Is John McCain the “right” man for GOP nomination?
by Jasper
With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race, John McCain will most likely be the Republican nominee. Reliable pro-lifer Rick Santorum had some interesting takes on McCain:
And then on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain ever took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened….
I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether its marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up….
We’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him…. I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election.
I think he is exactly on target.
The liberal MSM are so corrupt, look at the way they treated Mitt Romney. The sneaks.
Plus Republicans for Choice is endorsing McCain now that Rudy is out.
With Hillary, Obama and McCain the only ones left – it looks like Mike Huckabee is too far behind – who is the conservative choice?
What are your thoughts?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“where is the conservative choice?”
There isn’t one. On election day, stay home and pray.
90% of the GOP delegates are still remaining.
McCain has 7% of GOP delegates.
The MSM wants you to believe that McCain is the man.
Don’t believe the spin.
Or you can take your marching orders from Hal.
Y’all are a little boring today….
No debates….
LOL hal
*drops to his knees and thanks God Romney “suspended” his campaign*
Im still worried though. I could easily see McCain picking up Huckabee is a running mate to pick up more conservative voters. If it comes down to McCain/Huckabee or Clinton/whomever, I may actually have to write in or vote Clinton….scary thoughts.
My opinion is that ANYONE who goes up against Obama will most likely not win. There is no huge division between Clinton and Obama supporters like there has been in the Republican party. The only chance Repubs have is Hillary winning the nomination, and, thankfully, thats really looking less likely by the day.
pssst, Hal, check this column out, NYT (Clinton endorser) has an Op Ed claiming Obama to be more electable.
Here
Here’s the deal. If McCain wins we have a shot at judges who will overturn Roe. If Obama or Clinton wins, we will absolutely get judges who will uphold Roe. To those who stay home and don’t vote or support one of the pro-aborts, the blood of 35 more years of legal abortion will be on your hands.
Dan,
surprising that Clinton had to donate to her own campaign, and cut back on the salaries of people who are working for her…
lol pip, doesnt really surprise me all that much. Her support isnt as “grassroots” as Obama’s is, so her donation pool is a bit smaller, and seemingly aren’t as motivated as she was supposed to be the nigh automatic nominee.
Obama, however, has HUGE grassroots support networks, thus a larger donation pool, and is the underdog, making his supporters fight and do whatever they can to get him to be the Dem nominee
I’m still supporting Huckabee.
PIP,
Your still not supporting the infanticide candidate Obama, are you? I mean, this guy if for letting BORN babies left to die…
com’on.
he’s for letting the doctors on the scene decide what the right course of conduct is.
And he’s your next POTUS.
I’m still supporting Huckabee.
Posted by: Elizabeth at February 7, 2008 6:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because?
Alan Keyes.
yes, don’t take your marching orders from me. Vote for Alan Keyes.
Obama is the most eloquent parsing lackey for big business.
He is so creative in finding reasons to give millions of taxpayer dollars to corporate interests.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota
“But while Obama has a solid liberal record, many believe there is a difference between a liberal and a true progressive. For example, his signature legislation today is his “healthcare for hybrids” proposal, which would give away hundreds of millions to auto companies to relieve them of some of the costs of paying for retirees’ healthcare. In exchange, the companies would produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. The goals are unassailable, but the policy reflects the liberal carrot of appeasing a powerful industry rather than the progressive stick of forcing that industry to shape up by simply mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards.
sounds like he’s a uniter, not a divider. Although I think of myself a bit as a Progressive, I prefer Obama’s carrot to the Nation’s stick.
Anyone who knows anything about business or economics knows you can’t simply force an industry to “shape up by simply mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards.”
Didn’t McCain vote to confirm Justice Ginsberg?? How can we trust him to appoint justices who will overturn Roe?? He’s endorsed by Republicans for Choice & the New York Times. Enough said.
jasper, we went through this many times, can we just leave it be?
Dan, you are probably right. Obama’s rally here drew in 20,000 people and Hillarys drew in only about 3,000.
I have a bad feeling that the Republican machine is already working on Obama.
Maybe Laura, but we KNOW they’ve been working on Hillary. I can only imagine the stuff they have ready to roll out.
Ok PIP, no prob.
Laura, yes they are. Can you say Born-alive act?
Maybe Laura, but we KNOW they’ve been working on Hillary. I can only imagine the stuff they have ready to roll out.
Maybe Laura, but we KNOW they’ve been working on Hillary. I can only imagine the stuff they have ready to roll out.
Posted by: Hal at February 7, 2008 8:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary’s been vetted into the dust for the last 20 years.
Go to DU and Huffpo. Everyone has been sweating bullets since the law “suddenly” decided to crack down and arrest Tony Rezko.
What do you all say about Beck’s assertion that he would vote for Hillary over McCain?
“What do you all say about Beck’s assertion that he would vote for Hillary over McCain?”
fine with me. but I don’t believe it.
I’m worried about some dems that say they’d vote for McCain instead of Hillary, maybe they’ll balance each other out.
My other fear with Hillary is that many energized Obama young people might not stay engaged if Hillary gets the nomination.
Hal, that is a concern of mine too. I myself have only known Bushs and Clintons since my birth. If she gets the nomination I like many other young people would not be as involved because the dynasty will continue ;)
Huckabee doesn’t have any major enemies. He’s pretty under the radar. If Clinton gets nominated, Huckabee could against her.
McCain’s moment is now; however the next fews primaries will show favor for Huckabee, esp. now that Romney is out.
okay, I have to go eat with Gov. Richardson. Have a great night everyone. Oh, did I mention McCain has the endorsement of the Republicans for Choice?
Elizabeth, if Huckabee is the nominee, he’ll be completely shredded by Dems. Thats why Dems have said mum on the issue, he’s pretty easy to discredit in the eyes of the American people, McCain presents a higher challenge. If McCain’s nominated the Dems will probably focus more on their own stances (with particular emphasis on Iraq I’m sure) rather than out right attacking McCain.
As for Clinton, repubs are DYING for her to be the nominee. As for Obama, he’s far more likely to be able to wave aside and survive the attacks, just as he has from his fellow Dems already.
jasper, you mean kinda like how repubs still try to attack Dems by saying they didnt support the PBA ban? Yeah, thats worked amazingly well….
Huckabee 01/14/08
Rick “man on dog” Santorum, a former (defeated, not retired) senator about as popular as poison ivy (google santorum for some examples), is the best you can do for a conservative Republican “heavy hitter’s” response to the news that John McCain is the apparent Republican presidential nominee? From where I’m standing, the anti movement doesn’t have a lot of political momentum right now.
BTW, Jasper, isn’t that liberal, corrupt MSM you mentioned the same MSM that gushed and gushed over your side’s guy, George Bush, until they could no longer credibly deny that he had flushed our country down the toilet?
Ray, yeah, they treated the election like it was homecoming or something, like Gore was this arrogant nerd and Bush was the charismatic baseball star.
PIP,
how old were you at that time? You really cared about it or remembered it?
I was about 14. I do remember it in fact I recently discovered some notes that a friend and I passed about it during band on the back of one of our music sheets.
For a while I thought I was remembering it wrong because of all of these “liberal MSM” insults but several people I have read have had the same sentiments.
LOL what do you think I was like 8, or something?
Pro Lifers will never get anything from their president. Haven’t we noticed that? Bush gave the country National Prayer Day! WOW! Name one candidate that would be able to get Roe overturned? ONE?
Anon – given PIP’s obvious interest and intelligent commentary about political issues, I’d say yes to both questions. It wasn’t that long ago.
I have to agree with Dan that Obama is more electable.
Obama supporters don’t know anything about him or the issues and they don’t care.
They will vote for him no matter what.
If Obama is elected, look to see our T-bills down graded in a year. Profound and protracted fiscal crisis. Good thing his supporters believe in hope because that is all they will get.
If Obama is elected, look to see our T-bills down graded in a year. Profound and protracted fiscal crisis. Good thing his supporters believe in hope because that is all they will get.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2008 11:18 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OH YEAH!
God help us if we have to live without the financial prudence and fiscal responsibility of the REPUBLICANS!
National debt is $150,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. Do Obama supporters think he will reduce that number? Do they care?
Does their “obvious interest and intelligent commentary about political issues” reflect their understanding of what such a large national debt really means to our future?
God help us if we have to live without the financial prudence and fiscal responsibility of the REPUBLICANS!
Posted by: FetusFascist at February 7, 2008 11:27 PM
Has anyone in the MSM asked any candidate Democrat or Republican their strategy for reducing the debt? Or what they think of the future ratings of our T-bills?
“Obama supporters don’t know anything about him or the issues and they don’t care.”
Go to Hell Anonymous. I’ve been reading every word he’s spoken for about a year, I’ve read about his record at Harvard (great article in the Boston Globe recently), his record in Illinois Senate, and even things about his childhood.
I know more about the issues and his positions then his own mother. I agree with him on most, but not all. It’s not a cult. It’s a political movement, and one that this country desperately needs and hasn’t seen since RFK.
It might be easier to say we don’t get it, or we’re too stupid, but the truth is, the times, they are a changing.
Our t-bills are already heading for the toilet, a fiscal crisis is already looming, and you can thank that son of a bitch GWB for all of it.
Our t-bills are already heading for the toilet, a fiscal crisis is already looming, and you can thank that son of a bitch GWB for all of it.
Posted by: Hal at February 7, 2008 11:32 PM
Of course GWB is at fault. We all know that. I just think that Obama will be just the same.
Has anyone asked Obama what his plan is to help fix the damage done by Bush?
it’s all on his website.
Plus, fixing all the damage done by Bush is a lot to ask of any one man.
Obama and his fiscal policies have endeared him to the Wall Street crowd, and “Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he
Anonymous,
For these kind of issues, sometimes all you have to do is look at their website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
Hey pip,
I found this on the Obama site you posted.
“Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies . . . , as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices.”
I hope Laura sees this. She told me I was “clueless” when I complained about abuses by lenders in the student loan programs. Maybe she is a Hillary supporter. Can’t remember.
If you think America will vote for Obama then I say run home to yo mama! Cause you are wronga!
The conservative candidate that is still in the race is ALAN KEYES. Just do the right thing and vote for a strong, pro-life conservative instead of buying into the media’s balogney and bowing to their command to vote for either McCain or Obama.
Yup hippie I think she is. And along Hal’s lines I agree with many (but obviously not all) of the ideas he has. I’m off to bed though, have a good night (morning?) guys!
The pro-life conservative who can beat the Democrat is Ron Paul, if only his party will get behind him! Come on pro-lifers, open your eyes!
OOOH!!! He is sooo cute. Say “change” again for us Barach. And it was great smoking ICE with you in Kona.
I’m still betting on Hillary. Her party-organization will beat Obama. She will beat McCain (batty old man), and she will appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.
McCain doesn’t have a monopoly on experience though. Obama knows the best way to smoke cocaine, and thats the kind of experience that makes excellent presidential material.
SoMG,
A woman is six months pregnant with a healthy baby and she has decided she doeasn’t want a baby now cause she wants to focus on college. Would it give you bad karma to kill her baby?
It would be outside of my expertise.
By the way, “wetmypants”, GWB was an every-day all-day cokehead when he was at Yale, and he didn’t bother to conceal it.
SoMG,
Why don’t you perform those types of abortions?
Somg, in case you didn’t know, smoking cocaine like Barach did is way more addictive then snorting cocaine. They are likely just waiting till he wins the Democratic nomination and then they’ll disseminate videos of his indescretionary habit to to the public. I can hardly wait to see it.
“Truthseeker”, I don’t have time to train to do late term abortions. You don’t just do them–you have to be trained, you have to develop (and maintain) expertise. It’s a non-trivial endeavor.
“Wetmypants”, if the worst thing you can say about Obama is that he experimented with crack when he was young, then I’m not too worried for him.
I still think Hillary will be the nominee, though.
I hate the way americans pronounce Abortion. It makes me want to throw nukes. I vote all americans get pronounciation lessons no matter what their age. I’m sorry but the rest of the world laughs at you behind your backs 24/7 because of your lack of education in your native language. [/rant]
Sad how the Republican Party looks worse and worse every election. You people need new blood. Fresh meat! How about a woman or a black man! Hell, if you had a black woman that’d rake in the votes by default.
And yes, this is what international news is talking about. Now, where did I put that article?
SoMG, Hillary was supposed to be a shoe-in according to polls and the MSM before Obama began gaining more and more support. So much for that eh?
The longer Obama is exposed to any one place, the more and more supporters he seems to get. By the end of primary season I wouldn’t be surprise if he finally beats out Clinton in the popular vote. His organization is far more grass-roots in terms of organization, and provides far more foot soldiers, resources, and donations than Clinton’s campaign structure. Not to mention, us Obama supporters are far more vocal.
Another thing that irks me, a mere few weeks after saying changing the rules for Florida and Michigan would be utterly wrong, she suddenly wants to seat them because she would get more guaranteed delegates. Absolutely ridiculous. Neither candidate fully campaigned or created an organized structure of any kind in the states. Neither was truly a fair process, and therefore really can’t be counted. To say otherwise is absurd.
As for the “drug scandal,” to single out Obama of this is ridiculous. Nigh every president had an issue with a controlled substance at some point in their life. Singing out Obama for it is absolutely ridiculous.
I’m still betting on Clinton.
SoMG, look at the state primaries that are left though, Obama has the edge. Clinton’s strong areas are essentially gone in the upcoming primaries, most of them voted before or on super tuesday.
Obama’s groups are fairly prevalent in the upcoming primaries as well. There are a lot of educated dems, younger dems, african americans, etc in upcoming states. Obama has also slowly been draining women and white men from Hillary. Should current trends continue, Obama very well could get the nomination.
And Obama is actually motivating all of these people to vote-in record numbers.
I don’t have any enthusiasm or inclination to support a senator who voted four times to take tax dollars from you and me to fund the destruction of human embryos. First, ESCR is not yielding useful results — adult stem cell research is far more successful in providing actual treatments. So much for McCain being a champion of fiscal responsibility.
But even beyond that argument, I would hope that I never arrive at a point where I have to decide on a treatment that extends my own lifespan at the expense of the destruction of other human lives — humans who have no say whatsoever in their own exploitation, manipulation, experimentation, and eventual destruction for medical research.
I have listened to Mike Huckabee speak of the fact that the founding fathers of our country were men who believed that human rights come from God, our Creator, and not from the laws of men or kings. If John McCain truly shares this belief, he would reject any public funding of destructive ESCR. McCain’s voting record is not encouraging.
The temptation to vote for McCain is the temptation to open Pandora’s box.
For now, I continue to support Mike Huckabee. If he leaves the race I could support Alan Keyes even though I see him as more of a protest candidate.
Looking to November, there is the Constitution Party which has reliably fielded pro-life candidates and has a platform that opposses any public funding of destructive ESCR.
There is good reason that we pray, “… lead us not into temptation”. If John McCain has made himself a representative of the temptation of ESCR, then I pray that we not be put to the test.
And at least Obama admits that he has used drugs in the past, unlike Bill who “didn’t inhale.” Obama said, “Oh I inhaled. That was kind of the point.”
He’s smart, honest, and capable. Obama 08. Hillary can go to the Supreme Court if she wants.
“How about a woman or a black man! Hell, if you had a black woman that’d rake in the votes by default….”
We don’t vote for – or not vote for – candidates solely on the basis of their gender or race. We vote based on their experience, knowledge, record, philosophy and policy.
How stupid to support someone just because he/she is a woman and/or black. Almost as stupid as NOT supporting him/her for those reasons!
“We vote based on their experience, knowledge, record, philosophy and policy.”
That’s my man, Obama!
Here’s some interesting reading for y’all:
Frank Shaeffer – Why I’m Pro-life and Pro-Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_85636.html
Come on Dan. Obama is singling himeslf out by how prevalent his use was and the type of drugs he used. He could not possibly deny that he smoked it otherwise he would have been discovered to be a liar many times over and his campaign would have been finished. Have you ever known people who smoked “rock”? It is a much more addictive and destructive drug than “the other” presidents have used and it is a quantum leap to say that his smoking coicaine is really no different then say “Bill Clintons” smoking marijuana or George Busg’s drunkeness. I can hardly wait to see the video of him smoking crack and telling his friends “I had an epiphany and so will you. Can I hear you say change”? It sends chills down my spine just to think about it.
Obama did not grow up rich, and he openly admitted occasional use in a book of his referring to his past. Wow. I guess having a rough history means you can’t be president. His rising up is just more inspirational to me. Get over it and focus on his policies.
great article ray!
“Frank Shaeffer – Why I’m Pro-life and Pro-Obama”
anybody who supports a candidate who supports the legalization of baby killing, cannot call themselves pro-life. no way Jose.
As for the “drug scandal,” to single out Obama of this is ridiculous. Nigh every president had an issue with a controlled substance at some point in their life. Singing out Obama for it is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by: Dan at February 8, 2008 5:12 AM
The drug issue is a non issue. What if he got a speeding ticket as a teen? Who cares? Tons of kids tried some refer. It doesn’t mean they are doomed to be derelicts.
I disagree with Obama on the issue of born alive infant protection and abortion.
We should protect the rights of everyone rather than just those who have the power to demand protection.
I suspect Obama because he gets so much money from big business. I also feel he is out of touch now that he is in the realm of elites. He may care philosophically about public school but his kids aren’t sitting in a public school, so it is a more abstract discussion for him.
If its McCain vs. Obama, would you all vote?
Yes, OBAMA
now if its McCain/Huckabee vs Clinton/whomever, then i dunno. McCain/Huckabee is one of the few tickets with McCain where I’d probably vote for clinton.
What if it’s clinton/obama?
Depends on McCain’s running mate. If its someone like Huckabee, Ron Paul, et al (or Romney) then I’ll vote for Clinton, otherwise I very well may vote McCain
Hal, I agree that Obama is smart and honest. But we don’t know whether he is capable.
Obama was not just an occasional user. He was a junkie and a go to guy for his buddies who next rock. But that shouldn’t matter right? He is completely different person now. What is his stance on legalization of drugs? That would be a “change”
SoMG,
A majority of people are completely against abortion except in the case of rape or if life of mother is in danger. Another 40% of people are PC’ers who are personally against abortion but they are still willing to leave tha choice completely to the mother. That makes over 90% of the people that feel personally they should NOT be chooosing abortion. Ouch, talk about a stigma.
Does it bother you to know that a great majority of people, including myself, believe that a twelve week old baby is nothing less than a human life and we see you (and all abortionists) as heartless killers?
killers.
Obama should understand a need to legalize drugs.
He owes it to all the young men and women (especially poor men) who’s lives have been destroyed and that have suffered long incarceration and orphaned or fatherless children all because of the possession of crack.
“He is completely different person now.”
Well, yes. Do you belittle everyone because of their past? Make sure they don’t succeed because they had made mistakes? Wow!
“What is his stance on legalization of drugs? That would be a “change””
It’s funny you ask when all you need to do is just look for it. Or was it a rhetorical question?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/26/obama.inhale.cnn
“Obama should understand a need to legalize drugs.
He owes it to all the young men and women (especially poor men) who’s lives have been destroyed and that have suffered long incarceration and orphaned or fatherless children all because of the possession of crack.”
Yeah I guess people who used to be alcoholics are responsible for the whole countries’ ills too, and are unable to move forward and lead a productive life.
Jesus. You guys make a big deal about overcoming obstacles…but when someone does and you don’t like their political stance you bring them down with insults! Can’t you all just start looking at the policies instead. It would be a more fun discussion than listening to this blathering.
If you want a perspective, why not reflect on how lame you thought it was that Bush’s drunk driving in his past got into the race. Or at least, that was the sentiment I was getting here. I have no doubt that Bush had done some toking in college. How could he not have?
“Truthseeker”, your numbers are wrong. The USA has a large pro-choice majority which however is (usually) complacent and inactive, taking abortion rights and access for granted. This majority regards right-to-lifers such as yourself as delusional weirdos.
The fact that some sects and some politicians successfully raise money by demonizing us does not bother me at all. I guess it bothers me a little that people fall for it.
“Wetmypants”, George W. Bush has proven that youthful cocaine use does not disqualify a presidential candidate.
PIP,
You miss my point all togther. I was serious that Obama, as a young black man who got caught up in smoling crack, should understand all the pain and misery that is caused NOT by the drug itself, but the fact that it is illegal and has mandatory sentencing guidelines that destroys peoples lives for “youthful” indiscretions. I could really give a crap wether opr nor Obama used crack cocaine, but does he realize that if he were one of those youth who got aressted he would have been sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years in prison. Having smoked crack himself he is in a unique position to care about those other people enough to protect them from these mandatory sentencing laws.
And in that video he says he is not for people smoking a joint just cause they feel tense. Why should he give a crap if another adult makes a choice to smoke a joint?
SoMG says:
**************
“Truthseeker”, your numbers are wrong. The USA has a large pro-choice majority which however is (usually) complacent and inactive, taking abortion rights and access for granted. This majority regards right-to-lifers such as yourself as delusional weirdos.
***************
SoMG, Which numbers are wrong? Isn’t it true that over 50% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape and incest? Isn’t it true that even all the pro-aborts who run for President say they personally are against abortion? You are a heartless killer, and you are in denial.
SoMG,
The only way you can live with yourself is to create delusions of support in your head. It’s just you abortionists and your staffers that really think it is o.k. And even they usually can’t stand it for too long. Do you ever go out for drinks with this so called “inactive complacent majority”? If you did then they would tell you that abortion is evil but they allow it only because they believe a mother should be allowed the right to choose to end her pregnancy. You are the Devil’s hand and your legacy is as a sleazy hired killer.
Oh, and by the way SoMG. There really is no such thing as the “complacent silent majority” you have created in your head. My numbers are right.
Truthseeker,
I guess I am confused. Are you advocating the legalization of drugs?
I am advocating compassion for all the pain and suffering caused to individuals and their families because of the illegality of drugs. I was at court the other day and I shit you not, I saw a guy get sentenced to eight years in prison for violating his probation by being found in possesion of a joint. IMHO it is precisely because drugs are illegal and the incarceration of our people that often causes more pain and suffering on these families then the drug use itself.
And do you really think Obama cares if another adult smokes a joint or is he just saying he does cause he thinks it gives him a better chance of being elected?
I think (personally) that drug laws need to be lightened especially in terms of marijuana (which to me is a rather victimless crime.) But harder drugs should be judged more harshly because of their heavy toll on others. I think we’d have more room in prison for more hardcore criminals if drug laws were lighter.
Anyway I think Obama does not support full legalization of marijuana but I don’t know what he thinks of the harshness of penalties it receives. I think his point was that he doesn’t want the laws so lax that it will be abused and then basically fully legalized, but at least in the right settings he has no problem with it. Which I feel is fair, many adults feel the same way.
We need to start thinking creatively when it comes to drugs. The War on Drugs has been nothing but a 120 billion dollar/year waste. Drug prices have gone down and purity has increased, the exact opposite of what was supposed to happen. America needs to try going a different path when it comes to drugs, and harsher sentences do nothing when it comes to try and deter people from using. Our prisons are over crowded with durg users, a new approach has to be made in that direction.
Anonymous: National debt is $150,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. Do Obama supporters think he will reduce that number? Do they care?
You’re kidding yourself if you think that any elected President is going to “fix” this or even reduce it one whit.
Your figures are pretty good, though. Including unfunded liabilities, I just calculated it and came up with $164,000 per person, so right in the ballpark.
Doug
Obama’s fiscal and domestic agendas are poised to let the market “solve” economic inequalities. So this is what “change” looks like?
That’s exactly what should happen. Allow the markets to function without gov’t intervention. There are more “ups and downs” along the way, but we don’t get into an unsolvable situation, which is what we have now with the debt.
Doug
The fact that some sects and some politicians successfully raise money by demonizing us does not bother me at all. I guess it bothers me a little that people fall for it.
Posted by: SoMG at February 9, 2008 6:24 AM
What kind of wierdo would demonize someone for killing children?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Isn’t it true that over 50% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape and incest? ”
No, that is not true.
Anonymous, why do you say that it is not true. All the polls I see say that it is so. 57% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal if the reason is just an unwanted pregnancy.
See for instance http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp
“Sixty-four percent of Americans agree that the decision to have an abortion should be between “a woman, her doctor, her family, her conscience and her God” (Luntz Research Companies, August 2003)”
see http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm
Even Fox news admits that more Americans are pro-choice than are right-to-life: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154805,00.html
Also check out:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070523/27569_Poll:__Most_Pro-Choice_Americans_Still_'Conservative'_on_Abortion.htm
Check this out:
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_avlon_abortion.htm
“Sixty-four percent of Americans agree that the decision to have an abortion should be between “a woman, her doctor, her family, her conscience and her God,” according to a 2003 poll by Luntz Research Companies, confirming the results of a 1995 Newsweek poll. Likewise, 66% of Americans would not like to see Roe v. Wade completely overturned, according to a 2005 NBC/WSJ poll.
Furthermore, according to the Gallup Poll, only 19% of Americans think that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances — a number that has held steady over the three decades Gallup has been asking the question.
But at the same time, 68% supported making partial birth abortions illegal, when asked by a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2003.”
CNN poll:
57% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal if the reason is just an unwanted pregnancy.
I explained it already SoMG.
Another 37% believe “personally” it is wrong but would leave the decision up to the mother.
Thats OVER 90% who think abortion is wrong. You can keep crunching the numbers and finding creative ways to get that “complacent silent majority” back into your head.
What does SoMG stand for?
Spirit of Martin Gardner.
Provide a link to that CNN poll if you please.
Here’s a CNN abortion poll: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/27/abortion.poll/index.html
Money quote: “Roughly two-thirds of the people questioned in a recent poll on abortion supported parental and spousal notification but opposed a constitutional amendment to ban the practice altogether.”
I had found that CNN poll when I was researching earlier. Couldn’t find again just now but here is a Gallup poll from May of 07:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
26% legal under any circumstance.
55% legal under some circumstance
18% illegal in all circumstance.
And out of the 26% that think it should be legal, most of those still think it would be the wrong decision for them “personally”.
Again, that leaves you with over 90% who think abortion is WRONG and 73% who think it should be illegal.
SoMG,
So you believe in Spirits?
What do you mean by “Spirits”?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “26% legal under any circumstance.
55% legal under some circumstance
18% illegal in all circumstance.
Again, that leaves you with over 90% who think abortion is WRONG and 73% who think it should be illegal. ”
How do you figure that? 26% + 55% = 81% who think it should be legal.
You can’t even read your own numbers.
SoMG, You the one who said your moniker was “Spirit” of Martin Gardner. So I said that you believe in Spirits then. What did you mean by “Spirit” of Martin Gardner?
SoMG,
Watch the numbers carefully now as I go through them with you one more time.
18% think illegal in all circumstances.
55% think illegal under some circumstances.
So far we have 73% that think abortion should be illegal at least some of the time. That leaves 27%. Of those 27% 4 out of five are against abortion pesonally but allow it because they would leave the decision entorely up to the expectant mother. That makes about another 20% that are “personally” against abortion but think it should be legal. Add that to the 73% who believe it should be illegal in at least some circustances and you have 93% against abortion.
Why do you continue use those numbers to create a “delusional silent complacent majority” that exists only in your head?
Truthseeker, one could argue the “some circumstances” believe in the viability standard, which is currently in place even though lifers say otherwise. I believe it should be illegal in some cases, and it already is, therefore I have no qualms with it. I’m still pro choice and think it should be legal. You cant claim all those numbers, obivoulsly we cant either. They are a mix of both, per se. But still “some circumstances” sounds more pro-choice than pro-life.
Dan, Even the PC crowd is pro-life. Can you name me anybody who is “for” abortion? IMHO the answer is an emphatic NO. People will allow for it under certain circumstances but NOBODY is “for” it. In all truth it is completely against human nature NOT to be pro-life.
NOBODY is “for” abortion that is with the possible exception of those who make their blood money by working in the abortion industry.
And everyone on here calls us “pro-aborts,” makes you wonder. I’ve gotten so used to that label at this point that I haven’t even bothered to push away from it. I know I’m pro choice, as do pro-choice Americans. The fact that you can understand why that is our “name” as a whole is a good thing at this point. We’ve been saying what you said for probably a year or more on this blog TS, except when we say it, it falls on deaf ears.
They are for legal access to abortion however, so you still cant truly consider them pro-life. Heck, there are members on here who wouldnt consider anyone who has exceptions as pro-life.
Dan,
I guess I understand both sides. I can see logic in somebody who is against abortion in all circumstances saying that any who is ever for abortion cannot call themselves truly pro-life.
The way I see it we are all pro-life but the PCers are willing to “sacrifice”, or allow the mother’s sacrificing of a baby’s life for virtually any reason that the mother deems necessary. People throw around words like sentience. But when sentience occurs is really ambiguoas and it can’t be right to let people indiscriminately kill babies based upon arbitrary determination of “sentience”.
I don’t think it is right at all to say you can kill ababy up to any point where it could not survive on it’s own outside the womb. Babies continue to need a great deal of care to survive outside the womb too sothis seems to me to be a completely arbitrary determination of when/what gives worth to a baby in the womb
Some people will sayb you can’t force a pregnant mother to carry her baby to term, others say that they should have to take responsibility for the baby if they had consentual sex. One thing I am certain of is that killing babies in the womb with this kind of ambiguity is just not right.
I have my own very clean and very unambiguos solution. A person’s “real” right to choose is the choice to have sex. We go into intecourse knowing that pregnancy is possible. When consentual sex brings a “new” life into being we need to respect that new life. Wether we were “trying” to conceive a child not is not a valid reason to kill the child once we bring it into existence.