Baby Hit It 1 MORE Time...
Britney Spears and hubby, Kevin Federline, are expecting baby # 2 just eleven months after Sean Preston was born. In an interview, Spears (8 months pregnant) said, "It just kind of happened...I'm going to wait a while for the next (one)!" Someone please explain the birds and bees to Britney, obviously babies do not "just kind of happen".Spears has had huge popularity as a "pop" singer and has become more famously known for her parenting skills or should I say lack thereof. She expressed concerns of having babies so close together and that the entire pregnancy has been stressful.
What would the Liberal Media's response be if the couple had decided to abort the baby? Would the media outlets continue on the Liberal way and support this abortion or would they attack Spears and Federline based on artices written concerning the couple of not being the best of parents? Hmmmm.....??
posted by Diego @ 5:10 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
If I weren't in favor of smaller government, I would advocate needing a license to be a parent...
I love the picture of her driving with the baby on her lap--between her and the airbag!!! As a safety nut and a car seat freak, this really made me blow a gasket. Grow up before you have kids. I guess the one thing in the kids' favor is that they will probably have lots of care provided by nannies.
off topic, but it really made my day.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html
shorter: bad dog! no!
How long until this decision will be over-ruled by the Supreme Court though? Don't get too excited just yet.
*dances a jig.
Part of the oath of office for the presidency is to 'uphold the constitution'. This ruling says in rather clear terms that the president has violated his oath of office.
*beaming smile
The bell tolls for you repugs.
*ROFLMAO
You want to talk about upholding the Constitution? Two Words: Bill Clinton
Clinton lying to everyone while under oath, clearly shows "the president has violated his oath of office"
*Chuckling- Ann Coulter put it best when she said Clinton will be better known for WHO he did and not for what He did.
Clinton's impeachement did not succeed. Think emperor bush will be so lucky?
alternatively,
What does Clinton have to do with this? Also, I hear the Hague is quite nice, I'm sure Bush et al will be very comfortable there.
Actually, following the corruption with the entire Clinton-Monica fiasco, I think it will become easier and easier for President's to become impeached.
For Clinton pertaining to this, your comment, "Part of the oath of office for the presidency is to 'uphold the constitution'", you cannot honestly tell me that Clinton upheld the Constitution...not when he lied under Oath. I find it funny though that the Media forgets when Democrats do things like this, but they are quick to call Republicans out on this.
Nice to see you're back Brian.
Glad to be appreciated, Nick.
Whatever your opinions on Clinton are (I'm not going to get into that now) have no bearing on what's happening right now. That someone you believe I support* may have also broken the oath does not limit my statement that Bush has failed to uphold the constitution.
*if Clinton did break the oath of office, it was not by failing to uphold the constitution (which doesn't mention purgury).
All dire predictions aside (fingers crossed), this looks like bad news for you folks.
How do his surporters take such a ruling? Do you argue against it somehow? I'm curious to see how this gets treated by your side.
How about the Pakistani's arresting Abu-Farraj Al-Libbi, the man thought to be Al-Qaeda’s operations commander, and who might know where Osama bin Laden is hiding.
Why is it that Pakistan is more interested in stopping Terrorists than some Democrat leaders? C'mon DNC, get it together.
The more and more time that goes by, the Bush Administration's efforts for the War on Terrorism along with the likes of other Nations, will help make this a SAFER place for you and me.
Hey, just wondered how you feel about this?
far be it from me to make requaests, but how about a post on it?
I take it you are impressed by your brother christians :op
On a seperate note, my opinion is that pissing a load of people off by bombing them is not going to make you friends in the Islamic world.
Would anyone like to bet what precise year we in the west will win The War Against Terror (TWAT)?
El Tom,
I read the article and I am really trying to figure out what approach you are wanting or expecting me to have?
He's right about people listening to people like Dobson and hanging on every word. In fact, my dad was one of those people that would listen to Televangelist and send donation after donation. Needless to say, I do not rely upon Televangelist to give me the word of God.
I am a Christian, reading my Bible and continuously trying to learn how to better myself in all aspects of life. I look at the Bible as a road map for how I want to live my life, but I have found that being a Christian is a hard thing to do. Many people (including myself) sometimes tend to be a Christian on Sundays and Wednesdays, but in my opinion it takes being a Christian on any day that ends in "Y". So those reading this do not have to think, this means everyday of the week. I hope you understand that I am not "impressed" by all Christians because sometimes you have wolves in sheeps clothing.
As far as the Islamic world, El Tom, how can you be friends with someone who wants to KILL YOU? Think back to High School, if someone wanted to kick your ass everytime they saw you, would you try and befriend them to keep from getting your tail handed to you? Or are you going to stand up and defend yourself? 9/11 was that bully throwing the 1st punch.
For the War on Terrorism, you cannot set a timetable. It's kind of like a marriage, you have to continuously work at it or you will fail. If we fail, just like in both cases we're going to go through the big "D". Though one is Divorce and the other is Death.
I'm an American, I cannot pray in school because it might offend someone. I cannot proudly fly my American flag because it might offend someone. I have to tolerate when someone desecrates OUR flag, which holds significant meaning to OUR country.
I have to worry about the feelings of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Marxists, Leninists, Communists, homosexuals, and everyone else. However, they can deny me my rights to free speech, show no respect for my flag, defecate on our Constitution and OUR country. Yet, it's alright for them to be intolerant of Americans in OUR own country. This is the f'ing U.S.A., learn and use our language, learn and enjoy our culture, live our way and be FREE.
America represents my house, you come into my house you respect me and my rules. If you do not like my rules you can leave on your own. Try to argue my rules in my house and you may leave head first with the rest of you following. They choose not to leave freely, now it's time for them to leave MY WAY and for the bleeding hearts, boo hoo.
why, the US is a free country right? Have a pray and fly your flag, just don't make everyone else.
I think there is one nice un-intellectual phrase we can use to sum up freedom.
'Don't f*ck with me, and I won't f*ck with you'
Goes nicely with 'don't tread on me'.
People that come into your house respect your rules? no democracy for dagos!
'Spect for the christian element. I respect people who are committed to their faith, though we all have feelings. My post was aimed at evoking your thoughts on the leftish elements of that group, and whether they sit with christianity.
I wondered whether your response would be one based on conflict or reconcilliation; what you put first, conservatism or unity in faith.
Most muslims don't want to kill you. Look at Pakistan for instance, which has been an excellent partner in the war on terror. Look at the ordinary people of afghanistan.
It is a minority.
However, the more we bomb their families, the more of them are going to have a problem with us. doesn't excuse their actions, but it's completely predictable. so far the war on terror has been a failure.
We need to remember the Truman doctrine and isolate the bastards.
America is itself a flourishing country, with all shades of opinion ansd people, and mass comfortability (though to me your rate of poverty and inequality is shocking...)
If people can be persuaded that this is desirable, which isn't too hard, people wil rise up and democracy will take hold.
Whichh is better for us in both the long and short term.
Tom,
Yes we are a free country, but we have this little thing called the ACLU. They believe that people are entitled to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the freedom from being offended". Prayer in schools is not allowed, because if the child or teacher did not want to pray, they would feel left out. These nutjobs are the same ones wanting crosses removed from military cemetaries because they offend non-Christians. They cry "separation of church and state" everytime you turn around. See, that phrase is one of their catch phrases, yet appears no where in the constitution or any other pubic document. It appeared in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The actual law of the land is that there will be no state sponsored religion (ie, establishing its own church in the fashion of the Church of England). The government cannot force you to attend a certain church, nor can they stop you from attending a certain church.
Your 'complementary phrase' to don't tread on me would be fine if both sides would adhere to it. (Actually, that pretty much sums up the Libertarian party.) The atheists and agnostics are trying to push God and any reference to God out of our every day lives. If we adhered to your philosophy, then they should ignore it and go on instead of trying to impose their beliefs on us. We don't get upset at their lack of reference to God. David Limbaugh has written a great book on the subject called "Persecution"
"do you think any president would do something like this without first consulting about a dozen lawyers?"
This could be said about any president, hell, any politician throughout resent history. Should we just trust all their lawyers?
"It was out of her jurisdiction, should have been filed in Washington D.C. It should be overturned on that count alone."
Wow...you're a brand new and altogether special kind of stupid.
It's a FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. The judges 'jurisdiction' IS THE US.
"2. Every president in the past 60 years has done the exact same thing. (So there is presented)"
I think you mean precedent, but no, there is no precedent. Not even McCarthy used warrantless wiretaps domestically.
"The War Powers Act gives the Sitting president sweeping powers during times of war."
No again. The War Powers Resolution or Public Law 93-148), if you want to get technical, explicitly LIMITS the power of the president to wage war without the approval of congress.
The enactment of P.L. 107-243, in October 2002, keenly circumvents those pesky restrictions wrt Iraq. But it hardly gives him 'sweeping powers' and even if the powers it gives him should be called sweeping, they do not include the right to warrantless wiretapping.
Three strikes CrazyRight, you're out.
The question is where to start with your comments, so I guess I will start at the beginning. Obviously you missed the point that Cranky was making, that being before any decision has been made in the last 60 years, typically Presidents get with their lawyers to find the most feasible approach with the issue. Of course though, a person has to wonder whether or not good ole William Jefferson Clinton actually consulted a lawyer before he lied to OUR Nation and to the World while under Oath.
Next, how can you say, “Wow…you’re a brand new and altogether special kind of stupid” when the next sentence you type is just as ignoramus? You stated that the decision was made by a “…Federal District Court. The judges ‘jurisdiction’ IS THE US.” Brianna, let me educate you.
A person involved in a suit in a U.S. court may proceed through three levels of decision. Typically, the case will be heard and decided by one of the district courts on the first level. If someone or a party is dissatisfied with the decision rendered, the party may have the decision reviewed in one of the Courts of Appeals. If dissatisfied with the decision of a court of appeals, the party may seek additional review in the Supreme Court.
This structure built like a pyramid serves primarily two purposes. The first one, is that the Court of Appeals can Correct errors that have been made in the decisions of trial courts. SECOND, the Supreme Court can ensure the uniformity of decisions by reviewing cases in which constitutional issues have been decided or in which two or more lower courts have reached different verdicts.
With that said, when this Liberal ruling gets to the Supreme Court, and is overturned, the original decision does not mean Shit until it makes it to the final destination of this pyramid.
Oh yeah...The government is appealing to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
perhaps you two should actually read the ruling. You'll find it here: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
But in case your too lazy to look for yourselves, I'll pick out a relevant part.
"international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country."
Now don't go noticing the first word and having a fit over how right you are. If it were wiretaps between two or more non-US residents, this case would not exist. It is only relevant because the NSA was wiretapping domestically. Geniuses.
Diego,
You use this word, 'jurisdiction', I'm not so sure you know what it means. Indeed the appeals system is vertical, I know this. But when you say jurisdiction the way you did, you are talking about statutory jurisdiction or geographic, and by your reply, that's not what you meant. So please, clarify. How is Judge Taylor or her court not qualified to have decided on this issue?
CrazyRight,
No, I don't think I will believe you. FISA courts, for those of you who don't know, oversee requests for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States by federal police agencies.
Your comment is senseless, since this case wasn't about a warrant violation or any such thing. It was about the NSA being sued for:
"Plaintiffs have alleged that the TSP violates their free speech and associational rights, as
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; their privacy rights, as
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the principle of the
Separation of Powers because the TSP has been authorized by the President in excess of his
Executive Power under Article II of the United States Constitution, and that it specifically violates
the statutory limitations placed upon such interceptions by the Congress in FISA because it is
conducted without observation of any of the procedures required by law, either statutory or
Constitutional."
You guys are really bad at this, you know? It's tough to watch.
Brianna,
You wrote that I use “…this word, ‘jurisdiction’, I’m not so sure you know what it means…” I only referred to jurisdiction once and that was quoting you. So you need to reconsider that entire bile you just posted because it means absolutely nothing. You’re trying to put that twist on words that’s not even there. Taylor's decision will not stand and that was the entire point.
Re-read what I put as the primary role of the Supreme Court in this…I’ll save you time, “…the Supreme Court can ensure the uniformity of decisions by reviewing cases in which constitutional issues have been decided…” With that said, this case is being appealed, and will be overturned. Therefore you need not to blow your wad before the dust has cleared.
Besides, Cranky gave a great example of how the NSA helps us and I especially loved his end quote (let me remind you), “…And I want everyone to remember the glee the democrats showed when this was announced. No matter how much bullshit they say they are backing the troops. This shows there true colors.”
For your last comment, you really know how to make me chuckle. I read your comments and I realize every time that Public Schools make short buses for a reason. And that reason is for people like you.
Post a Comment
<< Home