advertisement
On mySimon: Hushamok Prevents Flathead & SIDS
Sign up | Log in

Log in to post and mark posts as watched.

refresh »
  • [-]My husband want to get the H1N1 vaccine for my ds but I feel concerned about it...all my dr. friends are not giving it to their kids. Do they know something I don't? What are you all doing?

    30 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.17.09, 08:29 AM [ Flag ]
    • If I can find it, I'll get it.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:31 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • ditto. swine flu is serious business.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.17.09, 08:44 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • as serious as any other common flu strain

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.17.09, 08:57 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • look at the amount of babies/small children that have died of h1n1 since april in comparison to the regular flu (REALLY, LOOK IT UP.) then run your mouth.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.17.09, 09:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • look at how many babies and small children die from other flu strains. Dude, H1N1 is a flu. The body reacts to it. Everybody is different. The only disadvantage we have is that it is an entirely brand new strain (well, not quite but close enough) and if you get it you'll get sick, no way around it. Kids and small children will always get hit the hardest. That's not H1N1 specific, though.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.17.09, 09:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • dude? wow. are you speaking from actual facts? If a person was interested in how lethal h1n1 is on babies (in comparison to regular flu, not compared to other people) they would look it up and see that, since april, h1n1 has taken the lives of DOUBLE the amount of the regular seasonal flues, through the WHOLE YEAR, combined. clearly, it's hitting much harder then regular flu. Dude.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.17.09, 09:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • The mortality rate of H1N1 is not higher than other flu strains. In absolute numbers, yes, you are right, more babies and small children have died. That doesn't make H1N1 more lethal, though. That is a fact.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.17.09, 10:16 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • The mortality rate of H1N1 is not any worse than any of the other flu strains. Yes, H1N1 seems to infect the younger folks more but that doesn't make H1N1 more lethal.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.17.09, 09:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • DH is a doctor - he thinks it is more important to wash your hands than to get the H1N1. He said very important to get standard flu shot though.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.17.09, 09:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • we are not doing it but many of my friends are

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:31 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • we got it. all our dr friends got it for their kids :)

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:32 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • getting it for everyone in the family as soon as I can find it

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:48 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Why not ask your Dr friends what they know?

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:51 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • they're not talking!1

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.17.09, 08:55 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I don't know why, but I think you are not telling the truth. I don't think you have even asked them. And I am sure they are getting the shots.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.17.09, 08:58 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • They are not getting the shots and they said it was a personal choice. I don't know why your remark is so irksome, why go on an anonymous board and lie? I don't know why, but I think your comment reveals something about you.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.17.09, 10:04 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • don't know a single doc who is against the vaccine. (absent some specific health condition). Their families are all getting the shot.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.17.09, 08:56 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Our ped gave our kids the H1N1 shot at their well-visits.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 08:58 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • MDMom-gave it to my dc

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • are these doctors PhDs? Like with degrees in Art History or Linguistics? I know of no physician who has kids who is against the H1N1 vaccine. (Hell, I know of none who don't have kids who is against it but that is a different issue.)

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:11 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Never heard of an actual MD who treats patients who is anti-vax for the H1N1. That said, my ped said she gave the vaccine to her kids, and suggested mine get it, too. Which he did.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • we were ready, willing, and able to go to our ped/GP for shot, but they didn't have it. so we stood online at free clinic to get them. i'm glad we did but sad that we took someone else's free shots.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • My DH is an ER doc. Having seen the kids who got hit the hardest, he called in favors to get our DD the HINI vaccine.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:28 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • A dad from our school said their pediatrician actually advised against it. Not sure why, I think he said it just wasn't that bad. Having said that, I disagree and had DC get both seasonal flu and H1N1 mist vaccine, and I had no hesitation in doing so.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 09:29 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • i don't know why any doctor would not give it to their own children. you have to look at the actual arguments on each side, not just go by what other people do and their vague reasons. for me it was pretty straightforward: there have been NO adverse reactions to the vaccine, there have been many deaths/serious illnesses from the swine flu.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 10:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I am an MD and gave both kids flumist. There are shortages so a lot of docs are denying so people don't think they "pulled strings." HTH

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.17.09, 10:25 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]Sarah Palin's son, Trig, was one of the "hot topics" on The View today. Barbara Walters read a statistic that 90% of fetuses found to have down syndrome are terminated. Last poll I read said something like the split between pro-life/pro-choice in the US is close to 50/50, so I don't see, mathematically, how it can be that 90% of ds pregnancies are terminated.

    78 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.18.09, 08:20 AM [ Flag ]
    • I think it is probably bc many people are pro-life until they are faced with having to raise a DS child.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:21 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Or that pro-choice people have a disproportionate number of DS pregnancies. Maybe it has something to do with age--women who wait to get married and have children in order to build their careers are statistically more likely to be pro-choice. Then they are older when they get pregnant so DS is more likely.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:25 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • NP: Just a hunch, but I would guess what you say may be more true for NYC, where many women wait to have children... but for the country as a whole, I would guess more pro-lifers tend to have babies with down syndrome, because many don't believe in birth control and thus continue to have children into their forties. In our Catholic church there were many babies with downs-syndrome (usually the youngest in the family). I imagine that not every woman feels she can handle that at forty with many other children to care for as well (pro-life or not).

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 08:54 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • ITA. You don't really know what you believe until you are tested.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I don't agree entirely. I opted at 40 not to have a cvs or amnio because I knew that whatever I learned wouldn't change anything, I was going to have that baby anyway. Some of us know what we believe on this subject without being tested.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 08:32 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • And others think they do until they're faced with a frightening reality.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.18.09, 08:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • Yes, but as someone pointed out below if you know you won't terminate there's no point in getting the testing done. By opting out of the tests I was making a descision to have my child regardless of the number of chromosones he had.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.18.09, 08:39 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • Not true. There is a point to getting testing, even if you will not terminate under any circumstances. If you do have a DB that will have a problem, then you have the time/ability to prepare for what's coming. Arranging for necessary specialists, arranging leaves/benefits, preparing older DCs, etc.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.18.09, 10:29 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • And those are the 10% who found out dc had Down's and didn't abort. For many of us, the risk of the procedure causing harm outweigh any benefit of lining up specialists.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.18.09, 10:30 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • The risk of the procedure varies by doctor. If you don't trust your doctor to properly perform an amnio, find a new doctor.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.18.09, 10:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • Why is it not OK in your book for someone to elect to not have the procedure? You are being very anti-choice.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.18.09, 10:39 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • yup. I think this is the ans. dead on.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • It's "anti-abortion," not "pro-life." Let's stop playing into the hands of the Christian Right by using their terminology. I am pro-choice. I am not anti-life.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:40 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • OP here - I used old-school terms, sorry. The Christian Right also refer to pro-choice as "pro-abortion," didn't want to offend anyone, just to get some speculation on the numbers.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 08:45 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • or: sorry, didn't mean to call you out. i just hate that we have all adopted these terms without thinking about what they imply. it is my mission in life to reframe the terms to something more accurate that doesn't feed into the crazy christian right agenda.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.18.09, 08:48 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • your semantics make no sense. You are "pro-choice", not "anti-life" but those who are "pro-life" are "anti-abortion", you sound like an idiot... be consistent.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 03:41 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I read an article about pro-life women who have abortions. It happens

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • well, you don't know howthat 50/50 split is skewed by gender or age. and yes, people who say they are pro-life have abortions.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • The great irony is that the traditional "red" states have (1) higher divorce rates, (2) higher # of abortions and (3) higher % of poverty... People don't do what they "believe"--they are better at telling other people what to do...

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • do you think those red states have no blue in them? that doesn't really make any statistical sense--

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:28 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • residents of red states, on average, tend to be less eductaed, poorer, less white- this contributes to higher rates of all that you suggest above. The education levels and incerased poverty have way more to do with it than the political convictions-

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:44 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • i thought poor are more likely to have baby, whereas wealthy are more likely to have abortion?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 08:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • actually, lots of poor women have multiple abortions- lack of access to health care and bad choices lead to lack of birth control, so they use abortion as a form of birth control- also teenagers pregnant more in poorer areas (and places where sex education is weak- hello red states!) and they get abortions-

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.18.09, 08:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • what a tragically black and white way to look at the world. do you teach your child that the people in "red states" are ignorant, right wingers? how sad.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 10:50 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • red states have higher teen pregnancy rates as well. read "red sex, blue sex," in the new yorker, from a year ago.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 12:47 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I wonder what the ages of the moms who terminate are vs those who don't. IME its easier to be pro-life, or see any issue in black and while with no shades of grey, when you're young. As we get older, wiser, and have more life experiences to draw from most issues enter the grey area.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:25 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I never claimed to know what others could/should do but I always said I would never opt for termination of my child. Then quad screen said 1:4 for Trisomy 18/21 and I did research on what T18/21 is. And I thought about the two kids we already had. And the world got very very gray.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:29 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • Wow. This is really interesting. I had a baby not long ago and wondered what I'd have done in that situation. And?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.18.09, 08:37 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Sorry, I should not have dropped it there -- I got pulled away. When they hooked up the ultrasound to do the amnio there was no heart beat. Decision averted. Fate's kindness has never hurt so much.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.18.09, 08:45 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • because a) many people who are pro-life don't have an amnio b/c they know they wouldn't abort no matter what the test shows and b) some people consider themselves pro-life but still make exceptions so in a poll they would answer that they are pro-choice, but what they really mean is that abortion isn't a form of birth control.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:33 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • The pro-lifers I know believe that amnio is unnecessary and dangerous.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:43 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Yes, I think I have heard that some pro-lifers will not have an amnio because they feel it implies that they MIGHT abort.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 09:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I am prolife and I choose not to have an amnio. Not because of what it might imply to anyone. I choose not to because of the potential risk of amnio. I know many prolife people and having an amnio or not is just a matter of what they feel comfortable with. Some people just need to know. Just like some people just need to know the sex of the baby.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 06:30 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I agree with poster who says pro-lifers probabyl don't ahev an amnio, I'd be curious to really know if the stat is 90% of DS pregnancies, or 90% of pregnancies where the mother tests and finds out the baby has DS- we're talking very different populations here!

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I'm pro life and did not have an amino. I did not want to be in the position of having to make an decision. It all worked out and my children are healthy. BTW, most people thought I was crazy for not having test before babies born.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 08:44 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I choose not to have any tests and no one except my dr. has ever asked me anything at all about it. Do people really get into other peoples personal decisions like that?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 06:32 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Palin's behavior after she went into labor with Trig was so completely bizarre and showed such indifference to the health and well-being of her child that I can't help wondering whether she did not want him to live.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:48 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • These studies are flawed in that people who pursue prenatal diagnosis in general are more likely to terminate an affected pregnancy. I am a genetic counselor and work in a population where I would say 80% of patients decided against amniocentesis/CVs, so we have no idea what they would do if they found out a pregnancy was affected. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome by maternal blood sampling is coming. When the risk from the procedure is taken out, and more people have testing, we may get a better idea of what the true statistic is.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 08:52 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I'm Catholic, would not have terminated a pregnancy and had an amnio. I grew up with a cousin who had Down's, and knew that if there was something wrong with my DB, I'd want to know, so that I could be prepared to manage the situation - line up the right specialists in advance, prepare other family members, arrange DH and my leave/benefits, etc. Just having an amnio doesn't automatically mean anything.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 09:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • abortion is one of those issues where how we feel is not how we act when reality hits us in the face. Lots of anti-choice folks will abort when it's their lives that are about to get turned upsidedown with an unwanted pregnancy.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 10:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • For some maybe but not for most. If you really believe something, you don't just stop believing it because circumstances change.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 06:35 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • No, you keep opposing abortion -- while having one when it's your own pregnancy you want to end. Amazing how many anti-choice types lack the courage of their convictions when they (or someone in their family) gets pregnant.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 06:58 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • we tried 8 years to have my daughter and were told during one of her screenings she had markers for downs. i'm pro-choice, but refused a amnio and refused to abort. i never thought about raising a special needs child, but i knew that she was a miracle and couldn't wait for her arrival regardless. anyway, all went well despite concerns and we delivered a perfectly, beautiful, brilliant and happy baby. so you never know.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 10:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I am pro-choice but I knew I would never terminate a Downs baby. I did the nuchal fold testing (both for my twins and my singleton) to get some idea of the risks. When it was normal, I opted not to do CVS or amnio. If the nuchal fold had shown a high risk, I likely would have done more testing just to do as an earlier poster suggested - line up specialists, read up on the challenges etc. etc.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.18.09, 12:36 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • bc many people don't think beyond elective abortions in the event of unwanted pregnancies - so they say they are "anti abortion" or "prolife". those same people can feel very differently when faced with the possibility of a db w DS or other serious medical/physical/congenital issues.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 12:44 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • many people think that being "pro-life" means that they personally would never get an abortion and that being "pro-choice" means that they would. they don't get that it's a political viewpoint: being prolife means that you think that NO WOMAN should be allowed to get an abortion and being prochoice means you think that the choice to terminate or continue a pregnancy should be in the hands of the woman. It's kind of like being anti-poverty does not mean only that you personally don't want to be poor...

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.18.09, 12:52 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • you are wrong... I am pro-choice for others, pro-life for myself. Quite frankly, if women want to abort their children there is nothing I could do to stop them. Therefore, I believe women should be able to abort their babies, I just would never abort my own.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 03:48 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • walk a mile in someone else's shoes...

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 05:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • or: that is EXACTLY what I am saying. pro-choice is a political stance meaning that you believe women should ahve the right to choose to terminate OR to keep a pregnancy. Pro-life means that you believe that women should NOT have that right - that the government should make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy. Neither has anything to do with what decision you would make about your own pregnancy.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 12:47 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I am absolute about this. f there is any chance that baby would be DS or even be slightly mentally retarded, or have any birth defects, I would abort it. No way jose.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:14 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Thank you for letting us know what kind of children you would let live , and the others that you would abort. Again, your decision as a mother.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 11:54 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • any sort of birth defect? what if it is something like missing a toe? or a cleft lip? would you really abort for any type of birth defect? they are so common and most kids do fine!

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 12:14 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]Do you know that the people who are trying to block health care reform are the same kind of people who tried to block universal education, social security, and nearly every other step forward we have taken as a nation? Same mentality. Same lame excuses. "We can't afford it!", they say. These are moral issues! Ending slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, giving women the vote, ending child labor - all this progress was opposed in much the same terms as we see happening today.

    48 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.19.09, 12:06 PM [ Flag ]
    • ITA, the conservative movement is the most hypocritical machine on the planet. They preach morals and live without them. Bunch of fear mongers clinging to an America they don't fit in anymore - thank God.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 12:19 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • they're evil geniuses, though. they've somehow convinced the very people they're oppressing to join them in condemning the people who, you know, want to pay them a living wage and buy them health care.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:38 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • They are not the only hypocritical jerks out there.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:51 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • You should realize that many people are not opposed to what they are trying to do, but how they are trying to do it... the government would like you to think otherwise.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 12:45 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • NP: And yet many of the alternative ideas that have been proposed would do little to nothing to address the problem of extending insurance to those who are currently uninsured. Many people on both sides would like to see changes. I would like to see more emphasis on promoting effective treatments and discouraging ineffective treatments. But at the same time, something needs to be done now.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:57 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, so that it is more affordable. At the same time our population is aging and medical care and technology has gotten more complex and expensive. Raising taxes and cutting reimbursements to healthcare providers is not the solution.. it will result in extreme shortages of Doctors as they leave the profession because they can no longer cover their expenses. Who is going to see all these newly insured patients. We need torte reform! We need to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. These are two changes that would cost relatively no $ and yet are not part of the current proposal ( not in a meaningful way ). What is being proposed will not work and will result in a deterioration of...

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 01:03 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • These are starts, but they are not enough. I agree with you that both should be incorporated into current proposals. But I don't believe for seconds that doctors are going to leave the profession in droves. I am married to one and work with many, and most of them are not in it for the money--the good ones anway! They could do their part by trying harder to incorporate evidence based medicine into their practice. This craziness about the age at which to start mammograms is illustrative of our commitment, as a country, to early, frequent, and often needless screening + intervention (even when health outcomes are worse as a result).

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.19.09, 01:07 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • ^oops "for a second"

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.19.09, 01:10 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • I am also married to a doctor ( and writer of the comments above ). My husband often works until 11 at night and often 7 days a week. His expenses keep going up ( malpractice, office staff, billing ) and yet his reimbursements are going down. They only way for him to maintain his current income is to see more and more patients which is becoming very difficult given the hours he is already working. Many of the guys that he knows that are in their late 50's and 60's are planning on retiring if things continue to get difficult.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.19.09, 01:13 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • I hear you--it's hard work. Hard for them, hard for us (the families), and the training is brutal. That's why I would like to see torte reform too, and maybe some kind of windfall profits law about what can be charged for insurance (have you ever seen one of the graphs of profits vs what they pay out?!). I would like to see better pay for the primary care docs so that more go into that profession, and less money going towards all of the personnel who have to handle billing (on our side and on the insurance co. side). agree the system is out of control!

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.19.09, 01:16 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • ITTA> Signed wife of doctor also

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.19.09, 02:03 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • If ppl think that health care reform will not increase everyone's taxes in the long run then they are fooling themselves. You are wrong they are not all the same ppl that tried to stop SS and universal education. There may be some but what do you expect this is a Christian society.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 12:50 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • np: what does that mean? "this is a christian society" is supposed to explain the opposition to public goods? i am a christian and i support all of those things: universal healthcare, social security, universal education. love your neighbor...

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Don't be so simplistic! Take the time and understand the financial situation that this country is in and what the proposed plan is going to do to the economy. It's great to want to have universal healthcare but you have to have the money to pay for it. The plan on the table right now is completely unrealistic from a cost savings standpoint and is going to create further tax increases that are going to further weaken the economy.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 12:54 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • The very fact that The United States of America does not have the best, most affordable health care on the planet, along with the best in Public Education - without question, given our wealth is a national disgrace and an abomination. Period. The end.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:57 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Of course it is going to create higher taxes, that is all Obama does. Big ideas that everyone but illegals and the super poor do not have to pay for.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 12:59 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • you seem so...well informed.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 01:01 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • And many of us are willing to pay higher taxes in support of those big ideas!

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 01:01 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • np LOL. Wait 'til you're lined up at a walk-in clinic waiting for primary care...

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.19.09, 01:21 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • Wait, until you turn on your brain and realize that THAT is already happening across the country!!! If your lack of information weren't so pathetic, you would at least be laughable. Twit.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.19.09, 01:25 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • you realize that many countries with universal healthcare still have privately owned clinics/hospitals/practices, right? the average wait times in germany are less than in the US.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.19.09, 01:26 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • And in Canada it's nearly impossible to find a GP if you move to a new city.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.19.09, 01:30 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • obviously there are different ways to do things, and you needn't assume that the service we get would match the worst characteristics of other countries--that was my point! medicare patients are usually very happy with the service they receive.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.19.09, 01:32 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • HUH? I live in a Canadian city where everyone is always bemoaning the lack of GPs. Yet, the problem is a lot more structural than it is one of numbers. The GPs are there, but there is no simple way to match a GP to a patient. That's the real issue with universal healthcare: very difficult system to manage efficiently. But that's the same with private healthcare as well, Americans don't seem to believe that private insurance makes the system easy to navigate.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.20.09, 10:14 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • tons of people can't even get primary care if they were willing to stand a in long line. to them that would be a big improvement!

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.19.09, 01:27 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • NP: We have the most wasteful medical system in the world, and it takes up a greater percentage of our GDP, with worse outcomes, than in any other country. Lack of access to preventative care/early intervention helps drive these costs and poor outcomes.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 01:00 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • And limiting things like mammograms for women in their 40's is going to do a lot to increase early intervention. This is an example of what government involvement and control is going to be like... wake up people!!

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 01:06 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • That is one case where early intervention has been proven to be more harmful than good. So early intervention when proven to be effective is what I should have written! Intervention for intervention's sake is a major problem.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.19.09, 01:08 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • the cost could easily be made up by stopping the wars of choice we continue to pursue

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 01:57 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • This is UrbanBABY. You need to go find a political site that you can rant on b/c people here do not come here to listen to your political POV

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 01:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • op - Saw an interesting op ed in the NYT today that echos some of these same points and especially highlights the arguments made against the introduction of social security and medicare when they were introduced: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 02:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • OK and I'll bet you're the first to complain that you won't be able to get a mammogram until your 50. That's just the begining. I'm sure under healthcare reform there will be many new studies that say you don't need the exsisting care you already receive.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 08:56 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • What is wrong with you people? Nobody is saying that you CAN'T get a mammogram until you are 50. A committee that studied the effects of screening via mammogram found the benefits from 40-50 were outweighed by the negative effects. Thus, they are advising against the routine use of yearly mammograms before 50. If anyone had any indication of NEEDING a mammogram before 50 (high risk for whatever reason, found lump, etc.) they can certainly get them under these recommendations.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 09:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I don't understand why proving people don't need the care they are receiving is a BAD thing? I mean ideally we'd have a system where we don't actually give people the care until we prove that they need it, but absent that, what are we supposed to do? Go on doing the wrong thing forever because we screwed up when we originally recommended it?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 09:28 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • For what it's worth, Lincoln was a republican. Also, Strom Thurmond led a walk-out of southern democrats in 1948 and ran against Truman as a Dixiecrat. BTW, does you DC go to public or private. If you really wanted diversity, you would be in public. Your arguments are nothing more than bloviating hypocrisy.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 09:20 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • NP: Wow. You realize, I hope, that what the republican party (and democratic party) stand for has changed a lot over the years? What exactly were those statements supposed to illustrate? And where on earth did the public/private school thing come up in THIS post? BTW, my child does go to public and I'm not sure why you would assume that OP's does not. What that has to do with healthcare reform, I am not sure.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 10:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]Reports keep showing that Obama's approval ratings have dropped a lot...but I don't know anyone who voted for him whose opinion has changed. Or if it has, they're not saying. So, I'm curious...do you still think Obama is doing a good job? If so, where are these ratings drops coming from?

    6 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.19.09, 07:59 AM [ Flag ]
    • i think he's going to war with the army he has, and that these constant approval polls are silly. he didn't put the economy in the trash, start 2 untenable wars and make healthcare a crisis. there's no patience out there these days.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 08:00 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Most people I know who voted for him are not happy with what he has done and would not vote for him again. A few exceptions, but not many. Maybe he didn't put the economy in the trash, but ha sure has made it a lot worse. And wait until somebody actually has to start paying for all this stuff. As they say, you aint seen nothin' yet.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 08:47 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I agree 100%, did not vote for him..but I really had high hopes after seeing the reaction after the election so much goodwill--here and abroad--he had an awful hand to play, but I think he has played it poorly, its too bad, it will not be the story book ending it could have been

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.19.09, 09:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • Obviously his good will abroad has not dropped significantly. I'd venture to say that if he has lost any points at home it's because he is being held responsible for a ghastly economy and because of the dogged and unrelenting efforts of the FOX news crowd, who accuse him nightly of everything short of cannibalism.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.19.09, 09:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • OR: don't be like all the others...Fox like MSNBC preaches to their converted. they don't changed anyone's mind..in fact, as a conservative I actually watch msnbc not because I agree, I obviously don't but to hear how they frame their arguments--but c'mon Obama is losing his independent support, those are the facts..and like every President he should be held responsible..you are right Obama still has his international support..now if I was Fox I might say thats because he is always bowing down to someone LOL

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.19.09, 11:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • This might just be a sampling error, so to speak. If you ask NYC residents who voted for Obama this question, you're likely not getting a sampling of the group of Obama voters whose opinions of him have changed. He's alienating independents and people who didn't usually vote Dem but who voted for him. Traditionally red states that went blue, that sort of thing.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.19.09, 09:15 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]How about we change the Constitution so that nobody is allowed guns anymore? Wouldn't that make our country a better place to live and our high schools safer places to learn?

    145 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.10.09, 07:08 AM [ Flag ]
    • no thanks.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 07:09 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • No? You like guns? You think they're good?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.10.09, 07:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I don't think guns are "good" or "bad". Cops have guns - same make and model as a criminal. How can one be good and the other bad? Am I a card carrying, gun toting member of the NRA? No, I am a liberal democrat who didn't agree with OP about a constitutional amendment.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.10.09, 07:21 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • np: there are countries with strong gun control, less gun violence, and unarmed police (as in no guns, not totally defenseless). they also have lower homicide rates. And often allow hunting rifles.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.10.09, 07:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • OK. I have no problem with this statement. Are you trying to get me to change my mind about a constitutional amendment?

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.10.09, 07:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • What's your issue with a constitutional amendment?

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.10.09, 07:46 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • I don't have an "issue" with a Constitutional Amendment. I simply don't agree there should be one. I am against a Constitutional Amendment banning guns for many reasons. One, it won't work. Criminals get guns. That is just too much like "just say no to drugs". Two, law abiding citizens should be able to have a gun if they so desire. Three, I am really big on not controlling personal freedom. Just like I'm not for abortions being illegal. Yes we all have a right to "life" liberty and the pursuit of happiness... however... Have I satisfied you? Is it ok if a reasonable person disagrees with your desire to have a CA?

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.10.09, 09:03 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • Why should "law abiding citizens" be able to have guns? Should they also be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? If not, why not?

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.10.09, 08:11 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • NP: I grew up with hunters, who butchered and ate what was hunted (mostly deer and turkey). I have no problem with that, however, you do not hunt with handguns or with automatic (or semiautomatic) weapons. DH also has family friends who are diamond brokers, carry enormous quantities of loose stones and have concealed carry permits in NYC. I do believe in very strong gun control - there are legitimate reasons for people to have weapons, however there also need to be serious restrictions on who is allowed to have a gun, of any kind, for any reason, and those restrictions must be strictly enforced.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.11.09, 06:15 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • I agree with you to a considerable extent, though I'm not actually persuaded that hunting is a legitimate endeavor.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.11.09, 06:21 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • I'm going to guess that you've never had deer eating your entire vegetable garden.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • You guess correctly. I'm also not sure that blowing their brains out for doing so is morally justified.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:30 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Even if you are going to eat the meat? How is that different from buying that steak at the supermarket. (You get a pass if you are vegetarian/vegan) There is a serious disconnect between food and its source in the US - particularly in urban areas, where even the veges in the farmer's market has been washed.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • I agree with you again, about the disconnect, and yes, I'm a vegetarian, so I'm certainly not convinced that shooting an animal and then gorging on its flesh is ethical.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:39 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Fair enough

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Do you eat meat?

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 06:56 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • No, I'm a vegetarian.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 07:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • cops are like criminals.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.10.09, 07:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Our country was founded on freedoms. It's not the guns that are the problem but the individuals who use them to do harm.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 05:43 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Yes, but getting a constitutional amendment passed is extremely difficult, and for this topic, impossible.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 07:13 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Nothing is impossible. Our president is a black guy with a scary middle name.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.10.09, 07:16 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • Good point

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.10.09, 07:19 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • And you are an inflammatory ignoramus. The NRA is extraordinarily powerful. If you want to wage a war get off UB and start contacting your public officials. Harassing them won't be a much fun as anonymously bullying people but then, bullies often back off to any real challenge.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.10.09, 07:20 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • in an ideal world. it would take a LOOONG time. did you know that when i traveled to australia, when they found out i was "american", the first thing they asked me was if i owned a gun? ...that's sad.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 04:55 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Well, people said they'd never see a black president in their lifetime, and they were wrong about that. I suspect a constitutional amendment banning guns will take a long time, but if there's an agreement that it would improve our lives, then we can at least start down that road.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.12.09, 04:48 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • are you kidding? have you ever seen a gun manufacturer go bankrupt? it's the only sure bet left in town.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 07:23 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • That doesn't really get to the heart of my argument. Guns may be a lucrative business, but I think they should be banned, on account of the fact that they are used to kill people.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.10.09, 07:41 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Yeah. Colt. Like THE Colt. The one you hear on all the old time movies. They were from Connecticut. They filed I think about ten years ago. And many of the smaller manufacturers went under in the mid nineties.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 07:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Sure. See how well the gun ban worked in Germany in the late '30s? A fascist government took over and the citizenry couldn't defend themselves.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 07:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Yes, obviously.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 09:03 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • huh? why change the constitution. guns dont kill, people do. sorry if you live in some low class slum where kids have to walk thru metal detectors on their way to home ec. my suggestion: dont like it? move. cops need guns. we need guns to defend ourselves. law isnt changing, andthank god.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 09:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • do you really think that people who live in "low class slums" can simply decide to move because they don't like their neighborhood? really?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.10.09, 10:30 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • so do you really think the rest of us should have to give up our rights because their kids are violent? how are we supposed to defend ourselves against said violent people? the suggestion of the OP is just nearsighted and foolish. its like a bandaid on a broken skull. outlawing drugs has certainly helped prevent their use right? oh, and did we all forget about the prohibition days in this country? give me a break. not my problem that her kids go to a crappy public school.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 06:11 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • You're insane, possibly evil.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 06:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • evil because I dont believe in gun control laws stricter than the ones already in place?

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 06:54 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • No, evil because you don't care about other people and apparently want to defend yourself from them with firearms.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.11.09, 07:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • again. GUNS DONT KILL. PEOPLE DO. eliminate the problem.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 06:55 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • According to that logic, you should have no problem with my wish to possess a nuclear weapon. After all, it's not the nuclear warhead that kills people, it's the person who pushes the button.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.11.09, 07:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • np: Except unless you own an atoll in the Pacific, you can't use that without threatening the well being of the rest of us. The best you can say is my gun might, if a criminal breaks into my home, finds and then cracks the safe it is in, then some how reprograms the sensor in the trigger -- he could possibly use it to hurt someone.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.11.09, 08:05 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • Allowing the premise of your response, would you condone my ownership of a nuclear weapon if I owned a Pacific atoll?

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.11.09, 04:07 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • As long as you keep it on your atoll to keep you safe from Gilligan or marauding members of the Brady family shooting a reunion show, sure.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.11.09, 08:26 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • So, you would allow billionaires to own nuclear weapons. How can you be sure that they would keep these weapons confined to their private islands? This seems absurdly dangerous. There is no way I would allow private individuals to own nuclear weapons, and I am also in favor of mandatory international disarmament.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.12.09, 04:53 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • No. I would let countries who have not proven (sp?) themselves to be a threat to the rest of the world to develop their own technologies and, if possible, build their own. Now, the likelihood of you developing your own atomic bomb on your atoll are pretty low. So it seems a pretty hollow victory for you.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 05:55 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • I think you've lost track of the argument. You said you wouldn't have a problem with private ownership of nuclear weapons. If you were joking, you need to convince me that the difference between that and gun ownership is not simply a difference in degree.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 08:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Not at all. If you have your own island nation you are your own country and you can do on your island what you want (assuming you follow the general rules of international relations.)

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 08:32 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • No, you can own a private island without being a sovereign nation, but that's not really the point. The point is that you don't seem to have a problem with people owning nuclear weapons, and I do. The morality doesn't change because a "country" owns such weapons. Countries are just people, you know.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 10:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Two things: I have all kinds of issues with countries (or people) owning nuclear weapons. But I have a greater problem with a few countries telling others they can't own them (especially when the one doing much of the talking is the one country to use them against other people.)

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 11:58 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • and second: There is nothing to do with a nuclear weapon but blow a whole lot of people into dust. I have put a few thousand rounds through my 1911 Gold Cup (the type of pistol I shoot) but I have never shot it in anger and have never used it (or anything) to kill another sentient being.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 12:01 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • Enough with the nuclear weapon argument. It's apples to oranges. You sound like someone who thinks they have this great comeback but really you sound like an idiot.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.11.09, 01:19 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • right, so prevent PEOPLE from owning guns. let's put all guns in an artifact museum where we can all enjoy their beauty.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.11.09, 09:52 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • But I don't enjoy my gun for its beauty. I enjoy it because I like shooting.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.11.09, 10:05 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • museum could have shooting range.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.11.09, 10:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • Whose gun would it be then? What about when I want to do customized work on it?

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.11.09, 10:14 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • for public enjoyment only, like public parks and recreation.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.11.09, 10:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • So just anybody can shoot my gun? They don't have to have gun safety classes like I do? They don't have to be part of a club like I am?

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 10:31 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • no, it will be a shooting range. unloaded only, for sport, like a driving range. thei way, everyone who wants can have access to enjoying guns safely, if this is what they are into.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 10:33 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • "unloaded only" That takes pretty much all the fun out of shooting. Although it does make guns much safer, I will give you that. (You get the sarcasm, right? I don't have to put in a winkie, right?)

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.11.09, 11:05 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • well, you still can get the rifle/accuracy practice. and maybe you can put stuffed animals out there, so you still get the thrill of killing a living thing. then you can go eat some venison. winkie!

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 10:57 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • I said somewhere else... I have shot thousands of rounds. I have never killed anything with a gun.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 12:26 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • i said nothing about giving up gun rights. i just think it's ridiculous you would make the comment "don't like it? move." as if it were that easy. there is a raging debate over gun-ownership in this country, with plenty of reasonable people on both side. angry, ignorant people like you do your cause no favors.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 04:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Sure, if we outlaw guns nobody will ever have one. That seems to be working with drugs.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 09:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • It makes me so sad that parents don't support gun control.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 08:32 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Before you ban my gun, can I ban your cars or your wine? Those certainly kill more high schoolers.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.10.09, 08:45 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • What is a gun designed to do? What is a car designed to do? Do you see how car fatalities tend to be accidental, in a way that gun deaths never are?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 05:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • My gun is designed to defend my home. I use it mostly to bring enjoyment -- I enjoy shooting. It is kept inside a safe and the ammunition is secured somewhere else. It is virtually impossible for somebody other than me to use it without my consent.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 07:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Your gun is not designed to "defend your home". It's designed to fire high velocity projectiles which maximize harm.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 04:09 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • That is like saying a Porsche is not designed for excitement. It is designed to move one or two passengers between two points. It may be true in the most narrow sense but it denies the nature of what makes it different. (Your post is also factually incorrect. The ammunition in my home is a low velocity round.)

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 09:42 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • No, it's not like saying that. Something can be designed to have several secondary functions; a car, for example, can also play music and dvds. Guns, however, have inherently narrow designs. You can paint your gun bright yellow, but it's still designed to kill things. (Also, "low velocity" is a relative term. Do your bullets go fast enough to kill a person?)

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.12.09, 05:11 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • sure but they are also designed so that it is unlikely they kill anyone but the person I point the gun at. But my gun is pretty specialized to shot holes in paper (when doing that I use different rounds.)

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.12.09, 05:58 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • My argument is that any object that is DESIGNED TO KILL people should be banned.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.12.09, 08:30 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • I don't look at the nature of inanimate items like that. Many of our present day items have military origins -- planes (at least jets!), satellites, most communications, giant wooden horses, etc. (And in truth, I wonder if many firearms weren't probably first designed for hunting.)

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.12.09, 08:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • You might not look at them that way, but that is what guns are designed to do.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.12.09, 11:00 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • It isn't that I don't understand what they were designed for. I just don't care. The movable printing press was designed to more efficiently reproduce the bible and make God's word available to the masses. I'm an atheist. I don't let that origin get in the way of me loving books.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 12:31 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • And what's the secondary application of guns that justifies their existence?

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.12.09, 02:44 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • Defending a home. Tertiary would be: fun. People who don't do it don't get it but shooting is fun.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.13.09, 05:35 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                        • ^ I think you have to break out the many uses: police work, hunting, robbing people, defending your store, making holes in pieces of paper, etc.

                          [ Reply | Options ]
                          11.13.09, 05:36 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • np. My gun is also designed to defend my family and my home. Yes, it's unpleasant to think about, but it's DESIGNED to kill people -- people who wish to do harm to myself or my family. Some people are evil, and thank GOD I have the right to defend myself and my family from them.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 09:43 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • np: But the only gun deaths we care about are the accidental ones, right? You don't mourn (beyond the general -- "for whom the bell tolls." kind of mourning) you don't mourn the person who is shot by a home owner in self defense or by a cop in the course of his/her duty, right?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 10:04 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Moron.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 06:25 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I think the problem is that extremists on both sides have hijacked the discussion of gun control. I am against a ban on guns but I can think of several pieces of legislation which would make gun ownership less of a risk to the general public. But you'll never hear about this because it is a third rail in politics.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 08:25 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Have you ever considered the fact that the jurisdictions within the United States that have the highest murder rates also have the strictest gun control regulations? Even when you adjust for socio-economic factors, the correlation between strict gun control and higher murder rates remains. Some studies were done in adjacent counties along the upstate New York/Vermont border. Similar socio-economic and ethnic factors on both sides of the border. In one state, it is easy to legally purchase and carry a handgun; carry permits do not exist -anyone who is not a convicted felon can purchase a hand gun and carry it anywhere in the state at any time with a few minor restrictions. The other state makes it very difficult to legally purchase a hand...

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 08:32 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I wrote the "I think" post just above you. I wonder, how do you reconcile this with the well known studies comparing Vancouver and Seattle? Gun crime and everything is much lower in Vancouver. (Do you have a citation for that study? I can't find it.)

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 08:55 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • entirely about population density...more friction, more violent crime

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 09:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • There should NEVER be a CA to ban guns. Citizens have the right to bare arms and should continue to have that right. If a person wants to be a criminal and shoot someone they will. They will have no problem procuring a firearm whether there is an amendment or not. However the law abiding citizen who wants to protect themselves won't if such an amendment was passed. I personally don't own a gun and can't imagine one in my home, but if my neighbor who isn't a criminal wants one that's his/her prerogative. I understand that OP is a vegetarian but many people are not and they hunt, kill and eat their food. Why should you deny their right to kill and eat their food? If someone owns a gun and a criminal breaks into their home they have EVERY righ...

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 02:42 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Why should people be denied the right to kill and eat their food? Because it's morally wrong?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 04:19 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • According to whose morals? So everyone who eats meats is morally wrong. PPPLEASE

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 04:36 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Please what? According to my moral beliefs, it is wrong to eat meat. Now you may disagree with my moral beliefs, in which case we can argue about those. However, you seem to be suggesting that morality is a personal thing and that nobody has the right to question the moral decisions of other people. I couldn't disagree with that more. Morality is not a personal thing; by definition, it affects us all.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.12.09, 05:16 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • please explain, just so i can understand, how someone has the right to shoot someone who is on their property. is homicide an appropriate response to trespassing?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 04:20 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • If someone breaks into your home to rob you or harm your family and in defense of your family you shoot them it is not illegal.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 04:34 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • ah, okay. you were referring to a legal right. i was thinking in terms of moral rights, which i don't believe one has in the circumstances described.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 04:46 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • honestly how is defending your family morally wrong. If someone comes into my home to harm my child I would stop at nothing, including shooting to kill if necessary (if I owned a gun, I don't) to stop them. Would I feel guilty, not when I looked at my unharmed child no. Now since I don't own a gun if I stabbed them or beat them over the head with a frying pan and they died would that make it any different for you? If wouldn't for me because I did what a good mom does protect her children.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 05:04 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • i think that homicide is an excessive response to trespassing. would you be satisfied by the use of a non-fatal weapon for the purposes of self-defense, such as a taser?

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.12.09, 05:19 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • Not OR above but not new to this thread- let me ask, because I am unsure of how to feel about your POV. (Not that that should matter to you!) If someone came into your house and protecting you or your loved ones required the use of force. Would you only do that if you could be assured that it would not kill the attacker? At what point -- in your mind -- does it become ok to use possibly lethal force?

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.12.09, 09:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • This is a very interesting question. There are pacifists who would maintain that it is never morally justified to use lethal force. (This is the kind of view that Gandhi held.) My answer would be that the nature of the defense should be commensurate with the attack. Therefore, lethal force could only possibly be justified if somebody is trying to kill you. However, the fact of the matter is that you can defend yourself against such attacks in non-lethal ways, e.g. by using a taser/brick/frying pan. Therefore, it is hard to see how guns - which are designed to kill people - can be justified as tools of self-defense.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.12.09, 11:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • So you can only meet the level of the attack and if the attacker escalates, you have to react. That puts you at a huge disadvantage. Especially considering that by his/her very nature, the attacker has shown a lack of respect for fairness. (Guns can be used in non-lethal ways, too. Both by where you aim and what you shoot. I would not advocate this. I say it only for point of information.)

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.12.09, 12:37 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • no way! If everyone had a gun it would be a better safer place. criminals and nuts will always find a way to get a weapon

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 04:39 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Of course. We should give guns to high school students too. That would really reduce gun violence in schools.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 04:47 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • the predictable liberal response ..........ridiculing what you dont agree with and using inane exmaples. you are disgusting

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 04:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • np: disgusting? really? i think it's kind of disgusting to bring the level of dialogue down like that just because somebody doesn't agree with you. why do you feel the need to label that a "predictable liberal response?" why not just respond to the post?

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 08:28 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • This "inane example" is also known as a "counterexample" or "argument by analogy". It's an attempt to expose the weakness of your argument by reducing it to an absurdity. If my attempt is so "predictable" and "inane", then you should have no trouble demonstrating its failure.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.12.09, 05:23 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • np (to this thread): the obvious flaw to the first statement is the use of "everyone." No rational gun rights advocate wants everyone to have a gun. To suggest otherwise, even in the face of an obvious over generalization as OR, is to say I don't want to have an intelligent discussion.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.12.09, 06:02 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I grew up with a gun collector dad but am more liberal than he is on gun control... that said, I own 'em. I suppose if we could get in a time machine and confiscate all guns going back 50 or 100 years, a la Japan, then yes, I'd be all for stringent gun control. However, we have, literally, hundreds of millions of guns out there already in the U.S. that we have no way of taking out of every house or holster. It makes no sense to me to deny law-abiding citizens guns when those who break the law have zero trouble whatsoever obtaining them.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.12.09, 06:07 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • To say "we shouldn't have a law" because "some people will break the law" seems absurd to me. Why then should we outlaw anything?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.12.09, 08:36 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • np: Why is "because some will break the law [and then use a gun illegally to shoot someone]" an ok reason for you to take away my right to own a gun when you say "because some will break the law [and use a gun to hurt me or mine]" is not an ok reason for OR to keep his/her guns?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.12.09, 08:47 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Because in the first instance, someone will get hurt or killed, and I think the law should protect people from that. In the second instance, you are defending your right to hurt or kill someone, which as I said, I think the law should protect against.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.12.09, 11:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • NO. In the first instance the law breaker has taken my (or someone else's) gun and may use it to hurt or kill an innocent person. In the second, I (or someone else) use my legal gun to hurt or kill someone who would otherwise hurt or kill me or my kids. The only difference is who is at risk.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.12.09, 12:42 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • Also, people have a right to self-defense IMO. Depriving them of the ability to meaningfully exercise that right -- which means guns unless you are willing to tell physically small or untrained people "tough luck" when someone larger assaults them -- is in my view immoral. As someone wise once said, God made man, but Sam Colt made him equal.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.12.09, 02:03 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • np again: I would argue I have a responsibility of self defense. I have an obligation to do everything (within some bounds) I can to raise my children.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.12.09, 02:22 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Right, let's make sure that the only people who *don't* have guns are law-abiding citizens. If they die because they are victimized by a criminal who has an illegal gun, they're just taking one for the team. Omelette, eggs, and all that.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.12.09, 01:21 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Hey to whoever most of this discussion was with... thanks. It was fun and polite. Rare here.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.12.09, 02:10 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]My mom has gone totally crazy. She is so right wing conservative and it's starting to scare me. She gets so worked up about things and talks nonsense. I wish I could find some way to disable Fox News at her house. The latest thing she got worked up about was the recent declaration that 9/11 will be national service day or something (I was unaware)- she called it a "slap in the face" to people who volunteer and said that the Obamas are trying to look like they invented volunteering. I guess this was some sort of topic on Fox News recently. She can get worked up about the most benign things. She also claims that 70% of people that volunteer are conservative (her own made up statistic) and that the most popular president in recent histor...

    59 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.11.09, 09:08 AM [ Flag ]
    • haha, I like your mom

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:09 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • heck i knew a woman who believed that all black people were on welfare bc that's what conservative tv told her. when she spent some time in nyc, she was incredulous to see "so many black people working".

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I had the opposite experience when I moved from a western city (where they don't have such a generous welfare safety net) to NYC. It's like not working is part of the black culture here.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 09:54 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • this is such a bigoted point of view.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 09:57 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • But an accurate observation nonetheless.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 10:01 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • the black people i know all work. this "black culture of welfare" is a conservaative myth.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.11.09, 10:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • of course. Yes, an outsized portion of the people receiving welfare are black. however most black people DO NOT receive welfare. People get this confused!

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.11.09, 10:45 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • Actually, most people on welfare are white.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.12.09, 08:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • yes, but white people also make up a larger percentage of the population! My point was that the % of AA on welfare is higher than the % of AA in the population, but most AA are not on welfare! And of course the poverty in the AA community is an ongoing issue stemming from historical racism and treatment that has never been appropriately addressed-

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.12.09, 08:46 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • i've worked alot or retail and service oriented jobs. i'm sorry- but "they" always cut corners and i always had to put extra effort in. on the other hand, i've had black or AA bosses who were so up on there job and my perfectionism seemed lazy!

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 07:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • my mom considers her 70 year old illerate housekeeper the expert on all things "Black"- so my mom claimed that New Orleans was a cess pool and all the otehr black citizens of America felt like the people there didn't deserve help after Hurricane Katrina (because that's what the maid thought).

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 09:57 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • omg your mom and my dad should be kept as far apart as possible. fox newsies are the worst. and i'm actually fairly conservative, but i swear they just make crap up and their lemmings follow them. it is horrifying.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • OP- she also starting shouting the "f" word last ngiht because she said all conservatives are made to look like bad people who don't care about others, and said she's done so much for other people over her life, given to charities, blah, blah, blah- it just bothers me that she takes this all so personally and gets so worked up. Seems unhealthy and makes me worry abotu ehr! Obviously no one judges whether or not someone is a good person based on their political views, unless they're a neo-nazi or something!

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 09:15 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • unfortunately, the people we love don't always share out views.don't engage in political discussions-- you won't change her mind, and you won't change yours, and it will only lead to fights/heartache. i feel for you... it could be worse, though. she could be quoting limbaugh.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • My mom too. It's disturbing. I'm thinking about calling Time Warner to have the Fox News channel blocked so she can't watch that nonsense in my home. When questioned, she says without a hint of irony that she believes unequivocally that it is "fair and balanced" news. Sad.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • my mom too. She also rants and raves about teh ny times, and abc cnn, and nbc being liberal media. I'll give in that the ny times is liberal, but not every major network on tv. Would love to see fox news go out of business- that's not even a logical thought but I do wish this-

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 09:20 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • now they are sending my crap saying google's algorithim makes NYT articles rank higher, so google is liberal too. I love the crazy, as humor, if only it didn't equate to votes for more crazy.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 09:30 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Seriously, you could be describing my mom. She sounds like a lunatic and has started doing things like writing "In God We Trust" on all of her outgoing mail because "they are trying to take it away from us". Talking with her about anything is exhausting. She actually brought up the Obama as a muslim plant email during the election - as a "what if it's true" argument.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • LOL--because I'm SURE that if the crazy Islamists conspired to plant a secret Muslim as President, they'd choose the skinny black guy with the cuckoo name and not some blond Aryan named Bill Johnson or something. Like Jon Stewart said during the campaign, the only worse name he could have had was Gaydolf Titler.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 07:38 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • lol my mom is the same way and she used to be a democrat. Fox news on all the time. Do not talk bad about Bush or she goes nuts. Hates Obama. I could go on and on

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:20 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I wonder if there is a significant number of women of a certain age who are all doing the same thing? My mom prides herself on her political savvy, but she actually sounds like a nutjob because of her inability to acknowledge any other position.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 09:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Fox News has a lot to answer for. My father watches it for hours, shouting and swearing at the TV (but agreeing with every word they say). He also constantly sends me radical conservative chain e-mails about Obama's supposed lack of birth certificate and other crazy conspiracy theories. He was always a Republican, but used to be reasonably open-minded. Fox News has pushed him over the edge.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 10:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Hatertainment addict. Sorry to hear. My brother has got the same affliction. i avoid him. That crap divides us, drives a wedge between people. Sad.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 11:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • NP: My brother is exactly the same! He's only mid-40's but (not surprisingly) unmarried (never-has-been: surprise!) and fully retired with a great pension....hence: all day to listen to this crap. Perhaps we can hook my brother and your Mom up and they can ride happily ever after into the sunset???

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 04:40 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • So funny. I've only seen Fox News once when I was stuck on a business trip in an airport lounge in the midwest. There were people sitting there actually talking out loud, Amen-ing the crackpot things they were saying. I just sat there wondering if they were somehow brainwashing the viewers.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 04:50 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • they must be. honestly. the people are crazies. my dad has a doctorate and still is scammed by their crap.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 05:56 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • np Your dad might say the same about you and CNN or Huffington Post.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 06:08 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • I can never understand Ariana Huffington. What in hell is that lady saying? Anyone?

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 07:06 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • LOL!! How does CNN strike you in even the tiniest way as the liberal equivalent of FOX news? Do you remember CNN staging all of those anti-Bush rallies (and inflating the number of attendees from 75K to over a million)? Did CNN vocally and consistently present only opposing and inflammatory anti-GOP views? And seriously--CNN spawned Lou Dobbs AND Glenn Beck-how do you possibly tag them as liberal?

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 07:35 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • OR, nah, i read/watch al jazeera.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.11.09, 07:52 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Watch the DVD "Outfoxed: The Rupert Murdoch Story" and you will see they are brainwashing their viewers. THe documentary was eye-opening and very scary.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 07:54 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • i love your mom-its you who is crazy

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 07:13 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • can't get rid of foxnews. it exists because it fills a void out there, op and my il's NEED this confirmation of their own simplistic views of the world. some of the close mindedness i attribute to aging, some of it caters to terrible stereotyping, some of it may well be true, but most of it is sensationalist. foxnews is there to stir people up, and it does. there is an audience out there that wants this level of 'news', if not fox, then some other media entity would fill that need.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 07:17 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • and the drivel the other networks (all liberal leaning) spout is any better? talk about simplistic!

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.11.09, 07:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • LOL--sorry but there is NO comparison. None. The notion that all of the other networks--all corporate-owned, all dependent on advertisements, etc.--are somehow hotbeds of liberalism is ridiculous and unsupported by any kind of evidence. You just sound like a paranoid idiot when you say stuff like this.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.11.09, 07:46 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I feel your pain. My former Democrat mother is now a card carrying conservative who reiterates the Fox News talking points to me regularly, despite the fact that I've told her I do not wish to engage in political discussions with her. She is convinced that the healthcare bill will be paid for by ending medicare. She is a teabagger going to DC to protest whenever she can, not understanding why I think it is so funny that she is called a teabagger! Good luck.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.11.09, 07:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I could ahve written this post! My mom is batsh*t crazy now, and I blame Fox News. She gets worked up about the SMALLEST things that I can't believe are even newsworthy.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.12.09, 06:53 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • don't blame fox. they are appealing to dumb people. the net doesn't have to be very fine any more.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.12.09, 07:01 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]So who's disappointed in Maine?

    51 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.04.09, 04:08 AM [ Flag ]
    • I heard on 1010 this morning and was shocked and happy!

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 04:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • why--because now your husband won't leave you to marry his boyfriend? Congratulations.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 04:44 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • no, because marriage is between a husband and a wife. and btw I am not some crazy rush limbaugh cult member. why mock my values just because they are not yours. DH and i have a wonderful open and honest relationship.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 05:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • If that's true I just don't understand why you're actually "happy" at the thought of another loving couple losing that privilege. It's just plain nasty.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.04.09, 06:32 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • I am "happy" because my value system isnt being shattered. Marriage isnt a "priviledge." if I love a dog, I cant marry it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. this woman married the eiffel tower: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html, and this one, married a dolphin: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html marriage is defined as something between a man or woman. its not that i dont want other people to be happy, its not that i dont want people to be entitled to things I have. If I want to marry the Moon, can I? come on already.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.04.09, 08:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • So gay people are dogs. Nice, very nice. BS you're not a Limbaugh cult member.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.04.09, 09:00 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • In fairness, she seems pretty well reearched for a ditto-head.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.04.09, 09:04 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • It's probably on the Fox News website.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 09:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • I'm a conservative and I'm FOR gay marriage. Maybe if you stop maligning those that listen to Rush or watch Fox, you might get people to actually listen to you. Barack Obama is against gay marriage, how come that doesn't matter to any of you?

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 06:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • The fact that your "value system" can be "shattered" because two men three states away tie the knot says something about your value system...

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.04.09, 09:11 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • And the fact that you disregard the sanctity of marraige, says something about yours. If the law passes (as it has in other states), trust me, I wouldnt be out there protesting. I am not some freak who goes to gay weddings with those sicko fanatic signs. But if after a democratic vote takes place, >50% of the population says "we have a problem with this, and we will repeal the legislation that was passed," I am not going to mourn for what happened, because it is contrary to everything I believe.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.04.09, 09:13 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • No, you're celebrating and guess what--you sided with those "sickos" and their "fanatic signs." They were the ones leading the charge and you're following. But why should we expect more from someone who can't seem to tell the difference between a human being and a dolphin or a tall Parisian building?

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 09:15 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • huH??? I live in NYC. if there was a referendum on the ballot in NY, yes, I would vote against it. That is not being fanatic, that is voting according to what I believe. You see IT as fanatic; I see marrying a woman as fanatic. And guess what? apparently more than 50% of this country agrees with me. Of course there is a difference between marrying a human and a dolphin. you missed my point. my point was you can "marry" whomever (or whatever) you want. you can call it marriage, I can call it a potato. fact is man + woman + vows = marriage. you cant redefine it. that is not fanatic. that is a fact. I understand and appreciate that there are lots of liberals out there who emphatically disagree with me. part of the political process. But that d...

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 09:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • Drawning a parrallel from gay people to dolphins is the same as me saying that 15 year olds can marry each other, so long as they are of the opposite sex. Or, for that matter, siblings.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:22 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • ...oesnt make me a fanatic, it just makes my opinion "wrong" in YOUR opinion. just like your opinion is "wrong", IMO.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 09:19 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • You're not a freak but you think gay marriage is the same thing as people marrying their pets. Unbelieveable.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 09:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • I never said that. re-read my posts. I used extreme examples to prove a point. you can call marriage whatever you want. I can put my cell phone next to my husbands and say "now our cell phones are married, blackberry, you may kiss the iphone." that doesnt MEAN anything. I can have my dog marry my neighbors dog. that doesnt mean they are MARRIED. marriage. man. woman. vows. again. that is my opiion. yours is different? great. go move to Massachussets, no problem! I still think gay marriage is wrong. and people have pretty much held that stance for quite a few thousand years now. only recently have the tides turned.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 09:21 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • You can think gay marriage is wrong (as my BFF does and I respect her opinion) without using a DOG marriage to illustrate your point. What's wrong with you?

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:23 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • Wife-beating has also been a cherished privilege for thousands of years--does that mean we have to cling to it like a bunch of blind fools? And yeah, you know--maybe they will move to Massachusetts and since gay couples statistically tend to be above-average in income, educations etc. we'll reap the benefits, so to speak while Maine continues to slip backwards. You do know that states where most people hold beliefs like your tend to be poorer, less educated, have higher divorce rates, more people on welfare, etc. etc.? Enjoy--you and your married cellphones...sheesh.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:26 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • There is nothing wrong with your opinion, just the way you're stating it. You can't possibly not see that.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:28 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • many people also voted for Bush. twice.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:29 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • STOP. You are being to logical. UB cannot handle this sort of argument you need to scream and throw in a few idiots.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:37 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • I am a married person and let me tell you it can "mean" anything I feel like. That may be right or wrong to you but that is life. Why can't people focus on their own marriage and not be so worried about what other people do or don't do?

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 09:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • I love you. You are brilliant and well articulated. Ignore the flamers (no pun intended). And, although I love your logical and traditional posts, I do not want to marry you nor do I think I am owed the right to do so...

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 05:33 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • Ugh. This is the same logic people used to justify segregation.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 09:34 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • >50% of the population in this country also doesn't believe in evolution. Really, shouldn't the government be protecting the minority from majority's discrimination? We did so for all other minority groups on all the other issues...

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 09:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • are you my MIL?? She is out of her mind and constantly refers to examples like that. The best one is in regards to her marrying her daughter. your comments are ridiculous and offensive. It make rational, married people look poorly. BTW - why do you feel so entitled to marriage? What makes you more special then anyone else on this front?

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.04.09, 09:36 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • i used to agree with you and I felt pretty strongly about it--but these days--it is wrong to discriminate and deny the same rights and privledges to all--this isn't an issue that is going away--so it is time to make the same sex loving folks part of the main stream

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.04.09, 02:09 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I read it on CNN and was also shocked and happy. I read your post and get what you are saying. Most people believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The fact that people are overwhelmingly voting against "gay marriage" proves that. I wouldn't go out and protest but I certainly do protest by funding groups who oppose "gay marriage".

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 05:44 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • thank you!! finally, someone who gets what I was saying. I am not comparing a homosexual individual to a dog, dolphin or the eiffel tower. my point was only to say people can call marraige whatever htey want, but to most people (or rather, a majority of people, as is evidenced by the vote up in maine), marriage is still a union between a man and woman.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 05:56 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Disappointed but not surprised.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 06:21 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I'm disappointed and surprised. I grew up there and I found generally people really just want other people to mind their own business. My mother said the opposition was heavily funded, promoted, and advertised by the Catholic church.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 09:02 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I am. There's a difference between two consenting adults marrying each other and marrying the moon, a dog, or a building.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 09:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Very disappointed.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 09:16 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • The people have spoken. Gay people need to regroup and come up with a better marketing next time.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 09:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Gay marriage is good for the economy. Marriages cost a lot of money, as do divorces. Gay or straight someone is shelling coin out for an over-the-top event or just a simple marriage license. As for divorce, last time I checked, most divorce lawyers don't work pro-bono. Add it up: hundreds of millions here.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 09:39 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • this may work, and Gays have a lot more disposable income.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 09:41 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • That's the first time I've heard the argument that gay marriage is a good thing because gay couples get divorced and the lawyers will rake!

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 01:42 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • It is indeed disappointing that the majority of the voters in Maine have adopted Barrack Obama's position on gay marriage.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 09:48 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • was sorry to see the result, but there have now been 31 states that voted it down, so I wasn't surprised.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 10:14 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • I am! I believe in equal rights for everyone You weirdos who equate loving another adult with loving a dog or the Eiffel Tower seriously frighten me.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 01:27 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Frankly, it disgusts me more than it frightens me.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 01:37 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • I love my dog more then most human beings. I wish I could marry him.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 01:38 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • actually, she equated the marriage, not the emotions. big difference. and there are many people who agree with her. i'd like to see s omeone come up with a legitimate push-back, instead of just saying to her "i can't believe you are equating the two".

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 05:48 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • thank you. or calling me a freak. I was making a logical comparison. yes, of marriage. NOT of the emotions or the love. I am not denying that two men can love each other, while I do believe that a woman who is "in love" with the eiffel tower should be at bellvue or up at NYSPI. But I was not equating the two in an emotional sense and I think peopl totally missed my point (or just refused to see the forest for the trees, or are in denial, or IDK what. Dont care anymore.)

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 06:02 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • What a boring thread this is.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 01:43 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Ugh, the real history of why marriage exists had nothing to do with "a man and a woman", but the merging and protection of financial assets. Yes, people wanted to make babies as well, but we all know that happens plenty of times without a marriage contract involved. But money and property changing hands btw families needed a marriage to back up the transaction. Oh, and if you use a religious argument to back up your beliefs, that's fine, I'm all for freedom of religion and speech - but our government and it's laws are based on a separation of church and state.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.05.09, 07:31 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]They're trying to make a movie about the life of the prophet mohammed (matrix and lotr movie producers). Thoughts?

    25 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.03.09, 01:22 PM [ Flag ]
    • He was not a prophet.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.03.09, 01:24 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Wouldn't that be problematic for Muslims as any human representation of Mohammed is considered sacrilege?

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.03.09, 01:27 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • The core elements are there but we need to bring it into the 21st century, make him a futuristic detective, sex it up a bit with an unrequited love interest (thinking Jessica Alba), buddy him up with a fresh-faced young comedian and plot it against a corporate titan who wants to overthrow the government by programming service-industry robots to attack their customers at a pre-determined date in the future by shooting lasers from their eyes.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.03.09, 01:31 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • then call it life of abdul? (a la monty python)

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.03.09, 01:32 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • Hmm, not liking that title. What if we swap out the Mohammed role with the corporate titan, make that the "good company" and pit him against an evil government and call it The Profit Mohammed?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.03.09, 01:37 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • or it can be a comedy and be called mo' better hammed

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.03.09, 01:40 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • Why limit ourselves? One has a peg to corporate mistrust, robots and futurism while the other is a broad comedy. We can do both. I have a feeling Westerns are going to come back unto vogue in 2011, so we could do a straight up period Western called The Good, The Bad and Muhammed.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.03.09, 01:49 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • np: I have a totally fresh twist. Martin Lawrence plays the title role in Ho Mamma'ed. It is about a young urban man whose girlfriend is a bartender at a house of ill repute. She swears all she does is mix drinks but he wants to check up on her.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.03.09, 02:05 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • About time.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.03.09, 01:58 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • Really? i'm muslim and i know muslims will FREAK OUT over this! some muslims do not like representations of any type (due to the threat of idolatry and also misuse of the image)...we have paintings hung up in the house and sometimes people say sadly to us that angels won't enter our house...so a whole movie seems like it will cause major probs. -*

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.03.09, 05:00 PM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • yea seriously! im jewish and that was what I was thinking! I mean I know we have the 10 commandments and stuff (moses is depicted), but I know islam is very vehemently opposed to any sort of human representation (like that cartoon...remember the outcry??!?!), and I was surprised and shocked by this post. I hope it doesnt happen, i think its disrepectful to Muslims and I would be upset, and I am not even a Muslim, and I dont even believe Mohammad WAS a prophet!! (remmeber, Im jewish, no insult intended)

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 04:51 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • So do Catholics and still there are plenty of movies out there with God portrayed in some way.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 06:10 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • so you mean watching "the passion of the christ" which depicts jesus is against your religion? all I meant is that I clearly know that depicting mohammed in any shape or form is against the "rules" of islam. We (jews) dont depict God in any form or drawing, it is a sin to do so. but if SOMEONE ELSE makes a movie depicting G-d or one of our prophets, that is their perogative. that is how judaism looks at it, and I thought christianity had a similar perspective. can you elaborate please?

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 06:18 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • sounds educational to me since I know nothig about him

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 10:15 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
  • [-]WOW! these people hold obama to task WAAAAY more than anyone ever held the prior presidents. i wonder why that is?

    25 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    10.29.09, 06:54 AM [ Flag ]
    • Several reasons. 1. He said he would do better/more. 2. He is not a republican. 3. He is not actually an American and this is all that is left.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      10.29.09, 07:05 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • Didn't the Birther movement die already?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 04:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • I don't think that movement dies until the actual birth certificate is released.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 04:40 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • shouldn't you be over on some conspiracy theory web site? God, you people are dumb and pathetic.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.04.09, 04:43 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
            • I'm dumb because he didn't release his birth certificate? I don't see the logic.

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.04.09, 04:45 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
              • He did, and his birth announcement is in two hawaiian newspapers from the time--do you seriously think that the family faked this whole thing, just in case their half-Kenyan, bi-racial newborn son might one day be elected President? But why am I arguing with a lunatic? Why don't you find a real issue to deal with instead of this idiotic crap--you're just embarrassing yourself.

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.04.09, 04:51 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • He did not publicly release his birth certificate. That's just a fact and I don't have to argue it with you. I'm not part of the 'birther' movement. I didn't vote for him, but I accept him as the president and give him the respect that comes with it. You can't expect the movement to die when President Obama isn't willing to prove them wrong by releasing the proof. You can call me all kinds of names and get as angry as you like but it doesn't change facts. I don't think I'm embarrassing myself at all, I'm not a lunatic either-I'm not attributing any type of back-story or motive to the whole thing, just pointing out one single fact.

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.04.09, 04:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • Oh, for crying out loud, here's the birth certificate: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html. See here for a timeline of the whole debacle with a link to the same certificate: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp. As the second article notes, it's consistent with other certificates from that time. What, you need to see the original? (BTW, snopes is a reliable source that debunks rumors and urban legends via research.)

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 05:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • You know--we could provide date-stamped video of baby Obama being popped out on a beach in Waikiki and these pathetic loons would still be ranting about this non-issue because they don't really have anything real to discuss.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 05:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                    • This is a certificate of live birth, which you or I or any person with a birth certificate from anywhere on the planet, could go to Hawaii and receive. You turn in your birth certificate from any state or country and receive this in return. It is not a birth certificate, an entirely different document. I'll say it again, he has not publicly released his birth certificate. He's the president. Fine. Just don't expect the movement to die without the proof. Snopes is not an entirely reliable website by the way, they are just a couple of basement bloggers who sometimes get it wrong.

                      [ Reply | Options ]
                      11.04.09, 05:17 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • Bah. The data on the short form of the birth certificate (that's what a certificate of live birth is) comes from the exact same source as the long form. Both are interchangeable and legally valid birth certificates. The long form has way too much information that is of nobody's concern.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 05:56 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                      • Newsflash: your "movement" is dead, as well as your brain.

                        [ Reply | Options ]
                        11.04.09, 06:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • The certificate was released PUBLICLY last year.

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 05:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                  • So explain the newspapers then. Please. Forgeries, or all part of the vast conspiracy started in 1961 to implant this baby in a position of great power (surely that's why they decided to name him Barack Hussein and not John Harold or something...)

                    [ Reply | Options ]
                    11.04.09, 06:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
                • not that OP. I dont care where he was born. lets get this back on track. the issue is people holding him to his campaign promises. why? because he keeps getting up and telling us all the great things hes going to "change" and then doesnt follow up, so people start to lose "hope" in all his idealism

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.04.09, 05:07 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • because he has given 30someodd speeches on "healthcare reform" most of which are vague and just refer to lofty ideas, and has yet to actually DO anything. just like all his "we want change" campaign speeches. WAHT exactly has he changed. other than throwing money at the auto industry and encouraging people who couldnt afford to buy cars to begin with, to buy cars they still cant afford.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 04:39 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • One, that is the role of the executive in our system. The legislative branch drafts the legislation, the executive branch executes the laws. Two, US Auto makers are bouncing back (well two of three) very well. Even after the sales bump of "cash for clunkers" Ford and GM had good numbers last month.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 05:51 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
        • are you an economist? because if not you can tell me whatever you want about last months numbers, but I firmly believe that the answer to a problem does not = throwing money at it and creating more government programs to spend more and waste more. only time will tell what will happen in the long term. what happens 2 months later doesnt mean anything in the long term.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.04.09, 06:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
          • Cash for clunkers was not some big "government program." It was a brief tactic to stimulate buying in a sector which was tanking and tanking fast. I don't have a PhD in economics (although I have several u/g and grad credits.) But I read enough to know that a lot of the people with those PhD are saying (as they have said all along) that if we really want to get the economy going, we need to "throw" more not less money at the problem. That the stimulus package was too small by half. And that the reason the employment numbers are not bouncing back as fast as people want is we have not put enough money into the economy. So, I guess we should put you down for another $500-750B.

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.04.09, 06:40 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
    • OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in up state New York . HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, since he has now become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although President Obama was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about HIS future ideas for helping HIS 'red sisters and brothers'. At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented Obama with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - "Walking Eagle". The proud President then departed in his motorcade,...

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.04.09, 05:36 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
      • waving to the crowds. A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name they had given to the President. They explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of sh!t, it can no longer fly.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.04.09, 05:37 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
refresh »

Your settings

Stages
Regions
Select all

Log in to save selected filters as your default.

Numbers in parentheses are the number of posts in that category.

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

UrbanBaby Asks...

Are you or your partner ever naked in front of your children?

Already voted? View Results

See previous polls »