[-]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 ]-
-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]
-
[-]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 ]I think it is probably bc many people are pro-life until they are faced with having to raise a DS child.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]
-
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 ]-
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 ]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 ]
-
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 ]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 ]i thought poor are more likely to have baby, whereas wealthy are more likely to have abortion?
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
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 ]
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 ]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 ]
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 ]-
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 ]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 ]
-
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 ]-
Not only give a speech--fly home from Texas to Alaska!! http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/palins-medica-2.html
[ Reply | Options ]Andrew Sullivan, the daily dish, is a kook. He is not a responsible journalist, but a conspiracy theorist who does not report facts.
[ Reply | Options ]Really? I'm not a huge fan of him personally, but don't consider him remotely kooky or inventive re facts. And the Atlantic is pretty tough re that kind of thing. What supposed non-facts do you have a quibble with here? Most people on UB would tell you that most airlines won't even let you fly after 8 mos. and it's true that she was leaking amniotic fluid. If that were you, would YOU get on a long flight? No way, unless you felt indifferent or worse towards your baby's health and survival.
[ Reply | Options ]
Yes, that whole thing was weird as hell. I never believed the "Bristol is Trig's real mother" rumor but Palin's behavior surrounding this birth was just crazy. I never thought of that as an explanation but actually I can sort of believe that she was losing her mind a little bit and feeling very, "Let God decide what he wants to happen," about it.
[ Reply | Options ]-
We're not the ones who got on a 8-hour plane flight while in labor. Now that's creepy.
[ Reply | Options ]-
Her water was broken! This was her fifth pregnancy, you can't tell me she didn't know that was a sign of labor.
[ Reply | Options ]Are you quoting Plain who said her water broke or are you getting the info from the dubious Andrew Sullivan of the "daily dish"... this is beyond creepy.
[ Reply | Options ]According to the New York Times, Palin herself has said that her water was broken when she got on the plane.
[ Reply | Options ]-
meant to add this http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]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 ]-
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 ]
-
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 ]
[-]Do you know that the same people, same mentality that tried to keep slavery and child labor and block universal education, social security, and every other good thing we have, and also for that matter tried to block giving women the vote and opposed Civil Rights and actually defeated Equal Rights, now oppose universal healthcare. Their argument is always "We can't afford it!". But eventually this healthcare issue will be recognized by all
9 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]ITA. They are the same people who opposed the establishment of medicare, which is the only reason parents and grandparents of posters here can get health insurance. Otherwise, no insurance company wants to insure a senior citizen. I dare people to argue that we should do away with medicare.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]op - you'll notice I said same kind of people and mentality - not same political party. as far as mammograms, not planning to get one at 40 or 50 as I am of that other species - male. Also, I lived in the UK for a few years and found their national health service to provide overall very good care. and of course there was always the option of private doctors and hospitals.
[ Reply | Options ]
[-]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]-
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]-
np LOL. Wait 'til you're lined up at a walk-in clinic waiting for primary care...
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]-
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 ]
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]
[-]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
[-]new government recommendations for mammograms now to start at 50-welcome to Obama Care get used to it
7 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]my private GP in the UK also believes in starting mamograms at 50 and it is not a cost issue. My insurance would pay
[ Reply | Options ]-
maybe it is trolly--but younger woman die from breast cancer and that is a fact--and I know quite a few forty yo's and younger who have had breast cancer and two that have died from it--this is a government run task force and insurance companies will take up this recommendsation to save money.
[ Reply | Options ]
[-]new government recommendations for mammograms now to start at 50-welcome to Obama Care get used to it
2 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
[-]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 ]-
-
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 ]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 ]OK. I have no problem with this statement. Are you trying to get me to change my mind about a constitutional amendment?
[ Reply | Options ]-
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 ]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 ]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 ]I agree with you to a considerable extent, though I'm not actually persuaded that hunting is a legitimate endeavor.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
-
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 ]
-
Yes, but getting a constitutional amendment passed is extremely difficult, and for this topic, impossible.
[ Reply | Options ]-
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 ]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 ]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 ]
-
are you kidding? have you ever seen a gun manufacturer go bankrupt? it's the only sure bet left in town.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]-
-
oh, they were. i've read lots of history. (and if they weren't their masquerades were amazing). please. the nazi machine was responsible for tens of millions of deaths. SOMEONE supported them.
[ Reply | Options ]np. Wrong. Most of the Germans had no idea the monsters they voted into power. Once in power, the monsters further changed all the rules (kind of like what Obama is trying to do today). Once the ball got rolling, the damage was done, and it was too late to turn back.
[ Reply | Options ]Right... kind of like what Obama is trying to do. You my friend are either a fool or a troll. Maybe both: a tool.
[ Reply | Options ]-
Stop talking like a paranoid illiterate half-wit. Anyone who compares our democratically-elected president to the Nazi regime is hopelessly ignorant. Seriously--my dog understands more about history, politics, and human nature than you do.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
I can't wait to hear how you think this is true. Because we may get some government health care which you believe is Socialism and the Nazis were Socialists, ergo we're Nazis? Great logic. Hitler was a vegetarian too--does that mean that anyone who's a vegetarian is clearly on the verge of becoming a Nazi. I mean, heck--if they're following in Hitler's footsteps, then...? One minute tofu stifry, the next step--Dachau.
[ Reply | Options ]http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/254902/mon-november-9-2009-kit-bond around 2:10. Friggin hilarious.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]-
evil because I dont believe in gun control laws stricter than the ones already in place?
[ Reply | Options ]-
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 ]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 ]Allowing the premise of your response, would you condone my ownership of a nuclear weapon if I owned a Pacific atoll?
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
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 ]-
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 ]
-
Sure, if we outlaw guns nobody will ever have one. That seems to be working with drugs.
[ Reply | Options ]Before you ban my gun, can I ban your cars or your wine? Those certainly kill more high schoolers.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]Your gun is not designed to "defend your home". It's designed to fire high velocity projectiles which maximize harm.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]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 ]My argument is that any object that is DESIGNED TO KILL people should be banned.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]-
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 ]
-
-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]Why should people be denied the right to kill and eat their food? Because it's morally wrong?
[ Reply | Options ]According to whose morals? So everyone who eats meats is morally wrong. PPPLEASE
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]Of course. We should give guns to high school students too. That would really reduce gun violence in schools.
[ Reply | Options ]the predictable liberal response ..........ridiculing what you dont agree with and using inane exmaples. you are disgusting
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
-
[-]Who is a Dave Ramsey fan? I'm so liberal, but I LOVE his advice! Antone else?
1 reply [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
[-]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 ]-
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 ]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 ]-
-
the black people i know all work. this "black culture of welfare" is a conservaative myth.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]-
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 ]
-
-
-
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 ]
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 ]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 ]
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 ]-
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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]they must be. honestly. the people are crazies. my dad has a doctorate and still is scammed by their crap.
[ Reply | Options ]-
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 ]
-
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 ]and the drivel the other networks (all liberal leaning) spout is any better? talk about simplistic!
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]
-
[-]Stemming from an earlier post today- can someone that watches Fox News explain how you consider this news?
2 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
[-]i saw this article in which obama talks about his daughter getting a 73 on an assignment and telling her that he expects a 95... is that a good thing? i sometimes wonder if as parents we should be more focused on doing your best than getting the best results. should a child who's less gifted feel bad about not scoring at the top of the class? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/obama-uses-malias-test-scores-as-a-teaching-example/
9 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]Thanks for posting the link. I don't see that he expected a 95 of his daughter. I read that his daughter got a 95 on her next test and that he and Michelle expect scores in the 90s in general. Kudos to the biology teacher for giving what became a rather public grade. If my child gets a score in the low 70s, it means she doesn't understand the material and I work with that.
[ Reply | Options ]I can't weight in on O's kid - I trust that he knows her better than I do and is a very good dad. In our house, we pretty much stay out of it. My child is still on the young elementary side, but it appears that being a C/B student is going to be good enough for her. Is she smart enough to be an A student - without question - but she is lazy. I think each person gets to decide what type of student they want to be.
[ Reply | Options ]I think it's creepy that he's discussing his kid's marks in public when he and his wife have been vehement about the girls' privacy being respected. The guy's a hypocrite (in many ways).
[ Reply | Options ]Why don't people like you realize that when you say things like this you get your opinion voided simply based on being a hater. When you can only see one side (the negative) of anything related to your issue you sound irrational. I don't waste my time on irrational people. You would do yourself some good to TRY to look at the big picture. When you can have a rational, intelligent conversation weighing both the good and the bad of a topic then we'll talk. Until then I roll my eyes and write you off as a belligerent fool.
[ Reply | Options ]
I don't think there's anything wrong with having high standards for your dc. If my dc got a 73 and I truly believed she was capable of bringing home a 95 then I'd probably convey that message. At least he didn't demand a 100%. Now if she was not capable of getting a 95 then I would change my opinion, but there's no way we can know that.
[ Reply | Options ]
-
-
why--because now your husband won't leave you to marry his boyfriend? Congratulations.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]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 ]-
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
You're not a freak but you think gay marriage is the same thing as people marrying their pets. Unbelieveable.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
-
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 ]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 ]
The people have spoken. Gay people need to regroup and come up with a better marketing next time.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
-
[-]received a phone call with a recorded message advocating a particular candidate. message said it was from a gay and lesbian alliance in support of the only candidate who was supportive of gay marriage. so i was wondering, how many people got that phone call and had it sway them against the candidate as opposed to swaying them for the candidate.
10 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]I'd vote for exactly the opposite of who they endorsed only because of all the really pressing, broadly important issues gay marriage rights is just about at the bottom of what I think would make a candidate worthy of running a part of our city or country. They're entitled to want what they want, but not to impose their view on me, just as I wouldn't expect them to care about my very narrow special interest.
[ Reply | Options ]uh, I don't think they're trying to "impose their views" on you. You think they'r trying to make you gay? No. They're trying to get treated as equals.
[ Reply | Options ]Are you kidding? Where in the response does it say that I think they are trying to make me gay? In fact I say they are entitled to what they want. It's just a fact at this point in time there are more pressing concerns that effect a much broader spectrum of people who also deserve to be treated as equals. But in your world equals only means your concerns to your narrow group.
[ Reply | Options ]
[-]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 ]-
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 ]-
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 ]-
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 ]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 ]
-
-
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 ]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 ]So do Catholics and still there are plenty of movies out there with God portrayed in some way.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]
-
[-]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 ]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 ]-
I don't think that movement dies until the actual birth certificate is released.
[ Reply | Options ]shouldn't you be over on some conspiracy theory web site? God, you people are dumb and pathetic.
[ Reply | Options ]I'm dumb because he didn't release his birth certificate? I don't see the logic.
[ Reply | Options ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
-
-
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 ]
-
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 ]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 ]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 ]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 ]
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 ]
[-]guess what percentage of registered NYC voters voted in this election. Guess the percentage of NJ registered voters who voted. And guess what percentage of people who could be registered voters are, in fact, registered to vote.
5 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]-
op: actually i'm not really sure. here's what i do know. nj has a total population of 8.7 million and has 5.2 million registered voters. they had about 2.2 million people voting this election. nyc has about 4million registered voters and about 1 million people voted this election.
[ Reply | Options ]-
-
Most Watched Posts
- What's the funniest, best, worst thing your DC has done on a school interview/playdat...
- If there's the dc of a celeb/"bold-named" in your dc's class is it completely 'normal...
- My dd (who is almost 2 1/2) weighs 24 pounds, which isn't bad but puts her in the 10%...
- Has anyone with a still 3 YO scored above 142 on the SB?
Most Popular Topics
- Ivies+Duke+Chicago+MIT+Stanford+Amherst+Williams+Caltech (20005-09): Brearley 53%, Ho...
- Religious UBers: where is God when little girls and boys are getting raped and sodomi...
- Was in a store near ps 186 (I think) and those DCs were more obnoxious and entitled t...
- The fact is that schools promote their biggest donors to the best schools. So even if...
- Based on the Ivy exmissions post, Brearley is a better school than Chapin?
- I am going to get flamed but here we go, schools process is stressful for everyone no...
- I'm expecting triples girls! What do you think of the names Anita Louise, Clarice Ama...
- Annual fund question: is it common for a school to send out different versions of th...
UrbanBaby Asks...
Are you or your partner ever naked in front of your children?
Already voted? View Results
Flashback
The Kid's Menu
Video: Cooking With Grandma Gigi
Granddaughter Olivia helps make plantation casserole...
Also:Lunchbox Recipes
School Lunch Obsessive (video)
Make your Own Baby Food
Baby Food Taste-Off
Is it wrong to ask minors to mix martinis?
Can you tell a pregnant boozer to stop?
