PDA

View Full Version : I'm an undecided voter. Who should I vote for?


BigRedChief
12-24-2007, 06:27 AM
Past votes went to:

1976: Carter
1980: Regan
1984: Regan
1988: Bush
1992: Clinton
1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Anti- Bush (whoever that idiot was for the Democrats)

8 elections so far.
5 Democratic
3 Republican

If a candidate is against a womens right to chose to have an abortion then he's off the list. I'm open to hearing a candidates views on anything else.

patteeu
12-24-2007, 06:54 AM
I think you should stay home in protest, but if you have to vote, you should vote for Mayor Bloomberg.

BigRedChief
12-24-2007, 07:02 AM
I think you should stay home in protest, but if you have to vote, you should vote for Mayor Bloomberg.But, I've got no season ticket purchases to throw away in protest.

Do I need to willingly give up some individual freedom to vote for your guy?

cookster50
12-24-2007, 07:11 AM
On this board, there is only 1 answer, Mr. Ron Paul :)

patteeu
12-24-2007, 07:50 AM
But, I've got no season ticket purchases to throw away in protest.

Do I need to willingly give up some individual freedom to vote for your guy?

I don't have a guy yet, but if you want to be true to your one requirement (pro-choice) and keep me happy, you should support Rudy Giuliani. You can also consider Mitt Romney and just assume he's pandering to the right with his conversion to pro-life.

FTR, the guys I support are more likely to protect your individual freedom than a democrat. GWB was better for individual freedom than either John Kerry or Al Gore would have been. If you value individual freedom over all else including national defense, you should vote for Ron Paul.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-24-2007, 07:54 AM
I don't have a guy yet, but if you want to be true to your one requirement (pro-choice) and keep me happy, you should support Rudy Giuliani. You can also consider Mitt Romney and just assume he's pandering to the right with his conversion to pro-life.

FTR, the guys I support are more likely to protect your individual freedom than a democrat. GWB was better for individual freedom than either John Kerry or Al Gore would have been.

Communism never works put down the RED koolaid, the ONLY choice for total freedom is Ron Paul. I hear Giuliani will be the next prez of cuba, since he holds about the same values.

BigRedChief
12-24-2007, 08:01 AM
I don't have a guy yet, but if you want to be true to your one requirement (pro-choice) and keep me happy, you should support Rudy Giuliani. You can also consider Mitt Romney and just assume he's pandering to the right with his conversion to pro-life.

FTR, the guys I support are more likely to protect your individual freedom than a democrat. GWB was better for individual freedom than either John Kerry or Al Gore would have been. If you value individual freedom over all else including national defense, you should vote for Ron Paul.
nope, there is no way I can say national defense is more important than individual freedom or vice versa.

patteeu
12-24-2007, 08:06 AM
Communism never works put down the RED koolaid, the ONLY choice for total freedom is Ron Paul. I hear Giuliani will be the next prez of cuba, since he holds about the same values.

Total freedom is anarchy. Not even Ron Paul favors that. The whole point of the constitution is to give up some freedoms in return for replacing anarchy with government.

patteeu
12-24-2007, 08:08 AM
nope, there is no way I can say national defense is more important than individual freedom or vice versa.

If you want balance between the two, as I do, then Ron Paul is not your man, IMO. Nor are any of the democrats.

Garcia Bronco
12-24-2007, 10:45 AM
Yeah...rudy is off the deep end from a personal liberties perspective.

banyon
12-24-2007, 10:54 AM
Total freedom is anarchy. Not even Ron Paul favors that. The whole point of the constitution is to give up some freedoms in return for replacing anarchy with government.

nuh huh, yew CANT MODERATE LIBERTEE!!!11

SNR
12-24-2007, 11:06 AM
You're looking at a Democrat, probably. Go with Obama if you want to be cool and hip.

Ultra Peanut
12-24-2007, 11:19 AM
Barack Obama.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/
http://audacityoftruth.net/

A tiny, tiny, tiny smidgen of highlights:

* Pro-choice
* Religious, but doesn't think HIS personal beliefs should be forced upon EVERYONE
* Supports UHC, but not a system that makes it mandatory even if someone's dumb enough to not want insurance
* Not afraid of atoms, like a certain bitch (coughJohnEdwardscough)
* Strong proponent of transparency in government (http://www.usaspending.gov/); evidenced by the link, which came about as a result of legislation he sponsored.
* He's intelligent, pragmatic, nuanced... genuine. No, seriously. I know it sounds ridiculous, but he's THE ONE. The first in a really long time.

Oh, and SUCK IT HILLARY (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+B.+Hertneky%3A+Let's+compare+the+public+accomplishments+of+Clinton+and+Ob ama&articleId=11dc4bb6-bc19-4f73-97a4-400fbd3dad27#pageTop):

Obama's accomplishments show greater efficiency and clarity of purpose, forming productive alliances, making the most of his comparatively short career.

People talk about his charisma, but give me that skill and focus, trained on a four-year term, and we could see unprecedented results.

Total freedom is anarchy. Not even Ron Paul favors that.Yes he does.

You're looking at a Democrat, probably. Go with Obama if you want to be cool and hip.Hilarious, coming from a fan of the internet (and Stormfront/Loose Changers') flavor of the moment.

Sully
12-24-2007, 11:29 AM
Obama...definitely...

SNR
12-24-2007, 11:30 AM
Hilarious, coming from a fan of the internet (and Stormfront/Loose Changers') flavor of the moment.Uh-huh. And Hillary is supported by nazi barren lesbians and Barack is supported by black panthers and retarded college students who don't know anything about politics. Giuliani has his Bush-supporting facists and Huckabee has his Christian zealots who want a theocracy in this country.

It's easy to discredit a candidate based on the kind of extremists that support him/her. Because EVERY candidate has extremists in his/her camp. Calling out Ron Paul based on the kind of people that support him is not only hypocritical, but it's just ****ing stupid.

By the way, your signature is still a lie.

pikesome
12-24-2007, 11:31 AM
Me.

BIG_DADDY
12-24-2007, 11:35 AM
Uh-huh. And Hillary is supported by nazi barren lesbians and Barack is supported by black panthers and retarded college students who don't know anything about politics. Giuliani has his Bush-supporting facists and Huckabee has his Christian zealots who want a theocracy in this country.

It's easy to discredit a candidate based on the kind of extremists that support him/her. Because EVERY candidate has extremists in his/her camp. Calling out Ron Paul based on the kind of people that support him is not only hypocritical, but it's just ****ing stupid.

By the way, your signature is still a lie.

The funniest part of all that is if you follow his logic Barack would be the last person you would support because of UP. LMAO

BIG_DADDY
12-24-2007, 11:36 AM
RP

Ultra Peanut
12-24-2007, 11:40 AM
By the way, your signature is still a lie.Oh, okay. DR. RON PAUL didn't write that. SOMEONE ELSE wrote the article under his name, for the small newsletter that had his name plastered all over it. And he never gave the article or the newsletter, both of which bore his name, a cursory glance to make sure nothing bad was in it.

Must have been one of those fleet-footed negroes trying to discredit him. Like there's not enough crazy shit out there (GOLD STANDARD! KILL THE FDA! WAR ON CHRISTMAS!) to do that.

Anyways, the point wasn't that some crazies support him, it was that A) he's the "hip" candidate, if you go by Diggs and GOOGLE RON PAUL, BRO, and B) his small, overhyped support base is disproportionately insane.

Ultra Peanut
12-24-2007, 11:42 AM
The funniest part of all that is if you follow his logic Barack would be the last person you would support because of UP. LMAOHAHAHAHAHAHA

GOOD ONE I LIKE HOW YOU LAUGHED AT YOUR OWN JOKE THAT IS THE SIGN OF A GOOD ONE

Jenson71
12-24-2007, 11:44 AM
Rep: Ron Paul wants to make abortion STRICTLY a state by state matter, otherwise he's pro-life.

Dem: Biden or Kucinch are good guys. Pro-choice, but against partial birth abortions.

Indie: Bloomberg is pro-choice

SNR
12-24-2007, 01:14 PM
Anyways, the point wasn't that some crazies support him, it was that A) he's the "hip" candidate, if you go by Diggs and GOOGLE RON PAUL, BRO, and B) his small, overhyped support base is disproportionately insane.Dude, Obama is the ULTIMATE in "hip" and "cool" and "rad" and "whack" and "mega-in." Every single one of his rallies on college campuses turn into ploys to get empty-headed students to vote for him much like Kool Kamel Joe gets kids to smoke cigarettes. I'm willing to wager half of those kids who support Obama after the rally can't even name one of his opponents on the Democrat ticket besides Hillary. It's proof that they just picked a candidate that sounds cool (Bush is bad, change is good, and HOPE) and has a great way of speaking to people. I've even met people who are voting for him just because it would be nice to see a president with different skin color up there for once. Yes, that's their only premise for picking whom to support.

I don't hate the guy at all. I'll probably end up voting for him if Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination and Obama gets the Democrat. Just know that I'm not doing it for the "cool" reasons that everyone else is.

banyon
12-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Dude, Obama is the ULTIMATE in "hip" and "cool" and "rad" and "whack" and "mega-in." Every single one of his rallies on college campuses turn into ploys to get empty-headed students to vote for him much like Kool Kamel Joe gets kids to smoke cigarettes. I'm willing to wager half of those kids who support Obama after the rally can't even name one of his opponents on the Democrat ticket besides Hillary. It's proof that they just picked a candidate that sounds cool (Bush is bad, change is good, and HOPE) and has a great way of speaking to people. I've even met people who are voting for him just because it would be nice to see a president with different skin color up there for once. Yes, that's their only premise for picking whom to support.

I don't hate the guy at all. I'll probably end up voting for him if Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination and Obama gets the Democrat. Just know that I'm not doing it for the "cool" reasons that everyone else is.

Do you know how much of a bump 18-22 y/o college kids give a candidate in an election?

JBucc
12-24-2007, 01:21 PM
You can vote for me. I'm currently taking donations trying to get my campaign started. Minimum of $500 please. I accept paypal.

Oh, and I voted for the exact same people as you! Imagine that.

ClevelandBronco
12-24-2007, 01:30 PM
Is Carl Peterson running?

Cochise
12-24-2007, 01:32 PM
Here comes the spam...

ClevelandBronco
12-24-2007, 01:42 PM
Here comes the spam...

Please. The guy voted for Reagan and Clinton. His vote is spam.

Cochise
12-24-2007, 03:19 PM
Please. The guy voted for Reagan and Clinton. His vote is spam.

I was thinking that Kerry was what made it. Especially since he's since forgotten his name :D

BigRedChief
12-24-2007, 04:50 PM
Please. The guy voted for Reagan and Clinton. His vote is spam.
I was a bandwagoneer. Just vote for the winner. Wellll until Bush jr.

Chocolate Hog
12-24-2007, 05:26 PM
Do you know how much of a bump 18-22 y/o college kids give a candidate in an election?

Only 17% of college kids voted in the last presidental election.

banyon
12-24-2007, 05:38 PM
Only 17% of college kids voted in the last presidental election.

i bet that number drops even further in primary voting.

StillHonest
12-25-2007, 08:58 AM
Hopefully you have the time to think it through and understand what is really at stake.

The claims and counterclaims of the candidates at this point are trial ballons and attempts to cover the real agenda each may have so its really too early to get entrenched.

The key issues the country faces over the next 4-8 years are critical.

The economy: Basically, the democrats as a unit would like to recover the taxes that Bush and Bush 1 did away with. A move to bring back the capital gains tax would devestate the stock market. Everyone has a stake in that move even iof not invested.

The democrats will move to reinstate taxes on the "rich". Who ever the rich are is hard to tell but bottom line is if you have a job, they will increae taxes. This will further accelerate a downturn in the economy.

There is probably a repub or two who could be a tax increaser as well. listen carefully.

The "War"...this is the emotional issue of the day. Beware those who try to use this to an extreme.

Religion. Its sad really that somehow this has become an issue. To define who you vote for because he is or is noit a man with beliefs is absurd.

Vote for something. To vote for someone to "send a message" may be the greatest disaster. For example you may really hate all the demos, And you may be luke warm on repubs. So you vote for Paul. That vote for Paul wont do squat. But that vote on the repub side could be the difference in a close elction. That vote for Paul may get us Obama or Hillary. Boith would be a disaster for the country for decades to come.

Bowser
12-25-2007, 09:04 AM
It's hard to get fired up for any of the turds running for president this go around.

StillHonest
12-25-2007, 11:38 AM
However some turds are far better for the country than the balance of the turds

irishjayhawk
12-25-2007, 11:52 AM
Uh-huh. And Hillary is supported by nazi barren lesbians and Barack is supported by black panthers and retarded college students who don't know anything about politics. Giuliani has his Bush-supporting facists and Huckabee has his Christian zealots who want a theocracy in this country.

It's easy to discredit a candidate based on the kind of extremists that support him/her. Because EVERY candidate has extremists in his/her camp. Calling out Ron Paul based on the kind of people that support him is not only hypocritical, but it's just ****ing stupid.

By the way, your signature is still a lie.

That's what I've been trying to tell patteeu.

And no, UltraPeanut, RP doesn't favor anarchy, but don't stop hating on him. :)

irishjayhawk
12-25-2007, 11:55 AM
If a candidate is against a womens right to chose to have an abortion then he's off the list. I'm open to hearing a candidates views on anything else.

I agree, but it's not my top priority. My top priority is the war that is running my generation into the ground. I don't think it's too much of a hyperbole to say that my generation and below will have good reason to start thinking about moving abroad if things continue.

HonestChieffan
12-25-2007, 11:58 AM
Thats a misplaced priority. The war is not the threat to your generation. The threat to your generation is a return to the Lyndon Johnson style od =f social programs that are the brainchildren of Hillary and Obama and Edwards. Your generation should try to be more aware of the impact of these people in restructuring the economy in a manner that onloy Karl Marx would approve. And it will happen while you focus on non issues like ones religion vs another and listening to promices the candidate cannot deliver.

banyon
12-25-2007, 12:05 PM
did you get your login back?

HonestChieffan
12-25-2007, 12:49 PM
seems like it

Hoover
12-25-2007, 01:16 PM
Reagan was Pro Life...

Here's my guess.

You never vote in primaries, so why worry about it until those who actually give a shit decied who shoudl be the nominee.

The first election I could vote in was 96

96 Caucus: Forbes
96 General: Dole

00 Caucus: Forbes
00 General: Bush

04 Caucus: Bush
04 General: Bush

08 Caucus: Huckabee
08 General: ?????

PunkinDrublic
12-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Whoever has the best chance of keeping the neocons out of power.

Thig Lyfe
12-25-2007, 01:55 PM
GWB was better for individual freedom than either John Kerry or Al Gore would have been.

Hahahahahahahaha

Thig Lyfe
12-25-2007, 02:02 PM
That vote for Paul may get us Obama or Hillary. Boith would be a disaster for the country for decades to come.

Ridiculous. You can't get much worse than Bush has been, and Obama would be dedicated to fixing the stuff Bush f*cked up (like international relations, for example).

Obama's easily the best candidate out there.

HonestChieffan
12-25-2007, 02:17 PM
Best for whom?

Obama would be a fiscal disaster based on his nutty ideas on health care and he advocates government price and profit controls for business. He has no experience with foreigh=n relations...in fact his experience is limited to being elected...accomplishe nothing.

banyon
12-25-2007, 02:37 PM
Best for whom?

Obama would be a fiscal disaster based on his nutty ideas on health care and he advocates government price and profit controls for business. He has no experience with foreigh=n relations...in fact his experience is limited to being elected...accomplishe nothing.

just itchin for a Christmas fight huh? :p

Stewie
12-25-2007, 02:46 PM
Vote for Hillary! She said the minute she's elected oil prices will drop like a rock because of her energy policy. Ya see, in the past no one was interested in alternative energy because oil was cheap. Soooo, when she's elected and oil is cheap... uh... er... how do these people get elected?

Flustrated
12-25-2007, 06:18 PM
I am for Paul, but if he doesn't get the republican nomination or run as an independent I'm going with Obama. Anything is better than voting for some scrub that's bought and paid for by corporations.

banyon
12-25-2007, 06:38 PM
I am for Paul, but if he doesn't get the republican nomination or run as an independent I'm going with Obama. Anything is better than voting for some scrub that's bought and paid for by corporations.

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

patteeu
12-25-2007, 09:14 PM
That's what I've been trying to tell patteeu.

And no, UltraPeanut, RP doesn't favor anarchy, but don't stop hating on him. :)


There's only one candidate who is knowingly accepting contributions from a leading white nationalist. You know who Ron I'm talking about Paul.

patteeu
12-25-2007, 10:12 PM
I agree, but it's not my top priority. My top priority is the war that is running my generation into the ground. I don't think it's too much of a hyperbole to say that my generation and below will have good reason to start thinking about moving abroad if things continue.

And with a late entry for most ridiculous post of 2007, we have irishjayhawk.

patteeu
12-25-2007, 10:19 PM
Ridiculous. You can't get much worse than Bush has been, and Obama would be dedicated to fixing the stuff Bush f*cked up (like international relations, for example).

Obama's easily the best candidate out there.

What's wrong with our international relations? Canada, Germany, and France have all elected more pro-American governments since Bush took office. And I doubt it would take much effort to find other less significant examples.

BigRedChief
12-26-2007, 05:44 AM
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Thats classic ownship there.

But, let's be real. You can't run for the presidency in the 21st century without the big bucks of special interests. Thats the way our democratice system works in 2007. So every candidate is going to have Big Oil, Pharmacy, Insurance companies, whomever on their contributor records.

Flustrated
12-26-2007, 05:57 AM
Thats classic ownship there.

But, let's be real. You can't run for the presidency in the 21st century without the big bucks of special interests. Thats the way our democratice system works in 2007. So every candidate is going to have Big Oil, Pharmacy, Insurance companies, whomever on their contributor records.

Universities are corporations? I don't see how that's "ownship." The financial corporations that support Obama throw hundreds of thousands of dollars toward all of the cadidates to help cover their asses. Obama has spoken out more as an advocate against unscrupulous corporations than any other leading candiate except Edwards, but Edwards seems to favor socialism.

By the way, I am very familiar with open secrets.org I even posted a link to that site a few months ago.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=174684

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have flaws, but he's the best candidate if Paul doesn't win.

Flustrated
12-26-2007, 06:19 AM
and yet another interesting donor list

RON PAUL (R)
Top Contributors
Google Inc $22,250
US Army $21,018
US Navy $14,105
Microsoft Corp $12,863
Huffines Communities $11,850
US Air Force $10,950
Cisco Systems $8,900
Verizon Communications $8,351
Ford Motor Co $7,650
General Dynamics $7,100
US Postal Service $6,961
Andres Properties $6,900
Welcom Products $6,750
US Dept of Defense $5,900
Apple Inc $5,560
General Motors $5,451
Deutsche Bank AG $5,400
Verax Chemical $5,244
Raytheon Co $4,964
Robbins Design Services $4,819

So much for the military not supporting Paul...LOL

Flustrated
12-26-2007, 06:32 AM
Hillary's top contributor is a globalization law firm that helps keep the lead comming to our kids.

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors
DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350

Funny as hell Tyson foods, the nation's #1 illeagal immigration employer is backing Huckabee.
Stephens Inc $34,850
State of Arkansas $11,850
Stephen's Group $11,500
Challenger Inc $9,200
First Tape & Label $9,200
Wal-Mart Stores $8,750
Tyson Foods $8,100
Murphy Oil $8,050

along with a lot of other poverty paying corporations.

BigRedChief
12-26-2007, 06:58 AM
and yet another interesting donor list

RON PAUL (R)
Top Contributors
US Army $21,018
US Navy $14,105
US Air Force $10,950
US Postal Service $6,961
US Dept of Defense $5,900

So much for the military not supporting Paul...LOL
This has to be BS.

How can a U.S. goverment branch contribute to a political campaign?

Not to mention a branch of the Armed forces?

BigRedChief
12-26-2007, 07:01 AM
Universities are corporations? I don't see how that's "ownship."
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

Doesn't look like all universities to me.:hmmm:

patteeu
12-26-2007, 07:46 AM
This has to be BS.

How can a U.S. goverment branch contribute to a political campaign?

Not to mention a branch of the Armed forces?

That list is most likely some kind of grouping of individual donors according to their self-reported associations. Stormfront can't be too far down the list.

patteeu
12-26-2007, 07:48 AM
Thats classic ownship there.

That it is.

http://www.birkoph.com/owned/owned_help.jpg

HonestChieffan
12-26-2007, 08:13 AM
To feel Obama is the best one for the job is something I just cannot quite understand. What on earth has he donre or accomplished that would prepare him for the job....and how can one listen to his claims and plans and not see the impact of this mans proposals on our economy and way of life? He appeals to every person who has a hand out and ignores the fact he cannot afford to do what he says he will do no matter how much he raises taxes.

Do people ever think through what the politicians say and ask critical questions?

Taco John
12-26-2007, 06:30 PM
This has to be BS.

How can a U.S. goverment branch contribute to a political campaign?

Not to mention a branch of the Armed forces?



Same as any list... Apparently you've never contributed to a campaign before. When you contribute to a campaign, they ask you for your employer. When you see donations coming from a company, these donations come from individuals inside that company.

Ultra Peanut
12-26-2007, 06:53 PM
To feel Obama is the best one for the job is something I just cannot quite understand. What on earth has he donre or accomplished that would prepare him for the job....and how can one listen to his claims and plans and not see the impact of this mans proposals on our economy and way of life? He appeals to every person who has a hand out and ignores the fact he cannot afford to do what he says he will do no matter how much he raises taxes.

Do people ever think through what the politicians say and ask critical questions?Do people ever think through what they say before spouting talk radio horseshit?

Brock
12-26-2007, 06:54 PM
I don't see how Obama is any less experienced than Clinton at least.

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 05:13 AM
Same as any list... Apparently you've never contributed to a campaign before. When you contribute to a campaign, they ask you for your employer. When you see donations coming from a company, these donations come from individuals inside that company.
So if you wanted to make another candidate look bad you could just get a group of people together and all give money and claim to be Nazi's?

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 06:32 AM
Huckabee is out after seeing this video.

You vote for me you live. You don't you get shot and die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQEO2g5fcek

bango
12-27-2007, 07:33 PM
Huckabee is out after seeing this video.

You vote for me you live. You don't you get shot and die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQEO2g5fcek



Maybe Huck will have you killed if you vote against him? Did you ever consider that?

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 10:24 PM
That list is most likely some kind of grouping of individual donors according to their self-reported associations. Stormfront can't be too far down the list.
I read a very good article by someone who was a big donor to Paul who considered not supporting him after the Stormfront controversy.

So he researched Stormfront to see why they supported Paul. They supported certain Paul's stands but on completely different basis. One was the Fed....they didn't support it because they considered it "jew." However, the posters there did support a Fed or central bank as a feature of National Socialism instead fully admitting to being Nazis. Who'd have figured. Same goes for giving money to Israel. These people, though, are true Nazi's including National Socialism. So, they are the opposite of what Paul stands for. Weird. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Anyhow, the upshot was that this guy decided to continue his support for Paul more than ever after researching these folks in order to make an informed decision.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone2.html

Oh and btw, Woodrow Wilson, the g-r-e-a-t liberal progressive was as racist as they came. He even segregated govt facilities in DC when he came into office.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 06:23 AM
I read a very good article by someone who was a big donor to Paul who considered not supporting him after the Stormfront controversy.

So he researched Stormfront to see why they supported Paul. They supported certain Paul's stands but on completely different basis. One was the Fed....they didn't support it because they considered it "jew." However, the posters there did support a Fed or central bank as a feature of National Socialism instead fully admitting to being Nazis. Who'd have figured. Same goes for giving money to Israel. These people, though, are true Nazi's including National Socialism. So, they are the opposite of what Paul stands for. Weird. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Anyhow, the upshot was that this guy decided to continue his support for Paul more than ever after researching these folks in order to make an informed decision.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone2.html

Oh and btw, Woodrow Wilson, the g-r-e-a-t liberal progressive was as racist as they came. He even segregated govt facilities in DC when he came into office.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make with this post. I understand why people like Storm Fronteers are supporting Ron Paul and I don't give a rip about Woodrow Wilson. What I don't understand is why Ron Paul would refuse to return $500 in the face of the bad publicity it's earned him.

What does seem interesting though is that this guy you're talking about was apparently a big donor *before* he knew enough about Paul to know that Paul wasn't overtly preaching anti-semitism or racism. That's weird.

BucEyedPea
12-28-2007, 09:56 AM
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make with this post. I understand why people like Storm Fronteers are supporting Ron Paul and I don't give a rip about Woodrow Wilson. What I don't understand is why Ron Paul would refuse to return $500 in the face of the bad publicity it's earned him.
I don't give a rip if you care about Wilson if ya' wanna really know. My point was one of comparison that there have been many presidents who actually got elected, often considered great in the past who had racist and semitic warts, far more than any Paul has, if he has them. White racists supported Reagan, therefore he's guilty by association.

What does seem interesting though is that this guy you're talking about was apparently a big donor *before* he knew enough about Paul to know that Paul wasn't overtly preaching anti-semitism or racism. That's weird.
Wow! What a judgemental a-hole you can be. Not "overtly" preaching but implyin' it 'eh? You really do believe this tripe which is nothing but Nazi-baiting a candidate. As if most people out there voting know everything about the leading candidates. Paul's anti-war message is popular and has attracted many new people, including people who have not voted in the past.

Now how come you didn't know about Rudy's fiscal peccadillos when you considered him, at least at one point? You found out when someone exposed it during the campaign like the rest of us. Shame on you pat for your petty double standard.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 10:29 AM
I don't give a rip if you care about Wilson if ya' wanna really know. My point was one of comparison that there have been many presidents who actually got elected, often considered great in the past who had racist and semitic warts, far more than any Paul has, if he has them. White racists supported Reagan, therefore he's guilty by association.

As if it is eye-opening that a racist could be elected to office half a century before the civil rights movement. LOL

Maybe you're talking about someone else, but I've made no effort to declare Ron Paul guilty by association. :shrug:

Wow! What a judgemental a-hole you can be. Not "overtly" preaching but implyin' it 'eh? You really do believe this tripe which is nothing but Nazi-baiting a candidate. As if most people out there voting know everything about the leading candidates. Paul's anti-war message is popular and has attracted many new people, including people who have not voted in the past.

Now how come you didn't know about Rudy's fiscal peccadillos when you considered him, at least at one point? You found out when someone exposed it during the campaign like the rest of us. Shame on you pat for your petty double standard.

Hahaha. AFAIK, Rudy hasn't been "overtly preaching" fiscal peccadillos. If he had been, I'd be well aware of it. There's a big difference between regularly saying that jews control our foreign policy in your stump speech (overt) and trying to minimize the chances that anyone ever finds out about the details of your accounting practices as mayor (not overt). Beyond that, my "consideration" of Rudy is distinguishable from your guy's heavy donations in support of Ron Paul, which he characterizes as an "investment". There's no double standard here, petty or otherwise.

And I never said anything about Paul being a racist or implying a racist agenda. That's your over-active defensiveness talking.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 10:40 AM
Getting back on topic: BigRedChief, if you're a Jew hater who just wants to be left alone and doesn't want Jews running American foreign policy or manipulating our money supply, Ron Paul is your man. :thumb:

clemensol
12-29-2007, 05:11 PM
Oh and btw, Woodrow Wilson, the g-r-e-a-t liberal progressive was as racist as they came. He even segregated govt facilities in DC when he came into office.

I completely disagree with that. He was against women's sufferage until midway through his time as president. He made a mockery of personal liberty and the constitution during ww1. He was mildly progressive on economic issues but of the four major candidates in the 1912 election he was probably the 3rd most liberal (at least by the early 1900s definition of liberalism/progressivism).

Taco John
12-29-2007, 05:22 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2T-iJKwskH4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2T-iJKwskH4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

clemensol
12-29-2007, 05:37 PM
cute ad but what exactly is the justification for no student visas for people from terrorist nations?

First, how does one define a terrorist nation? Is it a nation that is it a nation that supports terrorism? Because if that's the case the no one in the US deserves a student visa from another country seeing as the US is possibly the number one state sponser of terrorism in the world.

And even if there was a way to objectively label terrorist nations (whatever they are), why should that prevent someone from getting a student visa? Are the students responsible for their government's actions?

HolmeZz
12-29-2007, 05:46 PM
Just know that I'm not doing it for the "cool" reasons that everyone else is.

That's funny, that's basically what Paul supporters strike me as. I have a hard time believing a majority of his supporters would even consider voting for him in a normal election cycle. He's essentially benefited from his party having some awful candidates running for it's nomination. By being the only Republican candidate not wanting to conquer the rest of the globe, he looks like a better alternative than he is in actuality. And plus, you can pass yourself off as moderate if you're a liberal who supports Paul!

Taco John
12-29-2007, 05:51 PM
From 2003:

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm

Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.

HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee.

“Most of the September 11th hijackers entered the country using student visas, which are notoriously easy to obtain,” Paul stated. “Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that harbor terrorists. Homeland Security and State department officials need to bring the student visa program under control before we allow more of our enemies into the country. If we are serious about preventing terrorism in America, we cannot continue to simply fling open our doors to students from terror-sponsoring states.”

“The focus of the war on terror should be on terrorists, not American citizens,” Paul concluded. “We must take control of our immigration procedures, prevent potential terrorists from entering the country, and do a better job of tracking those individuals we do allow to enter. Student visas should not serve as an easy revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us.”

From Dec 2002:

Paul Proposal to Strengthen Visa Rules Included in New Legislation Toughens Standards for Saudi Citizens Entering the U.S.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr120302.htm

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, who first proposed restrictions on visas issued to citizens of Saudi Arabia several months ago, today applauded a new visa program included in recent homeland security legislation. Paul earlier introduced an amendment in the House International Relations committee requiring strict scrutiny of visa applications submitted by Saudi nationals, and he was pleased that a similar version of this commonsense proposal passed as part of the homeland security bill.

"We cannot continue to ignore the role of Saudi Arabia in abetting terrorism," Paul statcd. "Hopefully this new rule will draw needed attention to Saudi inaction and duplicity in the ongoing fight against global terror. First and foremost, we must take a very close look at Saudi citizens who want to enter this country, just as we hopefully look at individuals from other countries that support terrorism."

Paul sent a letter to Secretary of State Powell earlier this year, urging the State department to add Saudi Arabia to the list of countries not cooperating with our campaign against terrorism. The letter highlighted Saudi involvement in the September 11th attacks, noting that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The letter also stressed that Saudis make up more than half of those arrested by U.S. forces in Afghanistan; that clear evidence exists of Saudi support for al Qaeda; and that bin Laden himself is a Saudi citizen.

"I’m encouraged that the State department finally will be required to scrutinize visa applications from Saudi nationals," Paul stated. "Given recent evidence of Saudi charities funding radical Islamic terror organizations, it’s obviously time to rethink their status as an ally."

From July 2002:

PAUL URGES RESTRICTIONS ON STUDENT VISAS IN HOMELAND DEFENSE BILL

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr070202.htm

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul wants Congress to deny student visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, and he favors similar restrictions on diversity visa programs for the same countries. The current list of terror-sponsoring states includes Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Paul will work to incorporate these needed changes in our visa rules when Congress considers a homeland security bill this summer.

"Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that don’t cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism," Paul stated. "Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11 attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies, including the aid and comfort of living in the United States."

Paul sits on the House International Relations committee, which has jurisdiction over new visa rules in the Homeland Security Act. Paul want to ensure that any homeland security legislation focuses on terrorists and possible terrorists themselves, rather than innocent American citizens.

"We need to draw a bright line between American citizens and noncitizen residents or visitors," Paul continued. "We don’t need to sacrifice civil liberties to strengthen our defenses against terrorism. First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job of keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us."

Taco John
12-29-2007, 05:52 PM
That's funny, that's basically what Paul supporters strike me as.


That's funny, that's basically what obama supporters strike me as.

clemensol
12-29-2007, 05:57 PM
That's all well and good but how does someone define a terrorist nation? It seems to be a slightly subjective exercise to me.

banyon
12-29-2007, 05:59 PM
I completely disagree with that. He was against women's sufferage until midway through his time as president. He made a mockery of personal liberty and the constitution during ww1. He was mildly progressive on economic issues but of the four major candidates in the 1912 election he was probably the 3rd most liberal (at least by the early 1900s definition of liberalism/progressivism).

LOL, you're trying to use the definitions normal people use. That won't fly. Watch out or you may get called some made up terminological name yourself!

Plus though she likes to deride Wilson quite a bit this time as a "racist"(I would've supported TR in that election), she manages to reconcile that somehow I guess with her favorite president Jefferson being a slaveholder and adulterer. One deserves blame and to be labeled a "racist" and the other deserves veneration. Don't bother trying to figure it out.

HolmeZz
12-29-2007, 05:59 PM
That's funny, that's basically what obama supporters strike me as.

1. Yes, that was SNR's post.

2. You were an Obama supporter before you decided to try and make a name for yourself with Paul.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 06:01 PM
cute ad but what exactly is the justification for no student visas for people from terrorist nations?

First, how does one define a terrorist nation? Is it a nation that is it a nation that supports terrorism? Because if that's the case the no one in the US deserves a student visa from another country seeing as the US is possibly the number one state sponser of terrorism in the world.

:rolleyes:

And even if there was a way to objectively label terrorist nations (whatever they are), why should that prevent someone from getting a student visa? Are the students responsible for their government's actions?

It's not really that hard. It's not about being fair or "objective", it's about figuring out which countries pose a threat and which ones don't. We've got tons of people working for us in the state department and other branches of the government who are supposed to be able to figure these things out so you can live a carefree life and complain about how bad our country is.

Taco John
12-29-2007, 06:01 PM
1. Yes, that was SNR's post.

2. You were an Obama supporter before you decided to try and make a name for yourself with Paul.



I know. That's why I said that. It's the only reason I supported him at the time. I liked his Iraq plan, but have since come to see the light.

Taco John
12-29-2007, 06:02 PM
That's all well and good but how does someone define a terrorist nation? It seems to be a slightly subjective exercise to me.


I think that there are probably some worthwhile objective measures that could be used to define a terrorist nation.

HolmeZz
12-29-2007, 06:04 PM
You haven't seen shit. If someone would put your mug on television to knob-slob Barack, you'd start singing a different tune.

Taco John
12-29-2007, 06:07 PM
Are you even going to vote? I know a lot of Obama "fans" but I haven't met a single one who says they're going to vote in a primary or caucus for the guy. (in Washington state we do both)

HolmeZz
12-29-2007, 06:12 PM
Nah, I'll probably just sit on my ass and hope for the best.

Taco John
12-29-2007, 06:16 PM
That's why I think Obama might even come in third in Iowa behind both Hillary AND Edwards. The Edwards people in Iowa seem motivated as hell...

chagrin
12-29-2007, 07:32 PM
2. You were an Obama supporter before you decided to try and make a name for yourself with Paul.

Haha

clemensol
12-29-2007, 09:23 PM
It's not really that hard. It's not about being fair or "objective", it's about figuring out which countries pose a threat and which ones don't. We've got tons of people working for us in the state department and other branches of the government who are supposed to be able to figure these things out so you can live a carefree life and complain about how bad our country is.

That's not what Paul proposed in the commercial. He called for ending the visas for "terrorist nations" not nations who support terrorists who are a threat to the US. If he only proposes cutting the visas for nations supporting terrorists who are a threat to the US, that's something completely different. While I'm opposed to such action on an ideological level, I can at least see some practical value in it. But again, in the commercial he said he wanted to cut of visas from all terrorist nations. Maybe he didn't really mean that and maybe the campaign made the assumption that republican primary voters just associate terrorism with anti-american terrorism, but that wasn't my interpretation. And if that was the case, I would think that it would be a very subjective exercise seeing as almost every powerful nation has a history of supporting terrorists for one reason or another.

BucEyedPea
12-29-2007, 09:55 PM
TI have a hard time believing a majority of his supporters would even consider voting for him in a normal election cycle.
I would. I've always said he was my favorite congressman. I was elated when I heard he was forming an exploratory committee to run last winter. I love him on fiscal issues, the Constitution and limited govt. I just happen to be with him on this war which just happens to me my top issue as well.

HolmeZz
12-29-2007, 10:07 PM
I would. I've always said he was my favorite congressman. I was elated when I heard he was forming an exploratory committee to run last winter. I love him on fiscal issues, the Constitution and limited govt. I just happen to be with him on this war which just happens to me my top issue as well.

I'd grant you immunity from my comment as I had heard you speak of Paul before. I was more or less talking about his bandwagoners.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 09:36 AM
That's not what Paul proposed in the commercial. He called for ending the visas for "terrorist nations" not nations who support terrorists who are a threat to the US. If he only proposes cutting the visas for nations supporting terrorists who are a threat to the US, that's something completely different. While I'm opposed to such action on an ideological level, I can at least see some practical value in it. But again, in the commercial he said he wanted to cut of visas from all terrorist nations. Maybe he didn't really mean that and maybe the campaign made the assumption that republican primary voters just associate terrorism with anti-american terrorism, but that wasn't my interpretation. And if that was the case, I would think that it would be a very subjective exercise seeing as almost every powerful nation has a history of supporting terrorists for one reason or another.

FYI, the state department has maintained a list (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm) of terrorist nations for at least a couple decades. I don't know what specific criteria they use to choose which countries to list, but I'm relatively confident that US national security interests play a role (as do diplomatic considerations, I'd imagine). I'm confident that the nations on this list are the ones to which Paul was referring. And while there are probably some objective factors involved, I'd imagine that in the end the list is based on subjective analysis, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

BTW, one of the purposes of this list is to categorize nations for purposes of triggering certain sanctions. I can't give you a specific example off the top of my head, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have some law covering technology exports that treats countries on the state department's list differently than it treats other countries. IIRC, one of the carrots we gave to Libya (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/07/news/libya.php) in return for abandoning their WMD pursuits and swearing off terrorism was to remove them from the list thereby making them eligible for improved relations with the US.

clemensol
12-30-2007, 07:51 PM
FYI, the state department has maintained a list (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm) of terrorist nations for at least a couple decades. I don't know what specific criteria they use to choose which countries to list, but I'm relatively confident that US national security interests play a role (as do diplomatic considerations, I'd imagine). I'm confident that the nations on this list are the ones to which Paul was referring. And while there are probably some objective factors involved, I'd imagine that in the end the list is based on subjective analysis, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

BTW, one of the purposes of this list is to categorize nations for purposes of triggering certain sanctions. I can't give you a specific example off the top of my head, but I wouldn't be surprised if we have some law covering technology exports that treats countries on the state department's list differently than it treats other countries. IIRC, one of the carrots we gave to Libya (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/07/news/libya.php) in return for abandoning their WMD pursuits and swearing off terrorism was to remove them from the list thereby making them eligible for improved relations with the US.

The problem with that list is that its not a list of terrorist nations. Or at least, it's a partial list of terrorist nations. It's a list of terrorist nations that the government happens to be opposed to. It's not reasonable to pretend that students from Cuba pose a greater threat to our security then students from Saudi Arabia just because Cuba doesn't give us oil and thus happens to be on the list.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 08:29 PM
The problem with that list is that its not a list of terrorist nations. Or at least, it's a partial list of terrorist nations. It's a list of terrorist nations that the government happens to be opposed to. It's not reasonable to pretend that students from Cuba pose a greater threat to our security then students from Saudi Arabia just because Cuba doesn't give us oil and thus happens to be on the list.

I don't see that as a problem at all. First of all, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And beyond that, if it makes sense, there's no reason why a 2nd list for the purposes of restricting immigration can't be devised.

BigRedChief
12-31-2007, 07:31 AM
Ron Paul is off my list.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 08:01 AM
Ron Paul is off my list.

You're leaving a lot of cool points on the table with that decision. Out of curiosity, why are you ruling him out?

BigRedChief
12-31-2007, 09:07 AM
You're leaving a lot of cool points on the table with that decision. Out of curiosity, why are you ruling him out?
Isolationism has never worked. It won't work in 2008.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 09:11 AM
Isolationism has never worked. It won't work in 2008.

Good call. :thumb:

Taco in 3.. 2.. 1..

clemensol
12-31-2007, 10:13 AM
I don't see that as a problem at all. First of all, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And beyond that, if it makes sense, there's no reason why a 2nd list for the purposes of restricting immigration can't be devised.

It's not a problem at all so long as people understand the limitations of the list. It's a problem if people believe that the list tells us which students pose the greatest threat to our national security.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 10:44 AM
It's a problem if people believe that the list tells us which students pose the greatest threat to our national security.

I don't see why anyone would believe that. OTOH, it's probably a decent list for identifying people who pose a greater risk than those who come from Japan, Spain, and Australia to name a few.

But your argument has evolved from "America is the biggest terrorist in the world" to "how can we possibly come up with a list" to "OK, so there's a list but it's not perfect". I think you're coming around. :thumb:

BigRedChief
01-01-2008, 12:07 AM
I don't see why anyone would believe that. OTOH, it's probably a decent list for identifying people who pose a greater risk than those who come from Japan, Spain, and Australia to name a few.

But your argument has evolved from "America is the biggest terrorist in the world" to "how can we possibly come up with a list" to "OK, so there's a list but it's not perfect". I think you're coming around. :thumb:
WTH is this thread drift crap? :mad:

patteeu
01-01-2008, 07:36 AM
WTH is this thread drift crap? :mad:

I blame you for it. You can't just sit back and watch a thread do what you want it to, you've got to cultivate it. :p

clemensol
01-01-2008, 02:08 PM
I don't see why anyone would believe that. OTOH, it's probably a decent list for identifying people who pose a greater risk than those who come from Japan, Spain, and Australia to name a few.

I don't think you understand my point. What I'm saying is that for the purposes of identifying which students pose the greatest threat to our national security, the state department list of terrorist nations is not reliable... And I don't trust the government to come up with a reliable list. I think that creating a list would be too political for the government to come up with an objective list.

But your argument has evolved from "America is the biggest terrorist in the world" to "how can we possibly come up with a list" to "OK, so there's a list but it's not perfect". I think you're coming around. :thumb:

In never retracted my statement that the US is possibly the #1 state sponser of terrorism in the world. I just realized that your belief in denying the visas came from a practical desire to protect our national security and not an ideological desire to not be involved with terrorist sponsoring nations.

patteeu
01-01-2008, 03:00 PM
I don't think you understand my point. What I'm saying is that for the purposes of identifying which students pose the greatest threat to our national security, the state department list of terrorist nations is not reliable... And I don't trust the government to come up with a reliable list. I think that creating a list would be too political for the government to come up with an objective list.

Is it even worth pointing out that generalizations aren't as "reliable" as perfectly executed case-by-case decisions? I think that's obvious. The problem is that the idea of getting every decision right in a case-by-case decisionmaking scheme is pie-in-the-sky. Using a list like this may have inherent flaws, but it may well be a net positive compared to the real-life alternative. I don't know if this is the right approach or not, I've just been explaining to you that coming up with a list like this isn't really very difficult.

Our government makes all the decisions about immigration. Why creating a list would be too political when all the other decisions they make are not is beyond me.

In never retracted my statement that the US is possibly the #1 state sponser of terrorism in the world. I just realized that your belief in denying the visas came from a practical desire to protect our national security and not an ideological desire to not be involved with terrorist sponsoring nations.

It's a shame that you see the world through that lens.

clemensol
01-01-2008, 04:13 PM
Is it even worth pointing out that generalizations aren't as "reliable" as perfectly executed case-by-case decisions? I think that's obvious. The problem is that the idea of getting every decision right in a case-by-case decisionmaking scheme is pie-in-the-sky. Using a list like this may have inherent flaws, but it may well be a net positive compared to the real-life alternative. I don't know if this is the right approach or not, I've just been explaining to you that coming up with a list like this isn't really very difficult.
Our government makes all the decisions about immigration. Why creating a list would be too political when all the other decisions they make are not is beyond me.

I think it would be quite difficult to creat such a list. First, outside of politics, I don't know how you would determine which student groups present a threat. I'm guessing it wouldn't neccesarily correlate to the countries that produce the most terrorists. For example, I believe that a lot of Saudi produced terrorists and Pakistani terrorists are well educated and often gain their beliefs thanks to the education they recieve. However, many islamists in north africa are poor and uneducated.

But even if you could determine which students pose the greatest threat, I would not trust the government to come up with an accurate evaluation of them for the same reason that the government does not give us an accurate evaluation of terrorist nations. There would be tremendous amounts of pressure from a lot of countries we're allied with (saudi arabia, jordan, egypt, etc) to be left off and then pressure from other groups (anti-castro lobby, israeli lobby) to put others on.

This is not to say that a case by case evaluation is ideal, but, as Ron Paul says when discussing affirmitive action, "when we treat people as members of a group instead of as individuals, we encourage racism". Of course, Ron Paul's tolorence appears to start and end with his opposition of affirmitive action.

It's a shame that you see the world through that lens.

What comment of mine was that directed towards?

patteeu
01-01-2008, 04:28 PM
I think it would be quite difficult to creat such a list. First, outside of politics, I don't know how you would determine which student groups present a threat. I'm guessing it wouldn't neccesarily correlate to the countries that produce the most terrorists. For example, I believe that a lot of Saudi produced terrorists and Pakistani terrorists are well educated and often gain their beliefs thanks to the education they recieve. However, many islamists in north africa are poor and uneducated.

But even if you could determine which students pose the greatest threat, I would not trust the government to come up with an accurate evaluation of them for the same reason that the government does not give us an accurate evaluation of terrorist nations. There would be tremendous amounts of pressure from a lot of countries we're allied with (saudi arabia, jordan, egypt, etc) to be left off and then pressure from other groups (anti-castro lobby, israeli lobby) to put others on.

This is not to say that a case by case evaluation is ideal, but, as Ron Paul says when discussing affirmitive action, "when we treat people as members of a group instead of as individuals, we encourage racism". Of course, Ron Paul's tolorence appears to start and end with his opposition of affirmitive action.

I get what you're saying, and while you make a few good academic points, I just don't think it has that much merit in terms of your opposition to creating and using a list. There's going to be a system by which we determine eligibility for visas and that system is going to be devised by the government. I'm in favor of the goal of excluding applicants who are more likely to have nefarious motives for seeking entry, but I'm flexible about the approach used to pursue that goal.

What comment of mine was that directed towards?

That the US is the #1 terror sponsor in the world (even when you include the weasel word "possibly").

clemensol
01-01-2008, 04:55 PM
I get what you're saying, and while you make a few good academic points, I just don't think it has that much merit in terms of your opposition to creating and using a list. There's going to be a system by which we determine eligibility for visas and that system is going to be devised by the government. I'm in favor of the goal of excluding applicants who are more likely to have nefarious motives for seeking entry, but I'm flexible about the approach used to pursue that goal.

I think we would be safer with and absolutist mentality where we excluded everyone that may pose a threat. However, I just don't think that a person should be denied that ability to study in the US just because they happened to be born in a place that is plagued by extremism. Subjected to more scrutiny but not absolutely denied.

That the US is the #1 terror sponsor in the world (even when you include the weasel word "possibly").

I wasn't trying to weasel out with the word possibly, it was the same word I used in my origional post. Go check. I say possibly because I have not done extensive research on the issue and even if I tried to, I have a feeling that the Saudi budget isn't available online. So I can't say whether the US is or isn't the greatest sponser of terrorism in the world. However, I can say that the CIA has quite an extensive history of supporting it, and that there are few countries that have done quite as much to support terrorism across the globe as we have.

Anyway, I don't see why trying to look at the world as objectively as possible is a shame.

patteeu
01-01-2008, 05:07 PM
I wasn't trying to weasel out with the word possibly, it was the same word I used in my origional post. Go check. I say possibly because I have not done extensive research on the issue and even if I tried to, I have a feeling that the Saudi budget isn't available online. So I can't say whether the US is or isn't the greatest sponser of terrorism in the world. However, I can say that the CIA has quite an extensive history of supporting it, and that there are few countries that have done quite as much to support terrorism across the globe as we have.

Anyway, I don't see why trying to look at the world as objectively as possible is a shame.

My problem with your "objectivity" is that it seems to blind you to what makes sense for US national security. I mean, when you can't figure out what Ron Paul is talking about when he speaks of terrorist nations because you think he might mean the US, your "objectivity" is distorting your ability to comprehend.

clemensol
01-01-2008, 07:19 PM
My problem with your "objectivity" is that it seems to blind you to what makes sense for US national security. I mean, when you can't figure out what Ron Paul is talking about when he speaks of terrorist nations because you think he might mean the US, your "objectivity" is distorting your ability to comprehend.

It's not like I can't comprehend the statement, it's just that I'm completely opposed to such a statement because it reeks of moral snobbery. Ever since 9/11 there's been an impression that terrorism is something that's just practiced by islamists. The reality is that terrorism is an ancient tactic that has been used by almost every major government in recent history. We need to stop pretending that we have some sort of moral high ground when it comes to terrorism. Statements like "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and "no entry for people from terrorist nations" are silly because they imply that the only terrorists that exist are the terrorists that pose a threat to our national security.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 06:18 AM
It's not like I can't comprehend the statement, it's just that I'm completely opposed to such a statement because it reeks of moral snobbery. Ever since 9/11 there's been an impression that terrorism is something that's just practiced by islamists. The reality is that terrorism is an ancient tactic that has been used by almost every major government in recent history. We need to stop pretending that we have some sort of moral high ground when it comes to terrorism. Statements like "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and "no entry for people from terrorist nations" are silly because they imply that the only terrorists that exist are the terrorists that pose a threat to our national security.

What do you mean by terrorism?

DenverChief
01-02-2008, 06:32 AM
your mom

clemensol
01-02-2008, 01:46 PM
What do you mean by terrorism?

the use of terror as a means of coersion

BigRedChief
01-07-2008, 07:42 AM
Information is from this non-partisan site: http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm)

No way I’m voting for these dickweeds:

Huckabee:<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Hate abortion but allow it is like hate slavery but allow it. (May 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. (May 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Embryonic stem cell research creates life to end a life. (May 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">People naturally selfish; only God or punishment prevent it. (Jun 2007) Guiliani:<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Reduce corporate tax from 35% to 25%, to increase revenue. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">FactCheck: Corporate tax cut would reduce revenue by half. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Low corporate tax rates encourage business locating in US. (Aug 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Criticized for tax-funded police security for his girlfriend. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">FactCheck: Cut NYC taxes by $5.4B, not $9B as claimed. (Nov 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Won't sign no-tax pledge; pledge only to uphold Constitution. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Letting Bush tax cuts expire means economy would decline. (Aug 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Reducing taxes is a way to raise MORE money. (Aug 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Eliminate the death tax immediately. (Aug 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Too complex to get to FairTax; focus on reducing taxes. (Aug 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Police the Internet, but don't tax the Internet. (Oct 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">No privacy concerns with DNA-like fingerprinting. (Jan 2000)McCain, Romney and Thompson:<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Would be delighted to sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Life begins at conception; abortion takes a life. (Nov 2007)Ron Paul:<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Close Dept. of Education, but don't dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">We don't need any troops abroad--they don't help our defense. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B's every year. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Block international highway from Canada to Mexico. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Dismantle agencies that have no Constitutional role. (Dec 2007) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district. (Dec 2007) I guess that means I'm voting democratic this year.:hmmm:

BigRedChief
01-07-2008, 09:32 AM
Information is from this non-partisan site: http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm)


I guess that means I'm voting democratic this year.:hmmm:
Obama is getting my vote. Here's why.
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007) The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007) End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. (Aug 2007) Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998) Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004) Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006) Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007 Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004) Congress subsidizes megafarms & hurts family farmers. (Aug 2007) Nationwide program to reconstruct crumbling school buildings. (Sep 2007) STEP UP: summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged. (Aug 2007) We left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. (Aug 2007) Pay "master teachers" extra, but with buy-in from teachers. (Aug 2007) Incentives to hire a million teachers over next decade. (Jun 2007) Pay teachers more money & treat them like professionals. (Jun 2007) More teacher pay in exchange for more teacher accountability. (Oct 2006) Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006) Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas. (May 2004) \ Supports charter schools and private investment in schools. (Jul 1998) First Senate bill: increase Pell Grant from $4,050 to $5,100. (Aug 2007) Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005) Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005) Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005) Fuel efficiency and Middle East stability help on fuel costs. (Oct 2007) Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism. (Sep 2007) Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007) Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times. (Jul 2007) Cap-and-trade carbon emissions; raise CAFE standard. (Jun 2007) Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil. (Mar 2007) Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol. (Oct 2006) We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil. (Oct 2006) Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007) Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007) Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007) Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests. (Aug 2007) Give Katrina contracts to locals, not to Halliburton. (Jun 2007) Create "Google for Government" to track government spending. (Aug 2007) Prayer can't prevent disasters; good policy can handle them. (Aug 2007) Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money. (Jul 2007) Tackle insurance companies on reimbursement system. (Oct 2007) Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007) No need to mandate coverage; just let people afford it. (Jul 2007) Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007) Cutting benefits & raising retirement age are wrong answers. (Nov 2007) The wealthy should pay a bit more on the payroll tax. (Oct 2007) Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market. (Sep 2007) Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007) Restore progressive tax; close loopholes; relief to seniors. (Oct 2007) Reduce Bush tax cuts to pay for health care & other programs. (Jun 2007) Estate tax only affects the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%. (Oct 2006) Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class. (Jun 2004) Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore. (Jun 2004) Increase funding for math and science research & education. (Oct 2007)

BigRedChief
02-20-2008, 01:15 PM
Bump for Patteau

patteeu
02-20-2008, 01:28 PM
Bump for Patteau

Thanks for the bump, BRC. It would have been just as easy to say you support him because he's an up and down the line, big taxing and big spending, pro-abortion liberal though.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 01:30 PM
Thanks for the bump, BRC. It would have been just as easy to say you support him because he's an up and down the line, big taxing and big spending, pro-abortion liberal though.

Bah, a pet peeve of mine is when people use pro-abortion. It's true, the pro-life crowd's PR machine is VERY good. No one is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice, which is a HUGE difference.

pikesome
02-20-2008, 02:15 PM
Bah, a pet peeve of mine is when people use pro-abortion. It's true, the pro-life crowd's PR machine is VERY good. No one is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice, which is a HUGE difference.

I think you're mistaken.

Besides, calling Obama "pro-choice" sounds a bit generous:


Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.

In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA, by the way, stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion.

He voted against a cloning ban in 2000, but voted for it in 2001.

In 1997, Obama twice voted “present” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban.

patteeu
02-20-2008, 02:20 PM
Bah, a pet peeve of mine is when people use pro-abortion. It's true, the pro-life crowd's PR machine is VERY good. No one is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice, which is a HUGE difference.

You are sadly mistaken, IMO. There are plenty of people who don't really think twice about having an abortion and they are very much in favor of being able to do so. I've known quite a few people who fall in this camp.

dirk digler
02-20-2008, 02:28 PM
You are sadly mistaken, IMO. There are plenty of people who don't really think twice about having an abortion and they are very much in favor of being able to do so. I've known quite a few people who fall in this camp.

True but there are other people like me who fall on the other side. Let me explain.

A girl that I knew very well got pregnant and she didn't want the baby so she asked if I would accompany her to get an abortion. No it wasn't mine. At that point in my life I didn't see what the problem was with abortions but after taking her and sitting with her before and after the procedure it totally changed my viewpoint. Needless to say I would never ever recommend an abortion to anyone if they asked BUT I still respect a woman's right to choose and believe it is their right to make that decision.

So I believe in pro-choice but I am definitely not pro-abortion.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:31 PM
You are sadly mistaken, IMO. There are plenty of people who don't really think twice about having an abortion and they are very much in favor of being able to do so. I've known quite a few people who fall in this camp.

But there are two different things operating here (same with what pikesome said).

The first is that she won't think twice about having an abortion. That's a MORAL issue. The second is in favor of being able to do so. That's a LEGAL/LAW issue.

Neither, even together, make someone pro-abortion. They are not actively rallying FOR the abortion. They are rallying FOR the choice to have an abortion. No one is FOR killing babies (termed for the sake of argument), which would be pro-abortion.


Whether or not they choose to have one is irrelevant.

Cochise
02-20-2008, 02:41 PM
Bah, a pet peeve of mine is when people use pro-abortion. It's true, the pro-life crowd's PR machine is VERY good. No one is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice, which is a HUGE difference.

That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people out there who hail it as a means of population control and keeping people out of society who otherwise would end up in jail or be criminals, etc. It's a fundamental civil right to be celebrated like any other to the abortion industry and the politicians in their pocket.

In fact, if you look at this, he's more pro-abortion than NARAL is:


In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:42 PM
That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people out there who hail it as a means of population control and keeping people out of society who otherwise would end up in jail or be criminals, etc. It's a fundamental civil right to be celebrated like any other to the abortion industry and the politicians in their pocket.

In fact, if you look at this, he's more pro-abortion than NARAL is:

I think you are mixing up the right and the action. We have the RIGHT to get an abortion. That doesn't mean we have to. And that's what people defend to no end.





I do love the picture argument. Let me show you something that should make you gross or appeal to your guilt or empathy and that will bring you to my side. Man, it works. Apparently, Obama sees through that. Or at least I can conjecture in that way.

pikesome
02-20-2008, 02:43 PM
But there are two different things operating here (same with what pikesome said).

The first is that she won't think twice about having an abortion. That's a MORAL issue. The second is in favor of being able to do so. That's a LEGAL/LAW issue.

Neither, even together, make someone pro-abortion. They are not actively rallying FOR the abortion. They are rallying FOR the choice to have an abortion. No one is FOR killing babies (termed for the sake of argument), which would be pro-abortion.


Whether or not they choose to have one is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here but allowing someone to chose something (in this case the abortion) is exactly the same as saying that thing isn't worth preventing. It's not necessarily saying it's right but it most definitely saying that it isn't wrong.

noa
02-20-2008, 02:45 PM
I'm sorry Cochise, but that's just ridiculous. If you had an article saying that he thought abortion was good for population control, that would be one thing, but all you have is that he wasn't fazed by pictures. You are inferring a whole lot and not leaving open the possibility that he had a reason for his votes other than loving abortions.

Cochise
02-20-2008, 02:45 PM
I think you are mixing up the right and the action. We have the RIGHT to get an abortion. That doesn't mean we have to. And that's what people defend to no end.

I don't think he's ever tried to use the Kerry have-it-both-ways approach of 'personally opposed'.

What a canard anyway. "Well, I think it's murder. But I don't think the government should impose it's morals relating to murder on people who feel it's the most convenient option for them at the moment."

Cochise
02-20-2008, 02:46 PM
I'm sorry Cochise, but that's just ridiculous. If you had an article saying that he thought abortion was good for population control, that would be one thing, but all you have is that he wasn't fazed by pictures. You are inferring a whole lot and not leaving open the possibility that he had a reason for his votes other than loving abortions.

Two different thoughts. I said (a) there are people who love it for those reasons. And (b), unrelated, that he's more pro-abortion than NARAL. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here but allowing someone to chose something (in this case the abortion) is exactly the same as saying that thing isn't worth preventing. It's not necessarily saying it's right but it most definitely saying that it isn't wrong.

No it is not saying it isn't wrong.

Take freedom of speech.

You could say the most racist, bigot oriented, irrational thing on the planet that should probably get you killed.

Just because I will fight for your right to say it doesn't mean I agree with it.

It's the same thing here. People are fighting for the CHOICE - the RIGHT. They are fighting against the morality of others to influence their life. They don't want someone's morals telling them what they can and cannot do. If one thinks that getting an abortion is right for them, they want to be able to do it. They don't want to be told that some people object to the MORALITY of it and so they cannot do it. Maybe they don't see it that way.

In the reverse light of above, those against abortion rights are not fighting for your right to a position. They will not fight for your right to say (in the context of freedom of speech correlation) what you want.

dirk digler
02-20-2008, 02:50 PM
I don't think he's ever tried to use the Kerry have-it-both-ways approach of 'personally opposed'.

What a canard anyway. "Well, I think it's murder. But I don't think the government should impose it's morals relating to murder on people who feel it's the most convenient option for them at the moment."

This is what I posted in #120 and maybe you will have a better understanding

Let me explain.

A girl that I knew very well got pregnant and she didn't want the baby so she asked if I would accompany her to get an abortion. No it wasn't mine. At that point in my life I didn't see what the problem was with abortions but after taking her and sitting with her before and after the procedure it totally changed my viewpoint. Needless to say I would never ever recommend an abortion to anyone if they asked BUT I still respect a woman's right to choose and believe it is their right to make that decision.

So I believe in pro-choice but I am definitely not pro-abortion.

Cochise
02-20-2008, 02:50 PM
They are fighting against the morality of others to influence their life.

So basically, your right to avoid influence from any outside persons trumps someone else's right to even exist.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:52 PM
Two different thoughts. I said (a) there are people who love it for those reasons. And (b), unrelated, that he's more pro-abortion than NARAL. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear.

If someone makes an argument that says abortion is, effectively, population control, does that mean they automatically say its right?

I don't think he's ever tried to use the Kerry have-it-both-ways approach of 'personally opposed'.

What a canard anyway. "Well, I think it's murder. But I don't think the government should impose it's morals relating to murder on people who feel it's the most convenient option for them at the moment."

I'm sorry that the Pro-Choice PR camp sucks. But it's reality. No majority is PRO-abortion. They are PRO-choice. Big difference.

Well, there's the thing. It's a moral issue with no natural line (ilke birth). Some people see it as not a person. Who is to tell them they're wrong? We have birth as a natural line. That's why murder itself is wrong.

You are fighting for your freedom of speech, essentially. Your right to a position, if you will. You have a right to say that murder should be legal. Just because I fight for your right to say that doesn't mean I agree with it. The same thing applies here.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:54 PM
So basically, your right to avoid influence from any outside persons trumps someone else's right to even exist.

Someone? As if the cells are a person? Are they? At what point are they? Birth seems to be the natural line on what is and isn't human, strictly speaking. Modern medicine has moved that line back some but only in cases where the parents WANT their baby.

Again, you're not seeing the argument clearly here. You are defining something that others might not agree with to set up an argument in your favor.

noa
02-20-2008, 02:57 PM
Two different thoughts. I said (a) there are people who love it for those reasons. And (b), unrelated, that he's more pro-abortion than NARAL. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

Would you be okay with labeling him pro abortion rights than pro abortion? Because to me, it just seems like a person who is pro abortion is some demented sicko who kicks up his legs, leans back, and relishes in the fact that we have abortions in this country. Like he is actually trying to get more people to have more abortions. When in reality, people can be pro abortion rights while at the same time wanting to decrease the amount of abortions in our country and they just want to leave open the legal possibility for someone to have an abortion. I know we've had this conversation before, so we probably won't break any new ground here, but I just think its unfair to call him pro-abortion.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 02:58 PM
OK, thanks for clarifying.

Would you be okay with labeling him pro abortion rights than pro abortion? Because to me, it just seems like a person who is pro abortion is some demented sicko who kicks up his legs, leans back, and relishes in the fact that we have abortions in this country. Like he is actually trying to get more people to have more abortions. When in reality, people can be pro abortion rights while at the same time wanting to decrease the amount of abortions in our country and they just want to leave open the legal possibility for someone to have an abortion. I know we've had this conversation before, so we probably won't break any new ground here, but I just think its unfair to call him pro-abortion.

Exactly.

Cochise
02-20-2008, 03:02 PM
Someone? As if the cells are a person? Are they? At what point are they? Birth seems to be the natural line on what is and isn't human, strictly speaking.

So, your case then is that life only somehow enters the 'cells' upon exit? How does that happen exactly?

What if a toe is still inside, does that count? Will the magic spark of life not be bestowed until the last toe is outside?

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 03:04 PM
So, your case then is that life only somehow enters the 'cells' upon exit?

You are playing semantics once again.

Life and human don't mean the same thing. There are plenty of things that are not human. You kill many things that are not human and have no remorse for it. What defines human in your eyes?

Cochise
02-20-2008, 03:26 PM
You are playing semantics once again.

Life and human don't mean the same thing. There are plenty of things that are not human. You kill many things that are not human and have no remorse for it. What defines human in your eyes?

A human is a homo sapien, in whatever stage of development.

I'm not playing semantics. You said that geographic location determines life, that 'it' wasn't alive until it exited the womb.

Does it have to completely exit to be alive? What if it does completely exit and then I shove it back in, is it not alive anymore, or was it never alive? What about the ones born by caesarian, can you get the magic spark of life upon exit by that method as well?

BucEyedPea
02-20-2008, 03:45 PM
A human is a homo sapien, in whatever stage of development.
It's all the dna of a complete human being...just looks different at a different age. So it's not just tissue mass, a frog or a dog in there. It also grows on it's own determinism as a separate person, using the mother's body as a host. It feels pain, responds to the mother's voice. Science always considered it human until politics came to redefine for convenience.

patteeu
02-20-2008, 03:59 PM
No majority is PRO-abortion. They are PRO-choice. Big difference.

Big difference is right. The biggest difference is that "pro-choice" sterilizes it and avoids any of the negative connotations associated with destroying a pre-born human.

The problem with your analogy to freedom of speech is that defense of freedom of speech applies not just to one, offensive-to-some, practice, but to a whole range of speech and it would be very difficult to draw lines between offensive bigotry and other forms of speech. No such difficulty applies here. If the only right being defended was some narrow form of bigoted speech then I don't think it would be that unfair to call a defender "pro-bigot".

And "pro-choice" isn't any better than "pro-abortion". We aren't talking about choices in general. We are talking about a single specific choice. Maybe something like "pro-legal-abortion" or "pro-easy-abortion" would be better, but I don't think it's very unfair to use the shorter, "pro-abortion". Since I don't see abortion as a right, I'd be opposed to "pro-abortion-rights".

I don't mind if people call me "pro-gay-marriage" (or even "pro-gay") just because I support laws legalizing gay marriage. I'm not in favor of any specific gay marriage and I'm certainly not in favor of getting involved, either sexually or maritally, with another man, but I'm not going to fret because people didn't call me "pro-legalized-gay-marriage" instead of just "pro-gay". I don't want anyone to call me "pro-gay-marriage-rights" though.

Iowanian
02-20-2008, 04:06 PM
There is no good choice at this point.

Harpo will likely win, Billary is a terrible option and McLame isn't exactly thrilling me.

If it comes down to McLame and Harpo, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Iowanian
02-20-2008, 04:08 PM
My children become human the second my world champion Man-tails penetrate an egg and it implants in the uterus.

If you kill it, you've killed a child.


Someone? As if the cells are a person? Are they? At what point are they? Birth seems to be the natural line on what is and isn't human, strictly speaking. Modern medicine has moved that line back some but only in cases where the parents WANT their baby.

Again, you're not seeing the argument clearly here. You are defining something that others might not agree with to set up an argument in your favor.

noa
02-20-2008, 04:21 PM
Since I don't see abortion as a right, I'd be opposed to "pro-abortion-rights".

I don't think the term should hinge on what you think is a right. It hinges on that person's stance, because after all, that is what we are trying to define, and since that person thinks it is a right, then the label seems pretty appropriate to me. I think it would be fair to label a person pro-nudity-in-public-rights if they believed it was a right, even if you don't think it is.

I don't mind if people call me "pro-gay-marriage" (or even "pro-gay") just because I support laws legalizing gay marriage. I'm not in favor of any specific gay marriage and I'm certainly not in favor of getting involved, either sexually or maritally, with another man, but I'm not going to fret because people didn't call me "pro-legalized-gay-marriage" instead of just "pro-gay". I don't want anyone to call me "pro-gay-marriage-rights" though.

To me, it seems like there's a difference between hearing a person called pro-gay-marriage-rights and just pro-gay, even if you don't mind the label. It just doesn't seem very accurate. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 05:13 PM
A human is a homo sapien, in whatever stage of development.

I'm not playing semantics. You said that geographic location determines life, that 'it' wasn't alive until it exited the womb.

Does it have to completely exit to be alive? What if it does completely exit and then I shove it back in, is it not alive anymore, or was it never alive? What about the ones born by caesarian, can you get the magic spark of life upon exit by that method as well?

We define ALIVE as the point after/of birth. That is when we are legally alive. Otherwise, I'd be of drinking age by now. ;) We don't give birth certificates to the point of conception....

Do you have quarrels with that?

Big difference is right. The biggest difference is that "pro-choice" sterilizes it and avoids any of the negative connotations associated with destroying a pre-born human.

While on the flip side, labeling someone pro-abortion creates all sorts of negative connotations that may not apply. You know this.


The problem with your analogy to freedom of speech is that defense of freedom of speech applies not just to one, offensive-to-some, practice, but to a whole range of speech and it would be very difficult to draw lines between offensive bigotry and other forms of speech. No such difficulty applies here. If the only right being defended was some narrow form of bigoted speech then I don't think it would be that unfair to call a defender "pro-bigot".

Ah, but where do you draw the line on abortion? We differ there just as we differ in language. I don't see your point.

Deciding what language is offensive is just as subjective as when life/humanism begins.


And "pro-choice" isn't any better than "pro-abortion". We aren't talking about choices in general. We are talking about a single specific choice. Maybe something like "pro-legal-abortion" or "pro-easy-abortion" would be better, but I don't think it's very unfair to use the shorter, "pro-abortion". Since I don't see abortion as a right, I'd be opposed to "pro-abortion-rights".

If you'd like to confuse people, that's fine. :p


I don't mind if people call me "pro-gay-marriage" (or even "pro-gay") just because I support laws legalizing gay marriage. I'm not in favor of any specific gay marriage and I'm certainly not in favor of getting involved, either sexually or maritally, with another man, but I'm not going to fret because people didn't call me "pro-legalized-gay-marriage" instead of just "pro-gay". I don't want anyone to call me "pro-gay-marriage-rights" though.

But pro-gay-marriage carries no true negative connotations. Or, at least, not as much as saying someone is, essentially, pro-murder. Your "gay" analogy doesn't work.

My children become human the second my world champion Man-tails penetrate an egg and it implants in the uterus.

If you kill it, you've killed a child.

But what if someone disagrees with you? You just trump them automatically?

Adept Havelock
02-20-2008, 05:33 PM
My children become human the second my world champion Man-tails penetrate an egg and it implants in the uterus.

If you kill it, you've killed a child.

OK, we've got some folks in MO who are currently trying to get the emergency contraception (AKA morning after) pill classified as a abortion drug. They claim it's an abortion because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Why should we prefer your definition over theirs, or those that draw that line at birth or some arbitrary line based on trimesters/development/etc? :shrug:

That's why I say leave the choice to the mother.

Iowanian
02-20-2008, 06:25 PM
I'll answer to my maker, you feel free to answer to yours.

memyselfI
02-20-2008, 06:52 PM
Past votes went to:

1976: Carter
1980: Regan
1984: Regan
1988: Bush
1992: Clinton
1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Anti- Bush (whoever that idiot was for the Democrats)

8 elections so far.
5 Democratic
3 Republican

If a candidate is against a womens right to chose to have an abortion then he's off the list. I'm open to hearing a candidates views on anything else.

Very cool that abortion is your make or break issue. You don't hear too many men who feel that way.

http://www.cx65.de/fileadmin/cx65/wallpapers/misc/Ali-G-Respect.gif

Adept Havelock
02-20-2008, 06:56 PM
I'll answer to my maker, you feel free to answer to yours.

I really don't see what my parents have to do with it, but no biggie. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

memyselfI
02-20-2008, 06:58 PM
It's all the dna of a complete human being...just looks different at a different age. So it's not just tissue mass, a frog or a dog in there. It also grows on it's own determinism as a separate person, using the mother's body as a host. It feels pain, responds to the mother's voice. Science always considered it human until politics came to redefine for convenience.

Being alive and being able to sustain life are two different things. Certainly a fetus might be alive at 12 weeks but there is no way in the world it can survive without that host mother until about 20 weeks at the very earliest. Thus, until then the designation of living human being is really a misnomer.

Calcountry
02-20-2008, 07:03 PM
That's funny, that's basically what Paul supporters strike me as. I have a hard time believing a majority of his supporters would even consider voting for him in a normal election cycle. He's essentially benefited from his party having some awful candidates running for it's nomination. By being the only Republican candidate not wanting to conquer the rest of the globe, he looks like a better alternative than he is in actuality. And plus, you can pass yourself off as moderate if you're a liberal who supports Paul!I know Ron Paul, Ron Paul is a friend of mine, and BELIEVE ME, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, IS NO RON PAUL!

His wife isn't even pround of this country.

BucEyedPea
02-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Being alive and being able to sustain life are two different things. Certainly a fetus might be alive at 12 weeks but there is no way in the world it can survive without that host mother until about 20 weeks at the very earliest. Thus, until then the designation of living human being is really a misnomer.
Life or to be alive means to continue to grow and have cells divide. Whether outside or inside the womb it is still human and alive. A one year old can't survive on its own either. I used to be stubbornly pro-choice but it was from reading embryology that I changed my mind.

Iowanian
02-20-2008, 07:57 PM
It looks like I'm voting to cancel out BRC's.

Easy 6
02-20-2008, 08:15 PM
Its easy...the ROCK-LOCK, cut & dried answer is...go with the candidate who you believe in your heart is the best choice for America.

See???...told ya it was easy.

Ultra Peanut
02-20-2008, 08:24 PM
My children become human the second my world champion Man-tails penetrate an egg and it implants in the uterus.

If you kill it, you've killed a child.What makes it a child?

I'll answer to my maker, you feel free to answer to yours.When did your maker tell you this?

Was it when he warned you against spilling your seed?

Ultra Peanut
02-20-2008, 08:26 PM
That's why I think Obama might even come in third in Iowa behind both Hillary AND Edwards. The Edwards people in Iowa seem motivated as hell...I love old posts.

memyselfI
02-20-2008, 09:01 PM
Life or to be alive means to continue to grow and have cells divide. Whether outside or inside the womb it is still human and alive. A one year old can't survive on its own either. I used to be stubbornly pro-choice but it was from reading embryology that I changed my mind.

No, but a one year old has everything it needs to live on its own with the assistance of a caregiver.

A 14 week fetus old doesn't.

I'm sorry but you cannot convince me that a 14 week fetus is the equal of a 14 week old, 14 month old or 14 year old person. It has the potential to be just as each of us has the potential of being 100 or over. There is no guarantee we will be.

irishjayhawk
02-20-2008, 09:17 PM
I just thought I'd throw it out there for those who believe god is against abortion....

God is perhaps the best abortion doctor. There are millions more miscarriages every day. Why does he hate babies?

a1na2
02-20-2008, 09:22 PM
I just thought I'd throw it out there for those who believe god is against abortion....

God is perhaps the best abortion doctor. There are millions more miscarriages every day. Why does he hate babies?

That doesn't really deserve a response. My guess is that you have the whole universe figured out and have determined that the gospel according to IJ is one true way to eternity.

NO thanks.

a1na2
02-20-2008, 09:26 PM
Being alive and being able to sustain life are two different things. Certainly a fetus might be alive at 12 weeks but there is no way in the world it can survive without that host mother until about 20 weeks at the very earliest. Thus, until then the designation of living human being is really a misnomer.

So your belief is that a 14 month old baby can survive without it's mother and father or whatever structure the family is. Say a baby is born to a family in a remote part of the U.S. They live off the land and the parents die when the child is aged 15 months. By your comment that child can exist.

WRONG!

BigRedChief
02-20-2008, 09:56 PM
It looks like I'm voting to cancel out BRC's.
Cool. Just remember you answer to your God. Not to someone elses God. Correct?

Give a women that same right. Let her seek out the truth in her heart and answer to her God about her decision.

BigRedChief
02-20-2008, 10:03 PM
Very cool that abortion is your make or break issue. You don't hear too many men who feel that way.

http://www.cx65.de/fileadmin/cx65/wallpapers/misc/Ali-G-Respect.gif
All the people who support overturning Roe vs. Wade base that belief on moral or religious principles. Nothing wrong with that. They have a right to see their beliefs become laws. Except when those beliefs infringe upon another citizens right to practice their own religious and moral beliefs.

The government has no right to dictate moral and religious choices to its citizens.

patteeu
02-20-2008, 11:38 PM
Cool. Just remember you answer to your God. Not to someone elses God. Correct?

Give a women that same right. Let her seek out the truth in her heart and answer to her God about her decision.

Why shouldn't we do the same with serial killers too?

patteeu
02-20-2008, 11:42 PM
All the people who support overturning Roe vs. Wade base that belief on moral or religious principles. Nothing wrong with that. They have a right to see their beliefs become laws. Except when those beliefs infringe upon another citizens right to practice their own religious and moral beliefs.

The government has no right to dictate moral and religious choices to its citizens.

You're wrong about that. I support overturning Roe v Wade because I think it was a piss poor legal decision. I certainly don't have any religious principles involved and while, morally speaking, I'd err on the side of being against abortion out of respect for those who feel strongly about it, I don't feel that strongly about it myself.

The government dictates moral choices all the time. Our criminal codes are full of laws based on morals.

Logical
02-20-2008, 11:49 PM
All the people who support overturning Roe vs. Wade base that belief on moral or religious principles. Nothing wrong with that. They have a right to see their beliefs become laws. Except when those beliefs infringe upon another citizens right to practice their own religious and moral beliefs.

The government has no right to dictate moral and religious choices to its citizens.
:clap::clap::clap:

BigRedChief
02-21-2008, 04:49 AM
You're wrong about that. I support overturning Roe v Wade because I think it was a piss poor legal decision. I certainly don't have any religious principles involved and while, morally speaking, I'd err on the side of being against abortion out of respect for those who feel strongly about it, I don't feel that strongly about it myself.

The government dictates moral choices all the time. Our criminal codes are full of laws based on morals.
I was of course generalizing. Ylou don't have to take this literally. JEZZZZZ any issue/thought will not be felt the same way by 100% of the group. But the ones who think that abortion is a legal issue has to be a very very small minority.

Government doesn't have a right to interfere in our private lives. Conservatives are all about less governmental intrusion. Why do they want the government involved in this?

They should only step in when a dangerous behaviour endangers thier fellow citizens. Serial killers, DWI. carjacking etc.

I feel really strongly that this country was founded on the principle that the government will not dictate moral, political and religious issues to its citizens. Maybe you should err on my side?

Iowanian
02-21-2008, 07:46 AM
Cool. Just remember you answer to your God. Not to someone elses God. Correct?

Give a women that same right. Let her seek out the truth in her heart and answer to her God about her decision.

I'd be just fine with that, if she were killing herself. In this discussion, thats not the case.



I found myself more resolved in the fact I'm strong in my position last night, as I crawled in bed and felt the feet on a uterus encased child pushing a foot or knee or something across the palm of my hand several times.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 07:55 AM
No, but a one year old has everything it needs to live on its own with the assistance of a caregiver.

A 14 week fetus old doesn't.

I'm sorry but you cannot convince me that a 14 week fetus is the equal of a 14 week old, 14 month old or 14 year old person. It has the potential to be just as each of us has the potential of being 100 or over. There is no guarantee we will be.

I'm not making a case for it being equal or the same. Just that per science it is life and it is human regardless of the phase of development it's in. Science is one part of the argument, the other part is a philosophical/legal argument.

As for miscarriages, that's natures way of ending something on its own for something that hasn't developed right.

pikesome
02-21-2008, 08:01 AM
All the people who support overturning Roe vs. Wade base that belief on moral or religious principles. Nothing wrong with that. They have a right to see their beliefs become laws. Except when those beliefs infringe upon another citizens right to practice their own religious and moral beliefs.

The government has no right to dictate moral and religious choices to its citizens.

That's what it does. Everything from laws on murder and theft to tax deductions are the government, at "the people's" behest most of the time, dictating moral choices. Or at the very least punishing people for making the wrong ones.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 08:12 AM
he government has no right to dictate moral and religious choices to its citizens.


There's NO such thing as not dictating moral choices to others with law. Afterall, the left is dictating some of theirs. Most everything has some moral choice in it: what is good or bad, right or wrong. All law is based on someone's morality.The answer to most of it is to limite govt power however there are cases of conflicting rights. No one has a right to initiate an act of aggression against another. Even libertarians, the most morally neutral of all, argue abortion for this reason. The abortion argument comes down to whether or not you see it as a person with the most basic of rights: life. So there's the conflicting right of the mother's choice ( freedom) or the right to life of the baby inside the womb. Afterall, its the right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"— we have these rights in this order.

Legally, I consider abortion to be a state issue. This is why I support overturning Roe v Wade. And Norma McCorvey of Roe v Wade fame is now pro-life and never even had an abortion at that time. So what was the standing there? They also never addressed the scientific aspects of the case verus the use of the word "person" in the Constitution. They decided it on the basis of an implied right to privacy.

Still the bottom line is: ALL law enforces someone's morality.

patteeu
02-21-2008, 08:32 AM
I was of course generalizing. Ylou don't have to take this literally. JEZZZZZ any issue/thought will not be felt the same way by 100% of the group. But the ones who think that abortion is a legal issue has to be a very very small minority.

Government doesn't have a right to interfere in our private lives. Conservatives are all about less governmental intrusion. Why do they want the government involved in this?

They should only step in when a dangerous behaviour endangers thier fellow citizens. Serial killers, DWI. carjacking etc.

I feel really strongly that this country was founded on the principle that the government will not dictate moral, political and religious issues to its citizens. Maybe you should err on my side?

OK, I accept the contention that most who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are motivated by religious or moral convictions.

But I don't agree with your premise about what the country's founding principles are. We have tons of laws based on morality and we've had laws based on morality since the founding. If you can accept the government's right to step in when dangerous behavior endangers others (surely you don't mean "fellow citizens" literally), why can't you recognize that many who oppose abortion do so because they see it as the equivalent of murder and because they see the unborn child as the most defenseless of "others". Why is their opinion about what constitutes such a "dangerous behavior" any less valid than yours?

banyon
02-21-2008, 08:44 AM
For people who advocate a state solution to Roe, what evidence is there at all that it would be practically workable?

IOW, what's the big deal to someone if they just jump state lines and get it done elsewhere? Would it really accomplish anything?

BigRedChief
02-21-2008, 09:00 AM
Why can't you recognize that many who oppose abortion do so because they see it as the equivalent of murder and because they see the unborn child as the most defenseless of "others". Why is their opinion about what constitutes such a "dangerous behavior" any less valid than yours?
I haven't said that their argument is invalid. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to see their moral beliefs become the law of the land. They are not idiots, stupid a-holes and or nazi's. I've been pretty clear on this. I don't agree but hey have a valid opinion/viewpoint.

I would agree that if they see this as dangerous behaviour and outright murder that they should be morally outraged and try to remedy the situation via the law.

But then you get into the morality and religion aspect. If you believe this is murder how can you stand by and allow it to happen? You know a murder is going to take place today in this building. What do you do?

Now if you are religious and believe in heaven and hell and we are talking about all eternity why would you not spend every waking second of your life trying to convince others to serve God? Why does the few years we have on earth matter except to prepare for eternity? To help others prepare for eternity?

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 09:34 AM
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Why can't you recognize that many who oppose abortion do so because they see it as the equivalent of murder and because they see the unborn child as the most defenseless of "others".

Well murder is unlawful killing of another human. So I'd say a it's a homicide....maybe infanticide. How 'bout fetacide?

Cochise
02-21-2008, 09:34 AM
For people who advocate a state solution to Roe, what evidence is there at all that it would be practically workable?

IOW, what's the big deal to someone if they just jump state lines and get it done elsewhere? Would it really accomplish anything?

You could require proof of residency I guess.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 09:37 AM
IOW, what's the big deal to someone if they just jump state lines and get it done elsewhere? Would it really accomplish anything?
Who says we're trying to accomplish something? It's just what the Constitution says.

irishjayhawk
02-21-2008, 09:54 AM
I'm not making a case for it being equal or the same. Just that per science it is life and it is human regardless of the phase of development it's in. Science is one part of the argument, the other part is a philosophical/legal argument.

Science also says that it doesn't have a neverous system when most abortions take place. But you still have arguments that it can feel pain. I don't think you can claim science on one side or the other, as it's pretty neutral. Plus, science doesn't dictate morals. Neither science nor religion has a monopoly on morals. Hence, the government shouldn't either.

And the killing/murder laws everyone brings up...that's a genetic moral passed down. It keeps our species alive (or did at one point, literally). If humans never agreed not to kill one another at some point early on, we might have wiped ourselves out. So don't pull this, we have a law against murder legal argument.

As far as contradictions go, we do have one that I can see. That is, killing a pregnant woman results in two lives. Now, I can see why this makes sense. The woman was probably going to take it to term and actually have the baby. The intent for it to be born was there. Some mothers don't have that intent - sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. I can see both sides on that argument.


As for miscarriages, that's natures way of ending something on its own for something that hasn't developed right.

Perhaps. But do we know this for sure? And further, why should mothers have to wait to see if nature will take care of it.

I do like how you removed the God element from it. However, don't think that the pro-life side will take their God(s) out of it.

Cave Johnson
02-21-2008, 10:09 AM
I haven't said that their argument is invalid. They have a right to their opinion. They have a right to see their moral beliefs become the law of the land. They are not idiots, stupid a-holes and or nazi's.

In my current job, I have to travel almost every week, usually down to Cape and farther, Columbia, Jeff City, and misc other smaller towns. Missouri has to have the most pro-life signs per mile of any state. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the subject, and I can handle the kid in the sailor hat, the sonogram picture, etc. But I draw the line with the billboard near Jeff City depicting a retarded (Down's, actually, save the hate) kid with the tagline that he/she's a blessing. What's next, the one showing kids with ALS, MS, or other rare fatal diseases and extolling the virtues of watching your child and all the hopes and dreams you ever had for him/her waste away and die?

I'm not out there putting the picture of an innocent man charred to a crisp by old sparky on a billboard.

Adept Havelock
02-21-2008, 10:25 AM
For people who advocate a state solution to Roe, what evidence is there at all that it would be practically workable?

IOW, what's the big deal to someone if they just jump state lines and get it done elsewhere? Would it really accomplish anything?

I'm sure legislation would shortly follow making it a criminal act for a resident of "Prolifeastan" to travel to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. :shake:

I expect it would be something similar to the federal legislation that lets us nail sickos who travel out of the country and mess with kids who would be underage here, in a nation with a lower age of consent.

I wonder what will happen when the happily married gay couple from two states over comes to vacation, one gets sick, and the other demands spousal rights (forbidden by Prolifeastan law) at the local hospital.

Which state law holds trumps with "full faith and credit"?

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 10:28 AM
Science also says that it doesn't have a neverous system when most abortions take place. But you still have arguments that it can feel pain. I don't think you can claim science on one side or the other, as it's pretty neutral. Plus, science doesn't dictate morals. Neither science nor religion has a monopoly on morals. Hence, the government shouldn't either.
I think you need to do more reading, including science of embryology. I also never said science dictated morals. I simply said science says it's life per a definition of life. If it's not alive then it's dead period.

And the killing/murder laws everyone brings up...that's a genetic moral passed down. It keeps our species alive (or did at one point, literally). If humans never agreed not to kill one another at some point early on, we might have wiped ourselves out. So don't pull this, we have a law against murder legal argument.
Pull what? I never made the argument you're claiming. I didn't say it was murder...currently. I said it was a homicide: the killing of another human. To say otherwise is denial. BTW every civilized country in the past considered abortion a capital offense. Why did man decide kill another was punishable at one point in time but not earlier? They were barbarians earlier and became more civilized.

As far as contradictions go, we do have one that I can see. That is, killing a pregnant woman results in two lives. Now, I can see why this makes sense. The woman was probably going to take it to term and actually have the baby. The intent for it to be born was there. Some mothers don't have that intent - sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. I can see both sides on that argument.
So her intent to kill it makes it less human or alive but not in the case of another's intention to kill it. Makes no difference to me.
And don't call her a mother if she wants to kill it until it's born either. She wouldn't be a mother until then per your logic.
Perhaps. But do we know this for sure? And further, why should mothers have to wait to see if nature will take care of it.
I said that because I believe in natural rights. This means we all have a right to a natural life and a natural death without any intervention by another human being save the right to defense. So a miscarriage is simply a natural death caused by natural causes.

I do like how you removed the God element from it. However, don't think that the pro-life side will take their God(s) out of it.
So. Why should you have the right to say God should be admitted from it....particularly when the Declaration of Independence says all our us are endowed by our "Creator" with inalienable rights. Life is an inalienable right...and your's is protected by those same God believing folks because they believe it came from that source too. IMO this is why atheistic communists killed more than any other group in history. Uncivilized barbarians.

Other than that, I started changing my mind based gradually on philosophical arguments combined with the Constitution but it the issue still hung up for me as to it being a "person" that had natural rights...the first being the right to life. It was embryology that changed that for me. Afterall, no one is arguing for this life to have a full panoply of rights of an adult complete with the right to vote. Just the right to get there, to continue to grow, develop, being alive uninterfered with by others. Only one single right. That and the idea of just letting people have a free choice over who should live or die seems like a dangerous slope. Protection of life is a government matter in order to keep the rest of us safe and secure to live.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 10:43 AM
. But I draw the line with the billboard near Jeff City depicting a retarded (Down's, actually, save the hate) kid with the tagline that he/she's a blessing. What's next, the one showing kids with ALS, MS, or other rare fatal diseases and extolling the virtues of watching your child and all the hopes and dreams you ever had for him/her waste away and die?
A Down syndrome child can live a decent life though. There's also groups out there with people in them that will take those Down syndrome children as well as the others. I mean the danger in some of the quality of life arguments is somewhat like eugenics...only perfect people should live. This is the type of thinking that led German doctors to kill jews, gypsy and the feeble minded. Where do we draw the line? Some people are now making the case for infanticid to be made legal based on such arguments. I understand some of the concern on this...but really what I don't understand is taking an argument on 1-2% of cases over the majority done on demand, including by married women, on the basis of convenience.

irishjayhawk
02-21-2008, 10:56 AM
I think you need to do more reading, including science of embryology. I also never said science dictated morals. I simply said science says it's life per a definition of life. If it's not alive then it's dead period.

I don't know what you mean about the science of embryology but I didn't mean to go after you. Upon rereading, I can see why. I was referring throughout the rest of the post to everyone but happened to quote your post to which I directed by first sentence or so.


Pull what? I never made the argument you're claiming. I didn't say it was murder...currently. I said it was a homicide: the killing of another human. To say otherwise is denial. BTW every civilized country in the past considered abortion a capital offense. Why did man decide kill another was punishable at one point in time but not earlier? They were barbarians earlier and became more civilized.

But at what point does it become human? An embryo might have the potential to become human (might = allowing for miscarriages) but that doesn't mean it's human. It doesn't have any limbs, couldn't survive outside the host, etc. It is, strictly speaking, cells.


So her intent to kill it makes it less human or alive but not in the case of another's intention to kill it. Makes no difference to me.
And don't call her a mother if she wants to kill it until it's born either. She wouldn't be a mother until then per your logic.

I couldn't think of any better word besides mother, since she IS the mother if she's carrying a fertilized egg. Technically speaking. And no, we're talking about someone ELSE killing the mother and the intent of that mother to carry her baby to term is different than THE MOTHER deciding she doesn't want or didn't want the baby.


I said that because I believe in natural rights. This means we all have a right to a natural life and a natural death without any intervention by another human being save the right to defense. So a miscarriage is simply a natural death caused by natural causes.


So. Why should you have the right to say God should be admitted from it....particularly when the Declaration of Independence says all our us are endowed by our "Creator" with inalienable rights. Life is an inalienable right...and your's is protected by those same God believing folks because they believe it came from that source too. IMO this is why atheistic communists killed more than any other group in history. Uncivilized barbarians.

I cannot speak for the language of the founding fathers as both groups constantly try to claim them for their side. Hell the fathers didn't have science to tell them what was going on inside. Or at least most of it.

You can believe that. But at what point is someone guaranteed natural life and natural death? Certainly not an embryo. It isn't even a legal citizen or person, why should it get certain rights. Again, it boils down to what you consider HUMAN. And many people draw the line at birth (whether premature or not).

Yeah, yeah, atheists this, atheists that, it couldn't be the DICTATOR nor TECHNOLOGY... Seriously, it gets old. And it's wrong. So please stop.


Other than that, I started changing my mind based gradually on philosophical arguments combined with the Constitution but it the issue still hung up for me as to it being a "person" that had natural rights...the first being the right to life. It was embryology that changed that for me. Afterall, no one is arguing for this life to have a full panoply of rights of an adult complete with the right to vote. Just the right to get there, to continue to grow, develop, being alive uninterfered with by others. Only one single right. That and the idea of just letting people have a free choice over who should live or die seems like a dangerous slope. Protection of life is a government matter in order to keep the rest of us safe and secure to live.

Yep, keeping you safe and secure is the same as protecting the embryos. Yep, same concept. :rolleyes:

Again, you define Human at conception. Can you tell me why we haven't defined it as such? If Roe v. Wade gets over turned, do you think we should then define life at conception and promptly back date everyone or start dating them 9 months previous? I mean, that's where it becomes HUMAN.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 11:01 AM
Like I said you need to read up on embryology which claims scientifically that it is human life. Your science is flawed. You're creating arbitraries to support a political position.

irishjayhawk
02-21-2008, 11:04 AM
Like I said you need to read up on embryology which claims scientifically that it is human life. Your science is flawed. You're creating arbitraries to support a political position.

Care to cite? Specifically the terminology "human life", as opposed to just "life". That is, a cell - any cell - is "living".

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 11:14 AM
Hell the fathers didn't have science to tell them what was going on inside. Or at least most of it.
That's inaccurate. Abortion was a capital offense in most civilized nations, an abomination. They just could not always test for it early so relied often on what they called the quickening. We can see inside now.

You can believe that. But at what point is someone guaranteed natural life and natural death? Certainly not an embryo. It isn't even a legal citizen or person, why should it get certain rights. Again, it boils down to what you consider HUMAN. And many people draw the line at birth (whether premature or not).
No it does not boil down to what one "considers" human. That's a political point of view. Scientifically it is human if it has human cells. It's a complete human if it has all the dna of that being which exists its whole life. Prove to me that those cells are not of the human species. It's not a dog or a cat.

And no many do not draw the line at birth...that was done via political arguments with science swept under the rug. Believers. The reason abortion is controversial is because it's been nearly evenly divided on both sides of the aisle and in both parties. But not all deny it's not human except the most ill informed scientifically.

Yeah, yeah, atheists this, atheists that, it couldn't be the DICTATOR nor TECHNOLOGY... Seriously, it gets old. And it's wrong. So please stop.
It's the idea that you believe yourself to be gods. If your were real atheists logic says you wouldn't act accordingly.

Yep, keeping you safe and secure is the same as protecting the embryos. Yep, same concept. :rolleyes:
I'm talking about abortion.

Again, you define Human at conception. Can you tell me why we haven't defined it as such? If Roe v. Wade gets over turned, do you think we should then define life at conception and promptly back date everyone or start dating them 9 months previous? I mean, that's where it becomes HUMAN.
"I" didn't do any such defining. You're doing that. I said what science says....it has all the dna of a complete human being and that it's alive. It's just a phase of development....just like infant, toddler, puberty, tweens, adult, old age all with it's changing markers for those times and taking on a different appearance. Once concieved you are genetically programmed to go through all those phases of life. You looked like that at one time too.

You've failed to provide a single scientific argument for whether or not it has the cells of another species to say it is not human. There had to be a reason for your snarky emotions to take over. Because your position is not defensible.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 11:15 AM
Care to cite? Specifically the terminology "human life", as opposed to just "life". That is, a cell - any cell - is "living".

How 'bout simple logic? Is it a frog, dog or cat? Is it genetically programmed to be any other than a human? Is it's dna not human.

irishjayhawk
02-21-2008, 11:28 AM
Also, the legal definition of human and the scientific definition of human have never matched. Moreover, the scientific definition of ANYTHING is usually swept aside. Just look at evolution/creationism. Also note the strong correlation and constant that is BELIEVERS/RELIGION.


It's the idea that you believe yourself to be gods. If your were real atheists logic says you wouldn't act accordingly.

What the hell does this even mean? We don't claim to be gods. We just thing faith in a supreme being has a monopoly on morality. Pretty simple, even if you can't grasp it.


I'm talking about abortion.

I know, go re read what you posted in the first place. Perhaps you didn't mean to say what you did when you equated protecting unborn life with protecting our lives as is.



"I" didn't do any such defining. You're doing that. I said what science says....it has all the dna of a complete human being and that it's alive. It's just a phase of development....just like infant, toddler, puberty, tweens, adult, old age all with it's changing markers for those times and taking on a different appearance. Once concieved you are genetically programmed to go through all those phases of life. You looked like that at one time too.

And again, I'm not doing defining either, though we're mixing signals as I'm arguing legally and you're arguing scientifically. Moreover, just look at the evolution/creationist side of things. People want to look to science to defend their position yet reject it immediately when it tells them something they don't like. Again, a strong connection with Religion.


You've failed to provide a single scientific argument for whether or not it has the cells of another species to say it is not human. There had to be a reason for your snarky emotions to take over. Because your position is not defensible.

You failed to cite many things, but we are getting confused here. I'm arguing legally and you're arguing scientifically. And there it is again - the "holier than thou" position. ZOMG he got emotional (which I didn't) or ZMOG he got snarky therefore he must be defending something that's indefensible while I, the lone awesome Jesus savior of the world am defending something that is impenetrable. You and patteeu are good at that.


EDIT: WTF Half my post disappears when I clicked post?

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 11:59 AM
I haven't failed do cite anything short of posting a full embryology study which you could find yourself if interested since it would be long. I simply stated scientific fact, which it is. You've not proven yourself on these points—at all. In fact your claims are inaccurate.

Other than that I'm not interested arguing ad infinitum or ad nauseum about it. I cited how I came to my final change of opinion on this matter including philosophical and legal reasons. I didn't enforce my reality on you. You're the one who has trouble with it. I thought only religious people did that per you.

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 12:03 PM
What the hell does this even mean? We don't claim to be gods. We just thing faith in a supreme being has a monopoly on morality. Pretty simple, even if you can't grasp it.
You may not claim it but you're acting like one since you claim to the right to say when life begins, when it can be taken and that your own morality is superior to make such judgements. It's called a god-complex.

Cave Johnson
02-21-2008, 12:34 PM
A Down syndrome child can live a decent life though. There's also groups out there with people in them that will take those Down syndrome children as well as the others. I mean the danger in some of the quality of life arguments is somewhat like eugenics...only perfect people should live. This is the type of thinking that led German doctors to kill jews, gypsy and the feeble minded. Where do we draw the line? Some people are now making the case for infanticid to be made legal based on such arguments. I understand some of the concern on this...but really what I don't understand is taking an argument on 1-2% of cases over the majority done on demand, including by married women, on the basis of convenience.


You're assuming an argument I'm not making. I'm merely responding to the insanely gauche tactics of the pro-life movement. Speaking of actual insane tactics, I dated a girl for a while from Buffalo who went to school with the son of the ob/gyn murdered there, Dr. Slepian.

Cave Johnson
02-21-2008, 12:35 PM
You may not claim it but you're acting like one since you claim to the right to say when life begins, when it can be taken and that your own morality is superior to make such judgements. It's called a god-complex.

And the pro-life movement doesn't claim to the right to say when life begins? Pot..... kettle.

patteeu
02-21-2008, 01:12 PM
I don't think the term should hinge on what you think is a right. It hinges on that person's stance, because after all, that is what we are trying to define, and since that person thinks it is a right, then the label seems pretty appropriate to me. I think it would be fair to label a person pro-nudity-in-public-rights if they believed it was a right, even if you don't think it is.



To me, it seems like there's a difference between hearing a person called pro-gay-marriage-rights and just pro-gay, even if you don't mind the label. It just doesn't seem very accurate. :shrug:

OK, that's a mostly fair criticism, I'd say. How about if I compromise and describe them as "pro-legalized-abortion".

BucEyedPea
02-21-2008, 01:44 PM
And the pro-life movement doesn't claim to the right to say when life begins? Pot..... kettle.
No irish is the one projecting. You missed the a lot of posts by irish and his accusations against religion people not being able to accept science. So as a typical lawyer you made an inaccurate assumption.

It depends on if that pro-life stand is based on god or science. I said science, embryology, says when it begins. If you check embryology text books you'll find that. So in Irish's case, he can't accept the science that he accuses religious folks of rejecting routinely.

Next time pay more attention to his posts before you have a knee jerk reaction.

noa
02-21-2008, 01:55 PM
OK, that's a mostly fair criticism, I'd say. How about if I compromise and describe them as "pro-legalized-abortion".

Seems pretty fair to me. :thumb:

Cave Johnson
02-21-2008, 02:53 PM
No irish is the one projecting. You missed the a lot of posts by irish and his accusations against religion people not being able to accept science. So as a typical lawyer you made an inaccurate assumption.

It depends on if that pro-life stand is based on god or science. I said science, embryology, says when it begins. If you check embryology text books you'll find that. So in Irish's case, he can't accept the science that he accuses religious folks of rejecting routinely.

Next time pay more attention to his posts before you have a knee jerk reaction.

It's not that I made an inaccurate assumption, it's that I just don't care about the specific debate you're having with Irish. Every time I've seen/discussed this issue before, it always ends up like two Mack trucks playing a game of chicken.

irishjayhawk
02-21-2008, 03:04 PM
And the pro-life movement doesn't claim to the right to say when life begins? Pot..... kettle.

That's what I've been trying to say.

And for the record, I was not the one who brought atheists/religious into this. It was her.

BigRedChief
06-05-2008, 04:48 PM
Looks like I was ahead of the curve on this one.:)

BigRedChief
09-26-2008, 02:20 PM
Does Patteeu still come around in here?

patteeu
09-26-2008, 04:14 PM
Does Patteeu still come around in here?

Why do you ask?

BigRedChief
11-03-2008, 06:52 AM
Why do you ask?
Haven't seen you post in a while at the time.

If I remember correctly you didn't think too much of Obama at the time. I was defintely in the minority at the time also.

You voting for McCain?

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 06:57 AM
* He's intelligent, pragmatic, nuanced... genuine. No, seriously. I know it sounds ridiculous, but he's THE ONE. The first in a really long time.It was meeee! I was the one who started the THE ONE meme ALLLL ALONNNNNNNG!

Of course, I meant that he was the one politician who isn't a shithead, but still. I'd like my royalties now, McCain campaign.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 07:22 AM
Haven't seen you post in a while at the time.

If I remember correctly you didn't think too much of Obama at the time. I was defintely in the minority at the time also.

You voting for McCain?

Yep. I'm doing my best to save America from itself by voting for gridlock and against a far left agenda with no checks and no balance.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 07:24 AM
Yep. I'm doing my best to save America from itself by voting for gridlock and against a far left agenda with no checks and no balance.Look at me! I'm a Republican! I care SO MUCH about checks and balances!

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:24 AM
Yep. I'm doing my best to save America from itself by voting for gridlock and against a far left agenda with no checks and no balance.


Sounds about right:

"Americans for gridlock, change nothing"

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:45 AM
Look at me! I'm a Republican! I care SO MUCH about checks and balances!

Sounds right: the checks they get from oil lobbyists and the balance of their bank account.

BigRedChief
11-03-2008, 08:17 AM
Yep. I'm doing my best to save America from itself by voting for gridlock and against a far left agenda with no checks and no balance.
welllll we have tried it the Bush way and the trickle down economics for 8 years. It's time to try something different.

Obama is going to be the next POTUS. For all our sakes we had better hope he knows what he is doing.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:24 AM
Obama is going to be the next POTUS. For all our sakes we had better hope he knows what he is doing.



He doesn't and we're screwed. This will probably go down like your Carter vote, boy ya had to like that one didn't you?

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:29 AM
He doesn't and we're screwed. This will probably go down like your Carter vote, boy ya had to like that one didn't you?


Yep, cause the past 8 years have been a picnic.

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:31 AM
Yep, cause the past 8 years have been a picnic.

I thought the Dems have held congress for the last two?

LOCOChief
11-03-2008, 08:34 AM
Yep, cause the past 8 years have been a picnic.


I'd take the 2005 economy back in a heartbeat, I'd then can Dod and Frank and do exactly what McCain suggested, regulate fannie/freddie before the disaster struck.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:34 AM
I thought the Dems have held congress for the last two?

yep that huge margin has made all the difference in the world.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:36 AM
I'd take the 2005 economy back in a heartbeat, I'd then can Dod and Frank and do exactly what McCain suggested, regulate fannie/freddie before the disaster struck.

Yep McCain was kicking, screaming, making a fuss the whole time about what was about to happen. I saw him everyday telling everyone.

That's leadership we can believe.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:49 AM
Yep, cause the past 8 years have been a picnic.

Every time one of you people says something like this I wonder what must have happened to you in the past 8 years. Aside from the economic turmoil of the past year or so, it seems to me like the country as a whole has done pretty well over that period.

It's ironic that a big part of rejectionist sentiment toward the Bush years grew out of the Iraq war and the high energy prices of the past few years and now the Iraq war looks completely winnable and gas prices are pretty close to where they were four years ago.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:51 AM
Yep McCain was kicking, screaming, making a fuss the whole time about what was about to happen. I saw him everyday telling everyone.

That's leadership we can believe.

The mere fact that he wasn't poo pooing any and all talk of danger in the mortgage industry puts him ahead of the prominent democrats you're happily trying to put into power.

Guru
11-03-2008, 08:57 AM
Obama is going to be the next POTUS. For all our sakes we had better hope he knows what he is doing. That is what scares the living shit out of me.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:59 AM
Every time one of you people says something like this I wonder what must have happened to you in the past 8 years. Aside from the economic turmoil of the past year or so, it seems to me like the country as a whole has done pretty well over that period.

It's ironic that a big part of rejectionist sentiment toward the Bush years grew out of the Iraq war and the high energy prices of the past few years and now the Iraq war looks completely winnable and gas prices are pretty close to where they were four years ago.



gas prices? do you really want to go there? The only reason gas prices are down is because the economy is in the shitter.

I never doubted the Iraq war was winnable, I just doubted the cost was worth the reward. I don't think it was.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:09 AM
Aside from the economic turmoil of the past year or so, it seems to me like the country as a whole has done pretty well over that period.Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

patteeu
11-03-2008, 09:14 AM
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

The play was very enjoyable until Nancy Wilkes Pelosi and her band of merry mischief makers came along. I don't know how much is coincidence and how much is cause and effect, but I will point out that the part of our policy that is almost completely under the jurisdiction of the Presidency, i.e. foreign policy and war policy, went very well despite the intrusion.

BigRedChief
11-03-2008, 09:17 AM
He doesn't and we're screwed. This will probably go down like your Carter vote, boy ya had to like that one didn't you?
screwed the pooch on that one for sure.

But, I think history has proven me right on all the others.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:19 AM
The play was very enjoyable until Nancy Wilkes Pelosi and her band of merry mischief makers came along. I don't know how much is coincidence and how much is cause and effect, but I will point out that the part of our policy that is almost completely under the jurisdiction of the Presidency, i.e. foreign policy and war policy, went very well despite the intrusion.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes, yes. Blame it on the gridlock!!!! of the past two years. Our ability to work with other countries, our economy, our civil liberties, our trust in government, our soldiers' lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people caught up in a powder keg we ignited... all of that was in such good shape before THOSE DAMN DIRTY DEMONCRAPS got into "power."

patteeu
11-03-2008, 09:23 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes, yes. Blame it on the gridlock!!!! of the past two years. Our ability to work with other countries, our economy, our civil liberties, our trust in government, our soldiers' lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people caught up in a powder keg we ignited... all of that was in such good shape before THOSE DAMN DIRTY DEMONCRAPS got into "power."

The democrats are neck deep in our economic woes. As for the rest of your laundry list, I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem is.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 09:25 AM
...in the two parties. It's more like an ego bashing exercise. :shake:

KILLER_CLOWN
11-03-2008, 09:30 AM
Vote for Pedro!

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:40 AM
...in the two parties. It's more like an ego bashing exercise. :shake:YEAAAAAH

TAKE THAT SHEEPLE

BUSH AND GORE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

SHEEPLE

BigRedChief
11-06-2008, 10:15 PM
The democrats are neck deep in our economic woes. As for the rest of your laundry list, I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem is.
I'm glad that Barack Obama is our president to deal with this mess instead of McCain. Trickle down economics would not fix this mess.

patteeu
11-07-2008, 06:22 AM
I'm glad that Barack Obama is our president to deal with this mess instead of McCain. Trickle down economics would not fix this mess.

Why not? The mess has nothing to do with so-called "trickle down economics".

If anything, the crisis was an example of the opposite. Banks were encouraged by government policy to flood the segment of society at the lowest income levels and worst credit ratings with easy access to credit. As the universe of home buyers grew, people outside of this segment found it easy to sell their existing homes at a big profit and move up, often taking advantage of the same kinds of risky loans to do so. And when the risky loans started failing, even people with non-risky loans were hurt due to the contraction of housing prices. That's a case of trickle-up economic instability, not trickle-down.

"Trickle-down" policies are essential to our future economic prosperity. We can't compete in the global economy by pushing on the demand side of the equation. We need to provide an attractive business climate and invest on the production side of the equation if we want American business to be able to compete with foreign business. Unless you'd prefer to compete on labor price (which would mean a dramatic decrease in the standard of living for American workers) that is.

KCJohnny
11-07-2008, 06:23 AM
Obama is going to be the next POTUS. For all our sakes we had better hope he knows what he is doing.

You sound so confident.

BigRedChief
11-07-2008, 08:53 AM
You sound so confident.
Yes, I am.

Did you see.......

The size of the crowds at his political rallies?

He has brought so many new young people into the political process. Hope is a mighty ideal.

The pure joyful emotion on election night not just here at home but around the world?

The Unirted States and the world is screeming for leadership. As the President-elect said a new dawn of American leadership has arrived.

His mannerism's and the way he carries himself?

Looks like a thoughtful, intelligent even keeled decision maker to me.

I think he will govern from the center. He sounded a lot more hawkish about going after Al-Quaeda than McCain did. I think he's a pragmatist and realizes he needs to "really" reach across the aisle and be a president for all the people, not just the left.

But its mostly hope that will bring change and a belief in what made this country great......

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

KCJohnny
11-07-2008, 08:58 AM
Yes, I am.

Did you see.......

The size of the crowds at his political rallies?

He has brought so many new young people into the political process. Hope is a mighty ideal.

The pure joyful emotion on election night not just here at home but around the world?

The Unirted States and the world is screeming for leadership. As the President-elect said a new dawn of American leadership has arrived.

His mannerism's and the way he carries himself?

Looks like a thoughtful, intelligent even keeled decision maker to me.

I think he will govern from the center. He sounded a lot more hawkish about going after Al-Quaeda than McCain did. I think he's a pragmatist and realizes he needs to "really" reach across the aisle and be a president for all the people, not just the left.

But its mostly hope that will bring change and a belief in what made this country great......

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Fool. All that means nothing if he is a dialectical materialist, marxist collectivist Liberation Theology adherent.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-07-2008, 08:59 AM
Fool. All that means nothing if he is a dialectical materialist, marxist collectivist Liberation Theology adherent.

You do realize that simply dumping words into a sentence en masse means nothing if you don't understand their meaning, yes?

Ultra Peanut
11-07-2008, 09:01 AM
The Newsweek feature on the election cemented something that I'd had trouble putting into words before:

It may have been a Cheshire-cat grin, but Obama was not a gloater. There was no high-fiving or obvious schadenfreude. As Axelrod saw him, Obama didn't enjoy a good hate. That would be a waste of time and emotion, and Obama was, if nothing else, highly disciplined.

Obama carefully conserved his energy. He was not a man of appetites, like Bill Clinton, who would grab whatever goodie passed by on the tray. Obama was abstemious. Indeed, to the reporters following him, he appeared very nearly anorexic. Most candidates gain the Campaign 10 (or 15). Hillary was struggling with her waistline, as she gamely knocked back shots and beers in working-class bars and gobbled the obligatory sausage sandwiches thrust at her in greasy spoons along the Trail of the White Working-Class Voter. Obama, by contrast, lost weight. He regularly ate the same dinner of salmon, rice and broccoli. At Schoop's Hamburgers, a diner in Portage, Ind., he munched a single french fry and ordered four hamburgers—to go. At the Copper Dome Restaurant, a pancake house in St. Paul, Minn., he ordered pancakes—to go. (An AP reporter wondered: who gets pancakes for the road?) A waiter reeled off a long list of richly topped flapjacks, but Obama went for the plain buttermilk, saying, "I'm kind of traditionalist." Reporters joked that if he ate a single bite of burger or pancake once the doors of his dark-tinted SUV closed, they'd eat their BlackBerrys. He's great great vision, and he's incredibly composed, but perhaps most importantly, he's disciplined. He's not prone to giving in and grabbing at whatever seems most appealing just to be done with it. He sets the plan and follows it, changing only if... well, frankly, the plans he's set so far haven't needed to be adjusted because they've been so good from the start. He's got such a firmness of character.

The pure joyful emotion on election night not just here at home but around the world? How cool is it to have the entire world feel proud of us for once?

BigRedChief
11-07-2008, 09:08 AM
Fool. All that means nothing if he is a dialectical materialist, marxist collectivist Liberation Theology adherent.
This sheep and idiot label is getting old. 65 million "kool-aid" drinkers voted for him. He won almost every single demographic in this country.

But its mostly hope that will bring change and a belief in what made this country great. This country was founded on ideals and mere words like the ones he gave in his victory speech. Maybe you should give hime a year at least before heaping scorn on him and 65 million of your fellow Americans.