TJ wrote:
hk wrote:

As for Palin's decision, I think it was the wrong one.

It was wrong because Palin is at the age where pregnancies for women
can mean serious trouble, both for the woman and the child that is
born. There's a close connection between Down's syndrome and age of
the mother. After 40, if memory serves, the chances of having a child
with the syndrome rise to better than one in 20. Palin must have known
that risk, and apparently was told she was carrying a fetus with the
syndrome.

She shouldn't have gotten pregnant. It was selfishness. And she should
have aborted the fetus.

There's not a damned thing admirable in her decisions.

It was selfishness.

So to you "Pro-Choice" means, "make the choice we want you to make, or
we'll make it for you." Huh. Sounds a lot like 1930's Germany to me, or
maybe 1940's Soviet Union under Stalin. Let Big Brother take care of you.

If that's what Obama believes, I want no part of him.

TJ


No, being pro-choice means a woman has a choice...Palin made the wrong
choice, but it was her choice to make. That's quite a bit different from
not having a choice. But you righties don't seem to get that difference.

Eisboch wrote:
"DK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

What I want to know is why Obama hasn't introduced legislation in the
Senate to address any of his "issues" in his two years in the Senate?

Simple.

He's been too busy running for President. :-)

Eisboch


I've always thought that candidates should resign from their posts once
they enter another race - particularly the Presidential election. If they
don't believe they can win, they shouldn't run.

Me too. Sorta like telling your employer that you are out seeking another
job, won't be in much, but please keep paying me and keep this job open in
case I don't get the new one.

Eisboch



Exactly. If they were 100% dedicated, and confident in their abilities,
they wouldn't have to keep their "day job" on the back burner.

On Aug 31, 7:34*pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 5:49 pm, hk wrote:

The nicest thing about the Palin pick is that most voters capable of
thinking don’t even have to think twice about her to know they oppose
her, because she is a *religiousnutjob.

There's no reason to toleratereligiousnutjobb.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.

So most thinking voters, at least, *won't *have to even bother with the
issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extremereligiousviews already disqualify her. *No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever

then again, Harry. There are some of us that are thinking voters, who
also happen to be religious nut-jobs, that actually like those
qualities in a POTUS candidate.

The United States is not a theocracy, not yet, though it McCain and
Palin are, it will become one.


It never has been a theocracy and never will be one. There's where the
mis-interpreted separatation of church and state actually comes in.
That no specific religion will dominate the govt. that is
constitutional.

Religious beliefs have no place in government policy. I don't give a
damn what your personal beliefs are, so long as you don't try to shove
them at me. Unfortunately, that is *just* what the righties do...they
want everyone to become a JesusBorg...like they are.

Harry, I'm a so- called "rightie" .I never have shoved religion at
you or anyone else here that I know of.

Thinking voters do not believe evolution is just a theory, or that
intelligent design belongs in public schools. Intelligent design is
nothing more than religious voodoo bull****

Not necessarily Harry. Especially when you look at evolution. Even
Darwin was amazed how people took his "theories" and ran with them...

I happen o believe in Creationalism, and certain evolution, and The
creationalist thought really and basically "Well, somebody had to do
it"

Why does Creationalism, and/or evolution always have to be right or
wrong?

Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P.
Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald
P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote in
message

HK is an freak of nature.


Nature this...freak boy!


Now that is one lame response. I am curious, why are you so obsessed
with me?

Another typical one-liner from Dip**** Don defending WAFA. Who would
have thought?...

On Aug 31, 8:14*pm, hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:

There's no reason to tolerate religious nutjob b.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.

So most thinking voters, at least, *won't *have to even bother with
the issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extreme religious views already disqualify her. *No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever.

There is as much reason to tolerate "religious nutjob b.s." as there is
to tolerate your brand of "b.s." or mine, or anybody else's. It's called
the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Look it up. She has the
right in this country to believe and say such things. You have the right
to not listen, but you don't have the right to shut her up. Keeping all
beliefs open and in the public eye is what makes us strong. Suppression
and censorship weakens us.

And the theories of evolution and intelligent design are not mutually
exclusive. I have no trouble conceiving of an intelligent design that
includes evolution as part of a feedback loop to adapt to changing
conditions. Same idea, but infinitely more sophisticated, as the
computer that uses various sensors to control your car's fuel mixture
and performance. If *I* were designing Life for a planet that is always
under changing climate cycles, I'd put an adaptation mechanism in the mix.

TJ

D'oh. The issue is not what Palin says, but what she and McCain try to
legislate, based upon their relgious beliefs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Honestly Harry, I havent' seen them try to legislate anything as of
yet.

Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:34 pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 5:49 pm, hk wrote:
The nicest thing about the Palin pick is that most voters capable of
thinking don’t even have to think twice about her to know they oppose
her, because she is a religiousnutjob.
There's no reason to toleratereligiousnutjobb.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.
So most thinking voters, at least, won't have to even bother with the
issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extremereligiousviews already disqualify her. No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever
then again, Harry. There are some of us that are thinking voters, who
also happen to be religious nut-jobs, that actually like those
qualities in a POTUS candidate.
The United States is not a theocracy, not yet, though it McCain and
Palin are, it will become one.


It never has been a theocracy and never will be one. There's where the
mis-interpreted separatation of church and state actually comes in.
That no specific religion will dominate the govt. that is
constitutional.
Religious beliefs have no place in government policy. I don't give a
damn what your personal beliefs are, so long as you don't try to shove
them at me. Unfortunately, that is *just* what the righties do...they
want everyone to become a JesusBorg...like they are.

Harry, I'm a so- called "rightie" .I never have shoved religion at
you or anyone else here that I know of.
Thinking voters do not believe evolution is just a theory, or that
intelligent design belongs in public schools. Intelligent design is
nothing more than religious voodoo bull****

Not necessarily Harry. Especially when you look at evolution. Even
Darwin was amazed how people took his "theories" and ran with them...

I happen o believe in Creationalism, and certain evolution, and The
creationalist thought really and basically "Well, somebody had to do
it"

Why does Creationalism, and/or evolution always have to be right or
wrong?



There's no science behind creationism.

Go ahead, prove creationism. Prove there is a creator.

Make my day.

Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:14 pm, hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
There's no reason to tolerate religious nutjob b.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.
So most thinking voters, at least, won't have to even bother with
the issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extreme religious views already disqualify her. No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever.
There is as much reason to tolerate "religious nutjob b.s." as there is
to tolerate your brand of "b.s." or mine, or anybody else's. It's called
the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Look it up. She has the
right in this country to believe and say such things. You have the right
to not listen, but you don't have the right to shut her up. Keeping all
beliefs open and in the public eye is what makes us strong. Suppression
and censorship weakens us.
And the theories of evolution and intelligent design are not mutually
exclusive. I have no trouble conceiving of an intelligent design that
includes evolution as part of a feedback loop to adapt to changing
conditions. Same idea, but infinitely more sophisticated, as the
computer that uses various sensors to control your car's fuel mixture
and performance. If *I* were designing Life for a planet that is always
under changing climate cycles, I'd put an adaptation mechanism in the mix.
TJ
D'oh. The issue is not what Palin says, but what she and McCain try to
legislate, based upon their relgious beliefs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Honestly Harry, I havent' seen them try to legislate anything as of
yet.


Those of us with working brains will try to ensure they don't have the
opportunity to shovel their religious beliefs down our throats.

On Aug 31, 9:12*pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:34 pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 5:49 pm, hk wrote:
The nicest thing about the Palin pick is that most voters capable of
thinking don’t even have to think twice about her to know they oppose
her, because she is a *religiousnutjob.
There's no reason to toleratereligiousnutjobb.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.
So most thinking voters, at least, *won't *have to even bother with the
issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extremereligiousviews already disqualify her. *No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever
then again, Harry. There are some of us that are thinking voters, who
also happen to be religious nut-jobs, that actually like those
qualities in a POTUS candidate.
The United States is not a theocracy, not yet, though it McCain and
Palin are, it will become one.

It never has been a theocracy and never will be one. There's where the
mis-interpreted separatation of church and state actually comes in.
That no specific religion will dominate the govt. that is
constitutional.
Religious beliefs have no place in government policy. I don't give a
damn what your personal beliefs are, so long as you don't try to shove
them at me. Unfortunately, that is *just* what the righties do...they
want everyone to become a JesusBorg...like they are.

Harry, I'm a so- called "rightie" *.I never have shoved religion at
you or anyone else here that I know of.
Thinking voters do not believe evolution is just a theory, or that
intelligent design belongs in public schools. Intelligent design is
nothing more than religious voodoo bull****

Not necessarily Harry. *Especially when you look at evolution. Even
Darwin was amazed how people took his "theories" and ran with them...

I happen o believe in Creationalism, and certain evolution, and The
creationalist thought really and basically "Well, somebody had to do
it"

Why does Creationalism, and/or evolution always have to be right or
wrong?

There's no science behind creationism.

Go ahead, prove creationism. Prove there is a creator.

Make my day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dont' have to. I dont' have to satisfy you, my friend. I have to
satisfy my own concience and faith.

Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:12 pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:34 pm, hk wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Aug 31, 5:49 pm, hk wrote:
The nicest thing about the Palin pick is that most voters capable of
thinking don’t even have to think twice about her to know they oppose
her, because she is a religiousnutjob.
There's no reason to toleratereligiousnutjobb.s. Think evolution is
“just a theory,” you are not getting my vote. Think abortion should be
illegal no matter what, even in cases of rape and incest, you're not
getting my vote. Think intelligent design should be taught in science
classrooms, you're not getting my vote.
So most thinking voters, at least, won't have to even bother with the
issues of experience and her complete lack of knowledge regarding
foreign affairs and well, hell, the fact she didn’t even know what the
VP did a few weeks ago. They don’t have to think about any of that, as
her extremereligiousviews already disqualify her. No more social
conservatives in the White House or next to it, ever
then again, Harry. There are some of us that are thinking voters, who
also happen to be religious nut-jobs, that actually like those
qualities in a POTUS candidate.
The United States is not a theocracy, not yet, though it McCain and
Palin are, it will become one.
It never has been a theocracy and never will be one. There's where the
mis-interpreted separatation of church and state actually comes in.
That no specific religion will dominate the govt. that is
constitutional.
Religious beliefs have no place in government policy. I don't give a
damn what your personal beliefs are, so long as you don't try to shove
them at me. Unfortunately, that is *just* what the righties do...they
want everyone to become a JesusBorg...like they are.
Harry, I'm a so- called "rightie" .I never have shoved religion at
you or anyone else here that I know of.
Thinking voters do not believe evolution is just a theory, or that
intelligent design belongs in public schools. Intelligent design is
nothing more than religious voodoo bull****
Not necessarily Harry. Especially when you look at evolution. Even
Darwin was amazed how people took his "theories" and ran with them...
I happen o believe in Creationalism, and certain evolution, and The
creationalist thought really and basically "Well, somebody had to do
it"
Why does Creationalism, and/or evolution always have to be right or
wrong?
There's no science behind creationism.

Go ahead, prove creationism. Prove there is a creator.

Make my day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dont' have to. I dont' have to satisfy you, my friend. I have to
satisfy my own concience and faith.


Hey, you can believe whatever you want, religiously. Just don't try to
shovel your religious beliefs onto me or have your candidates, if
elected, make your religious beliefs part of the laws of my country, eh?

"DK" wrote in message
...



Exactly. If they were 100% dedicated, and confident in their abilities,
they wouldn't have to keep their "day job" on the back burner.


Come to think of it though ...

When was the last time that any member of Congress put their day job on the
*front* burner?

Eisboch