In presidential primaries, it certainly is.

But the question was "why run for office". Has a candidate ever come out of an election having made money rather than spent it?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...he_keeps_.html

Once people get to know Perry, he'll sink faster than the SS Perot. Romney? I like him, he has solid credentials, but he has that religon thing hanging over his head :(

Cain? Could he be our first African-American President? Maybe so! I'm leaning his direction. High fences and wide open doors. Brilliant.

I think Perry is done at this point. Romney, not as appealing IMO as Cain. For me, Cain is not the establishment. He is focused on the economy. This is where we need to be. Having discussions about the economy. The others in the field as potentials will not beat Obama IMO. IMO, Cain is the only one with a shot at making a run to the WH with success.

Edit: He is now the flavor of the month. At the rate he is going....flavor of the year.

Now the hard questions will be asked. He needs to get some solid answers.

He has answered that question. He wants to insure his grandchildren have the same opportunities and a better life than he did. He wants to insure they have a country that gives them a chance to be whatever they choose to make themselves into. He feels (as many others do) that the road we are on currently will not insure that.

While the vast majority of "deadbeat" parents are male - this is a pet peeve of mine. I am a single dad - my son sees his mother as ordered by the court every other weekend. She gets her weeks in the summer. He has been with me for going on 5 years. His mother has never paid a single dime to support him. In fact, just this year it was found that she was collecting welfare benefits in his name fraudulently. Still the system does nothing about it except stop the portion of benefits that were "his".

UNREAL!:stare:

Well it comes down to right vs left, right vs wrong, good vs evil, capitalism vs socialism, god I hope I'm on the right side this time, I backed the wrong horse the last time.

You shouldn't think of right side and wrong side. When you look past party politics we're all patriotic Americans trying to do what they think is best for the country, and that includes the misguided bums presently running the government.

As long as you see the world as black vs. white and us vs. them, you're never gonna be on the right side of anything... :hmmm:

Well, I won't want too mess up a perfect record, but I'm not looking forward to be gunned down in front of a freshly dug ditch either. I would like to see it as us vs tyranny.

And who's responsible for that fact? If you can't take responsibility for what your doing - keep your fly zipped. That't not a slam on you - its what needs to be the standard for society. Actions have repercussions, and too many want to escape that fact.

Mookie - Just because they say it - doesn't make it so. Actually - if you read the latest report they have out - 2006 numbers - a total of 9% of their clients recieved abortions.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...007_vFinal.pdf

Using the same document, you find that roughly one third of their funding comes from abortion services. So their largest gravy train other than the federal government grants - are abortions. To say it is unreasonable that they promote the service for pregnant clients when they refer adoption once for every 180 abortions - just doesn't fly.

There is no denying that the founder of PP was a racist who wanted to limit the breeding of blacks. Now as to the fact that PP is located in predominantly black neighborhoods - sure thats where the "greatest" need is - where the poor are. But then - if it was about the poor - abortion wouldn't be such a big revenue stream for the group. They would put their services in a more centralized location and drop the rates a little so the "poor blacks" that they claim to serve could use the savings for bus fair.

There is a reason they were started - and their is a reason they choose to "get paid" to perform the vast majority of abortions in "black" neighborhoods.

Isn't it interesting that I didn't see any demographics by race / ethnicity in that report. I may have missed it - but how many abortions do you think PP does for "the colored" vs others?

Note the citations - not just numbers pulled out at random - though the report is from 1994. Why do they not have those statistics now, eh?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt

Dismiss Cain all you want - but his view of PP is backed up by facts.

And I'm glad that you've set the bar that high for yourself, but that doesn't mean that there's not a need for birth control for society at large and for those who have differing outlooks on sex than you do. To argue otherwise completely ignores human nature.

Of course it flies. Respectfully: your whole statement here is nothing but "blah blah blah". How many abortions have they performed (call it number X) versus how many abortions have they made unnecessary through the distribution of birth control (call it number Y) So long as number Y is greater than number X, your hand wringing about how large number X is is completely irrelevant and any argument based upon anti abortion against Planned Parenthood falls apart. So long as Y>X then they're in the business of preventing pregnancy, not terminating it. Simple math, end of story. If you want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, you're in favor of forcing women to have unwanted children. That's a gigantic step back for women's rights, and the very definition of paternalistic arrogance.

Ancient history and irrelevant to today. Huh? You've totally lost me here. PP is in the business of providing low cost family planning options. To argue that they shouldn't be located in places where, you know, the poor people are, is just bizarre.

Ah, ah, ah: Y>X. Remember?

Absolutely irrelevant. If you want to get into a debate about how and why blacks are poorer than whites, I won't indulge you. I find it boring as there's been volumes of studies done on that and no need for someone like me to rehash it. I can loan you my old sociology textbook if you want to get into that.


I will. He's a lunatic.

The funnest fact of all: Federal funding of PP was instituted by Nixon with the support of then-congressman Daddy Bush. Because true conservatives at one point in history figured an ounce of prevention kept women from having more babies and kept them all off welfare.

But then the religious right took over and things took a turn...

To argue that completely ignores personal responsibility for your actions. Which is one very major reason this country has slid into the morass its in now.

The problem with that theory is there is no way to quantify how many abortions where made "unnecessary". Just because they hand out a condom or a morning after pill doesn't mean an abortion was going to happen otherwise. If they wanted to prevent pregnancy - why do they refuse to even support abstinence (which is the one SURE way to prevent getting pregnant) even a little. I am not talking abstinence only - but they refuse to bring it up as even an OPTION. That shows they are not serious about stopping pregnancy.

Really? So wanting people to act in a manner that takes into account the natural repercussions of their actions, to exhibit some personal responsibility and forethought before they act - means I want women to have unwanted babies. No - it means I want women and men to not engage in a practice that result in unwanted pregnancies. You make your bed, you lay in it. Don't like the bed - don't make it. There are other ways to gain sexual satisfaction that knocking up a chick or getting knocked up.

There is other flaws in your logic as well. If PP is only focusing a small portion of their work on abortion - then why is it that insisting that they stop doing such a "small" portion of work and instead focus on what is their main focus - stopping unwanted pregnancies from happening? If their are all about education and prevention (vs termination), then why the fight to maintain the abortion service? They are NOT the only abortion provider.

Mookie - you have heard it before - its an old saying:

"Follow the Money"

A supposed "3%" of their service accounts for 1/3 of their revenue stream. Of course, I could get into the fact they lie about the 3%, as I pointed out earlier. Still, THIS is why they won't stop doing abortions - its because its PROFITABLE for them.

No, Mookie - convincing women to terminate a pregnancy without really encouraging other options just to make more money- is not a gigantic step back for women's rights - its a gigantic step back for humanity - period.

How is he a lunatic? Calling names is below you. While you can disagree with his views - you have not pointed out anything that shows him to be either insane or wildly foolish. A "lunatic" would not have been as consistently successful as he has been over so long of a time in our society. Where he insane or mentally ill, he would not make as much sense to as many people as he does.

Stop the old fallback of calling names because you simply don't agree.

Well its not the funniest thing - but it is kind of laughable - that you would call "Daddy Bush" a true conservative. Neither Bush qualified as that.

Promoting abstinence is fine, but unrealistic, 90% of people have premarital sex, including christians. The only time in history when abstinence or waiting for marriage worked was when women were the property of the father in OT times and could get married at 12.5 years of age.

We did have a program here in NC in a few trial schools for sex ed where they actually took the kids to hospitals to see and talk to people dying of aids, actually viewed people with herpes, etc...but taught strong protection and birth control.

Unrealistic programs such as signing a card promising to remain a virgin are silly, often it's these that get in trouble because they never planned for birth control.

When my son turns about 16 he'll have a condom in his pocket if not glued to his member.

Oh you mean parental responsibility...

Maybe if more parents were responsible the government wouldn't feel a need to, as I call it "Legislate against Darwin/stupidity"


Hats off to you, alot of our problems would not be problems with a correct upbringing. :salute::salute::salute:

Abstinence is a idealistic concept. Idealism never works as well as realism for OBVIOUS reasons. Teens are going to have sex. They are going to have ALOT of premarital sex. promoting condom use, birth control, ect. is what we should be focusing on. Abstinence doesnt work because when you put horny people in proximity then you get lots of sex.

Rather than have to have abortions because they werent using protection, tell them how much good a thin piece of rubber is going to do. Tell them how deathly serious AIDS is. How deathly serious herpes is. Once you get it, theres NO going back.

But These religious groups, especially Catholicism, completely denounce any form of birth control. Even though she cant possibly afford to raise a baby and hasnt matured enough to do so, they see birth control as sinful. Ridiculous.

Thats the problem. The conservative right has unrealistic, rediculous, and outdated ideas. Theres very little to agree upon with a conservative. And the liberals are too soft. They treat illegals and affirmative action like royalty, and dont have the balls to stand up for whats right.

Seems as though the "association game" has gone too far, and that people cant simply forget party affiliation and say what they really believe in. :nope:


And parents cant smack their child it seems anymore, because that would name them "abusive". Some conservatism i can agree with is the need to teach your kid to sit down, shut up, pay attention and behave. Too many kids these days think theyre royalty and cn do whatever they want. i say that they need to be taught a lesson.