Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

If McCain follows in W's footsteps and makes us less safe by bungling his Middle East policy- I can't think of anything MORE dangerous than that. Not saying he will, just an attempt at "reasonable" discourse with "the Jester"

Crackah did.

Sup?!


WELL- if you're gonna make a move, hurry an' come wit' it- cause I got a crackhead beepin me every 5 mins for that sugar

Well whoever wins is going to have their hands full because I expect W to launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office anyway.

Obamination is naive on foreign policy, but I'd like to think he'd have enough sense to get someone with a strong military background possibly as his VP. It's his domestic policies that concern me the most.

However, as I alluded to earlier, maybe him winning isn't the worst thing as he can finally bankrupt this country and then everyone will wake up and start demanding sensible fiscal policy from the government. I liken it to a addict hitting rock bottom before any positive steps are taken.

I hafta think you are clowning on the intranets...

Well done.


But I'm not falling for it anymore.

Obama's tax policy would bring in more taxes and shift the burden to the top 1% of income earners. Around here that only affects NEAG.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but if he finds a way to lower my taxes, bring in more federal revenue, and prevent his chin from sliding off his face, I may come around. I was liking McCain up until now when I realized that he's pretty much just as clueless as Obama but the rest of the world will probably chill out about "the evil american imperialists" with Obama in there.

Note: I'm not disagreeing with you on responsible fiscal policy, but I think that Obama's is slightly less irresponsible.

Something a lot of people don't know about McCain, which will certainly come out over the coming weeks and months, is he's a pro-lifer.

He's voted that way his whole career. He's going to appoint judges who feel that way. Roe v Wade will be overturned.

I don't know who cares about that issue, but I'd rather keep a balance in the supreme court.

Also, BMA, you need to stop repeating whatever you hear on the radio. Tell me more about McCain's "great foreign policy", please. I think McCain is a good person, but the more I try to follow his policies and where he wants to take the country, the more clear it is that he simply doesn't have a plan (for anything). His plan is to get elected...that's it.

Obama might have a chance after all.

You cant be serious when you say "R v W" will be overturned.


HIGHLY unlikely- next to impossible Id put those odds at.

If enough of the "right" judges get appointed Roe V Wade can absolutely be overturned.

On another note, I just got a forwarded email from one of my industry contact, subject "Fwd: Photos of the next first family" with the line "These images are so powerful. Please share them with everyone you can!"


Followed by about 10 pics of Obama and family.


I get the feeling I'll be bombarded over the next few months.

Ugh.

If Roe v Wade is overturned couldn't the states have their own say in baby murder?

that's fetus murder.

Picture it as a draft pick

Do you just toss them away?

I guess that all depends on what team we're talking about.

If Roe v Wade is overturned couldn't the states have their own say in baby murder?

yes. that's the general position of judges like scalia.

in the future, neag, try to refrain from phrases like "baby murder". it's offensive, incorrect, and makes you sound like a backwoods bible-thumping moron.

That's what it is flesh, no matter how you try to justify it.

Killing babies is "porgressive", the liberal elite think.

And the partial birth murder is infanticide, plain and simple.

Seconded.

And when told to stiffle your opinion by someone like F4F who apparently feels more fwd thinking than you NEAG, well, I commend your restraint.

NEAG,
If Roe V Wade is overturned, abortion laws revert to state laws that existed prior.

The WSJ ran an op-ed about what I talked about yesterday. Sumsabiches didn't credit me.

Link

Obama's foreign policy plan is a mess nowadays. His thinkers need to get their act together before the general election heats up or McCain will mop the floor with him. Obama will rightly push that McCain's Iraq position is going to be a continuation of Bush's stragegy. McCain will hit back that he visited six or eight times and that's why he pushed for the Surge before Bush did. McCain will say that he was disagreeing with Bush when Obama said his Iraq position was the same as the White House's. Then, he'll hit Obama on his unconditional meetings with Iran and Syria. Obama will have a "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment and he'll be on the defensive for the rest of the campaign.

He needs to get his policy reworked, because there's too much out there that McCain can beat him senseless with in a debate or commercials.

Obama needs to hammer the issues that favor Democrats in the eyes of voters. The good news is that he can be as vague as possible in those areas and he will still score points. That's just how it works. If he tries to define the message too much, the message will get lost in the weeds.

Iraq/Afghanistan, even Korea, are not winning issues for Obama. He's just never going to convince voters that he's the better guy to deal with international threats.

People here waved off the concerns I aired earlier and said they amounted to nothing. Yet, he's had to ditch Wright, Trininty, and now Johnson. I'll tell you now. Unless he really, really sharpens his foreign policy message and visits Iraq and Afghanistan, he will get hammered - legitimately - for not taking the situation(s) seriously enough.

A large part of why ive maintained he will not win the election.

A large part of it.

I realize many feel this will be a landslide victory for Obama. Im just not among them.

Seconded.

And when told to stiffle your opinion by someone like F4F who apparently feels more fwd thinking than you NEAG, well, I commend your restraint.

stifle his opinion? i told him to not use an offensive phrase like "baby murder" because it makes him sounds like an ignoramous.

seth, how bout i call folks like you who are against stem cell research "people murderers" for the countless deaths that could be prevented but for your "morals"

Flesh is smarter than everyone else, that's been well-established out here.

I don't want to get too much into the abortion discussion. People here can generally guess where I am on the issue and the likelihood of changing my opinion.

I do think, though, that there is little to no public discussion of the after-effects of abortion and the very real health risks with "safe, legal and rare" abortions. If you spend time with women who've had them, you'd be shocked at the post-abortion medical follow-up and the long-term mental health repercussions.

The discussion seems to focus on the abortion and glosses over what happens after it. I've often thought that if Christ walked by a clinic, he'd be by the door, comforting the woman and letting her know His Love is still waiting for her heart to open.

seth, how bout i call folks like you who are against stem cell research "people murderers" for the countless deaths that could be prevented but for your "morals"

f4f,
There are many treatments using adult stem cells. I think over 40. There are none for embryonic stem cells, although that research continues here and in other countries.

Further, they recently found ways to "reset" adult stem cells to act like the ones extracted from embryos.

If you can do the same research with fewer ethical comflicts, why not?

ncsaintsfan,

agreed. however, the current law allows for individual states to influence women before they get abortions against them with all manner of information.

agreed on your first point, ncsf.

Flesh, the point is that you are in no better position to call abortion NOT murder than Neag is to call it such. And to therefore call someone an ignoramus for doing so is, well, to use a "Delaware Valley Term", ignorant.



At best you can say, "I don't know, I'll leave it up to individuals to decide, not the Government".

ncsf,

the vast majority of objective researchers believe that embryonic cells are the most promising for research. i wish i knew more details but i dont.

jules, this too far out of your range of expertice for an opinion?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207