"HERE She COMES, Ready or NOT"..........(you) RE-PLUG-BLICANS !

Wow! ------- That's all we need! Another power crazed Demoncrate, who will do, or say, anything to strock her ego!!!
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
TWO  for the Price of One.   I'll take THAT DEAL....ANYDAY !
 
http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-returns-to-iowa-and-bill-clinton-almost-steals-the-show-024220296.html
 
But who would (or CAN) the GOP   'RECYCLE" to face 'HILL  in 16' ?
 
Mitt (I DONT G-A-SHIIT about THOSE 41% of AMERICANS) (I was FOR Romneycare, before I was AGAINST Obamacare)....Romney  ?
 
Mike HUCKLEBERRY ?
 
(VERY Scary) Rick SANTORUM ?
 
P-RICK (I just got INDICTED) (Glasses) PERRY?
 
(uncle) Herman......69 (times) 9...CAIN ?
 
 
JESUS.  (his BUS keeps breakin' down, and NEVER gets to his Destination)  ??
 
I mean,.......Seriously.........fellow 'coolers  ! ? ! 
Click to expand...
 
 
Hillary Clinton's political troubles - among them the inability to name a single accomplishment as Secretary of State, her "dead broke" comments, and the Benghazi debacle - are numerous and well-documented.  They're why her as-yet-unannounced-but-supposedly-destined-for-victory presidential bid has had so much trouble gaining traction. Now, she's got a new problem: her own base.
 
The Democrat party has moved so far left that they apparently view Hillary some kind of rabid right winger. Her uber-progressive constituents have goose-stepped right past her and Hillary has failed to keep pace.  At least, that appears to be the argument that the Politico's Mike Allen made on Morning Joe yesterday.
 
Some of the Dems top Donors, he claims, have become less and less enamored with the former first lady. "They think she's too hawkish, too close to Wall Street - they're concerned about her views on climate, on money and politics and, of course, these are all issues that people give money on.”
http://www.caintv.com/politicos-mike-allen-dem-donor
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the first black non US citizen prez and now maybe the first woman fake indian prez.....two in a row?
 
 
land-o-fakes.jpg
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
 
 
Why am I guessing  Y O U  were all for going into Iraq the first time, cause' your boy..Dirty DICK Cheney said Saddam had WMD....backed up by credible proof  !!
Click to expand...
I know of quite a few Demorat politicians who were "FOR" the Iraq war !
 
Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.
Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Breaux (D-LA), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Cleland (D-GA), Yea 
CLINTON (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea 
Edwards (D-NC), Yea 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hollings (D-SC), Yea 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Miller (D-GA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
 
Next!
 
Ms Tree said:
Dont worry.  When he starts to talk on the national stage he wont be able to run away from the questions and his standing will sink making the Titanic look sea worthy.
Click to expand...
 
 
He's been speaking on the International Stage already boy genius and in places no Republican has spoken to in decades. Face it Tree, Liberty is popular. It is an idea that no government or standing army can stop.
 
Ms Tree said:
Dont worry.  When he starts to talk on the national stage he wont be able to run away from the questions and his standing will sink making the Titanic look sea worthy.
Click to expand...
like Hilliary will if anyone bothers to question her
 
Not quite the same.  Point being is that when people start asking uncomfortable questions he cannot cut and run.  Then he has to explain his extreme position on abortion with the sanctity of life bill.  Immigrants and women will not be happy.  Then again, the GOP is used to that.
 
He's been speaking on the International Stage already boy genius and in places no Republican has spoken to in decades. Face it Tree, Liberty is popular. It is an idea that no government or standing army can stop.
Click to expand...
The Republican candidate will have to endure a feeding frenzy. All that will be left are random chunks of the message.
 
Dog Wonder said:
The Republican candidate will have to endure a feeding frenzy. All that will be left are random chunks of the message.
Click to expand...
Actually one of my biggest fears. Either than or it will be 1964 all over again when the big money Republicans deserted Barry Goldwater.
 
Ms Tree said:
Not quite the same.  Point being is that when people start asking uncomfortable questions he cannot cut and run.  Then he has to explain his extreme position on abortion with the sanctity of life bill.  Immigrants and women will not be happy.  Then again, the GOP is used to that.
Click to expand...
 
 
Mildly curious as to when exactly a Majority opinion became extreme?
 

CNN Poll: 58 Percent of Americans Oppose Abortion in All or Most Cases
 
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283
 
 
As to his pending legislation, I happen to think it is long past time to legally define when life begins. Whether it be his benchmark or another. I think frankly the purpose of the bill is to bring forth a national dialog leading to some sort of consensus and appropriate legislation. However part om me believes that it's none of the Governments business.
 
SparrowHawk said:
 
 
Mildly curious as to when exactly a Majority opinion became extreme?
 
CNN Poll: 58 Percent of Americans Oppose Abortion in All or Most Cases
 
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/10/cnn-poll-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283
 
 
As to his pending legislation, I happen to think it is long past time to legally define when life begins. Whether it be his benchmark or another. I think frankly the purpose of the bill is to bring forth a national dialog leading to some sort of consensus and appropriate legislation. However part om me believes that it's none of the Governments business.
Click to expand...
It is extreme because he has no right to tell another individual what they may or may not do with their body.  The head line and your interpretation of it are a bit disingenuous.  Only 20% believe it should be illegal in all circumstances which is what Rand Paul believes in.  Unless you are using a different math than I am accustom to, 20% is not a majority.
 
Before you can define when life begins, you have to define what you mean by life.  Legally, a religious explanation cannot be used due to the separation of church and state not to mention that we would have to determine which religious definition would be used.  The religious folks will never accept a scientific definition.  They cannot even accept a scientific explanation of how old the world is or evolution.  
 
The easiest way to deal with this is that until the fetus leave the mothers body, it has no rights.  It is not a life as far as the law is concerned.  When speaking of citizenship it is determined by birth, not conception.   
 
Ms Tree said:
It is extreme because he has no right to tell another individual what they may or may not do with their body.  The head line and your interpretation of it are a bit disingenuous.  Only 20% believe it should be illegal in all circumstances which is what Rand Paul believes in.  Unless you are using a different math than I am accustom to, 20% is not a majority.
 
Before you can define when life begins, you have to define what you mean by life.  Legally, a religious explanation cannot be used due to the separation of church and state not to mention that we would have to determine which religious definition would be used.  The religious folks will never accept a scientific definition.  They cannot even accept a scientific explanation of how old the world is or evolution.  
 
The easiest way to deal with this is that until the fetus leave the mothers body, it has no rights.  It is not a life as far as the law is concerned.  When speaking of citizenship it is determined by birth, not conception.   
Click to expand...
OHHHH It's not extreme if you support it. I see how this works now. Just like Orwell's Animal Farm, Two legs bad, four legs good.
 
How silly of me not to be as enlightened as a Progressive. We're just a bunch of knuckle scrappers whose opinions don't count because Progressive Liberals know so much about running government. I mean look how well the economy is doing with all that scary talent in DC.
 
58% is more than 50% and on some level they agree that  the current path is unacceptable as a society. Besides if a women were to truly enjoy "Reproductive Rights" (whatever they are?) then said woman should be legally allowed to sell her fetus to the highest bidder. Excerpt from "The Ethics of Liberty" by Dr. Murray Rothbard.
 
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.
 
Balance here http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
 
No.  20% is less than 50%.  On 20% want to completely ban abortion and that is what Rand Paul believes.  That is extreme in that an over whelming majority disagree with him.
 
While a fetus does not have rights under US law, eventually a fetus comes out of the womb and at that point they are considered a 'person' under the law and cannot be sold so while your cut and paste is a nice talking point it falls flat legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top