Kitty Kelley, Do Any Of You Read Her Stuff?

[Aloft04]

As a pro-life *woman*, I think you are narrow-minded.

So how does a broad-minded pro-life woman rationalize voting for a candidate who chose to wage war? Surely you know more than 10,000 Iraqis have been killed, some even children and pregnant women. Are we to conclude that some lives/souls are simply of more value than others?
(P.S. Don't agree with abortion? - never have one. It's that simple.)

And shame on the people who buy that garbage.

Like the people who bought "Unfit for Command" and regurgitate it as factual? It's all subjective, isn't it?

..... you are supporting her immoral tabloid-style writing.

And there's a strong argument that you're supporting something much more immoral.....it's all in the eyes/life experience of the beholder.

[Piel]

I gave up on Kity when she wrote the Royals. Something about one of the younger boys not being Phillip's and the queen being concieved in a turkey baster? *eye roll* Its like a tabloid in book form.

Pixie,
If you will go back and read everyone's posts you are the only one who seems to be taking what she writes seriously and getting all bent out of shape over it.

Babies are concieved via turkey baster, and the British royal family is known to have participated in activities much stranger than that.LOL.

Finally, how can someonne who is prolife support a President who as governor murdered 150 people with the death penalty, those folks were someone's baby too? . You can't preach that all life is sacred and then murder whether it be the death penalty, hunting for WOMD, or the back door draft. How could any loving parent force a child who becomes pregnant from rape or incest to bear that child? I am amazed at the number of supposedly pro life white upperclass that change their thinking when little princess finds herself pregnant by some one from the wrong side of the tracks or of a different ethnicity. :sheesh: :sheesh: :sheesh:

[skatepixie]

Im for the death penalty. You see, a baby is innocent. A murderer isnt. Im also for the war. See, terror needs to be stopped and Saddam needed to go. However, thats not the topic of this thread. You want to talk about these things, start a thread for them. Dont try to get this thread off topic.

Babies concieved by turkey baster, Peil? In the 1920's? Sources, please?

I didnt buy Unfit for Command. I didnt think it was right. In general, I dont buy tell alls, from either side.

[PrincessLeppard]

Pixie, you took this thread off topic when you accused anyone who didn't agree with Bush of being a sheep when it came to criticism of him. Threads drift. It happens.

Bush sent a mentally handicapped man to the electric chair. That's not too cool. He tried to send the guy whose lawyer fell asleep at the trial to the chair, but thankfully an alert judge granted a stay and an appeal. For the record, not everyone on death row is guilty. DNA evidence has freed a lot of people. But how many were killed until that happened?

Oh, and stopping terror? Our current occupation of Iraq has actually HELPED Al-Qaeda recruit new members. Yes, Saddam needed to go, but a bullying, predominately Christian nation shouldn't have been the one to do it.

I am curious about what's in Kitty's book, but I won't buy it. I don't know what her fact checking methods are, and I don't think that just because she's never been successfully sued means everything is true. Lawsuits are messy and there is probably some info the person doing the suing doesn't want splashed all over TV.

Laura

[Piel]

To quote a famous republican, Ronald Reagan I am trying not to "hold your lack of experience against you" ( or something like that). I think that before you are so quick to criticise you should spend some time outside of your sheltered little world and try to realize that your reality is not everyone else's. In other words there are people in the world with problems you can't even imagine and the Bush administration and far right just don't give a damn what happens to these folks. When a woman says she does not want to bear a child there are reasons behind that choice. With all of the child abuse and with more and more cases of post partum depression no one has a right to force someone else to carry a child they do not want.. Adoption is not the answer for everyone and as discussed before if the baby is not white and healthy it's chances of being adopted are poor. Sometime just the nine months of pregnancy is more than some woman can handle. No one makes these decisions without much thought and prayer, and no one chooses abortion if there is any way they think they can have the child. It seem that a lot of the far right see forcing a woman to carry a child she doen't want as just punishment for the woman having sex. Motherhood should be a welcome choice not a sentence.

Babies concieved by turkey baster, Peil? In the 1920's? Sources, please?

The Arabs have practiced artficial insemination on their horses since the 1400's. It has been used on humans at least since the early 1900's.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/health/FertArtInsem.asp

I don't get why this seems so outlandish to you. Consider that the royal marriages are arranged even though QEII was supposedly very much in love with Prince Phillip. The women were virgins and the men were known philanderers. Their job was simply to produce an heir. Divorce was not an option Taking all of that into consideration artificial insemination to assure continuing the line doesn't seem strange at all.. Bulb syringes which are commonly used for varous medical procedures have been around for ages. A turkey baster is a bulb syringe except sells for much less.

As for innocence. What about those on death row that are innocent and are there because they happen to be poor and African American? What about the innocent victims of rape or incest?

[skatepixie]

If you want to talk about abortion or "the far right" or anything of that nature, start another thread.

"you accused anyone who didn't agree with Bush of being a sheep when it came to criticism of him."

Wait. No I didnt. I said that it appears (to me at least) that some people will believe things just because it bashes Bush. I didnt say that all democrats do this. Personally, I dont think Kelley-esque material should be an issue in an election, esp when it comes from a source that is so untrustworthy. As I said, I wouldnt care if Kitty were doing this with Clinton. I would still think it was dead wrong.

"I don't get why this seems so outlandish to you. Consider that the royal marriages are arranged even though QEII was supposedly very much in love with Prince Phillip. The women were virgins and the men were known philanderers. Their job was simply to produce an heir. Divorce was not an option Taking all of that into consideration artificial insemination to assure continuing the line doesn't seem strange at all.. Bulb syringes which are commonly used for varous medical procedures have been around for ages. A turkey baster is a bulb syringe except sells for much less."

It seems a little odd because, as of 1925/26, The Duke of York (later George VI) wasnt the heir. No one even thought that there was the remote possibility of him becoming the king. Everyone thought that the Prince of Whales (later Edward VIII) was going to get married and have childern. The idea of going to drastic measures to insure that the Duchess of York would produce an heir seems more than a little out there. Also, by all accounts, they were never on bad terms. Certainly, they were never on terms bad enough that it would be deamed needed for them to do to these legnths to produce an heir, esp when they were not direct heirs to the throne themselves.

"hold your lack of experience against you"

The real quote is "I will not make age an issue of this campain. I will not take advantage of my opponants youth and inexperence." This was in reply to being asked by Mondale if he would be able to fufill the dutys of the presidency due to age. So, basically, you took that way out of context.

[Piel]

The real quote is "I will not make age an issue of this campain. I will not take advantage of my opponants youth and inexperence." This was in reply to being asked by Mondale if he would be able to fufill the dutys of the presidency due to age. So, basically, you took that way out of context.

__________________

No, what Reagan said here is ewxactly what I mean. I believe that your youth and inexeperience keeps you from understanding how frightening what Bush and the far right are doing to this country. Your reality is not most people's reality.

As to the Duke and Duchess of York and how ERII was conceived. Now that you know that it WAS possible to perform artificial insemination at that time. We are talking about times before viagra, fertility drugs, and before leaks to the public of unflattering things about the royal famuily were as common as they are today. So if members of the royal family had needed help conceiving it would probably not been made known to the public at that time. Nothing shameful there, lots of couples go this route all of the time. And if anyone would have had access to the way to do this it would have been the royal family.

As far as needing an heir. To assure continuing the line it has always been important for siblings of the next in line (here those of the Prince of Wales) to produce an heir and a spare just in case. True the Duke and Duchess of York were not anxious to take the throne. Bertie was known to have a very bad stuttering problem . King George and Queen Mary were very distant parents. These boys were abused by their nanny and humiliated by their father. That they were fairly dysfunctional adults is not surprising. But if you read any biographies on the Prince of Wales you will find that it was very doubtful that he would ever produce an heir. He failed to develop secondary sex characteristics after having mumps. Npw, if you want to talk about kinky relationships Edward ( she called him David)and Wallis are your couple. :D

Kelletesque material will always get thrown around during a political campaign if either party thinks it will give them even a hint of an advantage.

Personally I'd vote for Bill Clinton again in a a heartbeat. All he did was have a little unsex and decide it was no one elses business (it wasn't). Maybe if they change the laws so Arnold can run they can also change it to allow Clinton to run again too. If not Bill there is always Hillary.......or Chelsea? :D :D :D

[Joesitz]

I think what the present administration is trying to do now (source: Sunday political shows) is to try their best to get out of Iraq. Since there was never any planning on what to do after the invasion except to think that the shiites would become the main event and believe that American democracy was the way to go. Just another miscalculation like weapons of mass destruction. More than 1000 GIs dead because of a threat that didn't exist. I feel no safer now than I did after 9/11 with Sadaam out. The President's actions have caused an increase in al-quaeda recruitment, and that makes me feel more unsafe.

Getting back to my point.... The cost of maintaining the war runs in the billiions and rising every day. How can the President give back tax money when he put the nation into so much debt? He'll just cut whatever social services there are!

I am not so sure how Haliburton is doing in Iraq which I believe was the main purpose to invade the country. I think it will shut down when the Americans leave and that will proclaim the Americans lost the war in Iraq.

I hate being pessimistic about America but that's what I see in the future because of a bumbling miscalculating present leader. I might add, if his opponent wins the election, I doubt he alone can bring America back into the International community. It will take many decades to get America back to where it was pre-Bush.

Joe

[Piel]

Well stated Joe! Add to that assault weapons are now back on the street . Lets see....Bush invades Iraq to hunt for WMD that he doesn't find. And now he puts assault weapons back on American streets. Something's not right! Just how much money has the NRA given the Republican party?

[Joesitz]

Piel - Like Tosca who only lives for love and art, America, imo, lives for oil and guns.

Joe

[bronxgirl]

Piel - Like Tosca who only lives for love and art, America, imo, lives for oil and guns.

Joe

Tragically true.

[Ladskater]

No. She was popular though when I started working at Coles Book store way back when. I think she wrote an unofficial biography about Frank Sinatra. Lots of people read her books. Not me.

[Joesitz]

I'll read Kelly's book. I won't buy it.

Joe

[Ravyn Rant]

I'll read Kelly's book. I won't buy it.

Joe

Let us pause for a moment to express our gratitude for the Free Public Library, shall we? I've already placed my hold.
Rave

[merrywidow]

I've never read anything by Kelley but a few nights ago I listened in to a discussion of her books by a group of writers for news magazines (I think one of the people was from Time). One person mentioned that she has never been sued nor has she ever had to retract anything she has written. Another reporter said that if you were a young investigative reporter you should read her books as she touches on many subjects/scandals but doesn't necessarily go into them in depth. It would be a good starting point for a young reporter trying to break into the business. Someone else said she has sources & contacts all over the world. Noone stated that they believed or disbelieved her but I got the impression that they felt there is at least a grain of truth in everything she writes.