On Oct 10, 11:36 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
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...

1. If a grade-school girl is pregnant, the police should be called. Her
father probably is the father.

2. If a girl is 14 or older, it should be up to her whether to notify
her parents. The decision to proceed with an abortion, though, should be
hers alone.

So you have changed your positition on notification, That is good...


3. The male who made the female pregnant has no choice.

4. A child should be able to carry any book to school, including the
bible. I carried Joyce's Ulysses to school in the 7th grade so I could
participate in our junior high's lit club.

5. You are entitled to have "negative" opinions of any group of people
you like. That negative feeling, though, cannot carry over into hiring,
housing, transportation, et cetera.

6. Military recruitment. I have no objection to military recruiters
having a booth and handing out literature at a high school "career" day.
I do believer military recruiters at such venues have "monitors."

Monitors? You mean protestors to shut down their free speech right?


7. My daughter made radio and television commercials beginning at the
age of seven. Took her only three spots to pay her AFTRA initiation and
dues.

8. Airshow? Dunno what you mean in this context.

7 + 8 are references to military commercials and airshows not being
allowed in California, even though they shut down the streets and such
for anyone who wants to shoot a movie...


9. Religious holidays should be celebrated at home and in a house of
worship, not in public schools or on public property.

So, you can wear clothes that say "who you are", but I can't wear a
cross? Again, you are not the party of choice. you are the party of
censorship and totalitarian leadership...

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

s.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 -

you did not answer my question, you are not that clever... Do you
support Hillary, knowing she has no problem with a convicted traitor
in the whitehouse?

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

s.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...

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

s.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 -

you did not answer my question, you are not that clever... Do you
support Hillary, knowing she has no problem with a convicted traitor
in the whitehouse?


I don't support Hillary at all, and that predates the news about Berger.

wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:36 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
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...
1. If a grade-school girl is pregnant, the police should be called. Her
father probably is the father.

2. If a girl is 14 or older, it should be up to her whether to notify
her parents. The decision to proceed with an abortion, though, should be
hers alone.

So you have changed your positition on notification, That is good...

3. The male who made the female pregnant has no choice.

4. A child should be able to carry any book to school, including the
bible. I carried Joyce's Ulysses to school in the 7th grade so I could
participate in our junior high's lit club.

5. You are entitled to have "negative" opinions of any group of people
you like. That negative feeling, though, cannot carry over into hiring,
housing, transportation, et cetera.

6. Military recruitment. I have no objection to military recruiters
having a booth and handing out literature at a high school "career" day.
I do believer military recruiters at such venues have "monitors."

Monitors? You mean protestors to shut down their free speech right?

7. My daughter made radio and television commercials beginning at the
age of seven. Took her only three spots to pay her AFTRA initiation and
dues.

8. Airshow? Dunno what you mean in this context.

7 + 8 are references to military commercials and airshows not being
allowed in California, even though they shut down the streets and such
for anyone who wants to shoot a movie...

9. Religious holidays should be celebrated at home and in a house of
worship, not in public schools or on public property.

So, you can wear clothes that say "who you are", but I can't wear a
cross? Again, you are not the party of choice. you are the party of
censorship and totalitarian leadership...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -




Wearing a cross is not usually considered a "religious celebration" in
the traditional sense, eh?

Military recruiters need monitors to make sure they don't bullship naive
kids into military service.

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

s.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).

wrote in message
ps.com...

6. Military recruitment. I have no objection to military recruiters
having a booth and handing out literature at a high school "career" day.
I do believer military recruiters at such venues have "monitors."

Monitors? You mean protestors to shut down their free speech right?

Nah...but maybe someone should be there to make sure they don't give a sales
pitch to an autistic kid. Based on a true story you may have missed in the
news.



9. Religious holidays should be celebrated at home and in a house of
worship, not in public schools or on public property.

So, you can wear clothes that say "who you are", but I can't wear a
cross? Again, you are not the party of choice. you are the party of
censorship and totalitarian leadership...

Actually, the words following "9.", above, mention nothing about wearing a
cross. Look up there. If you think you see something about wearing a cross,
I just can't see it.

By the way, tell me what you think about this example of totalitarianism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/ny...=1&oref=slogin

Just for grins, let's assume for the moment that there really is absolutely
nothing in her background that should cause the problems she's having.

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

ps.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.

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

ps.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.

On Oct 10, 4:30?am, HK wrote:
I don't want to get into the politics of their positions, but if you
watched the GOP debate/discussion yesterday, what did you think of the
candidates as performers?

I thought Guiliani and Romney did the best sales job in terms of their
grasp of issues and hard-driving presentation, but I liked Mike Huckabee
the best. He seems the most sincere and decent. Fred Thompson looked
old, unprepared, out of place, even though he told a couple of cute
jokes. McCain is trying too hard and it shows. The rest of the crew
should drop out now.

The performance is meaningless.

If Rudy prevails for the R's, much of the Christian right is ready to
defect. Should that happen, the next POTUS will be a D, not an R.
But who gives a darn which mob boss is in charge of the pimps and
thieves in the federal government, or even which mob is temporarily
king of the hill? One batch of *******s steals for one set of special
interests, and the other batch of *******s steals for another.
Certainly isn't worth getting all excited about, and definitely not
worthy of a fight between friends.

Item:


3rd party nominations?
By Christina Salvo
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 8:47 a.m.

Rumors have been circulating for sometime now about the possibility of
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, seeking a third-party
candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Tuesday Tom Minnery, Sr.
Vice President of Government and Public Policy at Focus said yes,
"there is some thinking about the possibility of an evangelical
Christian leader's backing a third-party candidate," but that would
only happen if both parties nominate candidates who are both pro-
abortion and pro-gay rights.

Traditionally it is the differences between republicans and democrats
that divide voters, but in the coming election it may be their
similarities. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is leading the polls
for the Republican vote, but supports both abortion and gay rights.

Minnery said "If both major parties choose to go in the opposite
direction then Dr Dobson, as a private citizen, may go in the opposite
direction." A direction that many would faithfully follow. One out of
four Americans are fundamental Christians which now makes up the base
of the republican party. A demographic that political experts said the
Republican Party cannot afford to lose but is not enough for a third
party to gain.

Bob Loevy, Political Science Professor at Colorado College said "All
third-parties do these days is split one of the major parties
guaranteeing victory for the other party."

It is a theory that has proven true in the past and a theory Dr.
Dobson will consider.