[FirstChair]

Sorry but its unrealistic you will solve the ills of society by not making birth control accessible. Nor is it fair to say your moral value is any better than some one elses, and stuff happens. You make your choice, others make theirs. I mean working married women use contraceptives too. Even stay at home moms. Why discriminate?

I have compassion and empathy for anyone and want others, especially the youth to realize it is emotionally better to abstain than to give into carnal behaviors pre-maturely without a responsible mature commitment. The point about contraceptives is that because of their use there are more abortions today than before mass contraceptive use, more unwed mothers having babies, more child abuse, more domestic violence, more drug use, more alcohol use, more welfare cases, more unemployment and I think it is because immature insatiable young people having babies outside of marriage grew up to be immature insatiable adults.

Even now in our time, we see the posts of young woman and young girls on here and many of them acknowledge being pregnant who appear emotionally alone, desperate for answers and comfort at a website where personal contacts/relations do not normally exist here. They reach out to strangers for answers to very personal life questions. Many of them seem so young and afraid to talk with their parents and it seems by their questions and comments usually the only one around is a mother and a mother who should be a mom. Then there are the absent fathers of these young girls and young woman who are having babies without support of the baby daddy, having a boyfriend or casual partner not prepared for the responsibility of fatherhood and most likely looking for the next female to have sex with.

[speechlesstx]

Tell two young people who live together that they have to be abstinent. Let me know how that goes.

Well now that was out of left field. No one is telling anyone to be abstinent in this discussion, but someone is forcing others to do something, and that's the feds forcing the church to violate their beliefs and pay for that couple's guilt-free sex.

[speechlesstx]

Sorry but its unrealistic you will solve the ills of society by not making birth control accessible. Nor is it fair to say your moral value is any better than some one elses, and stuff happens. You make your choice, others make theirs. I mean working married women use contraceptives too. Even stay at home moms. Why discriminate?

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a universal moral.

[excon]

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a universal moral.

Hello again, Steve:

You won't get an argument from me. It SHOULD be. But, YOUR utopian ideal of life is a fantasy.. Here in the real world, if abortion is outlawed, RICH women will get safe ones, and poor women will take a coat hanger to themselves.

excon

[talaniman]

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a moral investment, but to abandon it in its time of need is plain immoral, disgusting and fully hypocritical. Look I don't believe in abortions, but that's MY choice, others have to make their own, and I find little fault with a poor female chosing an abortion, rather than face hardship, and her baby ending up in jail!

So I consider making someone have a child and then walking away, a half a$$ way of protecting the innocent, and the moral argument to be BOGUS!

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

So don't visit your moral values, and imperatives on the so called innocent, since none of us are. Not even the unborn whose being defined by such a narrow and changing moral view that its rendered useless.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You won't get an argument from me. It SHOULD be. But, YOUR utopian ideal of life is a fantasy.. Here in the real world, if abortion is outlawed, RICH women will get safe ones, and poor women will take a coat hanger to themselves.

That's bunk.

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to “Coat-hanger Deaths”

I knew it was bunk all along, and just like the rest of the abortion industry it's based on a lie.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

Lying to and defrauding the people should also be universally considered moral bankruptcy.

[speechlesstx]

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a moral investment, but to abandon it in its time of need is plain immoral, disgusting and fully hypocritical.

He says while the government is forcing Catholic charities to abandon their beliefs or abandon children. You can't have it both ways, Tal.

[excon]

That's bunk.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. YOUR bunk is bunk. After all, you believe that outlawing drugs prevents people from doing drugs...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

[FirstChair]

Our OP, excon is probably right about the public not being the brightest or maybe that should be having a lack of involvement or having an attitude of apathy while privately sitting back murmuring about the campaign of two politicians, their policies and hidden agendas. Besides, what good is a silent majority either, if they do nothing?

Whoever ends up in the White House should be leading the government for the GOOD of ALL, including those that have no voice. Instead, Democrats seek what they believe is the best interest for their party and Republicans seek what they believe is the best interest for their party. Not so sure either one is thinking about the best interest of the 230 something year old group called Americans.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. YOUR bunk is bunk. After all, you believe that outlawing drugs prevents people from doing drugs...

Nah, at least mine was based on testimony and research. You're once again assuming things not in evidence. In fact, that last assumption is a doozy. Outlawing things just makes them illegal.

[FirstChair]

Did any of you see something about an inmate Judd running for president on the Demoratic primary ballot, closing in on Obama at about 40%? Not sure where...

[speechlesstx]

Yes, I posted on that earlier. It was West Virginia.

[FirstChair]

Yes, I posted on that earlier. It was West Virginia.

Thanks, I missed it... how legal is this? So an inmate can be placed on the ballot? I thought they lost their rights in the political arena? A lot I know.

[tomder55]

Good question .The short answer is that all he has to do is meet state filing requirements to get on a ballot . It isn't always a case that the person on the ballot actually meets the requirements for the office. Sometimes it requires petitions with a set number of signatures. Other places it's as simple as having the filing fee. In West Va. all Judd needed to do was to send a check for $2,500 and a notarized certificate of announcement that he was a candidate. He won outright in coal country ,no surprise there .Obama has publicly stated his goal is to put the domestic coal industry out of business.

[FirstChair]

Good question .The short answer is that all he has to do is meet state filing requirements to get on a ballot . It isn't always a case that the person on the ballot actually meets the requirements for the office. Sometimes it requires petitions with a set number of signatures. Other places it's as simple as having the filing fee. In West Va. ,all Judd needed to do was to send a check for $2,500 and a notarized certificate of announcement that he was a candidate. He won outright in coal country ,no suprise there .Obama has publicly stated his goal is to put the domestic coal industry out of business.

Out of business... what for, that's all coal miners know... generations of coal mining, what does he expect them to do for a living? What do they have to replace it? They're willing to take risk all these years, I don't even know how good their insurance policies are, if they even have insurance. I thought liberals fought for the little man. Oh wait a minute, and he wants to bankrupt the coal industry! I've had family in the mining industry, but that was gold and silver mines. I don't think he'll be mess'n with them... all that gold and silver worth billions of dollars above and below ground. The mountains and land are so desolate with deep groves and striped from any hopes of anything ever growing when they do shut it down. It's been closed a number of times and that's hard on the economy here and unemployment. Sorry to say it, but it becomes a good time to buy property when it happens. Hard hit everywhere, we've got our own challenges, Democrats and Republicans. I do own my land and home and try to appreciate my blessings while others don't even have a room let alone a house.

[tomder55]

Yup ;it's one of those promises he kept from his 2008 campaign. Under his watch ,the share of electricity generated from coal in the U.S. has plummeted to 38 percent from 49 percent in 2007.While campaigning for the presidency Obama promised his cap and trade policy would make electricity prices “skyrocket” and he added, “So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it's just that it will bankrupt them.“

[FirstChair]

yup ;it's one of those promises he kept from his 2008 campaign. Under his watch ,the share of electricity generated from coal in the U.S. has plummeted to 38 percent from 49 percent in 2007.While campaigning for the presidency Obama promised his cap and trade policy would make electricity prices “skyrocket” and he added, “So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it's just that it will bankrupt them.“

So that's what happened. Now I understand why the coal fired plant didn't go through here in my area after all the hearings and debating back and forth, it just fell by the wayside. They even said the electricity was going to be cheap compared to other plants and that it would not cause any significant pollution. Not a good time, I didn't keep up all that much back then, heading for a d-i-v-o-r-c-e.

[talaniman]

Okay here we go again, while its true many of the older coal fired plants are being replaced by law but by cleaner coal burning plants that capture more of the toxic emissions produced by the older plants, and have higher efficiency as a redult of new technologies. That's what was promised by the Obama administration, as well as development of alternative energy sources.

Obama plan cuts emissions for future coal plants - 28 Mar 2012 - News from BusinessGreen

The proposed new rules will make it nearly impossible to build new coal power plants, unless they are outfitted with carbon capture and storage systems, a technology is still not in use on a commercial scale.

Coal plants will be given decades to meet the new standards.

The new rules will not apply to existing coal-fired plants, or plants due to go into operation this year. Jackson told reporters they would affect about 15 new coal power projects, currently in the planning phases

So lets be clear, its about efficiency, and part of cap and trade that's all of sudden another bad idea, that was a great idea when repubs came up with it, was to develop technology and infrasture that was safe and effective. As for coal mining,

Coal mining in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

[FirstChair]

Then why the comment about bankruptcy? So you're saying it wasn't the Obama administration that stopped the coal plant here? This is an economically depressed area and we needed it. I do recall the Democratic representative fighting against it and all the regulatory issues being imposed.

[talaniman]

That was about cap and trade where the highest polluters could buy credits from less polluters, to raise capital for upgrades.

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cap and Trade | US EPA

He ran the right crazy because they didn't like the new emissions requirements, and would be fined and taxed heavily for the pollution they caused. Much like utility companies don't want to invest in grid improvements that prevent black outs and power outages. Efficiency cuts into profits.

I live in Dallas, and when its 100 degrees in the summer, they tell you to stay indoors. The air is almost as bad as China. Here's the whole quote,

http://voices.yahoo.com/barack-obama...s-2149160.html

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Of course what Tom doesn't tell you is that big coal and the utility companies just don't care about pollution, when it comes to paying for any type of upgrading. Though they are highly profiable, and pass the costs to consumers any way, but that's what cap and trade does, gives them revenue streams by which to upgrade over time. Not many know that coal dust, a bi product of coal burning, is POISON, and guess what they do with it?

Dump it in your backyard. So they not only pollute the air, but the water and land also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_dust

http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/coal/.../coal-is-toxic

Just ask your family members who are miners about the effects of digging in coal mines for 30 years is. And the conditions they work under.