|
McCain's Age...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
"hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? Let's see, the doctor can't predict McCain's medical history but you can predict the legislative process and court decisions. |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? Let's see, the doctor can't predict McCain's medical history but you can predict the legislative process and court decisions. If McCain gets elected? He will nominate associate justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. |
McCain's Age...
"hk" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? Let's see, the doctor can't predict McCain's medical history but you can predict the legislative process and court decisions. If McCain gets elected? He will nominate associate justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. When you don't know, you don't know. |
McCain's Age...
On Aug 31, 9:18*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... *hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? * *Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? Let's see, the doctor can't predict McCain's medical history but you can predict the legislative process and court decisions. If McCain gets elected? He will nominate associate justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. When you don't know, you don't know.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He has a habit of talking about things he doesn't know **** about.. His conspiracy theories are worse than Larry's'. Of course having no real moral core, he will say whatever he thinks will get him what he wants. a nation of folks who are not accountable for their own actions... |
McCain's Age...
wrote in message ... On Aug 31, 9:18 pm, "D.Duck" wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... 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. Seems to me that everyday we are subjected to people trying to shove stuff at us. Brands of cars, beer, charities, sneakers, iPods, ..... hell, within an hour of watching TV at least a dozen organizations have tried to convince us of something. Most of us just select what interests us, and reject that which doesn't. Why can't you do the same with your beloved religious righties? Why do they bother you so much? Eisboch You missed the point entirely. Buying a car, beer, sneakers, is a matter of choice. Having religious beliefs shoved down your through via legislation or court decisions, as McCain-Palin will do, is coercion. Being anti-choice is a religious belief. Got it? Let's see, the doctor can't predict McCain's medical history but you can predict the legislative process and court decisions. If McCain gets elected? He will nominate associate justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. When you don't know, you don't know.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He has a habit of talking about things he doesn't know **** about.. His conspiracy theories are worse than Larry's'. Of course having no real moral core, he will say whatever he thinks will get him what he wants. a nation of folks who are not accountable for their own actions... =========================================== At least he's now saying *if* McCain is elected. 8) |
McCain's Age...
REMOVE Tom wrote:
Why should that matter? Again, you seem to be going down the road that says certain "experiences" are important. I'm more interested in judgment. McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time. That is bad judgment. If I were an Obama supporter I don't believe I would bring up judgement. Do you consider spending 20 years in a racist church with a racist minister good judgement? How about real estate deals with a crook? How about hanging out with radical bombers? These don't show good judgement in my opinion. Even if he somehow missed the displays of his minister's attitude during those 20 years, Obama exercised poor judgment in delaying so long to denounce him once it became public. He only did it after he could no longer deny it. But wait - he wasn't using his own judgment by then. He was taking orders from his handlers, so I guess that wasn't his fault. TJ |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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? |
McCain's Age...
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?... |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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? |
McCain's Age...
"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 |
McCain's Age...
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. |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
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? |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
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... |
McCain's Age...
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? |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
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? |
McCain's Age...
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 |
McCain's Age...
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." |
McCain's Age...
On Sep 1, 10:41*am, hk wrote:
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."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Are you really so stupid you don't understand what "not easy" means? |
McCain's Age...
|
McCain's Age...
"hk" wrote in message . .. CalifBill wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:00:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "TJ" wrote in message ... Before I decide who I want for my leader, I want to know where he wants to take me. I haven't heard that from Obama. All I hear is that he wants to change directions. Maybe these will help you out: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/ http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Damn - nothing from either one about nuking anybody. Crap. :) They do not need to nuke anybody. We have the Marines, and some USAF transports. Went by the Marines playground on Friday. Did not see much playing at Pendleton. Marines get off Labor Day? ..snerk Snerk this. Marines labor more than most laborers. So they should get off Labor day just like the rest of the laborers. |
McCain's Age...
"hk" wrote in message . .. 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. Seems as if the Alaskan's defy your pronostication. Elected her with an overwhelming majority. And all those AK's are not religious nuts. |
McCain's Age...
On Aug 30, 7:05*pm, BAR wrote:
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, in those two years he's been all but totally vacant. hard to address "issues" when you're "nobody home" |
McCain's Age...
Tim wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:05 pm, BAR wrote: 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, in those two years he's been all but totally vacant. hard to address "issues" when you're "nobody home" Obama's best honed skill is protecting his paper trail. |
McCain's Age...
Eisboch wrote:
"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 Good point. Whats a few more months away from the office? |
McCain's Age...
hk wrote:
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." I'll bet you're still debating the meaning of "is," aren't you? I don't intend to play word games with you. I've made my position clear, and so have you. TJ |
McCain's Age...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:22:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:12:27 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote: I am sure he is an embarrassment to his family and anyone who has the misfortune of having to work with him. He's an embarrassement to the group and 98% of us have never met him. But you know what? I just returned today to find over 1100 posts in the group. Harry accounted for over 300 of those posts. In looking at the headers in one thread, he had kept a whole pot full of people engaged. *That* is what's astonishing. Upon hitting the 'apply filters' switch, the number of posts is now in the low 800's. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
McCain's Age...
On Aug 30, 9:50*am, BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message .... On Aug 29, 7:24 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message .... On Aug 29, 6:50 pm, hk wrote: ...and health are now issues *on* the table. Guaranteed. A 72-year-old man who has had four bouts with cancer... http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/23...ealth.records/ And? Means absolutely nothing. He could also get hit by one of his wife's beer trucks the day after the inauguration. The POTUS has a responsibility to select a qualified VP, ready to step in should the need arise. McCain didn't do that. He selected someone who might make him more electable, that's all. I admire the achievements to date of Sarah Whateverhernameis .... but I am very disappointed in the reasoning of McCain in selecting her. She simply is not qualified. Eisboch And Obama is more qualified..........how? Did you know of Obama and his experience and experience before speculation of his campaign for POTUS started? BTW: **She* is not at the top of the ticket. ==================================== If I may jump in, it's not that Obama is qualified, it that Ms. Palin is not. Yup. *Thank you. Obama has shored up his "unqualified" status in the selection of Biden. McCain .... * what the hell was he thinking??!!!!! I don't think you are giving enough credit to a sitting Governor. I'll take two years running a state over 10 years as a "community organizer", whatever that is and Obama sure as hell couldn't define it. Obama is big on words. And his big word is change. Change what? and what of 'reformer' mcbush? what's he gonna reform? is he gonna tell us what a great job bush did and how he's gonna improve on it? or is he gonna tell us bush is a failure but, 'trust me....the GOP has screwed the country but i'm going to CHANGE!!'?? mccain's out of gas. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com