Why I laugh my ass off when liberals / Radiclas scream inexperience for VP pick.

[philliez]

Originally Posted by Chuck 98 RT/10

But that happens to be where the pro-choicers are crossing the line.

Agreed.

Can't afford a baby? At scrape up enough change for the abortion.

[PPGMD]

Originally Posted by philliez

Can't afford a baby? At scrape up enough change for the abortion.

Or give it up for adoption. I had a friend that facilitated adoptions, she had many more families looking for children, then mothers looking for families to take her child.

[philliez]

Originally Posted by PPGMD

Or give it up for adoption.

This is something I've always said too, but it comes down to the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to go through pregnancy, we have ways of fixing that these days.

But if its just that you don't think you can take care of it, I'm all about giving it to a family who would give it a great home.

I'm cooking porkchops atm, and they will be incredible.

[thereturnofdark]

Originally Posted by philliez

This is something I've always said too, but it comes down to the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to go through pregnancy, we have ways of fixing that these days.

But if its just that you don't think you can take care of it, I'm all about giving it to a family who would give it a great home.

I'm cooking porkchops atm, and they will be incredible.

Classic!!!!

[Derek]

Originally Posted by BAMF

For realz though, I agree. Thats the parts of their views that have me worried more than anything. I don't like their views on 'morality' one bit.

+1

I'm not voting republican because I really have a strong objection to their stance on moral and social issues (i want religion out of government). This is the area where i feel I'm very left.

I do however agree with their stance on gun rights (I personally own a gun for self protection). Though I do not vote on this issue, much like others have said with the abortion issue, no one is going to take my handgun out of my home, that will never happen in this country. I couldn't care less if fully auto weapons are banned, as i really see no reason to have a full auto weapon (other than its fun to shoot FA), equally i see no reason a person shouldn't be able to have one (if someone wants to do damage to other people with a gun, semi auto vs full auto is going to make little difference in the scope of things, we saw this with the dc sniper whose weapon was far from full auto).

I am in agreement with moderate republicans on cutting wasteful spending, useless earmarks, but i do believe however that not all spending by the federal government is bad.

I agree with lower taxes on the middle class, who feel much more of a hit with tax increases than the rich (I agree with the Dem's that the rich should be paying more).

I am very much a proponent free market and deregulation of most industry, but not to the extent that it hurts the US consumer and the economy, like we have seen with oil prices and the housing market. I feel i have more of a centrist view here.

Other issues I disagree with republicans is on vouchers for private schools, which i think hurts the public school system, who is in desperate need for funding.

Energy independence is something that I do not feel the republicans are committed to. We have been facing huge gas prices for a while now, with president Bush in office, who is a former oil man, who made a campaign promise to do something oil prices, and did nothing, so i have lost faith the republicans even care.

National security is where many republicans claim high ground over the democrats, well I find it disturbing that before 9/11, Osama was in a cave in Afghanistan making videos planning an attack on America. Now here we are years later in two wars, and Osama is still in a cave making videos planning an attack on America.

[HullBreach]

Originally Posted by Derek

+1

I'm not voting republican because I really have a strong objection to their stance on moral and social issues (i want religion out of government). This is the area where i feel I'm very left.

I do however agree with their stance on gun rights (I personally own a gun for self protection). Though I do not vote on this issue, much like others have said with the abortion issue, no one is going to take my handgun out of my home, that will never happen in this country. I couldn't care less if fully auto weapons are banned, as i really see no reason to have a full auto weapon (other than its fun to shoot FA), equally i see no reason a person shouldn't be able to have one (if someone wants to do damage to other people with a gun, semi auto vs full auto is going to make little difference in the scope of things, we saw this with the dc sniper whose weapon was far from full auto).

I am in agreement with moderate republicans on cutting wasteful spending, useless earmarks, but i do believe however that not all spending by the federal government is bad.

I agree with lower taxes on the middle class, who feel much more of a hit with tax increases than the rich (I agree with the Dem's that the rich should be paying more).

I am very much a proponent free market and deregulation of most industry, but not to the extent that it hurts the US consumer and the economy, like we have seen with oil prices and the housing market. I feel i have more of a centrist view here.

Other issues I disagree with republicans is on vouchers for private schools, which i think hurts the public school system, who is in desperate need for funding.

Energy independence is something that I do not feel the republicans are committed to. We have been facing huge gas prices for a while now, with president Bush in office, who is a former oil man, who made a campaign promise to do something oil prices, and did nothing, so i have lost faith the republicans even care.

National security is where many republicans claim high ground over the democrats, well I find it disturbing that before 9/11, Osama was in a cave in Afghanistan making videos planning an attack on America. Now here we are years later in two wars, and Osama is still in a cave making videos planning an attack on America.

Honestly your views are pretty libertarian in nature (that's small L libertarian, big L implies Libertarian Party). Im in a similar boat believe it or not, but I just happen to come down on the other side of the line.

I hate to have to do this, but as a libertarian, I find myself voting for the party which is less of a threat to my fundamental freedoms, and less prone to government bloat.

Since the Dem's are currently pushing what basically amounts to the nationalization of health care, gun control, and the farcical "Fairness Doctrine" (a clear violation of the first amendment) I feel the need to prevent them from putting a man in the white house, especially given their control of both houses of congress.

That same control of congress however serves as a bulwark against potential overstepping of bounds by the potential McCain/Palin administration, making me far more comfortable with a vote in their direction.

Also, when you look at either parties platform from a libertarain and centrist veiwpoint, you'll rapidly find that the only "freedom" the republicans are really hot to do away with is abortion, wheras we have the democrats who would seriously impair the second amendment, eneact first amendment restrictions in the form of the orwellian "fairness doctrine" and want to put government in charge of our health.

This places the Republicans closer to my ideals than the Democrats. I'd like to vote Libertarian, but they seem so damn determined (and frankly, at times delighted) to remain fringe, and Im very unhappy with Bob Barr as a candidate.

[philliez]

I'm definitely quite libertarian in my beliefs, and I've understood that since I read a book by Larry Elder some years ago.

But when it comes down to political parties, even the Libertarians I can't fully agree with. I think they are too optimistic on some issues.

Some institutions have been in place the way they for so long in this country that a drastic change would really fuck things up.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Originally Posted by philliez

Some institutions have been in place the way they for so long in this country that a drastic change would really fuck things up.

If by "drastic" you mean "sudden" then have no fear. Nothing in government moves swiftly, sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not.

And Larry Elder That guy is sharp.

See? I'm not a total racist.

[1997 GA16DE]

Originally Posted by Derek

+1

I'm not voting republican because I really have a strong objection to their stance on moral and social issues (i want religion out of government). This is the area where i feel I'm very left.

I do however agree with their stance on gun rights (I personally own a gun for self protection). Though I do not vote on this issue, much like others have said with the abortion issue, no one is going to take my handgun out of my home, that will never happen in this country. I couldn't care less if fully auto weapons are banned, as i really see no reason to have a full auto weapon (other than its fun to shoot FA), equally i see no reason a person shouldn't be able to have one (if someone wants to do damage to other people with a gun, semi auto vs full auto is going to make little difference in the scope of things, we saw this with the dc sniper whose weapon was far from full auto).

I am in agreement with moderate republicans on cutting wasteful spending, useless earmarks, but i do believe however that not all spending by the federal government is bad.

I agree with lower taxes on the middle class, who feel much more of a hit with tax increases than the rich (I agree with the Dem's that the rich should be paying more).

I am very much a proponent free market and deregulation of most industry, but not to the extent that it hurts the US consumer and the economy, like we have seen with oil prices and the housing market. I feel i have more of a centrist view here.

Other issues I disagree with republicans is on vouchers for private schools, which i think hurts the public school system, who is in desperate need for funding.

Energy independence is something that I do not feel the republicans are committed to. We have been facing huge gas prices for a while now, with president Bush in office, who is a former oil man, who made a campaign promise to do something oil prices, and did nothing, so i have lost faith the republicans even care.

National security is where many republicans claim high ground over the democrats, well I find it disturbing that before 9/11, Osama was in a cave in Afghanistan making videos planning an attack on America. Now here we are years later in two wars, and Osama is still in a cave making videos planning an attack on America.

I very much agree with your points. Except the one about education (sort of).

I will say, public schools do need funding to be where it was before they started cutting the budget. We're in a big recession, right now, Instead of cutting big, useless government programs, we're cutting the useful ones. Schools, police, fire rescue, etc. Schools will always need money, but it has been proven in the past that when you give schools too much money, they spend it poorly. What Schools need is a big change in policy, more support for sciences, history, electives, after school programs, instead we (Floridians) choose to only focus on the FCAT. The FCAT is the most backwards program in the world. We punish poor schools with budget cuts, we reward good schools with pay raises, and the pay raises only encourage teachers to cut their curriculum to nothing but FCAT-related studies. When I was in 10th grade, classes like history were cut short for several weeks so we could take practice-FCATs regarding math and reading.

On to other topics. I am very pro-limited-government. I think it's foolish to rely on Dems or Reps to provide such a promise. Both parties support large government, one party wants the government to cater to us in an unrealistic fashion, the other party wants the government to criminalize us in an unrealistic fashion. Both parties want to police the globe, both parties want to spend more money over seas in the name of liberation. Both parties would be in support of national IDs, both parties are in favor of what is commonly refereed to as 'security theater' (google).

If by "drastic" you mean "sudden" then have no fear. Nothing in government moves swiftly, sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not.

Well government moves slow for 2 reasons, 1) it's inefficient 2) swift changes result in backlash.

You would hardly notice the changes that have occurred in just the last decade. The increased number of new laws, the increase of over-enforcement and under-investigation, the increase in fines and penalties, just for misdemeanors. Tightened security for no reason, increased suspicion.

[1997 GA16DE]

I missed something. I'd like to state my view on abortion. Personally, I'm pro family. If I got a girl pregnant who didn't want to be a parent, I would strongly encourage her to keep the baby, I'd take my child if she didn't want anything to do with it, but that's me. The problem is, that's not everyone. Women don't get pregnant just from sex with husbands, boyfriends, one-night stands. They get pregnant by rape, incest, cheating, sometimes, even contraceptives fail. I'd rather a child be lost than be raised by an unfit parent, just to grow up ghetto and become a useless bum.

People should have the choice. Abortion by doctor is a lot safer than abortion via wire hanger, flight of stairs, or rollercoaster.

On that note of mis-information, I'd also rather have a daughter who is fucking her boyfriend who knows to use a condom, who's aware of STDs and birth rates, over a daughter who lies to me, cheats on her 'abstinence pledge' once or twice and thinks that pulling-out is the safest thing in the world.

[Tripw0l]

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/c...ewart-ann.html

[buck19]

The more people do this research thing with policies and moralities the more you all are starting to blend. What I've noticed is that the only deciding factor is the good -v- bad of each individual politicians campaign. We all want the same results at the very end of the tunnel, but give largely contrasting processes to achieve the same resolution all while no one wants to budge on their stance at the given time just to save face.

I thoroughly believe that if one or a group of politicians spent their time solely seeking the end of gov't corruption through outlawing any lobbying via corporate donations/ties to congress with large penalties attached and strictly enforced with no exceptions through due process, a lot of the issues would solve themselves. All extending to those who purposely create loopholes within new legislation. That I believe is the root cause of most issues.

In the end, the odds of getting citizens to vote or even engage in organizations on the municipal/state level are very slim.

To sum it all up...
Accountability on all levels, civilian to gov't.

I think this is an educated post?

[NuclearWinter]

I could not agree with you more, I was going for Giuiliani though haha

[NuclearWinter]

Yes thank you Sir its much appreciated.

[jabtay]

Originally Posted by 1997 GA16DE

They get pregnant by rape, incest

These are really the only 2 i can understand. but even with that, its not enough for me to vote for the other guy.

PPGMD - Thanks

[NuclearWinter]

I agree that abortion is an extreamely sensitive and personal matter for good reason as it should be. However, there are limitations to everything and for me PERSONALLY the fact that Obama voted AGAINST the BAIPA ( Born-Alive Infants Protection Act) in both 2001 & 2002 makes me simply sick to my stomach and seriously makes me doubt weather the man has any value for life at this level at all. Then again, this is also coming from the man who stated that he supports abortion because he would not want his young daughters to ever be "PUNISHED" with a baby out of wedlock....wow..punished?? Shocker

So in 2002 when 2 head nurses pleaded with Senator Obama after they quit their jobs due to the repeated practice of letting these botched aborted infants DIE alone as they were thrown like TRASH into mop buckets into a cold and dirty utility room for a commity to be formed to review these cases and BAN this cruel practice...to no avail, Obama VOTED TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. (To see the language of the two bills side by side, see http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003A...IPAandFedBAIPA...).

To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, see http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obama...mendedBAIPA.ht...

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause. His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL.

It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24481), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.

Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report sheds new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

"Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill"
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html

[HullBreach]

I think we're going to hear a lot more about BAIPA from the 501(c) groups as the campaigns really begin to engage each other.

This is something Obama needs to be confronted over.

[philliez]

I wonder if Obama likes dead baby jokes

[NuclearWinter]

I bet he does not now lol

Ohh yea, the closer we get to October the more heated it's going to get, that's when all the punches will roll out in a collective *Haddduuckket* hehehehe

[Derek]

Originally Posted by NuclearWinter27

I bet he does not now lol

Ohh yea, the closer we get to October the more heated it's going to get, that's when all the punches will roll out in a collective *Haddduuckket* hehehehe

This practice (if it even happens) was already illegal. If the baby was born alive then it would have been (even before this law) illegal for a doctor to neglect the baby of medical treatment (there is no way you could argue it was legal before this bill to neglect a newborn of medical treatment), let alone throw it into mop buckets as you would have us believe.

This bill was nothing but pandering to the anti abortion base who are always clammering for new anti abortion legislation. But guess what, it didn't change shit in America regarding abortion.

The truth is this never fucking happens, ever. To suggest that many doctors are routinely so absorbed in their pro choice stances that they would go against their ethics and neglect/kill a baby that had been born is a fucking ludicrous statement.