Judging the performers...
 

On Oct 10, 11:51 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, these are adults, years beyond the age of 14 which you seem to
have picked as adult. How about monitors to keep teachers from
bullshipping naive (6 year olds) into a gay lifestyle, or professors
from bullshipping niave students into a life of drug use and
irresponsible sex? Half the country is against that too, but you want
monitors for only your issues, self indulgent, hypocrytical, that is
now the core of your party..

Judging the performers...
 

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

Judging the performers...
 

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?

Judging the performers...
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 11:51 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, these are adults, years beyond the age of 14 which you seem to
have picked as adult. How about monitors to keep teachers from
bullshipping naive (6 year olds) into a gay lifestyle, or professors
from bullshipping niave students into a life of drug use and
irresponsible sex? Half the country is against that too, but you want
monitors for only your issues, self indulgent, hypocrytical, that is
now the core of your party..



How about keeping an eye on recruiters so they don't try to sign up autistic
kids? You'd better address this question, or I'll cut off your fun for the
rest of the day.

Judging the performers...
 

On Oct 10, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





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

roups.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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suggest they did, I am suggesting that some anti
administration activist did it, like so many other leaks...

Judging the performers...
 

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 10, 12:07 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





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

roups.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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suggest they did, I am suggesting that some anti
administration activist did it, like so many other leaks...


The video was sent only to people at the White House who had the highest
possible security clearance. They passed it on to people it shouldn't have
gone to. Are you suggesting that the first people to receive it are stupid
and careless?

Judging the performers...
 

On Oct 10, 12:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 10, 11:51 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, these are adults, years beyond the age of 14 which you seem to
have picked as adult. How about monitors to keep teachers from
bullshipping naive (6 year olds) into a gay lifestyle, or professors
from bullshipping niave students into a life of drug use and
irresponsible sex? Half the country is against that too, but you want
monitors for only your issues, self indulgent, hypocrytical, that is
now the core of your party..

How about keeping an eye on recruiters so they don't try to sign up autistic
kids? You'd better address this question, or I'll cut off your fun for the
rest of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One incident, not a proven pattern? One sided reporting, not all the
facts? Outright made up? All of these are possiblities? The problem is
you beleive it simply because if fits the mold...

Judging the performers...
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 12:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 10, 11:51 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, these are adults, years beyond the age of 14 which you seem to
have picked as adult. How about monitors to keep teachers from
bullshipping naive (6 year olds) into a gay lifestyle, or professors
from bullshipping niave students into a life of drug use and
irresponsible sex? Half the country is against that too, but you want
monitors for only your issues, self indulgent, hypocrytical, that is
now the core of your party..

How about keeping an eye on recruiters so they don't try to sign up
autistic
kids? You'd better address this question, or I'll cut off your fun for
the
rest of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One incident, not a proven pattern? One sided reporting, not all the
facts? Outright made up? All of these are possiblities? The problem is
you beleive it simply because if fits the mold...


Two separate questions, requiring two separate answers. Keep it short.

1) Are you saying that the one incident didn't occur? Yes, or no?

2) If the incident didn't occur, why did a judge hear the case?

Judging the performers...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:15:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:11:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Which stance did Romney take on reproductive rights?

I'm constantly amused by the phrase - "reproductive rights".

What exactly are "reproductive rights"?

Example: Deciding whether to continue a pregnancy after a woman's been
raped.


So kill a kid.

There's just one thing I like about you, John. You never fail to meet my
expectations of you, which are pretty low.

Judging the performers...
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:45:32 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 10, 10:20 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...





On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:08:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:00:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:21:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news:s4kpg3hla3e8geolp7v5o42sj1ma4cmhlj@4ax. com...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:30:43 -0400, 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.

Agree with Eisboch's comment. Obama should give Huckabee his
donation
money. Huckabee could put it to some good use. McCain should do the
same
thing.

trolling trolling trolling....

The difference is much too subtle for you.

No. Anything you disagree with, or forces you to think, you consider out
of
bounds. 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. He's stated so many different things with regard to
reproductive
choice that his critics call him Mr. Multiple Choice. And, he criticizes
universal health care by calling it a socialist idea, even though
Clinton's
suggestions are very similar to the one Romney himself promoted in
Massachusetts.

You should expand your universe of news sources to include some that are
intended for adults who give a damn about this country.

...like I said.

You'll probably choose your candidate in the same way as a 20 year old
girl
interviewed on NPR just after the last election. She voted for Bush
because
she thought he had cute ears.

...over the ocean blue...

By the way, net cop, I wasn't about to debate reproductive rights issues. I
was simply pointing out that Romney changes his stance on these issues
depending on his audience, so there's really no way to know where he'll land
if elected.

How you haven't seen this is beyond me. But, you probably wear safety
glasses when brushing your teeth, so anything's possible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, and Hillary is solid as a rock, right? I don't hear Romney
taking 4 positions on an issue, with four different dialects, in one
day. Not to mention, at least Romney is willing to stand up in front
of a hostile interivew and explain his posititions and their
evolution. Not on dem (Hillary) will even take unscripted questions,
much less address the other half of the country. Everytime she gets a
quesiton she doesn't like, she attacks the questioner, it is a tactic
developed by the Clintons back a few years ago... They just call it a
vast right wing conspiracy, and dodge.. All the time setting up groups
like Media Matters to lie and run interferance..

I can't believe you took Doug's bait!