I think people who don't like abortions shouldn't have one. and that people who are against gay marriage, shouldn't be gay and get married Its possbile that Legal abortion helps society in the long run, unwanted pregencies often grow into unwanted children , which become criminals. http://slate.msn.com/id/33569/entry/33571/ Oh, yeah forgot to add this earlier 5) Stem cell research is good, I want to live forever, or at least as long as possible, So lfoutld do you think birth control is bad too ....
I'm all for stem cell research and gay marriage. My problem with abortion is that so many people think of it as a first solution instead of a last solution. Owning an ultrasound business really opened my eyes to the quantity of people who see it as a first solution - it's a much larger segment of society than you would imagine. And it's not just poor underpriveleged people. In fact, it's just the opposite from my experience. I can't say I would support illegalizing abortions all together, and I certainly would not support separate states making their own decisions, but a revisiting of the current set of rules, laws and community standards is definitely in order. It's been a hotly debated topic for decades with almost nothing done in the ways of making a real change to our society. I firmly believe that it's possible to change society for the better without polarizing it.
I dated a girl for a minute who pretty much thought of abortion as brith control, she had had many abortions ... I personally found that disgusting, but its her body, her choice I think that the birth control should be everywhere and free, it would improve our society over time. I think that bush cut funding to programs that help provide birth control over sears, and I think he had birth control removed from the list of medical services provided to federal employees as part of the health benefits
This showed up in my mailbox. --------------------------------------------------- George Bush, The Man David Warren The Ottawa Citizen Sunday, September 11, 2005 There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover things we still get right. But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live. And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt.-Gen. Russell Honore, it was once again the U.S. military efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution. We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail. From Democrats and the American Left -- the U.S. equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass. This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and government support through many other programs. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood. Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations. The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the wallets." The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind. Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States and you will learn that the U.S. federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero. Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has managed to co-ordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial powers. He has been sufficiently presidential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing. One thinks of Kipling's poem "If," which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and gliberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is good, beautiful, or true: If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man.
I have known cheerleader (men) who are definitely smarter than most football players. we need brains not brawn to run our country. You can keep the fancy smancy good looking french speaking men to run your country, but let us choose those we want to run ours.
I agree, but Bush being 'smart' maybe compared to a quarterback who got sacked a few many times by the 85 bears 'for CrazyRob '
Hey I had to give you something, afterall it's DA Bears Figured you'd take anything you could get, just messing with ya. The pack isn't much to talk about this year so I'll go sit in the corner now.
I am good with George W. Bush. He's an OK guy. He's a lot like a quite a number of fellows I grew up with out in the American Mid-West. I understand George on a very comfortable personal level. I don't agree with about 50% of George's decisions, but I don't have to. That's not what American democracy is all about. I don't agree with many of George's conclusions, but I respect his right to make them and I respect his ability to make them. George is very American. He personifies so much in this country, from his struggle with substance abuse to his struggle for personal identity to his involvement with religion. George is a reflection of all that is America. I particularly like George because he has an MBA instead of a law degree. 90+% of Washington politicians are lawyers, and I believe that has had a very negative effect on our political system. George, as an MBA, is a manager. As a business person, I can understand that and I can respect that. You might recall that one of our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan, received his degree in Economics. I don't think they had MBA's back when Ron went to college. George is very human, just like the rest of us. I can live with that.
Nope I voted for Kerry, but if I had a choice an actual good choice besides Kerry who stood a chance of defeating Bush this time around I would have gladly of ditched Kerry and went with someone else. ---edit Believe I've stated this before but I was republican before Bush, Bush however has changed me more in the middle ground of where I already was but made it alot easier to support a, dare I say it, democrat
I could not support Kerry after what he did in Nicaragua -- and that was before I found out about what he did in the Philippines (received very little press) and what he did in Vietnam (was before my time). I found, and find, John Kerry to be morally objectionable. Unlike so much in politics, morality is non-negotiable.