Actuary

dammit!I knew it was something slick like this,So folks go away thinking "Oh my gosh, that's horrible for Obama to let the baby expire like that. ................ Oh, thank goodness, there are already laws dealing with that. "

I'm glad Randy is back; but he swallowed just a bit of Pride. Will be interesting to see the Payouts, and rumors of additional monies being paid now

Keith Oberman, after an on the RNC floor interview of a Rep Senator referring to this, "corrected" and suggested the Rep Senator knew shew was fibbing, and stated Obama did not sign this because laws on the book already provided for all the protections this bill would have for the child ????????first I heard that. Any thoughts? Other than Keith is an idiot

So is this a sliding scale? For example, can mothers of 2 normal children and 1 stuttering bastard be Secretary of State?

someone should maybe post the voting record for all bills that hit the Senate, and maybe go back to 2000 for Illinois State Senate as well.We can't really have debate on what candidates are saying. Of course Obama isn't saying he wants to raise taxe; but do people really believe we can support all his programs otherwise? Or that raisng Cap Gains and Corporate Taxes is not going to impact most all of us?

Yes indeed.Right now, I like where I stand and shall stand pat more frequently own it. Decent fund

well yes.yes I am.But I'm mainly suggesting that if one thinks it is not, then one hopefully has an opinion that life begins sometime after their cutoff for allowing abortion.To not have an opinion on when life begins, but still support the choice of others to snuf it out, seems to put the benefit of the doubt on the wrong side.

because if you think killing a 28 yr old should be illegal, you problably think so because you have "detemined" that the person should have a right to life - and that the murderer should not have a choiceat some age, you take the rights from the mother away.

my comments on the judges/legilatures was simply to remind you (I thought I was being rhetorical, guess not) that you do not have a choice on whether it is legal or notJudges do make those choices..Ok, at some age when thoughts and memories exist, you would be for making it illegal to kill, right?And since you do not know (or have an opinion) on when that age is, you think the curent law is ok? Yes?

no. it doesn'tObviously it's no ones choice to make that isn't a Judge or legislatureBut staying with the spirit of the argument, do you also think you should not have the choice to outlaw murdering 5 yr olds?

Do you have an opinion on whether or not the gov't should have laws against murdering 28 Yr old women for no particular reason?and to cut to the point of this riddle, isn't it better to error on the side of saving life, than on giving a choice?

you realize that the reason Pro Lifer's don't want women to have the choice is because we believe it infringes on the "choice" of the unbornThe fact you are not Pro Life strongly implies you don't think human life begins in the womb. True?Thus imo, the argument Copernicus made is still valid

Pretty much why I would say "Yes we are the best" great stuff Scram. I envy your ability to put thoughts together communicate.

Copernicus said:You missed the point, although my ironic statement may have not made it clear. My point was that many of the same people who are questioning her judgement in handling the birth would have no basis to question her judgement in aborting the fetus. A considered risk determined not to threaten the child <<<<<< a judgement to abort the child. The juxtaposition of the two is hilarious.

ok, you like Flair, woooooooooooooooooooooooo.. so you can't be all that dumb.But Copernicus is railing against Michael Moore - one guy, for saying something.You used "right wing winds bags" (plural) supported by ONE guy's statement.Do I have it right?

nothing McCain does is nuanced.

I really don't know how close the Southern states are to going to Obama; but there are also Religious conservatives beyond the South - enough to sway votes, obv.

I read all posts so far, blah blah.. ok, so does that make me qulified to post here? Using the quote above to add emphasis, Stuff Only matters if it Costs you enough votes in a State to lose the State. Hardly anyone who was going to vote for Bush in 1988 changed their mind to Dukakis based on that. And that idea goes to this whole thread. So many of you strongly criticizing the pick are never going to not vote Democrat... if you vote at all. Who cares what you think of the Rep VP. I could care less who Obama picked. I'd never vote for a liberal. He's undoubltedly one of the most liber

along those lines people say he shored up the Catholic vote too. But that make no sense to me. "Catholics" who vote for Obama because Biden is Catholic, are not Biden supporters because he's Catholic. Make sense? Biden is Pro Choice. Catholics who care if you are Catholic, are not going to go with a Pro Choicer If only more media outlets would cover it.

I run across more and more people who have little sympathy anymore for the victims of Katrina; but it's not a "popular" opinion.Honestly, the fact that's not covered (much if ever) is an example of media bias.this probably doesn't fit here; oh well

Hamas wants Obamahttp://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/1...blem-for-obama/

nh

I'm more excited about Lesnar vs the winner of Nog v Mir.MMA >>>>>>>>>>>> SuperBowl ainecWooooooooooooooooooooo!

Korto is top 3.Blane and Suede are top 5Season really doesn't have obviously losing garments, imo.Also hate all the gimmicky challenges