hk wrote:



No, being pro-choice means a woman has a choice...Palin made the wrong
choice,

That really does sum your position on all issues. If it isn't the
choice I would make, it is the wrong choice.

hk wrote:

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

Try being the operative word in that sentence. Try isn't the same as
succeed. Are you afraid that if McCain is elected he will be able to
dictate what legislation does and does not go through Congress? You must
be afraid of losing the Democratic majority, then. Last I heard, it
takes one mighty powerful President to run roughshod over an opposing
Congress. Don't point at Supreme Court nominations, either. They have to
be approved by the Senate, remember? It's much easier for an opposing
Congress to run roughshod over a President. The tax increases under
George H. W. Bush come to mind...

Or will the Democrats just collapse into a whiny heap if McCain is elected?

TJ

On Aug 31, 9:22*pm, hk wrote:
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

harry, I think I've already explained that, eh?

hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making one
choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the one I
would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any more than
it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay out it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one else
has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But lefties and
righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their own agendas at
the poor woman while she's trying to make the most important decision
she's ever likely to make. They have no business doing that. It's HER
choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care what
anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

On Aug 31, 10:14*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said.. Concience and faith are exactly what he is afraid of...

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making one
choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the one I
would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any more than
it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay out it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one else
has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But lefties and
righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their own agendas at
the poor woman while she's trying to make the most important decision
she's ever likely to make. They have no business doing that. It's HER
choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care what
anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

The righties want to eliminate that "choice" for the woman. The lefties
want her to be able to have that choice. Period.

If you believe in choice, why shouldn't it be easy to obtain an abortion?

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making
one choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the one
I would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any more
than it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay out it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one else
has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But lefties and
righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their own agendas at
the poor woman while she's trying to make the most important decision
she's ever likely to make. They have no business doing that. It's HER
choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care
what anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

The righties want to eliminate that "choice" for the woman. The lefties
want her to be able to have that choice. Period.

If you believe in choice, why shouldn't it be easy to obtain an abortion?

I already answered that question. Re-read the sentence where I said it
shouldn't be made easy and you'll see it. The choice should not be
artificially weighted by government in one direction or another, either
pro- or anti-abortion. Government should stay out of it, period.
Government-sponsored free abortion-on-demand is just as wrong as forcing
the birth of the product of rape or incest. It should be left to the
people involved, not the heavy hand of government.

That's why it's called "choice." Your definition shows you do not
support choice. You support abortion.

TJ

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making
one choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the one
I would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any more
than it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay out it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one
else has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But lefties
and righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their own
agendas at the poor woman while she's trying to make the most
important decision she's ever likely to make. They have no business
doing that. It's HER choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care
what anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

The righties want to eliminate that "choice" for the woman. The
lefties want her to be able to have that choice. Period.

If you believe in choice, why shouldn't it be easy to obtain an abortion?

I already answered that question. Re-read the sentence where I said it
shouldn't be made easy and you'll see it. The choice should not be
artificially weighted by government in one direction or another, either
pro- or anti-abortion. Government should stay out of it, period.
Government-sponsored free abortion-on-demand is just as wrong as forcing
the birth of the product of rape or incest. It should be left to the
people involved, not the heavy hand of government.

That's why it's called "choice." Your definition shows you do not
support choice. You support abortion.

TJ


Why should it be difficult to get an abortion, and what do you mean by
difficult?

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making
one choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the
one I would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any
more than it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay out
it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one
else has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But lefties
and righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their own
agendas at the poor woman while she's trying to make the most
important decision she's ever likely to make. They have no business
doing that. It's HER choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care
what anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

The righties want to eliminate that "choice" for the woman. The
lefties want her to be able to have that choice. Period.

If you believe in choice, why shouldn't it be easy to obtain an
abortion?

I already answered that question. Re-read the sentence where I said it
shouldn't be made easy and you'll see it. The choice should not be
artificially weighted by government in one direction or another,
either pro- or anti-abortion. Government should stay out of it,
period. Government-sponsored free abortion-on-demand is just as wrong
as forcing the birth of the product of rape or incest. It should be
left to the people involved, not the heavy hand of government.

That's why it's called "choice." Your definition shows you do not
support choice. You support abortion.

TJ


Why should it be difficult to get an abortion, and what do you mean by
difficult?

When did I use the word "difficult" with regard to abortion? I said "not
easy." "Not easy" and "difficult" are not necessarily the same thing.

TJ

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
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.

No, you don't get it. I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe in making
one choice easier to make than the other, just because that's the
one I would make. It shouldn't be made easy to get an abortion, any
more than it's easy to have a child. Government should just stay
out it.

Being pro-choice to me means the woman has a choice... and no one
else has the right to second-guess the choice she makes. But
lefties and righties alike don't seem to get that. They throw their
own agendas at the poor woman while she's trying to make the most
important decision she's ever likely to make. They have no business
doing that. It's HER choice, not theirs.

I'm a moderate. That means that lefties like you think I'm really a
conservative, and righties think I'm really a liberal. I don't care
what anybody thinks. I do my own thinking.

TJ

The righties want to eliminate that "choice" for the woman. The
lefties want her to be able to have that choice. Period.

If you believe in choice, why shouldn't it be easy to obtain an
abortion?

I already answered that question. Re-read the sentence where I said
it shouldn't be made easy and you'll see it. The choice should not be
artificially weighted by government in one direction or another,
either pro- or anti-abortion. Government should stay out of it,
period. Government-sponsored free abortion-on-demand is just as wrong
as forcing the birth of the product of rape or incest. It should be
left to the people involved, not the heavy hand of government.

That's why it's called "choice." Your definition shows you do not
support choice. You support abortion.

TJ


Why should it be difficult to get an abortion, and what do you mean by
difficult?

When did I use the word "difficult" with regard to abortion? I said "not
easy." "Not easy" and "difficult" are not necessarily the same thing.

TJ


Ok, I'll play. Define "not easy."