The presidential race

[PetertheRock]

There was a topic on another forum I go to about the Presidential race so far and this is my thoughts so far...

Well, the most important issue for me is abortion. I believe the rise or fall of our country is going to be based on whether we stop the holocaust that has been going on for years where millions and millions of innocent babies are being murdered each year. The blood of the innocent children are screaming out from the earth to God for vengence and I don't believe God is going to spare His wrath much longer. God has a history of using the hands of our enemies to punish our sins.

I believe it's immorality in general that is the biggest problem in our country and abortion is at the top of the list. Once you will kill a baby in what should be the safest place in the world, their own mothers womb, you will do anything. homosexuality, adultery, fornication, all these things are being accepted and encouraged in our country and around the world. If this continues to be the case God will show us His vengence.

That being said, sadly, none of the current top runners for either party is right for the job. Certainly both Democratic front runners are 100% pro abortion including partial birth abortion with no restrictions. Unfortunately the Republican side isn't any better. Guiliani would be good with national security which is an important issue for me, but he is also pro abortion and pro gays. Mitt Romney is probably about the only one I could vote for right now. He says he is pro life but he used to be pro abortion. So it depends if he is genuinely pro life. He was good as governor of Massachusetts and he bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympics and turned a disaster into a profit so I believe he would be good with the budget and everything.

I do have a few people I really like but don't have a chance. My current favorite is Mike Huckabee. Here is his stand on a few important issues...

http://www.mikehuckabee.com

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Cathcart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. While I am optimistic that we are turning the tide in favor of life, we still have many battles ahead of us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and so it is vital that we elect a pro-life President.

I first became politically active because of abortion, when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it legally can to protect life.

As Governor, I did all I could to protect life. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction.

To me, life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents.

I believe in using existing stem cell lines for research, but I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it.

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

I applaud the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Cathcart forbidding the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. While I am optimistic that we are turning the tide in favor of life, we still have many battles ahead of us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and so it is vital that we elect a pro-life President.

No candidate has a stronger record on the sanctity of life than I do. I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life.

As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother.

What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation. If I'm saddled with a Democrat Congress, I'll veto any pro-abortion legislation they pass. I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the bully pulpit to change hearts and minds. I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage.

To me, life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents.

With respect to stem cells, I support federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. I'm encouraged by recent discoveries showing that stem cells from the umbilical cord offer great promise.
----------------------------------------------------
The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred.

My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.
Real faith makes us more humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have.

Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for "the least of us."
Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive faith telling us how or whether to believe, but acknowledging a providence that pervades our world.

The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it. When discussing faith and politics, we should honor the "candid" in candidate - I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer.

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have. Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for "the least of us."

Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive one telling us whether to believe, but one acknowledging that a providence pervades our world.
---------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror.

The Democrats deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda seeks permanent bases in Anbar province to plot and train against us.

General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.

The surge is a military means to achieve the political end of sectarian reconciliation among the Iraqis.
Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.
I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing Iraq.

Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there. Al Qaeda is a major ally of the Sunni insurgents in their fight against the Shiite majority. One of the most significant events in the Iraq War was Al Qaeda's bombing of the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. That bombing led to the dramatic rise in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites we've seen ever since, furthering Al Qaeda's goal of fomenting chaos and civil war. What's in it for them? They need territory, a place to plot their evil and train their murderers for another September 11. Al Qaeda intends to keep and expand its bases in the Sunni area of Anbar province. But we've made great progress in denying Al Qaeda that Anbar sanctuary, where the Commandant of the Marines, General Conway, says that "we have turned the corner." Fourteen of Anbar's eighteen tribal leaders no longer support Al Qaeda.

General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. With just over half our extra troops deployed so far and increases to continue until the middle of June, it's way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing. Having unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to lead the surge, the Democrats should let him do the job they sent him to do. They're Monday morning quarterbacking when it's only halftime.


To pressure the Iraqis into seizing the day before darkness descends, President Bush and Secretary Gates have been emphatic that this window will not remain open forever. At the same time, setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don't have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until "a week from Wednesday," we have always declared war until victory.

I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. If we leave, Iraq's neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is a crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it's not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box for the region. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq's central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we're faced with the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists are fighting to take advantage of: Iraq's central location as a prime place to create chaos and have it spread .

I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government.
----------------------------------------------

 

[PetertheRock]

I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy.

The top priority of the President as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens.
With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.

During the Cold War, we had hawks and doves, but this new war requires us to be a phoenix, rising reborn to meet each new challenge and seize each new opportunity.

As President, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.

The terrorists train in small, scattered groups. We can accomplish a great deal with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units.
We have to get tough with President Musharaff who has allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to have bases in Waziristan.

We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises.
The long-term solution is to empower moderates in the region by attacking the underlying conditions that breed terror.

Part of winning the war on terror is achieving energy independence.

I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission.

I have the executive and crisis management experience, the judgment and the temperament to be an effective commander in chief.

I will expand the army and increase the defense budget.

I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.

The top priority of the president as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens. While we live in a neighborhood of nations and must strive to be good neighbors, as President, I will ensure the peace, safety, and well-being of American citizens at home and abroad.

While I prefer America to be safe and secure within her own borders rather than loved and appreciated abroad, I believe we can accomplish both goals. We can resurrect relationships with our allies and neighbors. With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.

When the sun rose on September 11, we were the only superpower in the world; when the sun set that day, we were still the only superpower, but how different the world looked. During the Cold War, you were a hawk or a dove, but this new world requires us to be a phoenix, to rise from the ashes of the twin towers with a whole new game plan for this very different enemy. Being a phoenix means constantly reinventing ourselves, dying to mistakes and miscalculations, changing tactics and strategies, rising reborn to meet each new challenge and seize each new opportunity.

As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might. The terrorists unfortunately have a great many sympathizers all over the world, folks who are happy to show up and be filmed shouting "Death to America," but the actual number of those willing to blow themselves up is relatively few, and they train and plot in small, scattered groups.

It's an enemy conducive to being tracked down and eliminated by using the CIA and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command. We can accomplish a great deal, we can achieve tremendous bang for the buck, with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units, working with friendly governments, as we've done with the Ethiopians in Somalia. These operations are impossible without first-rate intelligence. When the Cold War ended, we cut back on our human intelligence, just as we cut back on our armed forces, and both have come back to haunt us. As President, I will beef up our human intelligence capacity, both the operatives who gather information and the analysts who figure out what it means.

Right after September 11, with wounds fresh and emotions running high, President Bush declared that all other countries were either for us or they were for the terrorists. Such a black-and-white stance doesn't work in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where there are more shades of gray than you'll find at Sherwin-Williams. Is President Musharaff of Pakistan for us 100%? No, since September 11, he's been playing both ends in the middle to survive. At the moment he's pulled too far away from us. While we have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have expanded their training camps in the Waziristan region of Pakistan with impunity. This bodes ominously not just for Afghanistan, but also for Al Qaeda's plotting and training for more attacks all over the world, including here in the United States. This is the direct result of an ill-conceived autonomy agreement President Musharaff made with Waziristan's tribal leaders. In fact the tribal leader Musharaff has praised for fighting foreign terrorists, Mullah Nazir, recently said that he would protect Osama bin Laden! We have to get tough with Mursharaff and re-calibrate the carrots and sticks we use with him. Pakistan is the fifth largest recipient of American aid, and right now we're not getting real good value. We're in a game of chicken with this military dictator: he warns us not to pursue terrorists across the border with Afghanistan, not to strike their bases on his territory because it could cause his government to fall and an even less friendly figure to take his job. But we have to make clear to him that he is of no use to us if he allows the Taliban and Al Qaeda to use his territory with impunity. The current situation highlights that, despite our generous aid, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda enjoy a disturbing degree of popularity in Pakistan. Ultimately it is this popularity contest, this war of ideas, that we have to win. Creativity and flexibility are Musharaff's keys to retaining power.

Creativity and flexibility are our keys to dealing with him and other Muslim leaders. Instead of asking if someone is for us, instead of demanding that every ally be at the level of Great Britain, I will ask if we should be for them, if they can be useful in any way, however limited, however temporary.

The terrorists have succeeded in dividing us over how to fight them, but we are not taking full advantage of their divisions and of the broader divisions in the region. For example, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah are all terrorist groups, but Hamas and Al Qaeda are Sunni and hate Hezbollah, which is Shiite, as much as they hate us. We are worried about the Iranians extending their sphere of influence west, but so are the Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, who dislike the Iranians not just because they are Shiites, but because they are Persians. Fighting smart means learning the neighborhood, achieving a level of political, religious, and cultural sophistication about the Arab and Islamic worlds that will pay huge dividends for us. We have to know the cast of characters, not just the national political leaders and their leading opponents, but the clerics, the tribal and clan leaders. We get criticized for our arrogance, but it's our ignorance that's killing us.

As for the underlying dispute between Sunnis and Shiites that's been going on for fourteen hundred years, we don't have a dog in that fight. Our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises. The Saudis want us to support extremist Sunni groups to counter growing Iranian influence. The Saudis assure us that they can control these groups and keep them from turning against us. We saw how well that turned out with Al Qaeda. I will support moderates, not extremists, with no favoring of Sunnis or Shiites.

The long-term solution to terror is to empower moderates in the region. My goal in the Middle and Near East is to correctly calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It's self-defeating to try to accomplish too much too soon, you just have elections where extremists win, but it's equally self-defeating to do nothing. First, we have to destroy the terrorists who already exist, then we have to attack the underlying conditions that breed terror, by creating schools that offer an alternative to the extremist madrassas that take impressionable children and turn them into killers, by creating jobs and opportunity and hope, by encouraging a free press and other institutions that promote democracy. The recent rising appeal of Al Qaeda across North Africa - Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia - shows why we have to do better in the war of ideas - and soon.

In the past, we've been constrained from helping some of the good guys because our dependence on oil has forced us to support repressive regimes, to conduct our foreign policy with one hand tied behind our back. It's time, it's past time, to untie that hand and reach out to the moderates with both hands. Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy, it has deformed it. When I make foreign policy, I want to be able to treat Saudi Arabia the same way I treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent. These folks have had us over a barrel - literally - for way too long. The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all avenues of alternative energy - nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.

If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an "occupation with a light footprint" that was our paradigm for Iraq always struck me as a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Occupation inevitably demands a lot of boots on the ground. Instead of marginalizing General Shinseki when he said we needed several hundred thousand troops for Iraq, I would have met privately with him and carefully weighed his advice and his underlying analysis.

Our current armed forces aren't large enough - we have been relying far too heavily on our National Guard and our Reserves, we have worn them out. When our enemies know that we are spread thin, they're more apt to test us by provoking a crisis. Having a sizeable standing army actually makes it less likely that we'll have to use it. So I will increase the defense budget. We have to be ready to fight both conventional and unconventional wars against both state and non-state enemies. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. I would return to that 6% level. I believe we can do this without raising taxes. I will limit increases in other discretionary spending and rely on the normal increase in federal tax revenue that is generated annually as Americans' incomes rise.

Crises arise suddenly and unpredictably, and no one has the database for every possible scenario. What we have to evaluate is the strength of a leader's operating system, because if that's sound, he can always add the data. I'll be an effective commander in chief because I have executive experience and crisis management experience. My record as Governor shows that I'm intellectually curious, a quick study, and have sound judgment. I will get advice from a broad circle with differing perspectives and portfolios; encourage dissent and stay out of the bubble; refuse to wilt under criticism, but also be flexible and ready to change course if a policy isn't working. I will communicate my rationale for our foreign and defense policies clearly and frequently to Congress and to the American people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I oppose the current immigration bill that the Senate is considering because it offers amnesty. While I appreciate the hard work of the Senate and the Administration, this bill is not in the best interests of our national security, our citizens, and those who are patiently following the rules to become citizens.

My number one priority is to secure America's border.
We have to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need a fence along our border with Mexico, electronic in some places, and more highly-trained border agents.
Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
Illegal immigrants already living among us who commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.

My number one priority is to have a secure border. Right now, we have too many people entering the country illegally, and this must stop. We can't turn the tide until we stem the tide. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need to create a process to allow people to come here to do the jobs - plucking chickens, tarring roofs, picking fruits - that are going unfilled by our citizens. They must have a tamper-proof, scannable I. D. with a finger or retinal scan, so that their employers know they belong here.

Besides stopping terrorists, we must weed out those with a criminal background or a communicable disease. We have to build a fence along our border with Mexico, parts of which will be electronic. We need more well-trained border agents and cooperation agreements with local and state law enforcement officials, so that we have a clear and consistent approach by all jurisdictions.

Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. Illegal immigrants who are already living among us and commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.
-------------------------------------------------

 

[PetertheRock]

I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
As Governor of Arkansas, I led the successful effort to pass a similar state constitutional amendment in 2002.
As Governor of Arkansas, I led the successful effort to make our state only the third to adopt "covenant" marriage.

Our true strength comes from our families.

I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.

No other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have. While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I got a constitutional amendment passed in Arkansas in 2002 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I got Arkansas to become only the third state to adopt "covenant" marriage. My wife Janet and I upgraded our vows on Valentine's Day, 2005. Today, many churches in Arkansas will perform only covenant marriages, so I'm hoping we'll see a decline in our divorce rates.

The late Cardinal O'Connor decried a domestic partnership law (which provided that all couples who signed up, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would be treated the same as married couples) as legislating that "marriage doesn't matter." I agree with the Cardinal that marriage does matter, I would add that nothing in our society matters more. Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families. What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home? The growing number of children born out of wedlock and the rise in no-fault divorce have been a disaster for our society. They have pushed many women and children into poverty and onto the welfare, food stamp, and Medicaid rolls. These children are more likely to drop out of school and end up in low-paying, dead-end jobs, they are more likely to get involved with drugs and crime, they are more likely to have children out of wedlock or get divorced themselves someday, continuing the unhappy cycle.

My wife Janet and I celebrate our thirty-third wedding anniversary this spring. For us, every anniversary is a miracle. When we were both twenty and married just over a year, when I was in my last semester of college, Janet was diagnosed with cancer of the spine. I can't tell you what a stunning blow it was - two kids just starting out, you don't think something like that can happen when you're so young. Yet there we were, staring death in the face. At first, they told us that even if she lived, she might be paralyzed from the waist down, so I'd be a young man with an invalid wife. After I learned she wouldn't be paralyzed, I was told that because of the radiation she had to receive following surgery, we'd probably never have children. I wanted children very much, I couldn't imagine never being a father. During that time, a lot of things went through my mind. But one thing never did - the thought of leaving her. If Janet were in a wheelchair today, if we'd never had children, I can tell you this - she would still be my wife.

 

[Fantine]

Well, you are right about a lot of things. The only way to end abortion is to pass a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Even an overturn of Roe v. Wade will just end abortion in the red states where it is unavailable or restricted anyway, particularly in rural areas, and increase it in blue states.

You are wrong about Rudolph Guiliani. He is NOT strong on national security. After 9/11, the EPA instituted rules requiring nuclear and other power plants, chemical plants, etc. to increase their security AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE (after all, if they were attacked, their stockholders would be the losers....) Rudolph Guiliani was by then a lobbyist, working for these power plants. He lobbied Bush to insure that the plants could remain as unsafe as they had always been, despite vastly increased threats, and Bush transferred oversight of the plants from EPA to Homeland Security, where Bush's handpicked czar promised not to make them accountable.

I don't know about you, but I think that unsafe nuclear and chemical plants run by greedy unpatriotic businessmen are a much greater threat to our nation than a country we mistakenly attacked that is enmeshed in its own civil war.

Collaborating with business to keep Americans vulnerable and unprotected is NOT a good position on Homeland Security.

Some of Giuliani's work since being mayor:

One of Giuliani's clients during this time included an admitted drug smuggler and millionaire founder of companies that perform electronic information gathering (datamining) on individuals, Hank Asher, who according to a shareholder in the company, hired Giuliani for his "influence with the federal government to enable Mr. Asher to take an active role in Seisint as a chief executive officer despite the allegations about his drug dealing." Giuliani helped Asher's company get $12 million in government grants.

In representing a pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, in a case against the Drug Enforcement Administration, Giuliani negotiated a $2 million fine and no further penalty for what the DEA called "lax security" at plants that produced OxyContin, which the DEA said was being used as a recreational drug.

I think that the main reason why abortion is the top issue in this country is that we are going backwards in so many other areas simply because single issue voters would vote for Satan himself if he put a pro-life bumper sticker on his pitchfork. (Why do I say this? Because they've sure come close to it....)

I think abortion is important, but would not vote for someone with a pitchfork, no matter how cleverly disguised, in order to vote for a self-proclaimed pro-lifer.

 

[PetertheRock]

Well Guiliani is not a pro lifer so your argument isn't valid. The only way I would vote for Guiliani is if he ended up being the Republican nomination because he would be a lot better than either of the Democrats. It would be voting for the lesser of the 2 devils.

 

[zhilan]

I heard that Guilliani supports using federal funding for abortions. I might be wrong, but I think that's even farther than the democratic candidates go.

 

[Rising_Suns]

This is not really related, but I was wondering today if Fred Thomson is pro-choice. I have read that he is, but I wasn't sure.

-Davide

 

[PetertheRock]

I heard that Guilliani supports using federal funding for abortions. I might be wrong, but I think that's even farther than the democratic candidates go.

Um no. Both Democratic candidates support federal funding for abortion. And you can bet if Hillary Roddem gets her Communist health care plan passed it will include free abortions for everyone at tax payers expense. Democrats have a long history of supporting tax payer funded abortions.

 

[zhilan]

Um no. Both Democratic candidates support federal funding for abortion. And you can bet if Hillary Roddem gets her Communist health care plan passed it will include free abortions for everyone at tax payers expense. Democrats have a long history of supporting tax payer funded abortions.

Well in any event, it's bad no matter who does it.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Fred Thompson's pro-life, I've heard.

 

[Fantine]

There is a video of Fred Thompson on You Tube that's been linked somewhere in these forums in which he is seen on video supporting abortion (probably about ten years old or so....)

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think the issue that is coming to the forefront for me is the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran (and/or others) being viewed as a real option.

This one issue alone has the potentiality of totally destablizing the world.

I cannot believe that the unthinkable, the use of nuclear weapons, is being viewed by many, if not most, of our candidates as a viable option.


.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

I think the issue that is coming to the forefront for me is the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran (and/or others) being viewed as a real option.

This one issue alone has the potentiality of totally destablizing the world.

I cannot believe that the unthinkable, the use of nuclear weapons, is being viewed by many, if not most, of our candidates as a viable option.


.

By the candidates themselves? I would think even the most Pro-war canidate would use a simple air attack to knock out any of the facilities there that are working on nuclear technology than nuclear weapons.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

double post

 

[PetertheRock]

I think the issue that is coming to the forefront for me is the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran (and/or others) being viewed as a real option.

This one issue alone has the potentiality of totally destablizing the world.

I cannot believe that the unthinkable, the use of nuclear weapons, is being viewed by many, if not most, of our candidates as a viable option.


.

In a war you don't rule in or out any weapons...including nuclear weapons. Iran will use nuclear weapons against us and Israel when they get them so we should be prepared to use them against our enemies if need be.

 

[PetertheRock]

Glen Beck had a really good program about the whole Iraq/Iran Middle East situation. He had a meeting with President Bush and he said Bush really gets it in the middle east. He knows what a danger this whole situation is. He said Russia is not our friends. Russia is selling weapons to Iran. They are doing that because they know eventually Iran will be using these weapons against the USA. Russia is counting on Iran to beat us so they can become the dominant superpower.

He did say we are making a big mistake by giving Saudi Arabia our weapons. He said if this current regime in Saudi Arabia ever falls (and they should fall) and if the wrong powers take over in Saudi all those planes we are giving Saudi will be used against us and Israel.

Then you have Pakistan that is harboring Osama Bin Laden and they refuse to do anything to help out on the war on terror. The big problem with Pakistan is they already have nuclear weapons.

He said that all the major players are in place for a world war of biblical proportions. The battle of Armageddon is shaping up and if we don't play the right cards it will happen. He said President Bush told him a lot of things that prove to him that he gets all this that he wishes he would share with the American people.

I just hope and pray Obama or Hillary doesn't get elected because that truly will be the end of our country as we know it. Obama already said he would negotiate with terrorists to try to stop them from wanting to attack us. Yeah Obama Osama...that really worked with Hitler...and these terrorists are a lot worse than Hitler.

 

[zhilan]

But I thought Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.

I much more scared of Bush than I am of Iran.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

But I thought Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.

I much more scared of Bush than I am of Iran.

Honestly? Why?

See, I may not like Bush, but so sick of people comparing him to Hitler and the like. Personally, I think we should ALL be thanking God every day that it is America that is the most powerful nation in the world - I mean, I think some of their foreign policy is ill-advised, but for heaven's sake look at the alternatives!

Non-Americans are far too quick to throw stones at America in my opinion, they forget what a debt the world really owes to her.

And yeah, if you're gonna rule out nuclear weapons then what's the point in even having them? They're got to be in play for them to be a sufficiently powerful bargaining chip.

As for the middle east, this Glen person's ideas seem to be dangerous - he knows the situation well enough, but the conclusions he seems to be implying are just unworkable. Aside from any moral or ethical implications, America simply does not have the stomach for extented, bloody peacekeeping operations overseas.

 

[PetertheRock]

But I thought Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.

I much more scared of Bush than I am of Iran.

Then you are insane.

 

[Fantine]

I think that any nation that says it is "One Nation Under God" must pledge never to make a first strike with nuclear weapons.

I am glad that we have developed nuclear defense shields, and we should continue to perfect and develop them. I think that a rogue nation's knowledge that we can deflect and protect ourselves from their attacks while they remain vulnerable to our counterattack is an excellent deterrent (because the aim, after all, is to insure that no country ever uses nuclear weapons.)

Do you know that acid rain from China's polluted manufacturing plants has traveled as far as Oklahoma?

Detonating nuclear weapons is a form of global suicide.

Bush is to be feared because he doesn't read, he doesn't listen, he doesn't compromise, he doesn't change his mind, and, according to forensic psychologists, has an IQ of 91 (the lowest of any President they've tracked.) But, thank goodness, he has become a pariah in even his own party, so his wings are pretty much clipped....