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 ...
There is always C-section.
Why? Its the truth. Propaganda is lies designed to draw you to a conclusion. Is it propaganda because it makes you feel uncomfortable or because you can't refute it?
Thank you for clearing that up. I am way past childbearing now but I used to take BC pills and I was just sure the information said they prevented fertilization by preventing ovulation.
I was thinking the exact same thing. He/she (I am not convinced this is a woman) was on a fishing expedition. Trying to figure out who has our support for prez in 08.
You could have something there.
My husband has been watching this thread. He used to be in quality control in a major industry. He said that his company would buy the competitors product and study it to see what made it superior, take their technology and incorporate into their product but make it neater and prettier. He said he thinks this person is trying to take the best of us and tie up the loose ends and make it a pretty package and incorporate it into their candidates for 08. Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know how old you are. I voted for Reagan twice. In his early days he was a Dem. He saw the light and so did a lot of people who voted for him.
You are right about the sometime "family tradition". A lot of them still are thinking they are voting for the old Kennedy Dems. They don't pay attention, so many times they are voting against some of those things they hold dear. I am aware some of these people want to kick Muzzie butt, but voting for the Now Liberal Democrats is a weak way to fight them. The people that voted for faux Dems centrist were fooled in order to win the election. Democrats for the most part have been after taking away guns for a long time. If they have their way they will succeed. You can believe your way, and thats fine, I also know those who think your way. It seems like transcending "smoke and mirrors" is a good place to start.
Sorry, but I believe it would be naive to think their beliefs would not in some way influence their decisions. In fact, aren't they elected because the majority at that time support their agenda? I'm willing to bet that even the "pro-life" Democrats act in a manner that furthers the pro-choice agenda whether it's voting in support of pro-choice judicial nominees or voting lockstep with the left wing leadership of their party.
The Reagan Dems voted for Reagan because they were tired of liberal candidates and came off a horribly destructive liberal president. Jimmy Carter(still destructive) I might add. They are merely being fooled now into believing in a pretend conservative Dem who will not be able to stand up against the Lib party leadership. Reagan never transcended his conservative values. With us or against us was in reference to the WOT. RINOS are fence straddlers and can't make up their minds about their core values. A lot of these people have been "no help" in the WOT. Look, I understand what you are saying, I did vote you know, in this last election. I believe that it can't get much worse than to put liberals in control, but I also understand why the RINO is irritating.
Becky, you and I arguing different things. First, I defy you to find a credible subject-matter expert who would characterize Saddam Hussein as an Islamo-fascist.
Having said that, he was a dictator and a torturer and an all-around bad dude. But he was not and is not the threat faced by America today in terms of terrorism.
If we decided to remove him because he's a bad dude who abused and tortured his people, so be it. but that was NOT the case built by the administration and, imo, the reason public support for the war is waning is because one set of expectations was set in the run-up to the war and all attempts to recast the effort as removal of a bad dude have not succeeded.
If our role as a superpower is going to be to use our military in the removal of bad dudes and bad regimes, then that case has to be laid out for the Congress and for the public.
This whole thing was handled badly - from the case itself to the actual prosecution of the war. And, in perusing comments here at FR, I have discovered that quite a few posters over here feel the same way.
The enduring question remains: what next? I see two options. Begin withdrawing troops and force the Iraqis to stand on their own, or finally and at last commit overwhelming force and troops to the effort to secure Iraq. I'm split either way - I don't in my heart believe that just leaving them to devolve into civil war is a responsible course of action, but I would need to see some competence in any plan to send the additional 250K troops McCain suggests.
Final analysis: what, how or why we went in there is irrelevant at this point. It's like a tube of toothpaste - once you squeeze all the toothpaste out, it's virtually impossible to get it back in. Once we committed, the landscape of the effort changed and the question, for me, is what we do TODAY to compel the best possible outcome.
Blog operative? You give me way too much credit. Suffice it to say that, however naively, I figured that by asking the Giuliani question I would receive the answers I sought.
And I did - and then some. No underlying plan here - the question was sincere, and my intent remains so as well.
While I have been accused of spouting "liberal" talking points, I would suggest that the opposition received here spouts the same talking points on the other side.
Unemployment is not at 0%. Moreover, the unemployment rate itself, as reported, is deeply flawed on a variety of levels such that it doesn't provide an effective means of measuring actual unemployment in traditional terms. Couple that with a grossly misleading productivity rate, and the economic figures you hang your hat on fall apart.
Then what is it's job? Is it government's job to ensure people have opportunities on an equal basis? It surely seems that it HAS been government's job over the past six years to hand out a host of pork-barrel subsidies to further solidify its own power position. And don't get me wrong - IF the Democrats stay in power and IF there isn't meaningful reform of the earmarking process and other contributory processes, they will fall to the same type of corruption.
I see it this way. If you ignore it today, you will pay for it tomorrow. Because ultimately, as a nation of people, regardless of party, most are deeply caring about their fellow man. So either find a way to address disparities today or pay for them tomorrow - but either way, we'll all pay.
And someone who doesn't believe in a Christian God or who believes in some other God or no God at all? Is it OK in your world to impose the voice of "God" on their lives? And if God speaks for the unborn (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't He by far surpass the voice of mere men?
Ah... It's the EVIL sex that did it and now SHE MUST PAY!! I see.
A very noble liberal. Don't get too high on her too much credit. A liberal is a liberal and for that you don't get too much credit.
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.