--namely, theirs. God meant it to be so, they believe--and they're willing to bring considerable effort to bear in achieving it.


Susan, thanks for this calm piece of informed opinion. I looked up the author of Granny's article, and I don't think I could have held back the snark.

I'm waiting for KC to tell you how angry you are.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do not know where you found your definition of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> We believe in these five :
> 1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
> ...


Yours is a list of beliefs. Susan's is not a definition but a description of attitudes and actions. They can, and unfortunately often due, exist together in the same people.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I do not know where you found your definition of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> We believe in these five :
> 1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
> ...


I have asked several times who among us is a Fundamentalist Christian posting on these threads.

I have not known anyone to come forward and say they were.

Are you stating you are a FC, Joey?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do not know where you found your definition of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> We believe in these five :
> 1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
> ...


True enough, but you also hold very firm ideas about God and religion being inseparable from public life, and about a man's God-given authority to lead both his family and society at large. Islam holds this to be true as well--really, the similarities between the two religions in this area are striking.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> We haven't failed. You are the failure. Our threads are going along just fine. Why don't you ever start a thread? I think you know how long it would last and you would look even more foolish than you do know. You make it so easy. You are your own worst enemy. Once again your obsessions are very creepy and you have lost your grasp on reality.


You did fail, several attempts. I'll post the links so everyone who is interested to learn the truth can see it for themselves.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Susan, thanks for this calm piece of informed opinion. I looked up the author of Granny's article, and I don't think I could have held back the snark.
> 
> I'm waiting for KC to tell you how angry you are.


I wouldn't be surprised, Purl. But I simply couldn't resist commenting. As I said before, it boggles me that devout Christians and Muslims don't get along better. When you look closely they really do want the same thing--namely, a God-centered (their respective God, of course) society.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts wrote:
How true! Everyone knows who speaks the truth and who posts propaganda and lies.

No Liberal refuted or attempted to refute my post about the disgusting initial comments regarding the Santorum family.

So what do the Libs do? They posts lies and BS in an attempt to deflect attention to another topic, any topic, in order to avoid the truth from staring them in the face.

When the truth is forced to the forefront they'll make personal attacks and then post pretty pictures to please their simple minds.

So glaringly obvious and childish. That's precisely when we (you) know you've won. (Don't forget to shout BINGO )

When they are attacking you and trying to defame or embarrass you, you'll know you're correct, on track and have stopped them cold.

Delightful! Thanks for your input Sometimes. You got through to them, and we all know it.

Don't ever expect them to speak the truth or take personal responsibility for their words or actions; that is beneath them and never within them.



GrannyGoode said:


> *TRUTH IN EVERY WORD. IT'S WORTH RE-READING AT LEAST A FEW TIMES MORE. WELL DONE, KPG.* :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Thank you GrannyGoode. The truth always prevails. I appreciate you taking the time to voice your support.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> The following article truthfully explains the differences between Christianity and Islam, in that the former is based on love, peace and harmony while the latter is founded and maintained on fear, forced obedience and human treachery.
> 
> *Placed here for the benefit of those who attacked me for my stance re: the Islamic faith. Dare to read it?*
> 
> ...


Thank you I found this very interesting. There were things you posted about the faith of Islam I did not know. But I do know it is a faith to be feared.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Yes


Add me to that. There is only one God one Jesus and one Holy Spirit.

No matter what one has to say about the Bible it is God inpired words may have changed as each race had a different language. But the words still remain true. If this were not so how could the Bible have servived after 2,000 years.

I believe in the Holy Christian Church God, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit if that means I will be called names and vilify so be it.
I am the Peter of the Bible , I denied him three times and more, yet he forgave me and so like Peter I carry on knowing the prize I seek is not of this earth, but in the presents of him most high.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Being a Christian is not a religion, it is a faith. It is 24/7. Men and women are equal, but God holds the man responsible for his family. Women can be the leaders of the family and the community. Esther is a good example.


Esther got to be leader because she was beautiful. She also was taking a lot of advice from her male cousin.

This is an example of how women have always had to use their looks, together with subterfuge (to hide her Jewishness), to get ahead.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Being a Christian is not a religion, it is a faith. It is 24/7. Men and women are equal, but God holds the man responsible for his family. Women can be the leaders of the family and the community. Esther is a good example.


But I'm sure nothing found in the Koran would contradict that. This from Islam's Women: Jewels of Islam:

"The rules for married life in Islam are clear and in harmony with upright human nature. In consideration of the physiological and psychological make-up of man and woman, both have equal rights and claims on one another, except for one responsibility, that of leadership. This is a matter which is natural in any collective life and which is consistent with the nature of man.

The Quran thus states:

"...And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them, and men are a degree above them." [Noble Quran 2:228]

Such degree is Quiwama (maintenance and protection). This refers to that natural difference between the sexes which entitles the weaker sex to protection. It implies no superiority or advantage before the law. Yet, man's role of leadership in relation to his family does not mean the husband's dictatorship over his wife. Islam emphasizes the importance of taking counsel and mutual agreement in family decisions. "

http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/status_of_women_in_islam.php


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised, Purl. But I simply couldn't resist commenting. As I said before, it boggles me that devout Christians and Muslims don't get along better. When you look closely they really do want the same thing--namely, a God-centered (their respective God, of course) society.


Susan the difference between their faith and mine is I would not kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, nor would I end my life to cause others to go with me to Allah, nor do I know of any Christian man who thinks if he straps a bomb to his body ect. To kill as many people as he can just to prove his faith and expect to recieve seven virgin women in his heaven. His heaven is to me hell.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Susan the difference between their faith and mine is I would not kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, nor would I end my life to cause others to go with me to Allah, nor do I know of any Christian man who thinks if he straps a bomb to his body ect. To kill as many people as he can just to prove his faith and expect to recieve seven virgin women in his heaven. His heaven is to me hell.


One correction: the men expect seventy virgins, not just seven. They will never get a moment's rest after death. It's sad that so many young men think their lives are so cheap that they would kill themselves, but I doubt that their religion expects them to do this; it's more a cultist and a political thing.

Christians have in the past killed people who didn't believe as they did - the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are the best-known examples of this, but not the only ones.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Add me to that. There is only one God one Jesus and one Holy Spirit.
> 
> No matter what one has to say about the Bible it is God inpired words may have changed as each race had a different language. But the words still remain true. If this were not so how could the Bible have servived after 2,000 years.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: Amen Sis!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> We haven't failed. You are the failure. Our threads are going along just fine.


Here are a few threads that I was referring to. I notice that *you* specifically called for some to be locked/ended.

There are probably other threads on KP, I am not aware of nor care to locate.

I know of a group formed by many of the same core Progressive and/or Liberal KP posters on another website (Ravelry) that ended being orphaned within the first hours/days of beginning which is now inactive. However, I'll not link KP readers to another website.

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-88374-1.html

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-94197-1.html

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-233091-1.html

Other on-going threads: 
P.O.V. Liberal (Point of View Liberal)
L.O.L.L. (Ladies of the Liberal Left)


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I think her issue is, Bratty Patty, that she just doesn't understand that people can disagree and have that be OK.
> She really ought to try it.


The issue is *you* not understanding nor trying to understand others' views particularly when they are not your views.

*You* really ought to try it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I do not know where you found your definition of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> We believe in these five :
> 1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
> ...


What the poster wrote was not a manifesto, it was about the behavior displayed. It was right on.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Yes


Thank you for clarifying. I did not know of any until just now.

You have taken a lot of heat from many on these threads for your beliefs and for that I am sorry.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Susan the difference between their faith and mine is I would not kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, nor would I end my life to cause others to go with me to Allah, nor do I know of any Christian man who thinks if he straps a bomb to his body ect. To kill as many people as he can just to prove his faith and expect to recieve seven virgin women in his heaven. His heaven is to me hell.


And neither would most Muslims... and no, Christian men plant bombs and run away. 
Think No. Ireland, think Oklahoma City, think of the Coptic Christians who stabbed and killed innocent taxi drivers in Egypt ( I think it was) 
So, please, stop with the bigotry about a religion you neither understand nor study.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> And neither would most Muslims... and no, Christian men plant bombs and run away.
> Think No. Ireland, think Oklahoma City, think of the Coptic Christians who stabbed and killed innocent taxi drivers in Egypt ( I think it was)
> So, please, stop with the bigotry about a religion you neither understand nor study.


I know some who have a deep faith have caused harm. I know that unless God opens the door to all who say they are Christian can cause harm. But I also know that many with deeper faith have died for their beliefs. 
I am not a bigot, I am not the judge of anyone God is the judge. I am not trying to tell you or anyone how to believe in my faith it is up to God as to whom is right or wrong.

I am just doing what was ask of me by Jesus let you light shine so others may see your faith, do not hide it under a bushel basket.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I know some who have a deep faith have caused harm. I know that unless God opens the door to all who say they are Christian can cause harm. But I also know that many with deeper faith have died for their beliefs.
> I am not a bigot, I am not the judge of anyone God is the judge. I am not trying to tell you or anyone how to believe in my faith it is up to God as to whom is right or wrong.
> 
> I am just doing what was ask of me by Jesus let you light shine so others may see your faith, do not hide it under a bushel basket.


I'm thinkin' that your light isn't shining too brightly when you falsely paint followers of a religion with charges of being less than moral. That's just me, I could be wrong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The only separation of church and state in the constitution was to keep the government out of the Church. It has been reversed in the last 60+ years. Now it is specifically to keep any semblance of Christianity out of anything public. Islam is welcomed in Schools and public buildings. If it was not, why would they build prayer rooms for Muslims?
> 
> I'm off to work, no more time for this conversation.


That's just not true, you are welcome to believe that piece of propaganda, however.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Since this subject came up here, I'm posting the following. Some will no doubt find it funny; others will be saddened by the loss of lives:

*Suicide Bomb Trainer in Iraq Accidentally Blows Up His Class*

By DURAID ADNAN and TIM ARANGO FEB. 10, 2014

BAGHDAD  If there were such a thing, it would probably be rule No. 1 in the teaching manual for instructors of aspiring suicide bombers: Dont give lessons with live explosives.

In what represented a cautionary tale for terrorist teachers, and a cause of dark humor for ordinary Iraqis, a commander at a secluded terrorist training camp north of Baghdad unwittingly used a belt packed with explosives while conducting a demonstration early Monday for a group of militants, killing himself and 21 other members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, army and police officials said.

Iraqi citizens have long been accustomed to daily attacks on public markets, mosques, funerals and even childrens soccer games, so they saw the story of the fumbling militants as a dark  and delicious  kind of poetic justice, especially coming amid a protracted surge of violence led by the terrorist group, including a rise in suicide bombings.

Just last week a suicide bomber struck a popular falafel shop near the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here, killing several people. On Monday evening Raad Hashim, working the counter at a liquor store near the site of the attack, burst out laughing when he heard the news.

This is so funny, Mr. Hashim said. It shows how stupid they are, those dogs and sons of dogs.

More seriously, he said, it also gives me pain, as I remember all the innocent people that were killed here.

This is God showing justice, Mr. Hashim continued. This is God sending a message to the bad people and the criminals in the world, to tell them to stop the injustice and to bring peace. Evil will not win in the end. Its always life that wins over death.

Read the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Since this subject came up here, I'm posting the following. Some will no doubt find it funny; others will be saddened by the loss of lives:
> 
> *Suicide Bomb Trainer in Iraq Accidentally Blows Up His Class*
> 
> ...


It is terribly sad, also pretty easy to understand how those living in a war zone STILL can feel that it is an act of God.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> How do you know? I am and I do none of the things mentioned.


Of course I'm not privy to how you live your personal life, Joey. But I think it's fair to say that you, CB, Yarnie and some others would like to see religion play a much bigger role in Americans' lives. No doubt you believe our country would be a much more pleasant if school children began the day with a prayer and held Christmas pageants instead of "Winter Festivals", if creationism was taught instead of or at least alongside evolution in science class, if it went without saying that every elected official (particularly the President) met your definition of a Christian God-fearing man or woman.

I'm not passing judgement (not this time, anyway) on this wish list, just pointing out that committed Muslims hold an amazingly similar one in their collective hand.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Being a Christian is not a religion, it is a faith. It is 24/7. Men and women are equal, but God holds the man responsible for his family. Women can be the leaders of the family and the community. Esther is a good example.


Was Esther a Christian? I thought she was Jewish.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That was the real reason she had to go. Her hubbahubba is out with his gf but she had to change out of those nasty tights that smell like a litter box.


HubbaHubba is the new black lab puppy.

Janet "Douchebag For a Mouth" Cooke,
I see you've set aside this special time to 
humiliate yourself in public, again!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Was Esther a Christian? I thought she was Jewish.


Esther was Jewish. So was Jesus.

Next question?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was Jewish. So was Jesus.
> 
> Next question?


That being the case ( I do think that was rhetorical as even we, the alleged blasphemers know that, one might wonder why a Christian would hold her up as an example of how Fundamentalist Christians live. 
One might think that a Christian who was both equal to her husband and yet followed his leadership would be cited.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Esther was the queen...about as equal to her man, the king, as any woman in that time could get.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was the queen...about as equal to her man, the king, as any woman in that time could get.


Uh huh, way higher on that ladder of success than a Fundamentalist Christian, that's for sure.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> And neither would most Muslims... and no, Christian men plant bombs and run away.
> Think No. Ireland, think Oklahoma City, think of the Coptic Christians who stabbed and killed innocent taxi drivers in Egypt ( I think it was)
> So, please, stop with the bigotry about a religion you neither understand nor study.


Janet Cooke
THANK YOU and BRAVO.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Was Esther a Christian? I thought she was Jewish.


Rocky1991
correct you are.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Uh huh, way higher on that ladder of success than a Fundamentalist Christian, that's for sure.


Not so...in every Christian marriage the husband serves his queen.

Ephesians 5:25


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Dbl post


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Not so...in every Christian marriage the husband serves his queen.
> 
> Ephesians 5:25


Uh huh, another one of those pick and choose deals.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Gerslay said:
> 
> 
> > BRB...gonna change my avatar...seems you don't like my pretty shoes!
> ...


I see now that it was pointed out that you were hiding your face that you put it up again.

You are so easily manipulated, it's sad.











Gerslay said:


> There now...is that better?


OH, Hilariously so.

We were PMing behind your back taking bets on how quickly I could manipulate you into putting that mug back up as your avatar.

You truly are a constant source of amusement for us.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> At 8pm I'll be leaving to put my feet up, lift a nice Cab, turn on the Olympics, pick up my WIP, and spend the evening with HubbaHubba. So, you have about 45 minutes to rail into me...that is if you intend that I read your insults tonight!










Begging for attention again!


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The issue is *you* not understanding nor trying to understand others' views particularly when they are not your views.
> 
> *You* really ought to try it.


I understand you have views, I just don't understand your views. Simple as that.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You are delusional


Engaging in psychological projection again I see:

_
Psychological projection: A defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or *her own unacceptable attributes* by ascribing them to others. For example, a person who is delusional will accuse other people of being delusional._

BTW, repetitive speech is a symptom of a serious mental disease.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> I understand you have views, I just don't understand your views. Simple as that.


knitpresentgifts wrote:
The issue is you not understanding nor trying to understand others' views particularly when they are not your views.

You really ought to try it.
*****************************************
Hell, not only do I not understand her views. I can't make any sense of her sentence. 
"nor trying to understand others' views ...when they are not your views"? 
It seems to me if they were our views or similar to our views (any of our views) there would be no need to *try* to understand them.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lets not forget thse "Christian" terrorists that have bombed abortion clinics, murderd doctors and maimed women who went to them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Lets not forget thse "Christian terrorists that have bombed abortion clinics, murderd doctors and maimed women who went to them.


Uh huh, more who didn't have the cajones to go with their victims.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yawn. You're the same old Vocal self I see. Why is it your sole purpose in life to post ugliness to insult others? Don't you have anything nice to post or express? Try it, it will lighten your mood and heart.


Take your own advice. You are no better.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> knitpresentgifts wrote:
> The issue is you not understanding nor trying to understand others' views particularly when they are not your views.
> 
> You really ought to try it.
> ...


I understand her views just fine, in that they are the views of someone who's grossly misinformed and/or of unsound mind and who would have to be a relatively bad person to hold many of them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Interesting discussion.



susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting read, GrannyGoode--thanks for posting.
> 
> Frankly, I see many similarities between mainstream Islam and our fundamentalist (for lack of a better word) Christian groups--it's surprising they don't cooperate more often for the common good. Both disavow a separation of church and state and view men as the undisputed heads of both family and society. In both groups a man has a God-given authority to rule, to the extent that he gives a thumbs' up or down on his wife's use of contraception. He also has the right to mete out physical chastisement to erring family members--the "spare the rod and spoil the child" precept to Christians (not sure how Muslims paraphrase the idea).
> 
> And as for the "conversion through peace and love" notion--well, I wouldn't say the Crusaders or Conquistadors held all that firmly to it. I suppose they felt it was fine if the "heathen" could be converted by the use of persuasion and good example--but if that failed then out came the sword and threats of being burned alive. Like many Muslims, fundamentalist Christians feel that the entire world would be better off if all are the same religion--namely, theirs. God meant it to be so, they believe--and they're willing to bring considerable effort to bear in achieving it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, she put up pictures of faceless entities that could have been men in drag.


LOL. Could have been.

And that picture was only put up to help her understand the old adage, "don't throw rocks at glass houses".

She purposely tried to incite board members here to harm a specific person on this board.

She needed to know that if she engages in such threatening behavior "turn around is fair play.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

"too stupid...." ignore more name calling and no substance.



knitpresentgifts said:


> It is truly unfortunate you are too stupid to recognize I was directly responding to someone who goes by the name "Sometimes .," and that you also could not recognize the capitalization I used appropriately for her name along with the commas that surrounded her name, indicating a direct address of someone.
> 
> I suggest you and your BFF, Poor Purl, who just agreed with you in your stupidity, take lessons in writing and speaking proper English.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We're still here stronger than ever. Bother you much?



knitpresentgifts said:


> You did fail, several attempts. I'll post the links so everyone who is interested to learn the truth can see it for themselves.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nobody gives a hairy rat's butt what her name is. She is smart, she is funny, and she is on the right side politically.
> What world are you living in?


I think the poor thing doesn't understand the concept of sock doppelgangers.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Extreme pro-life advocates have been known to threaten, maim and kill in the name of pro-life. I'm not saying that you would do such a thing, just that extreme beliefs can lead to extreme measures.



theyarnlady said:


> Susan the difference between their faith and mine is I would not kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, nor would I end my life to cause others to go with me to Allah, nor do I know of any Christian man who thinks if he straps a bomb to his body ect. To kill as many people as he can just to prove his faith and expect to recieve seven virgin women in his heaven. His heaven is to me hell.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

In the law.



joeysomma said:


> Where are men and women equal?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Not so...in every Christian marriage the husband serves his queen.
> 
> Ephesians 5:25


Except in some "Christian" marriages, they're so obsessed with gay people... it indicates self-loathing latent homosexuality.

So technically if the husband "serves the queen", that pretty much means he's serving himself.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Example of what goes around, comes around?



Poor Purl said:


> Since this subject came up here, I'm posting the following. Some will no doubt find it funny; others will be saddened by the loss of lives:
> 
> *Suicide Bomb Trainer in Iraq Accidentally Blows Up His Class*
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put.



susanmos2000 said:


> Of course I'm not privy to how you live your personal life, Joey. But I think it's fair to say that you, CB, Yarnie and some others would like to see religion play a much bigger role in Americans' lives. No doubt you believe our country would be a much more pleasant if school children began the day with a prayer and held Christmas pageants instead of "Winter Festivals", if creationism was taught instead of or at least alongside evolution in science class, if it went without saying that every elected official (particularly the President) met your definition of a Christian God-fearing man or woman.
> 
> I'm not passing judgement (not this time, anyway) on this wish list, just pointing out that committed Muslims hold an amazingly similar one in their collective hand.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Was Esther a Christian? I thought she was Jewish.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: You know it. They think they own the Bible and everyone in it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

How do you 'know' these things and what is your possible motivation for mentioning it to the world? Threats pure and simple.



Gerslay said:


> HubbaHubba is the new black lab puppy.
> 
> Janet "Douchebag For a Mouth" Cooke,
> I see you've set aside this special time to
> humiliate yourself in public, again!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> We're still here stronger than ever. Bother you much?


She is unaware that Progressive Cafe was a moderated thread and that Admin said we couldn't post in any other threads. Most of us thought that to be unfair. Is she blind? We vacationed together last summer and are planning this summer's escape. Poor thing.She really is confused.
No matter, I don't think anybody is really interested in her "Public service announcements"


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> How do you 'know' these things and what is your possible motivation for mentioning it to the world? Threats pure and simple.


It's easy to see that she is a stalking berzerker with a mouth the Tidy Bowl Man would blush at.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She doesn't serve this public, that's for sure. She's just 'look at me.'



BrattyPatty said:


> She is unaware that Progressive Cafe was a moderated thread and that Admin said we couldn't post in any other threads. Most of us thought that to be unfair. Is she blind? We vacationed together last summer and are planning this summer's escape. Poor thing.She really is confused.
> No matter, I don't think anybody is really interested in her "Pubic service announcements"


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was Jewish. So was Jesus.
> 
> Next question?


So if Jesus was Jewish and from the house of David, why aren't you Jewish also? He was never a Christian, that came well after his death. Kind of bastardized his message.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was Jewish. So was Jesus.
> 
> Next question?


You have professed to be kind, I have not seen that side of you. All I see is a nasty, snarky Christian wannabe. Nothing Jesus like about you.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Not so...in every Christian marriage the husband serves his queen.
> 
> Ephesians 5:25


What about those Christians wives who should be submissive? Is that equal to you?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Lets not forget thse "Christian" terrorists that have bombed abortion clinics, murderd doctors and maimed women who went to them.


They are doing god's work????


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> What about those Christians wives who should be submissive? Is that equal to you?


Oh you know, rocky, that is where the wives want to be and where the husbands want them, that makes it equal; it is especially equal when they both believe in the rule of thumb.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> What about those Christians wives who should be submissive? Is that equal to you?


The world doesn't understand the biblical instructions to the husband and the wife.

The husband and wife are equals and all decisions are made together.
If there is a difference of opinion then the husband as the head of the house gets final say as the tie-breaker.
However his decision is to be made with her needs and wants at the fore, not his own
He is to be sacrificial to his wife to the point of sacrificing his life for her.
Exactly as Jesus did for His bride.

(Does this always happen? No, it doesn't But it is the instruction and it is the goal)

Ephesians 5:25


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> OH, Hilariously so.
> 
> We were PMing behind your back taking bets on how quickly I could manipulate you into putting that mug back up as your avatar.
> 
> You truly are a constant source of amusement for us.


Hardly, VL, I put up the Green Giant as a message to you but you were gone and there was no way the others would get it, so I took it down.

I'm glad you're amused because truthfully, for the most part, I'm smiling and enjoying myself.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> LOL. Could have been.
> 
> And that picture was only put up to help her understand the old adage, "don't throw rocks at glass houses".
> 
> ...


I'm able to do the same to you VL, but quote honestly, the Lord has stayed my hand. But I know you wouldn't like it if your dead mother and aunties were treated so despicably and for such a trivial purpose.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The world doesn't understand the biblical instructions to the husband and the wife.
> 
> The husband and wife are equals and all decisions are made together.
> If there is a difference of opinion then the husband as the head of the house gets final say as the tie-breaker.
> ...


Would that be St. James or LDS?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Would that be St. James or LDS?


No Janet, that would be the Lord's instructions in Ephesians.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> No Janet, that would be the Lord's instructions in Ephesians.


Well, duh, which. You do know that they are dissimilar, right?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Well, duh, which. You do know that they are dissimilar, right?


No I don't know that at all. Why don't you explain it to me!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sounds like more threats.



Gerslay said:


> I'm able to do the same to you VL, but quote honestly, the Lord has stayed my hand. But I know you wouldn't like it if your dead mother and aunties were treated so despicably and for such a trivial purpose.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> Sounds like more threats.


You know its really interesting...you all don't have any trouble perceiving my snarky remarks, but you are unable to perceive my sincere remarks.

I think you have warped perceptions to rationalize your own agendas. What a narrow world you live in.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

fyi Many religious groups have published an accepted (by their faith) version of the bible. They may vary a great deal or very little. You are being asked which version you are referring to. That is the question.



Gerslay said:


> No Janet, that would be the Lord's instructions in Ephesians.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> No I don't know that at all. Why don't you explain it to me!


I think you should take it up in bible study.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't perceive your 'sincere remarks' as sincere. You have not shown yourself to be a trustworthy person. I don't believe what you say.



Gerslay said:


> You know its really interesting...you all don't have any trouble perceiving my snarky remarks, but you are unable to perceive my sincere remarks.
> 
> I think you have warped perceptions to rationalize your own agendas. What a narrow world you live in.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was Jewish. So was Jesus.
> 
> Next question?


Here we go. Questions about our faith from those who complain, loudly and often, they don't want to hear about it. But yet (!) when asked about theirs, refuse to answer. They'd rather complain that we assume everyone should believe as we do, but not tell others why we believe as we do.

I'm certain as I read further, you'll be critiqued for pointing out and cherry-picking a book or verse in the book we use to learn and study about our faith.

We have been told by those who don't understand, that the Old Test is taken over by the New Test (it doesn't) and nothing is to be learned nor followed or discussed from the Old Test.

Then we'll be told we don't tolerate others.

Happens every time...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> fyi Many religious groups have published an accepted (by their faith) version of the bible. They may vary a great deal or very little. You are being asked which version you are referring to. That is the question.


You would think that she might be aware of that as she lists church before her grandchildren as an interest and claims to be interesting [ed, LOL, we know she isn't all that interesting, she drinks wine with her pup all night] in bible study.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> I don't perceive your 'sincere remarks' as sincere. You have not shown yourself to be a trustworthy person. I don't believe what you say.


Spot on, DM, you prove my point.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> You know its really interesting...you all don't have any trouble perceiving my snarky remarks, but you are unable to perceive my sincere remarks.
> 
> I think you have warped perceptions to rationalize your own agendas. What a narrow world you live in.


How does one treat the dead despicably without having access to them?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Spot on, DM, you prove my point.


I think that she made her point. You are scum.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Is that supposed to be a clever retort?



Gerslay said:


> Spot on, DM, you prove my point.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> I don't perceive your 'sincere remarks' as sincere. You have not shown yourself to be a trustworthy person. I don't believe what you say.


Oh so if you don't "perceive' sincere remarks as sincere they aren't? Maybe it is your perceptions are wrong, again or should I say still?

Well many, including myself, find your judgmental comments arrogant. But I am sure that Vocal Lisa will give you her ill informed diagnosis as she sings in Oz


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I think you should take it up in bible study.


I know what versions I read, and study, and they're not the Catholic Duoay nor the Later Day Saints...and I don't have to prove it to you.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do not know where you found your definition of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> We believe in these five :
> 1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture
> ...


Here is a copy of a post I had made on another thread--please correct me if any of my perceptions are wrong--
Having read up rather a lot on "fundamentalism," I'll give some basic tenets. These refer to Christianity, although there are certainly fundamentalist Jewish divisions as well as Islamic ones (Taliban, for one.) Fundamentalists generally believe the following:

1. The husband is the head of the house and makes nearly all
decisions. The wife is his "helpmeet" whose job is to
run the home, bear children (usually many children) and to
homeschool those children. Gender-specific roles are of 
utmost importance, although this is confined to males doing
the "directing" of whatever has to be done.
2. The Bible is taken literally as much as possible. I.e, women 
are not allowed to teach men or to speak in church. Women
are to dress modestly, with most abandoning wearing pants 
for skirts, usually calf-length or longer. (This comes from a
verse forbidding one sex to dress like another.) Many 
fundamentalist women will not wear typical swimsuits, nor
will their female children. Makeup and jewelry are down-
played if not abandoned.
3. Dating is not encouraged. Rather, the practice of courting is
popular, with a young man speaking with the father of the 
young woman for permission to get to know the girl with
marriage in mind. Some courting couples do not "touch"
during this time. Their time together is chaperoned. If the
couple and their parents agree to the marriage, an engage-
ment is announced with the wedding held in usually 4 to 6
months' time. The young man is expected to have a home
ready for his bride. She is not expected to hold an outside
job unless the husband so directs. Their first kiss is usually
at their wedding. The bride's "headship" is handed over from
her father to her husband at the wedding.
4. The church is the main authority for most fundamentalists.
If the pastor and elders suspect wrongdoing, they will 
counsel the family and excommunicate them if they deem
it proper. A few pastors have broken off from their main 
church and formed their own, with some becoming cults.
For some interesting reading, Google the Titus 2 blog of the
Maxwell family. Also, the ATI ministry of Bill Gothard (who
is connected with the Duggar family. One ministry recently
in Christian circles is the Vision Forum, formerly headed by
Doug Phillips. Interesting yet frightening reading, reminiscent 
of the likes of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Pat Robertson,
Jim Jones, etc. And who can forget Warren Jeffs?

--One particularly scary practice connected with fundamental-
ism is the issue of corporal punishment. Michael and Debi
Pearl are (in)famous for advocating hitting children as young 
as 6 months with switches, going up to paddles and plumb-
ing lines. Former child actress Lisa Whelchel wrote a book
called "Creative Corrections" in which she listed several ways
of punishment ranging from hot sauce on the child's tongue 
to handcuffing argumentative siblings together, etc. 
A seemingly unlikely practice within some fundamental 
marriages is "Domestic Discipline," wherein the husband
spanks the wife.

I hope I haven't become too muddled here. There are 
literally hundreds of web sites and blogs that go into far
more detail. Prepare to be surprised and possibly dis-
mayed.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I know what versions I read, and study, and they're not the Catholic Duoay nor the Later Day Saints...and I don't have to prove it to you.


I'll come to your Bible studies. :thumbup:


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> What about those Christians wives who should be submissive? Is that equal to you?


According to the Bible, all wives should be submissive. Doesn't seem equal at all.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I'll come to your Bible studies. :thumbup:


But for the coming storm I'd be at Bible Study right now...how about next week?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I'm able to do the same to you VL, but quote honestly, the Lord has stayed my hand. But I know you wouldn't like it if your dead mother and aunties were treated so despicably and for such a trivial purpose.


Too bad he didn't stay your mouth.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> But for the coming storm I'd be at Bible Study right now...how about next week?


Anytime . I will be there. :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Oh so if you don't "perceive' sincere remarks as sincere they aren't? Maybe it is your perceptions are wrong, again or should I say still?
> 
> Well many, including myself, find your judgmental comments arrogant. But I am sure that Vocal Lisa will give you her ill informed diagnosis as she sings in Oz


Many find your posts absolutely repulsive, LTL. Nobody is laughing yet.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Anytime . I will be there. :thumbup:


She reads the bible with the same mouth that she had called someone here a "d--che bag mouth?" I wouldn't want this maniac in the same state as me!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I think her issue is, Bratty Patty, that she just doesn't understand that people can disagree and have that be OK.
> She really ought to try it.
> We, the libs, have misunderstood what another has said; we have disagreed vehemently; we have thought that others went too far and called them on it; and in the end it is all just what it is. After all, nobody agrees about everything.


Yes, just recently you and I disagreed widely on an issue and we never to nasty. We just decided to respect that we had different opinions. I laugh at the thought that all libs attack each other and tear each other down all the time. :lol:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

maysmom said:


> According to the Bible, all wives should be submissive. Doesn't seem equal at all.


That is exactly what Michele Bachmann says.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> They probably wouldn't though.
> I think, and this is just my opinion, based on my own fairly sizable stash that it is all about the shopping, America's newest national sport.


Yeah I have to agree. I personally hate shopping, and though I may order yarn fr my stash I am flabbergasted at stashes over 500 skeins of yarn. I don't think my grandmother even had a stash that big, because when I mentioned it to my mom she was shocked, and she currently has my late grandmother's stash.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> I understand you have views, I just don't understand your views. Simple as that.


For what purpose did you post this?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> knitpresentgifts wrote:
> The issue is you not understanding nor trying to understand others' views particularly when they are not your views.
> 
> You really ought to try it.
> ...


Get someone to explain that simple sentence to you; like Cindy S who understood.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> We're still here stronger than ever. Bother you much?


You're here on a thread begun by a Fundamentalist Christian who you and your merry band of followers intentionally _try_ to destroy like other threads all begun by those you despise *because* your multiple, exclusive or inclusive, sometimes moderated Liberal/Progressive threads *failed.*

I see no reason for you to brag about that but have at it again.

Guess who is victorious? Bother you much (that answer)?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Susan, thanks for this calm piece of informed opinion. I looked up the author of Granny's article, and I don't think I could have held back the snark.
> 
> I'm waiting for KC to tell you how angry you are.


I've said I grew up in the Christian fundamentalist churches before. Having known Muslim folks (both more liberal and some more conservative.... Although to my knowledge none wore a burka, just the hijab) and my knowledge growing up, thse two are way more similar in their way of expressing their beliefs than they admit, or that most people will admit. I remember Bill Maher not that long ago talking about how Islam is so much ore dangerous because they are militant. I think my husband heard more than he ever wanted to about all the fundamentalist groups that have and encourage militias based on theocratic government (and in opposition to laws) and churches that teach about a literal "army of god", ect.

Most fundamentalist churches give you the "we believe simple truths like x,y,z". But what they don't say off the bat is that they add more as you come in. At first you are all accepted and loved. Them they nicely work in how the Bible says that, "when I was a child I was treated like a child, as I grew I was treated as an adult" (I've also heard, "when .... Child, ate like a child, ect). They used it as a way to put more restrictions in without "adding" to the Bible per se, but just showing you more truths. Then should you not walk the line, or not agree totally then you were shunned. They used the Bible passage that details how if you have a grievance with someone or they are not living correctly you first go to the person, then if they continue you go with another person, then if they persist you approach it as a issue of the church, then if they still don't fall along you shun them. Mind you that in the first few "adult in christ truths" they teach you to eschew the "world" and separate you from worldly support you have. I have even seen it go so far as to separate you from family, like parents. That way when they shun you, you are left totally alone. It's very effective.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> She reads the bible with the same mouth that she had called someone here a "d--che bag mouth?" I wouldn't want this maniac in the same state as me!


You call me out for my mouth but not your own friend for hers? That's no friend , that's a sycophant!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yeah I have to agree. I personally hate shopping, and though I may order yarn fr my stash I am flabbergasted at stashes over 500 skeins of yarn. I don't think my grandmother even had a stash that big, because when I mentioned it to my mom she was shocked, and she currently has my late grandmother's stash.


Mine is getting close to that. I have sworn to buy no more, but then the quilt shop that I shop at also has a very nice selection of yarn. It's hard to pass some of it up.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> susanmos2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I'm not privy to how you live your personal life, Joey. But I think it's fair to say that you, CB, Yarnie and some others would like to see religion play a much bigger role in Americans' lives. No doubt you believe our country would be a much more pleasant if school children began the day with a prayer and held Christmas pageants instead of "Winter Festivals", if creationism was taught instead of or at least alongside evolution in science class, if it went without saying that every elected official (particularly the President) met your definition of a Christian God-fearing man or woman.
> ...


Agreed. What is Ironic about Fundie Christian hate for Muslims is that the problem with both is that they take the "call" to proselytize way too far.

Unfortunately, contained WITHIN this religious dogma is bigotry against others. You have to be a bigot to be a Fundie Bigot/Muslim because they both contain the arrogant presumption that they have the knowledge/ability/duty to "convert" others.

The need to "covert" others REQUIRES those willing to be bigoted towards others. And it's that very quality that creates the atmosphere for wars.

Fundie Christians are almost the same as Fundie Muslims. Muslims are just somehow waaaaay behind on the "killing the infidel" behavior. Fundie Christians have learned, for the most part, that they have to do their evils more surreptitiously.

(_Please keep in mind that I am differentiating between FUNDIE Christians/Muslims and more mainstream Christian/Muslims. I think that most rational Christians understand that the only real way they need to "convert" others is to be a good example of what a true Christian is so that people aspire to that behavior. Sadly it's self evident we have a couple of the "bad ones" among us here._)


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> You know its really interesting...you all don't have any trouble perceiving my snarky remarks, but you are unable to perceive my sincere remarks.
> 
> I think you have warped perceptions to rationalize your own agendas. What a narrow world you live in.


She lives in fear and with paranoia (her choosing).


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You're here on a thread begun by a Fundamentalist Christian who you and your merry band of followers intentionally _try_ to destroy like other threads all begun by those you despise *because* your multiple, and exclusive or inclusive Liberal/Progressive threads *failed.*
> 
> I see no reason for you to brag about that but have at it again.
> 
> Guess who is victorious? Bother you much (that answer)?


 Every thread is started by someone of some political or religious sect. If she wanted only RWN"S posting here she should have written that. You are repeating yourself to a point that you are starting to look even more stupid than people already perceive you as.
So what if threads go into the archives? We have others here that we post in. The only thing that you are victorious in is looking like the biggest fool on the site. Why don't you start a thread? Afraid that nobody will want to post in it?
What you perceive as losses and victories is pretty damned childish.
Give those imaginary grands of yours a big squeeze now.
BTW did you get those candles you posted at the dollar store? The packaging looked familiar.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Oh so if you don't "perceive' sincere remarks as sincere they aren't? Maybe it is your perceptions are wrong, again or should I say still?
> 
> Well many, including myself, find your judgmental comments arrogant. But I am sure that Vocal Lisa will give you her ill informed diagnosis as she sings in Oz


 :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup:


 :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: You know it. They think they own the Bible and everyone in it.


The funny thing is that Esther wasn't even really her name. It's a mistake that was made during translations in the writings. Her real name was Hadassah... which is myrtle in Hebrew. Her real name is Myrtle.

Which goes to show why one should be very skeptical when it comes to professing to "Know" that the interpretation of the bible one has been taught is the correct understanding.

They couldn't even manage to translate a NAME correctly, so why should anyone trust the translations of complex issues?

Not to mention it's pretty stupid to call someone a Christian when they were born about 500 before Christ.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> You call me out for my mouth but not your own friend for hers? That's no friend , that's a sycophant!


You should see some of the posts and choice words Bratty's mouth wrote.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> You know its really interesting...you all don't have any trouble perceiving my snarky remarks, but you are unable to perceive my sincere remarks.
> 
> I think you have warped perceptions to rationalize your own agendas. What a narrow world you live in.


I think your opinion of yourself is over inflated. I have yet to see sincerity. Unless your snarkiness is sincere.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> BTW did you get those candles you posted at the dollar store? The packaging looked familiar.


Janet Cooke painted those candles and posted her picture of them for others to see her handcrafts (tole painting) on KP.

You might want to apologize to Janet for opening your big, sloppy, vulgar, mouth to insult me because you instead just insulted Janet.

:XD:

Of course, you just logged off in embarrassment hoping to let other posts bury this one. I'll try to remember to repost at a time when you are on-line, Bratty.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

rocky1991 said:


> So if Jesus was Jewish and from the house of David, why aren't you Jewish also? He was never a Christian, that came well after his death. Kind of bastardized his message.


Actually Jesus was Jewish until he became Christian.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> The funny thing is that Esther wasn't even really her name. It's a mistake that was made during translations in the writings. Her real name was Hadassah... which is myrtle in Hebrew. Her real name is Myrtle.
> 
> Which goes to show why one should be very skeptical when it comes to professing to "Know" that the interpretation of the bible one has been taught is the correct understanding.
> 
> ...


I see you've learned to copy and paste.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I see you've learned to copy and paste.


But still doesn't understand what she pasted (nor did she use a reliable source or at least one that is accurate)!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Is Jesus Jewish or Christian?
In: Judaism, Bible Statistics and History	[Edit categories]
Answer:
Jesus was Jewish. He was born a Jew, lived a Jewish life, taught and read in the synagogue, and was called 'rabbi' by some of his followers. The word 'Christian' refers to the followers of 'the Christ' - the Messiah, the anointed one. Jesus, in this context could not have been a 'Christian' by definition. However, Jesus was no ordinary Jew. Christians believe that he was sent by God as God in human form (hence the other name that Jesus used 'Emman\uel' which means 'God with us'). God the Father had revealed himself to the Jews over thousands of years in the stories in the Old Testament (or the 'Old Covenant'/Old Agreement') but the Jews continued to rebel against God to such an extent that even when the prophets foretold the messiah coming the Jews still ignored them.

Jesus, because of his teaching, his miracles and his crucifixion and resurrection, was seen as the fulfilment of the New Covenant (hence the accounts of his life are in the part of the Bible called the New Testament) between God and humankind. He showed the way to God through love and not mindless rules, and he made it very clear that his message was for all humanity and not just for the Jews.

After his crucifixion and resurrection, the ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit, his followers were mostly still Jews following 'The Way' as it was called. In fact, many new non-jewish adherents of the Way got into arguments about whether or not they should be circumcised, and whether or not certain foods were banned, just like in the old Jewish days. St Paul (who wrote many of the letters in the New Testament) pointed out that Jesus required that this new 'Way' was open to all, circumcised or not, pork-eaters or not. What mattered was the content of their hearts and not rules.

So the followers of the new Jesus movement, where a new relationship with God was possible through the salvation offered by Jesus, continued to be called 'the Way' - in fact they were not eventually called 'Christians' until many years later.



VocalLisa said:


> Actually Jesus was Jewish until he became Christian.


When did he become a "Christian"?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

double post


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Actually Jesus was Jewish until he became Christian.


Sorry to disillusion you, but Jesus never became Christian unless it was posthumously by his followers. He lived and died a Jew. There was no Christianity until after he died and some of his Apostles proclaimed his divinity.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sorry to disillusion you, but Jesus never became Christian unless it was posthumously by his followers. He lived and died a Jew. There was no Christianity until after he died and some of his Apostles proclaimed his divinity.


Not so, Jesus declared His own divinity.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Is Jesus Jewish or Christian?
> In: Judaism, Bible Statistics and History
> Answer:
> Jesus was Jewish. He was born a Jew, lived a Jewish life, taught and read in the synagogue, and was called 'rabbi' by some of his followers. The word 'Christian' refers to the followers of 'the Christ' - the Messiah, the anointed one. Jesus, in this context could not have been a 'Christian' by definition. However, Jesus was no ordinary Jew. Christians believe that he was sent by God as God in human form (hence the other name that Jesus used 'Emman\uel' which means 'God with us'). God the Father had revealed himself to the Jews over thousands of years in the stories in the Old Testament (or the 'Old Covenant'/Old Agreement') but the Jews continued to rebel against God to such an extent that even when the prophets foretold the messiah coming the Jews still ignored them.
> ...


Is this post by rocky1991 bible thumping or bible bashing? I'm not quite certain.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Not so, Jesus declared His own divinity.


Yeah, I have known Jewish boys like that. I lucked out to find one who was and remains modest.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Yeah, I have known Jewish boys like that. I lucked out to find one who was and remains modest.


I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Hardly, VL, I put up the Green Giant as a message to you but you were gone and there was no way the others would get it, so I took it down.


I'd like to say "nice try", but it's too pathetic an effort to say that.

You quite obviously fell for it hook, line and sinker -- as we knew you would.

This is the problem with Fauxndie Christians, they are MUCH too easy to manipulate.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.


 :XD:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Actually Jesus was Jewish until he became Christian.


Jesus is Christ.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> I'm able to do the same to you VL, but quote honestly, ...


LOL. You THINK you can, but you don't know ME as well as you think you do.

I'll give you a hint. I'm involved in theater, but I've never actually performed on stage, and I've never been in MN. Although, I'm sure you can find a doppelganger of mine that has.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Jesus is Christ.


And he believed in himself... therefore he's a Christian.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

ooops!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts wrote:
P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!



Cheeky Blighter said:


> What sick thrill do you get out of continually *bringing up my previously used names on KP? *
> 
> I and my friends could care *less* what you think about anything.


_Glory to God_ you finally spoke some truth by admitting you are and have used multiple KP user names; those I mentioned!

I knew it all along ...

Then, too, you admitted you could care *less* what I think, but as evidenced by your words, you care a *lot* more than even I realized. 

I'm so pleased you are finally beginning to see the light and speak some truths.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> knitpresentgifts wrote:
> P.S. Cheeky/Vocal also has gone by the name Lilly and ConanO'K too. Confusing I know, it all was explained to me once; what a web she weaves!
> 
> _Glory to God_ you finally spoke some truth by admitting you are and have used multiple KP user names; those I mentioned.
> ...


*

What are you saying: Cheeky-B-Lisa ???*


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Fundie Christians are almost the same as Fundie Muslims. Muslims are just somehow waaaaay behind on the "killing the infidel" behavior. Fundie Christians have learned, for the most part, that they have to do their evils more surreptitiously.
> 
> (_Please keep in mind that I am differentiating between FUNDIE Christians/Muslims and more mainstream Christian/Muslims. I think that most rational Christians understand that the only real way they need to "convert" others is to be a good example of what a true Christian is so that people aspire to that behavior. Sadly it's self evident we have a couple of the "bad ones" among us here._)


I agree with you completely, Lisa. The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) and the Koran bear some uncanny similarities. Each reads like an etiquette book, with elaborate instructions on how to eat, dress, and conduct one's life.

I also agree that many Christians have, over time, come to regards matters such as one's hair length as relatively insignificant compared to what lies in our heart and how we choose to treat others. For whatever reason many adherents to Islam have been a bit slower to adopt this attitude.

I'm not sure quite why that is--and of course most Muslims are peaceable well-intentioned people. But the folks trying to abide by the literal word of the Koran make about as much sense as devout Christians trying to do the same thing with the Bible. Hence we have Afghani women living out their lives under those ridiculous circus tents (burkas)--American fundamentalists insisting that Noah's ark was plenty big enough to hold at least two of each land animal--Saudi women being the denied to marry who they choose, work, or drive a car--devout Christians who won't even let their engaged children spend time their future spouses without a chaperon present.

It makes absolutely no sense to me, but it's certainly apparent that any religion can push people into truly wacky behavior.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Janet Cooke painted those candles and posted her picture of them for others to see her handcrafts (tole painting) on KP.
> 
> You might want to apologize to Janet for opening your big, sloppy, vulgar, mouth to insult me because you instead just insulted Janet.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you will, dear. WWJD?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> LOL. You THINK you can, but you don't know ME as well as you think you do.
> 
> I'll give you a hint. I'm involved in theater, but I've never actually performed on stage, and I've never been in MN. Although, I'm sure you can find a doppelganger of mine that has.


Did ya fall off the stage Jody during your performances?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Janet Cooke painted those candles and posted her picture of them for others to see her handcrafts (tole painting) on KP.
> 
> You might want to apologize to Janet for opening your big, sloppy, vulgar, mouth to insult me because you instead just insulted Janet.
> 
> ...


Do you honestly think that is supposed to bother me? They actually came from Ocean State Job Lot stores before they were painted, of course. 
Do you really think that we take this crap seriously?
It is a joke. 
Kinda like you. 
Kinda like sometimes, never ...
Do you really have so little sense of humor NOT to realize that none of this means anything?
And it is not tole painting, you silly old sniff of bad air.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Sorry to disillusion you, but Jesus never became Christian unless it was posthumously by his followers. He lived and died a Jew. There was no Christianity until after he died and some of his Apostles proclaimed his divinity.


Maybe he should be considered an "honorary" Christian? (If it's indeed an honor to be a Christian--after reading some of the posts of the so-called Christian gals I sometimes have my doubts)

But seriously--I don't consider Jesus either Christian or Jew (although of course he did live a Jewish life). He was the Son of God. Trying to assign Him a religion seems to me like debating whether God is male or female. It seems obvious that He's neither.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> I'm able to do the same to you VL, but quote honestly, the Lord has stayed my hand. But I know you wouldn't like it if your dead mother and aunties were treated so despicably and for such a trivial purpose.


I would say your dead aunties and mother should've had a niece/daughter that wasn't so rotten as to make physical threats towards people or stupid enough to leave her personal information all over the internet.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

<<< Just for you Cheeks-A-Lot!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I would say your dead aunties and mother should've had a niece/daughter that wasn't so rotten as to make physical threats towards people or stupid enough to leave her personal information all over the internet.


How about your dead mother and aunties... What would they think of you?

Not to mention what you've left open to public viewing.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Oops!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I've said I grew up in the Christian fundamentalist churches before. Having known Muslim folks (both more liberal and some more conservative.... Although to my knowledge none wore a burka, just the hijab) and my knowledge growing up, thse two are way more similar in their way of expressing their beliefs than they admit, or that most people will admit. I remember Bill Maher not that long ago talking about how Islam is so much ore dangerous because they are militant. I think my husband heard more than he ever wanted to about all the fundamentalist groups that have and encourage militias based on theocratic government (and in opposition to laws) and churches that teach about a literal "army of god", ect.
> 
> Most fundamentalist churches give you the "we believe simple truths like x,y,z". But what they don't say off the bat is that they add more as you come in. At first you are all accepted and loved. Them they nicely work in how the Bible says that, "when I was a child I was treated like a child, as I grew I was treated as an adult" (I've also heard, "when .... Child, ate like a child, ect). They used it as a way to put more restrictions in without "adding" to the Bible per se, but just showing you more truths. Then should you not walk the line, or not agree totally then you were shunned. They used the Bible passage that details how if you have a grievance with someone or they are not living correctly you first go to the person, then if they continue you go with another person, then if they persist you approach it as a issue of the church, then if they still don't fall along you shun them. Mind you that in the first few "adult in christ truths" they teach you to eschew the "world" and separate you from worldly support you have. I have even seen it go so far as to separate you from family, like parents. That way when they shun you, you are left totally alone. It's very effective.


It ought to work, once a person is dependent on the church. Shunning sounds so complicated; do you see it working in any of the standard denominations? I think the Amish resort to it.

Come to think of it, there's a similar practice in Judaism, but it's used only for apostasy and a panel of rabbis have to agree on it. I don't know whether it's been used since Spinoza, in the 17th century.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VL...where does the Green Giant live?
> 
> Anybody?
> 
> No takers?


Does Admin count?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Susan the difference between their faith and mine is I would not kill anyone who doesn't believe as I do, nor would I end my life to cause others to go with me to Allah, nor do I know of any Christian man who thinks if he straps a bomb to his body ect. To kill as many people as he can just to prove his faith and expect to recieve seven virgin women in his heaven. His heaven is to me hell.


Exodus:

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

So if the Bible is the inerrant word of god, then to follow his direction you should kill those of other faiths both watches and those who sacrifice unto another god. And this one passage excludes all the smiting and stoning commandments elsewhere in the Bible.

To my understand (I'm sure a Jewish person could correct me if I am wrong) to them the Torah is a live document, not to be set in stone permanently. The fundamentalist Christians believe it is set in stone, thus the reason and excuses for the crusades.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> And he believed in himself... therefore he's a Christian.


No He is the Son of God. He KNOWS
that He is part of the Trinity. Christ is Christianity.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The only separation of church and state in the constitution was to keep the government out of the Church. It has been reversed in the last 60+ years. Now it is specifically to keep any semblance of Christianity out of anything public. Islam is welcomed in Schools and public buildings. If it was not, why would they build prayer rooms for Muslims?
> 
> I'm off to work, no more time for this conversation.


Christianity is welcome too, hence the use of the school for the Good News Clubs.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Does Admin count?


Yes, the long-necked geek in Miami counts...hit that report issue button if you feel justified, JC!


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> <<< Just for you Cheeks-A-Lot!


I guess someone who would call a dog hubba hubba may have a perverse need to look up at a male statue's genitalia from that perspective. You are one messed up person. I guess it's normal for you when I see the company you keep. You are "birds of a feather".


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Do you honestly think that is supposed to bother me? They actually came from Ocean State Job Lot stores before they were painted, of course.
> Do you really think that we take this crap seriously?
> It is a joke.
> Kinda like you.
> ...


Bother you - nope? Bratty insulted you, not me. I don't care where the candles came from - Bratty did though. She thought your packaging looked cheap too.

You were the one complaining on a KP thread you couldn't get anyone interested enough to buy what you painted for a price of even $5/candle. So, ya, you care.

You were the one who posted your work in the "Other Crafts" threads showing your painting abilities to others while sniffing for compliments. If you think your own painting is a joke, fine with me. I said no such thing.

The painting is Donna Dewberry's "One Stroke" paint technique copied by you; the style is also known as Tole Painting, apparently unknown by you.

So, don't stick your nose up in the air since you also posted other things you "one stroke" painted and posted while mentioning you continue to search for some of Donna's practice worksheets.

BTW: I have some brand new Dewberry art supplies (about $150 worth) that I would have sent you for free since you are very interested in obtaining some, but knowing how you feel about and treat me, I'm searching for a new home for the supplies where they'll be appreciated.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Esther was the queen...about as equal to her man, the king, as any woman in that time could get.


No, because if you read the story even she was afraid f the king because he could sentence her to death on a whim.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I guess someone who would call a dog hubba hubba may have a perverse need to look up at a male statue's genitalia from that perspective. You are one messed up person. I guess it's normal for you when I see the company you keep. You are "birds of a feather".


YAWN:

My mother won a contest to name new bear cubs at a zoo in Boston about 50 years ago. She won the contest with "hubbahubba". New black lab puppy looks just like those bear cubs...I found it charming and sentimental!

PO


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

What's the matter Cheeks...I thought you like the Green Giant?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLIsa...

two words: I'm sorry
or one word: Truce

and its over...I can wait.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> VL...where does the Green Giant live?
> 
> Anybody?
> 
> No takers?


You must not be able to read. No surprise there. He lives in the Lesuer Valley of Southern MN which is also referred to as the Valley Ho Ho Ho of the Jolly Green Giant. Ever heard of that? Can't find anything worth posting from NC? Sure glad to know not all from NC are as backwards, backwoods as you are. You are just like the rest of the RWN, isolated and uninformed and proud of it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Did ya fall off the stage Jody during your performances?


Lemme guess. You think I'm someone named Jody who played Judy Garland on stage... right?

And you thought you were being so clever talking about the red shoes and "Over the Rainbow ... right?

Good, that's what I was going for.

I think this gal is GREAT though. I often post pictures of people I admire:

Here's a picture of her with longer hair.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The world doesn't understand the biblical instructions to the husband and the wife.
> 
> The husband and wife are equals and all decisions are made together.
> If there is a difference of opinion then the husband as the head of the house gets final say as the tie-breaker.
> ...


If he has the final say then his opinion is above hers.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> BTW: I have some brand new Dewberry art supplies (about $150 worth) that I would have sent you for free since you are very interested in obtaining some, but knowing how you feel about and treat me, I'm searching for a new home for the supplies where they'll be appreciated.


How sweet. And I'm sure the monkeys at the zoo will toast you with bananas for your contribution.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Lemme guess. You think I'm someone named Jody who played Judy Garland on stage... right?
> 
> And you thought you were being so clever talking about the red shoes and "Over the Rainbow ... right?
> 
> Good, that's what I was going for.


VocalLisa they don't even know who your avatar is. Are your initials S.T.? I loved Shirley until she got old and conservative but she did star in a lot of wonderful movies.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> The funny thing is that Esther wasn't even really her name. It's a mistake that was made during translations in the writings. Her real name was Hadassah... which is myrtle in Hebrew. Her real name is Myrtle.
> 
> Which goes to show why one should be very skeptical when it comes to professing to "Know" that the interpretation of the bible one has been taught is the correct understanding.
> 
> ...


I don't think it was bad translation that turned Myrtle (love that, thank you) into Esther, because the Hebrew version of the Book of Esther uses that name and refers to her as Esther (except when she's first introduced as "Hadassah, that is Esther"). I think she changed her name when she realized that she didn't want to be called "Myrtle."

I don't think Joey was implying that Esther was Christian, only that she was a leader of her people.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> YAWN:
> 
> My mother won a contest to name new bear cubs at a zoo in Boston about 50 years ago. She won the contest with "hubbahubba". New black lab puppy looks just like those bear cubs...I found it charming and sentimental!


I do too, Gerslay! I bet all the hubbahubbas are adorable.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Yeah, I have known Jewish boys like that. I lucked out to find one who was and remains modest.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.


Didn't get Marilyn's joke, did you?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Lemme guess. You think I'm someone named Jody who played Judy Garland on stage... right?
> 
> And you thought you were being so clever talking about the red shoes and "Over the Rainbow ... right?
> 
> Good, that's what I was going for.


I never talked about red shoes and Judy Garland.

Let me guess, did you? 'Cause I don't read all your foolish posts so I wouldn't know.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Didn't get Marilyn's joke, did you?


Poo Pur ... not talking to you


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Janet Cooke painted those candles and posted her picture of them for others to see her handcrafts (tole painting) on KP.
> 
> You might want to apologize to Janet for opening your big, sloppy, vulgar, mouth to insult me because you instead just insulted Janet.
> 
> ...


Hey, fool, it was more than 10 minutes before you posted that I logged off. It was not in embarassment that I logged off.
Poor KPG. Wrong again!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I never talked about red shoes and Judy Garland.
> 
> Let me guess, did you? 'Cause I don't read all your foolish posts so I wouldn't know.


No, I didn't.

I'm sorry, I confused you with a couple of the other nutbirds here on the board who thought they "discovered" who I really am.

They thought the were being clever talking about the Wizard of Oz, and someone was foolish enough to be posting avatars with red shoes a la "Dorothy's shoes".

You people are so gullible its HILARIOUS.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> VocalLisa they don't even know who your avatar is. Are your initials S.T.? I loved Shirley until she got old and conservative but she did star in a lot of wonderful movies.


When you talk to yourself, do you insult your other self? Just curious.

P.S. Did you always top your ST's with a cherry?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Yes, the long-necked geek in Miami counts...hit that report issue button if you feel justified, JC!


I do and I did, I wonder how Admin likes being referred to as a long necked geek.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> When you talk to yourself, do you insult your other self? Just curious.
> 
> P.S. Did you always top your ST's with a cherry?


Only you could answer that one, KPG.


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-238458-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

