The lady doth protest too much

Opppsa.

Do NOt-Fix, What is NOt-Broken!

TO: Daniel HEiMBACH {Blocker of Posts] ; On; "WHY DADT must Stay" (09.27.10):

Dear Bredren, Brother, Bright.. (Note: Huggs n a Kiss's To allk da Sistrens, Sisters, SisStars.. too):

AMAZiNG, NO GRACE! iNteresting!

A little bit of a tangent. "DADT" intent/purpose is fo Non-Straights NOt to Advertise 'openly' their Sexual Preferences or Sexual Orientations [Similar] in Military or else where, aye!?

So, Earlier on On 'onfaith' {the Greatest Blog On Earth, ya ya] that Mr. Gustav Niebuhr wrote, entitled,; "DADT [Gays] & Church [of England], r Ahead of the Politico/a [U.S.] (similar said.Soo

i[WE] Eklaht-i-ON's or Apocalyptic-ON's (not Apocalyptic-Offs), or simply HUUMATE(s) of S.S. Earth argue THAT

WE[i] Huumates (NOt Humans) or APOCALYPTARiANS (Not PRE-Apocalyptarians) If it becomes O.K. to Openly for None-Straights Advertise ones SEXual Desires, on a Same Sex Basis: that, THEN The Military should make a special Rule/Provision for OPENLY ANTi-Xristians, Anti-Ju's, Anyi-Mormons, Anti-Ishlami's, Anti-Hindus/Seiks/Jains & Anti Buddhist folk in da Military! Note: SEX IS NOt LOVE: KLiFE IS! Soo then,

Think of a Don't Ask Don't Speak-out Against Pre-Apocalyptic Human's and their Religio-Preferences or Religious-Orientations question, aye!!??

Example: If I told Me Captain, Adjadent, Seargant, Generla etc.. that "i Dislike JU's, or Dislike Xrstians, or Hate Muslims. or any raggggg-hheads..lala O-P-E-N-L-Y, then what will ye yo Do to i[WE] US????

So, under the "EQUAL PROTECTiON" of our Holyi U.S. CONSTITUTION (born/made via Miracle: a Holy Holy Truth) that if Ye Yo's allow da Gay to Be OPEN about SEX (prefrences/Orientation) THEN WE[i] Eklahtions, aka Apocalyptarian Nationals sahould be Able to Be Open about OUR "Religious" Prefrences/ or Orientaions. aye Boss!????

Bottom Line: VOTE: Do-Not, i[WE[ repeat, NO-Repeal DADT et al!!!!!

Secret (opposite Revealation): Foreign Agents can Compromise and infiltrate the Pentagon et al institutions;

2nd Secret: Fact: Those folks behind Exposing The Classified Military Documents/pages recently of the U.S. War Effort (a great Embarrassment & Danger to our Coalitions straught-Guys & straight Gals [Bless them] was and is spread'd via GAYS! GAYS! within da Military!!!! via Non-Straights!@ aka Commy Finkle Fagarino's!! O' QUEEEERS! TROUBLE MAKERS! Pleazza, Better Suckk on Lolli-Poppis! Oye! Oye!

So: GAY to GAY "HONEY-TRAPS" {for Espionage Activities etc.. via none-Straights is a THREAT To U.S. (includes Other Nations) NATIiONAL SECURITY+!}

VOTE: NO Repeal "DADT". DO Not Fix What is Broken Generals, Congress, Mr. Prez et al!!! Else Shoot oneself w/out shooting a Shot" [Similar].! So, Gay-Scare + Ishlami-Scare Spread is REAL! And GAY-PHOBIA & ISHLAMi PHOBIA; is O.K. to Experience. aka Right Thinking!!!

RJPAL wrote:
"I think you have more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus. His language was always straight."

You're talking about Jesus, the guy who spoke in parables, right?

Have you read The Bible? If anything, it's not straight - if it was, we wouldn't have a thousand interpretations.

Actually, I believe Ms. O'Donnell is a flaming liberal on abortion relative to the Catholic church, the only religious organization in the world which requires that a woman MUST DIE rather than undergo an abortion, unless she has a cancer of the uterus, in which case she can heave a hysterectomy where the intent is to cure the cancer, not end the pregnancy, under the "doctrine of double effect". But, if she had malignant hypertension and kidney failure, too bad. She and her baby must die. Fortunately most Catholics and doctors and even some priests are able to apply a little common sense. I once helped a woman in this scenario arrange an abortion, to avoid the certain death of herself and her child, and that is why I am not a Catholic today. I am shocked that Ms. O'Donnell thinks abortion is an option for Catholics under any circumstances.

Actually, I believe Ms. O'Donnell is a flaming liberal on abortion relative to the Catholic church, the only religious organization in the world which requires that a woman MUST DIE rather than undergo an abortion, unless she has a cancer of the uterus, in which case she can heave a hysterectomy where the intent is to cure the cancer, not end the pregnancy, under the "doctrine of double effect". But, if she had malignant hypertension and kidney failure, too bad. She and her baby must die. Fortunately most Catholics and doctors and even some priests are able to apply a little common sense. I once helped a woman in this scenario arrange an abortion, to avoid the certain death of herself and her child, and that is why I am not a Catholic today. I am shocked that Ms. O'Donnell thinks abortion is an option for Catholics under any circumstances.

Also, 'RJpal,' if you think that you can introduce yourself and your religion into a woman's body, using government power, and accuse her of, what, multiple murders, saying:

""But some day you will die anyway, no matter how many you have killed.
rjpal ""

...When the question is whether or not she gets to decide whether to take mortal risk to bear a child, dying herself, and all you can do is imply, 'You kill a lot of people?'

Is that 'Small government?'

Or something else?

For all they claim to be about 'nothing but fiscal responsibility,' the Teabaggers sure do manage to demand a lot of even-more-insane-than-the-GOP hate-platforms, and nominate or elect *really* crazy people...

Why is Palin even a figure, never mind O'Donnell?

This is nonsense.

Saying that abortion should be a private decision is not the same as saying that abortion is a good thing. Similarly, the legality and morality of abortion are two different questions. I would keep abortion legal because banning it would prevent only a few abortions, if any, and would cause more harm to women and to doctors.

If the goal is to prevent abortions, the best remedies are the ones that Herb Silverman recommended in the other thread - better sex education, better access to contraception, and better support services for women who do give birth. But too many in the religious right oppose those things, which makes no sense. They often sound like they want to punish women for being sexually active - some of them claim that consent to sex equates to consent to pregnancy.

"Since when did Protestant Christianity and hypocrisy become bedfellows?"

Since it started with hypocrisy there never was a moment when they joined. It was part of the init() routine.

Your religiously motivated opinions on abortion will have you, if you have your way, controlling what other people do.

Trying to deny that social conservatives want to control what other people do, particularly regarding their own choices in life, is pathetic. Everybody who isn't one of you religious freaks knows it.

Keep your stinking nose out of our business.

A few weeks ago, she said that she opposes abortion except if the woman is going to die, in which case her family should decide which life to save. "

WRONG! If I'M pregnant and MY life is at risk , then it will be MY decision whose life to save. No one else gets a vote.
Posted by: lepidopteryx |
--------------------------------

But some day you will die anyway, no matter how many you have killed.

"A few weeks ago, she said that she opposes abortion except if the woman is going to die, in which case her family should decide which life to save. "

WRONG! If I'M pregnant and MY life is at risk , then it will be MY decision whose life to save. No one else gets a vote.

I might be able to be "onboard" with some of the tea party's issues, but as long as they continue to spout on about the social issues, and in the same breath talk about "smaller government" I just can not take them seriously.
Posted by: biggirl90 |
----------------------------

I heard O'Donnell's video and I do not recall her using the word control (used by Haffner) nor any mention of the government going into people's bedrooms. So why are you two imputing positions to her which she has not expressed?

Perhaps she merely wants the social climate to be such that abortion is no longer thought of as a "cool thing to do".

Perhaps in a different social climate people would only have abortions if they were in really difficult circumstances and refrain otherwise.

And what would be wrong with that?

And just to remind both you and Haffner - abortion is not a sexual decision. Unlike actual sex, it is rarely performed in bedrooms. A clinic or a hospital is the more likely locale.

Liberals like to pretend that abortion is a medical decision, and also that it is a private sexual decision. But the two descriptions are inconsistent.

"and the rights of all of us to make the most private sexual decisions without government interference."
---------------------

By which you mean the right to kill a foetus.

Since when did Protestant Christianity and hypocrisy become bedfellows?

If you think it is OK to kill foetuses then SAY so. Don't hide behind the veil of "the most private sexual decisions."

I think you have more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus. His language was always straight. Yours is not.

Wow. One thing you brought to my attention here that I was not aware of. "She said that she opposes abortion except if the woman is going to die, in which case her family should decide which life to save." All I can say is why does this woman devalue herself so much? If she were in danger of death, she would rather give her "family" the right to decide if she lives or dies?

I have never been a religious person. I grew up going to church, but I have never been comfortable with it. To me it is no more real than Santa Clause. That being said, if it gives some people comfort I have no issues with it. I do have issues with statements like this, and self righteous people that want to force their social ideas on to me.

I might be able to be "onboard" with some of the tea party's issues, but as long as they continue to spout on about the social issues, and in the same breath talk about "smaller government" I just can not take them seriously.