logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Child's Play in a tightening race., I have some videos I recorded from a Mitt Romney rally in Asheville...
net2007
post Oct 16 2012, 09:13 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I attended the Asheville Civic Center on Thursday evening to watch a local Mitt Romney Rally and I have to say it was a unique experience. Having debated here for years I wanted to share that experience and get some feedback. My neighbor and friend Kiffin let me borrow his digital camera so I was able to get some photographs and videos that I'm going to share here, he's not much into politics but came through for me that morning. I found out about this event Thursday morning because someone I admire very much actually told me about it and printed out the ticket I needed to get inside yet she's not a fan of Romney at all.

As far as this debate goes I'm going to get to the guts of it quick. I had a good time but the bitterness I saw at times was surreal and this being a very liberal city hosting a rally for Mitt Romney the bitterness I saw came from the left. That, and negativity abroad effecting the election will be the focus of this debate. Some of the things I saw on Thursday solidified what I already knew. Anger and frustration can consume and defeat anyone who lets it and politics sets the stage for high amounts of disgust.

The worst thing I saw that day was on my walk back home. One lady hung out her window and flipped me off as I got a couple blocks away from the Civic Center. Like an idiot I told her I'm being nice over here the best I can, but I should have ignored her. She cursed me out so I kept on walking. A couple blocks further down a group of young guys snickered as I walked by. The red "Dan Forest for LT. Gov" sticker I had on my shirt probably gave me away. That and walking from the direction of the Romney rally.

I didn't record these things so you'll have to take that on scouts honor. I was being as civil as I could given the situation and for the most part I kept my mouth shut.
I uploaded all the things I did record to Youtube but the camera angles and quality could have been better. I had a 4 gig memory card so I had to cut down the quality a bit and I couldn't record everything. The entire event can be viewed here in higher quality ...

http://www.youtube.com/user/BuncombeCountyVideos


First video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi74LT4ME5k

I was just getting close to the entry point and approaching some of the protesting. 5:55 seconds into this I start talking a bit to put my opinion out.

Me: "Everybody's out here smiling, this guy's really upset......."

I go on a bit from their before I enter the building, but anyone here can conclude what they want from this. For a protest in Asheville for a Mitt Romeny
rally it really wasn't all too bad. It was after I left that a couple people took it over the line, at that point I had the camera off and was just walking home.

Before I show the rest of these videos I'm going to get to the point about why this is going to effect this election and how it could lead to Mitt Romney winning this which is something I would have never thought last month. I'm sure everybody saw the VP debate. Look at this compilation of Joe Biden just snickering and grinning at Paul Ryan throughout the debate, Biden didn't take him seriously and it showed.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MNzmaAzjo

I think liberals have always held many great beliefs. Open mindedness, acceptance, or living in peace are great examples. The problem I've had with warming up to the left is that in large part the behavior exhibited, at least by many, is in direct contradiction of the beliefs they hold. I've seen this so many times in both my personal life and in prior politics as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

The video Above was composed in 2008 during a Pro McCain rally in New York. You see enless streams of middle fingers, insults, ugliness, and IMO childishness. At that time politics was already shifting for Democrats no matter what so it didn't really matter but this time around it very well could. Mitt Romney is pulling ahead in the polls and if things keep going like this, for the first time I'm feeling like he might win. Some are even predicting a landslide victory but I don't think it will be by a large a margin if he does pull it off. I predict He'll win NC which went to Obama in 2008, and Florida is now looking promising for him too.

Do Conservatives or Republicans act hateful or stupid too? Right now there's positive energy on the right side of politics but the obvious answer is absolutely. Stupidity is a human trait not a liberal or conservative trait. That being said I think something has happened to the left wing since the Bush era in that the positive and open minded message they hold in such high regard has been lost.


More videos I took....


(VID2) In the Still of the Night...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSJCsItFv0

This is when I first walked in, you'll hear some of the song in the still of the night performed by Ronnie Milsap. The civic center was full of positive energy that day and Mitt Romney supporters were really pumped up.



(VID3) Star Spangled Banner...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvOiFyhgFYQ

Again, sorry for the camera angles at moments.



(VID4) Congressional Candidate Mark Meadows (great speech and not long if these are getting boring).......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2vcqFMRPI




(VID5) Mike Huckabee speech and introducing Mitt Romney...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sYRO1GdCzg

Huckabee is my favorite politician on the scene today and has been since the 2008 elections. I voted for him in the primaries at that
time.



(VID6) Last bit of Romney's speech and Romney shaking some hands of supporters....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ZvVETsUnM



(VID7) More protesting on the way out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dh0RxHa9_c



This another look at the protesters and me making some comments to a Romney supporter standing next to me.

Me: It's Just negativity

Him: It's pretty sad when just 10 people show up ((probably more like 30 protesters but it wasn't much))

Me: Yea that's what Im thinking, in Asheville? It's amazing


I go on from their a little and the guy next to me goes on a bit about Big Bird and the guy dressed up like Big Bird. I didn't see Jim Henson though sad.gif

As a side note the Civic Center seats 8000 people and it filled to the max which I didn't expect either.

(VID8) This last video is the one I like the most of the ones I caught of the protesters, not because it was negative, quite the contrary this woman was respectful....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhgobHaHLhc


I ran out of available memory halfway through this one.

I looked for the most approachable protester I could find and initiated a conversation here, It was like a short debate. She was a self proclaimed independent but I could tell she was left leaning when I started talking with her. Out of respect I didn't point the camera at her but you can hear her pretty good.

This video is important because it's exactly what I'm looking for from anyone who is political. All the crazy things people say when they are worked up tend to be the things I've pointed out. I do this on debate sites like this and in my personal life sometimes because I'm tired of hearing it. None of this is worth losing sight of why you held your beliefs to begin with, whatever it is you do believe.

Anyway I guess that's enough of that.

Questions For Debate....

1. Has the left wing lost touch with some of the values they hold in high regard such as being accepting or tolerant?

2. Is campaign negativity going to effect President Obama's chances at getting reelected?

3. Could we be looking at an upset here? I know that it's still early but I'm seeing a major shift in support right now toward Romney.

4. What can president Obama do to redirect the momentum here?


This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 16 2012, 06:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
LoneWisdom
post Oct 20 2012, 05:57 AM
Post #41


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Then God knew that the child wasn't going to be aborted, right? So the child had supernatural protection. Would a woman who had her pregnancy terminated actually be able to thwart God's plan? Wouldn't God know that the fetus or embryo would not come into being then?
Since we can only go by our feelings about the truth of such issues, it would be up to the belief of the reader. Our belief in preordination would actually be irrelevant to the argument. Each of us have the unalienable right of free will. Each of us make our own choices, and we have to live with the choices made by others. Sometimes our choices influence the choices of others and vice versa.
QUOTE
Are you suggesting that this passage you cited is on a par with what the founder of Christianity said in the four Gospels?
No. Pro-life groups use preordination to claim the baby has a right to life in order to change the law. Defense of the unborn is a strong issue with some. Others just don't want to be funding the abortion, similar to some not wanting to fund the killing of others in war or the use of the death penalty. The law is supposed to protect the rights of all covered by it. We are probably at an impasse. The best argument for those not wanting to fund abortion is that it wasn't a role delegated to government, to fund abortion. The legality of abortion is a separate issue with similar arguments.

I believe the founder of Christianity was more interested in how we treated one another. He would probably be trying to give her comfort and be saddened by her despair, no matter if it was the result of a choice she had made or not. He would promote self-reflection. The laws we write would be our free will issues, based on compromises and agreements. He would leave that up to us to decide, with the choices they cause.
QUOTE
It really doesn't help the argument. This is not the forum in which to argue religion; but I felt it important to point out that "holy writ" is not consistent about how potential life is dealt with, nor can people claim with 100% certainty that they are God's agents when they would force women to carry pregnancies to term, regardless.
I agree. I believe the purpose of the book is more of a mirror, trying to help us understand our nature. When you use the term 'forcing them,' which argument are you making? The legal, funding, or both? There is a difference. Most of the arguments I've read you making have been about the legal one. Neither the legal nor the funding forces someone to carry. I understand this slips into economic hardships and safety issues as well. Does the mother have the right to 'force' others to fund or perform an abortion?
QUOTE
Our government is not supposed to be the extension of ANY religion.
Once again, I agree. I was trying to show the difference in views. People make choices all the time. It really isn't up to others to make those choices for them. I would hope those having to make choices that require the assistance of another consider that other person's right to choose also. Sometimes people argue that one person's right to choose gives them the right to force participation by others.

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Oct 20 2012, 06:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 20 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #42


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 07:15 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 19 2012, 07:37 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM) *
One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.


That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.


Well I saw that the 47% quote was losing it's effect before the second debate, which on Romney's part wasn't all that great. Jon Stewart is funny but IMO he has a political agenda that is left leaning, probably being the reason you mentioned him and liberals love him. Not to mention that I've watched his show and can see the motive behind his political pun's dating back to the Bush administration. Problem with listening to him is that he is focused on 10- 20 second public gafs or humorous moments often pulled out of context in the name of comedy, more so in his case then the politicians he focuses on. If he were a politician he'd be worse at pulling things out of context than Obama and Romney combined.

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part? Can we be that stupid to elect Obama again? You see it works both ways, and from my perspective Obama has had his chance and his misdirection is equal or greater to Romney's, that being said he's the one that's been president. Im thinking he knows he hasn't lived up to his promises and feels his chances are better if he focuses on Romney. In Romney's case he does that to help his chances of getting elected, which isn't good, however he isn't the one who's been president for four years, so I think the mischaracterization is hurting Obama more and the polls show it.


And I see things differently. Oh well, we'll see who's vision is more accurate to the outcome of this election.

It really doesn't matter when you claim to have detected the loss of impact about the 47%. Things have moved on, and people are now voting.

You are aware that Stewart & Co. are in the business to make jokes about anyone who does or says something joke-worthy, right? Or maybe not. It was been true that Republicans have provided way more material than Democrats for a really long time. It has kept the comedians in chocolates, but The Daily Show has also ripped Democrats when the jokes worked.

The point is to not defend Stewart but to remind you that he has a strong socializing influence on situations. When Romney made that huge blunder, it got more air time than was expected.

Actually, the polls aren't showing anything right now other than Obama is still beating Romney. Be that as it may, there's only one poll that counts, and that happens on Election Day. I've already contributed to that poll, whereas I can't say the same for any of the other polls.

Furthermore, you can't misjudge a guy who actually does the things claimed. Romney stepped in a pile of poo all by himself, and President Obama invited him to please proceed, Governor. It was a shining moment when the Republican candidate for POTUS parroted a lie promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine. While the 47% thing can be written off as a poor way of describing his campaign, this blunder reflects strongly on the man's mental powers.

There were a lot of other subtle things that Romney did during that performance, the entire debate, that reflected on who he is. More is to come.

Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, a mental condition in which you say one thing while doing another and pretending that there is no contradiction. Eh, it's late in the game, and that won't be a game-changer, but it is funny.

Meanwhile, it is true the President Obama has a record of performance on the job, whereas Romney has very little to go on than his time as governor and success at collecting piles of money while not doing a whole lot of anything that most people consider work. He worked the deals, as Trump would put it. If anything, the Romney campaign has been successful at turning this glaring weakness around into being a positive for a lot of people.

So, is the electorate going to hire this unknown walking contradiction or stick with a known entity? I think the latter. However, I do have to slow-clap the Romney campaign out of this election season. Nice try.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 20 2012, 11:14 AM
Post #43


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 07:15 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 19 2012, 07:37 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 01:53 AM) *
One last thing before I head to bed, the 47% thing that's been the primary focus of the Obama campaign in advertisements, and in debate has lost it's effect. There's only so much you can focus on a retracted quote. Not trying to be snarky but I really don't think it's working anymore.


That's probably true, having been replaced by Romney's horrible misrepresentation of what President Obama said in the Rose Garden right after the Libya killings. Romney wrapped himself around the lie promoted by the right so much that he actually believed in it strongly enough to think he had President Obama against the ropes.

But then this little thing called the truth came up and exposed the vehemently expressed lie. Jon Stewart popularized it, and onward the early voting goes.

Abortion and the Pentagon budget aside, I don't think the country will go with Romney now, not in the states where it counts. He is too easily influenced by far right-wing propaganda, aka, lies. There's one more debate to go, and maybe this season these debates will have an important impact on voters just making up their minds.

Heh, and the attempt at turning Romney's vague plans for the economy on President Obama probably aren't working either. Romney literally pulled a number out of his butt and tried to run with that. Man, can the electorate be that stupid? I don't think so, but then we may be talking about information-challenged undecided voters.


Well I saw that the 47% quote was losing it's effect before the second debate, which on Romney's part wasn't all that great. Jon Stewart is funny but IMO he has a political agenda that is left leaning, probably being the reason you mentioned him and liberals love him. Not to mention that I've watched his show and can see the motive behind his political pun's dating back to the Bush administration. Problem with listening to him is that he is focused on 10- 20 second public gafs or humorous moments often pulled out of context in the name of comedy, more so in his case then the politicians he focuses on. If he were a politician he'd be worse at pulling things out of context than Obama and Romney combined.

On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part? Can we be that stupid to elect Obama again? You see it works both ways, and from my perspective Obama has had his chance and his misdirection is equal or greater to Romney's, that being said he's the one that's been president. Im thinking he knows he hasn't lived up to his promises and feels his chances are better if he focuses on Romney. In Romney's case he does that to help his chances of getting elected, which isn't good, however he isn't the one who's been president for four years, so I think the mischaracterization is hurting Obama more and the polls show it.


And I see things differently. Oh well, we'll see who's vision is more accurate to the outcome of this election.

It really doesn't matter when you claim to have detected the loss of impact about the 47%. Things have moved on, and people are now voting.

You are aware that Stewart & Co. are in the business to make jokes about anyone who does or says something joke-worthy, right? Or maybe not. It was been true that Republicans have provided way more material than Democrats for a really long time. It has kept the comedians in chocolates, but The Daily Show has also ripped Democrats when the jokes worked.

The point is to not defend Stewart but to remind you that he has a strong socializing influence on situations. When Romney made that huge blunder, it got more air time than was expected.

Actually, the polls aren't showing anything right now other than Obama is still beating Romney. Be that as it may, there's only one poll that counts, and that happens on Election Day. I've already contributed to that poll, whereas I can't say the same for any of the other polls.

Furthermore, you can't misjudge a guy who actually does the things claimed. Romney stepped in a pile of poo all by himself, and President Obama invited him to please proceed, Governor. It was a shining moment when the Republican candidate for POTUS parroted a lie promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine. While the 47% thing can be written off as a poor way of describing his campaign, this blunder reflects strongly on the man's mental powers.

There were a lot of other subtle things that Romney did during that performance, the entire debate, that reflected on who he is. More is to come.

Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, a mental condition in which you say one thing while doing another and pretending that there is no contradiction. Eh, it's late in the game, and that won't be a game-changer, but it is funny.

Meanwhile, it is true the President Obama has a record of performance on the job, whereas Romney has very little to go on than his time as governor and success at collecting piles of money while not doing a whole lot of anything that most people consider work. He worked the deals, as Trump would put it. If anything, the Romney campaign has been successful at turning this glaring weakness around into being a positive for a lot of people.

So, is the electorate going to hire this unknown walking contradiction or stick with a known entity? I think the latter. However, I do have to slow-clap the Romney campaign out of this election season. Nice try.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 20 2012, 03:15 PM
Post #44


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(net2007 @ Oct 19 2012, 04:15 PM) *
On another note you ask if the electorate can be that stupid, however how much do you consider the mischaracterization of Romney on Obama's part?

What mischaracterization?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 20 2012, 03:24 PM
Post #45


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 20 2012, 05:01 PM
Post #46


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 20 2012, 01:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
Then God knew that the child wasn't going to be aborted, right? So the child had supernatural protection. Would a woman who had her pregnancy terminated actually be able to thwart God's plan? Wouldn't God know that the fetus or embryo would not come into being then?
Since we can only go by our feelings about the truth of such issues, it would be up to the belief of the reader. Our belief in preordination would actually be irrelevant to the argument. Each of us have the unalienable right of free will. Each of us make our own choices, and we have to live with the choices made by others. Sometimes our choices influence the choices of others and vice versa.[highlighting mine]
Yes, our choices do influence the choices of others. The question is whether the choice of a woman to make a decision that stands to affect the rest of her life should be infringed upon, threatened, and possibly eliminated by others who don't know her, don't know her circumstances, but think they can make value judgments and make the secular government force her to become a parent, or to bear yet another child. Freedom is freedom. Restriction is restriction. According to present laws, women have the right to use contraception (so do men) and also to terminate pregnancies. Anti-choice people are using a multi-pronged approach vis-a-vis waiting periods, stringent (even draconian) regulations for abortion clinics, and cutting back the time window to 20 weeks for women who seek abortions, through state legislation.

QUOTE(LoneWisdom)
Pro-life groups use preordination to claim the baby has a right to life in order to change the law. Defense of the unborn is a strong issue with some. Others just don't want to be funding the abortion, similar to some not wanting to fund the killing of others in war or the use of the death penalty. The law is supposed to protect the rights of all covered by it. We are probably at an impasse. The best argument for those not wanting to fund abortion is that it wasn't a role delegated to government, to fund abortion. The legality of abortion is a separate issue with similar arguments.
Except for one thing, LoneWisdom: ABORTION ISN'T FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. What these anti-choice people are doing is way beyond that.

QUOTE
I believe the founder of Christianity was more interested in how we treated one another. He would probably be trying to give her comfort and be saddened by her despair, no matter if it was the result of a choice she had made or not. He would promote self-reflection.
In that we agree. But would he consign her to bear the child of a rapist, or a child that could jeopardize her own life? The fact is, he said NOTHING that is contained in the Bible about it. However, it is abundantly clear in that rule book that people are to help, not hurt, other people who are in poverty or pain.

QUOTE
The laws we write would be our free will issues, based on compromises and agreements. He would leave that up to us to decide, with the choices they cause.
I highlighted the pertinent part. When you talk about free will, are you referring to all people, or just those who claim the moral high ground and want to impose their values on others?


QUOTE
When you use the term 'forcing them,' which argument are you making? The legal, funding, or both? There is a difference. Most of the arguments I've read you making have been about the legal one. Neither the legal nor the funding forces someone to carry. I understand this slips into economic hardships and safety issues as well. Does the mother have the right to 'force' others to fund or perform an abortion?

The government is not funding 3% of Planned Parenthood's operations which involves performing abortions. That is a smokescreen that the Republicans in the House of Representatives has been using to mollify the Right to Life contingent of their supporters. They keep writing bills that the government cannot fund abortions, and the government doesn't! It's an egregious waste of time, and I question the efficacy of any Congressperson who does this while Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and poverty. It's grandstanding, pure and simple.

Our government should stay out of it, period. No government funding, and no restriction of a medical procedure that is the business of a female and her health provider.

A woman cannot "force" any doctor to perform an abortion. I think it would be rather difficult to hold a gun to the doctor's head while lying on your back with your feet up in stirrups. You are definitely not in control when you're in that position!

QUOTE
Once again, I was trying to show the difference in views. People make choices all the time. It really isn't up to others to make those choices for them. I would hope those having to make choices that require the assistance of another consider that other person's right to choose also. Sometimes people argue that one person's right to choose gives them the right to force participation by others.
We have a formerly secularly-owned and managed hospital in town that was taken over by the Sisters of Mercy corporation. Abortions are no longer performed there. It is obvious that one side (and it isn't the pro-choice one) claims the right to refuse choice to the other side, regardless of what the individual gynecologists/obstetricians personally think about the procedure.

We should all be able to make our own choices. There are people who are denying the choices of others based on their own values, not the values of the women involved. That is wrong. This stands to affect all women of reproductive age, from the girl who has just had her first menstrual period to the woman who is in the active throes of menopause.

******************************************

Now, to give it relevance to this particular thread:

Romney has most recently taken the verbal position that he opposes abortion unless the conception is the result of rape or incest, or unless the life and health of the woman are at risk.

This same Romney said that if there were legislation that overturned Roe v. Wade, he would sign it. And he made no stipulations in that statement.

This is why I believe that no matter what some would say about all politicians being liars, or beholden to special interests, or not keeping their promises, and so it really doesn't matter who gets elected, it's the "same old same old," there are some very real, worrisome implications to a little over half of the American population if Barack Obama does NOT get re-elected.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 20 2012, 05:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 20 2012, 06:27 PM
Post #47


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem


Ah, so President Obama borrowed the term. It's still funny, and he has a bigger audience. The 47% bit has had its run and is now tired old trash. Everyone knows what Romney thinks about the little people out there who fight his wars that he is always in favor of, just not to the point of making any real sacrifice for them. Oh well, we've known that since rich people, even relatively rich, hired men to go to war for them during the Civil War.

At this point it goes without saying. That's not good news for the Romney campaign. The 47% thing has gone into the electorate's subconscious, and when the pens make their marks (chads punched out, touch screens touched), it'll drift to the surface. I'm wondering now where the women's vote will go, whether the current polls are accurate when giving Romney a slight edge in places like Colorado. My feeling is that he'll take this state with a paper thin margin, so chalk nine up for Mitt.

But then, there are margins of error . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 20 2012, 06:54 PM
Post #48


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,191
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

So, if I understand you correctly, President Barack Obama was wrong for using a single word that was coined by someone else without providing full documentation of the etymology of the word. Hey, it worked for a Republican in Michigan who ran on a campaign of "Vote for the Nerd." Very few voters took the time to look up the definition, learn that it was a word coined and used once by Dr. Seuss which then fell into popular use as an insult.

Could you imagine how cluttered our speeches and conversations would be if every single word was linked back, as yours was, to an ad for Mother Jones magazine?

But hey, it was also linked to Rosemary Woods, Richard Nixon's secretary who had the full resources of a recording system almost as sophisticated as Wal-Mart security. The 47% remark was apparently recorded on a cell phone that was smuggled past the Secret Service. (If I was writing the novel, I would have to place it in the hands of a trusted friend of the family who had been at the residence several days before and left a turned off phone taped behind a toilet tank.) I know that some cell phones are sophisticated, and can be used adroitly by teenagers. I recall that on Election Night eight years ago, I was carrying a cell phone which I was told could take photographs, access the Internet, etc. I still have troubles remembering that it is a push to talk walkie talkie; and if I push too often, it hangs up on the other person. I have yet to take a photograph and e-mail it to Walgreens to be developed.

So the only real link to Rosemary Woods seems to be that a paranoid potentially corrupt Republican candidate may have been caught by a recording device saying what he actually thought!

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Oct 20 2012, 06:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 20 2012, 07:22 PM
Post #49


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

I wonder if there is a President or candidate in history who HASN'T borrowed or stolen a line from somebody else...And if not, there are speech writers.

But regarding your comparison of a 2-minute gap in the surreptitious smart phone taping of Romney's Boca Raton fundraising dinner statements to Rosemary Woods' 18 minutes of missing tapes of all White House conversations, it's really irrelevant, because it's what we heard on the tapes, not what we didn't hear, that got the politicians into trouble.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 20 2012, 08:53 PM
Post #50


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 20 2012, 03:22 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...
Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...
...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

I wonder if there is a President or candidate in history who HASN'T borrowed or stolen a line from somebody else...And if not, there are speech writers.

But regarding your comparison of a 2-minute gap in the surreptitious smart phone taping of Romney's Boca Raton fundraising dinner statements to Rosemary Woods' 18 minutes of missing tapes of all White House conversations, it's really irrelevant, because it's what we heard on the tapes, not what we didn't hear, that got the politicians into trouble.


I don't think akaCG was criticizing President Obama as much as pointing out the error of my ways. That's fine, I'm really accustomed to it and take no offense at being corrected. Constant niggling at nits irritates me, but so far so good. I'll remain satisfied for being right on the big things, such as who is going to take Colorado this season. Problem is, I have no idea. This state likes to swing. If yard signs mean anything, Romney's a shoe-in.

We have no yard signs. We don't advertise our political affiliations for the neighbors, being as it's none of their bee's wax. Yet, some of them like to let the roaming thieves know that there are lots of salable items in the house, just research how to disable the advertised security systems. We keep the property looking natural (rough) and drive old vehicles. Even got a red X during the evacuation days. Dang, no red letter A? I guess that could be taken as Auspicious. Nope, not yet but getting there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 20 2012, 08:54 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Oct 20 2012, 02:54 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 20 2012, 07:14 AM) *
...Heh, President Obama coined a word: Romnesia, ...

Nope, he didn't. David Corn (the chap who, a little while ago, tried unsuccesfully to make a "game-changing" splash with the "47%" tape from which 2 minutes mysteriously went missing, a la Rosemary Woods) at Mother Jones magazine did, exactly 4 months ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...history-problem

So, if I understand you correctly, President Barack Obama was wrong for using a single word that was coined by someone else without providing full documentation of the etymology of the word. ...
...

Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand correctly. Or, rather, you chose to pretend that you didn't understand my point, for the sole purpose of concocting a straw man.

What a waste.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 20 2012, 09:49 PM
Post #52


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,191
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 20 2012, 04:54 PM) *
Unsurprisingly, you didn't understand correctly. Or, rather, you chose to pretend that you didn't understand my point, for the sole purpose of concocting a straw man.

I have a cat and no crops, ergo no need to build a straw man ...

You had a link to a post with a link to an advertisement for Mother Jones magazine which apparently had an argument that someone else was the first person to use a word which the President used in a speech...

QUOTE
What a waste.


This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Oct 20 2012, 09:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Oct 20 2012, 11:56 PM
Post #53


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



1. Has the left wing lost touch with some of the values they hold in high regard such as being accepting or tolerant?

I think the values people hold in high regard have always varied and are based on the subject being addressed, so I'm not sure we can clearly define losing touch.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
The question is whether the choice of a woman to make a decision that stands to affect the rest of her life should be infringed upon, threatened, and possibly eliminated by others who don't know her, don't know her circumstances, but think they can make value judgments and make the secular government force her to become a parent, or to bear yet another child.
Is that the question, or is it who gets to determine at what point the child has a right to live, and can it be enforceable? I've seen how extreme both sides have taken this issue, from contraceptives to partial birth abortions. My contention is, at some point the choice an individual makes is based on their own perceptions, and it has nothing to do with law or a woman's right to choose.

A woman that opts for a partial birth abortion and the abortionist that provides it are going to run into someone that will take extreme measures to stop it, consequences are irrelevant at this point. This is the free will issue I'm talking about, not the legal battle lines.

The point of equilibrium is a moving target and has been breached many times. Just having the right to choose doesn't insulate someone from the consequences of their choice. This battle line will keep moving until euthanasia becomes the privacy and freedom issue of the caregiver. Pre-WWII Germany comes to mind as an example. At some point people need to understand the limitations of government to protect their perceptions of privacy and freedoms.

QUOTE
ABORTION ISN'T FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
I believe Medicaid programs say different, and when ACA becomes fully implemented, some publicly subsidized insurance programs for the poor will cover abortion. Also, the size and scope of federally subsidized programs make this assertion unprovable. It becomes a wordsmith game of legalese interpretations, but funding wasn't really my main point. We can't track the final destination of every dollar distributed by our welfare programs and subsidies. Our dollars become enablers for some pretty rough stuff out in the real world.

QUOTE
But would he consign her to bear the child of a rapist, or a child that could jeopardize her own life?
I don't believe he would play any role other than that of a teacher and comforter.

QUOTE
When you talk about free will, are you referring to all people, or just those who claim the moral high ground and want to impose their values on others?
The free will of all people. He would leave us to work out our differences, including our power struggles.

QUOTE
We should all be able to make our own choices. There are people who are denying the choices of others based on their own values, not the values of the women involved. That is wrong.
It can be wrong, but it doesn't change reality. The free will of all people still plays a role in what can be accepted or tolerated. That also needs to be taken into consideration when making a choice. Making it irrelevant doesn't make it go away, except in an ideal world, but then we wouldn't be dealing with unwanted pregnancies any more... or war, disease, famine, genocide, Democide, overpopulation, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 21 2012, 03:11 AM
Post #54


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(LoneWisdom)
I believe Medicaid programs say different, and when ACA becomes fully implemented, some publicly subsidized insurance programs for the poor will cover abortion. Also, the size and scope of federally subsidized programs make this assertion unprovable. It becomes a wordsmith game of legalese interpretations, but funding wasn't really my main point. We can't track the final destination of every dollar distributed by our welfare programs and subsidies. Our dollars become enablers for some pretty rough stuff out in the real world.

I look forward to reading your documentation of this.

As far as partial birth abortions go, certain medical criteria need to be met before a late term abortion is undertaken. There has to be a reason to do it.

QUOTE
Is that the question, or is it who gets to determine at what point the child has a right to live, and can it be enforceable?
A child gets to live at birth. It has been that way for centuries. I think the actual question might be, is a woman's life or the course of her life less important than a product of coitus that is a potential life? Are women and their rights less important than the right of a potential life? And just where is it written that a government has the right to determine the course of a private citizen's life who has not broken the law?

That is where the holy book of some inhabitants of this country is nowhere near as specific as they would like it to be, despite their religious proclivity. Yes, they can point to a passage in Jeremiah about God knowing them before conception, but that is a pretty weak argument in the case of dogma.

Again, relating this to the subject of the thread, if there is a group of non-pro-Romney demonstrators at a Romney rally, they can certainly carry placards stating their opposition to one of Romney's positions against the rights of women to make their own reproductive choices, because Romney has said that he will sign legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance as President. They needn't be nasty about it, though, any more than the righties need to call pro-choice politicians "baby killers." It's a two-way street, but the difference here is that these politicians take it upon themselves to enact legislation to deny women the choices that have been guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution, whereas Barack Obama (for instance) has never been documented as urging a woman to have an abortion or making that choice for her.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 21 2012, 04:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Oct 21 2012, 07:00 AM
Post #55


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(LoneWisdom)
I believe Medicaid programs say different, and when ACA becomes fully implemented, some publicly subsidized insurance programs for the poor will cover abortion.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
I look forward to reading your documentation of this.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf
QUOTE
The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. In addition, as of 2008, 32 states and the District of Columbia had prohibited the use of their state Medicaid funds for abortions except in the limited cases allowed under the Amendment.
...
Approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.
It seems three-fourths still find a way without state subsidies specifically for abortion. online2long.gif

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/
QUOTE
Strictly speaking, the new law does not provide direct federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother the same rules that now apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families.
I was under the impression that this was well known, so I have to assume you were talking about abortions other than these. This is just clarifying that Medicaid and ACA do fund abortions. Factcheck goes on to address other concerns like publicly subsidized insurance plans on the state exchanges (executive order for HHS and OMB guidelines within 180 days) and Community Health Centers not being restricted (currently don't do abortions; currently restricted by executive order, but not part of the law; can be replaced with a new executive order by the President.)

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
That is where the holy book of some inhabitants of this country is nowhere near as specific as they would like it to be, despite their religious proclivity. Yes, they can point to a passage in Jeremiah about God knowing them before conception, but that is a pretty weak argument in the case of dogma.
I agree. It's not the purpose of the passage or the book, and should be irrelevant to the issue. Predestination and preordination are specifically spiritual beliefs. Free will would be a component of both. We have no way of knowing the exact status of the unborn, spiritually, or those that have been born. With some, we're no different from all the other animals, intelligence notwithstanding. For all we know, a saved soul might pass with every menstrual cycle, never having to enter this dark world... or not. innocent.gif

QUOTE
It's a two-way street, but the difference here is that these politicians take it upon themselves to enact legislation to deny women the choices that have been guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution
I know it's not the same thing, but I feel the same way when I'm denied a permit to do the plumbing and electrical on a house, or have to adhere to some other union instigated state police power denying me the right to contract. whistling.gif

I understand your concerns. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where I've seen a guy come charging out of his house with a shotgun because a neighbor was abusing his own dog, and people risk their lives and get killed to stop whalers, reactions to graphic representations of abortions or having an abortion mill in your area can get quite extreme. Some people are horrified by it and it's not based on religion. People have reactions that have nothing to do with religion and law, and probably always will. I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Oct 21 2012, 07:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 21 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #56


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I understand your concerns. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where I've seen a guy come charging out of his house with a shotgun because a neighbor was abusing his own dog, and people risk their lives and get killed to stop whalers, reactions to graphic representations of abortions or having an abortion mill in your area can get quite extreme. Some people are horrified by it and it's not based on religion. People have reactions that have nothing to do with religion and law, and probably always will.


That's true. Especially when anyone can post a picture of a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and claim any reason the baby was "aborted". People have a visceral reaction to images of dead or disfigured infants (the reason for the apocryphal "depleted uranium baby" photos). This is common practice on anti-abortion sites, as the participants would find it very hard to get a good graphic image of an actual medically aborted embryo/fetus, but it's far easier to find the non-medically aborted variety in hospitals. I once brought this up on an abortion debate and the participant was adamant that I was wrong, so I pointed to the hospital armband on one ostensible "aborted baby". He refused to even acknowledge it. So although people might object to abortion for non-religious reasons, debating abortion is very much like debating religion.

QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif


I don't think this is inconsistency. People eat meat everyday and if we are comparing the level of pain and cognitive development between a pig and a 1-10 week old embryo there is no earthly comparison. See first paragraph, last sentence, above.

per the topic: Net2007, nothing has changed. Politics are usually ugly on both sides. The typical Conservative is more likely to silently fire the 'noted' cannon and people who are more liberal are more likely to engage in theatrics like wearing the big bird costume and yelling, singing, dancing. That is a generalization, but essentially accurate. I don't see the average Romney supporter from the country club getting spun up at an Obama rally or doing an improvisational dance. If you are interested in truly considered comparison, go to at least one Obama rally and talk to the folks there and then compare notes. I did that quite a lot in college (not that I was doing this sort of "research", but I first supported a **Democratic candidate who lost in the primary and I then became very supportive of the Republican presidential candidate at the time, getting a good view of both worlds...their behaviors aren't so different).

**I still maintain that if Tsongas didn't have a speech impediment 911 would never have happened. I believe the same if Bush senior had been reelected. But that's an alternate reality almost, but not quite, as pointless as discussing the impact had one extra unborn person on the earth been born (which would obviously likely impact other births which may or may not have happened due to that birth. I know my first son didn't sleep at all, so I wasn't going to have another for several years, though I had wanted about five in relatively quick succession before his birth and had our second been born first I probably would have...I've also known couples to split up after the birth of a particularly difficult infant, changing the potential course of lots of people's lives. No one likes to admit their offspring adversely impacted their lives, but it is more the norm than the exception, undiplomatic as that assertion may be. People who shouldn't get married do and people who are married happily aren't after. Children change everything...I know a woman who had three babies in two years and then found she was pregnant even with an IUD in the third year. I'm reasonably sure that impacted her married life....especially considering she couldn't even figure out when they had had sex the entire month in which the conception happened. There are as many individual circumstances as there are people on earth, throw severely handicapped children in there) Just sayin'. mellow.gif

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 21 2012, 01:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 21 2012, 05:32 PM
Post #57


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 21 2012, 08:24 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I understand your concerns. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where I've seen a guy come charging out of his house with a shotgun because a neighbor was abusing his own dog, and people risk their lives and get killed to stop whalers, reactions to graphic representations of abortions or having an abortion mill in your area can get quite extreme. Some people are horrified by it and it's not based on religion. People have reactions that have nothing to do with religion and law, and probably always will.


That's true. Especially when anyone can post a picture of a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) and claim any reason the baby was "aborted". People have a visceral reaction to images of dead or disfigured infants (the reason for the apocryphal "depleted uranium baby" photos). This is common practice on anti-abortion sites, as the participants would find it very hard to get a good graphic image of an actual medically aborted embryo/fetus, but it's far easier to find the non-medically aborted variety in hospitals. I once brought this up on an abortion debate and the participant was adamant that I was wrong, so I pointed to the hospital armband on one ostensible "aborted baby". He refused to even acknowledge it. So although people might object to abortion for non-religious reasons, debating abortion is very much like debating religion.

QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif


I don't think this is inconsistency. People eat meat everyday and if we are comparing the level of pain and cognitive development between a pig and a 1-10 week old embryo there is no earthly comparison. See first paragraph, last sentence, above.

I also see no inconsistency in abhorring cruelty to animals and being on the side of women who, for whatever reason, seek abortions in safe environments and performed by medical doctors. Wouldn't making abortion illegal be cruelty to women? I think so, and the crux of the debate then becomes who has more rights, the woman or the fetus? To me it's hands down the woman. For others, they seem to forget that an adult is involved. All the focus goes to the fetus.

Regarding human behavior in election seasons, what is worse: yelling at someone with an opposing opinion or attempting to disenfranchise voters? To me it's the latter and for others it's the former. Still, when it comes down to which action hurts the democratic process more, it's hard to argue that yelling is in the same league.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 22 2012, 02:26 AM
Post #58


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2012, 10:32 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif



I also see no inconsistency in abhorring cruelty to animals and being on the side of women who, for whatever reason, seek abortions in safe environments and performed by medical doctors. Wouldn't making abortion illegal be cruelty to women? I think so, and the crux of the debate then becomes who has more rights, the woman or the fetus? To me it's hands down the woman. For others, they seem to forget that an adult is involved. All the focus goes to the fetus.



I think what Lone Wisdom is getting that is that for some, born animals > human zygote/embryo/fetus.

What then say you to the people who treat all born animals, human and otherwise, as creatures that do not deserve pain, neglect, or 'murder.'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 22 2012, 04:22 AM
Post #59


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,344
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 21 2012, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2012, 10:32 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif



I also see no inconsistency in abhorring cruelty to animals and being on the side of women who, for whatever reason, seek abortions in safe environments and performed by medical doctors. Wouldn't making abortion illegal be cruelty to women? I think so, and the crux of the debate then becomes who has more rights, the woman or the fetus? To me it's hands down the woman. For others, they seem to forget that an adult is involved. All the focus goes to the fetus.



I think what Lone Wisdom is getting that is that for some, born animals > human zygote/embryo/fetus.

What then say you to the people who treat all born animals, human and otherwise, as creatures that do not deserve pain, neglect, or 'murder.'


I say it's your choice to go that way, and I have no say in your making that choice. It's all about choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 22 2012, 01:49 PM
Post #60


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2012, 09:22 PM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Oct 21 2012, 10:26 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2012, 10:32 AM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 21 2012, 03:00 AM) *
I think the point to net2007's question was connected to inconsistencies in moral outrage by the left, where their attitudes toward the defense of animals displays an entirely different behavior when comparing them to ending pregnancies. unsure.gif



I also see no inconsistency in abhorring cruelty to animals and being on the side of women who, for whatever reason, seek abortions in safe environments and performed by medical doctors. Wouldn't making abortion illegal be cruelty to women? I think so, and the crux of the debate then becomes who has more rights, the woman or the fetus? To me it's hands down the woman. For others, they seem to forget that an adult is involved. All the focus goes to the fetus.



I think what Lone Wisdom is getting that is that for some, born animals > human zygote/embryo/fetus.

What then say you to the people who treat all born animals, human and otherwise, as creatures that do not deserve pain, neglect, or 'murder.'


I say it's your choice to go that way, and I have no say in your making that choice. It's all about choice.


I'm inclined to agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 18th, 2018 - 12:17 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.