"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Religious people have superior visual perception than atheists
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/2008111...ior-visua.html
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"RogerN" wrote in message
...
Obama has plans to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise.
Tell us about those plans, Roger. What's your basis for this claim?
This isn't the original I heard on ACLJ but I did some searches on the
net to verify the information.
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...e-side-157.htm
Sen. Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills to increase
funding for family planning that will prevent unintended and teen
pregnancies. (Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy
Act)
Oh, the horror, the horror...imagine preventing teen pregnancies! Does
the
man have no morals at all?
Who do you think is going to get this funding for "family planning"?
I don't know. Do you? Or are you letting your imagination take over? It
certainly can't be Planned Parenthood. All they do is abortions. Right?
more-
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110606.html
Another horror. More contraception. This time, without even the states'
right to discriminate base on race! What does he expect, that the states
will comply with decisions by the Supreme Court? What is he, a socialist
or something?
And if you try to tell us that you think use of the morning-after pill
is
murder, then you're going on the scrap heap of delusional loony-tunes,
Roger.
Where is the evidence that he's going to increase funding for Planned
Parenthood? Still nothing, still waiting...
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...for_obama.html
"A President Obama would further spread the wealth by reviving prior
efforts to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and similar
clinics..."
Another blank assertion. Sheer speculation. No evidence. No statements
by
him, nor any indication that he intends to. Are all of these sources
making it up as they go along, or what?
Fairness Doctrine
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim...os-executioner
Roger, your claim was that Obama's "FCC chief" appointment was in favor
of
reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. This is about a guy on his
transition
team. As I said, the FCC Commissioner hasn't been appointed yet.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129228.html
"First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it
probably
will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a
rule that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being
insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn't likely to
return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation's rotting corpse
will crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh."
If that's what you're presenting in evidence of your claim, you just
shot
yourself in the foot.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80424
Another discussion about a transition team member, not about the
not-yet-existent FCC Commissioner.
http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html
...And still another one of the same.
Roger, I asked where you came up with the assertion that Obama "has
plans
to give Planned Parenthood a huge raise," and what you supplied is
guesswork and empty speculation by some very biased and jaundiced
sources -- none of whom presented a shred of evidence to that effect.
I asked you about the new "FCC chief," and you came up with some
articles
about a former Commissioner who is on the transition team.
Do you see why I call this tedious and frustrating? You make empty
assertions with no evidence, accept guesswork as fact, and, in one case,
you even did a Gunner by presenting "evidence" that flatly contradicts
your assertion.
That's it. You're on your own. If you care to respond, go for it. I
won't
reply.
As usual, guys like you are listening to AM talk radio way too much and the
hosts have gotten you all riled up over the "fairness doctrine". The truth
is without them making a big deal out of it you wouldn't even know what it
is. If you want to understand the doctrine all you need to know is what it
was originally meant for. The radio waves are owned by the public just like
the national parks or any other nationally owned asset. As such it was not
supposed to be taken over by any political group and used exclusively to
promote it's agenda. If you can't see that AM radio has been taken over by
the right wing then you are blind as a bat. Believe me, if AM radio was
nothing but left wing propaganda you would be up in arms against the "theft"
of a national resource. Reinstitution the fairness doctrine would only make
it where radio couldn't be controlled by any single political party like AM
radio is now. But then you probably think there is nothing wrong with radio
being controlled by one party as long as it is the one you belong to.
Hawke