The likely result will be “too soon”, but if Barack Obama runs for the Democratic nomination he wins it.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
If you really think he has a chance, then Condi will mop the floor with him. And if I were in the republican power structure I would run her against Hillary or Obama
And the presidency I would dare say. Seriously consider that the republican nominee is going to spend alot of tme and energy attacking whoever the democrats put up. Hillary will become a witch, Kerry will become a defector, Dean will become frankensteins monsteror something, bt what the hell can they try and portray Obama as? Even bat-excrement insane Alan Keyes couldnt make anything stick, and he threw every insult he could pronounce at him. Theres really nothing to attack. Not to say they wont try, I mean it isnt as though the right knows how to do anything but attack these days, but it will just make it all the more obvious that theyre failing the more they do.
(Angus Reid Global Scan) Condoleeza Rice is one of the most popular cabinet members in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 63 per cent of respondents hold a favourable opinion of the current U.S. state secretary.
And what would a similar poll say about Obama, do you think? he destroyed in 2004 getting like 90% of the vote. People just plain love the living hell out of him. Now you go into 08 with that kind of momentum, and considering how Bush is (and presumably will still be) sinking like a stone, dragging everyone on his side down with him, and the odds, to say the least, even out as far as Condi mopping the floor with Obama.
Incidentally, what do you base “mopping the floor” on? Ive heard both speak but never really vigorously debate, certainly not each other. Condi doesnt even strike me as having half the charisma barack has, but them I’m a left wing communist idiot, so you tell me, what will the american people see about condi that will just beat barack out of their minds?
And doesn’t Condi keep saying that there’s no way she’ll run? Besides, the republicans would run Guilliani or McCain before they ran a woman, even though it would have a strategic advantage.
If you really think he has a chance, then Condi will mop the floor with him. And if I were in the republican power structure I would run her against Hillary or Obama
There’s a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening, for two reasons.
1. Dick Cheney, as the current VP, is the GOP frontrunner.
2. Condi is pro-choice. Despite her service to Bush II, this will make the Religous/Bigot base feel disenfranchised and will simply not vote.
Zython,
You left out:
3. The core of the Republican Party is racists, racist-lites and voters who simply feel that a white Protestant male with a Southern accent makes them feel more comfortable, is some one with whom they would like to have a beer, and, assuming he addresses foreign policy and security issues with simple-minded bellicosity, stronger on national security.
Condi Rice’s popularity is derived entirely from the corporate press/media’s gushing coverage of her. She does not have single accomplishment or policy success. Her only job is to provide a screen for Bush. Whenever things are going really bad, they send Condi out to talk to the press/media. No one will ever ask her a tough question, no one will do anything to embarass her. So far, it has worked every time.
Mundane: I’ve never called you an idiot: you have me confused with frameone.
James Powell has been playing the same broken record — nothing new — or true — there.
Zython: Dick Cheney is by no means the “runner”, let alone the “front” runner… Where do you get your information?
The pro – abortion stance may not hurt as much as you think, if her competition, either Democratic or Republican, is pro – abortion, too.
The worm is turning on Roe v Wade. We’re one justice away.
As a pro – life person my self, I’d certainly rather vote for a Republican pro – abortion candidate than a Democratic pro – abortion candidate.
bryan is about one – eighth right. There is undoubtedly an equal amount of bigots and /or racists on each side of the aisle.
Note: The movie “Crash” depicted your view of the problem, as opposed to the reality, of the problem.
I think the US electorate is riven with racism, bigotry and distrust. It’s not the racists you need to worry about; they are open in their opposition. The bigots are more of a problem, because they take their opinions and dress them up to look like common sense. The third group, who don’t really like radical change, they will be a huge obstacle to there being a black person in the Whitehouse IMO. I know it was a movie, but “Crash” depicted this problem quite well, the distrust and lack of understanding and contact that occurs between peoples of different races, creeds and even incomes. What replaces the void of contact is a raft of assumptions, mostly wrong.
Wins the Nomination? Maybe, perhaps probably. Wins the Election? Not the Obama we know today. He’s John Edwards 2.0.
Obama suffers from the same problem as every other Democrat: What do you stand for? Being a back bench junior senator in the Senate means you don’t have to go out on a limb and lead on divisive issues. Unfortunatly, that’s not what Americans look for in the top slot.
Until he single-handedly takes the reigns on an issue (i.e. Feingold) or starts taking loud, definable positions (Dean), he’s just a “Generic Democrat” with a charismatic personality and intriguing life story. They always poll well but do squat come Election Day.
It’s difficult to see either Senator Obama or Secretary Rice as the nominees of their respective parties. Senator Obama will have been a senator for less than four years when teh 2008 election arrives; sitting senators rarely succeed in the general election, and Mr Obama simply has no record on which to campaign.
If you think that’s a biased statement, think about Senator Kerry, with over twenty years in the Senate, and he had no real record on which to campaign; legislators, by nature, are creatures of compromise, people who have to finnesse the little details to get enough support to get their legislation passed. That’s why governors win presidential elections: they have solid records of leadership and running things, records legislators simply don’t usually have.
Dr Rice won’t be the GOP nominee, despite the “boomlet” for her, because she’s never run for public office before. It’s kind of like the Wesley Clark idiocy of 2004: unless you are a general who has won a very major war, you don’t get a free pass on not having run for election previously.
Unless you are a general who has won a very major war, you don t get a free pass on not having run for election previously.
Dana: Compare the number of “former war winners” who became President with “former Secretaries of State.” There’s more of the latter than the former.
You may or may not know that I’ve been a Condista since 2004.
But I offer you this to ponder:
Dwight Eisenhower is the model for the Americansforrice.com “Draft Condi” movement, not because he won a major war, but because he refused to run until drafted.
Second, what better credentials could a candidate have then to say, with witnesses to support her, that “I never kissed anybody’s ass, never compromised my principles, and never took a bribe — not even tickets to a boxing match?”
The candidate for either party will have to walk on water, and make fish spit out kruger rands.
Obama would be the pivot point for a coalition of the thinking from the more centrist of both wings of the Constitutionalist, Republican or Democrat. He has the ability to stir with words that come from the heart. Hillary has some of that but her strong point would be her existing name recognition.
I would like to see this ‘08 match up become one of simple logic and capability. In that case the obvious choice for what’s left of Republican’ sanity would be Powell. It would be Eisenhower-lite but it may be enough to swing them back into rationality. Most the radical allies that are now in the Repub fold are their because of an ability of the Repub apparatchik to be able to tell a convincing lie. They are not really religious. They are going to take your guns when the going gets dicey. And they are going to impoverish the unwashed NASCAR portion of their base.
I recommend a read of “Rise of the Vulcans” to see how Powell fits and is a misfit to the current regime.
My preference would be a house cleaning for ‘06 and then a demand by a pissed off electorate for a return to some normalcy. Viet Nam was a mistake committed by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. Iraq had a much narrower constituencies but an energetic criminal cadre of multilevel salesmen to get the game on.
I would be happy to have Obama become the candidate of my party and the POTUS. I would be happy to have Hillary d’Arc come in and sling some bitter medicine at the cretins that have fouled the nest for so many. I would be happy to vote for Powell because I have a deep respect for his experiences and abilities.
Lantern Bearer
I just think that any ticket with Guliani is a loser. He is pro-gay and pro-abortion. McCain is your only choice because every candidate in the Republican pool is soo far right that they would be malled in the election. Frank, are you partisan enough to vote for a pro-gay Guliani? And you think social conservative will NOT stay home? If the Christian Conservatives stay home then the Republican party will get creamed. Once we have a women president then we can have a black president. The South would never stand for Condi let alone Obama.
I am suspicious of anyone who says that Rice is “popular,” and any such popularity is nothing more than a press smokescreen, because there is no “there” there. Despite being appointed to, rather than earning, numerous posts, this woman is as accomplishment-free as any PhD in history.
If Condi were to run, she would have to stand behind a lectern and address crowds. She is the worst public speaker alive, and Obama is a compelling, charismatic speaker, who, by the way, could spot Condi 50 IQ points and still beat her at Scrabble.
LB: There are six of each by your count — what “War” did the Harrisons win?
And Senators haven’t won lately.
Repack: Rice is the “worst public speaker alive” like Bush is “the worst President in American history” — pure liberal fiction.
this woman is as accomplishment-free as any PhD in history.
There you go again. “Any Ph.d in history.”
A black female goes from Alabama Minister’s daughter to US Secretary of State.
That happens every day, doesn’t it?
Don’t make me laugh.
shorter Repack: “I don’t like her, and I wouldn’t want her to win”
Compare the number of former war winners who became President with former Secretaries of State. There s more of the latter than the former.
Where are you getting that from? There’s been a lot of war generals who became president (Washington, Grant, Eisnhower, Jackson, both Harrisons, Taylor) and I’m having a hard time finding many Secretaries of State who go on to the presidency. The six I did find are all old school presidents (like Jefferson and Van Buren- no one since Buchanan) If you take all cabinet positions into account, ok, maybe, but otherwise I’m not sure. In any case, there have been far more senators elected than either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_political_occupation
Shorter Frank; Obama yo mama! Or, “I’m melting, you silly people, look what you’ve done to me! I’m melting…..mel-l-l-l-ting……Aieeeeeee!”
Seriously, the wicked witch of the north has had moments of redirection
(ala Powell School of Diplomacy) and has had some success with the situation in Iraq. But Obama, contrary to the opinion of our local contrarian, has the potential for significant gravitas if the Demo Machine grows hair on it’s chest and uses the War Chest in his bealf without equivocation. (a BIG ‘IF’, if you ask me). But the longer he stays in the Beltway, the fewer the odds will favor him. He’s not quite an insider yet, but rest assured the Rep Machine will paint him with that brush.
You’re all forgetting one important thing: He’s a senator from Illinois.
Before he’s marching in a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, he’s more likely to be doing a “perp walk” into State Supreme Court.
How about Murtha? He was on Meet the Press and called out that chickenhawk Karl Rove. Republicans could care less about winning the war but would rather give political speeches and fake H.R. bills. Murtha could run for office purely on the fact that he exposes the Republicans on thier so called strenght: National Defence. If Democrats actually attack the issues with plans and seperate themselves from Republicans, then it is history for the conservatives.
William Henry harrison was the hero of Tippiecanoe, one of the Indian wars. Benjamin was a civil war brigadeer general. Also, recount- its seven v. six. Two Harrisons, Grant, Washington, Eisenhower, Jackson, Taylor.
You’re right- Senators haven’t won lately. But more recently than Secretary of State (Nixon v. Buchanan)
I don’t think either Obama or Rice would win if nominated. (And that’s a big if) Neither have much of a record to go up against and they both have heavy baggage. (Youth for him, Bush for her) If they were to wait a few cycles, then maybe.
For the record: Don’t go yelling at Repack for making up “liberal fiction” about Republicans if in your next post you theorize that Obama will be going to jail simply because he’s a democrat from Illinois. It’s kinda hypocritical.
Ever since Rice said she knew exactly what those aluminum tubes were used for, she lost all credibility. She can easily be painted as yet another incompetent voice that talked us into an unpopular war.
I like the idea of Obama running. He’s charismatic, smart, and there probably aren’t a whole lot of skeletons in his closet.
Condi. God, I’m sick of hearing about her.
She’s one of they key players in the massive mistake in Iraq. She has no charisma, and is cold and seemingly devoid of any real kind of feeling.
Oh…wait…that description could easily work for Bush and Cheney.
Ted
The pro – abortion stance may not hurt as much as you think,
It’s not “pro-abortion”, dumb-ass. Pro-choiceers don’t like it when people get abortions, but we respect the right for women to do so. But let’s save the inevitable “debate” for an abortion-related topic.
if her competition, either Democratic or Republican, is pro – abortion, too.
The worm is turning on Roe v Wade. We re one justice away.
I thought you conservatives were against “judicial activisim”. I guess it doesn’t count if it helps your cause.
As a anti-choice person my self, I d certainly rather vote for a Republican pro – abortion candidate than a Democratic pro – abortion candidate.
Guess what, just because you have blind loyalty to your party doesn’t mean that everyone else does. The Religious Right (TM) has already expressed their dissatisfaction with Bush’s not-regressive-enough policies. They form the conerstone of the Republican base, and if Dobson & Co. tell them not to vote for Condi, they aren’t going to, and she won’t stand a chance. It would be about as bad as if she wasn’t against gay-marriage.
When the first talking point you spit out is that Karl Rove is fat, labeling Murtha’s critcism as substantive is a bit disingenuous.
Zython: The “choice” you are referring to is the choice to have an abortion. If it isn’t, then why is the choice an issue.
Who could possibly be opposed to choice?
Isn’t that like saying that people who are opposed to the death penalty are “anti – punishment”?
If no one chooses to have an abortion, there wouldn’t be any.
There will be no debate. If you think I’m a dumbass, the debate has ended.
If I say, “I d certainly rather vote for a Republican pro – abortion candidate than a Democratic pro – abortion candidate,” that doesn’t mean I have blind loyalty to my party. It means I won’t part company with the Republicans (with whom I am not registered, by the way) over that one issue.
Does that mean I might vote for a Democratic one day?
Oh yeah, when two things happen:
When there’s a Democratic with the same political beliefs as mine, and when you vote for a Republican.
Personally, I’d love to see a Hagel/Feingold bi-partesan ticket (or McCain/Feingold) but I know that will never happen in 2008 with the way the left and the right are whining like babies.
Either that or a completely Independent candidate (or Michael Badnarik of the Libertarians), free of any political affiliation or special interest group.
And, I know this isn’t an abortion thread, but as someone who considers himself “pro-life” (what a rediculous term), I’d never vote for anyone who made it a direct campaign pledge to overturn it simply because I realize that, while I might be opposed to it, I also have to respect the wishes of others (I’d much rather the government spends the time on healthcare, education, and jobs). Now someone that would work to make abortions safer but rarer, that is another story.
If you think I m a dumbass, the debate has ended.
Doesn’t “think” imply a sense of doubt?
Good for you, you’d still vote for Condi even though she not anti-choice. However, you’re not in the majority of ‘pub voters. The majority of ‘pub voters want to outlaw homosexuals and non-Christians. Condi won’t have enough support to even win the primaries.
I don’t believe Condi Rice can win the republican nomination being pro-choice, if that is her position. But if the power brokers in the party want to push it, I do not think she can even beat somone of even the caliber of Hillary Clinton or Mark Warner. And much of the pro-abortion wing of the republican party might just stay home on election day.
Plus, despite the fact that she is a media darling, she also made some statements after 9-11 which later were found to be not quite accurate. You can bet the democrats will use them to question her her credibility, etc if they wanted to play the same games as the republicans do.
Farris,
If the shoe fits? I don’t think the Dems are spreading a “talking point” about Rove being fat. I mean Rove is paid (with tax-payer dollars) to make divisive political statements. When it comes to the issue of this war, I don’t care to hear from a chickenhawk and an unelected chickenhawk at that! Murtha is simply laying down the gauntlet for Republicans who don’t care about this issue.
JK Says:
June 18th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Frank Says>>There will be no debate. If you think I m a dumbass, the debate has ended.
If this is one of Frank s new rules& it s going to get very quiet in a hurry around here.
JK
Unfortunately, we all know we shouldn’t hold our breath.
To quote (: Tom
from a previous thread:
“I must have missed the post where you were given the exclusive right to tell everyone else when, where and how they can comment on Oliver Willis blog. It must have been the same post where it was explained how Frank can pull wild-ass incoherent BS out of his pie hole and use his distortions to define what his idealogical opponents mindset is.”
Frank Says>>There will be no debate. If you think I m a dumbass, the debate has ended.
If this is one of Frank’s new rules…it’s going to get very quiet in a hurry around here.
JK
Maybe you guys are forgetting that Colin Powell is pro-choice, too.
And he made a heck of a good showing at the ‘00 convention.
No presidential election has ever been about abortion, and I doubt that this one will be either.
The real entertainment value surrounding a Condi Rice ticket would be in watching the black “leadership” and feminists try to destroy the first candidate who had accomplished everything that their organizations supposedly stood for.
Maybe you guys are forgetting that Colin Powell is pro-choice, too.
Yes, and look what Bush and Cheney did to him.
The real entertainment value surrounding a Condi Rice ticket would be in watching the black leadership and feminists try to destroy the first candidate who had accomplished everything that their organizations supposedly stood for.
If the republican leadership want to push her down the throats of some of their party, I say go for it. Watch the anti-abortion wing of your party mostly stay home and get you ass kicked big time.
For the reading and intellectually impaired among — JK and Roni,you know who you are — I meant the “debate has ended” for me.
Now, let your absurdities flow.
Watch the anti-abortion wing of your party mostly stay home and get your ass kicked big time.
And miss a chance to make history by putting a stroing black woman in the White House with an (R) after her name?
Surely you jest.
Maybe you are kidding: if they wanted to play the same games as the republicans do
That was a joke, right?
The worm is turning on Roe v Wade. We re one justice away.
I thought you conservatives were against judicial activisim . I guess it doesn t count if it helps your cause.
a) Roe v Wade is about as judicial as Plessy v Ferguson
b) The decision is about 30 something years old. The excesses that were predicted have occurred. It’s time for a change.
c) No one ever said the Supreme Court shouldn’t correct their own mistakes.
d) Nope, it doesn’t count if it helps our cause.
someone who considers himself pro-life (what a rediculous term)
Of course, someone who thinks abortion is OK, thinks being “pro – life” is ridiculous.
I wear the “pro – life” badge with pride.
Especially when “pro – choice” equals dead babies.
I wouls like to see an Obama-Rice contest in 2008. I think neither party will make it happen, but it would beat the hell out of a Hillary-Newt scenario.
A Hillary-Newt scenaria is more likely than a Rice-Obama race and that isn’t going to happen either.
I wear the pro – life badge with pride.
Especially when pro – choice equals dead babies.
But you would vote for a pro-choice candidate? Next you’ll be claiming she is a also a member of NARAL and would attract both feminist voters from the Democrats and still keep the anti-abortion wing of the republican happy.
Seriously, why all the speculation? Isn’t this just another “Colin Powell” pipe dream by some republicans?
Number one, please don’t put words in my mouth. Where in that sentence did I say I thought abortion was OK? I think both labels are as rediculous as the supporters you see on television in the rallies – the term “pro-choice” is just as rediculous. It’s crazy to expect that banning abortion outright will magically stop all abortions in the United States, though. Pass laws to make it safer, pass laws to provide alternatives to abortions, but just don’t flat out try to ban them (especially because any time you try to tell someone they can’t do something it only makes them want to do it more).
That is the problem with the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” movements – they don’t want to meet in the middle on the issues, they just want things their way. It’d make a much bigger impact in the movement if you educated others about alternative options rather then try to tell them what they should do with their lives.
Since you wear the “pro-life” “badge” with pride, I can only assume that you are against war, capital punishment, and euthanasia, right?
Argh, I wrote a whole reply to this and the blog didn’t take it, so here goes nothing. Please don’t try to put words in my mouth. I never said I think abortion was OK. I just think the two sides of the debate are equally rediculous. Pass laws providing alternatives to abortions, if you must. Pass laws making the procedure safer. Saying you’re going to flat out ban abortions, is just crazy. Do you really think that the second abortions are banned in the United States that they’re just magically going to stop? No, because nothing makes someone want to do something more then someone telling them they are forbidden to do it. What are you going to do? Throw them in jail? Good luck with that.
I think that the problem with both sides is they refuse to meet somewhere in the middle. Both sides what it their way, end of story. Why don’t you get together and come up with ways to provide education and alternatives for women in these situations rather then trying to tell them what they can do with their lives. That is what it means to be “pro-life” to me – respecting everyone.
Also, since you wear the “pro-life” “badge” with pride, I assume you’re also against war, capital punishment, and euthanasia? I mean, you can’t just pick and choose which ideas you want to be against if you call yourself “pro-life”.
Ugh.. now it prints. Ok, ignore the second comment (the first comment is written a heck of a lot better then the second since I didn’t have to try and go by memory) and curse you Wordpress.
odd,
Actually pretty good post(s). I’ve done the old double post a few times.
But you do understand the antithesis to this
“Since you wear the pro-life badge with pride, I can only assume that you are against war, capital punishment, and euthanasia, right?”
is also ‘true’. If one suports abortion, one should not, in principle, be against captial punishment etc.
I think anybody who says there is an easy answer to the abortion issue is not thinking clearly.
Dugger
So true, but the problem is that those who do think there is an easy answer to the abortion issue are usually the ones that are displayed in the media today (cue the protests on both sides that you see every year on the news) – I even cringe when I see how far some politicians pander to the abortion issue (the libertarian side of me said that the government shouldn’t of even been involved in the Terry Schiavo case).
I’m not very vocal on this issue because, quite frankly, I don’t rate it as high as some other issues which determine how I vote. I do personally oppose abortion (I support the bans for PBA), I oppose capital punishment, and I would consider myself a pacifist when it comes to military and war issues.
I realize it might not be the popular point of view around here, but I very rarely find myself siding with one side or the other (and even more rarely find myself voting for either one of the main parties).
Also, I didn’t mean to come off as condescending in that last paragraph, I hope it wasn’t construed that way.
Also, since you wear the pro-life badge with pride, I assume you re also against war, capital punishment, and euthanasia? I mean, you can t just pick and choose which ideas you want to be against if you call yourself pro-life .
* * *
Do you really think that the second abortions are banned in the United States that they re just magically going to stop?
You said something about words in your mouth.
I am not opposed to either just war, where grown men and women volunteer to participate; or capital punishment. where grown men and women. knowing full well the posssible / probable consequences of their actions.
I am opposed to abortions, especially beyond the point where the babies could be born alive.
You want compromise? Anortions only in the following instances:
1) Where childbirth will surely endanger the mother’s life;
2) When the potential mother is, or can be proved to be, incompetent;
3) If the potential mother is the victim of rape or incest, and, if she is not a minor, she chooses not to have it.
Again, I don’t see how that was answering for putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my stance on abortion, but, whatever.
And what about those children that are killed by bombs or in the crossfire? Or the children that suffer from malnutrition when they are unable to obtain clean food and drinking water? Do they volunteer and sign up to participate in that? I think it’s pretty selfish to think that the only ones that suffer in war are the soldiers (who sign up mostly because they are unable to afford a decent education in the supposed “land of opportunity”). Do you only care about the welfare of a children before they’re born? Soldiers are not the only victims of war, don’t you know? [1], [2].
And, as for capital punishment, why should the state be involving in the murder of any of it’s citizens? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to kill someone to punish them for killing someone else?
I think you don’t grasp the meaning of the word “compromise”, but, whatever. Here’s a novel thought – if you don’t like abortions, no one is forcing you to get one. I just can’t stand people that are so close minded, that they refuse to see that it would be more beneficial to the cause to educate rather then lecture since, as far as I know, we do live in a democracy where everyone has the same rights to live their life not just half of the country. I don’t like the idea of abortions, but instead of trying to impose limitations on people I choose to spend my time informing them about other alternatives (adoption or health clinics and counciling).
And, just out of curiosity, why put a ban on minors if you’re going to include the provision in the case of rape or incest? Obviously if a minor has been sexually assaulted by a family member or close friend, they’re not exactly going to get a blessing of a guardian for an abortion. Does this mean that you’re actually encouraging teenage pregnancy?
Todd B. I congratulate you on pretty much exhausting all the pro – abortion talking points. Well done.
I will only say one thing: There is no one more innocent, no one more undeserving of being torn to pieces, than a child developing in the womb.
Frank, I agree with you mostly the on abortion. However war, which also results in the death on innocent life, including little children, does not quite resolve itself that easily with me. Except in the case of self-defense, I believe that war, no matter how just the cause, should be avoided and the same convictions that oppose abortion also apply to war, when attempts at a peaceful solution have not been exhausted.
zython: acting like a jerk: 1 for 1
For the reading and intellectually impaired among JK and Roni,you know who you are I meant the debate has ended for me
Forfeit, eh? Let’s see. The score is as follows:
Zython: 12
Save_Ferris, Frank_D, & Dugger: 0
How cute. Lecturing me on talking points… ironic, isn’t it.
Considering you didn’t answer any part of my last comment, I assume that you can no longer defend your position which makes this debate is over (and you’re quite a hypocrite regarding your stance on “pro-life” issues). Good luck trying to get anything accomplished if you refuse to open your eyes to the world around you.
I really don’t feel like responding to mile – long posts of pro – abortion cliches, but here goes:
And what about those children that are killed by bombs or in the crossfire? Or the children that suffer from malnutrition when they are unable to obtain clean food and drinking water?
Abortion either eliminates them from the picture, because they had been, sometime in the past, aborted, or abortion adds to their number.
Do you only care about the welfare of a children before they re born?
Do you only want them sucked out of the womb, or scraped out like old paint before they’re born?
And, as for capital punishment, why should the state be involving in the murder of any of it s citizens?
“Murder” is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
This is obviously not what is happening , either in war, or in capital punishment. In theory, I don’t see the point in taking a life for a life, but I can appreciate the desire of others’ for retribution.
Here s a novel thought – if you don t like abortions, no one is forcing you to get one.
If you don’t like robbery, don’t steal. Now, shall we send the Police force home?
it would be more beneficial to the cause to educate rather then lecture
Is there anybody in the country who hasn’t been “educated” as to the wrongness of crime, as well as its inevitable consequences?
How well has that worked?
we do live in a democracy where everyone has the same rights to live their life
If you can survive the nine months, that is. Until then, over a million and a half babies a year don’t have that right (hence, “Right – to – Life”)
why put a ban on minors if you re going to include the provision in the case of rape or incest?
You misunderstood me: I meant that, in the case of rape or incest, the potential mother will choose to have an abortion. As a minor, the parent or guardian can choose.
There is a case where I live right now, in which the 16 year old rape victim of a 30 year old man, wants to have the child (so does he, by the way). The parents are against it. I say they are wrong, but they have the right to veto it.