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?

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:41:06 -0400, hk wrote:

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 would say after some counseling and time to assess the reality of
killing a potential child.
Some women/girls have serious guilt problems they never get over.
I am basically pro choice but it should be an informed choice, not a
spur of the moment decision.


Time is of the essence in seeking an abortion.

A woman has to consult with her doctor. Whether she should consult with
anyone else is a decision best left to the woman.

"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.

"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.

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"

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.

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?

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

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]

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.