Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fair enough. You've answered my question. I've never considered myself a moderate, I'm pretty far to the left myself (which I know isn't popular to say these days), so I guess I never really considered him that far to the left, but from what I gathered from your response is that you felt Hillary was more of a moderate candidate than Obama, and as such you'd rather concede to the right than to the left. Am I correct?
Exactly right. I would add, though, that if a left-leaning candidate had much more experience than Obama and a substantial track record I could study, particularly in crafting compromises with the other side of the aisle, I might be more comfortable voting for the lefty Democrat. But Obama does not have nearly enough experience to even consider it, from my point of view.
I don't think the right to control their body is a big mans issue.
I think that women have PLENTY of control over what happens to their bodies well before they become pregnant. If there wasn't such a huge number of options for birth control, I would be FAR more sympathetic. But I've known silly cows who don't want the "hassle" of using birth control and prefer to take their chances and abort when their luck runs out. This is irresponsible.
Talk about allowing men to control women's bodies! Choosing to be sexually active and not taking the responsibility of protecting oneself is the ULTIMATE ceding of control to men!
I think that women have PLENTY of control over what happens to their bodies well before they become pregnant. If there wasn't such a huge number of options for birth control, I would be FAR more sympathetic. But I've known silly cows who don't want the "hassle" of using birth control and prefer to take their chances and abort when their luck runs out. This is irresponsible.
Talk about allowing men to control women's bodies! Choosing to be sexually active and not taking the responsibility of protecting oneself is the ULTIMATE ceding of control to men!
What a woman does with her own body is not your business, nor is it the governments. It's called reproductive rights, if you don't chose to exercise yours don't deny them to others.
But, it's not the president who puts people on the SCOTUS ... uh ... hello ... Congress???
the president nominates, so unless you want to have empty seats, you are basically going to get someone who leans right with a rep and left with a dem. Vote Democrat and control the government! Vote for MCCain and we are back to the same old same old.
What a woman does with her own body is not your business, nor is it the governments. It's called reproductive rights, if you don't chose to exercise yours don't deny them to others.
Uh, sorry, but applying tax dollars and government resources to protect people who won't protect themselves isn't the way it works across-the-board. We MUST wear seatbelts when we travel in cars or else face fines. In most states, motorcyclists must wear helmets. We are forced by law to protect ourselves every day and if we fail to do so, we are breaking the law and suffer penalties. As one who, in 27 years of driving has never been in an accident, I still must wear a seatbelt. And the odds that I will get in an accident are much lower than the odds of getting pregnant from unprotected sex.
Moreover, if you come to Texas and kill a pregnant woman, even if its unintentional but there is some sort of negligence, you will be charged with two deaths. However, self-same woman could have legally killed her own child an hour before her death and been supported in this. Logical? Nope.
But this is going way off-topic and I won't post anymore about abortion here.
Thank you for using the term "opportunity". Congress holds the power on Justices. And Congress is looking more Blue come November.
Unfortunately that might not pan out. Though names have been withdrawn, there have been only 3 outright rejections by Congress of Supreme Court nominees since 1930. The last one was Bork in 1987. The one good thing about a strong Democratic majority in Congress is that it would force a Pres. McCain to consider a more moderate nominee.
Unfortunately that might not pan out. Though names have been withdrawn, there have been only 3 outright rejections by Congress of Supreme Court nominees since 1930. The last one was Bork in 1987. The one good thing about a strong Democratic majority in Congress is that it would force a Pres. McCain to consider a more moderate nominee.
OT- What about recess appointments? I was interested to see if a President could make a recess appointment to the SCOTUS. It appears that President Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the court during a senate recess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
