Quote from Maverick74:
Well good luck. In the meantime, throw your support behind Daffy Duck. I'll stay in the real world.
Bush did run as a populist despite his families background. When he ran he hardly ever mentioned religion, big oil. He tried to pass himself off as a good ole boy. The pickup truck, the dog, the small town man. Of course he wasn't these things. But that's the point. Every candidate knows what sells and how to close the sale.
Trust me, you'll see Donald Trump with a hunting rifle soon enough ala John Kerry. Maybe Huntsman will start driving a pick up truck. Romney will start wearing a baseball cap.
Zzz, the guy you describe does not want to run for President. The Presidency attracts ego maniacs like Obama for a reason.
Quote from RCG Trader:
A quick and simple example:
Should the federal government subsidize abortion, definitely not.
Should the federal government enforces laws that allow to visit any shop I wish or live in any neighborhood I wish as long I have the cash, definitely.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So it is better for a woman not to be subsidized for an abortion, and have a child that becomes a menace to society financially?
Really, I would think the klannish would favor abortion for all women who have no means to support having children.
Unwanted, or uncared for children end up costing society a lot of money and grief.
I would love to see the anti abortion crowd step up and adopt all unwanted children and give then the life necessary to become a productive member of society.
That doesn't happen of course.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I would love to see the anti abortion crowd step up and adopt all unwanted children and give then the life necessary to become a productive member of society.
Quote from Cache Landing:
That is some pretty flawed logic.
1- Abortion opponents don't fight it on the grounds of economics. They oppose the morals of it. It is your mentality that makes it an economic issue.
2- They are then saying that since they don't support it morally that they don't want their tax dollars funding it. This is completely logical.
3- You are essentially arguing that those who oppose the idea of abortion as a means of avoiding responsibility, should then be eager to perpetuate that irresponsibility by free relieving the irresponsible mother of any societal obligations.
Please tell me that you see the problem with your argument, or that you were just trying to joke around a bit.
Quote from Tsing Tao:
so your solution is for us to pay one way or the other, and that's the only solution you offer? we must pay for someone else's misbehavior?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So it is better for a woman not to be subsidized for an abortion, and have a child that becomes a menace to society financially?
Really, I would think the klannish would favor abortion for all women who have no means to support having children.
Unwanted, or uncared for children end up costing society a lot of money and grief.
I would love to see the anti abortion crowd step up and adopt all unwanted children and give then the life necessary to become a productive member of society.
That doesn't happen of course.