[BibChr]

I'm embarrassed for you. That makes no sense at all. Are you forgetting my painstaking, detailed essay on my rationale for reluctantly supporting Schwarzenegger? Or do you simply not grasp the difference between a primary (which this is) and a real-live election (which that was)?

Either way, this doesn't reflect well on you.

Dan

[nmh]

"I'm embarrassed for you."

No need to be embarrassed for me. It's you that are the hypocrite. For Arnold, his pro abortion stance wasn't a problem but here your glowing with a pro life stance. How that can be embarrassing for me is absurd. I'm consistently PRO LIFE!

"That makes no sense at all. Are you forgetting my painstaking, detailed essay on my rationale for reluctantly supporting Schwarzenegger? "

You are right. You don't make sense and why your position on abortion is hypocritical, Biblical Christian, Dan, LOL!



"Or do you simply not grasp the difference between a primary (which this is) and a real-live election (which that was)?"

I grasp the fact that you are a flip flop on abortion. Even though you are unable to stay on topic ... I'll repeat again, with Arnold you had no issue with his pro abortion stance yet here you are thrilled the person is pro life. It matters not whether it is a primary or as you like to put it, "a real-live election. What is at issue is your lack of consistency - endorsing Arnold and his pro abortion stance was not an issue. Yet here you are delighted to see a pro life person doing well.

"Either way, this doesn't reflect well on you."

No. It doesn't reflect well on you. For Arnold your pro abortion position was appalling. Now you are pro life again. No matter how you try to squirm, twist and convolute the issue, your hypocrisy is obvious. You can't dismiss it with painstaking essays or Clinton logic.
Take care, Biblical Christian, Dan - LOL! You really ought to consider changing that moniker. You give Christianity a bad name along with snickers and sneers.