wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 10, 12:00 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 10, 11:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 10, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Oct 10, 11:14 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:00:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

If you knew anything at all about Romney, you'd know he's
a
chameleon. He'll say whatever his audience hopes for with
regard
to
certain
subjects.

It's called triangulation - look it up.

He's stated so many different things with regard to
reproductive
choice

Now it's "reproductive choice"?

Please to 'splain this "reproductive choice".

In my household, "reproductive choice" means it is entirely
up
to a
woman whether she wants to become pregnant and, if she does,
whether
she
wants the pregnancy to continue.

Simple enough.

We're 100% "reproductive choice" here. Many of the Republican
candidates
are anti-abortion. That's the real definition of "pro-life."-
Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand your positition, unless it has changed in the
last
few
years, you beleive in choice with no parental notification
right
down
to grade school... Don't make me google this, you said it.
Does
the
father have a choice? Do my kids have a chioce, say they want
to
carry
a bible to school? Or have a negative opinion of gays? How
about
recruit for the military? Make a commercial? Have an airshow?
Celebrate Christmas and Easter??? Of course not, you do not
beleive
in
"choice" you beleive in self indulgence... Like most
ideological
liberals, which unfortunately seems to be the mainstream
lately...

What do you think should happen if:

- A 16 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant
- Her parents are fully aware of the rape
- Her parents are dead set against her having an abortion- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

And now that I answered your question, straight up you should
answer
mine.. and not with a cut and paste link, how about a real
thought!
Do you support Hillary knowing that she could and probably will
put
Sandy Berger on her cabinet?

No, I don't like Sandy Berger. Now, tell me what you thought of the
article
I provided for you. It's on a similar subject, and it's new &
current.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no proof at all the administration leaked it, period. The
math would suggest just the opposite. There is only one party who
has
stood in congress and stated that they would do better, if we lose
the
war.. I don't think it was the admin who leaked it, just like so
many other intelligence gathering tools which have been leaked in
the
last few years. These leaks do not help repubs, do the math, 1+1 is
still 2...

Umm...actually, the administration needs all the help it can get to
support
our presence in Iraq, even if bin Laden has little or nothing to do
with
Iraq. So, it makes perfect sense that Bush would allow the video to be
leaked. It's free publicity. And, I'm absolutely positive that he
didn't
understand that by releasing the video too soon, he may have burned an
excellent intelligence source (site.org).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah right, you are blind. That is a pretty good stretch, and of
course, still only speculation based on hope and ideology.. Damn the
facts.

Your assumption that the administration is innocent regarding the leak is
also an assumption devoid of facts. You know no more than I do.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do the math


I already have. AQ plugged the security fault which allowed set.org to get
the video and other information. That is damaging to our national security.
Why would set.org leak the video if it prevents them from doing their work?