Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Amy, I realize there are radical "so called" Christians.  I realize some time back that they bombed abortion centers.  I remember a doctor being killed that did abortions in one of those centers.  Now that IS radical.  However, I don't think that person was a REAL Christian.  It is not our place to take matters into our own hands. 

I speak of the terrorists who attacked us and they were Islam radicals.  Not all Islamic religion believes the way they do...that they had the right to kill innocent people.  I do not group ALL Muslims into that category.  And I think you are intelligent enough to know that.

I know a little of what goes on in other parts of the world.  In many cultures men are treated like they are gods.  My dd and sil was telling me about how some of the Africans are.  The men drink, the women work, and the little kids take care of the parents.  Yep, sick.  But there's no one to teach them any different. 

Think about the Muslim children who are taught to hate us.  They're taught how to carry out these homicide/suicides.  I would think you would be more appalled at that than my saving one child.  And, Amy, that decision was hard to make.  Took prayer and wringing my hands to make that decision.  It didn't come easily.

Others want us to get back to politics. 

Shirley

Shirley, I think you're being very sweet to Katie, I think basically you are a sweet person and you don't want to harm anybody.

But if Katie is going to come here and give people the idea that they are going to be "threatened" for just expressing their own opinions, I want to know what Katie means by this.  I have seen Katie's tendency to exaggerate already when she says this board is just too "scary."  IMHO, the "threat" wasn't really a threat, just an opinion.

We are not a bunch a werewolves here, we're just a bunch of women, and WTH does everything have to get so weird?!!!!

The other thing that I think about is Geez, this is an election year, and God Knows what or where is happening with the political campaigns.  Are there actually people who are inflitrating all the boards to create a ruckus?  Don't tell me it can't happen!!!

Miz 

I find it interesting that so many women here are taking extreme opinions bout something they can't know.

We can only speculate...but if someone is making threats on BC.ORG I want to know about it.  Maybe even I shouldn't be posting.  How the heck can someone not be *permitted* to post?!!   What are the consequences?  I want to know.  If they can threaten Katie, can they threaten me?

Or is this just a bunch of dramatic hoopla!  Why don't we just find out...or is the truth something that you cannot deal with?  Is the mystery more interesting and productive?!!

Miz

Seriously, this all needs to stop right now.

Katie has said some hurtful things to me in the past, and I wrote her and very politely asked her to stop talking to me.

I never told her not to post on any thread.

And for those of you that she copied what I wrote to her.. did you see all 6 things that went back and forth? b/c quite frankly, I've never been spoken to that way, nor do I think it's anyone's business when I PM someone, and then they decide to make it public.

I'm not about to defend what I said, nor discuss it, b/c again, it was all said with respect, and I have no reason to apologize.

This goes back WAY before this political thread between she and I.

She knows where this started, and I was trying to solve it in a private matter, but unfortunately, that's just not going to happen.

I'm done with her, and this thread.

I knew I NEVER should've gotten involved in this debate.

I'm starting to think my time in these boards is coming to an end.

Excuse me!  Has someone new taken  over these boards?

"Katie is guilty of exaggerating and over-dramatizing and enough is enough.

BethNY, you are welcome to post here.  I value your opinions.  You also have a vivacious & vibrant personality and are an asset to the boards here. Please don't leave. 

Katie, we haven't seen too much of you, but you are also welcome, but if anybody is guilty of bullying, it is you, not BethNY."

I would suggest you reread what you just posted.  I would be running as fast as I can away from this board with this kind of attitude.  How can YOU judge who is bullying.  Just because Katie hasn't been here on these boards does not mean that she has any less right being here.  And how can YOU say she's exaggerating?  Do YOU know something that's not posted here?

Cliques are one thing, but kissing @$$ is something else.  I'll probably get kicked off here because someone may go running to the mods. 

Katie is just as good as Beth, you, me..everyone on this board.  Her input might be of value. 

<STOMPING OFF!>

Shirley

I thought I was lost on the threads.....needed to look at the topic again...

Sorry that it deteriorated to this....there's nothing quite like a group of menopausal women fighting for their life to bring down the house...I know because I'm one of us...and I get very out of sorts.

Magnesium helps me very much to rebalance my moods....and writing until I write from a place of peace helps too...if I'm too quick on the draw I can say some hateful things....can't we all? 

Best wishes to all ... as always. 

I haven't posted on this thread but I've been reading along. It's so interesting to see so many different opinions. I agree with NoSurrenders viewpoint on the war and see Shirleys point on many things also. I think each and every one that posted about their political ideas made good sense. 

When reading something of this nature I have to wonder how things like our upbringing, economic bearing, geographic area and education all come into play. This is a wonderful group of intelligent women from all over the world so it does make it quite interesting to see others opinions. Some of the longer posts that I didn't agree with I would go back through and it seemed like there was almost always something the poster said that rang true in my own thoughts that I'd missed the first time.

I have always heard it best not to discuss religeon and politics but I'd never heard it about the subject of sex. I doubt there'd be as many disagreements over it.

Shirley--as quoted in your response to mine: "I can see that you do not really want to discuss, agree or disagree with us who STRONGLY disagree with you. I think what you missed is that bashing our country makes some of us a little sick. Do you think all the "woes" are the president's fault? What you (I really mean you all) forget was the war was voted on and passed. Now, some of those who voted want to back track and say "foul." Not buying it!" My response: I don't really care if the war was passed by those who now want to take it back. I never wanted a war, never said I wanted a war to my reps in Congress, and was never asked if I wanted a war. As far as I'm concerned, Bush should have been impreached. JMHO



your comment: "Until today? Grace, that's because there's been no one here to disagree with any of you except for the dems who are discussing which dem nominee...Obama or Hillary. That's why it has been "a breath of fresh air." my response: Not true IMHO, guess I can say that and not be making a judgement here!



your comment: "What? I believe there are enough cynics to go around in both parties ." my response: Sorry, I still disagree with you. Like I said, I will agree to disagree with you. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong, and same goes for me!



your comment: "Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. However, there have been judgements made from "your" side also." my response: There may have been judgements from "your" side (I didn't know I had to be on a side--I thought that was something that came as an extra dish with your food! LOL!) but I am not responsible for what other people write on this site when it comes to abortion. I am only responsible for what I say, and I don't recall having made any judgements as to your beliefs/values ever on this thread or any other. Please don't place labels on me. I have placed none on you. I have spoken about conservative women. If the shoe fits wear it by all means. I did not say anywhere that you are or were conservative. Define it how you wish, I have not judged you. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stone! JMHO



your comment: "OMG! You are kidding, right!? Perhaps YOU are being the CYNICAL one here." my response: I really don't understand why you are attacking me this way. you devoted almost an entire email to my remarks that purely were just my opinion. I don't think I have attacked you in any way. I have been commenting on everyone's ideas that have been written on this thread. I wasn't being cynical at all about McCain. I listen very carefully to how he expresses himself, and it is JMHO that he ends his sentences on a downward note, talks without opening his mouth very much--almost like his jaw is perpetually clenched, and is very quietly but also condescending in his answers to questions. sorry if you don't agree with me, but that's how I see and hear it. Don't think FREE SPEECH has been taken away quite yet, although it may be sooner than later since Bush has a few more months!



Your comments: "OMG again! Talk about CYNICAL! The terrorists would LOVE Obama in office. So, they're not going to assassinate him. Why would they? He's going to bring our troops home so they can go in and take over Iraq and whoever else they can get their hands on. Now, if he picked Hillary for VP that may be another problem. If he's knocked off, she'd be Prez!"



"Really, who do you think would assassinate him?"



my response: Cynical again? Can't you be more creative? As far as someone who might assassinate him? I don't know. We still don't seem to know who assassinated JFK, so I don't think I will touch that one. I do know that in several gatherings w/groups of people from all parties, the idea of assassination has come up. I think it is because of the assassinations in the 1960s, and those of us who lived through that don't want to lose another wonderful, inspirational presidential candidate who may be the only one out of all of them who can unite the people of this country. We have lost JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, JR. & Malcolm X. I don't want to see us lose anyone else. Obama will be good for this nation and for regaining the respect of other nations. We have lost too much at this point.



Finally, I want to say to you that I seem to have offended you greatly. I think everyone on this thread has had some powerful things to say, and good ideas that we can all ponder. I don't believe that anyone on this thread is right or wrong. I don't believe that the world or politics is black or white. I see the world in many shades of gray. We need to come together and be able to discuss openly what we each think and feel. I may not agree with you, but I surely haven't judged you. Please try to be more open and think carefully about what is written.



I won't even touch abortion or discuss it with anyone. I do believe that the decision to have an abortion belongs to the woman. It is a decision she should reach as it is her body.



I'm very saddened that this thread has become so controversial and personal. We all use words here that may mean something different to another person. I will say this again because I think it bears repeating. We are united in one sense here as we have all had our own experience with breast cancer. I believe we are bc sisters. I will continue to make every effort not to judge anyone or any idea.



grace



ps: And, Yes, I did what I said you did Shirley--post these remarks to you. I also think they are inclusive enough to be said to all.

Hi Shirley,

We had a huge windstorm here on Wed. night (no, I wasn't blowing hot air again LOL) and two trees took out all the power lines on the mountain. It took until today to get the phone line back so that's why I didn't respond to your earlier post. I was gone all day today, so didn't get on the bc site until late tonight. Even gave up Big Brother (which was boring anyway--20 somethings are such airheads!)



No I think the new thread is interesting, just not enough of both sides for me! I like being challenged.

And I really do like you Shirley, I just may not agree with you. Hope that's okay for now!



I did not hear Obama's speech tonight. Perhaps I can catch it later. Yes, I do believe the President can bring the troops home on his own. Just like the current President sent the troops after twisting Congress' arm to vote for the war. I just hope that if the troops are brought home next year, that it is done very carefully and without loss of life of our troops and the Iraqi citizens. I don't believe that our government will leave Iraqis defenseless. I have read that part of the problem is that before the surge, the Iraqis weren't too swift about getting their government set up, voted on, and working toward their independent state w/out so much US support.



I very much support the young men and women who have enlisted in our armed forces. Although I would not want my son or daughter to do that (because I don't believe that our country was justified in waging war on Iraq), I certainly want all members of the Armed Forces to return home whole. Unfortunately, because of the way this war was waged, we have not only suffered to many losses of our young people, but we have an enormous number of men and women who have alread returned to this country, and can never be made whole. When I see the young men and women who have lost limbs, sight, and autoimmune chronic conditions, I cry. I don't think this war has been worth these losses. JMHO.



I'm not sure what I set you straight about, as that was not what I intended to do, and I hope I have not offended you.



Glad you came back to ask me what took me so long.



Got to get off the puter now, and get some zzzs.



Take care,



grace



ps: perhaps our paths will cross on the other "boring" thread. LOL!

Umm... shirley the president is commander in chief of the army, of course he has not only the right, but the responsibility to bring our troops home.

Thanks for your response grace-- I started to feel like I was the only one not drinking the cool aid.

Paulette, I think that a president who is antiwar will make much better judgments than one who is too quick to pull the trigger towards war. I would bet that even the staunchest in the military would rather see diplomacy work than have to go to war. I am antiwar, but that does not mean I think we should NEVER go to war, just that it should be a last resort. I agreed with going into afghanistan after 9/11 to look for Osama bin forgotten and hunt out the taliban. I didn't like it, but I agreed that is was necessary. Obama has said he will use military force if necessary.

I recognize that we our military sometimes fights for those who are not allowed the free speech that we enjoy, but at the same time find it problematic when told (not necessarily by you) that one can't both support the troops and be against the war or one can't support the troops w/o supporting the mission or that opposing the president and/or the war is unpatriotic.

Sometimes I think Bush has brainwashed people into thinking terrorism is the biggest threat to this country. If you're the mother of blind 2 year old twins who is facing forclosure because of predatory lending and is about to become homeless, the one Obama talked about in his speech last night, you've got bigger threats. The biggest immediate threats to her life where your next meal is going to come from, where you'll be living tomorrow and whether CPS will take your kids away because you can't provide a stable place for them to live. What I'm trying to say is that people have threats to their lives and well being that don't involve terrorism. Having a diplomatic president will likely reduce the threats, IMHO.

I agree that if possible, not to rob peter to pay paul, but realistically, if people are clamoring for no taxes, do not want bush's temporary tax breaks to end-- the money has to come from somewhere.  I believe we need to fund the military AND make sure they have adequate armor and that they should never be in a position not to have the ability to protect themselves. What Bush did was horrible sending those young men and women in without that. That's not supporting the troops, literally, if you ask me.

Grace, we will agree to disagree on some points! I think one of the reasons people get so fired up about certain discussions is that people will jump into a post and have no real experience in what is being said and only interject their "opinion" or assumption and we all know about assumptions!

I don't post often because I prefer to post from experience. I do however read the posts/threads on a daily basis.

Paulette, you make a good point.  I agree that it's often not clear from some anti-war demonstrations that the protest is against the government and not the military.  And the support & funding for returning vets is not what is should be or needs to be. 

I think maybe my comment was shaded by my experience in Canada, where perhaps we are doing a little bit better.  As the debate about Canada's military role in Afghanistan has escalated, there's also been a real effort to increase the show of support for the troops.  As a small (and perhaps not very good) example, whenever there is a military death in Afghanistan, the coffin is flown to a particular base east of Toronto. The stretch of highway on which the coffin is then transported to Toronto (for autopsy before being sent home for burial) has recently been named the Highway of Heroes.  The idea to do this was started by petition, which over 14,000 people signed.  Whenever a coffin is being transported, people gather on the overpasses to honor the soldier.  It started with just a few people and but now has grown to hundreds.  It could be just that we in Canada have learned a lesson from watching the U.S., but I think we're quite conscious here that we don't want our questioning of the Canadian military role in Afghanistan to be interpreted as lack of support for the military itself.   Which is not to say that we are doing enough.....

Why is it that some people (including the media) feel that Obama should not be president because he has no experience with foreign policy?



We have had a president for the past 8 years who had no experience with foreign policy. People voted him into office. Was it because he had Cheney as his VP on the ticket--someone with foreign policy experience?



Perhaps if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, we will have more information on how he will include those around him as foreign policy advisors.



And what about Ronald Reagan? He appeared to lack any foreign policy experience.



It just seems to me that we should no discount a candidate simply because he doesn't have every level of experience that we think she/he should.



I'm still waiting to see what happens with the rest of the primaries in other states. Republican party looks like it's a given, Democrats are still up in the air. It makes for interesting news, debates, and questioning what is right for this country right now.



grace