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 ...
Check out Webb's answers to the the NRA Questionnaire. It is very impressive: he is in almost complete agreement with the NRA, right down the line. He says the 2nd Amendment is an individual right; favors CCW reciprocity; opposes international agreements which would infringe on the RKBA; opposes gun confiscation and bans on weapons; opposes waiting periods; opposes government retention of records; opposes firearms licensing and registration; opposes restrictions on 50-caliber firearms ownership; supports the use of deadly force to defend against criminal attacks; etc. He's a long-time NRA member and handgun enthusiast who shoots at NRA ranges.
Sounds pretty damn good to me.
Not for nothing - but I would check the current makeup of the state legislatures before making that kind of statement. You might find your prospects less appealing via that route if so.
Finally a doctor that may be able to answer this. In all this time we have been told that the partial birth abortion has to be protected because of the threat to the mother's life without it. Could you explain to me how after delivering the entire baby EXCEPT the head that delivering this last and smallest part would/could endanger the life of the mother. I mean I know, you'll say "well it doesn't", so I'm just curious how "they" can hold on to this concept without it being questioned.
Not offensive at all, and thanks for the comment. I disagree about the political center, however, and it is to that which I was referring.
And frankly, I'm nothing if not sincere.
Or... they could be Nobel laureates in Economics, but what's that worth, right?
I don't think I ever suggested socialism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. Generally I'm not a fan of socialism. And you should actually read my comments and stances on taxes - this may illuminate your otherwise flawed characterization of my viewpoint on the subject.
Your suggestion that most posters on FR oppose sending the abortion issue back to the public square, and away from Robe fiats, to be fought out at the ballot box, is the most singularly errant statement that you have made to date. Most here favor precisely that. I have the same opinion about gay marriage, which increasingly fascinates the Robes. I favor legalized gay marriage as a public policy matter, but only via the public square agreeing with me.
Robe fiats on these matters are toxic to the public square, and why it is so angry and fixated on these issues. If the public square fought it out, and fashioned varying compromises over time, much of the toxicity would fade away.
Think about it.
They are pro-life though.
By the way, check out some polls on the abortion issue. There is great support for a middle away, at the cusp, and away from the Robe fiat, that just any are constitutionally mandated, even very late term ones, if the mother has angst about it.
You really are extroadinarily ignorant. Bush never said "imminent threat." Have you ever listened to his speeches? The one who said "imminent threat" was one of your Dems, Jay Rockefeller. As far as WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda are concerned, you might want to read your favorite liberal newspapers a little more carefully, like the front page. Do 2,000 tons of enriched uranium, chemical weapons, and detailed plans to make atomic bombs sound like WMD's to you? Well, maybe not.
I'll see your degree in economics and match it with my degree in economics (with honors - from the WSJ no less!) from an equally prominent school. I'll also match your MBA with my MBA. I'm not a lawyer, though, so you have me there. And given your background, you of all people should know to regard the "numbers" (from ANY source) with some degree of skepticism as they can be made to look one way or another by omitting this measure, over-emphasizing that measure, or in the way the terms themselves are defined. A myriad of other measures add to the total picture of the economic present and future of this country.
Please just understand that Right To Life is enumerated in our founding documents, which many of us take seriously because they have led to Earth's longest-lived and most prosperous representative Republic. These are high stakes; and Rights, given to us by whatever "Creator" you believe in, are not to be tampered with. Calling them "social issues" belittles humanity. How many potential Einsteins, Martin Luther Kings, Beethovens, Bill Gates, Mohandas Gandhis, Thomas Edisons, and Keith Richards should we consider expendable for one mother's convenience? If you have a "choice", why NOT default to life?
Here's a hypothetical: you're walking through the woods on a camping trip and decide to walk down to a sun-shimmered lake for some meditation and reflection. You step on a nest of bird eggs, perhaps, even, of an endangered species. How do you "feel"? Probably remorseful to an extent. Why not extend the same courtesy to the rest of us?
It hits close to home, particularly in the meta-sense of objectivism.
Hope to talk to you again soon.
The poster is vested to uphold her nelief based upon lies. Don't disturb the fog.
Dude (or Dudette?), I'm almost 40 and finished graduate school quite some time ago. Just FYI.
It's the troll-rating system, with which I disagree. And you are correct - there are many people who post wildly opposing viewpoints who are then squelched. Bad on them. But I also think the tone is set by the poster and reinforced by a willingness to stand and defend and not resort to name-calling. I've been as honest as I can be, disagreement notwithstanding. And I appreciate the courtesy - with a few exceptions, it's been nothing but that this entire evening.
Whooops. Nevermind.
There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.
You can't argue for moral relativity in one paragraph and make an exception for an absolute in the second. That's an awful odd religion you're trying to construct there.
It doesn't really matter what you would "consider" an absolute, itself a relative statement. That's your opinion. Who are you to force your own brand of morality on me?
The job is about representing constituents. Yet the pro-life movement doesn't want to make it about that, because the constituency wants abortion legal but regulated.
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.