Presidential hopeful Barack (no longer to be called Hussein) Obama

When are conservatives going to get the message that the attempt to paint Obama as a Muslim and a potential terrorist, not only isn't going to work, but shows off their bigotry, xenophobia, and flat out desperation to the rest of us.

Republicans are anti-choice because they believe every fetus is a potential martyr, if not in Iraq during the next 100 years, then in some other "noble" military crusade.

"Republicans are anti-choice because they believe every fetus is a potential martyr, if not in Iraq during the next 100 years, then in some other "noble" military crusade."

Pound for pound, Republicans are far more pro-CHOICE than Democrats, standing as they do for freedom. Democrats, on the other hand, are pro-ABORTION choice, which is not the same thing as being generally on the side of private choice. Pro-LIFE people (though not all Republicans are pro-life, of course) don't consider the "fetus" to be "potential," any more than a toddler is.

Fetal LIFE is LIFE. If formed by the union of two humans, it is HUMAN life. Of course, it is "potentially" everything from a Senator to a serial killer, but how you could link the preservation of the life of the unborn child to war, I have no idea.

Except, of course, that you are an admitted liberal. And liberals can link any two unrelated things with nothing more than the hot glue of their own fury.

""Presidential hopeful Barack (no longer to be called Hussein) Obama""

"When are conservatives going to get the message that the attempt to paint Obama as a Muslim and a potential terrorist, not only isn't going to work, but shows off their bigotry, xenophobia, and flat out desperation to the rest of us."

It IS the man's NAME, isn't it?

It might be, but the only reason you and other conservatives bring it up is because of your desperation to tie him to things he is not apart of. Just like Bush and Cheney beat the terror drum every time an election approached.

Republicans are far more pro-CHOICE than Democrats, standing as they do for freedom.

Yah your pro-choice alright, as long as the person thinks, believes, looks, and acts like a conservative Republican. And history is the true judge, rarely have conservatives ever been the "first" to want to give equal rights to the "outsider", whether it be because of their religion, the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their status as immigrants, their sex, and most recently their sexual orientation.

and I should emphasize the word "conservative" over party labels like Democrat or Republican. In case you should insist on bringing up the southern Democrats and their civil rights record. Because as we all know they might have carried the democrat label, but they were still "conservatives". And its the nature of conservatives we are discussing here...not parties.

"It might be, but the only reason you and other conservatives bring it up is because of your desperation to tie him to things he is not apart of."

Like his GIVEN NAME?!?

"Just like Bush and Cheney beat the terror drum every time an election approached."

Oh, right. Another gem of liberal logic. Barack Obama having a curious name is the same thing as the President and Vice President talking about their jobs (protecting the US).

""Republicans are far more pro-CHOICE than Democrats, standing as they do for freedom.""

"Yah your pro-choice alright, as long as the person thinks, believes, looks, and acts like a conservative Republican."

No, we believe in school choice, food choice, and financial choice for EVERYONE.

"And history is the true judge, rarely have conservatives ever been the "first" to want to give equal rights to the "outsider", whether it be because of their religion.."

As in the "religious right?!?"

"The color of their skin...."

Perhaps you've heard of the CIVIL WAR?

"Their ethnicity..."

I don't remember when Roosevelt became a "conservative." Was it AFTER he threw 100,000 or so Japanese Americans into camps?

"status as immigrants..."

That's an interesting expression. Does it mean illegal aliens?

"their sex..."

Conservative women have historically been more politically effective than liberal women. Conservatives have nothing against equal rights for women.

"and most recently their sexual orientation"

No one in this country is denied equal rights on the basis of their "sexual orientation." Americans all have the SAME rights. And conservatives like it that way.

No one in this country is denied equal rights on the basis of their "sexual orientation." Americans all have the SAME rights. And conservatives like it that way.

Do they really. Why can't same sex couples get the same benefits as married couples when it comes to insurance, pensions, inheritance, taxes, etc.

And of course the most basic right of all...happiness. Tell me same sex couples get the same right to pursue happiness as you do. And no...you dictating terms them before hand is not allowing them the same right to happiness as you have.

"Do they really."

You didn't ask a question, but yes, they do.

"Why can't same sex couples get the same benefits as married couples when it comes to insurance, pensions, inheritance, taxes, etc."

Because they aren't married. I can't marry a girl, and neither can a lesbian. See how that works? Just because someone isn't happy about a rule, doesn't mean it's not equally enforced.

"And of course the most basic right of all...happiness. Tell me same sex couples get the same right to pursue happiness as you do."

Of course they do. We all have the same rights to the same activities. The law can't control what makes people happy, nor can it provide for every contingency that might result in an assumption of "happiness." But we all have the right to pursue it, within the confines of the law.

"And no...you dictating terms them before hand is not allowing them the same right to happiness as you have."

Now you're claiming that everyone should be allowed to pursue not a *general* sort of happiness, but whatever every individual might find makes them happy. That, of course, is not the intent of the Declaration, nor is it an unalienable right, as endowed by Our Creator.

Murdering schoolchildren may make homicidal pedophiles happy, but no one would argue that their rights are violated by laws that preclude them from obtaining that happiness.

"The pursuit of happiness" is a general right, not a specific one. Many times, one's unhappiness is little more than one's own inability to be content with the possible. There is no way to change laws to satisfy that kind of personal void.

Kerry,

And while you'd like to dismiss Bush's use of the war to win elections as Democratic fiction, examples to the contrary surface every day....such as the example below, where Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is quoted as saying...

"We need to think about charging some of the high-value detainees because there could be strategic political value to charging some of these detainees before the election," England is quoted as saying.

Funny so we charge people because it might win an election, but otherwise we just sit on our asses and do nothing for the sake of the fact that we are above the law and don't have to do anything in a non-election year.

http://www.military.com/news/article/lawyer--gitmo-trials-tied-to-election.html

Because they aren't married. I can't marry a girl, and neither can a lesbian. See how that works? Just because someone isn't happy about a rule, doesn't mean it's not equally enforced.

Oh so you promise them happiness, as long as they follow your rules, but if they don't follow your rules its not your problem that they can't find happiness, or have the same benefits everyone else gets.

That's like telling a guy he could be a millionaire if only he climbed onto the roof of a 5 story building, but then deny him the ladder you give to everyone else. There's a word for that Kerry its called discrimination. And it was the same bullshit pulled on blacks a half century ago.

I'm surprised you guys aren't proposing laws that throws them in prison for having sex and intimate contact. Because that is what you are really trying to prevent, but its the last thing any of these marriage laws will ever stop.

Conservative women have historically been more politically effective than liberal women. Conservatives have nothing against equal rights for women.

I serious doubt that, since the most influential women to get woman's suffrage amendment passed were liberal. And if you don't believe that I suggest you look Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. All were ultra feminists...and believed in "voluntary motherhood" a concept that would make conservative woman even in this day and age shit a brick. Why, because the concept lays out what planned parenthood practices today...the ability for woman to control whether they have children, when they have children and how many. What good conservative woman listening properly to her man would deny him sex..potentially forever, so she didn't get pregnant again. I doubt very few....

While their early practices for "planning" their families didn't employ abortion, and modern contraception (from what I can tell) , I doubt they would stand in the way of using either technique if it helped modern woman to solve the problem they were very much aware of.

ahmanrah,

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were pro-life. Stanton said this (referring to abortion): "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Gage was also against abortion, and considered it of a piece with infanticide and child murder--but she blamed it on men: "I hesitate not to assert that most of this crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide, lies at the door of the male sex."

"Voluntary motherhood" doesn't mean abortion, you Hefnerite neanderthal.

"I doubt they would stand in the way of using either technique if it helped modern woman to solve the problem they were very much aware of."

Then, as I suspected, you know very little about them.