Posted on 11/14/2006 1:51:18 PM PST by DCBandita
The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.
Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.
"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So anyone who doesn't believe that it's murder isn't a qualified to be a Republican? Because if that's the case, your party's going to get awfully small.
Scientifically I don't agree with you. A 90-day fetus is not a person to me.
In your opinion, at what point does a fetus become a person?
I'd vote for a pro-life democrat before I'd vote for Gulliani.
You'd never get the chance. Abortion is a religion in the Democratic Party, akin to the Holy Eucharist in Catholicism. Pro-life guys like Casey are used to gull Catholics into voting Democratic.
If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, there's simply no choice.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
What's the problem? This poster has been nothing but respectful.
Casey won't be "pro-life" any more after he starts taking orders from Hillary.
Ah... and so begins the ascription that I must obviously be an abortion-lover who just WAITS for the opportunity to become pregnant so I can run out and have an abortion... FUN!!
What a ridiculous argument.
For the record, I've never had one. I was fortunate enough to be educated by parents to respect my own body but act responsibly in my own choices. Therefore, I had access to birth control eliminating the need for me to make that particularly odious choice.
and see downthread - I think generally a healthy woman whose life is not imperiled by a pregnancy can and should be able to decide on an abortion within 90 days of becoming pregnant.
Yeah, respectful in the Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" way.
History's monsters typically dehumanize their victims prior to slaughter.
Regards, Ivan
Your leftist debate technique is showing (either/or extremes) ... you tried to construct a strawman, but you don't know your audience.
So I take it you are content with the wide spread torture and killing of the Iraqi citizens by Saddam and his thugs. I bet the Iraqi people weren't. These people showed their yearning for freedom when they voted. Its a shame that some people in our society think only certain people deserve freedom from tyranny.
Funny... i think someone ascribed that quote to Margaret Thatcher earlier in the thread... But I digress.
I think it's a legitimate question. And I think centrists are legitimate people who vote and voted in force in the midterms. So do you deal with them or not?
Yes.
And so you are fated to forever be a Democrat, because the one issue on which the Republicans are NOT going to bend is the killing of babies.
No matter what ELSE the Democrats stand for, and no matter how much you might agree with the Republicans on other things, someday (not now), this is your core issue.
Abortion uber alles.
You have defined it as a core rights issue.
So do I.
Nobody has the right to kill anybody else.
The baby is not your body. It's his. You don't have any right to kill it, or you won't when folks like me finally win the day.
You won't compromise on this one issue.
And neither will I.
Time is not on the side of the Republican Party, because the country is flooding with Hispanics, and Hispanics are poor and need social welfare programs, medical insurance and public education. Just about everybody needs Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans are economically irresponsible in suggesting gutting these programs. Blacks won't let them. Hispanics won't let them. Old people won't let them.
But time is on the side of the pro-life anti-abortion movement. Hispanics are Catholic. They have big families. They have the lowest abortion rates of the races in the US. They're the only group that's reproducing above the replacement rate. Whites aren't. Blacks aren't. Moreover, since Roe v. Wade, there's been a 36 electoral vote shift between Blue States and Red States. 36 votes.
When we consider that there have been 48 million abortions, and we consider how lopsided the abortion rate is when it comes to moral and religious lines (i.e.: by a huge margin, abortions are performed on pro-choice women who do not have the religious repugnance to the practice), it's easy to see the inevitable demographics. People may or may not have the politics of their parents, but they generally have the religion of their parents. Hispanic Catholics, who hate abortion, are reproducing. They vote Democrat. When amnesty comes, the Democrats will seize an electoral majority that they will never lose...BUT...it will be a more and more pro-family, pro-life Democratic Party. The liberal, pro-abortion Democrats have aborted their future. It's dead. 48 million dead. Hispanic Democrats will save Social Security and public education and install universal health insurance, but they will be with me - men and women both - on abortion by about a 7:3 ratio.
Over time, then, it will be the cycle of illegal immigration-amnesty-high Catholic birth rates that establish a pro-life Democratic majority in the country.
It will not be tomorrow, but it will happen, and it cannot be stopped. Hispanics do not abandon their beliefs when they become Americans. That's why they have the highest fertility rate.
Point of order, what are your qualifications to decide whether a fetus is actually human or not, and therefore subject to abortion?
The truth of the matter is at the moment of conception, a new life is formed; the sequence of DNA that is created will never be repeated. It is an instance of life that cannot be duplicated.
Setting a time limit and deciding it's not a "person" before a certain date seems extremely gauche in light of this.
Ivan
I have to admit - I'm totally surprised at the general opinion against McCain that I get here. For the record, I don't like him either because I think he's a panderer.I DO, however, think he has it right on Iraq if you accept that leaving isn't an option - troops must be SUBSTANTIALLY increased. Yet, is the American public willing, at this stage, to accept that? I don't think so... It's a full-on mess. What a shame.
McCain is despised by Base Republicans for two reasons:
1. He ran against the Base in 2000 and scorned them in the campaign, several times, in his attempt to beat Bush.
2. McCain-Feingold is a direct assault on the First Amendment. That Bush signed it is bad enough, but McCain was the author of that monstrosity. Mc/F is designed, unfortunately, to benefit two groups of people: wealthy liberal Democrats such as George Soros and the Mainstream Media, who also support the Democratic Party.
He will not win the nomination. In a straight-up fight against Rudy or Condi, McCain would get his ass whipped.
A lot depends on where Iraq goes over the next six months. That's the one thing JMC has been right on: the need for more troops. You will see the news media fall out of love with JMC over the war.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
You're wrong. One need only read the transcripts of the PBA hearing at SCOTUS last week to know that. You've been conned.
And now to the 90 day deal. I think it admirable of you that you would limit abortion to the first trimester. But that is an arbitrary time chosen by you based on your own morality which I'm sure you'd like your representatives to legislate. Are you a dreaded right wing "Christian"?
Love the Will Rogers quote, accurate IMO! Going to save it.
The idea, and it always seems to be an idea put forward by a leftist, of the center being an acceptable compromise between Left and Right is wrong. First, while the principles of the Left are clearly defined, the principles of the Right are not in America. They include the entire spectrum from libertarianism to the Religious Right, and often overlap. But the original guiding principles of America and the Constitution are very clearly defined and there can be no compromise between them and leftist principles. Because to compromise on those means a significant shift leftwards. In other words a victory for the Left. Each compromise that follows means another shift leftwards, another victory for leftists.
At least that's the way I see it.
Socially liberal Europe is dying. Abortion, contraception, and gay marriage are demographic black holes. And you think social liberalism is a great strategy for the US to adopt?
Tell me: when your future service workers and taxpayers have been aborted below minimum sustainable levels (a sad state of affairs we are trending toward right now), from whose paycheck will you get your social security money?
Who will support the welfare state that you are dependent on?
Who will feed you and change your adult diapers in the rest home as you wait for a doctor to euthanize you? Do you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.