|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 47 of 133:
| 
Feb 17 17:14 UTC 2006 |
That's were you are mistaken. It will *always* matter.
|
richard
|
|
response 48 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:19 UTC 2006 |
rick santorum and newt gingrich are both big names and are running
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:28 UTC 2006 |
If jurisdiction on abortion law is returned to the states, then why
will it matter to the vast majority what the president thinks about
it? (The problem will be at the state level, where legislators will
actually have to vote on the issue, rather than pontificating. It will
be an electoral disaster for Republicans who will end up alienating a
whole lot of their supporters. Fortunately, so far the Democrats
haven't figured this out.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 50 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Because even if jurisdiction is with the states, if we have a
nationalized health care plan, a pro-life president might not allow it
to pay for 'bortions.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 51 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:33 UTC 2006 |
hahahahahaah!!!
santorum has been described as "one of the finest minds of the
13th century" he's a dummy...plus there's the little freakshow
he put his kids through their mom miscarried. he's getting
slammed right now & won't get re-elected
gingrich has pretty much shot his wad...he's also been chumming
with hillary. no way.
the republicans will run someone *handsome* in a 1950s sort of
way who will continue to subsidize big oil and decieve the
folks who actually work that he is fighting for them.
mccain is too stiff and a waffler
gulianni has a lisp and shacks up with homos
and is down with killing jesus's baby embry-oze
condi won't run because she knows that every crosseyed
rightwing whitepower retard (probably fellow republicans!) would
be taking shots at her
from the moment she accepts the nomination.
any other ideas?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 52 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:38 UTC 2006 |
Colin Powell's credibility and his appearance of integrity was
critically damaged when he went before the U.N. and announced
to the world that we *knew* Saddam had WMD and knew where they
were.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 53 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:39 UTC 2006 |
he also doesn't want to get shot by the racist element.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 54 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:41 UTC 2006 |
and he's pro-choice to boot. No way.
|
edina
|
|
response 55 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:42 UTC 2006 |
George Allen. he's my prediction.
|
klg
|
|
response 56 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:47 UTC 2006 |
But we don't have nationalized health care, and we won't.
Just wait until we find out what actually happened to Saddam's wmd.
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 133:
|
Feb 17 17:52 UTC 2006 |
I'm tellin ya..Mitt in 08
|
marcvh
|
|
response 58 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:05 UTC 2006 |
We do have government-run health care in some areas already, such as
providing health care to soldiers, federal prisoners, and the like.
There are issues like how Medicare should handle abortions (obviously an
academic issue for most recipients but some disabled Medicare recipients
are young enough to become pregnant.) Abortion-related issues, such as
how drugs related to controlling pregnancy are regulated by the FDA, will
continue to be with us.
I see little reason to believe that, if Roe were overturned, the
pro-life movement would disband and go home. I'm sure some would, but
others would be emboldened and want to push further.
|
richard
|
|
response 59 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:10 UTC 2006 |
I wouldnt be shocked if it turns out to be Condi vs. Hillary in '08, the
ultimate catfight :)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 60 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:15 UTC 2006 |
I wonder who the NAACP would support...
|
happyboy
|
|
response 61 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:24 UTC 2006 |
hillary. why would they support condi?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 62 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:27 UTC 2006 |
They wouldn't, she is a republican.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 63 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:45 UTC 2006 |
so why did you ask the question nate...what were you trying to
get at?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 64 of 133:
|
Feb 17 18:56 UTC 2006 |
It was a rhetorical question, and you know what I was getting at.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 65 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:02 UTC 2006 |
say it nate.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 66 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:09 UTC 2006 |
Don't tell me you really think the NAACP would support Hillary because
she knows better how to advance "Colored People".
|
happyboy
|
|
response 67 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:11 UTC 2006 |
tell me nate.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:11 UTC 2006 |
Why not?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 69 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:21 UTC 2006 |
yeah...condi knows better i suppose. she probably learned all
about affirmmative action when exxon named that tanker after
her.
you know...condi was probably a pretty cool person before
she *kissed the goat*
i'm not a huge fan of hillary right now nate...so nate,
say what you really mean...are we taling about pigmentation
or culture here? tell me nate...
|
nharmon
|
|
response 70 of 133:
|
Feb 17 19:45 UTC 2006 |
I do think Condi being elected president would be a great African
American advancement.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 133:
|
Feb 17 20:03 UTC 2006 |
What do most African Americans think?
|