Lounge Daddy Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc"]VIDEO[/url] She's on Hannity & Colmes. Alan asks no questions, only throws up his arms and declares that his work is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nleyetn Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I can't believe what she's saying, did hell freeze over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemnantRules Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
premed_jakey Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 [quote name='nLEyETn' post='1454151' date='Feb 1 2008, 02:29 PM']I can't believe what she's saying, did hell freeze over?[/quote] I literally felt the ground beneath me when she said that. It was the craziest thing. I wish (hope) that it wasnt just another media/political game, even though im not her biggest fan. Thank goodness she didnt wear her skimpy black dress this time! Oh, and Alans response was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Bah. I don't take Ann Coulter seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dismas Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) [quote name='nLEyETn' post='1454151' date='Feb 1 2008, 02:29 PM']I can't believe what she's saying, did hell freeze over?[/quote] It makes sense in a way. McCain would turn the GOP into a faint shadow of the DNC. As he would no longer by shackled to the litmus test on abortion by the people of Arizona, I doubt he would keep any pro-life principles as well. He has been quoted using pro-abortion language and euphemistic slogans. In the end, its better to lose four years than forty. This is quite likely her reasoning. Edited February 1, 2008 by Dismas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 "Better to lose four years than forty." That's an excellent line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nleyetn Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 It is hard to say what he would do if he became president but there is still more hope of him being pro life than there is of Hillary. And I would trust him to handle our national security more than any other candidate. He still isn't the candidate I want but I'd vote for the lesser of two evils if it came down to it. For Coulter to say she'd actually campaign for Hillary is just unbelievable, I'm just hoping she was saying it to try and give a wake up call to Republican voters out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 [quote name='Dismas' post='1454189' date='Feb 1 2008, 05:22 PM']It makes sense in a way. McCain would turn the GOP into a faint shadow of the DNC.[/quote] I do agree with her points, too. I was complaining to my wife of the exact same thing a few days ago. McCain is not only completely dishonest, he's not even good at being dishonest. McCain claims to support a number of things, yet has legislation with his name on it that works for the opposite. Additionally he makes repeated comments that go against everything conservative; such as grumbling about Mitt Romney actually making money, and grumbling about people that wear their conservatism on their sleeve (as McCain complained about Justice Alito). I actually believe that Clinton is more forthcoming on where she stands than McCain is. Both Clinton and McCain support keeping the troops engaged with the enemy is the Middle East; yet Clinton doesn't talk about all the things that she wouldn't do to win the war, like McCain does. Clinton hasn't spent a lot of time taking options off the table during a time of war. If Clinton were pro-life, I'd consider voting for her over McCain too. (let me emphasize the word "consider") If McCain wins the nomination, I will be seriously considering other options for November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 All I can say about Ann Coulter is.......watch this: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7MR5_v47w"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7MR5_v47w[/url] [color="#ff0000"]**WARNING** DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY PROFANITY. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF UNSAVORY WORDS IN THIS***** [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Two words: blond moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Dismas' post='1454189' date='Feb 1 2008, 04:22 PM']It makes sense in a way. McCain would turn the GOP into a faint shadow of the DNC. As he would no longer by shackled to the litmus test on abortion by the people of Arizona, I doubt he would keep any pro-life principles as well. He has been quoted using pro-abortion language and euphemistic slogans. In the end, its better to lose four years than forty. This is quite likely her reasoning.[/quote] First, McCain's predecessor in his Senate seat, Barry Goldwater, known as "Mr. Conservative", had a pro-abortion voting record and constantly won re-election, so I find it highly unlikely that voting pro-life was a matter of political life and death. Second, regarding "better to lose four years than forty". A lot of damage could happen in those four years, and it may require those forty just to make up for those four. Look at what happened after George HW Bush lost to Clinton in 1992. Within two years you had the draconian FACE law signed which is a tool to be used against pro-life demonstrators. You also had two pro-abortion Supreme Court (SCOTUS) justices appointed (one of which replaced a pro-life SCOTUS justice). That probably cost us reversing Roe vs. Wade in the 1990s. Sure, there was a backlash that got us the first GOP Congress in 40 years, but the damage had already been done. If Hilary or Obama are elected, are you willing to risk federal legislation codifying Roe vs. Wade as federal law being signed by them? Do you think it will be easy to repeal it? Edited February 2, 2008 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 (edited) Another thing. Why do people have to bring up an Egyptian president assassinated over 25 years ago as reason to show McCain is not conservative? [size=1][/size] Edited February 2, 2008 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 (edited) nm Edited February 2, 2008 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 (edited) The problem with Mccain is that he is a sellout. He has time and again sold out the republican party, its conservative base, in a effort to make a deal with liberals. If he can sellout the first amendment why not sellout his prolife stance. Which he has already stated he would not support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Believing certainly in the short term, or even the long term legal abortion is necessary. Mccain has proven himself not to be trusted. The reason some would say four years is better than forty is because Mccain would destroy the conservative movement within the republican party, which would take many many years to rebuild. And in that time we could see many Hillarys in the White House. Edited February 2, 2008 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now