so...Mike Huckabee.

[Irvine511]

Concerning this issue, yes, it's pretty black-or-white around here.

see, this is why i think being pro-choice makes abortion truly shades of gray.

so long as it is legal, a woman can decides what she wants and needs to do. you can be totally against abortion and view each one as a tragedy, but still think that making them illegal isn't the best course of action. i have much more respect for those in the pro-life camp who might volunteer at pregnancy emergency centers, work very hard to help women explore other options, etc. i fully understand where the objection to abortion comes from -- though i think tossing out the word "murder" is really, really unhelpful; that's not honesty, that's inflammatory, and it's ultimately extremely anti-female -- but i also don't think that you're going to end abortion by making it illegal.

if abortion is so terrible (and i know why people think it is) why don't you focus on prevention? isn't that what we're supposed to do with other medical issues? shouldn't you exercise and eat right so you don't have a heart attack? shouldn't you not smoke so you don't get lung cancer? likewise, shouldn't you be taught the basics of human sexuality and provided with fully covered birth control (pills, condoms, whatever) so that you don't get pregnant in the first place?

it seems to me that much -- not all -- of the pro-life movement views a pregnancy as a punishment for a woman who's obviously been slutty. she's not a virgin. she's slept with someone other than her husband. and now that little slut has produced a beautiful, innocent baby, and she better take her promiscuous ass and get it in gear and get a job at WalMart and start focusing on that baby. if she had just followed the rules and abstained and gotten married like a good girl, then she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. serves her right.

alternatives to abortion is one thing; outlawing it is something totally different.

 

[Irvine511]

The hierarchy kicks in during the homosexual rights/marriage threads, mostly. (For the record, that is one issue I have very little opinion about, perhaps because it doesn't affect me at all, and perhaps because I haven't given much thought to the potential ramifications of it) I have literally heard the phrase "certain opinions aren't allowed" in that particular area. I'm not bitching about it or anything, but that's just what I observed.

coming from who?

i've never heard anyone censor an opinion, and i'm sure our mods would speak up if such a thing were to happen.

i can understand that conservative posters don't like being ganged up on. there are times in more women's-rights oriented threads -- particularly concerning women and sexuality -- that i take more unpopular positions and sometimes feel ganged up on. but that's the nature of the forum, and of having a discussion, and sometimes you're in the minority and it's a great time to sharpen your skills and really work through your arguments.

i can understand that it can be hard to keep up when four people respond to one post, but if the argument is worth having, then surely it is worth defending? or is it that many of the "conservative" arguments put forth in here -- from "the surge is working" to "Jefferson was an evangelical protestant just like me" to "abortion is murder" -- aren't either very good arguments, or aren't positions that are particularly well argued?

 

[LemonMelon]

see, this is why i think being pro-choice makes abortion truly shades of gray.

so long as it is legal, a woman can decides what she wants and needs to do. you can be totally against abortion and view each one as a tragedy, but still think that making them illegal isn't the best course of action. i have much more respect for those in the pro-life camp who might volunteer at pregnancy emergency centers, work very hard to help women explore other options, etc. i fully understand where the objection to abortion comes from -- though i think tossing out the word "murder" is really, really unhelpful; that's not honesty, that's inflammatory, and it's ultimately extremely anti-female -- but i also don't think that you're going to end abortion by making it illegal.

if abortion is so terrible (and i know why people think it is) why don't you focus on prevention? isn't that what we're supposed to do with other medical issues? shouldn't you exercise and eat right so you don't have a heart attack? shouldn't you not smoke so you don't get lung cancer? likewise, shouldn't you be taught the basics of human sexuality and provided with fully covered birth control (pills, condoms, whatever) so that you don't get pregnant in the first place?

it seems to me that much -- not all -- of the pro-life movement views a pregnancy as a punishment for a woman who's obviously been slutty. she's not a virgin. she's slept with someone other than her husband. and now that little slut has produced a beautiful, innocent baby, and she better take her promiscuous ass and get it in gear and get a job at WalMart and start focusing on that baby. if she had just followed the rules and abstained and gotten married like a good girl, then she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. serves her right.

alternatives to abortion is one thing; outlawing it is something totally different.

Actually, I completely agree with you. The dead fetuses are a tragedy and that there are indeed people out there who treat the future with more respect than the present is a tragedy. To make abortion illegal is to promote greater health hazards for mothers everywhere; people couldn't get them in a medical emergency, plus, it would send folks back to the shady businesses that practiced it before it became legal using inferior tools. Dangerous? Yup.

The only thing I'm picky about is abortion being used as birth control. Even if a child cannot be properly provided for, I still think it should have a shot at life. But as you said, prevention would keep this from being an issue in the first place.

coming from who?

i've never heard anyone censor an opinion, and i'm sure our mods would speak up if such a thing were to happen.

i can understand that conservative posters don't like being ganged up on. there are times in more women's-rights oriented threads -- particularly concerning women and sexuality -- that i take more unpopular positions and sometimes feel ganged up on. but that's the nature of the forum, and of having a discussion, and sometimes you're in the minority and it's a great time to sharpen your skills and really work through your arguments.

i can understand that it can be hard to keep up when four people respond to one post, but if the argument is worth having, then surely it is worth defending? or is it that many of the "conservative" arguments put forth in here -- from "the surge is working" to "Jefferson was an evangelical protestant just like me" to "abortion is murder" -- aren't either very good arguments, or aren't positions that are particularly well argued?

Well said. I have felt ganged-up on here in the past, but hey, a topic worth arguing over is one worth researching and discussing properly, even if that means being a little outnumbered when doing so.

 

[diamond]

Actually, I completely agree with you. The dead fetuses are a tragedy and that there are indeed people out there who treat the future with more respect than the present is a tragedy. To make abortion illegal is to promote greater health hazards for mothers everywhere; people couldn't get them in a medical emergency, plus, it would send folks back to the shady businesses that practiced it before it became legal using inferior tools. Dangerous? Yup.

The only thing I'm picky about is abortion being used as birth control. Even if a child cannot be properly provided for, I still think it should have a shot at life. But as you said, prevention would keep this from being an issue in the first place.



Well said. I have felt ganged-up on here in the past, but hey, a topic worth arguing over is one worth researching and discussing properly, even if that means being a little outnumbered when doing so.

chin up my friend.


dbs

 

[anitram]

To get back on topic...

Mike Huckabee will be eaten by the GOP elite in the end (I think). I can't conceive of any way they would allow him to be the candidate, because he is simply unelectable nation-wide.

 

[diamond]

the closer you scrutanize the Gov and Baptist preacher, the more chinks you find in his armour.

1033 pardons including 12 murderers who "found Jesus"?

This guy is no law and order Republican.

dbs

 

[LemonMelon]

No, Huckabee's chances aren't great. Guiliani and Clinton will likely win the primaries, though Obama seems to be rising in popularity as of late.

I still want Paul vs. Kucinich, but that won't happen in a million years.

 

[anitram]

Giuliani is dead in the water. I don't see how he has a chance at all. There are about 101 scandals following him and his claim that he's the one to beat Hillary really hasn't borne out in the polls. Plus he's scary, ghoullish-looking and unlikeable and the right hates him.

Romney has much better chances than Giuliani, but he's a slick flip flopper. McCain is the wildcard - I wrote him off eons ago, but he may just sneak past this awful mess in the end.

 

[Irvine511]

Romney has much better chances than Giuliani, but he's a slick flip flopper. McCain is the wildcard - I wrote him off eons ago, but he may just sneak past this awful mess in the end.

i think it's either Romney or McCain. McCain could pull off a Kerry and be the consensus "electable" candidate.

for the Dems ... hard to say. i think it's still HRC's to lose, but Obama is a force to be reckoned with in many different ways. too close to call.

 

[diamond]

Here's a very nice ad:

http://election.newsmax.com/romney_judgement/

 

[phillyfan26]

So, for those scoring at home:

GOP: Romney vs. McCain
Dems: Clinton vs. Obama

 

[2861U2]

I wouldnt count out Rudy. His strategy just might work.

 

[financeguy]

I wouldnt count out Rudy. His strategy just might work.

Agreed, exaggerating the Islamist terra threat is quite an effective tactic.

 

[BVS]

I wouldnt count out Rudy. His strategy just might work.

What stradegy is that?

 

[2861U2]

What stradegy is that?

His strategy to get the nomination, by focusing on the bigger states.

 

[BVS]

His strategy to get the nomination, by focusing on the bigger states.

Wow, that's vague. You think everyone else is ignoring the bigger states? Basically, I ask what do you see his stradegy being, how is it any different from the other canidates?

 

[2861U2]

Wow, that's vague. You think everyone else is ignoring the bigger states? Basically, I ask what do you see his stradegy being, how is it any different from the other canidates?

Rudy acknowledges that he probably will not win or come close to winning Iowa, or probably NH. He's got a big lead in Florida, and is spending most of his money there, as opposed to people like Romney or Huckabee spending mostly in Iowa.

 

[BVS]

Rudy acknowledges that he probably will not win or come close to winning Iowa, or probably NH. He's got a big lead in Florida, and is spending most of his money there, as opposed to people like Romney or Huckabee spending mostly in Iowa.

He acknowledges that? I haven't seem him acknowledge anything, but OK.

I just don't see how a strategy of ignoring these states is going to somehow change his overall appeal. No one seems to trust him all that much, from both sides.

 

[2861U2]

He acknowledges that? I haven't seem him acknowledge anything, but OK.

He said on Wolf Blitzer the other day that he doesn't expect to win them all, and I would assume he was implying Iowa.

 

[U2DMfan]

Let's talk a brief look at Giuliani's strategy.

Iowa Caucus, the last 30 years

Eventual Rep Nominee:
2004 GWB 1st
2000 GWB 1st
1996 Dole 1st
1992 GHWB 1st
1988 GHWB 3rd
1984 Reagan 1st
1980 Reagan 2nd
1976 Ford 1st

New Hampshire primary the last 30 years:

2004 GWB 1st
2000 GWB 2nd
1996 Dole 2nd
1992 GHWB 1st
1988 GHWB 1st
1984 Reagan 1st
1980 Reagan 1st
1976 Ford 1st

Obviously 4 of those elections had incumbents but even still, those numbers are quite telling. I didn't look at the Dem results but I believe they are pretty much the same. Rudy is banking on a longshot.

Why we let those two States determine so much, who knows?
I mean, I know the stated reasons, I just think they are bullshit.

 

[martha]

Why we let those two States determine so much, who knows?
I mean, I know the stated reasons, I just think they are bullshit.

I know. 33 million people in California can go fuck ourselves for all anyone cares.

 

[U2DMfan]

Just looked real quick
the Dems in the last 30 years/Iowa and New Hampshire

6 of 8 eventual nominees won New Hampshire
the other two finished second

6 of 8 won Iowa (in 1976, "uncomitted" delegates actually won, with Carter 2nd, so I counted it as essentially a victory). The other two finished 3rd (1992 Clinton actually 4th behind "uncommited", again among actual candidates, 3rd)


Anyhow, risky plan to say the least.

 

[2861U2]

Rudy is banking on a longshot.

Yes, it certainly is risky. He basically needs the 3 states of Iowa, NH, and SC to have at least 2, if not 3 different winners, assuming he wins none of them. If one person sweeps those 3, he's in big trouble. That's pretty unlikely, though. I'm pulling for Romney to win Iowa, as that would almost undoubtedly knock Huckabee out.

 

[deep]

I know. 33 million people in California can go fuck ourselves for all anyone cares.

Calif. population nears 38 million, up 11.5 percent since 2000
By DON THOMPSON Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 12/19/2007 05:59:12 PM PST

SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is fond of referring to California as a nation state.

Population figures released Wednesday show that if the Golden State was its own country, it would be right there with Poland.

California's population is nearing 38 million, up 11.5 percent since the 2000 census, according to estimates by the state Department of Finance.

Among nations, 33 countries have more people, with Poland's population running just ahead at 38.5 million. The latest figure still means California has more people than Canada.

The department calculated that the nation's most populous state had about 37,771,000 people as of July 1. It added 438,000 more residents in the previous year.

Just more than 12 percent of the 301 million people in the U.S. live in California.

 

[BVS]

I'm pulling for Romney to win Iowa, as that would almost undoubtedly knock Huckabee out.

Well I'm glad some conservatives are coming to their senses, although I wouldn't really call voting for Romney sensible, it's a start.

 

[Axver]

Damnit, I always make a post on an FYM thread only to come back the next day and find it's completely moved on from when I posted. Well, to go back 30 or so posts, I'd just like to say to LM that I hold no ill will whatsoever towards him.

 

[verte76]

Just looked real quick
the Dems in the last 30 years/Iowa and New Hampshire

6 of 8 eventual nominees won New Hampshire
the other two finished second

6 of 8 won Iowa (in 1976, "uncomitted" delegates actually won, with Carter 2nd, so I counted it as essentially a victory). The other two finished 3rd (1992 Clinton actually 4th behind "uncommited", again among actual candidates, 3rd)


Anyhow, risky plan to say the least.

Yeah, I remember Clinton got his momentum from winning Super Tuesday. Before then his campaign was in trouble.

 

[2861U2]

Well I'm glad some conservatives are coming to their senses, although I wouldn't really call voting for Romney sensible, it's a start.

I never really jumped on the Huckabee bandwagon. He's a nice guy and I like where he stands on some stuff, but I do not want him to be the nominee.

 

[nathan1977]

I never really jumped on the Huckabee bandwagon. He's a nice guy and I like where he stands on some stuff, but I do not want him to be the nominee.

If I were voting for a national pastor, Huckabee might be a good option. (Though I'd still vote for Franklin Graham ahead of him.) I may be in the minority, but I still like McCain for president. He's got the most experience, still seems to be the most straight-talking, and his ability to reach across the aisle with McCain/Feingold means that he can actually get stuff done.

I vote Fred Thompson for national grandpa.

 

[BVS]

If I were voting for a national pastor, Huckabee might be a good option.

Really? I just don't see how this guy is even remotely respectable, even to conservative christians. Maybe I'm so removed from that thinking anymore that I just can't relate, but I don't get it.

He's actually preaching this Sunday down the street from me at the home of the discusting televangalist John Hagee.