Start Packing Sarah

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;973217 wrote: Most libertarians I talk to view the civil war as unconstitutional, and a federal abuse of power. I think the South could have seceded legally, but choose a violent route instead... being the hot-headed rednecks they were.



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 403AAawQdS



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html
Let's continue this here:



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... post973433

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;973429 wrote: In what way?


Back in 2000, I made the point to my Republican friends that Bush wasn't smart enough to be president, and lacked any kind of foreign policy experience. His rhetoric was over-simplistic, and indicated a true lack of understanding or nuance. Basically he's a all-or-nothing thinker, and thinks people are stupid to the degree that they disagree with him. He doesn't respect scientists, or anyone for that matter, unless they take his approach.

What won him the election though was his folksy persona. He basically pandered directly to the religious right... engaging in identity politics. He loved Jesus and babies. He claimed to be a Washington outsider, a reformer, while regurgitating Reagan's rhetoric. Just a regular Joe. The problem was, that's exactly what he is.

Now here we are in 2008, and the same thing is playing out. Palin ... seriously ... she, like Bush, lacks any nuance of thought or expertise to run the largest country in the world.

What is one difference between Palin and Bush, whether it's policy, or style?

It's her way or the highway. How can someone who's tried to ban books seriously run under a "small government" platform? You notice the difference between the two campaigns? Obama has said that Palin's family is off limits. Palin makes a slimy attack about Obama's wife (referencing her "Proud American" comment).

And people are surprised with Bush's incidents like when judges are hired based on their political inclination, or Plame is attacked for her husband Wilson having a different point of view on Iraq? Or Bush's outright lying about it? Entire countries like France mocked because they don't find our evidence persuasive (and rightly so). Scientists mocked for having a different point of view. Or the weapons inspector (Hanz Fritz?) that didn't find weapons mocked? These kind of political games are straight out of the playbook of a fifth grade bully. Palin is already in entangled in a cover up and abuse of power.

You're going to get 4 more years of ideologically driven, over-simplistic, Rovian political trench warfare with Palin. As we saw with her speech. A mocking, insulting and shallow speech filled with glowing misinformation about her own record. None of this has any place in politics ... it IS the problem.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

yaaarrrgg;973598 wrote: Back in 2000, I made the point to my Republican friends that Bush wasn't smart enough to be president, and lacked any kind of foreign policy experience. His rhetoric was over-simplistic, and indicated a true lack of understanding or nuance. Basically he's a all-or-nothing thinker, and thinks people are stupid to the degree that they disagree with him. He doesn't respect scientists, or anyone for that matter, unless they take his approach.

What won him the election though was his folksy persona. He basically pandered directly to the religious right... engaging in identity politics. He loved Jesus and babies. He claimed to be a Washington outsider, a reformer, while regurgitating Reagan's rhetoric. Just a regular Joe. The problem was, that's exactly what he is.

Now here we are in 2008, and the same thing is playing out. Palin ... seriously ... she, like Bush, lacks any nuance of thought or expertise to run the largest country in the world.

What is one difference between Palin and Bush, whether it's policy, or style?

It's her way or the highway. How can someone who's tried to ban books seriously run under a "small government" platform? You notice the difference between the two campaigns? Obama has said that Palin's family is off limits. Palin makes a slimy attack about Obama's wife (referencing her "Proud American" comment).

And people are surprised with Bush's incidents like when judges are hired based on their political inclination, or Plame is attacked for her husband Wilson having a different point of view on Iraq? Or Bush's outright lying about it? Entire countries like France mocked because they don't find our evidence persuasive (and rightly so). Scientists mocked for having a different point of view. Or the weapons inspector (Hanz Fritz?) that didn't find weapons mocked? These kind of political games are straight out of the playbook of a fifth grade bully. Palin is already in entangled in a cover up and abuse of power.

You're going to get 4 more years of ideologically driven, over-simplistic, Rovian political trench warfare with Palin. As we saw with her speech. A mocking, insulting and shallow speech filled with glowing misinformation about her own record. None of this has any place in politics ... it IS the problem.


An interesting perspective and not inacurate. On the other hand we have Obama dreaming of a better world with little practical sense and talk about pandering, he is the king at the moment. He sounds like Robin Hood.

None of the numbers add up for Obama or McCain, but I don't hear people asking the hard questions, all they see is what is in it for me.

I voted for Bush twice, but I have to say at this point he is one of the worst Presidents we have had. I don't disagree with the fundamental conservative policies, but this gunslinging attitude is a mess and the US will pay for it for many years to come. Listening to McCain last night I think he gets some of that. Because he supports ending the war successfully does not mean he supports getting into another one.

Palin a this point is all hype and show to get the Republicans riled up and to create the "change" persona. I think we have to reserve judement on her substance.

I also find it intersting that with Obama spouting all the change message he picks a running mate that could not be more of a Washington insider least likely to help change anyhting. He too is being used to create an impression which is not even close to what he really is.

[yaaarrrgg]

rjwould;973902 wrote: Sarah Palin brings nothing substantial to his ticket other than the fact that she is female and my guess is she is the choice of special interests such as the NRA and the religious right. If McCain dies while in office, Palin will probably fire everyone and have the NRA and religious right do her hiring for her.


One thing that really worried me the other night... her son Track is going to Iraq.

What if she becomes president and then her son is killed in Iraq?

With her total lack of foreign relations experience, I don't really trust her to make an intelligent decisions from that point on. I know I probably wouldn't in the same situation.

Hopefully it's just a election ploy, and he won't serve in any real combat role. Otherwise, I see it as potentially an extremely dangerous mix of incompetence and anger.

As with Biden ... he has a son going into the military, but his strength is in foreign relations. I don't think the same situation presents itself.

[yaaarrrgg]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;973860 wrote: Listening to McCain last night I think he gets some of that. Because he supports ending the war successfully does not mean he supports getting into another one.


I'm actually most worried about McCain in that respect.

A few weeks ago he said "We are all Georgians" while he threatened Russia. I'm not a Georgian ... I'm an American. If we were Georgians, that means we attacked Russia first, and would be engaged in war.

[DrJ]

I tell ya,,people these conservatives are something else,,, Bush putting in a plug for off shore drilling inbetween hurricane reports,,, Jon Voight putting in a plug to republicans about his new movie,,American Carroll,, to a room full of republicans at the convention before he tells everyone to vote for Johnny,, blows my mind,,

The picture is focusing,, with the help of the internet bloggers and chatters,, on the joke that this generation of conservative republicans really have become,,, All hat,, and no substance...

I feel for those who will realize this last..

I apologise if this post isn't news to readers,, I haven't got time to read,, but I will.

news wrote:

The London Times’ US editor, Gerard Baker - as reliable a Republican booster as it is possible to find - reports that senior GOP greyhairs are worried.

While Republican delegates here rave about Sarah Palin, and angrily denounce the salubrious media coverage of her daughter’s pregnancy, a number of the party’s elders are in a state of high anxiety.

… Some Republicans are plainly upset that in an election campaign which Senator McCain himself has said turns on the central issue of national security, he has chosen someone as a potential successor in a crisis who, whatever her other talents, has no background in international affairs.

One senior Republican, a former Bush Administration official, described himself to me this week as “personally disgusted” by the selection, one that betrayed a desire by Mr McCain for short-term political gain at the expense of the national interest - wholly counter to the senator’s message hitherto.

But the bigger worry among many Republicans here is not that Mrs Palin might win in November, and prove to be ill-equipped to lead the nation should she have to after next January, but that she might lose; that the cascading revelations about her will bring down the McCain campaign.

At issue is the judgment and attention shown by the McCain campaign in selecting her.

Quote of the day:

As David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, put it during a discussion here about the campaign: “When someone takes the rent money and puts it on black at the roulette table, and it comes up black, we don’t say “Wow! What a terrific piece of judgment.”

And when it comes up on Red 13? Well, then, you try to make the election about personalities. Or to be more precise, carefully groomed public personas. Because let’s face it, little we know about the true personalities of Gambler McAngry or Sarah The Book-Banning Theocrat will endear them to the electorate.




The voting public is slowly becoming aware of the con the republicans have been playing on them,,,

david letterman had a good one about Sarah and her apparent lack of foreign policy experience,,,

She lives in Alaska,, which is very close to Russia,.,, it also borders Canada,, and every morning she eats breakfast at the International house of pancakes,,,, for christs sake!!!



news wrote:

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy’s off air attack of Palin for VP pick. Who’s telling the truth?



Wow, listen to this off air exchange between two Conservative pundits and Chuck Todd who happily joined in. Tell us how you really feel about McCain and Palin. Murphy is very close to McCain and Noonan is Noonan. (rough transcript. Please fill it in below)

Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all like how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it’s not gonna work.

Noonan: It’s over.

Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: Don’t you think the Palin pick was insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too (inaudible)

Noonan: I saw Kay this morning.

Murphy: They’re all bummed out. I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Todd: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

Yeah, but what’s the narrative?

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.

Murphy: You know what’s really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.

And as you call it gimmicky.

Will the media start asking conservative scribes if they really feel like Murphy and Noonan do about McCain’s pick of Palin? Honesty is out in front right now as we just witnessed. Are they all just lying to our faces and not being called out about it by our talking heads sitting right next to them? We just witnessed the real deal and not the dog




The right is in trouble,, you can see it in their new daily spins,, they're running out of answers,, or counter messages,, to the failed trickle down philosophy..

Now how much more clear do people need it to be?

I don't know about you all,, but I'm goin down to the IHOP,, and get me some strawberry pancakes,, I'll ask Sarah what Putin thinks of her qualifications...

In my opinion the only chance Mccain's decision to pick this "soccer mom" for VP,, has of working,, is if she spots Osama Bin Ladan on her way to breakfast,, who we find out has secretly been held up in Alaska,, and stops the car,, making the citizen's arrest on the bad guy of the century,,,

I know,, I know,, an imagination is a terrible thing to waste!

[yaaarrrgg]

rjwould;973953 wrote: Not only that, but I see Russia's point here. Two parts of Georgia want to separate from the main land for some pretty good reasons IMO, but the US backed Georgia won't let them go. I believe they deserve their own sovereignty.

What scares me most about McCain is his definition of winning. If winning is when the enemy (is the enemy the insurgents or al qaeda or both?) is destroyed then there is no question we are going to go in elsewhere. As long as we continue to invade countries, we will always have enemies (insurgents).

Hell, I'd be an insurgent if my country was invaded.


I agree. Also, McCain doesn't seem to see his own double standards. He jokes about bombing Iran off the map. Would he chuckle if they joked about, say, bombing the U.S. off the map? I don't think it's funny, and he should have restraint when talking about mass murder on other countries. He's a little too comfortable with the idea, if he can joke about it like that.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;973598 wrote: Back in 2000, I made the point to my Republican friends that Bush wasn't smart enough to be president, and lacked any kind of foreign policy experience. His rhetoric was over-simplistic, and indicated a true lack of understanding or nuance. Basically he's a all-or-nothing thinker, and thinks people are stupid to the degree that they disagree with him. He doesn't respect scientists, or anyone for that matter, unless they take his approach.



What won him the election though was his folksy persona. He basically pandered directly to the religious right... engaging in identity politics. He loved Jesus and babies. He claimed to be a Washington outsider, a reformer, while regurgitating Reagan's rhetoric. Just a regular Joe. The problem was, that's exactly what he is.



Now here we are in 2008, and the same thing is playing out. Palin ... seriously ... she, like Bush, lacks any nuance of thought or expertise to run the largest country in the world.



What is one difference between Palin and Bush, whether it's policy, or style?



It's her way or the highway. How can someone who's tried to ban books seriously run under a "small government" platform? You notice the difference between the two campaigns? Obama has said that Palin's family is off limits. Palin makes a slimy attack about Obama's wife (referencing her "Proud American" comment).



And people are surprised with Bush's incidents like when judges are hired based on their political inclination, or Plame is attacked for her husband Wilson having a different point of view on Iraq? Or Bush's outright lying about it? Entire countries like France mocked because they don't find our evidence persuasive (and rightly so). Scientists mocked for having a different point of view. Or the weapons inspector (Hanz Fritz?) that didn't find weapons mocked? These kind of political games are straight out of the playbook of a fifth grade bully. Palin is already in entangled in a cover up and abuse of power.



You're going to get 4 more years of ideologically driven, over-simplistic, Rovian political trench warfare with Palin. As we saw with her speech. A mocking, insulting and shallow speech filled with glowing misinformation about her own record. None of this has any place in politics ... it IS the problem.
Good points except for that last paragraph. It's the VP candidate that's like Bush in personality, not McCain.



But the question was actually for the last part of your post, saying McCain "buckled to the pressures of the religious right .. the very thing he used to denounce." What did MCcain change for the religious right?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;974639 wrote: Good points except for that last paragraph. It's the VP candidate that's like Bush in personality, not McCain.



But the question was actually for the last part of your post, saying McCain "buckled to the pressures of the religious right .. the very thing he used to denounce." What did MCcain change for the religious right?


He used to refer to people like Pat Robertson as agents of intolerance. They didn't like him. Most of these guys said they would never vote for him.

My impression is Palin was likely not his first pick, but the religious right would have rejected his other VP choices (Tom Ridge, Liberman, etc). In fact they sent him menacing letters vowing to do just that when he floated the idea of the other names. Liberman would have been more of a maverick pick... a bi-partisan ticket. Picking Hillary would have been genius. Instead he swung hard right.

True political courage is in moving towards the middle, not the endpoints. Since everybody hates the moderates. I think right extremists hate the middle more than their equivalent opposite, since at least they understand their opposite ...and can take a formulaic approach to engaging them.

I don't consider myself a "liberal" as much as a centrist ... I would have seriously considered a bi-partisan ticket. Some paleo-conservative ideas are smart (e.g. avoiding bankruptcy), but as Barry Goldwater noted, the Republican party has been taken over by a bunch of kooks. Not even conservative in principle ... look at their record.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;974885 wrote: He used to refer to people like Pat Robertson as agents of intolerance. They didn't like him. Most of these guys said they would never vote for him.



My impression is Palin was likely not his first pick, but the religious right would have rejected his other VP choices (Tom Ridge, Liberman, etc). In fact they sent him menacing letters vowing to do just that when he floated the idea of the other names. Liberman would have been more of a maverick pick... a bi-partisan ticket. Picking Hillary would have been genius. Instead he swung hard right.



True political courage is in moving towards the middle, not the endpoints. Since everybody hates the moderates. I think right extremists hate the middle more than their equivalent opposite, since at least they understand their opposite ...and can take a formulaic approach to engaging them.



I don't consider myself a "liberal" as much as a centrist ... I would have seriously considered a bi-partisan ticket. Some paleo-conservative ideas are smart (e.g. avoiding bankruptcy), but as Barry Goldwater noted, the Republican party has been taken over by a bunch of kooks. Not even conservative in principle ... look at their record.
Picking the VP is the ultimate in short-term thinking, and stands as the shining symbol of all that is American politics today. Do and say whatever is necessary to win the election. McCain's done it; Obama's done it. Those that didn't such as Ron Paul wind up left in the dust. They worry too much about beating the yellow light at the next intersection and not enough about the cliff just down the road.

[Patsy Warnick]

Both McCain & Obama are good with the talk - B.S. talk

Neither have stated HOW this change will happen. Neither have explained HOW they plan on accomplishing anything.??

I would like details..

I'm very worried about ROE v WADE

If this is turned around - than we are going backwards....back to the '50's....

and you know what WOMEN had to do prior to Roe v Wade..???

all women should worry..??

Patsy

[yaaarrrgg]

Patsy Warnick;975178 wrote: Both McCain & Obama are good with the talk - B.S. talk

Neither have stated HOW this change will happen. Neither have explained HOW they plan on accomplishing anything.??

I would like details..

I'm very worried about ROE v WADE

If this is turned around - than we are going backwards....back to the '50's....

and you know what WOMEN had to do prior to Roe v Wade..???

all women should worry..??

Patsy


McCain/Palin would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are pro-life and she is staunchly anti-choice -- even in the case of rape and incest. They are a little slimy about this point, using code words like "culture of life" and "will not appoint activist judges

that legislate from the bench"

Obama/Biden will not overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead Obama look for common ground in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. They are pro-life, pro-choice.

[TheNewDG]

I think we should also consider that Roe V. Wade will probably never be overturned. By either party. I just think its highly doubtful.

[yaaarrrgg]

TheNewDG;975185 wrote: I think we should also consider that Roe V. Wade will probably never be overturned. By either party. I just think its highly doubtful.


Well, Bush has stacked the Supreme Court with anti-choice judges. A couple more, and they will have the majority. The rhetoric of "not appointing activist judges" is an Orwellian tactic .. that's exactly what they are doing.

[Patsy Warnick]

Reversing Roe v Wade is exactly what is happening.

don't kid yourself...

Patsy

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;975183 wrote: McCain/Palin would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are pro-life and she is staunchly anti-choice -- even in the case of rape and incest. They are a little slimy about this point, using code words like "culture of life" and "will not appoint activist judges

that legislate from the bench"
The BS phrase "anti-choice" is likewise slimy. What's your response to Obama fighting to keep children who survive a "botched" abortion from being considered human?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;975457 wrote: The BS phrase "anti-choice" is likewise slimy. What's your response to Obama fighting to keep children who survive a "botched" abortion from being considered human?


There's was already a law that handled that case.

Being a superfluous law, he saw the intent as only a back door for eroding abortion rights. Like all the other back door tactics.

"Anti-choice" is exactly what it means. A woman's right to choose is taken away, and given to the federal bureaucracy. I'm surprised that so many "small-government" minded people see it as coherent to regulate what goes on in a woman's uterus. Surely a female is a better judge on the matter, her particular circumstances, than a bureaucracy.

What phrase do you prefer instead?

Fed-choice?

We-made-that-choice-for-you-choice?

We-are-guys-and-probably-shouldn't-weigh-in-on-the-issue-but-do-anyway-choice?

I'm all for putting some better marketing spin on this thing. Personally, I think women should decide this.

[Accountable]

I prefer we hold to and honor the ideals spelled out in our founding documents.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The choice was whether to have consensual sex, which everyone agrees risks pregnancy. It creates life - a person. Why does no one seem to consider that choice important?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;975476 wrote: I prefer we hold to and honor the ideals spelled out in our founding documents.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The choice was whether to have consensual sex, which everyone agrees risks pregnancy. It creates life - a person. Why does no one seem to consider that choice important?


You never included the case of a female getting raped.

I suppose in your constitution, it's her job to prove it. Really if you want to be a originalist, 'men' means white adult male. That excludes fetuses anyway.

I find it odd that lay people want to debate this issue with Obama ... who went to Harvard and taught constitutional law for, what. 11 years? Surely you don't think he's dumb, do you?

[yaaarrrgg]

Hoss;975494 wrote: Being pro life means you cannot be pro choice. Those two things are contradictory if you’re referring to abortion.


Really? My wife is both pro-life and pro-choice. Meaning she doesn't think it's the government's business, but that she would not choose to have an abortion herself.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Hoss;975506 wrote: I mean no disrespect to anyone in particular; please realize that before we go any further.

Pro Choice means that you advocate a woman’s right to choose abortion if she so chooses. Abortion ends life. Pro-choice allows the choice of ending life. Those two cannot coexist. Sorry.


Both terms are political and misleading....

Everyone is pro-choice, or you would be anti-choice, or against choice... The pro-abortionists have termed it that way to make people against abortion sound like they are against any type of choice for a woman....

And who's against life...? Everyone's pro-life, even the abortion crowd, nobody is pro-death...?

I wish these issues would just be called what they are, and not muddled in political correctness and politically bias terms...

The issue should just be, should a mother have the legal right to kill her unborn baby, or not..........? Color it with all the terminolgy and political niceties anyone wants, the core of the end result is still, life or death of an innocent baby.... But that part of the issue seems to be ignored more often than not, just to cater to the whims of activists, politicians and others who seldom see the core of the issue and realize whats at stake for the "ONLY" person involved that has no say in the matter............. The baby......

As for Sarah and her baby..... Most parents who keep these babies find them the most loved members in they're families, and wouldn't trade them for anything.... Those who abort babies with learning disabilities or any other defects are just the loosers in the sittuation, they don't know what they will be missing not having these wonderful babies who make huge positive inpacts on everyone involved in they're lives.......

[yaaarrrgg]

Snidely Whiplash;975512 wrote: But that part of the issue seems to be ignored more often than not, just to cater to the whims of activists, politicians and others who seldom see the core of the issue and realize whats at stake for the "ONLY" person involved that has no say in the matter............. The baby.....


Sometimes the mother has no say in the matter either. I mentioned the rape case, but you and hoss passed it right up, like it doesn't exist. It's not a simple problem.

As I said earlier, both sides of the debate can reach the same objective, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. That means ... in a perfect world with no abortions ... the issue is moot. This is Obama's position. Sarah's position is to make the choice for women, without even addressing the root issue of unwanted pregnancy.

[Snidely Whiplash]

yaaarrrgg;975523 wrote: Sometimes the mother has no say in the matter either. I mentioned the rape case, but you and hoss passed it right up, like it doesn't exist. It's not a simple problem.




I didn't see that post, or I passed it by accidentally, sorry....

But even with rape, why must the baby be killed for the sins of the adults involved...?

You are very very right, it's a complex problem.... If mothers "had" the choice of uthinasia (sp) when it comes to children up to age 5, then that also would be a very emotional and complex problem for everyone involved to deal with.... But no one gets to choose that, and the problem is gone...........

When an unborn baby is acknowledged and given the same value and dignity as a 2 year old child or any other child, then the abortion issue will be solved, case closed............

[qsducks]

Patsy Warnick;975178 wrote: Both McCain & Obama are good with the talk - B.S. talk

Neither have stated HOW this change will happen. Neither have explained HOW they plan on accomplishing anything.??

I would like details..

I'm very worried about ROE v WADE

If this is turned around - than we are going backwards....back to the '50's....

and you know what WOMEN had to do prior to Roe v Wade..???

all women should worry..??

Patsy


And if McLame gets into office he could name the next justice and that is scary. I also read that the far right is pressuring repubs to swing against birth control (the pill), etc. because in their eyes, the pill is an abortion.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Hoss;975530 wrote: That is not Barak Obama's position. Because unwanted pregnancies do occur and he's willing to allow all of them to be killed if the mother doesn’t want them. How simple and easy it is to sweep a life under a rug these days, how insignificant life is to him. I am shocked at this, I shouldn’t be, but I am. By now I suppose I should be just fat and happy that my parents didn’t kill me, 'oh look one got through', 'oh he’s not so bad', 'at least his parents wanted him'.

I’m sorry but this is just unacceptable to me.


Barrack Obama voted for allowing living babies that were from botched abortions to be put on a shelf in a soiled linen closet and left to die, and voted to make it unlawful for those living babies to have any medical care.... In his own words he defended letting living born babies die by saying, giving them medical care might contridict the wishes of the mother who chose an abortion..... Thats called euthanasia, and Barrack Obama was the "ONLY" senator in the entire senate that voted yes to this......

This guy is so radical in his views, there seems no limits to what he could possibly do if given enough political power......

[qsducks]

Abortion and I know it is a sensitive issue here obviously has no place in this election. We are really getting off topic here folks. There is a war on and our economy is in the toilet. Does anybody care about those issues? I feel some posters are screaming about abortion over the complete obvious issues of the day. But then of course, the rebubs have no issues/agenda to talk about, so they are throwing in a topic that will get our minds off the real topics.

[Patsy Warnick]

If either party screws around to reverse Roe V Wade.....?

Than we will have females getting the abortion in alleys

and bleeding to death.

PRO - CHOICE is having the liberty to choose.

why do we need to go backwards

stop trying to re-invent the wheel

Both partys should be concentrating on the WAR - Health Care - etc..

I can't imagine the impact a reversal of Roe v Wade would make..?

Patsy

[yaaarrrgg]

Snidely Whiplash;975539 wrote: Barrack Obama voted for allowing living babies that were from botched abortions to be put on a shelf in a soiled linen closet and left to die, and voted to make it unlawful for those living babies to have any medical care.... In his own words he defended letting living born babies die by saying, giving them medical care might contridict the wishes of the mother who chose an abortion..... Thats called euthanasia, and Barrack Obama was the "ONLY" senator in the entire senate that voted yes to this......

This guy is so radical in his views, there seems no limits to what he could possibly do if given enough political power......


Snidely, this has already been addressed, in this thread no less. There was already a law that covered these cases:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=123

You are trying to paint a caricature of Obama/Biden as bungling fools, or perhaps that guy Snidely in old movies that twists his mustache saying "mua hhhaha " as the train approaches the lady tied to the tracks. How can we kill more babies??

It's a ridiculous caricature.

ETA: sorry, I'm getting off topic.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Patsy Warnick;975553 wrote: If either party screws around to reverse Roe V Wade.....?

Than we will have females getting the abortion in alleys

and bleeding to death.




If a society has to legalize everything someone does who might hurt themselves doing it when it's against the law, then I'm afraid there would be few laws left......

[qsducks]

Hoss;975561 wrote: I can appreciate your comment, but I disagree, this is just one thread on the subject. There are many about many issues.

My top 5 issues:

1. Stopping Abortion

2. Stopping Abortion

3. Stopping Abortion

4. Stopping Abortion

5. Stopping Abortion

Just kidding:wah:

My top 5 real issues:

1. Securing our country against terrorism.

2. Economy/Taxes

3. Building infrastructure and creating jobs on truly needed projects

4. Reducing the roll of federal government.

5. End the philosophy of political correctness.

The last ones a wash, I was going to put abortion in there but, that’s in line with reducing the roll of federal government.


And the government is a good thing. It's for us, the people whom they serve. Yes, it would be a perfect world if abortion was not an option for people, but Government is, right now anti woman and the right wingers are anti choice and anti birth control.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Hoss;975561 wrote:

My top 5 real issues:

1. Securing our country against terrorism.

2. Economy/Taxes

3. Building infrastructure and creating jobs on truly needed projects

4. Reducing the roll of federal government.

5. End the philosophy of political correctness.

The last ones a wash, I was going to put abortion in there but, that’s in line with reducing the roll of federal government.


Awwwww, you must be an Obama supporter...!!!!!

J/K......! :wah::wah::wah:

[qsducks]

Hoss;975570 wrote: Are we or are we not talking about abortion here? :-3 I confuse easily! :wah:

I don't affiliate with 'right wingers' and I am steadfastly and dogmatically opposed to abortion under any circumstances. We need to teach people that the choice is as Accountable said, most important that they decide to take the responsibility for the decisions they make before they have sex. Not after. The life of all babies to me is an important enough issue to mandate a law that says, you don’t have a choice in ending a life period without exception. Then the choices become more important before a child is conceived. And that’s my solution. We limit choice all the time by setting laws and abiding by them because they are important to society, why should limiting the choice to a woman on this issue be any different?

We need to fundamentally ground the principle that all life is precious, and not an inconvenience.


Hence the need for the government to fund planned parenthood and other agencies to help women/men avoid the consequences of unplanned parenthood.

[Patsy Warnick]

I'm not opposed to abortion - it's already a LAW...

Why go backwards ?? Perhaps amending/more defining law.??

For all you MEN - who want to STOP ABORTIONS... YOU GET RAPED & PREGNANT

then carry this child for 9 months then go thru the delivery then decide to keep or adopt out. In the mean time you've gained 60 pound - stretch marks/scars from neck to toe

and your traumatized from being RAPED..

Postpardum depression would be the least of your worries...

SNIDELY

The GOV'T is already is up your A$$ with LAWS for everything ...

there's laws for everything..?? Hello

where are you living.???

Patsy

[yaaarrrgg]

If guys can outlaw abortion, in fairness there needs to be another law, that lets women arbitrarily castrate men they feel may be rapists. That would only be fair then. I doubt you'll hear many guys liking that idea though. I can hear the objection "but it's MY body.... I don't have a choice." But if guys don't want to put their balls on the line, they shouldn't practice a double standard doing the same to women. Giving birth is excruciatingly painful and can kill someone. Castration is trivial in comparison. Unwanted pregnancy problem solved.

If I were a politician the first thing I'd do is make it illegal for guys (myself included) to offer an opinion about this issue. It's just painful to listen to.

Sorry, my last post on this issue... I promise.

It really is just a diversion from the bigger problems ... like the economy. I'm amazed how all real issues get drowned out with this issue. It's an extremely complex issue, and is not something to decide during an election.

[qsducks]

Hoss;975593 wrote: No, Ma'am, I'm sorry Planned Parenthood is an abortion advocate, I won't support them. It goes against what I believe is the most important factor, that all babies conceived have a right to be born.


And that is your opinion. But they do a major service to women/men who want to avoid a baby and choose to use their services for birth control.

[Patsy Warnick]

Hoss

Really - your no expert on pregnancy - so don't - please don't throw crap out there about carrying a fetus to term.

we will not agree on abortion. -

One Commiting Murder mentally impaired has more libertys than a woman having been raped..



I'd like more concern about the WAR - Health Care - than trying to turn a wheel from round to square..

LAWS ???

Patsy

[qsducks]

yaaarrrgg;975608 wrote: If guys can outlaw abortion, in fairness there needs to be another law, that lets women arbitrarily castrate men they feel may be rapists. That would only be fair then. I doubt you'll hear many guys liking that idea though. I can hear the objection "but it's MY body.... I don't have a choice." But if guys don't want to put their balls on the line, they shouldn't practice a double standard doing the same to women. Given birth is excruciatingly painful and can kill someone. Castration is trivial in comparison. Unwanted pregnancy problem solved,

If I were a politician the first thing I'd do is make it illegal for guys (myself included) to offer an opinion about this issue. It's just painful to listen to.

Sorry, my last post on this issue... I promise.

It really is just a diversion from the bigger problems ... like the economy. I'm amazed how all real issues get drowned out with this issue. It's an extremely complex issue, and is not something to decide during an election.


Thank you yargg. And in my opinion that is why Mclaim picked dum dum.