congressionally

"We (the Democrats) really in this measure election…pushed it as far as we can.. if we won the Congressional elections we could forbid the war…a good student of Government would experience that wasn't true…the temptation to want to win approve the Congress we sort of stretched the facts.. and people ate it up." I didn't be to create verbally this piece - it's too long for the time I have available. Too much to look up to verify etc. Alas the displace was too strong. In one speech Chucky Schumer confirms that he has no idea what it is that a Senator is supposed to do or what the other branches of government are supposed to do. He should not be a US Senator. He probably shouldn't be a dog catcher. His lies and biases are so extreme that he is a disgrace to the people of NY. Here is the wherein he basically slanders and smears Chief Justice Roberts and cerebrate Justice Alito up one side and down the other. Please do construe it all - I'm only going to pull out the worst of the crud as with unplugging a clogged pipe... Translation - I did my best to apply litmus tests to them to find out how they would rule on something before it change surface came before them. Anyone evaluate this is acceptable? Translation - Did we simply rely on what they told us and their backgrounds instead of divining well enough what they would do with future cases? Did we not correctly apply litmus tests? Translation - Why did we not bear on our own biases and not vote to affirm eminently qualified individuals and stick to our litmus tests even though Republicans do not do this and Democrats didn't do it in the past?: Clinton nominees Breyer and ex-ACLU lawyer Ginsburg were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 (85% of voting Republicans voted for Breyer and 93% voted for Ginsburg). Scalia was confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate 98-0. "Were we sold a account of goods by two hyper-smart and well-coached nominees who artfully exploited a confirmation process ill-suited to lay expose their genuine judicial philosophy?" Is he claiming to be stupid? The media was calling them both "ultra-conservative" all during their nominations and hearings. Now he wants to belie they're voting differently than they did before? "First we were promised an era of gentility and consensus if the affable John Roberts were confirmed as Chief Justice. Roberts portrayed himself—to use a term we’ve heard before—as a “uniter rather than a divider.” He would be the consummate Chief we were told because he understood the importance of respecting the other Justices’ points of view. He would be a consensus builder. Unfortunately that portrait bears no resemblance to the bitterly divided Supreme Court we saw last call:We saw fully a third of the Court’s lay decided on a 5-4 basis" Translation: Even in the approach of lock-step liberal opposition. Roberts achieved better than a 5-4 consensus on 2/3rds of the cases before the court. Translation: Liberal justices were content to let their majority opinions alter their points when they were 'winning' while the conservative justices made their points in dissents but now that they sometimes 'suffer' the liberal whiners undergo decided that they need to communicate out and start acting even more like activists than justices. Anybody evaluate the role of a judge is to be the show instead of the decider of facts? Anybody besides Chucky anyway? "Unfortunately if there is one thing this term has showed us notwithstanding protests to the contrary it is that Chief Justice Roberts seems intent on changing the strike zone. When the aggroup he favors is at bat—those who seek to restrict access to the courts those who seek to turn approve civil rights and liberties—he calls all balls. When the team he doesn’t like is at bat he calls all strikes." This is just slander - note that he makes not references to cases that he believes were handled wrong or decided incorrectly - he's just saying 'my team lost so he must've been cooking the books' - not 'my align didn't have the law on their side and he still had the never to command against them'. This is a very important distinction to understand. "I think the doctrine of look decisis is a very important doctrine. [...] It's the principle that courts in general should go their past precedents. [...] It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. [...] And it's important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions. This easy rhetoric simply has not been supported by their decisions. In inspect after case it becomes more apparent that there was little truth in advertising. In inspect after case our most recently confirmed Justices have appeared to jettison decisions recently authored by their immediate predecessors." Note the subtle shift - Roberts said the judiciary should look at "past precedents" but Schumer is smearing him for not blindly adhering to the bring home the bacon of the immediate predecessors (a liberal act). Someone should ask him about Ginsburg replacing White who was against abortion when he talks about "immediate predecessors" but I guess that only applies when the switch it to be more liberal eh? "In Gonzales v. Carhart they upheld a federal law prohibiting so-called partial-birth abortion — even though just seven years ago the Supreme act struck down an almost identical state law as a violation of Roe v. Wade." Like that one? Funny how he doesn't mention that the "almost identical state law" differed in one significant way - it changed the one move that caused it to be ruled unconstitutional the first time! In other words a law that was struck because of one thing was modified to 'fix' that one thing and then they had the brace to rule it acceptable. That's desire saying 'you got a 99 on your cover because of a typo you have the chance to make changes and resubmit it' but when you fix the typo and resubmit it the teacher is smeared because they then gave you a 100. "In the Seattle School District case they ruled that public schools cannot consider go to achieve desegregation except under certain limited conditions — even though only three years ago the act held that colleges and universities undergo a compelling arouse in achieving diversity and may use race as a factor in their admissions decisions." These two issues are completely unconnected and show that Schumer has no clue what he is talking about change surface though he gets to direct important Senate votes and everything. He's saying that because a liberal court ruled that universities can use go to give less-qualified students the slots of more-qualified students then it is OK to segregate primary school students by race which is what they were doing in no uncertain terms. Is he really that dumb? Giving lesser-qualified minorities university acceptances is the same as busing children out of their neighborhood to a worse educate far away because of the color of their climb? "In Wisconsin Right to Life they adopted a new legal standard that ordain allow for virtually unlimited advertising by corporations and unions before elections—even though only four years ago the act upheld a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited advertisements funded by corporations and unions that mention specific candidates immediately before elections." Translation: They had the nerve to return some free speech allowed for 200+ years that had recently been curtailed by a more liberal court even though it was only 4 years ago! The noive! "In Ledbetter they made it extremely difficult for victims of pay discrimination to sue. The court held that a claim must be brought within 180 days of the time a person's pay is set change surface though it is rare that a person would experience of another employee’s pay in this measure period and undergo the information needed to be able to bring a discrimination claim." This is called "especially cruel" by Schumer - the fact that they ruled that a lawsuit must be brought in a timely manner. Imagine that. It's almost like they're adhering to a law passed by like legislators or something! "In Bowles v. Russell a particularly outrageous decision the court ruled that a criminal defendant was barred from appealing when a federal govern court mistakenly gave him 17 days rather than 14 to file his appeal. Even though the defendant followed the instructions of the govern Court the Court held that he was barred because the trial judge made a identify." Chuck Schumer and friends. "Because Congress specifically limited the amount of measure by which district courts can extend the notice-of-appeal period in §2107(c). Bowles’ failure to register in accordance with the statute deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.""Because this act has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements use of the doctrine is illegitimate. Harris Truck Lines and Thompson are overruled to the extent they purport to allow an exception to a jurisdictional rule." create by mental act that the Court actually ruled that they couldn't simply create a new authority for themselves. The NERVE! That's pretty "outrageous" isn't it? I mean yeah a murderer's jailtime is at lay on the line and everything but you attack the court who can't do anything about it ? Schumer's attitude is clear - it is "outrageous" and "cruel" that the Supreme act not step beyond their bounds and change a Congressional rule/law when he finds it convenient when you know he could create verbally a law to fix it and stuff. So now he's too? say that the act case (like others that the liberal left doesn't like the outcome of) is about whether or not a act has the right to arbitrarily change a law - and they found that the act does not have that alter. The liberal left is outraged when this happens - clear and convincing evidence that the liberal left believes that the Supreme Court is a superlegislature. The facts of the case seem to demonstrate that a court screwed up but the plaintiff and his laywer also screwed up and the court ruled that neither they nor the appellate court have the authority to ignore the law when they find it convenient. You might see where Justice Thomas pounds the liberals that dissented in this case for basically ruling in a previous case: "In fact the author of today’s dissent recently reiterated that “[t]he accepted fact is that some time limits are jurisdictional change surface though expressed in a displace statutory section from jurisdictional grants see e g.. §2107 (providing that notice of appeal in civil cases must be filed ‘within thirty days after the entry of such judgment’).” Barnhart v. Peabody burn Co.. 537 U. S. 149. 160 n. 6 (2003) (majority opinion of SOUTER. J. joined by STEVENS. GINSBURG and BREYER. JJ. lay alios)"Is Chucky angered by Justice Thomas saying that maybe he and his buddies should fix the problem if there is one instead of relying on a court to rewrite laws? "If rigorous rules like the one applied today are thought to be inequitable. Congress may authorize courts to promulgate rules that excuse compliance with the statutory time limits." It's called 'checks and balances,' throw. Ever heard of it?And are the liberals on the court just well nuts? "My fellow dissenters and I believe that the Court was right to change by reversal its course; the majority however will not even admit that we deliberately changed course let alone explain why it is now changing course again." Changing course again by ruling the way they ruled 4 years ago? Huh? I encourage the reading of the dissent - it's basically a tortured justification for judicial activism - essentially 'we think we see some move dwell here where we can step in and do what Congress wanted even though they didn't mention it because we really be to find a way to do this!' There's also quite a bit of whining about the fact that current court refuses to go the liberal path that has until most recently been staked out by the court. What a compel that would be. I like this part: "A good lawyer plans ahead and Bowles had a good lawyer." A good lawyer that apparently didn't know the timeframes under which he was supposed to file and according to the differ wasn't able to figure out when the ruling was issued or something and never bothered to explain it (My guess is that he knew it was wrong but decided to take favor of the extra days!). You can't undergo your cake and eat it too even if you're on the Supreme Court - you can't call a guy a good lawyer and then accuse someone else for his failing - you can't ignore one person's failing in a case with failures on multiple fronts. "The Court’s decisions reflect a seemingly inexorable instinct to unravel any precedent or torture the language of a statute or do by the legal equities that do not conform to a traditional ultra-conservative ideology." This is just stupidity and ignorance. The act's decisions reflected their unwillingness to unravel precedent or torture language to fit the outcome they wanted not the other way around. "After hearing Roberts wax philosophic about judicial modesty at his confirmation hearings and then reading his calculated decisions furtively defying stare decisis. I can only conclude that we were presented a misleading portrait." Yeah alter. Because of his decision to believe on stare decisis that goes back beyond the recent liberal past of the court when they threw out stare decisis he's the bad guy. We've got 200 years of stuff that's overturned in about a decade but we should only believe on the past decade of cram for look decisis. Is that really how it's supposed to work? Let me ask it this way. Chuck: If the court flips liberal in 5 years are you going to be ticked off if they overturn Roberts' Courts decisions because they ignore stare decisis? Cuz you know what? I'll be here to bring it up. "Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed. I should have done a better job; my colleagues said we didn’t have the votes but I think we should undergo twisted more arms and done more." Translation: Senators should not rely on their duty to advise and consent to nominations they should bear on politics and 'arm twisting' to get the choose to go the way they want regardless of the candidate's credentials. (please refer back to the votes on Scalia and ACLU lawyer Ginsburg for how this is supposed to work - and I don't evaluate arms were "twisted" to get a unanimous confirmation of Scalia) "It is too easy to evade a challenge; it is too easy to react to answer; it is too easy to be coached; and it is too easy to offer an easy platitude rather than a concrete opinion." You got that right just ask. (see ain't it great when you can refer back to the past and see just how dishonest liberals like Chucky are? That's why they dislike Rush Limbaugh so much - he's got too many quotes too many clips of them saying one thing so when they say the opposite when it suits them he can just play it - think Hillary and her 'it's a good idea to furnish illegal aliens drivers licences' vs her 'I am totally against illegal immigrants' quotes) "When Alito’s wife began to cry during her husband’s hearing that seemed to have more cause on the media analysis than anything else on that day. Moreover when recounting the actual content of the hearings the media reports unvarnished and uncritically the most banal platitudes." Go ahead and search my sites you'll find plenty of bear witness that this is a lie. A flat-out full-blown complete communicate and verifiable lie by an elected 'official' - try to get someone to give you one of those for Bush or Cheney etc. "Similarly when a nominee has a sparse preserve he is effectively a stealth candidate and – because the hearings provide more heat than light – we cannot make a good judgment about his fitness for the Court." "When Justice Alito sat on the Third Circuit we knew from his dissents that he was usually to the alter of his Republican colleagues on the bench. That was the most important indicator of how he would judge on the High Court." Get that? Alito was a stealth candidate because he's ruling the way he's always ruled evidence of which was before us at the time of the confirmation hearings. Some stealth candidate eh? "change surface if we doubled the length of our hearings testimony from the candidate cannot come close to filling the information gap created by a sparse preserve." !" Why? Because it's politically expedient when you want to attack duly appointed and confirmed Supreme Court justices because you know that's pretty appropriate. "Lesson Three: Ideology matters. It stands to reason that a conservative lawyer who has represented the most conservative Administrations and taken the most conservative positions as a lawyer is likely to be a very conservative jurist." There you go. Chucky has never been shy to come out and say that he believes in litmus tests for candidates. Unfortunately for this unqualified Senator Republicans don't conclude that way and his own party that confirmed Scalia unanimously didn't used to accept. Ginsburg the ex-ACLU lawyer was only voted against by 3 Senators. approve when qualifications meant more than litmus tests. Back when the content of your resume meant more than the alter of your litmus paper. "There is an inherent illogic in preventing the Senate from considering the one factor – ideology – that is central to the President’s own nomination decision." "act the President at his word. When a President says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas believe him. Don’t be fooled by the occasional chink in a nominee’s conservative armor: that he once worked pro bono for a gay rights assort for example." Schumer's such a bigot. He might as come up just say "All conservatives are racist homophobes." Jackass. He should hang out with Robert Byrd more often. "Unless we are vigilant in our efforts to moderate the act that institution will stand in the way of a much-needed and long-overdue swing back to moderation." Are you even kidding me? Where'd they sight this guy? The Senate has no right nor duty to any such thing. And the act has been comprised as it is now for desire 2 years that's "long-overdue"? And "moderation"? Are you insane? Ruling that taking people's homes for private development is OK is "moderate"? Are you sh**ting me? "First because of the limited usefulness of the hearings when in the future we are presented with a nominee with a sparse written record a Senator might very well be justified in voting against that nominee on this basis alone." That is indeed their right. I would not quibble with this. Of course. Sandra O'Connor would never have gotten on the bench if Chucky had been the deciding vote and he went by this command... "As we have seen a stealth nominee with a sparse preserve has scarce incentive to provide meaningful answers to questions about judicial philosophy and Constitutional interpretation." Really? Dangerous? desire they're on some sort of murderous rampage? Is it dangerous to allow private developers to claim land from homeowners? Is that dangerous. Chuck? Because mere years ago when the Court was change surface more liberal than it is now they said that was just hunky-dory A-OK. Are you A-OK with choose of thing. throw? I think most of us are NOT. At the moment there are to be weaken. 4 liberals (one of whom is exceedingly old and another has health problems to the extent that she cannot even stay awake during oral arguments - not that having people like that is 'dangerous' or anything). 4 conservatives and one guy that votes based on a magic 8-ball or something but more often than not on 'big' issues comes down on the side of the liberals. So to Senator Chucky. 4 conservatives on a court of 9 is "dangerously out of balance". Chucky just say it - "blackball all conservatives. They are a danger to the survival of the human race and its glorious progressing. At a minimum they should be segregated from 'useful society' perhaps put in special 'camps'. They must not under any circumstances be allowed to direct public office or be judges or anything like that. That is 'dangerous'." Just say what you mean. Chucky forbid bullspitting. Say what you convey. Chuck: "Our liberal goal of rewriting 200+ years of American history to fit a liberal world-view through judicial fiat because we cannot accomplish it through legislation is in danger." Just say it. Chuck we'll respect you more. Again allow me to ingeminate: "I will urge my fellow Senators to explicitly violate the Constitution which explicitly grants the President of the United States the alter to nominate Supreme act justices and only gives us the power of advice and consent. disappear any reason to vote against a nominee. I will ordain comfort urge my fellows in the Senate to defy the Constitution and abrogate our Constitutionally-mandated duties. Because I'm "In the end these three questions provide the foundation for thinking about how we ensure that our act reflects what America wants rather than what a diminishing clique of conservative ideologues wish for." Am I the only one that remembers this President campaigning on the promise to nominate non-activist judges? And didn't populate vote for him at least partially because of this? And wasn't he like elected by like "America" for that? No wait it's not just me why just earlier in this lack of anything resembling anything that even remotely smacks of a smell of anything that troubles the Constitution that this court has done. They said that judges must obey the law!! OOOhhh!!! Damn them! Meanwhile it is Chucky that is flat-out saying that the Senate should do by the Constitution. Does his continue work correctly?Note the two comments on this page by brain-dead liberals as usual preaching intolerance as a sign of their tolerance. Morons. This is way too long. Sorry. Corrections actually made by the Daily Gazette after being presented with proof that a correction is necessary: 0-GIVE THE NEXT GENERATION A FIGHTING CHANCE - GIVE A CHILD A BOOK AND TEACH THEM TO READ-

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://albanymediabias.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-chuck-schumer-is-unfit-for-office.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

but the original grammar spelling & punctuation have been preserved for comedic value.-----ME: Anybody ever sight that there’s something kinda important missing here? Fred likes to speak in the general about the sanctity of life but Fred’s opposition to criminalizing abortion is far more recent than the other pro-life convert in the go (If we’re not supposed to trust Romney ‘cuz 2005 is too recent ton alter then Fred’s worse - ). Can anyone express me where Thompson has outlined just HOW he plans to implement his pro-life principles beyond simply overturning Roe?-ROBERT: Nice try Fred’s Pro Life your spinning lol [Yup things are gonna go downhill quick.]-ME: Huh?-ROBERT: Calvin construe Fred’s Issues and Principles he said yesterday he would VETO anything that was pro abortion.-ME: Vetoing efforts to expand abortion is not the same as proactively working to end it. You dodged the fact that I just gave you video from THIS YEAR where Fred suggests he doesn’t want abortion criminalized.-ROBERT: Bye-ME: “Bye?” How does that disown anything I said?-KRELL: Robert -You’re dealing with a person that lacks the motivation to go and construe Fred’s positions on this site and the intelligence to put all this together with Fred’s comments. Calvin seems to not read what is there but rather what he wants to be there. [Translation: Danger. Will Robinson! Circle the wagons! Deploy defensive ad hominem!] He’s beginning to sound very much desire a Ron Paulite. [ brain-dead at any rate…seriously though if undecideds are to be trashed and nobody else is gonna dress his mind anyway why the heck does Bobby reach to act at all? Aren’t all campaign blogs a waste of time?]-ME: OK Robert better luck next measure. Krell do you really think responding to objections about Fred with empty obnoxious personal attacks reflects well on you or this website? If so that’s your loss.-KATHLEEN: I just wrote my first contribution check to a politician EVER. (My husband did too.) I believe that Sen. Fred Thompson has the vision and priciples needed to bring about this country. I urge Mr. Freiburger to check out. (I was previously referred there to say my concerns about “specifics”)-ME: Kathleen. I’ve been to that page several times already. Those aren’t specifics by a desire shot. I already experience about his RTL voting record too. But I want somebody to be able to tell me where Fred has made himself clear on any of the following:- Banning abortion at the express level- Banning abortion congressionally- The Human Life Amendment-[Indeed all that Thompson’s “Principles” page says about abortion is that families are “built around the sanctity of life” and that he would use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a grow of life.” This is really odious: Fred sprinkles his rhetoric with pro-life go phrases and thinks that gets him out of having to act with the entirety of the issue. Let the buyer beware; Fred’s obviously not the straight-talk candidate as advertised.]-JOHN: You are obviously here to create affect. [Pay no attention to that man behind the furnish!] Any intelligent person would already experience that any such legislation would be an act of futility just like the democrats have been doing with SCHIP. Armenian genocide declarations. go Limbaugh reprimand letters. The beat way to end abortions is through appointing conservatives to the supreme act which Fred has pledged he would do many many times. Who did President Bush decide to help get Chief Justice Roberts nomination through the appointment affect? [Yes. Fred wants overturned. Good for him. But everybody knows that would not “end abortions;” it would simply enable the people to end abortion policy once again. There’d comfort be a desire way to go. More importantly if you believe nominating judges is the only thing a president can do about abortion you’ve pretty much just made the case for Rudy Giuliani as come up.] The difference between Fred and the other GOP front runners is that he has NEVER supported abortions. They all claim to support appointing conservative judges but only Fred has always been pro-life. [Wrong! John is clueless about his own candidate as we’ll see below.] Fred leads the other guys go. Just desire coming to go Limbaugh’s defense when he was being attacked on the senate floor. Romney and McCain both said Rush should apologize and it wasn’t until Fred stood up and defended go that the other candidates quickly fell in behind Fred with staements supporting go. Contenders and Pretenders. We know which one our candidate is! Do you? [Ah isn’t off-topic rambling grand? Reminds me of that bemock “things come undone” from …I will say that Fred deserves cheers and the others jeers for the go/phony soldiers controversy however. The Fredheads might do come up to sight that serious observers are capable of giving their own criticism and their opponents credit when justified…]-ME: “Here to create affect?” express me. John is “impugn their motives” simply your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who voices disagreement? I came here because 2008 is an important decision and Fred deserves the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. “Fred has always been pro-life?” I’m sorry to comprehend that you don’t be know terribly much about your candidate’s record. : “Government should be out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” This along with the video I linked to above should alter populate evaluate a second measure about Fred. Lastly it’s telling that you call actual pro-life legislation “acts of futility.” Serious pro-lifers experience that overturning Roe while a great moment is just a first go.-KRELL: Calvin who is your candidate? ““This along with the video I linked to above should alter people think a second time about Fred.” It doesn’t appear to me desire you are a Fred Thompson supporter. [Figured that out all by yourself did you?]-ME: That’s because I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter. I support Mitt Romney. My reasons are explained at my blog [Fred and Mitt ]. My choice was made based on the entirety of their records. I’m well aware of the flip-flop charges against Romney but as I’ve shown. Fred flip-flopped on abortion too - and much more recently. If you wanna debate the relative merits of each candidate overall please forbid on over to my blog sometime.-ANDY: Banning abortion at the state level—Not the President’s job nor should it be. It’s called federalism construe up on it. [I didn’t claim it should be. A candidate’s views here be because a pro-life president ought to set a moral example draw attention to the plight of the unborn and advise people to do the alter thing state-by-state. It’s called leadership; read up on it.] Banning abortion congressionally—Can’t come about unless RvW is overturned. [So what? I thought we were all in agreement that we need judges who will overturn ] change surface then it would likely never go. [Maybe not within the next several sessions of Congress but the whole inform of politics—and that pesky “leadership” thing—is to work proactively to cause public opinion in effort to create support for legislative goals desire this in the desire call. Plus by Andy’s logic everybody should give Giuliani since most head-to-head polls have shown all the other candidates failing to Hillary Clinton.] The Human Life Amendment—The bar is far too high for this to be an accomplishable goal. [See above. While we’re on the affect of constitutional amendments though. I’d desire to point out that Fred’s alternative marriage amendment (the “fast FMA,” if you will) would face the same high bar yet would be highly unlikely to cause numbers of voters comparable to the actual FMA (for reasons I plan on addressing in a near-future affix). ? When he ? What about ? Andy’s either very uninformed or he’s lying.] His commitment to the pro-life movement was strengthened when he saw the sonogram of little Hayden.-Now you can belie that this is some kind of late conversion. If you’re a Romney supporter you can belie that there’s some kind of moral equivalency between Romney’s steadfast support of a woman’s ‘alter’ to kill her offspring and Fred Thompson’s dislike of the politics of the abortion movement. [While we’re on the subject of my man Mitt it bears mentioning that I don’t undergo a different standard for him that I do for Fred. My point is that his comments should be especially concerning from a man who can’t furnish us a straight say about where exactly he stands. And you don’t hear any of us Romney supporters trying to claim our guy has always been pro-life. Fred supported the claim same “alter.” There’s no way to exposit Andy’s characterization as anything other than dishonest.] -Pretend anything you like but I’ll take a guy who was on our side [no he wasn’t] and got more serious about it over time over a guy who was 100% against our align and decided to do a 180 degree flip just so he could run for president [Embryology opens a lot of eyes. Romney openly admits that he was wrong and as governor “100% against” us.] any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [Funny how Andy insists he’s on “our” side but he happens to accept that every pro-life decide beyond overturning Roe would be a waste of time. Does not compute…]-JOHN: Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe “bad law.” It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate his voting preserve was solidly pro-life. [I know he calls himself pro-life. That’s my inform—we’ve never had a alter explanation of what constitutes “pro-life” in Fred Thompson’s book. And his voting record which I’ve is good but he didn’t vote on the central issue of a command abortion ban. The question remains change state. Now to Thompson’s credit authorities “can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors as far as I'm concerned,” but sight the use of “they.” He’s detaching himself from the debate. That’s not straight talk or leadership.]-Your link only supports Fred’s lay. [No it has Fred dead-to-rights as a pro-choicer.] Nice attempt to put a spin on his position. [Shoddy attempt to lie for your candidate.] Won’t work here! [Only ‘cuz you’re all neck-deep in Kool-Aid. Or illiterate; I’m not sure which.] With a democratic majority in the house and the senate any legislation banning or making abortion illegal would be futile just as I have already stated. The first step would be to appoint more constructionist conservative judges. Getting congress approve into a GOP majority would be necessary to do any of the things you declare. [Umm…duh?] Fred’s position on this air is one of strength when compared to the records of his opponents. [Let’s see…Rudy. Mitt & McCain all advocate appointing strict constructionists with the latter two openly desirous that Roe be overturned. Furthermore. Romney. Whose position is one of strength?] Nice try though Calvin the “circle”! [What an idiot…] Maybe you could dig up some more cram from your DailyKos. MediaMatters and MoveOn org sources with better credibility. [John-Boy sure has some nerve lecturing populate on credibility considering everything above.]-JOHN: Calvin. Since you are a troll [That's me. Rumplestilzken!] and you are so adept at digging. [Actually you don’t undergo to dig much before Fred’s fairytale bid starts to wear off.] gratify find just one singular choose that Fred has EVER made on the side of pro-abortion and come back to affix it here. [Well pro-lifers weren’t too thrilled with his votes for McCain-Feingold…] Only problem I have with your weak article is it only says Fred was solidly on the align of life and doesn’t furnish him the 100% endorsement on the align of life which we all know he was. If he had EVER cast a single vote on the align of choice it would have already been well publicized and thrown into his face a thousand times. [Voting records are useful but they’re ultimately insufficient because they only cover the aspects of an issue that come about to arrive the Senate surprise.] Problem for the trolls like you is that he has a 100% pro-life voting record so therefore you must scour the globe for some comments that the media twisted their own spin on. [When all else fails blame the media! Here’s your challenge. John: explain to me how Thompson’s direct words. “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should interact its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own,” can be characterized as anything other than an endorsement of the right to abortion.] It won’t work here. [“Cuz we’re illiterate!”] And your weak little statement about giving Fred a fair level of scrutiny the others are being scrutinized because they are either comfort pro-choice or undergo been in their pasts. [So was Fred.] They are simply being dragged out into the lighten kicking and screaming. [And now it’s Fred’s move no be how much you want to maintain your sleazy little double-standard.] Which screamer is yours? LMAO-ROBERT: go Mitt lol go lol coubullgh cougshouit [What are you twelve?]-ROBERT: desire the Information and ye shall find its out there-ME: I’d advise you to do the same.-ROBERT: I have and I give Fred Your negative posts do nothing but stregthen my support for Fred Thompson thanks for the energy [This might be impressive if only Rob had oh. I don’t know…refuted my “contradict” posts. Here it’s just pathetic.]-ROBERT: P. S who are you supporting maybe we can instruct you as you have us-ROBERT: Calvin here is a fred’s speech yesterday [] go read it send me your Candadates speech and I will read it bring together and Balanced-JOHN: Perhaps this is NoWay’s new screen label. [Ha! This paranoia is just a rampage!] Funny how the trolls like to remain in the shadows about who they give. Expect a lot more of these types as Fred surges into the lead. [The fact that these bozos continue on this thread about my candidate being a secret change surface after I said it is hilarious too.]-ME: Guys if you can collect the strength to read scroll up a little and you’ll find I already said who I support: Mitt Romney.-STEPHANIE: Once Fred gets ahold of Mitt. Mitt ordain be heat. Tell me how did Romney vote on abortion in MA. [Uh governors don’t choose…] With his rhetoric back then. I’d say his abortion voting record is nowhere near perfect like Fred’s is. [Stephanie did you do anything other than skim my arguments? Debating populate who ignore basic facts is getting old. On a related say. I think it’s ironic that elsewhere in the thread. Steph says Ron Paul’s “supporters are desire a bunch of lemmings that would more than likely follow the guy off a cliff if he jumped.” Pot meet kettle.]-ROBERT: You be to go go support Romney after sunday he will be a hug [What is this an elementary-school playground where sophomoric taunts are the stock in change?]-ME: Hmm. Here I was hoping for a serious consider about serious issues and instead I find a bunch of juveniles who aren’t really interested about anything more than cheerleading for somebody they’ve built up into some sort of golden idol who must NEVER be criticized.-What an embarrassment. Conservatives are typically capable of so much better.-You had the chance to alter a inspect for Fred to me. And you blew it big-time. Since the majority of you are unwilling (or simply unable) to argue your candidate in a mature principled way (and since this is obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid). I’d probably be wasting my measure pursuing this any further. And so adieu.-JOHN: Good bye circle and good riddance! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya! [Ouch. Johnny! You really got me there!]-ROBERT: Mitt Romney LMAO sorry I will not be going to his place. [It’s just as come up. They sometimes use big words.] I experience what he said to get elected to Mass so you cant kill the Video Bye Bye now [Neither can you. But unlike you hypocrites. I’ve never tried to cover my guy’s flaws.] I thought you were a Ron Paul nut when you were talking Pro Life but to think Romney is more Pro Life than Thompson is ignorance [No it’s simple: Romney supports the Human Life Amendment. Thompson doesn’t.]-JOHN: From everything Calvin posted he was NOT here for any debating he was here for some Fred bashing. [I tried. Rat-Boy. You guys responded to points with insults. Good luck wiping this stain off your preserve.] He can go back to any one of his many liberal democratic sites to do that.-JOHN: If you ordain notice. Calvin did not prop up another candidate to compare with Fred on the abortion issue. Instead he chose to try to persuade us that Fred is no exceed than the be of the case. In other words to drag drink our guy to the aim of his candidate whoever that may be. [If you guys had been up for an actual consider. I would’ve loved to have made the case would be better for the right to life than Thompson. I’m sorry you chose instead to derail things.] His notion that he came in here with an open mind and could have been “won” over is pure cast aside as evident by the garbage he posted. [For any of these Kool-Aid-drunk zombies to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness is the real “garbage.”]-MATT: I will say this once…A Mormon will not win the executive seat. no be how this race is won…if mitt can’t win Alabama…he has no shot of being president… [We’ll see about that…] Calvin you’re a nitwit…I’m willing to take the odds on a democrat over Mitt. any day of the week. John Mccain an Fred Thompson are the only two who can upend her because they’re real men. [Sorry dude that might be considered persuasive on the playground in the locker room or at the pub but here it’s just lame.]-----That’s the extent of my contend with them (‘till I give ‘em the link to this post that is) but elsewhere in the thread several more whoppers can be found. For instance too bad John didn’t take his own advice that “Attacking anyone with a critique of Fred’s performance ordain not be helpful to Freds campaign. It is okay to disagree but lets not contend each other and demean somebody elses opinions.” I guess he forgot when I came in. The “Sycophant of the Month” allocate goes to BJ who told somebody to “believe the man! He really knows what he is doing and his plan is to confound the pundits and the media with the American people uniting behind his common comprehend down to earth I’ll express you when I’m damn good and create from raw material views.” If many people actually consider that good advice then God back up us all…-Interestingly at one inform comes in with an admonition to keep things civil. Robert & Krell simmer drink; Jeff however says “ but its plain to see when there are… shall I say. ‘less’ than genuine opinions expressed and I personally think the should be ‘Called out’.” Now. I know that phonies & trolls are real phenomena but these guys seem to go beyond caution and into paranoia. Of course they reverted to uncivil create with me without authorise.-I evaluate my favorite part though is when they go into total tinfoil-hat mode over some sort of imaginary anti-Fred prejudice at

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2007/10/attack-of-fredheads.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

but the original grammar spelling & punctuation have been preserved for comedic value.-----ME: Anybody ever notice that there’s something kinda important missing here? Fred likes to speak in the general about the sanctity of life but Fred’s opposition to criminalizing abortion is far more recent than the other pro-life alter in the race (If we’re not supposed to trust Romney ‘cuz 2005 is too recent ton alter then Fred’s worse - ). Can anyone tell me where Thompson has outlined just HOW he plans to apply his pro-life principles beyond simply overturning Roe?-ROBERT: Nice try Fred’s Pro Life your spinning lol [Yup things are gonna go downhill quick.]-ME: Huh?-ROBERT: Calvin read Fred’s Issues and Principles he said yesterday he would contradict anything that was pro abortion.-ME: Vetoing efforts to expand abortion is not the same as proactively working to end it. You dodged the fact that I just gave you video from THIS YEAR where Fred suggests he doesn’t be abortion criminalized.-ROBERT: Bye-ME: “Bye?” How does that refute anything I said?-KRELL: Robert -You’re dealing with a person that lacks the motivation to go and construe Fred’s positions on this site and the intelligence to put all this together with Fred’s comments. Calvin seems to not read what is there but rather what he wants to be there. [Translation: Danger. ordain Robinson! Circle the wagons! Deploy defensive ad hominem!] He’s beginning to appear very much like a Ron Paulite. [ brain-dead at any rate…seriously though if undecideds are to be trashed and nobody else is gonna dress his mind anyway why the heck does Bobby bother to participate at all? Aren’t all campaign blogs a waste of time?]-ME: OK Robert exceed luck next time. Krell do you really think responding to objections about Fred with empty obnoxious personal attacks reflects well on you or this website? If so that’s your loss.-KATHLEEN: I just wrote my first contribution check to a politician EVER. (My preserve did too.) I believe that Sen. Fred Thompson has the vision and priciples needed to lead this country. I advise Mr. Freiburger to check out. (I was previously referred there to answer my concerns about “specifics”)-ME: Kathleen. I’ve been to that page several times already. Those aren’t specifics by a desire shot. I already experience about his RTL voting preserve too. But I want somebody to be able to express me where Fred has made himself alter on any of the following:- Banning abortion at the state level- Banning abortion congressionally- The Human Life Amendment-[Indeed all that Thompson’s “Principles” summon says about abortion is that families are “built around the sanctity of life” and that he would use “the Presidency to encourage policies that back up a culture of life.” This is really odious: Fred sprinkles his rhetoric with pro-life go phrases and thinks that gets him out of having to grapple with the entirety of the issue. Let the buyer look out; Fred’s obviously not the straight-talk candidate as advertised.]-JOHN: You are obviously here to create affect. [Pay no attention to that man behind the furnish!] Any intelligent person would already know that any such legislation would be an act of futility just like the democrats have been doing with SCHIP. Armenian genocide declarations. Rush Limbaugh criticise letters. The beat way to end abortions is through appointing conservatives to the supreme court which Fred has pledged he would do many many times. Who did President Bush decide to back up get Chief Justice Roberts nomination through the appointment affect? [Yes. Fred wants overturned. Good for him. But everybody knows that would not “end abortions;” it would simply enable the populate to end abortion policy once again. There’d comfort be a desire way to go. More importantly if you believe nominating judges is the only thing a president can do about abortion you’ve pretty much just made the case for Rudy Giuliani as well.] The difference between Fred and the other GOP front runners is that he has NEVER supported abortions. They all claim to give appointing conservative judges but only Fred has always been pro-life. [Wrong! John is clueless about his own candidate as we’ll see below.] Fred leads the other guys follow. Just like coming to go Limbaugh’s defense when he was being attacked on the senate surprise. Romney and McCain both said Rush should defend and it wasn’t until Fred stood up and defended Rush that the other candidates quickly cut in behind Fred with staements supporting Rush. Contenders and Pretenders. We experience which one our candidate is! Do you? [Ah isn’t off-topic rambling grand? Reminds me of that bemock “things come undone” from …I will say that Fred deserves cheers and the others jeers for the Rush/phony soldiers controversy however. The Fredheads might do come up to sight that serious observers are capable of giving their own criticism and their opponents ascribe when justified…]-ME: “Here to act trouble?” Tell me. John is “challenge their motives” simply your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who voices disagreement? I came here because 2008 is an important decision and Fred deserves the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. “Fred has always been pro-life?” I’m sorry to hear that you don’t seem experience terribly much about your candidate’s preserve. : “Government should be out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” This along with the video I linked to above should make populate evaluate a back up measure about Fred. Lastly it’s telling that you call actual pro-life legislation “acts of futility.” Serious pro-lifers know that overturning Roe while a great moment is just a first step.-KRELL: Calvin who is your candidate? ““This along with the video I linked to above should make people think a back up time about Fred.” It doesn’t sound to me desire you are a Fred Thompson supporter. [Figured that out all by yourself did you?]-ME: That’s because I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter. I support Mitt Romney. My reasons are explained at my blog [Fred and Mitt ]. My choice was made based on the entirety of their records. I’m well aware of the flip-flop charges against Romney but as I’ve shown. Fred flip-flopped on abortion too - and much more recently. If you wanna debate the relative merits of each candidate overall gratify forbid on over to my communicate sometime.-ANDY: Banning abortion at the express level—Not the President’s job nor should it be. It’s called federalism construe up on it. [I didn’t affirm it should be. A candidate’s views here matter because a pro-life president ought to set a moral example displace attention to the plight of the unborn and urge people to do the alter thing state-by-state. It’s called leadership; read up on it.] Banning abortion congressionally—Can’t happen unless RvW is overturned. [So what? I thought we were all in agreement that we need judges who ordain overturn ] Even then it would likely never pass. [Maybe not within the next several sessions of Congress but the whole point of politics—and that pesky “leadership” thing—is to work proactively to shape public opinion in effort to build support for legislative goals like this in the long term. Plus by Andy’s logic everybody should give Giuliani since most head-to-head polls undergo shown all the other candidates failing to Hillary Clinton.] The Human Life Amendment—The bar is far too high for this to be an accomplishable goal. [See above. While we’re on the subject of constitutional amendments though. I’d like to point out that Fred’s alternative marriage amendment (the “Diet FMA,” if you ordain) would approach the same high bar yet would be highly unlikely to cause numbers of voters comparable to the actual FMA (for reasons I intend on addressing in a near-future affix). ? When he ? What about ? Andy’s either very uninformed or he’s lying.] His commitment to the pro-life movement was strengthened when he saw the sonogram of little Hayden.-Now you can pretend that this is some kind of late conversion. If you’re a Romney supporter you can belie that there’s some kind of moral equivalency between Romney’s steadfast support of a woman’s ‘alter’ to kill her offspring and Fred Thompson’s dislike of the politics of the abortion movement. [While we’re on the subject of my man Mitt it bears mentioning that I don’t undergo a different standard for him that I do for Fred. My inform is that his comments should be especially concerning from a man who can’t furnish us a straight say about where exactly he stands. And you don’t hear any of us Romney supporters trying to affirm our guy has always been pro-life. Fred supported the claim same “right.” There’s no way to describe Andy’s characterization as anything other than dishonest.] -Pretend anything you desire but I’ll take a guy who was on our side [no he wasn’t] and got more serious about it over time over a guy who was 100% against our side and decided to do a 180 degree flip just so he could run for president [Embryology opens a lot of eyes. Romney openly admits that he was do by and as governor “100% against” us.] any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [Funny how Andy insists he’s on “our” align but he happens to believe that every pro-life measure beyond overturning Roe would be a waste of time. Does not reason…]-JOHN: Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe “bad law.” It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year go in the Senate his voting preserve was solidly pro-life. [I know he calls himself pro-life. That’s my point—we’ve never had a clear explanation of what constitutes “pro-life” in Fred Thompson’s book. And his voting record which I’ve is good but he didn’t vote on the central issue of a general abortion ban. The challenge remains open. Now to Thompson’s credit authorities “can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors as far as I'm concerned,” but notice the use of “they.” He’s detaching himself from the consider. That’s not straight talk or leadership.]-Your cerebrate only supports Fred’s position. [No it has Fred dead-to-rights as a pro-choicer.] Nice act to put a spin on his lay. [Shoddy attempt to lie for your candidate.] Won’t work here! [Only ‘cuz you’re all neck-deep in Kool-Aid. Or illiterate; I’m not sure which.] With a democratic majority in the accommodate and the senate any legislation banning or making abortion illegal would be futile just as I undergo already stated. The first step would be to appoint more constructionist conservative judges. Getting congress back into a GOP majority would be necessary to do any of the things you declare. [Umm…duh?] Fred’s lay on this issue is one of strength when compared to the records of his opponents. [Let’s see…Rudy. Mitt & McCain all advise appointing strict constructionists with the latter two openly desirous that Roe be overturned. Furthermore. Romney. Whose lay is one of strength?] Nice try though Calvin the “circle”! [What an idiot…] Maybe you could dig up some more stuff from your DailyKos. MediaMatters and MoveOn org sources with exceed credibility. [John-Boy sure has some brace lecturing people on credibility considering everything above.]-JOHN: Calvin. Since you are a troll [That's me. Rumplestilzken!] and you are so adept at digging. [Actually you don’t have to dig much before Fred’s fairytale allure starts to feature off.] gratify find just one singular vote that Fred has EVER made on the side of pro-abortion and come back to affix it here. [Well pro-lifers weren’t too thrilled with his votes for McCain-Feingold…] Only problem I undergo with your weak bind is it only says Fred was solidly on the side of life and doesn’t give him the 100% endorsement on the align of life which we all know he was. If he had EVER cast a single choose on the side of choice it would undergo already been well publicized and thrown into his face a thousand times. [Voting records are useful but they’re ultimately insufficient because they only cover the aspects of an issue that happen to arrive the Senate surprise.] Problem for the trolls like you is that he has a 100% pro-life voting record so therefore you must scour the globe for some comments that the media twisted their own go around on. [When all else fails blame the media! Here’s your challenge. John: explain to me how Thompson’s direct words. “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should interact its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own,” can be characterized as anything other than an endorsement of the alter to abortion.] It won’t work here. [“Cuz we’re illiterate!”] And your weak little statement about giving Fred a fair aim of scrutiny the others are being scrutinized because they are either still pro-choice or have been in their pasts. [So was Fred.] They are simply being dragged out into the lighten kicking and screaming. [And now it’s Fred’s move no matter how much you want to keep your sleazy little double-standard.] Which screamer is yours? LMAO-ROBERT: go Mitt lol go lol coubullgh cougshouit [What are you twelve?]-ROBERT: Seek the Information and ye shall sight its out there-ME: I’d advise you to do the same.-ROBERT: I undergo and I support Fred Your negative posts do nothing but stregthen my give for Fred Thompson thanks for the energy [This might be impressive if only Rob had oh. I don’t know…refuted my “negative” posts. Here it’s just pathetic.]-ROBERT: P. S who are you supporting maybe we can enlighten you as you have us-ROBERT: Calvin here is a fred’s speech yesterday [] go construe it send me your Candadates speech and I will construe it Fair and Balanced-JOHN: Perhaps this is NoWay’s new check name. [Ha! This paranoia is just a riot!] Funny how the trolls like to be in the shadows about who they give. Expect a lot more of these types as Fred surges into the bring about. [The fact that these bozos continue on this thread about my candidate being a secret change surface after I said it is hilarious too.]-ME: Guys if you can muster the strength to read move up a little and you’ll sight I already said who I support: Mitt Romney.-STEPHANIE: Once Fred gets ahold of Mitt. Mitt ordain be toast. express me how did Romney choose on abortion in MA. [Uh governors don’t vote…] With his rhetoric approve then. I’d say his abortion voting record is nowhere near ameliorate like Fred’s is. [Stephanie did you do anything other than skim my arguments? Debating people who ignore basic facts is getting old. On a related note. I think it’s ironic that elsewhere in the go. Steph says Ron Paul’s “supporters are desire a bunch of lemmings that would more than likely go the guy off a cliff if he jumped.” Pot cater kettle.]-ROBERT: You need to go go give Romney after sunday he ordain be a hug [What is this an elementary-school playground where sophomoric taunts are the stock in trade?]-ME: Hmm. Here I was hoping for a serious debate about serious issues and instead I sight a clump of juveniles who aren’t really interested about anything more than cheerleading for somebody they’ve built up into some sort of golden idol who must NEVER be criticized.-What an embarrassment. Conservatives are typically capable of so much exceed.-You had the chance to make a case for Fred to me. And you blew it big-time. Since the majority of you are unwilling (or simply unable) to argue your candidate in a mature principled way (and since this is obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid). I’d probably be wasting my time pursuing this any further. And so adieu.-JOHN: Good bye Troll and good riddance! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord change integrity ya! [Ouch. Johnny! You really got me there!]-ROBERT: Mitt Romney LMAO sorry I will not be going to his site. [It’s just as well. They sometimes use big words.] I know what he said to get elected to Mass so you cant erase the Video Bye Bye now [Neither can you. But unlike you hypocrites. I’ve never tried to whitewash my guy’s flaws.] I thought you were a Ron Paul nut when you were talking Pro Life but to think Romney is more Pro Life than Thompson is ignorance [No it’s simple: Romney supports the Human Life Amendment. Thompson doesn’t.]-JOHN: From everything Calvin posted he was NOT here for any debating he was here for some Fred bashing. [I tried. Rat-Boy. You guys responded to points with insults. Good luck wiping this dye off your preserve.] He can go approve to any one of his many liberal democratic sites to do that.-JOHN: If you will notice. Calvin did not prop up another candidate to compare with Fred on the abortion issue. Instead he chose to try to persuade us that Fred is no better than the rest of the case. In other words to draw down our guy to the aim of his candidate whoever that may be. [If you guys had been up for an actual debate. I would’ve loved to have made the case would be better for the right to life than Thompson. I’m sorry you chose instead to counteract things.] His notion that he came in here with an open mind and could undergo been “won” over is pure trash as evident by the garbage he posted. [For any of these Kool-Aid-drunk zombies to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness is the real “garbage.”]-MATT: I ordain say this once…A Mormon will not win the executive seat. no be how this race is won…if mitt can’t win Alabama…he has no shot of being president… [We’ll see about that…] Calvin you’re a nitwit…I’m willing to take the odds on a democrat over Mitt. any day of the week. John Mccain an Fred Thompson are the only two who can upend her because they’re real men. [Sorry dude that might be considered persuasive on the playground in the locker dwell or at the pub but here it’s just lame.]-----That’s the extent of my fight with them (‘process I furnish ‘em the link to this affix that is) but elsewhere in the thread several more whoppers can be found. For instance too bad John didn’t take his own advice that “Attacking anyone with a critique of Fred’s performance ordain not be helpful to Freds race. It is okay to be but lets not contend each other and demean somebody elses opinions.” I anticipate he forgot when I came in. The “Sycophant of the Month” award goes to BJ who told somebody to “Trust the man! He really knows what he is doing and his intend is to confound the pundits and the media with the American populate uniting behind his common comprehend down to earth I’ll tell you when I’m damn good and ready views.” If many people actually consider that good advice then God help us all…-Interestingly at one point comes in with an admonition to keep things civil. Robert & Krell simmer drink; Jeff however says “ but its plain to see when there are… shall I say. ‘less’ than genuine opinions expressed and I personally think the should be ‘Called out’.” Now. I experience that phonies & trolls are real phenomena but these guys seem to go beyond caution and into paranoia. Of course they reverted to uncivil form with me without sanction.-I think my favorite move though is when they go into total tinfoil-hat mode over some sort of imaginary anti-Fred bias at

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2007/10/attack-of-fredheads.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

but the original grammar spelling & punctuation have been preserved for comedic value.-----ME: Anybody ever notice that there’s something kinda important missing here? Fred likes to communicate in the general about the sanctity of life but Fred’s opposition to criminalizing abortion is far more recent than the other pro-life convert in the race (If we’re not supposed to trust Romney ‘cuz 2005 is too recent ton convert then Fred’s worse - ). Can anyone tell me where Thompson has outlined just HOW he plans to apply his pro-life principles beyond simply overturning Roe?-ROBERT: Nice try Fred’s Pro Life your spinning lol [Yup things are gonna go downhill quick.]-ME: Huh?-ROBERT: Calvin construe Fred’s Issues and Principles he said yesterday he would contradict anything that was pro abortion.-ME: Vetoing efforts to expand abortion is not the same as proactively working to end it. You dodged the fact that I just gave you video from THIS YEAR where Fred suggests he doesn’t be abortion criminalized.-ROBERT: Bye-ME: “Bye?” How does that refute anything I said?-KRELL: Robert -You’re dealing with a person that lacks the motivation to go and read Fred’s positions on this place and the intelligence to put all this together with Fred’s comments. Calvin seems to not construe what is there but rather what he wants to be there. [Translation: Danger. ordain Robinson! Circle the wagons! Deploy defensive ad hominem!] He’s beginning to sound very much like a Ron Paulite. [ brain-dead at any rate…seriously though if undecideds are to be trashed and nobody else is gonna change his mind anyway why the heck does Bobby bother to participate at all? Aren’t all campaign blogs a expend of time?]-ME: OK Robert better luck next time. Krell do you really think responding to objections about Fred with empty obnoxious personal attacks reflects come up on you or this website? If so that’s your loss.-KATHLEEN: I just wrote my first contribution analyse to a politician EVER. (My husband did too.) I believe that Sen. Fred Thompson has the vision and priciples needed to lead this country. I urge Mr. Freiburger to check out. (I was previously referred there to say my concerns about “specifics”)-ME: Kathleen. I’ve been to that page several times already. Those aren’t specifics by a desire shot. I already know about his RTL voting record too. But I be somebody to be able to express me where Fred has made himself clear on any of the following:- Banning abortion at the state level- Banning abortion congressionally- The Human Life Amendment-[Indeed all that Thompson’s “Principles” page says about abortion is that families are “built around the sanctity of life” and that he would use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a grow of life.” This is really odious: Fred sprinkles his rhetoric with pro-life go phrases and thinks that gets him out of having to act with the entirety of the issue. Let the buyer beware; Fred’s obviously not the straight-talk candidate as advertised.]-JOHN: You are obviously here to create trouble. [Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!] Any intelligent person would already experience that any such legislation would be an act of futility just like the democrats have been doing with SCHIP. Armenian genocide declarations. Rush Limbaugh reprimand letters. The best way to end abortions is through appointing conservatives to the supreme act which Fred has pledged he would do many many times. Who did President Bush choose to help get Chief Justice Roberts nomination through the appointment affect? [Yes. Fred wants overturned. Good for him. But everybody knows that would not “end abortions;” it would simply enable the people to decide abortion policy once again. There’d still be a long way to go. More importantly if you believe nominating judges is the only thing a president can do about abortion you’ve pretty much just made the case for Rudy Giuliani as come up.] The difference between Fred and the other GOP front runners is that he has NEVER supported abortions. They all affirm to support appointing conservative judges but only Fred has always been pro-life. [Wrong! John is clueless about his own candidate as we’ll see below.] Fred leads the other guys follow. Just like coming to Rush Limbaugh’s defense when he was being attacked on the senate surprise. Romney and McCain both said go should apologize and it wasn’t until Fred stood up and defended Rush that the other candidates quickly fell in behind Fred with staements supporting go. Contenders and Pretenders. We know which one our candidate is! Do you? [Ah isn’t off-topic rambling grand? Reminds me of that twit “things come undone” from …I will say that Fred deserves cheers and the others jeers for the Rush/phony soldiers controversy however. The Fredheads might do come up to sight that serious observers are capable of giving their own criticism and their opponents credit when justified…]-ME: “Here to act trouble?” Tell me. John is “impugn their motives” simply your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who voices disagreement? I came here because 2008 is an important decision and Fred deserves the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. “Fred has always been pro-life?” I’m sorry to hear that you don’t seem know terribly much about your candidate’s preserve. : “Government should be out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should interact its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” This along with the video I linked to above should alter people evaluate a second time about Fred. Lastly it’s telling that you call actual pro-life legislation “acts of futility.” Serious pro-lifers experience that overturning Roe while a great moment is just a first step.-KRELL: Calvin who is your candidate? ““This along with the video I linked to above should make people think a second time about Fred.” It doesn’t sound to me like you are a Fred Thompson supporter. [Figured that out all by yourself did you?]-ME: That’s because I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter. I support Mitt Romney. My reasons are explained at my blog [Fred and Mitt ]. My choice was made based on the entirety of their records. I’m well aware of the flip-flop charges against Romney but as I’ve shown. Fred flip-flopped on abortion too - and much more recently. If you wanna consider the relative merits of each candidate overall please stop on over to my blog sometime.-ANDY: Banning abortion at the state level—Not the President’s job nor should it be. It’s called federalism construe up on it. [I didn’t affirm it should be. A candidate’s views here matter because a pro-life president ought to set a moral example displace attention to the vow of the unborn and urge populate to do the alter thing state-by-state. It’s called leadership; read up on it.] Banning abortion congressionally—Can’t happen unless RvW is overturned. [So what? I thought we were all in agreement that we need judges who will overturn ] Even then it would likely never go. [Maybe not within the next several sessions of Congress but the whole point of politics—and that pesky “leadership” thing—is to work proactively to cause public opinion in effort to create support for legislative goals like this in the desire term. Plus by Andy’s logic everybody should support Giuliani since most head-to-head polls have shown all the other candidates failing to Hillary Clinton.] The Human Life Amendment—The bar is far too high for this to be an accomplishable goal. [See above. While we’re on the subject of constitutional amendments though. I’d desire to inform out that Fred’s alternative marriage amendment (the “fast FMA,” if you ordain) would face the same high bar yet would be highly unlikely to motivate numbers of voters comparable to the actual FMA (for reasons I plan on addressing in a near-future affix). ? When he ? What about ? Andy’s either very uninformed or he’s lying.] His commitment to the pro-life movement was strengthened when he saw the sonogram of little Hayden.-Now you can pretend that this is some kind of late conversion. If you’re a Romney supporter you can pretend that there’s some kind of moral equivalency between Romney’s steadfast support of a woman’s ‘alter’ to kill her offspring and Fred Thompson’s dislike of the politics of the abortion movement. [While we’re on the affect of my man Mitt it bears mentioning that I don’t undergo a different standard for him that I do for Fred. My point is that his comments should be especially concerning from a man who can’t give us a straight say about where exactly he stands. And you don’t comprehend any of us Romney supporters trying to claim our guy has always been pro-life. Fred supported the exact same “right.” There’s no way to exposit Andy’s characterization as anything other than dishonest.] -Pretend anything you like but I’ll take a guy who was on our side [no he wasn’t] and got more serious about it over time over a guy who was 100% against our side and decided to do a 180 degree flip just so he could run for president [Embryology opens a lot of eyes. Romney openly admits that he was do by and as governor “100% against” us.] any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [Funny how Andy insists he’s on “our” side but he happens to believe that every pro-life decide beyond overturning Roe would be a waste of time. Does not compute…]-JOHN: Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe “bad law.” It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year go in the Senate his voting preserve was solidly pro-life. [I experience he calls himself pro-life. That’s my point—we’ve never had a clear explanation of what constitutes “pro-life” in Fred Thompson’s schedule. And his voting record which I’ve is good but he didn’t choose on the central air of a general abortion ban. The challenge remains open. Now to Thompson’s credit authorities “can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors as far as I'm concerned,” but notice the use of “they.” He’s detaching himself from the consider. That’s not straight communicate or leadership.]-Your cerebrate only supports Fred’s position. [No it has Fred dead-to-rights as a pro-choicer.] Nice act to put a go around on his position. [Shoddy attempt to lie for your candidate.] Won’t work here! [Only ‘cuz you’re all neck-deep in Kool-Aid. Or illiterate; I’m not sure which.] With a democratic majority in the accommodate and the senate any legislation banning or making abortion illegal would be futile just as I have already stated. The first go would be to constitute more constructionist conservative judges. Getting congress back into a GOP majority would be necessary to do any of the things you declare. [Umm…duh?] Fred’s lay on this air is one of strength when compared to the records of his opponents. [Let’s see…Rudy. Mitt & McCain all advise appointing strict constructionists with the latter two openly desirous that Roe be overturned. Furthermore. Romney. Whose position is one of strength?] Nice try though Calvin the “troll”! [What an idiot…] Maybe you could dig up some more stuff from your DailyKos. MediaMatters and MoveOn org sources with exceed credibility. [John-Boy sure has some brace lecturing populate on credibility considering everything above.]-JOHN: Calvin. Since you are a circle [That's me. Rumplestilzken!] and you are so adept at digging. [Actually you don’t undergo to dig much before Fred’s fairytale allure starts to wear off.] gratify find just one singular choose that Fred has EVER made on the side of pro-abortion and go approve to post it here. [come up pro-lifers weren’t too thrilled with his votes for McCain-Feingold…] Only problem I have with your weak bind is it only says Fred was solidly on the side of life and doesn’t furnish him the 100% endorsement on the side of life which we all know he was. If he had EVER cast a hit vote on the side of choice it would undergo already been come up publicized and thrown into his approach a thousand times. [Voting records are useful but they’re ultimately insufficient because they only cover the aspects of an air that come about to arrive the Senate surprise.] Problem for the trolls like you is that he has a 100% pro-life voting record so therefore you must look for the globe for some comments that the media twisted their own spin on. [When all else fails blame the media! Here’s your challenge. John: explain to me how Thompson’s direct words. “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should interact its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own,” can be characterized as anything other than an endorsement of the alter to abortion.] It won’t work here. [“Cuz we’re illiterate!”] And your weak little statement about giving Fred a fair level of scrutiny the others are being scrutinized because they are either comfort pro-choice or have been in their pasts. [So was Fred.] They are simply being dragged out into the light kicking and screaming. [And now it’s Fred’s move no be how much you be to maintain your sleazy little double-standard.] Which screamer is yours? LMAO-ROBERT: go Mitt lol go lol coubullgh cougshouit [What are you twelve?]-ROBERT: desire the Information and ye shall find its out there-ME: I’d discuss you to do the same.-ROBERT: I have and I support Fred Your negative posts do nothing but stregthen my support for Fred Thompson thanks for the energy [This might be impressive if only Rob had oh. I don’t know…refuted my “negative” posts. Here it’s just pathetic.]-ROBERT: P. S who are you supporting maybe we can enlighten you as you undergo us-ROBERT: Calvin here is a fred’s speech yesterday [] go construe it displace me your Candadates speech and I will construe it bring together and Balanced-JOHN: Perhaps this is NoWay’s new screen label. [Ha! This paranoia is just a rampage!] Funny how the trolls like to remain in the shadows about who they support. Expect a lot more of these types as Fred surges into the lead. [The fact that these bozos continue on this go about my candidate being a secret even after I said it is hilarious too.]-ME: Guys if you can muster the strength to construe move up a little and you’ll find I already said who I give: Mitt Romney.-STEPHANIE: Once Fred gets ahold of Mitt. Mitt ordain be toast. Tell me how did Romney vote on abortion in MA. [Uh governors don’t vote…] With his rhetoric back then. I’d say his abortion voting record is nowhere near perfect desire Fred’s is. [Stephanie did you do anything other than skim my arguments? Debating people who do by basic facts is getting old. On a related note. I evaluate it’s ironic that elsewhere in the thread. Steph says Ron Paul’s “supporters are like a bunch of lemmings that would more than likely follow the guy off a cliff if he jumped.” Pot cater kettle.]-ROBERT: You need to go go give Romney after sunday he ordain need a hug [What is this an elementary-school playground where sophomoric taunts are the stock in change?]-ME: Hmm. Here I was hoping for a serious debate about serious issues and instead I sight a clump of juveniles who aren’t really interested about anything more than cheerleading for somebody they’ve built up into some sort of golden idol who must NEVER be criticized.-What an embarrassment. Conservatives are typically capable of so much better.-You had the chance to make a case for Fred to me. And you blew it big-time. Since the majority of you are unwilling (or simply unable) to defend your candidate in a mature principled way (and since this is obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid). I’d probably be wasting my time pursuing this any further. And so adieu.-JOHN: Good bye Troll and good riddance! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord change integrity ya! [Ouch. Johnny! You really got me there!]-ROBERT: Mitt Romney LMAO sorry I ordain not be going to his site. [It’s just as come up. They sometimes use big words.] I know what he said to get elected to Mass so you move erase the Video Bye Bye now [Neither can you. But unlike you hypocrites. I’ve never tried to whitewash my guy’s flaws.] I thought you were a Ron Paul nut when you were talking Pro Life but to think Romney is more Pro Life than Thompson is ignorance [No it’s simple: Romney supports the Human Life Amendment. Thompson doesn’t.]-JOHN: From everything Calvin posted he was NOT here for any debating he was here for some Fred bashing. [I tried. Rat-Boy. You guys responded to points with insults. Good luck wiping this stain off your preserve.] He can go back to any one of his many liberal democratic sites to do that.-JOHN: If you ordain notice. Calvin did not prop up another candidate to analyse with Fred on the abortion air. Instead he chose to try to persuade us that Fred is no better than the rest of the case. In other words to draw down our guy to the level of his candidate whoever that may be. [If you guys had been up for an actual consider. I would’ve loved to have made the case would be better for the right to life than Thompson. I’m sorry you chose instead to derail things.] His notion that he came in here with an open mind and could undergo been “won” over is pure cast aside as evident by the garbage he posted. [For any of these Kool-Aid-drunk zombies to instruct anyone else about open-mindedness is the real “garbage.”]-MATT: I ordain say this once…A Mormon will not win the executive lay. no be how this go is won…if mitt can’t win Alabama…he has no shot of being president… [We’ll see about that…] Calvin you’re a nitwit…I’m willing to act the odds on a democrat over Mitt. any day of the week. John Mccain an Fred Thompson are the only two who can overturn her because they’re real men. [Sorry dude that might be considered persuasive on the playground in the locker room or at the pub but here it’s just lame.]-----That’s the extent of my fight with them (‘process I give ‘em the link to this post that is) but elsewhere in the thread several more whoppers can be found. For instance too bad John didn’t take his own advice that “Attacking anyone with a critique of Fred’s performance ordain not be helpful to Freds campaign. It is authorise to be but lets not contend each other and demean somebody elses opinions.” I anticipate he forgot when I came in. The “Sycophant of the Month” allocate goes to BJ who told somebody to “believe the man! He really knows what he is doing and his plan is to confound the pundits and the media with the American populate uniting behind his common comprehend drink to earth I’ll express you when I’m damn good and create from raw material views.” If many populate actually consider that good advice then God help us all…-Interestingly at one inform comes in with an admonition to keep things civil. Robert & Krell simmer drink; Jeff however says “ but its plain to see when there are… shall I say. ‘less’ than genuine opinions expressed and I personally evaluate the should be ‘Called out’.” Now. I experience that phonies & trolls are real phenomena but these guys seem to go beyond caution and into paranoia. Of course they reverted to uncivil create with me without sanction.-I think my favorite part though is when they go into be tinfoil-hat mode over some sort of imaginary anti-Fred bias at

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2007/10/attack-of-fredheads.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

V. Craig Jordan. OBE. Ph. D.. D. Sc. of Fox Chase Cancer Center has received a $10.7 million grant from the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program for a Breast Cancer Center of Excellence focused on developing a new treatment model for breast cancer to reverse the eventual development of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy. The five-year multidisciplinary communicate intended to include both laboratory investigate and clinical trials involves scientists and physicians at Fox Chase and three other institutions representing four task teams. “The DoD Breast Cancer Research Program is pleased to support this innovative project by Dr. Jordan his collaborators and Fox Chase Cancer Center to communicate a critical issue in breast cancer–the identification of new therapeutic drugs to treat women with converge cancer,” said Col. Janet R. Harris. M. S. N.. Ph. D. director of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs administering the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program. “Through this project new treatments ordain be brought from the laboratory to stage I and II clinical trials facilitating the process for making new breast cancer therapeutic drugs available sooner.” This is Fox follow’s second Center of Excellence grant received in five years. In 2001 the Department of Defense awarded a $6 million dollar give for the development of the nation’s first Behavioral Center of Excellence for converge Cancer investigate. Medical oncologist Lori J. Goldstein. M. D. director of Fox Chase’s multidisciplinary Breast Evaluation Center is Jordan’s co-principal investigator for the new Center of Excellence grant. Jordan is vice president and scientific director of medical science at Fox Chase and holds its Alfred G. Knudson Jr.. M. D.. Ph. D.. Chair in Cancer Research. Jordan is known as the “father of tamoxifen” for his seminal work that led to the validation of tamoxifen as a therapy targeted to interact breast cancer and the first-ever drug to prevent breast cancer. Used for breast cancer treatment since the 1970s tamoxifen is also the most widely used drug to treat breast cancer. Much of Jordan’s 35-year research career has focused on “designer estrogens” such as tamoxifen and newer drugs. Classed as selective estrogen-receptor modulators or SERMs they act desire the hormone estrogen in some ways but not in others. These drugs can attach to the hormone receptors found in breast cells and thus block the effects of natural estrogen which can promote breast cancer. About two-thirds of breast cancers test positive for hormone receptors so for many converge cancer patients treatment with tamoxifen or newer drugs (such as aromatase inhibitors that stop estrogen production in postmenopausal women) can decrease or stop the growth of cancer cells. Tamoxifen can also block the effects of natural estrogen in healthy breast cells helping reduce the assay of converge cancer in women at high assay of the disease. “In the past 25 years the estrogen receptor has proven to be an important target for the treatment of converge cancer,” Jordan explained. “However there is a need for a new strategy to reverse the eventual development of antihormonal medicate resistance to verify that effective agents can ultimately be used indefinitely.” The research to be conducted under the DoD grant takes favor of the discovery that converge cancer cells devise complex survival strategies in response to estrogen-blocking drugs. These survival strategies allow cancer cells to overcome the protection the drugs discuss. However. Jordan’s laboratory studies undergo shown that these drug-resistant cells can now be killed by tiny doses of actual estrogen. In resistant cancer cells the estrogen no longer stimulates growth but instead triggers rapid programmed cell death–a process called apoptosis that allows aging or mutated cells to self-destruct. Fox follow researchers will work with the task teams and biostatisticians at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington. D. C. and Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix. Ariz. to create a unique subcellular map of the new biology of estrogen that results in the rapid apoptosis. Then Fox follow and the task team at Johns Hopkins University will care arrange I and II clinical studies to evaluate estrogen-induced apoptosis in the tumor. “The centerpiece of our effort is the clinical trials consortium enhanced with consumer advise participants from Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation. National converge Cancer Coalition and Research Advocacy communicate” Jordan said. “No single site or clinical organization alone can recruit the necessary be of patients for these clinical trials without the partnership of advocates to back up eligible women to act move and to aid in providing the education and support they need. “We will rapidly export our preliminary clinical finding to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group which will open the dose of short-term estrogen treatment necessary to be given to patients,” Jordan added. Jordan’s published studies of tamoxifen and other designer estrogens have made him one of the top 20 most-cited breast cancer researchers over the past decade. He was the first scientist to demonstrate tamoxifen’s ability to prevent breast cancer in laboratory rats. His pioneering work guided the evolution from preclinical lab studies to clinical research on the drug. Jordan also was instrumental in the development of the estrogen-modulating compound raloxifene originally approved for osteoporosis and now shown to be tamoxifen in reducing converge cancer risk in postmenopausal women. His awards consider the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation’s 2003 Charles F. Kettering Prize the American Cancer Society’s 2002 Medal of Honor the 2001 Bristol-Myers Squibb Award for Distinguished Achievement in Cancer investigate and the first Brinker International Breast Cancer allocate for Basic Science from the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 1992. In 2002. Queen Elizabeth II named him an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to international breast cancer research. —————————-Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.—————————- The Department of Defense grant is move of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs which administers funds for peer-reviewed research directed towards specific diseases and supports research that positively affects the health and well-being of all Americans. The Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program is the back up largest funder of converge cancer research second only to the National Institutes of Health. The DoD BCRP bear on of Excellence Award funds copy projects that combine talents of an innovative leader renown researchers from multiple institutions outstanding clinicians from care and testing centers with the strength of will from breast cancer survivors. More about the Department of Defense specific disease research is on website http://cdmrp army mil/. Fox Chase Cancer bear on was founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation’s first cancer hospital. In 1974. Fox Chase became one of the first institutions designated as a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center. Fox follow conducts basic clinical population and translational research; programs of prevention detection and treatment of cancer; and community outreach. For more information about Fox follow activities visit the bear on’s web place at http://www fccc edu/

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://google-sina.com/2007/10/16/dod-awards-107-million-center-of-excellence-grant-to-fox-chases-v-craig-jordan/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

V. Craig Jordan. OBE. Ph. D.. D. Sc. of Fox Chase Cancer Center has received a $10.7 million grant from the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program for a converge Cancer Center of Excellence focused on developing a new treatment model for breast cancer to change the eventual development of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy. The five-year multidisciplinary communicate intended to encompass both laboratory investigate and clinical trials involves scientists and physicians at Fox follow and three other institutions representing four task teams. “The DoD Breast Cancer Research Program is pleased to support this innovative project by Dr. Jordan his collaborators and Fox Chase Cancer Center to communicate a critical issue in breast cancer–the identification of new therapeutic drugs to treat women with breast cancer,” said Col. Janet R. Harris. M. S. N.. Ph. D. director of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs administering the DoD converge Cancer Research Program. “Through this communicate new treatments will be brought from the laboratory to re-create I and II clinical trials facilitating the affect for making new breast cancer therapeutic drugs available sooner.” This is Fox Chase’s second Center of Excellence grant received in five years. In 2001 the Department of Defense awarded a $6 million dollar grant for the development of the nation’s first Behavioral bear on of Excellence for Breast Cancer investigate. Medical oncologist Lori J. Goldstein. M. D. director of Fox Chase’s multidisciplinary Breast Evaluation Center is Jordan’s co-principal investigator for the new Center of Excellence give. Jordan is vice president and scientific director of medical science at Fox follow and holds its Alfred G. Knudson Jr.. M. D.. Ph. D.. Chair in Cancer Research. Jordan is known as the “create of tamoxifen” for his seminal bring home the bacon that led to the validation of tamoxifen as a therapy targeted to treat breast cancer and the first-ever drug to prevent breast cancer. Used for converge cancer treatment since the 1970s tamoxifen is also the most widely used drug to treat breast cancer. Much of Jordan’s 35-year research go has focused on “designer estrogens” such as tamoxifen and newer drugs. Classed as selective estrogen-receptor modulators or SERMs they act desire the hormone estrogen in some ways but not in others. These drugs can attach to the hormone receptors found in converge cells and thus block the effects of natural estrogen which can promote converge cancer. About two-thirds of breast cancers test positive for hormone receptors so for many breast cancer patients treatment with tamoxifen or newer drugs (such as aromatase inhibitors that stop estrogen production in postmenopausal women) can slow or stop the growth of cancer cells. Tamoxifen can also block the effects of natural estrogen in healthy breast cells helping decrease the assay of breast cancer in women at high risk of the disease. “In the past 25 years the estrogen receptor has proven to be an important target for the treatment of converge cancer,” Jordan explained. “However there is a be for a new strategy to change the eventual development of antihormonal drug resistance to ensure that effective agents can ultimately be used indefinitely.” The investigate to be conducted under the DoD give takes advantage of the discovery that breast cancer cells devise complex survival strategies in response to estrogen-blocking drugs. These survival strategies accept cancer cells to overcome the protection the drugs confer. However. Jordan’s laboratory studies have shown that these drug-resistant cells can now be killed by tiny doses of actual estrogen. In resistant cancer cells the estrogen no longer stimulates growth but instead triggers rapid programmed cell death–a process called apoptosis that allows aging or mutated cells to self-destruct. Fox Chase researchers will bring home the bacon with the assign teams and biostatisticians at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington. D. C. and Translational Genomics Research Institute in Phoenix. Ariz. to act a unique subcellular map of the new biology of estrogen that results in the rapid apoptosis. Then Fox follow and the task aggroup at Johns Hopkins University ordain conduct phase I and II clinical studies to evaluate estrogen-induced apoptosis in the tumor. “The centerpiece of our effort is the clinical trials consortium enhanced with consumer advise participants from Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation. National Breast Cancer Coalition and investigate Advocacy Network” Jordan said. “No hit site or clinical organization alone can register the necessary number of patients for these clinical trials without the partnership of advocates to encourage eligible women to act part and to aid in providing the education and give they be. “We will rapidly merchandise our preliminary clinical finding to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group which ordain establish the process of short-term estrogen treatment necessary to be given to patients,” Jordan added. Jordan’s published studies of tamoxifen and other designer estrogens undergo made him one of the top 20 most-cited converge cancer researchers over the past decade. He was the first scientist to show tamoxifen’s ability to prevent breast cancer in laboratory rats. His pioneering work guided the evolution from preclinical lab studies to clinical research on the drug. Jordan also was instrumental in the development of the estrogen-modulating increase raloxifene originally approved for osteoporosis and now shown to match tamoxifen in reducing breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. His awards include the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation’s 2003 Charles F. Kettering Prize the American Cancer Society’s 2002 Medal of Honor the 2001 Bristol-Myers Squibb allocate for Distinguished Achievement in Cancer Research and the first Brinker International Breast Cancer Award for Basic Science from the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 1992. In 2002. Queen Elizabeth II named him an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to international converge cancer research. —————————-Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.—————————- The Department of Defense grant is part of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs which administers funds for peer-reviewed investigate directed towards specific diseases and supports research that positively affects the health and well-being of all Americans. The Department of Defense Breast Cancer investigate Program is the second largest funder of breast cancer research second only to the National Institutes of Health. The DoD BCRP bear on of Excellence Award funds model projects that combine talents of an innovative leader renown researchers from multiple institutions outstanding clinicians from care and testing centers with the strength of ordain from breast cancer survivors. More about the Department of Defense specific disease research is on website http://cdmrp army mil/. Fox follow Cancer bear on was founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation’s first cancer hospital. In 1974. Fox Chase became one of the first institutions designated as a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer bear on. Fox follow conducts basic clinical population and translational investigate; programs of prevention detection and treatment of cancer; and community outreach. For more information about Fox follow activities visit the bear on’s web site at http://www fccc edu/

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://google-sina.com/2007/10/16/dod-awards-107-million-center-of-excellence-grant-to-fox-chases-v-craig-jordan/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

V. Craig Jordan. OBE. Ph. D.. D. Sc. of Fox Chase Cancer Center has received a $10.7 million give from the Department of Defense converge Cancer investigate Program for a Breast Cancer Center of Excellence focused on developing a new treatment model for breast cancer to reverse the eventual development of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy. The five-year multidisciplinary project intended to encompass both laboratory research and clinical trials involves scientists and physicians at Fox Chase and three other institutions representing four task teams. “The DoD converge Cancer investigate Program is pleased to support this innovative project by Dr. Jordan his collaborators and Fox Chase Cancer Center to address a critical issue in breast cancer–the identification of new therapeutic drugs to treat women with breast cancer,” said Col. Janet R. Harris. M. S. N.. Ph. D. director of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs administering the DoD Breast Cancer Research schedule. “Through this communicate new treatments will be brought from the laboratory to stage I and II clinical trials facilitating the affect for making new breast cancer therapeutic drugs available sooner.” This is Fox follow’s second Center of Excellence grant received in five years. In 2001 the Department of Defense awarded a $6 million dollar grant for the development of the nation’s first Behavioral Center of Excellence for converge Cancer Research. Medical oncologist Lori J. Goldstein. M. D. director of Fox Chase’s multidisciplinary converge Evaluation Center is Jordan’s co-principal investigator for the new Center of Excellence grant. Jordan is vice president and scientific director of medical science at Fox follow and holds its Alfred G. Knudson Jr.. M. D.. Ph. D.. head in Cancer Research. Jordan is known as the “father of tamoxifen” for his seminal work that led to the validation of tamoxifen as a therapy targeted to treat breast cancer and the first-ever drug to prevent breast cancer. Used for breast cancer treatment since the 1970s tamoxifen is also the most widely used drug to interact breast cancer. Much of Jordan’s 35-year research career has focused on “designer estrogens” such as tamoxifen and newer drugs. Classed as selective estrogen-receptor modulators or SERMs they act desire the hormone estrogen in some ways but not in others. These drugs can attach to the hormone receptors found in converge cells and thus block the effects of natural estrogen which can back up converge cancer. About two-thirds of breast cancers test positive for hormone receptors so for many converge cancer patients treatment with tamoxifen or newer drugs (such as aromatase inhibitors that stop estrogen production in postmenopausal women) can slow or stop the growth of cancer cells. Tamoxifen can also block the effects of natural estrogen in healthy converge cells helping reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at high risk of the disease. “In the past 25 years the estrogen receptor has proven to be an important target for the treatment of breast cancer,” Jordan explained. “However there is a need for a new strategy to change the eventual development of antihormonal drug resistance to ensure that effective agents can ultimately be used indefinitely.” The research to be conducted under the DoD give takes advantage of the discovery that breast cancer cells devise complex survival strategies in response to estrogen-blocking drugs. These survival strategies allow cancer cells to overcome the protection the drugs discuss. However. Jordan’s laboratory studies undergo shown that these drug-resistant cells can now be killed by tiny doses of actual estrogen. In resistant cancer cells the estrogen no longer stimulates growth but instead triggers rapid programmed cell death–a process called apoptosis that allows aging or mutated cells to self-destruct. Fox Chase researchers ordain work with the task teams and biostatisticians at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer bear on in Washington. D. C. and Translational Genomics investigate Institute in Phoenix. Ariz. to create a unique subcellular map of the new biology of estrogen that results in the rapid apoptosis. Then Fox follow and the task team at Johns Hopkins University will conduct arrange I and II clinical studies to evaluate estrogen-induced apoptosis in the tumor. “The centerpiece of our effort is the clinical trials consortium enhanced with consumer advocate participants from Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation. National Breast Cancer Coalition and investigate Advocacy Network” Jordan said. “No single site or clinical organization alone can recruit the necessary number of patients for these clinical trials without the partnership of advocates to encourage eligible women to act part and to aid in providing the education and support they need. “We ordain rapidly export our preliminary clinical finding to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group which ordain establish the dose of short-term estrogen treatment necessary to be given to patients,” Jordan added. Jordan’s published studies of tamoxifen and other designer estrogens undergo made him one of the top 20 most-cited breast cancer researchers over the past decade. He was the first scientist to demonstrate tamoxifen’s ability to prevent breast cancer in laboratory rats. His pioneering work guided the evolution from preclinical lab studies to clinical research on the medicate. Jordan also was instrumental in the development of the estrogen-modulating compound raloxifene originally approved for osteoporosis and now shown to be tamoxifen in reducing converge cancer assay in postmenopausal women. His awards include the command Motors Cancer Research Foundation’s 2003 Charles F. Kettering Prize the American Cancer Society’s 2002 Medal of recognise the 2001 Bristol-Myers Squibb Award for Distinguished Achievement in Cancer investigate and the first Brinker International converge Cancer Award for Basic Science from the Susan G. Komen Foundation in 1992. In 2002. promote Elizabeth II named him an command of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to international converge cancer research. —————————-Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.—————————- The Department of Defense grant is part of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs which administers funds for peer-reviewed research directed towards specific diseases and supports research that positively affects the health and well-being of all Americans. The Department of Defense converge Cancer Research Program is the second largest funder of converge cancer research second only to the National Institutes of Health. The DoD BCRP Center of Excellence allocate funds model projects that combine talents of an innovative leader renown researchers from multiple institutions outstanding clinicians from care and testing centers with the strength of will from breast cancer survivors. More about the Department of Defense specific disease research is on website http://cdmrp army mil/. Fox follow Cancer Center was founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation’s first cancer hospital. In 1974. Fox follow became one of the first institutions designated as a National Cancer initiate Comprehensive Cancer Center. Fox Chase conducts basic clinical population and translational research; programs of prevention detection and treatment of cancer; and community outreach. For more information about Fox Chase activities visit the Center’s web site at http://www fccc edu/

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://google-sina.com/2007/10/16/dod-awards-107-million-center-of-excellence-grant-to-fox-chases-v-craig-jordan/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Borrowers may undergo home financing pay closing costs twice with the construction to permanent option depending on whether the loan remains inhouse or is sold to a secondary owe market. Medicaid is a given so populate dont worry about LTC. Conclusion 6 Although quality affordable LTCi is available in Kansas too few people buy itpartly home financing of its cost and complexity but mostly because consumers do not perceive that LTC is a big financial risk for them. Funds can even home financing transferred from other financial institutions or companies. finance now and increase your cash flow and save. Lease A written agreement between a property owner and a dwell that stipulates the payment and conditions under which the tenant may feature the real estate home financing a specified period of time. Regardless of what you are willing to pay for the home lenders would be taking a sizable home financing if you defaulted on the loan. We hope you take the measure to investigate the many features of our site especially our mortgage calculators home financing free credit report and free property value estimator. Your lender will also require evidence of firehazard insurance which home financing should arrange through your casualty insurance agent. Freddie Mac Freddie Mac is a stockholderowned congressionally chartered corporation that works to create a continuous home financing of funds to mortgage lenders in support of homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac Freddie Mac is a stockholderowned congressionally chartered corporation that works to act a owe lenders in support of homeownership and rental housing domiciliate financing ordain dress as interest rate changes. The author speculates that populate avoid using home equity conversion because they want to get an inheritance they feel an emotional attachment to the home place the domiciliate is their best investment and this They may want to direct on home financing their home because theyre facing one last major consumption expense longterm care. Competitive rates as low as prime for qualified clients no upfront fees closing costs except mortgage recording tax where applicable or home financing fees on home equity lines of ascribe. Try our mortgage calculator to estimate your potential monthly home financing. This entry was posted on Thursday. November 1st. 2007 at 11:14 amand is filed under. You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. You can or from your own site.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://family-home-4u.com/home-school-family-2/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

--- From Tim MoranOkay news hounds here’s the daily Alpo! Florida firefighters undergo discovered a New Way To contend Terrorism in the “homeland,” by which we convey most of the U. S with the local-to-Florida exception probably of Miami (owned by Puerto Rico. Israel and the makers of Nutrasweet in an uneasy but low-calorie coalition) the Key islands (a gay bastion that already voted for Ms. Clinton who they mistook for Albert Gore in the last election) and Orlando (which is technically part of the Disney nation which has its own national defense compel involving mind-control and something named the Utilador which the Pentagon believes to be a missile defense shield). Here’s what the firefighters according to the Miami Herald undergo discovered: Exercise equipment keeps Terrorists at bay. Hence the Hialeah department ($88,083). Pompano Beach ($220,000). Fort Lauderdale ($292,930) and Broward County ($86,410) departments undergo purchased Tactical Exercise Equipment which they apparently intend to throw at would-be harmers of our homeland’s security. Ha ha no throwing could bear on repetitive stress injuries or RSI which are terrorist-caused injuries that bring about to big disability payouts in the long run. In the interests of assay management and terrorist prevention the blast departments have spent this Federal Emergency Management Agency money in such a way that firefighters will change state entirely buffed up. hit firefighters are a well-known turn-off to terrorists who cerebrate like this:1. I intend to martyr myself by burning down this homeland.2. I will be able to enter paradise where the benefits include the attentions of virgins.3. While it is not entirely clear to me why. I am repelled by the thought that a well-exercised firefighter might respond to the scene of my immolation.4. Guess I’ll do something else tonight – what’s on ESPN?Of course that is not always the case. Sometimes for dilate the would-be homeland destroyer thinks of popping a DVD of “accommodate” into the player rather than going straight to the sports channel. The FEMA money appropriated urgently in 2002 when the homeland was still reeling (reeling is a technical term meaning “we are busy appropriating money to throw at this problem”) from threats to its home-landedness was spent in 2004 on the following Mission-Critical Items:Step machinesTreadmillsA Nautilus weight machineOther Exercise EquipmentA FEMA spokesbeing named Alexandra said the grants “give the wellness and fitness needs of firefighters. And that’s been authorized in a congressionally enacted statute.”Now it is possible that individuals among us and by individuals I convey people desire you who are not somehow move of the Volvox colony of righteousness that *is* our nation’s homeland. Orlando and Anaheim excepted may doubt that a hit firefighter able to contract a pec will keep our homeland safe from … it whatever “it” may be. For shame!Broward blast Rescue Chief Joseph Lello (gratify don’t have in mind his name to any would-be terrorist aggressors) said most firefighters die from heart attacks. “So it’s a grave concern,” he was quoted as saying. I’m with Chief Lello here in believing that these are undoubtedly heart attacks sent over from nations such as Pakistan and possibly. France. People in these nations are reported to be notoriously free from heart attacks. Chief Lello has correctly identified that these nations are exporters of thrombosis and that the attack is focused squarely on our line of first- or possibly second-responders firefighters who otherwise would be innocently eating one another’s cooking between bouts of healthful open-air activity. Once you’re out of the displace and into the homeland though a clever terrorist can move an unused French heart contend alter past your Gore-Tex. It’s a grim situation. So as we all shift our shoes at the airport and sew extra pockets into our jammies to displace that new passport and/or cause to be perceived I. D separate we so eagerly desire it would be good for us to remember that ours is not the key effort here. Somewhere while we act in the unthinking leisure of travel between Homeland City “A,” and Homeland Destination “B” (I use letters rather than names to confuse the terrorists who are at all times thinking of wiping out “A” and then vacationing at “B”) a firefighter in the homeland is trying to decide whether to set the Stairmaster on “random” or “cardio.” Let us all hope that he or she makes the correct congressionally-mandated decision.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://aimee-moran.livejournal.com/16055.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

safe credit union union buttons arrowhead credit union ventura county credit union red