Ralph Nader says he will run, if he raises 10 million.

Run Ralph, Run!

Herb

Ha, ha, you two now admit a Republican has no chance of beating a Democrat this time.

I dind't say that, but having Ralph run wouldn't hurt the Republicans chances.

And since Obama is killing all the feminists goal of having a woman president, they should just stay home in protest. Maybe spend the day ironing their husbands shirts, or putting on something sexy for when he gets home.

I do think it's interesting that the Republicans are trying to work any angle to attempt to steal a win somehow.

Notice none of it has anything to do with real issues, or actaully getting more voters to agree with them.

As a famous coach once said, "Just win baby".

Democrats are absolutely terrified of a Republican 'three-peat.'

Yup, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's chair will look mighty fine with Laura Ingraham, Robert Bork or Ann Coulter sitting there.

Heck, if the rest of the leftist judges retire, we could pack it with all three of 'em...plus maybe Phyllis Schlafly, too!

Herb

Herb you just described hell. And I mean that... literally.

Actually, I just described near-Heaven! The only person missing from my list is Mr. Nixon.

Herb

I think Herb was describing his latest wet dream.

Judge Bork is too old, unfortunatly, he'd have made a great chief justice.

Instead The current President Bush would make an excellent choice.

"The current President Bush would make an excellent choice..."

Now THAT would be a leftist's nightmare.

Herb

The Confirmation hearings would be a hoot!

But seriously, by the time that came around he'll probably be on trial in The Hague.

The Hague has no jurisdiction on a US president.

And what confirmation hearings, just wait until most of the Demo senators are home campaigning, have an AF jet pick up all the republican senators, 5 minute confirmation hearing, and a vote.

Whatever you're smoking, I want some ...

Andy, you can always raid their stash.

Actually, I just described near-Heaven! The only person missing from my list is Mr. Nixon.

He would have turned tail and ran like a yellow belly....

Mr. Nixon served honourably in the US military. Don't diss our vets.

Herb

Yes he did, but your hero Bush DIDN'T. Funny how Clinton is condemned for draft dodging, but the cons pee all over themselves to defend King Rube's dodges.

Mr. Bush was a fighter pilot, as was his dad.

Herb

GW Bush, President of the United States of America.

Talk about 7 years of hell.

Yeah, it was tough on Saddam Hussein, who was shooting at our airplanes and gassing his own people whilst violating UN sanctions. It wasn't too good for Uday and Quasay, either.

The Kurds now have it better, and so do the girls in Iraq who can attend school. Plus our brave military got 50 or so of the bad guys on that deck of cards, including 'Chemical Ali' and 'Comical Ali.'

And on the domestic front, we now have some terrific Supreme Court Justices.

So Mr. Bush fought terror, got some great people on the court and helped get the partial birth abortion ban signed.

Overall, a pretty good president...even if he wasn't my first choice at the time.

Herb

And on the plus side, a Yugo factory was bombed.

"Don't diss our vets."

Unless the vet's name is John Kerry. Then go ahead and fire away.

Hypocrites.

Bush has created a deficit so wide that it's cutting into the social programs to help the poor and starving. Kids are starving in America, not counting the 30,000 who died globally yesterday Herb. Hard to even realize that is happening.

Essentially killing our own slowly. You just keep wearing those blinders Herb, you do that best.

800 million starving children could be taken care of globally with money from just 5 days of what we spend in Iraq. Talk about a moral issue. You can't even justify that, no way, no how, no spin.

So , the millions that served in the national Guard.Reserve didn't serve honorably, or are you just talking about the 500,000 or so that accepted the early outs in the late 70's?

I'm sure that the family of Capt Dean Martin Jr, remember Dino, Desi and Billy, that died when the RF 4C he was flying, crashed into a mountin while on a Natonal Guard training flight, will be glad to hear you don't think didn't serve honorably.

Warner: "I think Herb was describing his latest wet dream."

In the very next post Okie writes:

"Judge Bork is too old...The current President Bush would make an excellent choice."

Everytime I read these 2 posts, I laugh AND throw up in my mouth a little bit.

And then Herb never answered if he agreed or not. (Unless you threw in Nixon for a menage-a-trois)

A pro-life justice, including Mr. Bush, would be preferable to leftist ones who view an unborn child's life as entirely negotiable, not unlike PETA radicals. In other words, less worthy of living than a dog.

Herb

So that's a "yes" to the wet dream?

Hey Herb, have you ever considered the impact of overstating your position?

People get tired and that MARGINALIZES the issue!

Such unforgiving advocacy actually does the cause more harm than good, in a number of cases.

Just something to think about...

Agreed. The saddest part is that his stated goal actually won't reduce abortion anyway. Sex education and contraception are the most valuable tools to reduce abortion. Changing the law will do nothing, as proven by worldwide statistics between countries where it's legal and illegal. What a shame that efforts aren't better focused on actually achieving real results! All or nothing will get you nothing!

As important as abortion and gay marriage is to the religious right, even within conservative evangelical circles those are just two of many other moral and important issues.

Not once have you answered or even commented on the hunger issue in our land or throughout the world. It’s as if it doesn’t exist.

Many of today’s young evangelical Christians are just as concerned about the environment, the war, hunger and poverty. As they read their bibles and gather to talk things are changing. The world is larger and so are the issues, and not just one singular issue.

Herb you're time is slowly passing. The next generation of conservative and progressive evangelicals sees a bigger picture than the one you continue to paint over and over.

They are coming to the moral center. Not a mushy middle, but a place that goes deeper into what needs to be done to bring about real change.

You bark about abortion but neglect Darfur. You hand-ring about loading the Supreme Court with far right justices, but let millions of Americans suffer in poverty.

There is a great awakening coming Herb. They have come before and it will come again. Either get on the bus or be thrown off the turnip truck.

Heed the words of Margaret Mead “Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has”

"Herb you're time is slowly passing."

Not as long as precious innocents are thrown away like a used Kleenex. When that ceases, I shall be delighted to exit stage right for I am a peaceful and private man and not about the spotlight.

It would be far more convenient to remain silent. However, those who exercised that option during a different Holocaust lived to most woefully regret it. Therefore I do not shrink from a cause I believe in that is within my every fibre to the very marrow of my bones.

“Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

An excellent quote and interestingly enough, I happened to sit near Margaret Mead at a group luncheon many years ago. Her statement was true of the abolitionist movement, and it is true of the pro-life movement.

Herb

But you're not a real pro-lifer since you support the Iraq war. You're a misguided wannabe.

Save the blastocysts!

Herb, the point being made is that you will eventually exit stage left. All of us will. (and that really sucks, but it is what it is)

After all of us are gone, there still will be abortions. That's reality.

The difference between slavery and abortion lies in the physical realities inherent in both. We can regulate one persons power over another. We do it with the usual four forces:

money, law, physics, norms.

It's not so easy to regulate bodies. And it's muddy too. Where something is developing at a week, the definition of "person" is strained to breaking.

At 5 months, by contrast, it's fairly solid.

The two movements are very similar as they both involve working hard on the definition of "person". They are different in that slavery is about discrete and established people having power over one another, where abortion really is about there being two people, when that happens, and they being intertwined.

So that makes it about rights too, and when those happen.

Siamese twins have decisions made for them at an early age. We let them make their own decisions at a later age. Seperation, etc... it's their call.

Interestingly, when one is known not viable, we default to the one that is!

Something to think about.

My point here is that, while admirable, comparing the two movements does not directly equate to getting the same results via the same means.

Why?

Because the realities surrounding the problems are very different.

Herb

Your silence on the death of 30,000 children that otherwise would be living is deafening.

I can understand your view. If one believes mankind evolved from primordial ooze, there's little reason to stake a claim for personhood, except perhaps to some, when the physical resemblance to our own form becomes so obvious as to become utterly deniable. Yet deny it many do, far past the slippery slope of 'viability.'

However, if one believes that we are all created beings, made in the image of God and endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's far different.

Herb

"when the physical resemblance to our own form becomes so obvious as to become utterly deniable."

I don't see many creationists getting excited over the image of Jesus in a piece of toast.

The tendency of man to find significance in recognizable forms cuts across all belief systems.

Besides, both views are perfectly defensible right now. (as are some others)

As a race, we don't know otherwise. That's known absolute truth.

Meaning, absolute advocacy, based on a particular belief being known truth, is futile.

It's also a lie really. Confusing truth with conviction is proving costly. Wish I had a way to crack that nut --even if I ended up proven wrong, just eliminating that cost would be so worth it!

Say what you want, as a race, we've done ourselves a lot of harm trying to make one belief more real, largely by marginalizing (or flat just killing off) those with other beliefs.

This is stupid. That means we, as humans, are kind of stupid. Think about that.

Anyway, for the record, I don't know how we ended up here. Nobody does. From there, it's faith --whatever that may be for any one of us. In this, we ALL ARE EQUAL, until such time as more facts come in for review.

And that's the core rationale for the matter being one of choice. It's also why viability is a factor as well.

Until such time as we get told what we can believe and what we cannot, we all gotta recognize our differences and act accordingly.

So, that means non-absolute advocacy aimed right at marginalizing the problem, ideally freeing up people, time and dollars to work on more productive things.

Herb said>>>>
Saddam Hussein, who was shooting at our airplanes and gassing his own people.

Thanks to Ronald Reagan giving him that gas!!!!

And you have any proof President Reagon gave Saddam any gas?

We did sell Irag farmers chemicals used in fertilizer, but then I guess some liberals would prefer the Iraqi's children starve.

What are you doing about the other starving children in the world Okie?

Answer: Nothing.

Hypocrite.

What do you think of this?

I think NWOkie believes its classified information that should never have been declassified.

So, I can show you pictures of Roosevelt shaking Stalins hands, and a lot of world leaders shaking Hitlers hands.

You took eleven minutes and read the whole thing? I am impressed!

If I give a gun to someone to protect them selves then years later they go on a shooting spree at a mall and kill 50+ am I to blame?

Yes.

If I give a gun to someone to protect them selves then years later they go on a shooting spree at a mall and kill 50+ am I to blame?

You are if you believe or subscribe to Michael Bloomberg and the liberal anti-gun crowd's theory.

So is the manufacturer of the gun according to them.

Always blame someone else. It's never the fault of the perpetrator.

Then is the internet to blame? There are dozens and dozens of websites the teach you how to make bombs. Since Al Gore invented the internet, then is he to blame?

Get real people. Lets stop trying to blame everyone else but the actual person that actually did the crime.

Let me also say that thank god Chickenjuggler
is not in law enforcement or even worse a judge.

Me too.

But I was being absurd, of course.

Let me also say that thank god Chickenjuggler
is not in law enforcement or even worse a judge.

Most would probably say the same for you... I'm just sayin'....