Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Question from a Webb Supporter
The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: conservatives; neocons; theocons; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 661-662 next last
To: DCBandita
It just seems to me to be totally unrealistic.

It seems unrealistic to me that people believe in the magical power of "they're gonna do it anyway, let's help them" - you may have a higher percentage of sexual activity involving protection - but you're going to end up increasing OVERALL sexual activity. A lower percentage of mistakes may still result in no net decrease in mistakes.

But, to wit: herein lies the crux of the original problem. You couldn't resist continuing the discussion of the social issue (not that I'm not willing to discuss it). I just think it illustrates why no candidate can be neutral on the social issues - because nobody yet has been AGGRESSIVELY neutral. Passively neutral just means to let the side win that yells the loudest, which is the best I can say about some of the "moderate" candidates.
301 posted on 11/14/2006 4:40:14 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita
No, but that's not really the argument for going to war, is it? The argument was imminent threat.

You've been conned again, the argument was "gathering storm" in a post 9/11 world.

The argument was WMDs.

Habalja. 30,000 dead men, women and children from, you guessed it, WMD's. He had them for sure, where they went we'll never know but we do know this Bandita, he had the technical know how to construct and disseminate WMD.

The argument was ties to Al Quaeda - all debunked, and admitted to by the administration itself.

Abu Abbas, dead in Baghdad. Abu Nidal, dead in Baghdad. Usay, dead. Qusay, dead. Zarqawi, dead. What do all these fellows have in common? All terrorists, all hated America and some directly responsible for the death of your fellow citizens. Leon Klinghoffer ring any bells?

Bad guys are bad guys. But if you're going to go to war with a country because its dictator is a bad guy, say so. I suspect the American people would have had less of a stomach for that, never mind the fact that the world is bursting with bad guys who, according to your logic, we should be removing.

We should remove as many as feasible. Mass murderers with the knowhow to build and transport WMD who have an affinity for giving santuary to the worst of the worst should be on the top of list.

302 posted on 11/14/2006 4:40:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita; MHGinTN
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.

I hope MHGinTN doesn't mind me barging in on a question directed to them, but Rudy's position on partial birth (or late term either) will prevent any support from me. BTW- I am not a member of the "Religious Right". One does not have to be a "Bible Thumper" to believe that at some point in the development of a fetus, one crosses a threshold that makes its destruction, murder...

303 posted on 11/14/2006 4:40:58 PM PST by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative
Aha!! There IS a religious left!! And they are roundly scorned by the remainder of the left. (shrug) It's not any easier on the Democratic side to have principles than it is on this side. I believe government should be TOTALLY secular for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that it protects religion. I've watched with curiosity as religious leaders have gotten into bed with politicians - and that's what you get when you mix the two. I also believe the framers kept church and state separate for a reason and a good one. As we let religion creep into the state, these kinds of flame wars and counterproductive divisions distract from other issues (NUMEROUS issues) that couldn't care a whit about religion. Finally, although I'm not an atheist (I'm Protestant), there ARE atheists and jews and muslims and buddhists and sikhs who are Americans and deserve the right to be protected from one religion or another. Keeping it out of government accomplishes that and delivers the promise of secular Democracy, which is what we ARE.
304 posted on 11/14/2006 4:41:07 PM PST by DCBandita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36

Good catch!


305 posted on 11/14/2006 4:41:09 PM PST by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The national debt has been cut in half due to the economic tax revenue.

No, it hasn't. The deficit may have been, but the debt has been inexorably climbing ever since 2000.

306 posted on 11/14/2006 4:41:35 PM PST by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita
...the promise of secular Democracy, which is what we ARE.

LOL

Ever read the Constitution?

307 posted on 11/14/2006 4:42:09 PM PST by Petronski (BRABANTIO: Thou art a villain. IAGO: You are--a senator. ---Othello I.i.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Then don't have one. Teach your children not to have them. I don't believe what you say. I don't see it that way. I am beyond being taught by you - attend to yourself and your own family and we'll all be fine.

90-day fetus = not a person to me. Sorry.


308 posted on 11/14/2006 4:42:43 PM PST by DCBandita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

They don't teach the Constitution in public schools anymore.


309 posted on 11/14/2006 4:42:59 PM PST by darkangel82 (Everyone has the right to be an idiot, but on DU they abuse the privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

I've gotten the idea from the pro-choicers/abortionists that it is indeed a life when conceived, but it's a beech tree or some such thing until the very second it emerges from the womb.


310 posted on 11/14/2006 4:43:41 PM PST by abigailsmybaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

So women who can't get pregnant are unqualified to have an opinion?

Nice.


311 posted on 11/14/2006 4:44:00 PM PST by DCBandita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita
The greatest respect I have in the pro-life movement is for the Catholics because the policy is at least consistent. No abortions, no war, no death penalty.

Oyvey. I'm a practicing Catholic Bandita. I'm also pro life, pro death penalty in certain cases and a an Army veteran. Catholic dogma does not demand that one be anti death penalty but it does demand that we protect innocent human life as best we can.

Or as Aquinas said, and I parphrase, not protecting ones life or the life of the innocent by force is in itself a sin.

312 posted on 11/14/2006 4:44:14 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita
What we have is offically sanctioned and taxpayer supported atheism.

And it ISN'T good. It is the death force behind associated evils including unresttriced abortion and gay marriage.

It isn't working. It is killing us.

313 posted on 11/14/2006 4:45:13 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

None whatsoever. Because theirs is a headgame, and had the Republicans stayed in power they would have cheered that. They're playing you and our media if you buy that it should in ANY way give someone pause.


314 posted on 11/14/2006 4:45:26 PM PST by DCBandita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

She claims to be a "moderate" but is just repeating all the left-wing talking points.


315 posted on 11/14/2006 4:47:01 PM PST by darkangel82 (Everyone has the right to be an idiot, but on DU they abuse the privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

If you said that you would make it a centerpiece of your political life to impose your beliefs on me, yes. I would disqualify you.

If you said that you believed as you do but acknowledged that not everyone believes as you do and that no one has an indisputable answer, no. I would not disqualify you.


316 posted on 11/14/2006 4:48:29 PM PST by DCBandita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

I hear you.

I might not have given the embryonic stem-cell debate so many thoughts, that is until I lost two babies before the sixth week. And believe me, the thought of LIFE being used as fodder for laureate-wannabes just makes me sick.


317 posted on 11/14/2006 4:48:42 PM PST by littlehouse36 (Missouri: The Clone-Me State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

Then show her(?) why the left wing talking points are wrong. Maybe you'll even persuade her and others...


318 posted on 11/14/2006 4:48:58 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I was about to deconstruct that, but I could not improve on your effort.


319 posted on 11/14/2006 4:50:14 PM PST by Petronski (BRABANTIO: Thou art a villain. IAGO: You are--a senator. ---Othello I.i.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: DCBandita
I suspect the American people would have had less of a stomach for that, never mind the fact that the world is bursting with bad guys who, according to your logic, we should be removing.

Where were all you "moderates" back in the 90's when we were bombing Serbia back to the stone age (and killing thousands of civilians in the process). What exactly was the national security rationale for removing Milsoevic?

320 posted on 11/14/2006 4:50:16 PM PST by MamaLucci (God Bless Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 661-662 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson