And McCain chooses...

[Anbesol]

I'd also like to know why you think Biden's staying would 'assure the republicans the house'

[Didache]

And I want to know if he's just Biden his time

Mike

[GB1]

And I want to know if he knows that I know that he's currently planning on plagiarizing Nixon's resignation speech.

[jgredline]

Ah, you guys are cracking me up.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

[Greg McCary]

Did anyone catch Palin's explination on the Bridge to Nowhere? LOL. She sounded like a seasoned professional politician. I think she is going to fit in right well in the Whitehouse.

[jgredline]

Ok, back to the Hot Topic. Sorry I have not had time. i AM sure I was missed. lol.

''IF'' you really want to know the truth, take the time to read this article..

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide (The killing of babies)
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?).

What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.

When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

Don’t take my word for it. There’s a transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). I quote it extensively below (italics mine). After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.


This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.

Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

Given the choice between the charlatan and “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it,” Barack Obama went with the charlatan. The baby would end up limp and dead, whether in the operating room or the utility closet. It was, Obama insisted, about abortion, not live births.

By Andrew C. McCarthy is NR’s legal-affairs editor and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jBkZTE=&w=MA==
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jBkZTE=&w=MA==

For the actual transcript of obama insisting that babies must be killed, click on link.
Pages 31-34 is where the meat is.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcrip...2/ST040402.pdf

[jgredline]

But conception occurs in the fallopian tubes.

The hebrew word for womb is ''bě∙ṭěn'' It basically covers the entire reproductive system. So yes conception starts in the fallopian tube...Thanks for adding more credibility to my argument.

I. בֶּטֶן (bě∙ṭěn): n.fem.; ≡ Str 990; TWOT 236a—1. LN 8.69 womb, uterus, i.e., female reproductive organs (Ge 25:23); 2. LN 8.66 stomach, i.e., the part of the body that processes food, upper part of digestive tract (Job 15:2; 20:15; Pr 13:25; 18:20); 3. LN 8.67 abdomen, belly, i.e., the front outer part of the body, approximately from the ribs to the sex organs (Nu 5:21, 22; Jdg 3:21; SS 7:3); 4. LN 25.12-25.32 hunger, craving, i.e., a figurative extension of the stomach for desiring food or other desires (Job 20:20; Ps 17:14); 5. LN 26.4 heart, i.e., the inner most part as the essence which can invoke thinking and feeling (Ps 22:18); 6. LN 7.26-7.53 bowl-shaped part of a construction (1Ki 7:20); 7. LN 10.38 unit: פְּרִי בֶּטֶן (perî bě∙ṭěn)1 a child, formally, fruit of the womb (Ge 30:2); 8. LN 23.46-23.60 unit: מִן־ הַ־ בֶּטֶן (min- hǎ- bě∙ṭěn)1 from the time of birth or possibly conception (Jdg 13:5); 9. LN 10.49 unit: בֵּן בֶּטֶן ־ִי (bēn bě∙ṭěn -î) brother, formally, son of my womb (Job 19:17); 10. LN 26.4 unit: חֶדֶר בֶּטֶן (ḥě∙ḏěr bě∙ṭěn)1 heart, inner being, i.e., that is the inner core of a person (Pr 18:8; 20:27, 30); 11. LN 1.17-1.25 unit: בֶּטֶן שְׁאֹול (bě∙ṭěn šeʾôl) Netherworld’s Center, formally, womb of Sheol, i.e., the center of the place of death (Jnh 2:3[EB 2])

Scanned from
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

NOTE: While I do not know Hebrew, I did study it for one semester in bible college...Just enough to somewhat understand the Grammar and make sense of dictionaries, lexicons and keep it in context...

[jgredline]

With all this heated talk about abortion and Murder, I did want to take this time to make a few comments on this….First, Let me start off by saying that there is great news for those whom have had abortions. The Good news is that the bible teaches that all babies / infants who have died for what ever reason will be in the presence of the Lord God All Mighty…This includes those babies who died of a miscarriage as well...

The Bible gives us some great insight here.

2 Samuel 12:14-31
14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house.
And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 So the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the ground. But he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead. For they said, “Indeed, while the child was alive, we spoke to him, and he would not heed our voice. How can we tell him that the child is dead? He may do some harm!”
19 When David saw that his servants were whispering, David perceived that the child was dead. Therefore David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?”
And they said, “He is dead.”
20 So David arose from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house; and when he requested, they set food before him, and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate food.”
22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

So inspight of all the Sin in this section of scripture,
David knew he would see his child again…How comforting is this….Praise God…
David knew where Salvation was found....

For those whom have had an abortion or multiple, both men and women, the great news is that there is forgiveness awaiting you also at the foot of the cross…There is no need to live with the guilt…There is healing at the cross, but you must decide if you want it…

I have known many men and women who have had abortions and not one will tell you they aborted a fetus…No they know it was a baby…I am hear to tell you that healing does indeed begin at the cross and that it is OK and encouraged to mourn the death of your child….Have a memorial service for him or her…I have seen it done and have attended these memorials and there is healing….Contact focus on the family http://www.focusonthefamily.com/ and they will be able to provide you or direct you to a counselor…If you have questions, please feel free to PM me….
God bless you,
javier

[jetrim]

javier,
I've sifted through this thread several times. Thus far I've refrained from comment but it is amazing to me that you continue to beat this dead horse. Have you actually done any OBJECTIVE RESEARCH, or do you simply spit up what's been jammed down your throat by the radical far right? Do you understand that Obama was compelled to vote this way on that bill? Do you understand why? Do you understand that you would be compelled to vote the same way if placed in the same position?

Perhaps you weren't aware that Mr. Obama was not only head of the Harvard Law Review but a Professor of Constitutional Law <- This is important

The bill as authored was in direct contradiction to the US Constitution.

The US COnstitution ALREADY HAS provisions for providing medical assistance in live birth situations, as does the AMA.

So, to recap...
You're pissed off because a Senator who's a constiutional scholar voted against an unconstitutional law, that did nothing to enhance existing protections for the children it was supposed to help? Gimmie a friggin' break!

Tell me, are you still going to be on board w/ Sarah Palin when this guy moves into your neighborhood and gets your 12 yr old daughter pregnant?

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_14520.aspx
How about if your son - her own brother, is the father?

[jgredline]

javier,
I've sifted through this thread several times. Thus far I've refrained from comment but it is amazing to me that you continue to beat this dead horse. Have you actually done any OBJECTIVE RESEARCH, or do you simply spit up what's been jammed down your throat by the radical far right? Do you understand that Obama was compelled to vote this way on that bill? Do you understand why? Do you understand that you would be compelled to vote the same way if placed in the same position?

Birds of a feather flock together.
Your post reminds me of John 8:44.....You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

[jetrim]

Ahh, rather than answer the question, we'd prefer to go with the "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!" defense. Well played :frown2:

I'm outta this thread before I get myself in trouble...

[christiansoldier]

Ahh, rather than answer the question, we'd prefer to go with the "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!" defense. Well played :frown2:

I'm outta this thread before I get myself in trouble...

Not so fast.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what does the pedophile have to do with Palin?

[christiansoldier]

Javier,

You did a great job of shining Light on this subject.

The very fact the Obama waves the Christian flag with one hand and Planned Parenthood placards with the other, should be a clear to sign to anyone, whether they be a person of faith or not, that Obama is devoid of sincerity.

One cannot serve two masters. No Christian is capable of supporting the killing of children, in or out of the womb. The fact that Obama is more concerned about protecting so-called doctors (who take an oath to do no harm), than protecting children, is a clear indicator that he is not of God and is not spirit filled. We shall know them by their fruits and his are rotten to the core.

Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

I'd like to see a one-on-one conversation between Obama and Gianna Jesson, a woman who is the survivor of a saline abortion - surviving being burned in utero for 18 hours, until she was born alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uYDxZlRqx4

Perhaps Obama's cavalier dismissal of the worth of a child would be shaken?

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a person of color can be supportive of Planned Parenthood in full knowledge that the founder of the organization had an agenda to eradicate the black population.

[jetrim]

Not so fast.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what does the pedophile have to do with Palin?

Palin's anti-choice views are very well documented. She is opposed to any abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

Palin On Abortion:
I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped
In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

Granting exceptions only if the mother's life was in danger, Palin said that when it came to her daughter, "I would choose life."

At the time, her daughter was 14 years old. Moreover, Alaska's rape rate was an abysmal 2.2 times above the national average and 25 percent of all rapes resulted in unwanted pregnancies. But Palin's position was palatable within the state's largely Republican political circles.

[christiansoldier]

Palin's anti-choice views are very well documented. She is opposed to any abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

You post a pedophile photo, attempt to connect Palin with the creep, on the basis that she thinks the innocent little children resulting from rape are precious lives?

Here is a challenge for you...ask such a child if they wish they were never born and suggest to them that you think it would be better that they had been killed in the womb.

I DARE YOU.

[jetrim]

Just to set the record straight, I am a card carrying republican and have been since before Reagan was elected, and neither McCain nor Palin represent my views or the views of true republicans. I am also a Christian and a product of many years of Christian schooling. The one thingthat really burns me about those who love to quote the bible as the word of God is that none can truthfully tell you that they have read it. They HAVE read translations of it, and they have read translations of translations, but ver very few have studied the political agendas of those MEN who made the translations, and the fragments of original manuscripts that still remain are virtually unreadable due to the fading of the system of dots used in written aramaic and hebrew of that time.

Now even if we set all that aside, and take the current texts as a verbatim translation of the original books (which we already know it's not, but...) Can one of you pro McCain "Christians" tell me where God suggested that any one of us has the right or obligation to forcibly impinge on the God given free will of another?

[christiansoldier]

Even a democrat and/or an atheist with a lick of intellectual honesty can fathom that ripping a baby out of the womb is an INFRINGEMENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE MEMBER OF OUR SOCIETY.

Thanks for your sharing your CINO views...I've heard the same blather many times before.

[jetrim]

... on the basis that she thinks the innocent little children resulting from rape are precious lives?

She is so worried about those precious little lives that she repeatedly cut funding for special needs children? How very "Christian" of her!

[christiansoldier]

She is so worried about those precious little lives that she repeatedly cut funding for special needs children? How very "Christian" of her!

Kindly state your source.

I hope it stands up better than your baseless pedophile slur.

[Dylan8i]

I like how crhristians are always SOOOOO anti "murder" etc (and yes it is bad, yes i was raised christian) but the history of christianity they have murdered, and pillaged just as much as anyone, the crusades.... many other medieval happenings and more recent ones that are escaping my memory right now.

so how can you say that your not "infringing on the individual rights" when your entire religions history they have done just that?

your not going to pursuade anyone to your points of views by quoting scripture, which as jetrim pointed out may or may not even be what was written in the first place. and yet you continue to push your ideals on others.

[jetrim]

Look,
I'm not going to change you mind because it slammed shut a long time ago, and you're not going to change mine using the ammunition you have loaded up.

In the Holy Bible God tells us exactly what it takes for us to go to Heaven when we die.

To be saved the Word of God or the Holy Bible says, "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord (God in human form), and believe in your heart that God (The Father) raised Jesus Christ from the dead, you will be saved." {Romans 10:9}

Simply believe on Him (Jesus Christ God in human form who was born to a virgin Jewish woman in Bethlehem, Israel) as the one who shed His sinless blood and took your punishment for your sins, died in your place on the Cross, was buried, and whom God (The Father) raised from the dead after 3 days.

You shouldn't wait until later to be saved because you may die before you get another chance. Let God save you this very moment.

If you want to be saved right now just pray a meaningful prayer from your heart to God like the one below and you will be saved.

Dear God I want to be saved. Dear Jesus Christ Son of God I want to make you my personal Lord and Savior. Please forgive me of my sins or things I have done wrong in my life. Thanks Jesus Christ for taking my punishment for my sins by shedding your sinless blood on the cross and dying for my sins. Jesus Christ(God the Son) I now confess you as my Lord and believe in my heart that God(The Father) raised you from the dead. Amen.

If you just allowed God to save you then welcome to the family of God because you are now a Christian on your way to Heaven.

Hmmmm..... Not a single word about needing to be anti-choice, wonder why? ;)

So, once again, I'm stepping away from this thread before I get the Mod's too irritated.

[christiansoldier]

Look,
I'm not going to change you mind because it slammed shut a long time ago, and you're not going to change mine using the ammunition you have loaded up.



Hmmmm..... Not a single word about needing to be anti-choice, wonder why? ;)

So, once again, I'm stepping away from this thread before I get the Mod's too irritated.

Yeap. You HAVE to run because you can't back up yet another lie about Palin.

You have NOT done the OBJECTIVE RESEARCH which you attempted to throw in Javier's face.

Sad.

I know you could have linked to any number of stories about the alleged fund slashing...only to be PROVED WRONG.

In your face...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/04...asing-funding/

[christiansoldier]

I like how crhristians are always SOOOOO anti "murder" etc (and yes it is bad, yes i was raised christian) but the history of christianity they have murdered, and pillaged just as much as anyone, the crusades.... many other medieval happenings and more recent ones that are escaping my memory right now.

so how can you say that your not "infringing on the individual rights" when your entire religions history they have done just that?

your not going to pursuade anyone to your points of views by quoting scripture, which as jetrim pointed out may or may not even be what was written in the first place. and yet you continue to push your ideals on others.

Ah, yes... the old crusades complaint. How relevant. Hey, do you suppose the crusades MIGHT have had something to do with the Muslims of the era and their hunger for conquering everything in sight?

You were raised Christian and then what happened?

[Dylan8i]

ummm if you notice the christians invaded muslams land, kinda earily similar to how we invaded iraq.... yet thats not killign people, they are only muslums....


i was raised christian, saw how hiopcritical ALL organized religions are, and i have my own personal relationship with god.

[Frog]

My problem with Christians saying the "Word" of God is synonymous with the bible is that even the bible says that the "Word of God" is a 'living' word. It doesn't live in a book, it lives in our lives. Defining a god by the words of a book is tantamount to putting God in a box and pulling out bits and pieces when you need him.

As for Javier's claim that trickle down economics is the best way to go and that businesses will have to lay people off, etc., well we now have a good idea of what trickle down economics does as we are now a hairs breadth away from another great depression.
Thanks to the idea that capitalism doesn't need regulation. All the safeguards that FDR put in to protect us and the stock market from ever having another great depression have been eliminated over the years and guess what ?. Yup the greed took over.
Big government....I'm all for it when it comes to regulating those that suck the breath out of hard WORKING people. Thank God McCain's desire to privatize social security didn't make it or I and many other disabled, elderly people would be out on the streets.
I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican as long as you make things fair.

Also, I have no idea why you would feel safer from terrorism under McCain. The only way to stop terrorism is to deal with their hate to make them lose their desire to attack us and other western nations. McCain wants to keep a war that we already won going and ignore Afghanistan and the Pakistan border wherre Bin Laden is. Obama wants to leave Iraq as soon as safely feasable and concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan..the only move Bush made that the world supported.
This nation will never be safe from determined terrorists. There are thousands of ways to crash our system by a few people with brains. Hey...maybe those ceo people are actually AlQuaeda plants, eh.
Palin cut funding for specal olympics....not too big a deal but she continues to tell her lies about bridges, energy, etc. even after being exposed as lies.

ChistianSoldier......I guess Javier invited you here......I don't see any posts on photography.