Republicans: do as I say, not as I do

Flounder?

VROOOOM, VROOOOOM, clatter-clatter-clatter-clatter, CHUNK.

Governments should exist to protect the people. There are a lot of people out there that are not nice. They will rob you, kill you, manipulate markets to further rob you, etc. I'm not against all government intervention. The problem I have here is that people tend to forget that the baby is a human being also. It is not legal for you to go around killing people you find inconvient. There are laws against that. Otherwise, a couple of nukes and New Orleans would never need another federal dollar again. "Late Term Abortions." Levee problem solved. We don't do that, so why should we let parents kill their children? That 2 year old is just a terror. We'll call it a 9th term abortion. Sorry, we put people in prison for that or execute them.

Read that post in the archive. Before medical school, and even through it as I was too busy to put much thought into philosophical issues like this, my opinion was just leave it as it is. Woman's right to choose, etc. Then I started thinking about everything I had been taught, embriology, obstetrics, etc., and I reached the conclusion that there is no magic day that it becomes not OK to kill someone. If you want to say "it's above my pay grade" then shouldn't you err on the side of human? Or just kill them all and let probability sort it out?

Tim Baxter wrote: flounder

I thought spoon was more appropriate.. but point taken.

I have a sudden craving for some seafood lately.

I think the larger debate is when does a group of cells become "someone", not is it OK to kill people.

A group of cells in my head just told me to kill someone...

...is that OK?

117 and 1/2 days unless the baby was conceived on a full moon or a Tuesday.

SVreX wrote:

John Brown wrote: I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.

You're kidding, right? Your vote is based on what dress the woman wore?? Or is it how impressed you are with the fact that Vanity Fair decided to guess the value? Michelle Obama wore a different designer dress every night of the DNC convention. She topped it off on the final night with not one, not two, but a trio of Erickson Beamon broaches. Vote for me. I usually wear shorts and tee shirts accessorized with fashionable steel-toed work boots and several coffee stains down the front.

Absolutely. If I am running for Mayor of Podunk and my wife comes in with $50K worth of jewels around her neck you bet it would make the people voting wonder if I wasn't going to raid the till to keep the girl happy. Same thing goes for me and Big Mac. I don't care if they had the property but the property PLUS this makes me think that the $400,000.00 per year job we are giving the guy may not keep him in good staid with the taxes on the properties he owns or the jewelry the missus may require.

It is not the fact that she owns it, by the way if it were "loaned" to her I would cry foul regarding someone doing favors for a potential public figure.

If it were Obama, Paul, Nader or anyone else in the race I would have the same gripe.

John Brown wrote: ... the guy may not keep him in good staid with the taxes on the properties he owns or the jewelry the missus may require....

She's the one with the money, not him.

John Brown wrote:

SVreX wrote:

John Brown wrote: I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.

You're kidding, right? Your vote is based on what dress the woman wore?? Or is it how impressed you are with the fact that Vanity Fair decided to guess the value? Michelle Obama wore a different designer dress every night of the DNC convention. She topped it off on the final night with not one, not two, but a trio of Erickson Beamon broaches. Vote for me. I usually wear shorts and tee shirts accessorized with fashionable steel-toed work boots and several coffee stains down the front.

Absolutely. If I am running for Mayor of Podunk and my wife comes in with $50K worth of jewels around her neck you bet it would make the people voting wonder if I wasn't going to raid the till to keep the girl happy. Same thing goes for me and Big Mac. I don't care if they had the property but the property PLUS this makes me think that the $400,000.00 per year job we are giving the guy may not keep him in good staid with the taxes on the properties he owns or the jewelry the missus may require. It is not the fact that she owns it, by the way if it were "loaned" to her I would cry foul regarding someone doing favors for a potential public figure. If it were Obama, Paul, Nader or anyone else in the race I would have the same gripe.

Isn't Mrs. McCain worth somewhere near $100 million?

John Brown wrote:

SVreX wrote:

John Brown wrote: I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.

You're kidding, right? Your vote is based on what dress the woman wore?? Or is it how impressed you are with the fact that Vanity Fair decided to guess the value? Michelle Obama wore a different designer dress every night of the DNC convention. She topped it off on the final night with not one, not two, but a trio of Erickson Beamon broaches. Vote for me. I usually wear shorts and tee shirts accessorized with fashionable steel-toed work boots and several coffee stains down the front.

Absolutely. If I am running for Mayor of Podunk and my wife comes in with $50K worth of jewels around her neck you bet it would make the people voting wonder if I wasn't going to raid the till to keep the girl happy. Same thing goes for me and Big Mac. I don't care if they had the property but the property PLUS this makes me think that the $400,000.00 per year job we are giving the guy may not keep him in good staid with the taxes on the properties he owns or the jewelry the missus may require. It is not the fact that she owns it, by the way if it were "loaned" to her I would cry foul regarding someone doing favors for a potential public figure. If it were Obama, Paul, Nader or anyone else in the race I would have the same gripe.

Isn't Mrs. McCain worth somewhere near $100 million?

SVreX wrote: Hess has a point. Not only did Salanis say he wasn't interested in reading 67 pages, he didn't even look at it. There is a contents which would point him to the right section and clear headings when he gets there. The subject would have taken 2 or 3 minutes of research. He refused to try.

I'll skip the long-winded response I was tempted to give. Take a look again at the titles on the list of chapters. Jargon Buzzword Buzzword Jargon? The majority of chapters could have something to do with the issues we've been arguing on this thread.

And, again, have you bothered to read the Democratic Party Platform before making any statements about what they intend to do to this country?

(Skimming the Rep Platform, they do want to overturn RvW.)

Yes, I've read them both. Although the only copy I could find of the Democratic one was the preliminary copy prepared by the committee to present to the DNC.

The Democratic platform specifically mentions Roe. I don't remember the Republican platform specifically mentioning Roe.

Have you read either?

gamby wrote:

SVreX wrote: Please show me one real example of an educational system offering an "abstinence only" program. I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to know. I don't believe they exist.

Florida: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115561.php W pumped extra $$ into those programs: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/17_02/Abst172.shtml http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/842 One-third of public secondary schools in the United States teach an "abstinence only until marriage" curriculum, Canton, OH http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/webwatch/2006/08/post_4.html

With all due respect, that is not the entire state of FL, it is only one county. Fl does not mandate abstinence education (it does favor it).

I am, however, a bit surprised to see how far toward abstinence only Volusia County is.

You asked for educational systems that offered abstinence only programs. You didn't believe they existed.

I showed you evidence to the contrary.

I found this on the internet... so it has to be true

First of all, her kids' names are Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig. That should get her kicked off the ticket right there.

Secondly, here's one of those 10 things you didn't know lists All facts below about Sarah Palin are backed up by credible journal citations... (see http://www. grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage. htm for links.)

1) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power

2) Last year she put out a bounty on wolves paying $150 for turning in legs of freshly killed wolves

3) She is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest

4) She is a champion for big oil and supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and everywhere else

5) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools

6) She believes man-made global warming is a farce

7) She is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species and is suing the federal government over it

8) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books

9) She supports aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice

10) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a media campaign in support of aerial hunting

She really doesn't like wolves and polar bears!!

Not that I blame her...polar bears are mean. Maybe she means feral dogs rather than wolves. They have a problem with feral dogs in Alaska.

Osterkraut wrote: Isn't Mrs. McCain worth somewhere near $100 million?

You don't really expect her to spend HER money do you? Come on now, I expect more from you Charles.

The issue is that the we (the nation) are having a hard time affording fuel and energy cost but the nice rich lady should get a pass on the extravagance. Mrs. Bush was very reserved and SHE is equally wealthy (BTW I really like Laura Bush, I wish we got more of her out of the deal versus Georgie).

I realize that Hensley & Co is big in the are but they are still just a beverage distributor. If you look into the McCains donations to "charity" in 2006 they donated $191K total but over $90K went to Christ Lutheran School and Brophy Prep, the schools the kids were going to. Looking at Brophy preps alumni page you will see a bunch of their graduates involved in photos directly with President Bush or White House events like the Easter egg hunts and the like. Just makes me wonder, you know?

She sounds like a winner to me, Curtis.

It's real easy to be supportive of wolves and bears when you're sitting in Florida or New Jersey. The people that have to live there may have other ideas.

curtis73 wrote: I found this on the internet... so it has to be true First of all, her kids' names are Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig. That should get her kicked off the ticket right there. Secondly, here's one of those 10 things you didn't know lists All facts below about Sarah Palin are backed up by credible journal citations... (see http://www. grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage. htm for links.) 1) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power 2) Last year she put out a bounty on wolves paying $150 for turning in legs of freshly killed wolves 3) She is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest 4) She is a champion for big oil and supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and everywhere else 5) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools 6) She believes man-made global warming is a farce 7) She is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species and is suing the federal government over it 8) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books 9) She supports aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice 10) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a media campaign in support of aerial hunting

Well, to white women in America, "She's a MOM!!! ...with everyday problems of moms everywhere!!! We can relate to her because she's a mom!!!

I was hoping that there were bigger criteria at work other than one's ability to spawn.

THIS FUNNY ARTICLE said:Palin's former pastor, Tim McGraw, says that like many Pentecostal churches, some members speak in tongues, although he says he's never seen Palin do so. Church member Caroline Spangler told CNN, "When the spirit comes on you, you utter things that nobody else can understand ... only God can understand what is coming out of our mouths." Some Pentecostals from Assembly of God also believe in "faith healing" and the "end times" -- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

CNN, the new Enquirer?

Write in :

RON PAUL

SVreX wrote: Yes, I've read them both. Although the only copy I could find of the Democratic one was the preliminary copy prepared by the committee to present to the DNC. The Democratic platform specifically mentions Roe. I don't remember the Republican platform specifically mentioning Roe. Have you read either?

I skimmed through the Rep one for bits relating to this debate, when I had the opportunity. It does not specifically mention Roe. It does make a lot of references to taking the decision regarding abortion out of the hands of judges and letting states vote on it. Not a huge leap in interpretation to understand that means they want to overturn Roe.

Suffice to say, I am disturbed by the Republicans' apparent desire to legislate a particular moral code onto the rest of the country.

Edit: Palin strikes me as a symbol of this moral agenda. I don't know if the McCain campaign has flat-out said so, but every analyst I've heard has said that one of the primary reasons for her nomination is to cater to the socially conservative base. That tells me that the McCain campaign is very interested in pushing this social agenda that makes me very nervous.

Salanis wrote:

SVreX wrote: Yes, I've read them both. Although the only copy I could find of the Democratic one was the preliminary copy prepared by the committee to present to the DNC. The Democratic platform specifically mentions Roe. I don't remember the Republican platform specifically mentioning Roe. Have you read either?

I skimmed through the Rep one for bits relating to this debate, when I had the opportunity. It does not specifically mention Roe. It does make a lot of references to taking the decision regarding abortion out of the hands of judges and letting states vote on it. Not a huge leap in interpretation to understand that means they want to overturn Roe. Suffice to say, I am disturbed by the Republicans' apparent desire to legislate a particular moral code onto the rest of the country.

It should have never been judged by the Supreme Court in the first place. It's a States Rights issue that was preempted by the federal government unjustly.

DILYSI Dave wrote: It should have never been judged by the Supreme Court in the first place. It's a States Rights issue that was preempted by the federal government unjustly.

Obviously I disagree. I see this as a personal rights issue. Saying the states should be the ones to decide is a way for a simple majority to enforce its will over the populace, just on a smaller scale.

Not to bring in the fishermen, but this struck me as:

1: FUNNY

2: Another reason Carly Fiorino should be gagged and beaten.

3: Reason the Blackberry is SO damned expensive!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/fiorina_palin_lacks_experience.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/mccain.blackberry/