Posted on 02/06/2002 8:59:50 AM PST by Impeach98
Voters need a choice. If you do not give them a choice, they will vote the status quo, which in this case will be Davis. Voters need to know that if they vote for Candidate B over Candidate A, they will get something different. Most voters do not go to the polls to vote AGAINST someone, they go to the polls to vote FOR someone.
Richard Riordan has so many problems I would need at least a dozen forums to outline them all! From being staunchly pro-abortion, to a gun grabber, to raising taxes, to opposing Prop. 22, to supporting gay marriage (whoops, he changed his mind once ... no twice ... no three times! Where does he stand today? What about March 6th?)
What I'm saying is, Riordan is a liberal, no question about it, and Gray Davis will clean his clock.
Bill Simon offers a choice to the voters. More of the same wasteful spending, failing test scores, and closing farms? Or controlled government, better education, and more water?
The choice is easy ... Bill Simon for Governor.
Bump!!!!!
What's neat is that Davis is in such bad shape that this is the best hope the GOP has had in years to elect a solid conservative like Simon in the general - we just have to make sure he wins the primary!!!
Yes, and conservatives tend to be more focused on politics and elections. Everything is showing that NO ONE -- and it's only 27 days until election day -- is focused on the election. It's just not there.
I think Simon can squeak by, and then we can have a real battle between Simon and Davis ... I'm looking forward to THAT battle!
Bill Jones has defeated himself. He should drop out and endorse Simon. He won't, because he's a politician with no place to go, but he should. He has little money and no momentum. He hasn't gained an inch, while Simon has been steadily climbing.
It's IMPERATIVE that we defeat Richard Riordan. Bill Simon can beat Gray Davis and Riordan can NOT. It's as simple as that. Simon can bring together the conservatives AND the moderates. He is one of those rare politicians, like Reagan, who is a conservative through and through, but exudes a warm and sincere personality, and has common sense ideas, that draw in the moderates who may not agree with him 100%.
Go Simon!
Quote of the day - you are soooooo right GOPhack!
I don't see a problem with being pro-choice on abortion. In fact, I think being anti-choice on abortion makes you seem anti-freedom. Now, being pro-life is an okay thing, but being pro-choice is better. Also, pro-choice has to be accompanied with no-government-handouts. I don't want to be paying for an abortion using my tax dollars.
There are more reasons to vote for Simon than can fit on Free Republic!
Fine. Put me down on the pro-abortion side then. But make sure you put down 'cheapskate, not for govt-subsidized abortions'.
I guess that would depend on whose freedom your talking about. It seems to me your idea of freedom extends only to yourself, you care little or nothing about anyone elses freedom(e.g. the unborn)
I suspect that someday you will come to realize that freedom is a concept which can only be realized collectively. What we allow happen to our fellow human beings is likely to happen to us in the course of things.
So, why don't we have government quarrantine all pregnant females so as they do not harm the tiny human being that is growing inside of them? If a woman doesn't want her child, the government should swoop in and prevent her from getting an abortion. In fact, why not have government swoop in and commit the pregnant woman into a hospital and restrain her from harming her child? Force-feed the woman that wants to starve herself to death?
I think that going into the side of all-life-at-all-costs starts us down that slippery slope when our life doesn't belong to us. I agree that pro-life/anti-abortion is the correct moral choice, but it should not be enforced via the threat of government force.
My solution to this is making abortion costs be fully borne by the abortion-getting patient. My solution would also be to making child-rearing costs be fully borne by the child-producing parents.
You must have stayed up all night dreaming up this reply. When was the last time you've seen the government swoop in and restrain anyone intent on breaking the law? As a matter of fact law enforcement is unable to do anything until after the crimminal act has been completed.
"I think that going into the side of all-life-at-all-costs starts us down that slippery slope when our life doesn't belong to us. I agree that pro-life/anti-abortion is the correct moral choice, but it should not be enforced via the threat of government force."
That's a lie, you do not agree pro-life/anti-abortion is the correct moral choice or you would have no choice opposing it on a moral basis, if you had any prinipals at all, unless you are likewise opposed to the government enforcing any and all laws which are essentially based on moral principals(and they all are). Would take the same position on all criminal laws?
"My solution to this is making abortion costs be fully borne by the abortion-getting patient."
Ridiculous, that's like saying its alright to commit any crime so long as you bear the costs by making restitution(in $$).
"My solution would also be to making child-rearing costs be fully borne by the child-producing parents."
I don't know what planet you've been living on but that's exactly what's happening right now. The Uniform Child Protection Act allows the government (district attorneys) to track and collect child support payments from delinquent parents across state lines and to levy on their assets, lift their business licenses etc...Not to mention the IRS's role in enforcing it.
Nope. Thought of the reply when I clicked on Self-Search and saw your reply. When was the last time you had to be subject to a background check before being 'permitted' to buy a firearm? Isn't that 'restraint' on the 2A protected right? Gun buyers are treated like would-be criminals just for buying a gun.
That's a lie, you do not agree pro-life/anti-abortion is the correct moral choice or you would have no choice opposing it on a moral basis, if you had any prinipals at all, unless you are likewise opposed to the government enforcing any and all laws which are essentially based on moral principals(and they all are). Would take the same position on all criminal laws?
The equitable solution would be either give the pregnant woman the opportunity to exercise her freedom, and for the opposing people to either pay her to have her baby, or let her have the abortion in peace. In making her have the baby, you are taking away her freedom to do with her life as she pleases, and note that in her doing so does not diminish one whit your freedoms as well.
As far as government and laws being based on moral principles, tell that to the widow of Donald Scott
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.