# Who do you see running for President in 2008?



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

As I was reading through the "Hillary" post, I thought this might be a good topic to discuss. Who do you see as presidential contenders in 2008 from both parties, and why would they most likely win?


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

For the Dems I see Hillary all the way. She has been planning this since being in the white house with Bill, and the Democratic party is controlled by liberals so Hillary is their wo(MAN).  I personally think she was happy to see Bush win, since it would give her a better oppurtunity to win in 08'. For the Republicans it's a hard choice. I think the front runners would have to be Gulianni, (I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but the x-mayor of New YorK). Mccain from Arizona, Bill Frist who is a Senator from back east somewhere. I think the Republicans will have a tough road ahead of them, since this country doesn't like one party to have the upper hand for to long. And this will of course depend on how Iraq goes. If that is a success and the U.S. has pulled out by then, it could go well for the Republicans. If the Dems were smart they would nominate a moderate and try to pull some cross-over votes. If they nominate Hillary the Republicans will win. She is to Liberal, and does nothing for the moderate voter. I see it being a race between John MCcain and Hillary. MCcain appeals to Democrats as well as Republicans. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Sounds like sound logic to me. McCain could appeal to some dems as well as the moderate repubs. If the situation in Iraq is getting better and the economy stays relatively strong, he would have an excellent chance of winning. Rudy also... good mass appeal. Frist.... seems like a good guy, but don't know too much about him.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

unfortunantly, both MCcain and Rudy are moderate to liberal on social issues. I know both are pro-abortion and neither support an ammendment to define marriage between one man and one women. Even though I am a Republican, I wouldn't vote for anyone that is for killing babies. So we will have to see what happens.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

McCain is not a republican.......I don't care what he says. I thing Guiliani sounds good and then after this (or the next 2) election I give the nod to Jeb Bush getting a crack at it. I think the republican's would like to see there own "Kennedy" type name. Just my thoughts.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Republicans....McCain,Bush,Powell

Democrats....Clinton,Edwards...that young black guy from Illinois.

I think it will come down to Clinton vs. Powell

MCcain is to moderate for the Republicans and 3 Bush's won't win.

Could be historic...Powell (first black)

Clinton (first woman)


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Powell would be an interesting choice. I'm not too familiar with some of his views.... does anyone know if he is pro-life or pro-choice? I've always liked the way he presents himself. I'd give him a close look if he runs.


----------



## go4thegusto (Sep 29, 2004)

This band of social fundamentalists is already grooming Jeb Bush! Great another son trying to please Daddy. What the heck went on inside that household? Something that thousands of American lives and billions of our dollars can't fix. :x


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> unfortunantly, both MCcain and Rudy are moderate to liberal on social issues. I know both are pro-abortion and neither support an ammendment to define marriage between one man and one women.


No, both are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Powell has already said that he won't run for a political office.

For the Reps, I would guess that Jeb Bush would be a good possibility, but they are also groom JC Watts to bring in the minority vote.

For the Dems, I would guess that Hillary would be a good possibility, as would John Edwards.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You will see Hillary move towards the center.

She already is headed there by voting to confirm Rice and Gonzales.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Hey BigDaddy what's the difference between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion since you seem to think there is a difference????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is no difference it is simply words to sooth the conscience.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> There is no difference it is simply words to sooth the conscience.


I guess the term is used like that of your "Liberation" which is really just another way to say protecting our oil interests and attempting empiricism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT
I'm afraid I don't understand. Perhaps you can enlighten me to how we are practicing empiricism in Iraq. Didn't you once say in a post that you thought college english was yaaawn. So MT, get our your dictionary and look up liberation, that will help you too.

"Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT, please make up your mind on some of these things. When I say I believe the soldiers you say I am foolish. Then you say I should believe the soldiers and I am foolish not to. Here are some inconsistencies for your perusal.

Plainsman wrote:


> Now that the soldiers are coming back we are getting first hand information.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> Hey lets ask the restraunt owner how his food is! Wait that would probably be biased wouldn't it? I can't see how you can take the soldiers word as good as gold. You yourself said how the winners of wars write the history, and edit it as they choose.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> I have no doubts that the soldiers are telling the truth, more like half of it but the truth none the less.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> They don't show anything bad about the war, as if it is a cakewalk or something. They don't do the soldiers justice.


Plainsman wrote:


> I would far believe the soldiers coming back before I believe the TV news.


Militant Tiger wrote:


> So if a war vet came on here and told you a firsthand story about his experience you would ask him to prove it? He would obviously have no motives (as the man on the history channel did not) and he has the most pure kind of evidence, he was there. I doubt that you would.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Plainsman you are right Pro-choice are words that some have used to ease their conscience of what abortion really is. I personally call it pro-death, because that is exactly what is happening. An innocent life is being taken. A candidate that states that they are pro-choice means they are o.k. with innocent life being killed, so they are pro-death. I don't care if this is a Republican, Democrat, or Independant. And if they don't place any value on life, then why would anyone think they have the ability to run a country?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT
> I'm afraid I don't understand. Perhaps you can enlighten me to how we are practicing empiricism in Iraq. Didn't you once say in a post that you thought college english was yaaawn. So MT, get our your dictionary and look up liberation, that will help you too.


I was thinking empire, in reality I meant colonialism.



> MT, please make up your mind on some of these things. When I say I believe the soldiers you say I am foolish. Then you say I should believe the soldiers and I am foolish not to. Here are some inconsistencies for your perusal.


My statements are consistant, you just have a way with twisting words, as was done with Kerry. I first stated that soldiers are telling the good parts of the story because it is their baby, they have fought and lost friends, the last thing they would say is that it was all for nought. As to you not believing a soldier, that is called an example. It was not meant to be taken literally, just as a "for instance" situation, any person could be filled in, I just thought that you would relate best to said example.



> And if they don't place any value on life, then why would anyone think they have the ability to run a country?


And if someone thinks that the poor should be poorer and the rich richer, who are they to run this country? I suppose that no one is fit to run the country then.



> Plainsman you are right Pro-choice are words that some have used to ease their conscience of what abortion really is. I personally call it pro-death, because that is exactly what is happening.


This is just the problem, liberals would rather see people be able to make their own decisions in this so called free country, and the conservatives would rather see more restrtictions. The liberals want to see more conservative spending, and the conservatives want to throw money at fruitless ventures. There are several times that the definitions of republican and democrat have changed over the course of history, I suppose this is another.



> A candidate that states that they are pro-choice means they are o.k. with innocent life being killed, so they are pro-death.


You are pro force, we are pro choice. We are willing to tolerate such things to a certain extent, you are not. You would rather see a child grow up in the projects or a trailer park poor as dirt and get a poor education and a crappy life, than to see a woman who can still be productive member of society and have children when she is ready.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

If any of you had read Powell's biography, he will not run for President. as to who else the republicans pick, do not know. As to Dems, Obama from Illinois will not run for president but I would not be surprised if he is the VP candidate. Richardson from New Mexico may run (pro gun by the way), Hillary probably.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

Democrats- Hillary, Kerry (yes, he will try again but get his @ss handed to him in the primaries), Edwards, Richardson, Gov. Vilsack (IA) and the fat black guy from New [email protected] I can't remember his name. They will be the better know half running for the Dem ticket. Look for Oboma to be courted for VP, but will turn it down.

Republicans- Jeb Bush, Hagel, McCain, Frist (Tenn.), Tom Ridge is a good possibility, and Alan Keyes. JC Watts will be the top choice for VP.

The final battle.

Hillary-Vilsack Vs Bush-Watts

I'll give the edge to Bush-Watts, but not by much 51%-47% (2% Other)

Today on the news a talking head said that the Democrat primaries will run over $100 million alone  .
My god, two years solid of :bs:

IaHunter


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Storm wrote:



> Hey BigDaddy what's the difference between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion since you seem to think there is a difference????


Very good question. Liberals and personal libertarians look at the abortion issue in terms of the the mother being able to control what is done with her own body. This is why it is called pro-choice. We want the mother to be able to make choices.

In contrast, many conservatives look at the abortion issue from the perspective of the fetus.

Here is a tip... If you frame the abortion issue as Pro-Choice vs Anti-Choice, you are probably liberal on this issue. If you frame the abortion issue as Pro-Life vs Pro-Abortion, you are conservative on this issue.

There is difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. I don't want babies aborted in the third trimester, maybe even in the second trimester. I would support a ban on these late-stage abortions. However, what early-stage abortions in the first trimester? I simply don't equate a mass of undifferentiated cells with a fully-developed fetus.

Now, I hesitated to even start this debate, but this will hopefully give you a better perspective of how I see this issue. Be careful, though. Debating abortion can cause tempers to rise faster than asking a friend if you can sleep with his sister.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Undifferentiated cells?

That comment gave me a set of chills!!

No matter how they parse it, life begins at conception. Just step back and take a look your kids, I mean a hard look, into their soul!!

I could never state that at any time my kids were undifferentiated cells! Individual DNA begins at conception, therefore life.

Sorry BD, had to jump on that one!!


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

I hate to say it BigDaddy but 4CurlRedleg makes a good point. Your Undifferentiated mass of cells turned into your daughter or son. If your wife would of decided to abort her children some abortion doctor would of gladly done it for $500.00. Democrats talk about choice and the womens body, but what choice does the baby have. This baby fetus will grow into a adult man or women if allowed to, and then ask them..hey do wish you would of been aborted. I bet you won't have one that will say, hey ya, I wish some doctor would cut my up and sucked my out of my mothers womb. And your idea of only being for abortion in the first trimester makes no sense. Does it make a person feel less guilty about taking a life if it just doesn't quite look like a fully developed baby fetus. The Democratic party has done every thing possible to keep abortion legal at all stages of life. Not only in the third trimester, but partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is nothing more than taking a fully developed baby pulling him or her half way out of a womens womb and then placing scissors in the base of the skull, inserting the scissors through the skull to where the brains can be sucked out. This then allows the skull to collapse allowing for the, now dead baby, to be deliveried easier. This is nothing more than genocide, or murder. So you see it isn't about rights, choices, and or any other rationalization. It's simply murder, protected by the supreme court, and smoothed over by liberals such as Hillary and John Kerry. BigDaddy a baby fetus does have a heart beat in the first Tri-mester, unless some abortion doctor can snuff it out for $500.00.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So a mass of flesh without conscious thought is a human? That sure does qualify quite a few things as human. In fact I think that pretty much denies hunting too. Abortion is obviously not the best choice in most cases, but sometimes it means the two 16 year old kids having to provide for a child before they even have a proper education themselves. You have thus made a line of unproductive and unhappy people. If you see abortion as wrong I approve of and advise that you tell your family the horrors of such things, but for some people it is the only choice. This is one of the critical flaws of conservative logic today, you can't just do as you think should be done, you must force others to do so as well.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I will remind you again that discussions concerning abortion invariably get heated.



> No matter how they parse it, life begins at conception.


Please stop and realize that this opinion is centered on certain religious beliefs. Once we accept that, we can have a worthwhile discussion.

True, that mass of undifferentiated cells will most likely develop into a fetus that resembles a baby and subsequently into an infant. However, the question centers on when exactly that fetus is a "life". Is it at conception? Is it when it begins to resemble a human being? Is it when the heart starts to beat? Is it when it is self-sufficient and able to survive on its own?

You also need to accept the fact that both sides of the abortion debate have lied to you and me. In contrast to what the pro-choice side will argue, a mid-stage and late-stage fetus is not simply a mass of cells to be thrown away at whim. However, in contrast to what the pro-life side will argue, all aborted fetuses are not fully developed babies screaming in pain.

Again, I find late-stage abortions abhorrent. A developed fetus can feel pain, and I would readily call it "alive". However, a fetus during the first few weeks is truly a mass of cells, incapable of feeling pain and incapable of self-sufficiency. Do you shudder with the same anger when you hear of a woman taking the morning after pill as you do when you hear of a woman having an abortion?

Do you consider a pile of lumber to be a house? When does it resemble one? For those with strong religious convictions, equating a fetus with a pile of lumber is sickening. However, all Americans don't share those same beliefs.

Abortion is very much a faith-based issue. Those with strong opinions that life begins at conception are not going to change their minds. However, this is the very reason why faith-based legislation is so dangerous.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant Tiger wrote:



> So a mass of flesh without conscious thought is a human? That sure does qualify quite a few things as human. *In fact I think that pretty much denies hunting too*.


That speaks volumes, but not good. Giving an animal the same importants as humans is what PETA keeps saying. Who was the fellow that made the statement " a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, they are all of equal value"?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

As an adopted person I find the liberal view extremely offensive. It has nothing to do with religion as far as I am concerned. It's about life. 
I watched a vidio scan of our first grandchild when our daughter was 4 months along. Again its about giving life or killing the unborn infant.

Big Daddy do you have childern or grandchildern?????

Big Daddy says 


> However, the question centers on when exactly that fetus is a "life". Is it at conception? Is it when it begins to resemble a human being? Is it when the heart starts to beat? Is it when it is self-sufficient and able to survive on its own?


As a 58 year old adopted person I'm damn glad my birth mother decided to keep me as soon as she found out she was pregnant.

I'll let it rest now.

Plainsman next time we wander into this territory please lock the post.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Militant Tiger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What exactly is the definition of life then? If a mass of flesh that lacks conscious thought or the ability to survive in the outside world is life, then what is not alive? If it is something that is not made of flesh, you have just made a point for PETA.



> Plainsman next time we wander into this territory please lock the post.


Why? This is one of the major issues and it needs to be discussed. If you are saying that it should be in another thread, I agree and I am posting one now.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Choice came before conception.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Longshot said:


> Choice came before conception.


good answer

pointer


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Yes I shudder when I hear about the "day after Pill". This is a horrible concept brought over here from Europe. The FDA is dragging it's feet on allowing full approval so that a 16 year old girl can't go out have sex and then buy this pill over the counter without parental consent. The liberals and feminst are all up in arms because the Bush administration is obviously tyring to stop this. Bush is doing the right thing again. I love it a teenager in the State of Nebraska needs parental consent before getting a tatoo, but hey we want to make it so that you can buy a pill over the counter that is going to kill a life inside of them without telling their parents. Let's see does this promote premarital sex????? Does this devalue human life or babies, of course it does. The Day After Pill in my eyes is no different than an abortion. BigDaddy you can't compare a pile of wood to a baby, no matter how hard you try there is nothing to compare it to. I have heard Tiger try to defend this issue of abortion and all he does is run around in circles and dodge questions. There is no way possible to defend this act. My father inlaw is a profeesor of moral ethics at a well known Catholic university. He is a published author and is currently writing his second book on ethics specifically dealing with stem cell research. And by the way he is an advisor to the Bush administration on these issues such as abortion, stem cell research and so forth. If you are C-Span watchers you may of seen him debate this issue a time or too. This is one reason why Bush is so agianst Stem Cell Research. If any of you guys are interested in more information I can direct you to some good books on these topics. Just drop me a PM.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> I wouldn't vote for anyone that is for killing babies. So we will have to see what happens.


I'm always amazed at the pro lifers justifying their vote for Bush this past year with this exact same statement.

Yes, because supporting the pro life candidate is justified, even though hundreds of our own have died under his command, and thousands of foreingers have died at his orders. It's like saying "I'm pro life...so long as we're talking about unborn American babies. Forget about those foreigners and our full grown kids dying in the sand."

How do you justify it? I'm not trying to be an *** here, but how does one say...Vote for candidate A, he's a pro lifer, but he's also a hawk with bloody talons.

Edit: I think Edwards would be good in '08


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

njsimonson said:


> Edit: I think Edwards would be good in '08


Edwards!?!?!? They ambulance chaser!!!!!! Do you kow anything about him? I will admit I am a republican/conservative, but I have voted for democrats in certain instances. I really think the Dems could find someone better and as an American I hope they do. I would rather have a good republican running against a good democrat, that way if my choice loses we are still in good hands.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Good but tough question to answer, NJ. Going to war and taking a stand on abortion is trying to compare apples to oranges, though. The difference is that abortion.... in my mind anyway, is a basic ethical/moral premise. A premise that President Bush ran on in his campaigns and that he has steadfastly defended since throwing his hat in the presidential ring. War on the other hand, while being an ethical issue also, is sometimes a necessary evil. Abortion cannot be categorized as that.... at least in my opinion.

Anyway.... that is the way this pro-lifer looks at it. Do I want to have our troops over in Iraq fighting a war? Absolutely not. Do I think it is a necessary evil to protect the welfare of our country in the longrun? You bet.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Going to war and taking a stand on abortion is trying to compare apples to oranges, though. The difference is that abortion.... in my mind anyway, is a basic ethical/moral premise.


I disagree. You either value life or you don't. I support a woman's right to abort an early-stage fetus because I don't consider a mass of cells to be a "life". How can you be outraged by the abortion of a fetus and not be outraged by the loss of human life in a senseless war?

I have no problem with the U.S. going to war to defend ourselves or to respond to an attack. However, this is not the case with Iraq. Even the Bush administration admits that there are no WMDs Iraq and no link between Saddam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

How on earth can people feel so passionate about defending a fetus, and at the same time so passionate that the we should preemptively invade a sovereign nation with no good reason or proof? Why aren't people as outraged that the Bush administration has cost us lives in this stupid war? Where is the moral outrage?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

BigDaddy,

It must be nice to have 20/20 hindsight. At the time that we entered Iraq it was on good intelligence from our own people and others that he had WMDs. It was also know that he had been attempting to get WMDs for the last few years. Recently they had given up the search for these weapons and stated there were none to be found. I'm sure I could hide something in my back yard that you would never find. I also don't believe a dictator should be able to torture and murder people on a whim. That would be pro-life also.

Pro-lifers defend the fetus because it can't defend itself. Isn't that what our military is currently doing for the common Iraqi citizen that was unable to defend themselves?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Longshot said:


> BigDaddy,
> 
> It must be nice to have 20/20 hindsight. At the time that we entered Iraq it was on good intelligence from our own people and others that he had WMDs. It was also know that he had been attempting to get WMDs for the last few years. Recently they had given up the search for these weapons and stated there were none to be found. I'm sure I could hide something in my back yard that you would never find. I also don't believe a dictator should be able to torture and murder people on a whim. That would be pro-life also.
> 
> Pro-lifers defend the fetus because it can't defend itself. Isn't that what our military is currently doing for the common Iraqi citizen that was unable to defend themselves?


We entered Iraq on poor intelligence based on a very little fact that was taken to be as good as gold, probably because one of the goals of this administration was to go into Iraq in the first place. As to his attempts to get WMD's, can I assume you mean such as the aluminum tubes that Ms. Rice pointed out which were "Only suitable for producing a weapon of mass destruction"?

The majority of dictators in this world are vicous, they kill some of their own on a regular basis. I guess Saddam was somehow more valuable than the rest though, I can't imagine why.

Common Iraqi citizen unable to defend themselves? Man were you born yesterday? Did you not see the videos even after their election of everyone in the streets cheering shooting their firearms? This was another reason I didn't care to go into Iraq in the first place, if they really disliked Saddam that much they could have overthrown him as an organized militia.

As to being pro life, you must cry a little tear whenever someone masturbates, so much wasted life.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT,

I think you have a problem understanding the English language. I'm not sure where you came up with that last statement. I guess it was an irrational statement due to the lack of a legitimate response. Of course they can join together on the streets NOW. Before, any attempt to form a militia outside his army was punished by death. Here we have the ability to say and do most of what we want. It's easy for you to say they should have done this or they could have done that.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Longshot said:


> MT,
> 
> I think you have a problem understanding the English language. I'm not sure where you came up with that last statement. I guess it was an irrational statement due to the lack of a legitimate response. Of course they can join together on the streets NOW. Before, any attempt to form a militia outside his army was punished by death. Here we have the ability to say and do most of what we want. It's easy for you to say they should have done this or they could have done that.


That statement was derived from you incessant pushing of the pro life ideology.

As to being shot in the streets, if the people really hated him he would have been overthrown. I'm not sure what kind of an organization would try to form a mob to overthrow a leader, nor one who would try to form a plan in the streets, but I assure you that most of their celebrations involve the population firing AK's and pistols into the air.



> It's easy for you to say they should have done this or they could have done that.


Really? I have said the same thing for the duration of the war. You haven't listened yet, I doubt you will now.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

BigDaddy..... We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I happen to feel we went to war for a pretty good reason. This has been hashed out in other posts so I won't defend it again in this one. However it brings up an interesting scenario. Would anybody here want a president who wouldn't go to war based on ethical reasons only..... (e.g. war is wrong under any circumstance) even if it meant that there was a good possibility of american lives being lost, due to terrorism or the use of WMD, if action was not taken?

Again, comparing abortion to war is tough. You mention the loss of life in the war. I would venture to guess that there are far more abortions in a years time than the lives lost in the war in Iraq in the same timeframe. I realize you don't look at an abortion as loss of life, but for a pro-lifer such as myself, I look at it as a far greater travesty than a president making a judgement call on how to best defend our country. Don't get me wrong.... I'm not trying to slam your viewpoint. I'm just trying to illustrate my own.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Would anybody here want a president who wouldn't go to war based on ethical reasons only..... (e.g. war is wrong under any circumstance) even if it meant that there was a good possibility of american lives being lost, due to terrorism or the use of WMD, if action was not taken?


The thing is, there wasn't. There were no WMD's, the evidence to show that there were before the war were overstated to say the least. As well, there were few terrorist cells in Iraq before the war, and no major cells as there are in multiple countries in the same area.



> Again, comparing abortion to war is tough. You mention the loss of life in the war. I would venture to guess that there are far more abortions in a years time than the lives lost in the war in Iraq in the same timeframe.


Comparing a thoughtless breathless fetus to a living thinking person is tough as well. If you do count such a being as living, does this make sperm a child as well?



> I realize you don't look at an abortion as loss of life, but for a pro-lifer such as myself, I look at it as a far greater travesty than a president making a judgement call on how to best defend our country.


So you would prefer that abortion was made illegal even if it meant another terrorist attack? That I don't get.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT,

It's unbelievable how you twist what people write.

Looking at your signature it's no wonder you make the sperm/child reference. You might want to take a biology class or get a date.

:lol:


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

MT..... I look at abortion as a much larger travesty than the loss of life in a war that was entered into with the intent to save american lives in the long run. With war at least there is an end at some point. Abortion runs unchecked on a daily basis. If you believe in life at conception that is a huge number of lives ended given any timeframe you wish to look at.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Yeah...Frickin' Edwards in 2008!!!!!

The man you so tenderly refer to as an Ambulance Chaser is a guy who came up from blue collar nowhere to become a successful attorney while protecting the rights of those people who were getting screwed over by big companies, insurance agencies, and the ilk that seem to deny coverage or try and weasel out of every claim that comes up.

It's nice to see a person who had simple honest beginnings get a seat in Washington after years of hard work.

Say what you want about us lawyers, we're not all dishonest money-mongers.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

jamartinmg2 said:


> MT..... I look at abortion as a much larger travesty than the loss of life in a war that was entered into with the intent to save american lives in the long run. With war at least there is an end at some point. Abortion runs unchecked on a daily basis. If you believe in life at conception that is a huge number of lives ended given any timeframe you wish to look at.


To save American lives? First it was to look for WMD's, then to remove Saddam and produce a democracy, now you go back to the WMD's? If that was said by a liberal it would be a flip flop, do you guys get to go by different rules? As well, how exactly does an attack based on false and weak evidence save American lives?



> Looking at your signature it's no wonder you make the sperm/child reference. You might want to take a biology class or get a date.


Hey pal I'm just going by what you are, if it can become a person it is a person. Every one of those 50 million or so sperm can possibly become a person, so I suppose that means even with sex you lose 49,999,999 lives. Maybe we should outlaw all forms of sex then, to preserve life.



> Yeah...Frickin' Edwards in 2008!!!!!


That would be just fine.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Go ask 12 million FREE Iraqis if this was a stupid war!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT, you make it impossible for people like BigDaddy and jamartinmg2 to have a serious conversation. I don't know if everyone else is getting as sick of you as I am, but I don't find you amusing anymore. If you brought new ideas in that would be one thing, but you simply respond with the same old crud. There were no WMD and we went with bad information. You constantly want to equate that to more than it really is. Once everyone agreed (accept for you) that we had bad information, England had bad information, Russia had bad information and that is why this happened. Everyone agrees, then you bring it up and want to argue the point again. This must be the tenth (or more) time you have done this.

We at one time were talking about profiling. I said if white Americans were bombing holy sites in Israel and I was getting off the plane with 100 colored people I would not be offended if the searched me. You turned it into how bad Israel is, they have been on a couple hundred year hiatus etc etc. That had nothing to do with profiling. You constantly turn good discussion into childish arguments. Many others loose their cool and stoop to your level. I can't speak for others, but I sure wish you would grow up.

It is becoming evident your not here to discuss, your here to disrupt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy, you were correct with your warning about this could get emotional. Zogman perhaps had the right idea when he said next time we wander into this territory lock the post. We are running in circles here and getting angry with each other (including me with some, and I don't like doing that) and I am considering it. BigDaddy, Storm, and others I enjoy talking with all of you even though you have diverse opinions, so please don't take it personal if I lock this one. We have got way off subject.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Storm said:


> Go ask 12 million FREE Iraqis if this was a stupid war!


Guess what pal? Most of them didn't want us there in the first place. Majority rules, but I guess our majority is better than theirs.



> Once everyone agreed (accept for you) that we had bad information, England had bad information, Russia had bad information and that is why this happened. Everyone agrees, then you bring it up and want to argue the point again. This must be the tenth (or more) time you have done this.


Maybe that's because I haven't gotten my point across yet. We went on information that we knew was poor, and it was overstated to the public. You obviously don't mind, but I don't like getting lied to.



> We at one time were talking about profiling. I said if white Americans were bombing holy sites in Israel and I was getting off the plane with 100 colored people I would not be offended if the searched me. You turned it into how bad Israel is, they have been on a couple hundred year hiatus etc etc. That had nothing to do with profiling. You constantly turn good discussion into childish arguments. Many others loose their cool and stoop to your level. I can't speak for others, but I sure wish you would grow up.


You can say that because you have never been in such a situation. If you were picked out of a lineup to be searched simply based on your search color I am sure you would be angry. I wish I could use an example for this but really whites do not have to suffer racism at any point in their lives. You used Isreal as the basis of your point, if I agreed it would give you credence to use Isreal in a future argument, and I thus argued it there. If you do not want to derail arguments, you might want to use unrelated countries. As to making fun of me in hopes that I will go away, your efforts are in vain


----------

