Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Actions raise big questions

May 12, 2013

To the editor: In April, in an address to Planned Parenthood, President Barack Obama reiterated his lifelong commitment to the destruction of that which we should most cherish, our progeny....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(61)

Hagrid

May-24-13 8:15 AM

Rsimpson43952, it is a shame the unborn child doesn't have a vote.

The child should not pay with his/ her life for the mistake of the parents.

Your answer is to volunteer at a child center. You left out raising the child you conceived, or adopting, as my family did.

Neither of those options requires ending an innocent life. In fact, both choices add to our lives greatly.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-24-13 8:05 AM

On second thought, I didn't behave horribly, as you do, so why would my post be deleted?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-24-13 8:02 AM

How convenient for you.

Now, how about my apology?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rsimpson43952

May-24-13 12:13 AM

This letter to the editor was printed on the 12th, it is now the 23rd and you are still debating an issue that has no business being debated in the first place. Abortion is a decision to be made in the privacy of a Dr.s office between a Dr. and his patient, no one else. The government already tried to criminalize abortion causing devastating consequences across this great nation of ours. Those devastating consequences are exactly why we have a Supreme court decision overturning that ill-thought up ridiculousness. I suggest if you truly want to help babies go volunteer at your local children's home because useless debates serve no purpose and is doing nothing to help the hundreds of thousands of orphaned children in America who are looking for a family to love them.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-23-13 10:34 PM

"You said O'Keefe won a lawsuit brought by ACORN."

Then you can show us, right?

"You said O'Keefe did nothing fraudulent."

Again, easily proven by providing my post where I said that.

Folks would hate to think you made those up.

"You were wrong. I'm sorry you're always wrong."

When you can't provide my words to prove what you claim, you will be a good boy and apologize, correct?

I'd hate for you to look even worse than you do already. Perhaps you can reclaim some character by simply admitting your mistake, and apologizing for your crude remarks to the guy who had it right and tried to educate you.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-23-13 9:44 PM

"Oh, that/ Yes, that's the same lawsuit O'Keefe settled"

Ah, no.

As stated in the docket provided, the Acorn case was DISMISSED. Vera filed a seperate lawsuit later. He won his individual suit against O'Keefe and Giles, but was FIRED after his behavior on the O'Keefe videos was made public.

Again, more references, more information. Again, exactly as I stated (NOT implied or imagined).

Now, about my apology.....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-23-13 9:35 PM

Really?

Who are we supposed to believe, you, or the Circuit Court of Maryland?

"No, it was dismissed"

Ah, that is exactly what I have been saying. Excellent, grasshopper.

"You implied that a judge determined that O'Keefe had done nothing fraudulent and nothing illegal."

I did? Show us. You have the same problem core has. When things aren't going your way you start inventing things you claim others say/mean/imply. Partly to confuse some liberals, but mainly to try to distract from your obvious error.

"As I said, ACORN never filed and fought a case against O'Keefe, and they no longer exist."

The case not only existed, it was challanged twice.

" U.S. District Court Denies Breitbart's Attempt to Dismiss ...

then.....

ACORN v. O'Keefe

dmlp(dot)org/threats/acorn-v-okeefe

03/11/10 - Ben Sheffner reports that the court has dismissed the case

Again, exactly as I stated.

There is no references to giving any money to individual parties. N

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-23-13 12:47 PM

"No, there was not such a case."

Well,

ACORN Sues O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart_com

voices(dot)washingtonpost(dotcom/44/2009/09/23/acorn_sues_okeefe_giles_and_br(dot)html

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) announced Thursday it had filed a lawsuit against James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles and Breitbart(dot)com LLC for what it alleged was "illegal videotaping" of ACORN employees in Baltimore.

------------

State court dismisses ACORN lawsuit against O'Keefe, Giles ...

scribd(dot)com/doc/28218713/ACORN-v-O-Keefe-Docket

Court System: Circuit Court for Baltimore City - Civil System Case Number: 24C09006238 Title: Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now, Inc, et al vs James E O'KeefeIII, et al Case Type: Other Tort Filing Date: 09/23/2009 Case Status: Closed/Inactive

I'll take my apology now.

(REAL men apologize when they are wrong, ESPECIALLY when thay are rude and crude about it.)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-23-13 8:34 AM

bidness: "ACORN no longer exists, so how could there be a case filed by them to stop? THIS is the case. O'Keef settled and admitted that his "reporting" on ACORN was fraudulent."

You seem to be as confused as core. Very strange. Perhaps it is because you use the exact same sources?

You are mixing up two seperate cases. You forget that ACORN was once an entity, but disolved when their shameful practices were exposed by O'Keffe's videos.

ACORN filed a suit against O'Keffe, which was struck down. It was not a case against ACORN, but one filed BY ACORN, as I clearly stated previously. A PRIVATE individual filed suit against O'Keffe for unauthorized video taping. Two seperate cases.

Now, can you ask core, AGAIN, what the outcome of the ACORN case was that he claims was won against O'Keffe?

Or maybe you can just answer for him....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JamesT

May-22-13 9:09 AM

ACORN does exist ! They merely restructured themselves under different names and entities. Do research on it !

The hypocrites who go to their church, temples, synogues and " Act " like faithful little people who are registered Democrats are liken to a Jewish rabbi enlisted by the Kestapo in the 1930's /40's.

So, serve two masters. Complain how horrible crime and society has become yet ignore the Liberalism / Socialism transition from Conservatism / American Exceptionalism and Obama's " Fundamental Transition " towards European Marxism.

Read up on Obama's friend Eziekel Emanual on abortion up to age two. (Rahm's )brother.) As an Independent, I do not care for either party but one is clearly American while to other is not !

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-22-13 6:31 AM

Bidness, you seem to be as confused as co He said the law suit filed by ACORN was not stopped. You both, as "proof" talk about a completely different case. Please try to follow the discussion.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-21-13 8:19 PM

Latest news:

IRS Commisioner new more than a year ago that conservative groups were being targetted.

Top IRS official has taken the fifth.

Looks like core was wrong. Again. Maybe his vacation will give him time to reflect.

I was hoping he would tell us the verdict in the ACORN case against O'Keefe he said was not thrown out, instead of a private case.

Too bad. Maybe someone else will step in and help him out.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:01 PM

You can easily prove that simply by answering the questions.

So..... why don't you?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 10:40 PM

" I explained why the questions are meaningless."

LOL You always feel questions that you are afraid to answer are "meaningless".

These are not meaningless.

I said the case Acorn brought against O'Keefe was thrown out, you say it wasn't. So, please provide the outcome of that case. If you can't, it shows you were wrong. Again.

You said the videos were debunked. If so, Congress and the courts would not uphold removing their funding. The Census Bureau and the IRS also would not have cut ties.

So, your answers are important for the folks here to understand fact from fiction. You do want folks to recognize fact from fiction, don't you?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 6:41 PM

core, you neglected to answer my questions:

What was the outcome of the trial? Was O'Keefe found guilty? What was the penalty?

Did Congress, Republicans and Democrats, remove federal funding from Acorn?

Did the IRS stop dealing with Acorn because of the videos?

"Your facrts are all wrong"

Possibly. But my facts are accurate.

"None of what you just asked matters."

Makes it easy when you can simply disregard the telling questions, doesn't it?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:32 AM

According to the White House Visitors Log, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:27 AM

Anonymous Cincinnati IRS official: “Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:25 AM

News reports from the time indicate the now-chief counsel of the IRS, William Wilkins, helped a church connected to President Barack Obama’s friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright get out of an IRS probe in 2008 while working as a private attorney.

For FREE.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:10 AM

Don't get more confused, core. We are talking about Acorn's suit against O'Keefe.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-20-13 11:01 AM

you use a liberal BLOG as a source? Really?

OK. We'll run with that.

What was the outcome of the trial? Was O'Keefe found guilty? What was the penalty?

Did Congress, Republicans and Democrats, remove federal funding from Acorn?

Did the IRS stop dealing with Acorn because of the videos?

"Your facrts are all wrong"

Possibly. But my facts are accurate.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Moteman

May-20-13 10:06 AM

Media Matters is a liberal web site. The problem core liberal web sites like MM are the only ones you get your info from.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-19-13 8:19 PM

ACORN tried to sue James O'Keefe but its lawsuit was thrown out.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

May-19-13 8:13 PM

"Because it has been proven that ACORN did nothing wrong"

Strange. Both Congress and our courts removed federal funding to Acorn after the videos were released.

You are severely ill-informed, or lying.

(By the way, in case you are unaware, Obama defied Congress, defied our courts, defied popular opinion, and reinstated funding to Acorn, under a new name.)

"She's the same dingbat "

When the facts don't support their claims, some have nothing but to resort to name calling.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Moteman

May-19-13 12:21 AM

They need to take the tax payer funding away for the same reason they took it away from ACORN. There are undercover videos showing employees breaking the law. PP doesn't deserve taxpayer money.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Moteman

May-18-13 11:01 PM

Core can't seem to grasp the simple concept of a budget. Take the tax payer funded money away then money from other things has to be spent on abortions or they don't do abortions. You had 100 bucks to spend now you only have 60 something has to be left out. You can't afford it now.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 61 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: