Thanks for your response. But because human life is of utmost precedence, how can you possibly support a candidate who supports infanticide, even if he's right on every other position? What good is it having a good tax policy if we live in a society where the weak and inconvenient can simply be killed for any reason or no reason?

BTW, I do support Palin's positions. It's the only consistent thing to do.

I am personally opposed to [slavery, human trafficking, drug dealing, murder, child pornography, fill-in-the-blank] but would not seek to legislate my personal opinion."

Do you see how idiotic this argument is (and no I'm not calling you an idiot personally) when you simply examine its structure and change the terms a bit? If something is wrong, it's wrong. You have a duty to oppose it.

Sorry, but logic and the plain-sense meaning of the English language is against you.

You don't merely disagree, since you don't present any counter-ideas. you hate, irrationally, based on your own words that I've cited back to you.

This from the pub who believes human rights begins at conception and ends at birth, and has no problem with exterminating Iraqi and Afghan women and children.

No, the people I support support life from conception to natural death, including the weak, the infirm, and mentally disabled. We put our money where our mouth is through adoption, going into medicine or other similar professions. We fight against infanticide and euthanasia.

You need to be more widely read.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, funny how your type didn't seem so concerned about Saddam's rape rooms, the mass graves of Shi'ites, or the Afghan women being beheaded in public stadiums because they flashed a bit of ankle.

Civilians are killed by accident, to be sure, but to say it's enjoyed or actual policy is just plain ignorant.

You need to learn a bit more, learn a lot more, and grow up a lot.

You deny prenatal care to the poor, let insurance companies rob the sick, and defund asylums and put the disabled in prison. And execute the innocent. Such a hero.

I do these things? Such breathtaking arrogance. Please cite some actual evidence. You talk about talking points before. What you say here is just the usual unsubstantiated drivel one finds on daily kos or moveon.org.

Cite a single shred of evidence to support any of these wild accusations.

By the way, it is crisis pregnancy centers that do the most to provide prenatal care to the poor. Planned Parenthood and its ilk merely encourages them to kill unwanted children.

Another by the way: we haven't had "asylums" in decades. The move to close mental health centers and release the mentally ill onto the street was began in the '70s based on lawsuits by the ACLU, among others.

Give up with Godot. As a wise man once said, never wrestle with a pig. You both get filthy, and the pig enjoys it.

I, for one, and done with him. He throws out wild accusations unsupported by facts. He strikes me as one of these people who reads leftist web sites all day, absorbs their "arguments" uncritically and simply regurgitates them undigested into other forums.

How can you have a reasoned discussion with such a person?

What no one mentions is that said trooper was found guilty of criminal acts, including tasering his son (Palin's nephew). This was no bad-divorce disagreement. This was defending her sister and nieces/nephews from an apparently dangerous man.

And the accusation is made by a disgruntled ex-employee. No wonder she says she has nothing to worry about.

What no one mentions is that said trooper was found guilty of criminal acts, including tasering his son (Palin's nephew). This was no bad-divorce disagreement. This was defending her sister and nieces/nephews from an apparently dangerous man.

And the accusation is made by a disgruntled ex-employee. No wonder she says she has nothing to worry about.

From Palin:

In small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Trust me, you'll be seeing this over and over again this fall in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Virginia. Obama professes to care for the "poor people" while looking down his nose at them and, by the way, totally misunderstanding them.

What a person says when he thinks no one is listening is a true indication of his heart, and Obama's speech in San Francisco shows him to be the condescending hypocrite he is. Anything he says afterward is a lie.

Your response to T. Suarez was pathetic.

The question isn't whether you agree with the position or not. (It's unclear even whether you're agreeing with the flip or the flop.) It's ample evidence that Obama is a liar.

The issue is the ample evidence of Obama changing positions strictly for political expediency, sort of like his advisor telling the Canadian government to ignore everything Obama says about free trade, since he doesn't really mean it. That would cause even Bill "I Kept the Promises I Intended to Keep" Clinton to blush.

And the Jeremiah Wright quote was not a poor paraphrase. Here's the exact quote, courtesy of Nexis transcript of his speech: "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."

So, are you sure you still want to include yourself among the "smart ones"?

You again. Finished your homework yet? How's that Clearasil supply doing?

In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running for election this year.