Louis Farrakhan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
William Ayers:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Ahmed Yousef the PM of Hamas:
We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php
Che Guevara for Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VRCeBSOOEM&feature=related
I especially like the Che flag behind her. I guess even dead communists can still find a voice in America...
Let the flaming and justification begin in 3...2...1.....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Louis Farrakhan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
William Ayers:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Ahmed Yousef the PM of Hamas:
We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php
Che Guevara for Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VRCeBSOOEM&feature=related
I especially like the Che flag behind her. I guess even dead communists can still find a voice in America...
Let the flaming and justification begin in 3...2...1.....
I'm just waiting for Iplaw to stand up and call Obama 'an Arab'.
[:D]
As if Obama actively sought out these people's approval. [8)]
Oh...I'm NOT saying he sought their endorsement. Though I doubt it bothers him that they do.
I'm wondering what it IS about Obama that these scum bags like so much?
What is it about McCain these people like?
McCain Volunteer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOU9xZ4zcss
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/McCain%20Pre%20Program.mp3
"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," [Pastor] Conrad said.
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14445.html
John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain," Weaver said. "And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive."
"Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold."
But, if it were up to them, such hard-edged tactics are clearly what many in the party base would like to use against Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
What is it about McCain these people like?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/McCain%20Pre%20Program.mp3
"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," [Pastor] Conrad said.
"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14445.html
John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain," Weaver said. "And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive."
"Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold."
But, if it were up to them, such hard-edged tactics are clearly what many in the party base would like to use against Obama.
You can blame Rove for it. His campaign manager (McCain's) comes from the Rovian school. This time it's gonna backfire.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
You can blame Rove for it. His campaign manager (McCain's) comes from the Rovian school. This time it's gonna backfire.
Yep.
In the words of rightwing sockpuppet Sarah Palin... YOU BETCHA!
I blame McCain for selling his soul to the devil in the selection of his presidential campaign staff and the use of his VP candidate Sarah Palin as a sort-of Dick Cheney with lipstick...
I want the neocons to take their deserved place in the DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. I want the same fate for the tactics of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and Co... heck, I'll even reach across the aisle and throw in James Carville...
And now, a link for an article from a magazine IPLAW would never be caught dead reading...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks
Dirty Tricks, South Carolina and John McCainBy Ann Banks
January 14, 2008
Eight years ago this month, John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic.
Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.
It worked. Owing largely to the Rove-orchestrated whispering campaign, Bush prevailed in South Carolina and secured the Republican nomination. The rest is history--specifically the tragic and blighted history of our young century. It worked in another way as well. Too shaken to defend himself, McCain emerged from the bruising episode less maverick reformer and more Manchurian candidate.
The former crusader against the Republican establishment has since turned into a Bush-hugging, business-as-usual politician who has backed down from many positions that set him apart from conventional conservatives. Before, McCain supported the separation of church and state; now he wants a Christian in the White House. The confederate flag, which he once considered an offensive symbol, no longer troubles him. And he has come to believe that tax cuts are a good idea.
I don't want to say that McCain sold his soul to the devil, since I believe that religious metaphors have no place in politics. But consider this: shortly after losing the 2000 election, McCain told an interviewer that there must be "a special place in hell" reserved for the rumormongers.
Seven years later, who is running McCain's South Carolina campaign? Charlie Condon, the former State Attorney General who in 2000 helped spread the innuendo targeting Bridget. If you can't beat them, hire them--even if they've launched racist attacks against your own daughter.
Bridget McCain was a seriously ill baby in Mother Teresa's orphanage when Cindy McCain visited and decided to bring her back to the United States for medical treatment in 1991. John and Cindy adopted her not long after. Now 16, Bridget learned of her role in the 2000 campaign only when she Googled herself. According to the New York Times, when McCain entered the current race, Bridget summoned his aides and asked them to pledge that this campaign would be different.
We can't know what reassurances were offered, but Condon doesn't seem to have repented for his role in the 2000 slander. He told the New York Times reporter that he wasn't surprised about the downward spiral of the Bush-McCain race. "Our primaries have a way of doing that," Condon said. "There is a tradition of it, it is accepted behavior, and frankly it works."
What is it that IPLAW likes about Guilt by Association? Heck, there's no association whatsoever with most of these people, so I guess it's guilt by extrapolation. Best of luck with that losing strategy...doesn't make you a loser, but it doesn't help, either.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
What is it that IPLAW likes about Guilt by Association? Heck, there's no association whatsoever with most of these people, so I guess it's guilt by extrapolation. Best of luck with that losing strategy...doesn't make you a loser, but it doesn't help, either.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. I am NOT saying that Obama sought their endorsement. Nor am I saying anything resembling guilt by association.
Read this VERY SLOWLY:
What is it about Obama that these people like?IOW, why do terrorist organizations like Hamas prefer Obama?
Not one person has attempted to answer this question. Plenty of answers to questions not asked though.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
You can blame Rove for it. His campaign manager (McCain's) comes from the Rovian school. This time it's gonna backfire.
I always find it mildly amusing when Democrats or Republicans tell the other side what they should do to
win an election. I think that's evidence enough to avoid whatever advice is being given.
You tell by the reaction from the Obama campaign and its surrogates that this topic has traction, even if it's "negative."
You can always tell when a topic scares the Obama campaign as it's immediately called "a distraction."
Maybe if Obama showed any consistency with his answers about Ayers it wouldn't be an issue at all. He's handled this just like he did with Rev. Wright.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
You can blame Rove for it. His campaign manager (McCain's) comes from the Rovian school. This time it's gonna backfire.
I always find it mildly amusing when Democrats or Republicans tell the other side what they should do to win an election. I think that's evidence enough to avoid whatever advice is being given.
You tell by the reaction from the Obama campaign and its surrogates that this topic has traction, even if it's "negative."
You can always tell when a topic scares the Obama campaign as it's immediately called "a distraction."
Maybe if Obama showed any consistency with his answers about Ayers it wouldn't be an issue at all. He's handled this just like he did with Rev. Wright.
You must have Master Karl on speed-dial; whippin' out that Ayers reference. Most sane people in the world have shown that's a non issue, and he's explained it several times.
You right-wing kooks have selective hearing.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
What is it that IPLAW likes about Guilt by Association? Heck, there's no association whatsoever with most of these people, so I guess it's guilt by extrapolation. Best of luck with that losing strategy...doesn't make you a loser, but it doesn't help, either.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. I am NOT saying that Obama sought their endorsement. Nor am I saying anything resembling guilt by association.
Read this VERY SLOWLY:
What is it about Obama that these people like?
IOW, why do terrorist organizations like Hamas prefer Obama?
Not one person has attempted to answer this question. Plenty of answers to questions not asked though.
Plain and simple.
Because, unlike the Amerika-Amerika-uber-alles republican chest thumping by all the candidates for who could be the biggest militarist at the GOP debates, Obama is not a warmonger.
That's also why a HUGE MAJORITY of the populations of most of our ALLIES support Obama (you remember the good ol' days, when America had allies, don't you???)
Your question is BAIT. And you've always been a master- baiter, Ippy.
These are the same sick tactics your party has been using.....
Hmmm. Now WHY would John Hagee give an endorsement to John McCain?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
You must have Master Karl on speed-dial; whippin' out that Ayers reference. Most sane people in the world have shown that's a non issue, and he's explained it several times.
Yes. The problem is, every time he answers the question he provides a different answer. Just like with Rev. Wright. It only took him about three press conferences to come to a decision about Wright. I'm guessing it's only going to take him about a half dozen with Ayers.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
What is it that IPLAW likes about Guilt by Association? Heck, there's no association whatsoever with most of these people, so I guess it's guilt by extrapolation. Best of luck with that losing strategy...doesn't make you a loser, but it doesn't help, either.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. I am NOT saying that Obama sought their endorsement. Nor am I saying anything resembling guilt by association.
Read this VERY SLOWLY:
What is it about Obama that these people like?
IOW, why do terrorist organizations like Hamas prefer Obama?
Not one person has attempted to answer this question. Plenty of answers to questions not asked though.
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question. Answer this: why should we care what terrorists say about our election? Do you base your voting decision on what known criminals are saying? And if so, how do you know they aren't lying?
Why is the Ku Klux Klan supporting McCain? Why are people carrying monkeys with Obama stickers to McCain/Pallin rallies? Why do McCain supporters claim that Obama is a terrorist/arab/muslim? Why are so many racist supporting McCain? Do they know something we don't?
What the crazy lunatic fringe says about the candidates is irrelevant, regardless of which side. Geez, come up with some real arguments to support McCain.
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
Don't you need to go pretend your a lawyer?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
Don't you need to go pretend your a lawyer?
Let me help you out:
First
(http://i33.tinypic.com/21aijvk.jpg)
Then
(http://i34.tinypic.com/14jbu47.jpg)
and Finally
(http://i36.tinypic.com/2wehs2r.jpg)
Let me know if you have any questions.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
Don't you need to go pretend your a lawyer?
Let me help you out:
First
(http://i33.tinypic.com/21aijvk.jpg)
Then
(http://i34.tinypic.com/14jbu47.jpg)
and Finally
(http://i36.tinypic.com/2wehs2r.jpg)
Let me know if you have any questions.
Wow, I can't believe you just spent that much time creating a bunch of images to link back to on a forum.
I do have a question though, Rev...
When's your next sermon.
[:O]
Also, ask McSame when HIS next meeting with ACORN is, so we can so scrupulously deride him as being tied to an organization who illegally registers voters.
Oh, noes!!!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/13/sigh-mccain-and-his-friends-atacorn/
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Wow, I can't believe you just spent that much time creating a bunch of images to link back to on a forum.
I do have a question though, Rev...
When's your next sermon.
[:O]
It's only because I care so much for pmcalk's well-being.
My chickens will be coming home to roost on the 4th of November...
Long live the KK of A!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Wow, I can't believe you just spent that much time creating a bunch of images to link back to on a forum.
I do have a question though, Rev...
When's your next sermon.
[:O]
It's only because I care so much for pmcalk's well-being.
My chickens will be coming home to roost on the 4th of November...
Long live the KK of A!
I'm doing just fine, thanks, IP. But what about you? You seemed to be becoming unglued. You have become a bit obsessed with me. Do you have a problem with women that are smarter than you? Or just women in general?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Wow, I can't believe you just spent that much time creating a bunch of images to link back to on a forum.
I do have a question though, Rev...
When's your next sermon.
[:O]
It's only because I care so much for pmcalk's well-being.
My chickens will be coming home to roost on the 4th of November...
Long live the KK of A!
I'm doing just fine, thanks, IP. But what about you? You seemed to be becoming unglued. You have become a bit obsessed with me. Do you have a problem with women that are smarter than you? Or just women in general?
You're a woman? Could have fooled me.
Don't pat yourself on the back, my wife is infinitely smarter than me on many subjects.
I don't have a problem with logical, intelligent women, but I don't think you're deserving of either of those descriptions.
Any other questions?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Wow, I can't believe you just spent that much time creating a bunch of images to link back to on a forum.
I do have a question though, Rev...
When's your next sermon.
[:O]
It's only because I care so much for pmcalk's well-being.
My chickens will be coming home to roost on the 4th of November...
Long live the KK of A!
I'm doing just fine, thanks, IP. But what about you? You seemed to be becoming unglued. You have become a bit obsessed with me. Do you have a problem with women that are smarter than you? Or just women in general?
You're a woman? Could have fooled me.
Don't pat yourself on the back, my wife is infinitely smarter than me on many subjects.
I don't have a problem with logical, intelligent women, but I don't think you're deserving of either of those descriptions.
Any other questions?
Yeah, just one: Someone was actually willing to
marry you?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yeah, just one: Someone was actually willing to marry you?
Not only that, but I've been able to procreate. That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
You're very silly and they've already seen right through you with this thread.
Obama is not a warmonger as someone else said, so isn't it obvious that all of Europe and probably most of the world would like him better than McSame? Or should that be MCShame?
Who wants to deal with another warmonger? Get real. You're trying to line him up with terrorists and revolutionary people to say that's what he is about.
Very poor attempt.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
You're very silly and they've already seen right through you with this thread.
Obama is not a warmonger as someone else said, so isn't it obvious that all of Europe and probably most of the world would like him better than McSame? Or should that be MCShame?
Who wants to deal with another warmonger? Get real. You're trying to line him up with terrorists and revolutionary people to say that's what he is about.
Very poor attempt.
Oh nows! Honeysucker thinks I'm silly. Whatever shall I do?
Obama has proven time and time again that he's comfortable keeping company with domestic terrorists and anti-semites. Why would endorsements from international terrorist organizations for Obama be a surprise to anyone?
Unless you don't consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
No one has answered your question because it is a stupid question.
Then why bother responding?
Don't you have a Palin thread to start somewhere?
You're very silly and they've already seen right through you with this thread.
Obama is not a warmonger as someone else said, so isn't it obvious that all of Europe and probably most of the world would like him better than McSame? Or should that be MCShame?
Who wants to deal with another warmonger? Get real. You're trying to line him up with terrorists and revolutionary people to say that's what he is about.
Very poor attempt.
Oh nows! Honeysucker thinks I'm silly. Whatever shall I do?
Obama has proven time and time again that he's comfortable keeping company with domestic terrorists and anti-semites. Why would endorsements from international terrorist organizations for Obama be a surprise to anyone?
Unless you don't consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
Kinda like Hannity keeps company with anti-semites? Let's tell it like it is now.
Obama offers a platform based on redistribution of wealth. It's as simple as that. Some people support that philosophy. Some of us do not.
I think what people like about him is that he isn't a Republican.
Simple as that. Wouldn't matter if it were Hillary on the ticket or Obama. Either one would have--and will--smash McCain on Nov. 4th.
All Obama has to do is not say anything stupid for the next three weeks, and basically just stand there and say, "do you want 4 more years of this?"
Four more years in Iraq? Four more years of a declining dollar and rising deficit? Four more years of economic crisis?
That's it and that's all. I've always felt this election was decided the day Hillary stepped out.
I think the economy matters an awful lot. The base-pandering though, people seem to be seeing through that this time. It's been relatively easy to shout "tax-cuts" and "pro-life" and get elected the last several years. But not this year.
This time, Obama doesn't have to show his hand. All he has to do is let the Republicans pander to their base.
The real Republicans the last several years have been slightly appalled by what has been done in the name of the "GOP". The Republican Party was not intended to be run by hawkish, non-thinking religious folks. I think McCain knew this back in 2000, which is exactly why he was demonized by the GOP. Now McCain has no choice but to try and keep the Republicans together, while at the same time he has to win Independents and Democrats.
The Republican Party of the last 28+ years, is dead. The GOP has to change. A McCain defeat IMO, is a huge victory for the NeoCon Republican base. It buys them the potential of "time".
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Obama offers a platform based on redistribution of wealth. It's as simple as that. Some people support that philosophy. Some of us do not.
Yet another tired cliche.
Obama offers a platform based on a more even redistribution of wealth.
Rich people redistribute wealth all the time...
and republican government "free market" hypocrits engage in reverse welfare on a regular basis...
The Modern-day Republican Party = Privatized Profits and Socialized Risk.Ponder the ramifications of that statement and then justify why a slightly progressive income tax code is sooooooooooooo evil...
(http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg)
"I demand the sum... OF ONE MIIIIIIIILLION DOLLARS." --Dr. Evil
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Obama offers a platform based on redistribution of wealth. It's as simple as that. Some people support that philosophy. Some of us do not.
Yet another tired cliche.
Obama offers a platform based on a more even redistribution of wealth.
Rich people redistribute wealth all the time...
and republican government "free market" hypocrits engage in reverse welfare on a regular basis...
The Modern-day Republican Party = Privatized Profits and Socialized Risk.
I was explaining this at work to someone.
If you are a Republican and a Republican talks about 'wealth distribution', it's called 'trickle-down economics'.
If you are a Republican and a Democrat talks about wealth distribution, it's called 'socialism'.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yeah, just one: Someone was actually willing to marry you?
Not only that, but I've been able to procreate. That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...
And I am sure you are teaching your kids the same ignorant, myopic views that you espouse. Pretty scary.
Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing. I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion. But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.
Just as I would fight for your first amendment right to say all the stupid things that you do.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yeah, just one: Someone was actually willing to marry you?
Not only that, but I've been able to procreate. That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...
Your responses and insults here are very uncharitable and unchristain.
You do remember that America and Germany were at war during WWII right? Now we're buddies. That we were in a senseless stupid war with Viet Nam, and now we're buddies? It took presidents and others to mend those bridges. If the world loves Obama and he can bring about peace between the countries and indeed, even stop terrorism or at least start the healing, what's wrong with that?
You really are a very narrow minded individual and it is sad there are so many of you out there.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yeah, just one: Someone was actually willing to marry you?
Not only that, but I've been able to procreate. That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...
Your responses and insults here are very uncharitable and unchristain.
Who cares if I'm unchristian?
And speaking of "uncharitable" you should look at your own party. Republicans consistently outgive democrats in charitable contributions. Look no further than your own VP candidate who gave less than $500 a year to charity for the last 10 years.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
You do remember that America and Germany were at war during WWII right? Now we're buddies. That we were in a senseless stupid war with Viet Nam, and now we're buddies? It took presidents and others to mend those bridges. If the world loves Obama and he can bring about peace between the countries and indeed, even stop terrorism or at least start the healing, what's wrong with that?
You really are a very narrow minded individual and it is sad there are so many of you out there.
We aren't buddies with Europe today because we elected an inexperienced pseudo-marxist in order to appease the world during WWII. They love us because we liberated them and the rest of world from what would have been inevitable defeat at the hands of a brutal Nazi regime and totalitarian Japanese forces.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And I am sure you are teaching your kids the same ignorant, myopic views that you espouse. Pretty scary.
Yes. For no other reason than to fluster and irritate your kids 10 years from now.
quote:
Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing. I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion. But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.
Your subjective cries of liberty ring hollow. The right to control YOUR body ends at the doorstep of another individual's right to live. The child growing in that woman is genetically as distinct from that woman in every possible way as another fully formed adult.
Heaven forbid we expect adults to exercise some self-control or accept personal responsibility for their actions.
quote:
Just as I would fight for your first amendment right to say all the stupid things that you do.
Thanks, but I don't need your assistance.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing. I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion. But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.
Your subjective cries of liberty ring hollow. The right to control YOUR body ends at the doorstep of another individual's right to live. The child growing in that woman is genetically as distinct from that woman in every possible way as another fully formed adult.
At the risk of highjaking the topic, your claim that one's rights end at another person's right to live presuppose that the two can be separated. The right for the fetus to continue to develop is not denied--simply the women has a right not to have that growth dependent upon her body. We in this country do not require people to give blood transfusions, even though it saves actual lives. We don't require one person to maintain the life of another, even when morally they should do so.
quote:
Heaven forbid we expect adults to exercise some self-control or accept personal responsibility for their actions.
My biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it almost sounds as though you think women should be punished for having sex. Do you disagree then with your idol, Palin, and believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest? What about women whose birth control failed? How will you determine whether rape or incest occurred? Does there have to be a court case? What will be the standard of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
It's so much easier to speak in absolutes, but the real world is messy, and having the government make those decisions--decisions that are intensely personal--only makes things messier.
Let me ask you IP--I have a friend who had an abortion. Here are the facts--she is older, married in her late 30s, and was desperate to have a child before her biological time clock ran out. She got pregnant, to her great joy. At about 18 weeks, she was told following a sonogram that the fetus had a cogenital disorder, and would die immediately at birth.
Her were her choices--carry the fetus to term, give birth to a baby that would immediately die, wait 6 months to get pregnant again, at which time she might very well be too old to get pregnant. Or she could get an abortion. Her health was not at risk. She was not raped or molested.
Do you think the government should force her to remain pregnant, and give birth to a baby who will immediately die?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
At the risk of highjaking the topic, your claim that one's rights end at another person's right to live presuppose that the two can be separated. The right for the fetus to continue to develop is not denied--simply the women has a right not to have that growth dependent upon her body. We in this country do not require people to give blood transfusions, even though it saves actual lives. We don't require one person to maintain the life of another, even when morally they should do so.
We have laws which impose a duty on a parent to maintain the life of another. Any parent caught withholding food or starving a child would be guilty of a crime if that child were to die.
Bottom line is, the rights of a woman against the rights of an innocent third party. You attack a moral argument (maintaining the life of another) by asserting another moral argument (that it would be wrong to deny a woman the "right" to choose).
quote:
It's so much easier to speak in absolutes, but the real world is messy, and having the government make those decisions--decisions that are intensely personal--only makes things messier.
Are you seriously attempting to argue that absolute truths don't exist?
quote:
Let me ask you IP--I have a friend who had an abortion. Here are the facts--she is older, married in her late 30s, and was desperate to have a child before her biological time clock ran out. She got pregnant, to her great joy. At about 18 weeks, she was told following a sonogram that the fetus had a cogenital disorder, and would die immediately at birth.
Her were her choices--carry the fetus to term, give birth to a baby that would immediately die, wait 6 months to get pregnant again, at which time she might very well be too old to get pregnant. Or she could get an abortion. Her health was not at risk. She was not raped or molested.
Do you think the government should force her to remain pregnant, and give birth to a baby who will immediately die?
I don't think anyone should FORCE her to do anything. I think she should have the fortitude and compassion to give that child an opportunity to live, even if it's for one minute or one second.
I can only speak for myself and the discussions I've had with my wife who was a special ed teacher (so she knows something about the challenges these families have). She would carry a child to term, no matter the ultimate outcome. We had this very discussion before we went for our first ultrasound.
Doctors are often wrong. They are not God and they do make mistakes. Children who were not supposed to survive birth often do, and the are blessings to their family; even if they are ultimately disabled. I believe that every life should be accorded dignity and worth; even sick, dying or disabled babies.
I can't imagine not having the opportunity to hold my daughter in my arms, even if it was only ONE time before she died.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We have laws which impose a duty on a parent to maintain the life of another. Any parent caught withholding food or starving a child would be guilty of a crime if that child were to die.
Bottom line is, the rights of a woman against the rights of an innocent third party. You attack a moral argument (maintaining the life of another) by asserting another moral argument (that it would be wrong to deny a woman the "right" to choose).
A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity. Parents are free to put their children up for adoption. Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents. There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.
quote:
Are you seriously attempting to argue that absolute truths don't exist?
God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes." Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?
quote:
I don't think anyone should FORCE her to do anything. I think she should have the fortitude and compassion to give that child an opportunity to live, even if it's for one minute or one second.
OMG!!!!!! You are pro-choice!!!!!! Do you understand that you're position is no different than the countless pro-choice advocates--that no one should force her to complete her pregnancy, even if morally, she should.
quote:
I can only speak for myself and the discussions I've had with my wife who was a special ed teacher (so she knows something about the challenges these families have). She would carry a child to term, no matter the ultimate outcome. We had this very discussion before we went for our first ultrasound.
Doctors are often wrong. They are not God and they do make mistakes. Children who were not supposed to survive birth often do, and the are blessings to their family; even if they are ultimately disabled. I believe that every life should be accorded dignity and worth; even sick, dying or disabled babies.
I can't imagine not having the opportunity to hold my daughter in my arms, even if it was only ONE time before she died.
I respect that decision. But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend. I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance. But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity. Parents are free to put their children up for adoption. Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents.
Not exactly. If that parent decides to abandon that child and leave them in a dumpster after the child is born, they will be charged with a crime, and for good reason. They don't have to assume any responsibility. That duty already exists.
Adoption merely shifts the burden of the duty to another party.
quote:
There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.
So they should die instead? I never have understood this line of thinking. What a great motto for the pro-choice movement: "Help prevent child abuse; have an abortion"
quote:
God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes." Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?
No one argued that life "consists" of absolutes, as if all decisions have only two options, but the law of noncontradiction applies to all of reality. So absolutes do exist.
Maybe a better question to ask is, do you believe in absolute truth?
quote:
I respect that decision. But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend. I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance. But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.
Well, we disagree here. I don't think the government should be in the business of sanctioning the termination of innocent life. Every human being, even children in the womb, should be given the same rights guaranteed by our Constitiution.
Furthermore, I don't believe I should pay for those services as a tax payer.
The only innocent party without culpability in a pregnancy is the child.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity. Parents are free to put their children up for adoption. Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents.
Not exactly. If that parent decides to abandon that child and leave them in a dumpster after the child is born, they will be charged with a crime, and for good reason. They don't have to assume any responsibility. That duty already exists.
Adoption merely shifts the burden of the duty to another party.
Obviously, if you choose to assume the responsibility to raise a child, then you must care for that child. And I agree with laws that punish women for harming a fetus when they do drugs or drink. You have a right not to be a parent, but you don't have a right to harm a child.
Adoption is not necessary to relinquish parental rights. In all states, the ability to relinquish your rights to your child is as easy as taking that child to the proper officials, and declaring your intent to do so.
quote:
quote:
There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.
So they should die instead? I never have understood this line of thinking. What a great motto for the pro-choice movement: "Help prevent child abuse; have an abortion"
Good job twisting my words. My point was towards relinquishing parental rights--I am glad that our government makes it easy to do so. It encourages women to carry pregnancy to term if they know they can easily place the baby in the care of another.
quote:
quote:
God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes." Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?
No one argued that life "consists" of absolutes, as if all decisions have only two options, but the law of noncontradiction applies to all of reality. So absolutes do exist.
Maybe a better question to ask is, do you believe in absolute truth?
Hey, I love a good esoteric discussion of logic. But lets get back to reality--what do you believe to be an absolute truth and what does that have to do with the right of a person to control their body? Then maybe we can get back to discussing Aristotle, Plato, or whomever.
quote:
quote:
I respect that decision. But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend. I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance. But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.
Well, we disagree here. I don't think the government should be in the business of sanctioning the termination of innocent life. Every human being, even children in the womb, should be given the same rights guaranteed by our Constitiution.
Furthermore, I don't believe I should pay for those services as a tax payer.
The only innocent party without culpability in a pregnancy is the child.
You didn't respond to my other assertion. If you believe that my friend should not be forced to remain pregnant, aren't you prochoice? Do you not believe she should be able to make this decision on her own?
Allowing a choice is not the same thing as sanctioning something. To say the federal goverment "sanctions" abortion is akin to saying the government sanctions hate speech simply because of the First Amendment.
Taxpayers don't pay for abortions.
I disagree about the "only" innocent party being the fetus. Tell me what you think my friend is guilty of?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Obviously, if you choose to assume the responsibility to raise a child, then you must care for that child. And I agree with laws that punish women for harming a fetus when they do drugs or drink. You have a right not to be a parent, but you don't have a right to harm a child.
Even if you don't "assume" that right, you are bound by it. If a woman gives birth and dumps the kid a trash can, the defense attorney isn't going to get anywhere with a judge or jury by saying that she "didn't assume the responsibility." That's not a valid defense.
quote:
Adoption is not necessary to relinquish parental rights. In all states, the ability to relinquish your rights to your child is as easy as taking that child to the proper officials, and declaring your intent to do so.
Yes, but the duty of care is transfered to the state. There is still a duty to protect the child, it just tarnsfered to the state. Until the parent does so, they are charged with a responsibility to take care of that child.
quote:
Hey, I love a good esoteric discussion of logic. But lets get back to reality--what do you believe to be an absolute truth and what does that have to do with the right of a person to control their body? Then maybe we can get back to discussing Aristotle, Plato, or whomever.
If you enjoy debating philosophy, you should just try answering my question. It's a yes or no.
quote:
You didn't respond to my other assertion. If you believe that my friend should not be forced to remain pregnant, aren't you prochoice? Do you not believe she should be able to make this decision on her own?
Allowing a choice is not the same thing as sanctioning something. To say the federal goverment "sanctions" abortion is akin to saying the government sanctions hate speech simply because of the First Amendment.
Taxpayers don't pay for abortions.
I disagree about the "only" innocent party being the fetus. Tell me what you think my friend is guilty of?
I'm sorry that I missed responding to something. That was not my intent. I made my point previously. I think she should have the courage of her convictions and make the right decision herself. I don't think she should be able to have an abortion. The first mistake in this debate is that I don't think there is a universal "right" to an abortion anywhere in the constitution.
Planned Parenthood receives 1/4 of its funding from government grants to the tune of 330+ million dollars a year, ergo, my tax dollars are being used to fund abortions.
Lastly, I should rephrase my statement. In the case of every pregnancy the child is always an innocent party.
This discussion is going nowhere. Neither side will change the other's POV. We simply see life in fundamentally different ways and are just wasting one another's time arguing about who's is correct. This is a discussion devoid of any possible resolution.
This just about sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
I poste that last week! Where were you?
(http://economistsview.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/wealth14606.gif)
If you want more wealth, go out and create it.