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 ...
The catch-22... When it's born. Now I realize that will open the whole panoply of "well then you're saying a woman can have an abortion up until the DAY BEFORE the baby is born!!". That's not what I'm saying at all. But at 90 days or earlier it's tissue to me with no possibility for existing outside of the womb. So 90 days or earlier is a safe bet for me.
Thats ridiculous.
Get her dear
No, respectful in the way that most people in the world debate. Not everyone seeks to eliminate all opposing opinions from within earshot. In fact, some would say it's healthy to debate and defend one's opinions.
I hate the term "religious right". For one thing, why not the "religious left"? After all, there are several denominations out there that are pro-gay, anti-life, etc. What is wrong with having principles and morals and voting for such things? If you have morals and believe in certain things...are you supposed to not vote or express your opinion on issues? Is voting totally secular now?
Do I sound a little put off? Well that might be because I am. I am what you might call a person of faith who votes their principles and morals. I will not support a candidate who does not have either of these. Giuliani is too left for my taste. Yes he has leaned towards some of my thoughts, but not enough for me to vote for him. Candidates like Giuliani are what is wrong with the Republican party now.
I liked the idea espoused on this very board in the last few day for true Conservatives to tell the Republican party where to go. We are the ones who brought the party to power in 1994. They strayed from those principles and it cost them. Now I know there is no such thing as the perfect candidate out there, I'm not living in a fantasy world. But when you start compromising your principles because a party cannot find a good candidate. If that candidate is not the best, you do not promote him/her.
Again, as far as the "religious right" goes, if a man or woman compromises to win an election but loses their soul in the process, what good is the win?
Safe for you, not so safe for the baby chopped to bits in the womb or knifed in the skull during delivery.
It appears you and others like you are just arbitrarily defining what a baby is to assuage any guilt feelings you may have.
Person is a legal term of art and subject to legislation depending on the morality of the legislators.
Scientifically the unborn are human beings from the completion of conception on at that stage of human beinghood.
There is no debate surrounding that because there is no magic elexir that transmutates a knagaroo into a human being at the end of the first trimester.
BTW, I'll be backing Duncan Hunter for POTUS. I will vote for McCain over Giuliani if it comes to that but I will do that with a very heavy heart, about a trillion tons worth.
You are of course, correct.
If the DEMs come up with another Zell Miller, they would give him the Ned Lamont treatment.
You said earlier that you've never been pregnant. When you have, come back and talk about when you think your baby became human. Until then, you don't know any more than a man. (no offense to men, but there is a difference.)
I'm with you, Chiquita Bandita is looking for some rational discourse and I think she should get it.
They have fingers and toes and all the right parts. They are males or females. They have a beating heart. Why arent they babies? If he/she can live outside the human body, why isn't it a baby?
DC,
I still would like to know if Iran and Queda's leaders cheering democrat wins last week gives you any pause at all as a democrat. You do know that the Queda leader in Iraq voiced support for democrats in power?
You actually think the Democrats will be tough in the war on terror? Tell me you're kidding.
They want habeas corpus for jihadists. Did you know that in 1996 Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty act which reduced severely habeas corpus appeals? So what we have are the Democrats who are actually going to give jihadists access to the appeals court vs. American citizens (albeit murderers).
The Democrats want to get rid of the Patriot Act. They want to get rid of the terrorist surveillance program.
They want to pull out of Iraq which will be the first country the jihadists have controlled which has oil revenues.
Saddam was called the ATM to Al Qaeda in the 1990's, back when Newsweek and the NYT were writing about the world's concern over the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.
You don't seem to know a THING about Iraq's involvement in the WTC bombing in 1993. You might want to read up a bit before you start believing the media hype about what the Democrats will do to win the WOT.
You can start here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698371/posts
Oh but they will, DCBandita, they will.
Hispanics are the decisive pivot and the future of the country. They will be Democrats, economically liberal Democrats. Republicans will scream that they are socialists, even.
They may, or may not, tolerate gays.
But the ONE ISSUE that they're not going to bend to current Democratic liberalism is family values and abortion. They're Catholics before they are Democrats.
The Democrat economic agenda will win in the end.
But the one thing that will be lost on the Democrat agenda is your one issue on which you won't compromise: abortion.
That's the silver lining in the clouds of illegal Hispanic immigration. It's why the Church so strenuously opposes the fence and restricting illegals. Hispanics will make America a majority Democrat, perhaps even Spanish-speaking, social welfare state...that's pro-life.
Did you know that abortion is illegal in EVERY Latin American country except Cuba.
Every one.
Some are starting to tolerate gays. That's a private morals issue. But abortion is life, and Catholics are funny about that life business.
Now we just have to watch this play out over our lifetimes. Demography is destiny. Economic conservatism is dead because of demography. So are abortion rights.
It's just a matter of time.
There was a Dr. on tv disputing that number. He said at least 200,000.
Okay. So your "test" is viability outside the womb. And you recognize the principle that since it's impossible to delineate a bright line where a fetus is "alive", it's prudent to prohibit abortions after a much earlier time.
Now my "test" happens to be whether the fetus has the potential to become a child. And I don't purport to know when life begins, so I tend to be more cautious. I don't support abortions, period.
Does that make me a member of the religious right? Would I be disqualified from receiving your vote based on this issue alone?
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.