Rudy Giuliani is done

No sane woman would use late-term abortions as a form of birth control. It's such a painful and arduous procedure, it's really only used for medical emergencies/abnormalities.

Explicator Guy wrote:

And please don't counter with "Fred Thompson" as an argument. Nice imposing big gruff guy, but check his positions on issues.

i tend to disagree with you on this. i think the reason many republican types are excited about the possibility of fred thompson running is exactly because of his positions on issues.

it is also precisely b/c of the fact that virtually all of the running repub candidates tend to be very liberal republicans that there is no strong feelings for any of them by the base of the party.

Right on Sam, we just covered something along those lines in Con. Law regarding California and the same kind of thing.

RIP Palmer wrote:

Right on Sam, we just covered something along those lines in Con. Law regarding California and the same kind of thing.

i knew that law degree of mine would come in handy sometime.

:)

sam w wrote:

i tend to disagree with you on this. i think the reason many republican types are excited about the possibility of fred thompson running is exactly because of his positions on issues.

I've heard this a lot about Fred Thompson, but can anyone actually tell me his position on the issues?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Yea, I would never vote for a guy who supports Constitutional rights and the protection of American freedom.

You might, and I might, but Republicans wouldn't. Then they wouldn't be Republicans.

whats that. wrote:

as for the abortion issue...... don't go stickin your dick in places if youre not prepared for the outcome. revearsely, don't go lettin people stick their dick in you if you're not prepared for the outcome. its as simple as that. RESPONSIBILITY.

That's exactly why I'm sick of smokers getting treatment for lung cancer. Let them rot away in the gutter I say. And what's with all these obese idiots who think they can just come and demand insulin? Fu\ck them all, it's that simple. RESPONSIBILITY.

hypnotoad wrote:

That's exactly why I'm sick of smokers getting treatment for lung cancer. Let them rot away in the gutter I say. And what's with all these obese idiots who think they can just come and demand insulin? F*** them all, it's that simple. RESPONSIBILITY.

Agreed. And any runner who shows up with a stress fracture or a pulled hamstring should pony up their own cash as well.

one time GOPer wrote:

I've heard this a lot about Fred Thompson, but can anyone actually tell me his position on the issues?

Fred Thompson tends to be conservative on social a fiscal issues. He served in the senate, but is no longer in public life.

His views tend to be somewhat like that of Ronald Reagan.

Here is how he has voted, when in the Senate:

-Pro-life votes consistently.

-He supports a person's right to own a firearm.

-He favors school vouchers and voted for college savings accounts.

-He voted to allow into America more people for farm work.

-Voted in favor of social security "lockbox" and to limit national debt.

-Voted for campaign finance reform, aka McCain-Feingold.

-Favors death penalty.

-Voted to ban campaign contributions from Unions and Corporations.

-Voted for funding of National Endowment of the Arts.

-Pro-free trade, voted to normalize trade with Vietnam and extend free trade agreements to several South American countries.

-Favors trade embargo of Cuba.

-Voted to cut American nuclear weapons levels.

-Voted for 5% pay raise for military.

-Voted for implementing national missile defense.

OK, I am against abortion, but think it shouls be legal to keep it "safe" and we work on ways to have women/girls choose to put the child up for adoption.

Now on to the real issue: the President's role in the abortion issue-

A president can nominate supreme court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade- that is the only way he/she can bring an end to abortion- at the national level- then it is up to each state.

So, in theory, a Republican president would nominate supreme court justices to overturn Roe v Wade.

So, since 1968 we have had:

68-76 Republicans

76-80 Dems

80-92 Republicans

92-2000 Dems

2000-08 Republicans

That's Republicans 28

Democrats 12

How many supreme court justices were nominated by Republicans? Why has Roe v Wade NOT been overturned? Because these politicians ARE NOT anti abortion, they are looking for votes from the conservative voters, using a dead issue. An issue that will never be resolved. Let's get off the abortion issue and on to the important, fixable issues like the economy and bringing unity to our nation.

There were times when we, as a nation, had pride and were respected worldwide. This is not a republican/democrat issue, it's an issue of us choosing the right person for the job.

Choose who you will, but base it on issues we can fix.

While it's obviously debatable whether or not abortion is a constitutionally protected right it's laughable that he apparently thinks there should be taxpayer money for it. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, but I don't think taxpayers ought to pay for someone to own a gun.

Rudy definitely won't get my vote now.

McCain-Feingold is more "Incumbent Protection" than "Campaign Finance Reform." And the embargo with Cuba has had 40+ years to work, and it hasn't.

I support Ron Paul. One of very few statesmen in a sea of politicians.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Mtn Dew wrote:

While it's obviously debatable whether or not abortion is a constitutionally protected right it's laughable that he apparently thinks there should be taxpayer money for it. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, but I don't think taxpayers ought to pay for someone to own a gun.

But you have taxpayer money for all sorts of health care. It's not as if the federal government is paying for abortions for every women who wants one. It's only those women poor enough to qualify for federal health care assistance in the first place.

That's Rudy's argument (and others): you can't decide not to fund one part of health care and not another.

Correct me if i'm wrong please...

but can't you buy viagra on government money????

What are we saying here???

one time GOPer wrote:

But you have taxpayer money for all sorts of health care. It's not as if the federal government is paying for abortions for every women who wants one. It's only those women poor enough to qualify for federal health care assistance in the first place.

That's Rudy's argument (and others): you can't decide not to fund one part of health care and not another.

Abortions are overwhelmingly elective procedures. Why should taxpayers pay for elective surgery that may or may not kill another human being?

And you can certainly fund part of healthcare and not part of another. Do poor women get breast implants at taxpayer expense? Well, unfortunately, some do, but it's rare and it's wrong.

If you do not value the constitution then vote Rudy.

Read the attached....

I'm a bit confused about this election. Are any of the candidates retarded enough for the American public to want in power?

Agreed, he'll never get the nomination with that stance. So according to him we should all pay for some irresponsible mother who wants to murder her child. Abortion is one thing. Having the rest of Americans pay for it is another. He's dumber than I thought.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Yea, I would never vote for a guy who supports Constitutional rights and the protection of American freedom.

Where is the constitutional right to abortion? It IS not in the constitution. If you want to put it in the constitution go for it. But do it the way you are supposed to Through the amendment process.

In the mean time don't tell me that just because 5 people in robes can't read and understand the constitution that I have to agree with their "emperor has new Clothes" ideas. Sometimes it is best to just speak the truth.

Who will tell the naked emperor that Abortion is not in the constitution?!!??!??