Hello:

Didja hear?? Romney is gonna appoint somebody like BORK (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/16/robert-bork-on-romney-obama-and-biden.html) to the Supreme Court? There goes your contraceptives, among other hard fought for rights...

excon

Where exactly does it say Romney is going to appoint someone like Bork and take away your contraceptives?

Where exactly does it say Romney is going to appoint someone like Bork and take away your contraceptives?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know about you, but a skilled political operative like myself CAN connect the dots.. He DID appoint Bork to be a senior legal adviser. I presume it's because of his views. You probably think he's just a good lunch partner..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Ah, so like NK you like to argue from a lack of evidence. Smart. Very smart.

Ah, so like NK you like to argue from a lack of evidence.Hello again, Steve:

So, you DO think he's along just for luncheon conversation... Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Remember excon - only THEY can connect the dots in their threads. Any non-conservative must be ridiculed for doing the same thing.

Remember excon - only THEY can connect the dots in their threads. Any non-conservative must be ridiculed for doing the same thing.

Not at all, I just won't waste my time trying to connect your nonexistent dots. Or ex's for that matter, it's a huge leap from Bork being a campaign adviser to a "back door approach to taking away your contraceptives" and Romney nominating a guy like Bork. If I had made that leap I feel quite confident your answer would have been something like mine, where did the article say that?

Not only that, but we're expected to avoid daring to connect any dots from Obama to anyone or virtually anything, such as the Solyndra boondoggle or Bill Ayers. You guys made the rules, don't get upset that I'm playing by them.

You guys made the rules, don't get upset that I'm playing by them.Hello again, Steve:

You adopt mine. I'll adopt yours. Works for me.

Didn't you say that making Van Jones a czar PROVES Obama is a commie? I ain't going to look, but I'll bet you did.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You adopt mine. I'll adopt yours. Works for me.

Didn't you say that making Van Jones a czar PROVES Obama is a commie?? I ain't gonna look, but I'll bet you did.

excon

Actually (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birthers-again-393409-3.html#post1964071) I called Van Jones a "racist, socialist, radical of an idiot" and along with his other pals like Jeremiah Wright and Ayers alluded to Obama's "radical leanings." But I don't believe I've ever called Obama a commie.

That's funny... now Romney is being Borked .

I think Romney is being Romneyed - he's doing it to himself LOL!

I think Romney is being Romneyed - he's doing it to himself LOL!

Seems quite plain that ex is doing the Borking here. What is this aversion you seem to have to actual evidence?

I was offering my opinion. Is that OK?

Seems quite plain that ex is doing the Borking here. What is this aversion you seem to have to actual evidence?Hello again, Steve:

Ok, I guess you didn't like my luncheon idea. Let me see. Bork is a legal adviser to Romney. Although I don't have EVIDENCE, I can presume that he's advising him on legal positions. I can further presume that those positions ARE HIS positions, which are widely known.

Now, it's true, Romney doesn't have to listen to Bork.. He COULD dismiss him from his campaign... But, he hasn't... You wonder why. I don't.

excon

Bork thought the Griswold decision was wrong... BUT ,thought the law banning contraceptives was "nutty" .

Just waiting for you to find some actual dots to connect.

Just waiting for you to find some actual dots to connect.Hello again, Steve:

Like your hitters, you wouldn't know a dot if I lobbed one in at 74 MPH.

excon

PS> NK's going to LOVE this.

Hello again, Steve:

Like your hitters, you wouldn't know a dot if I lobbed one in at 74 MPH.

excon

PS> NK's gonna LOVE this.

I'm going to love it too. I guess you haven't checked my batters lately. Bwa ha ha ha!!

PS> NK's gonna LOVE this.
http://www.rising-dead.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif

At the end of the day it's only a website that the same 6 people see every day.

Actually there are 5 of us. Its fun, like having breakfast together. Right, left, and the middle.

I'm having breakfast on my own I think I'll have borkin and egg

borkin (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=borkin)?

borkin (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=borkin)?G'day, Mate:

Borkin is Australian for bacon.

excon

I would hope so.

No Ex is wrong I was speaking kiwi at the time

You were speaking pretty good English except for 'borkin.'

You were speaking pretty good English except for 'borkin.'

Hey it's a joke, have you no sense of humour

Bork Rinds... ok, I tried.

Bork Rinds...ok, I tried.

Look the kiwi has a speech impediment

So borkin and aigs, fush and chups, newspapers come from a dairy, you really don't want to know more

Hey its a joke, have you no sense of humour

Don't accuse me of being a liberal, I have a great sense of humor. Just a communication barrier, we have those here, too.

rcwfNyriJmo

Don't accuse me of being a liberal, I have a great sense of humor. Just a communication barrier, we have those here, too.

rcwfNyriJmo

Yes I've noticed

Hello again,

This video (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina)about sums it up. Republican women speak.

excon

PS> Ok, maybe they're not Republicans..

I want the Democrats to stop using my womanhood for their mostly liberal propaganda and then obessing over my vagina. I want the Republicans to stop giving the Democrats reasons to be delusional because they think Republicans are trying to control my vagina.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE&feature=player_embedded

Personally not interested in taking the debate to this level

The whole issue is a phony canard. Republicans held the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years ,including 2 terms each of the 2 conservative Republicans . They also had control of the House of Representatives for a decade until 2006... and again in the current session of Congress. In all that time ,not once was there a move by either executive action ,or legislation that threatened the availabiltiy of contraceptions .
Now we are to believe that a moderate former Governor of Mass. Is more conservative than Goldwater (in Obama's words ),and that contraception availability is threatened . The truth is that the only changes proposed are by the radical POTUS and his Commisars who now think that contracpetion should not only be a "right " ,but also a "free" entitlement .

As I said ,it is a canard and a diversion . The President doesn't want us to dwell on the fact that the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in the last 30 years .

Canard isn't that some sort of duck, you know quacks like, waddles like, etc and that's the way I see this argument

The whole issue is a phony canard. Republicans held the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years ,including 2 terms each of the 2 conservative Republicans . They also had control of the House of Representatives for a decade until 2006 ...and again in the current session of Congress. In all that time ,not once was there a move by either executive action ,or legislation that threatened the availabiltiy of contraceptions .
Now we are to believe that a moderate former Governor of Mass. is more conservative than Goldwater (in Obama's words ),and that contraception availability is threatened . The truth is that the only changes proposed are by the radical POTUS and his Commisars who now think that contracpetion should not only be a "right " ,but also a "free" entitlement .

As I said ,it is a canard and a diversion . The President doesn't want us to dwell on the fact that the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in the last 30 years .

But now all of a sudden there is a big push, both state and congress to go backward. What happened? Oh that's right, the job creators saw a democrat coming to clean up the mess so they hid the mop, broom, and bucket, and robbed the piggy bank blind, and blamed the new guy, and told the cops he went that away. Said it best, Mitts only job is to keep the pen hand loose and just sign where they tell him too!

Everybody signs what Grover says to sign. Mitt doesn't care, he gets paid handsomely for it.

I'm just laughing because the left won't be all Grover and Karl screw over, the right will be as poor as the left, that is if they do what the big boys want. They have already won the class war, so it's a sweat shop or nothing for the rest of us, you too Tom.

You can explain to us over peanut butter and beans how Mitt saved the world. Naw cancel that, I'll be marching to Washington, want me to pick you up on the way? Have your own gas money though!

Romney is on theme, jobs ,pro -growth and Federal finances.Hopefully he'll add flat taxes . Obama is left to defend the undefendable ;blame shift ,trash talk, and concoct phony fringe issues.

I guess he can take heart in the fact that Sarko lost to the commie Hollande in France today. Why go into austerity when there are still German Euros to spend ?

Why is anyone talking about vaginas? Why not prostates? This is the silliest election cycle I think I've ever seen.

Why is anyone talking about vaginas? Why not prostates? Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you missed it, but right wing states are passing LAWS that require a foreign object be put all UP INSIDE the vaginas of women who are seeking a legal abortion.. They're NOT passing laws about prostates..

excon

That's already been debunked (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/righty-wish-list-635972-3.html#post3029978) as more left-wing hysteria about nothing. I'm just waiting for you Obamanoids to start bragging about his excellent record of rebuilding the economy, creating jobs... oh wait, he HAS no record to brag about. But like all leftists he is excellent with a cliche (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/read-president-obamas-speech-kicking-off-his-reelection-campaign/2012/05/06/gIQAda1s5T_blog.html):


Not now. Not with so much at stake. This isn't just another election. This is a make-or-break moment for America's middle class. We've been through much to turn back now. We've come too far to abandon the change we fought for these past few years. Virginia, we've got to move forward, to the future that we imagined in 2008. We've got to move forward to that future where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.

That's the choice in this election. And that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States of America.

Oh yeah ,I heard that one ! That was the speech he gave to the half empty arena this weekend !

That's the one, an empty speech to an empty arena by an empty suit.

That's the one, an empty speech to an empty arena by an empty suit.Hello again, Steve:

I call your half filled basketball arena, and raise you an EMPTY (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/mitt-romney-economic-speech-falls-flat-stadium) football stadium for an important Romney speech.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Dude, that was over 2 months ago and was the result of security issues (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romney-camp-not-to-blame-for-empty-stadium-organizers-say.php). Obama's was over the weekend and was the result of leading from behind armed with nothing but clichés.

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Why is anyone talking about vaginas? Why not prostates?


excon;3109695]Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you missed it, but right wing states are passing LAWS that require a foreign object be put all UP INSIDE the vaginas of women who are seeking a legal abortion.. They're NOT passing laws about prostates..

Hold on now... he does have a GOOD point since the owners of prostates should have EQUAL accountability. GREAT idea, let's start inserting foreign objects in your private parts and invading your family jewels…it's ALL NUT*S anyway.

I plead the Fifth and I didn't drink the Kool-Aid either.

The day I can push out a baby through my prostate is the day I'll say men must have an intrarectal ultrasound prior to an abortion. But since that's impossible it's as pointless as the hysteria over something that's already done by the abortion provider (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-36.html#post3036477) in the majority of cases anyway.

P.S. Did you all know Obama was attacking women all along with his billions in budget cuts? Anderson Cooper discusses (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/03/acd.01.html):


COOPER: President Obama himself agreed to take money out. His budget, in fact, for 2013 specifies taking billions of dollars out for this. But you don’t say he’s targeting women, do you? I haven’t heard MoveOn.org say President Obama is targeting women’s health, that the Democrats are targeting women’s health five months ago. Now it’s Republicans targeting women’s health because they are wanting to do it.

RUBEN: You know, the fact is you have — we have millions of –

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So when –

RUBEN: — MoveOn members who benefit from programs –

COOPER: So when President Obama –

RUBEN: Rely on these programs — COOPER: Wanted to –

RUBEN: We fight president — we’ve fought President Obama all the time.

COOPER: So — so where’s your ad for — where’s your ad saying President Obama is targeting women?

RUBEN: We’ve run ads against President Obama. But the fact is if you want to look at who is consistently targeting women, who is — you know, who’s the party that’s trying to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, who is the party that has consistently been trying to cut funding for cervical cancer and Pap smears? That’s the Republicans.

And we’re going to call that out. And of course they’re going to try to dodge and get away from that. But the fact is, it’s true. There are over $200 million of 2013 funding that they are zeroing out.

COOPER: And Obama’s 2013 budget when –

RUBEN: And the bottom line is this is — we shouldn’t be having this conversation. Why are we having a conversation — look, you have student loan rates –

COOPER: Because my job is to report on facts. Not to meet your agenda. And when President Obama suggests in his 2012 budget cutting billions of dollars from this, I don’t see a MoveOn.org ad saying President Obama is attacking women. You only seem to be targeting Republicans because that meets your political agenda.

RUBEN: I just — I just don’t think that’s true. I mean look –

COOPER: So when President Obama wants to cut money from this, that’s not targeting women?

RUBEN: President Obama wants to — look, was it a problem –

COOPER: Yes or no? Does that target women when President Obama wants to take billions of dollars out of this?

RUBEN: When President Obama is taking billions of dollars out of this, that’s wrong and will have a disproportionate effect on women.

COOPER: So he’s targeting women.

So why is no one attacking Obama for his "war on women?"

Obama is a surgeon. The conservatives are axe wielding slashers, and Romney is the vehicle to rubber stamp their slashing so he will get rich. That's what happens when a corporate equity raider marries the far right.

A horror movie for the American people.

I don't know Tal he might consoldiate a few banks and merge a few auto makers and tidy up that untidy clutter of untilities

Obama is a surgeon. The conservatives are axe wielding slashers, and Romney is the vehicle to rubber stamp their slashing so he will get rich. Thats what happens when a corporate equity raider marries the far right.

A horror movie for the American people.

"Obama is a surgeon"

I don't know about that, but what about him having brain surgery?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-these-pics-suggest-obama-had-brain-surgery-new-theory-says-yes/

"conservatives are axe wielding slashers"

No folks, it's not the Apocalypse, yet…and don't you mean conservatives are [TAX and SPENDING] wielding slashers..

"Romney is the vehicle to rubber stamp their slashing so he will get rich"

Get rich? What's your point?. Romney's already rich to the tune of $250 Million. We need his stamp of approval so we can all become more self-sufficient and self-reliable.

"Corporate equity raider marries the far right"

Thank goodness he sees the trees in the forest and knows which ones to chop down for the good of the Nation... We the people...

"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Abraham Lincoln

I don't know Tal he might consolidate a few banks and merge a few auto makers and tidy up that untidy clutter of utilities

If its profitable he will but that consolidates all the banking industry into a huge monopoly, and that means trimming of duplication, and no competition. But making utility and infrastructure upgrades is needed, but good luck making them use their enormous profits for such things, as our conservatives don't believe in bridges and roads so forget electricity, and cable.

Hello new rightie(?), welcome aboard.


QUOTE by FirstChair;"Obama is a surgeon"

I don't know about that, but what about him having brain surgery?
Do These Pics Show Obama's Had Brain Surgery? Wacky New Theory Says 'Yes' | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-these-pics-suggest-obama-had-brain-surgery-new-theory-says-yes/)
The numbers don't lie, the private sector has grown 4 million jobs, look it up, and has already eclipsed the dismal job creating of the Bush years, slow, but steady, the jobs being lost are in the private sector, you know the ones that employ your neighbors, cops and teachers, all y the states by governments. But the best example is the Auto industry, jobs saved, industry retooled and expanding. Unlike the republican wish to make it disappear, and claiming the assets, both in products, inventory, and workers pensions.


"conservatives are axe wielding slashers"

No folks, it's not the Apocalypse, yet…and don't you mean conservatives are [TAX and SPENDING] wielding slashers..

No, I meant the far right nut jobs who are to paranoid to work with others for reasonable solutions that help us all, and who believe it's their way or the highway. You aren't one of those are you?


"Romney is the vehicle to rubber stamp their slashing so he will get rich"

Get rich? What's your point?. Romney's already rich to the tune of $250 Million. We need his stamp of approval so we can all become more self-sufficient and self-reliable.

You won't do it by making him even richer that's for sure, but you wingers think he will save you from yourselves. Read his plan for yourself, he makes sure he gets much richer, and your kids and you will pay for it. Explain how that makes you self reliant, and self sufficient? It makes you broke is what it does, YOU, as well as me! Funny how that works when you vote to screw yourself, and think you are screwing me!



"Corporate equity raider marries the far right"

Thank goodness he sees the trees in the forest and knows which ones to chop down for the good of the Nation... We the people...

Your people, what about us on the left? Or in the middle? I thought we the people meant all the people, not just the chosen people.


"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Abraham Lincoln[

You righties are an embarrassment to poor Abe, I assume you are a rightie, but I could be wrong.

No, I meant the far right nut jobs who are to paranoid to work with others for reasonable solutions that help us all, and who believe it's their way or the highway. You aren't one of those are you?

Lol reasonable solutions ? The left doesn't even want to slow the growth of government.. Your idea of reasonable solutions can be found in the Fabian's playbook . So long as the progressive agenda gets advanced ,you'll settle for a slow and steady progress... in the spirit of compromise of course . So your President starts his negotiation position with a radical idea... like forcing churches to pay for "free " contraception... and then settles for their insurance paying for it .

Lol reasonable solutions ? The left doesn't even want to slow the growth of government.. Your idea of reasonable solutions can be found in the Fabian's playbook . So long as the progressive agenda gets advanced ,you'll settle for a slow and steady progress... in the spirit of compromise of course .

It would be steadier and faster if you gys would help instead of holler. When there is a grand deal you guys run away, so nothing gets done. Or filibuster so nothing gets done. Or critisize others for not doing enough, when in truth, its the right who have done nothing.You thing because we call you the right, you think you are right, but in truth you guys don't work with anything thats not a HOLY owed subsidiary of your own thinking.


So your President starts his negotiation position with a radical idea... like forcing churches to pay for "free " contraception... and then settles for their insurance paying for it .

They were already paying for them, and have been, Where have you been?? But it makes a better right wing argument when you say the church pays for them.......see what I mean about hollering and running? The rights agenda to destroy the government of the people, from within, and replace it with an oligarchy will FAIL!

The best example I can give besidees the right wing congress stopping job creation, is the death panels that you righties hollered about, and when they didn't appear, you made them yourseves at the state level. Then blamed it on some one else. Its the right wing thats say the have good intentions(?), but trying to take us straight to hell.

Say it with me its our country, not just yours!!!

Bet you can't say it because you think its all your country!

Your grand deals always move forward your agenda. I see no basis for a grand deal when the goals are so different . You want to expand the size ,power ,and scope of the Federal government.. I want it reduced. There is no grand compromise for that . You holler about Ryan ;you call his plan draconian. I say reducing the rate of government growth is not all that draconian . The plans put out by the Repubics are already a compromise in my book . I hold my nose and support them because right now there is nothing better for me to support.

You want to expand the size ,power ,and scope of the Federal government .. I want it reduced. Hello again, tom:

It's right wing spin. It's just not so. If it IS, could you find a Democrat to quote??

I want it REDUCED too. I just want to do it DIFFERENTLY than you. So does Obama.. That's what the grand bargain was about, after all.

So, as long as we talk PASSED each other, ain't nothing going to get done. Politically, the right wing thinks doing NOTHING is going to be blamed on Obama. It's ALL about politics. You remember what the FIRST thing Mitch McConnell said... And, that's what he's done.

The question is, can you continue to fool the public... I'm not sure you can't. The public ain't real bright, and you're COUNTING on it.

excon

Obama is a surgeon.

Then he should definitely be sued for malpractice.

I want it REDUCED too. I just wanna do it DIFFERENTLY than you. So does Obama..

Bahahahahahahaha!! That must be why he wants to force religious organizations to surrender their constitutional rights and bow to his agenda and submit an absurd $3.8 trillion budget that even Dems wouldn't consider.

I want a government that protects and serves, ALL of us. You don't want a government, you want a master.

Your way, or no way huh?? Well you ain't getting my piece of the pie to impress your masters. And your Paul Ryan prays to Ayn Rand,

Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ? Conservatives Can't Have It Both Ways | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/155239/ayn_rand_or_jesus_christ_conservatives_can%27t_hav e_it_both_ways?akid=8709.225075.MuhmA9&rd=1&t=24)

I see why you hold your nose, can't blame you!

Bahahahahahahaha!!!!! Hello again, Steve:

You're just pissed that I took my rightful place in our league. FIRST! And, it's, bWa ha ha ha.

excon

I want a government that protects and serves, ALL of us. You don't want a government, you want a master.

Says the guy who defends Big Brother himself (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/07/obama-administration-security-official-w).


Obama Administration Security Official: We Don't Need to Subpoena Reporters Anymore Because We Already Know Who They're Talking To

Peter Suderman | May 7, 2012

You can still find a bold bullet point on Change.gov—a set of promises direct from "the office of the President-elect"—that insists Obama will "protect whistleblowers" within the government.

"We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance," it says. "Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government."

But as Edward Wasserman points out, you can't find much evidence of this protection in the Obama administration's lengthy record of attacks on individuals who've actually helped get out information about the government during Obama's term.

Wasserman's blistering indictment of the Obama administration's hyper-aggressive pursuit of government whistleblowers, first delivered at April's Logan Symposium on Investigative Journalism, is worth reading in full. But the following bit is particularly terrifying:


The public is generally unaware of how essential nominally classified information is to coverage of diplomatic and strategic news. As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ government secrecy project, put it: “The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than ‘authorized’ news.”

What’s behind the administration’s fervor isn’t clear, but the news media have largely rolled over and yawned. A big reason is that prosecutors aren’t hassling reporters as they once did. Thanks to the post-9/11 explosion in government intercepts, electronic surveillance, and data capture of all imaginable kinds — the NSA is estimated to have intercepted 15-20 trillion communications in the past decade — the secrecy police have vast new ways to identify leakers.

So they no longer have to force journalists to expose confidential sources. As a national security representative told Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “We’re not going to subpoena reporters in the future. We don’t need to. We know who you’re talking to.”

Investigative reporters are supposed to be the ones keeping an eye on the government. Instead, it turns out, it's the other way around.

Wasserman, who is the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington & Lee University, frames his argument as a challenge to the press to stand up to the administration's attack on journalistic sourcing. I'd certainly like to see a lot more of that as well. But the bigger problem—the root problem—isn't the press; it's the Obama administration's hypocritical and legally dubious pursuit of the leakers and whistleblowers that President Obama once praised and promised to defend.

Yep, I want a master. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!


Your way, or no way huh?? Well you ain't getting my piece of the pie to impress your masters. And your Paul Ryan prays to Ayn Rand,

Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ? Conservatives Can't Have It Both Ways | | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/155239/ayn_rand_or_jesus_christ_conservatives_can%27t_hav e_it_both_ways?akid=8709.225075.MuhmA9&rd=1&t=24)

I see why you hold your nose, can't blame you!

Doesn't Fantasyland and doublethink ever get old with you guys?

Ryan Shrugged (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)

Hello again, Steve:

You're just pissed that I took my rightful place in our league. FIRST! And, it's, bWa ha ha ha.

excon

Actually it's "muahaha (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=muahaha)" and technically we're tied, but I feel confident in taking over my top spot again with my 13 top 10 players and getting Cliff Lee back soon. Muahahaha!!

Believe it or not, but I am not against holding ANY government responsible for its actions, but as to Mr. Ryan,

Catholic Bishops Blast Ryan Budget Plan - Christian Forums (http://www.christianforums.com/t7649971/)

So what's your excuse to backing his plan, or are you holding your nose like Tom is?

And I ain't that far behind you guys.

First it was the Alternet story now the Bishops and me backing his plan. Ryan can speak well enough for himself and you'll find no evidence of me backing his plan. At this point I don't really care about much other than evicting Obama.

And if I can keep my team healthy, you guys don't stand a chance.

The Bishops and me backing his plan. Ryan can speak well enough for himself and you'll find no evidence of me backing his plan.

Typo right, or is that how you really feel.

Them injuries can change everyrhing real fast.

Well either the Bishops believe in the virtue of private charity or they don't . I ask the Bishops who penned the letter (and are by no means the only voice of the church leadership) can a coerced act ever be virtuous ? By attempting to compel virtue, we eliminate its possibility.To be moral, an act must be of free will.

Further ; Catholic teaching leaves politics to the laity .Pelosi and Ryan both have the right to advance their views on social issues as Catholics with neither being more Catholic ,or a better one than the other

.As far as I can tell ;the Catholic belief in subsidiarity has not been abandoned as a principle teaching of the church .
It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI)
What is new and different in fact is this belief that the government should be the sole supplier of good works. .

Your way, or no way huh?? Well you ain't getting my piece of the pie to impress your masters. And your Paul Ryan prays to Ayn Rand,

Ayn Rand or Jesus Christ? Conservatives Can't Have It Both Ways | | AlterNet

I see why you hold your nose, can't blame you!

If Rand is Ryan's false god then surely FDR is yours.

What is new and different in fact is this belief that the government should be the sole supplier of good works. .

Why does any one entity have to be the only way its done? Why can't they all work for the same goal. Under the same rules? Why don't your rules protect me, like you want them to protect you?

If Rand is Ryan's false god then surely FDR is yours.

You righties obstructed him too, but couldn't get him out of office.

the Bishops and me backing his plan. Ryan can speak well enough for himself and you'll find no evidence of me backing his plan.

Typo right, or is that how you really feel.

Them injuries can change everyrhing real fast.

No typo, I was referring to your arguments, not mine. That should be easy enough to figure out on your own, you posted the Alternet story, you posted the Bishop story and you asked "whats your excuse to backing his plan?" I was merely doing the world a favor and noting how you like to move the goalposts and make things up, like you have a chance to beat me in baseball.

What is new and different in fact is this belief that the government should be the sole supplier of good works . .

Why does any one entity have to be the only way its done? Why can't they all work for the same goal. Under the same rules? Why don't your rules protect me, like you want them to protect you?

Ryan sees your plans going down the drain ;the logical result of creating ponzi schemes and calling them entitlements. The Ryan plan attempts to save what is good in them , It is you who are stuck in 1930s and 1960s central planned solutions that have proven to be unsustainable failures .

Contraceptives and abortion have enough legal precedence to protect them with the exception of forcing them against the religious believes of others.
The real reason for the Borking of Bork was that he was a strict constitutionalists and believed in legal precedence and this went against those in congress looking to by votes with race based affirmative action policies that they feared he would find to be discriminatory.
We under the current administration have seen more censorship, discrimination and dirty tricks than Ty Cob cleated second basemen

This subject line started about taking away a woman's right to keep what she already has and to compel her in accepting something else she might not want. What I see is that contraceptives are a form of abortion. Contraceptives do not keep a woman or girl from becoming pregnant; it keeps a potential baby from developing and kills it. If a contraceptive fails then abortion is the next option or choose to have the baby. Ever since the push for the use of contraceptives due to the sexual revolution, there have been many more abortions, not less, probably because of the lack of proper use. Abstinence is still the best choice if love and moral values are worth the wait. Can you imagine a mass pile of fetuses and babies like the pictures of the holocaust victims…both an injustice.

This subject line started out about taking away a woman’s right to keep what she already has and to compel her in accepting something else she might not want. What I see is that contraceptives are a form of abortion. Contraceptives do not keep a woman or girl from becoming pregnant; it keeps a potential baby from developing and kills it. If a contraceptive fails then abortion is the next option or choose to have the baby. Ever since the push for the use of contraceptives due to the sexual revolution, there have been many more abortions, not less, probably because of the lack of proper use. Abstinence is still the best choice if love and moral values are worth the wait. Can you imagine a mass pile of fetuses and babies like the pictures of the holocaust victims…both an injustice.

I don't to rain on your parade but there are many forms of contraceptive and not all abort a viable fetus. The use of contraceptives is to avoid the situation where abortion is considered. We would all like to be a paragon of self control but the reality is that since conception is not confined to marriage and people are unable to exercise self control contraception does avoid the social evil of abortion. If you want to avoid abortion then education is important and contraception a useful tool. Abstinence whilst desirable is not considered by those who lack certain moral instruction, it isn't even an option for most of those who do. Perhaps you don't understand how difficult abstinace is. It requires strong will and even stronger moral values

Can you imagine a mass pile of fetuses and babies like the pictures of the holocaust victims…both an injustice.

We in the USA have already achieved Soviet and Chinese level genocide numbers ,surpassing the Germans years ago .

But ;not to worry... the Chinese have figured out a way to utilize those corpses .

Pills filled with powdered human baby flesh found by customs officials - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/9250438/Pills-filled-with-powdered-human-baby-flesh-found-by-customs-officials.html)

Tell two young people who live together that they have to be abstinent. Let me know how that goes.

I don't to rain on your parade but there are many forms of contraceptive and not all abort a viable fetus. The use of contraceptives is to avoid the situation where abortion is considered. We would all like to be a paragon of self control but the reality is that since conception is not confined to marriage and people are unable to exercise self control contraception does avoid the social evil of abortion. If you want to avoid abortion then education is important and contraception a useful tool. Abstinence whilst desirable is not considered by those who lack certain moral instruction, it isn't even an option for most of those who do. perhaps you don't understand how difficult abstinace is. it requires strong will and even stronger moral values

This isn't a parade of entertainment, this isn't a passing amusement, it is serious life business. The very first abortion ever performed was too much and not enough, care enough, for the unborn victims. The point still is, contraceptives are a form of birth control aborting and I get it, the lesser of the two. They should be teaching self-control, abstinence, moral values in the classroom all four years of high school, not only sex education. They shouldn't have to, but evidently they're not being taught at home. A person can use self-control. I love everything about sex with a male partner, but I abstain as long as I am unmarried. Yes I've made mistakes off and on years ago too, but anything is possible and my desire is just as strong today. I believe many people today, especially the young, have not experienced self-actualization in feeling safe, at peace, accepted, loved, loving, and alive.

We in the USA have already achieved Soviet and Chinese level genocide numbers ,surpassing the Germans years ago .

But ;not to worry ....the Chinese have figured out a way to utilize those corpses .

Pills filled with powdered human baby flesh found by customs officials - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/9250438/Pills-filled-with-powdered-human-baby-flesh-found-by-customs-officials.html)

Yes, and I've heard US fast food places are allegedly using human embryonic kidney cells to enhance the flavors of their foods. What is this nation coming to... baby killers and now baby parts, eaters! That kind of borders on cannibalism.

Sorry but its unrealistic you will solve the ills of society by not making birth control accessible. Nor is it fair to say your moral value is any better than some one else's, and stuff happens. You make your choice, others make theirs. I mean working married women use contraceptives too. Even stay at home moms. Why discriminate?

This isn't a parade of entertainment, this isn't a passing amusement, it is serious life business. The very first abortion ever performed was too much and not enough, care enough, for the unborn victims. The point still is, contraceptives are a form of birth control aborting and I get it, the lesser of the two. They should be teaching self-control, abstinence, moral values in the classroom all four years of high school, not only sex education. They shouldn't have to, but evidently they're not being taught at home. A person can use self-control. I love everything about sex with a male partner, but I abstain as long as I am unmarried. Yes I've made mistakes off and on years ago too, but anything is possible and my desire is just as strong today. I believe many people today, especially the young, have not experienced self-actualization in feeling safe, at peace, accepted, loved, loving, and alive.

look let's get this out of the way, abortion is an evil and I don't agree that society, any society should allow it, but abstinance was taught for two thousand years and the only society that has any measure of success is the Muslim and that is because the death penalty is applied. Education today is a joke so forget teaching ethic and morals in schools, the teachers are not the most moral people in some cases. You and I both know that the loss of religious values has gone right along with the loss of moral values and no more so than in that nation that shouts separation of church and state

Yes, and I've heard US fast food places are allegedly using human embryonic kidney cells to enhance the flavors of their foods. What is this nation coming to...baby killers and now baby parts, eaters! That kinda borders on cannibalism.

It's the progression of "progress" . Based on the known facts (I think it was Pepsi using embryos as flavor enhancers... of course they have a fancy scientific name for it... (HEK-293) ) ; one could see what would happen if there was a breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. Could harvesting babies for parts be far behind ? Funny thing was that midway through the last century the world presumably put an end to eugenics .

Sorry but its unrealistic you will solve the ills of society by not making birth control accessible. Nor is it fair to say your moral value is any better than some one elses, and stuff happens. You make your choice, others make theirs. I mean working married women use contraceptives too. Even stay at home moms. Why discriminate?

I have compassion and empathy for anyone and want others, especially the youth to realize it is emotionally better to abstain than to give into carnal behaviors pre-maturely without a responsible mature commitment. The point about contraceptives is that because of their use there are more abortions today than before mass contraceptive use, more unwed mothers having babies, more child abuse, more domestic violence, more drug use, more alcohol use, more welfare cases, more unemployment and I think it is because immature insatiable young people having babies outside of marriage grew up to be immature insatiable adults.

Even now in our time, we see the posts of young woman and young girls on here and many of them acknowledge being pregnant who appear emotionally alone, desperate for answers and comfort at a website where personal contacts/relations do not normally exist here. They reach out to strangers for answers to very personal life questions. Many of them seem so young and afraid to talk with their parents and it seems by their questions and comments usually the only one around is a mother and a mother who should be a mom. Then there are the absent fathers of these young girls and young woman who are having babies without support of the baby daddy, having a boyfriend or casual partner not prepared for the responsibility of fatherhood and most likely looking for the next female to have sex with.

Tell two young people who live together that they have to be abstinent. Let me know how that goes.

Well now that was out of left field. No one is telling anyone to be abstinent in this discussion, but someone is forcing others to do something, and that's the feds forcing the church to violate their beliefs and pay for that couple's guilt-free sex.

Sorry but its unrealistic you will solve the ills of society by not making birth control accessible. Nor is it fair to say your moral value is any better than some one elses, and stuff happens. You make your choice, others make theirs. I mean working married women use contraceptives too. Even stay at home moms. Why discriminate?

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a universal moral.

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a universal moral.Hello again, Steve:

You won't get an argument from me. It SHOULD be. But, YOUR utopian ideal of life is a fantasy.. Here in the real world, if abortion is outlawed, RICH women will get safe ones, and poor women will take a coat hanger to themselves.

excon

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a moral investment, but to abandon it in its time of need is plain immoral, disgusting and fully hypocritical. Look I don't believe in abortions, but that's MY choice, others have to make their own, and I find little fault with a poor female chosing an abortion, rather than face hardship, and her baby ending up in jail!

So I consider making someone have a child and then walking away, a half a$$ way of protecting the innocent, and the moral argument to be BOGUS!

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

So don't visit your moral values, and imperatives on the so called innocent, since none of us are. Not even the unborn whose being defined by such a narrow and changing moral view that its rendered useless.

Hello again, Steve:

You won't get an argument from me. It SHOULD be. But, YOUR utopian ideal of life is a fantasy.. Here in the real world, if abortion is outlawed, RICH women will get safe ones, and poor women will take a coat hanger to themselves.

That's bunk.

Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to “Coat-hanger Deaths” (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/05/08/chilean-study-proves-that-outlawing-abortion-does-not-lead-to-coat-hanger-deaths/)

I knew it was bunk all along, and just like the rest of the abortion industry it's based on a lie.


We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

Lying to and defrauding the people should also be universally considered moral bankruptcy.

Protecting the life of the innocent should be a moral investment, but to abandon it in its time of need is plain immoral, disgusting and fully hypocritical.

He says while the government is forcing Catholic charities to abandon their beliefs or abandon children. You can't have it both ways, Tal.

That's bunk. Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. YOUR bunk is bunk. After all, you believe that outlawing drugs prevents people from doing drugs...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Our OP, excon is probably right about the public not being the brightest or maybe that should be having a lack of involvement or having an attitude of apathy while privately sitting back murmuring about the campaign of two politicians, their policies and hidden agendas. Besides, what good is a silent majority either, if they do nothing?

Whoever ends up in the White House should be leading the government for the GOOD of ALL, including those that have no voice. Instead, Democrats seek what they believe is the best interest for their party and Republicans seek what they believe is the best interest for their party. Not so sure either one is thinking about the best interest of the 230 something year old group called Americans.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. YOUR bunk is bunk. After all, you believe that outlawing drugs prevents people from doing drugs...

Nah, at least mine was based on testimony and research. You're once again assuming things not in evidence. In fact, that last assumption is a doozy. Outlawing things just makes them illegal.

Did any of you see something about an inmate Judd running for president on the Demoratic primary ballot, closing in on Obama at about 40%? Not sure where...

Yes, I posted (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-unemployment-stupid-not-debt-656885-4.html#post3112022) on that earlier. It was West Virginia.

Yes, I posted (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-unemployment-stupid-not-debt-656885-4.html#post3112022) on that earlier. It was West Virginia.

Thanks, I missed it... how legal is this? So an inmate can be placed on the ballot? I thought they lost their rights in the political arena? A lot I know.

Good question .The short answer is that all he has to do is meet state filing requirements to get on a ballot . It isn't always a case that the person on the ballot actually meets the requirements for the office. Sometimes it requires petitions with a set number of signatures. Other places it's as simple as having the filing fee. In West Va. all Judd needed to do was to send a check for $2,500 and a notarized certificate of announcement that he was a candidate. He won outright in coal country ,no surprise there .Obama has publicly stated his goal is to put the domestic coal industry out of business.

Good question .The short answer is that all he has to do is meet state filing requirements to get on a ballot . It isn't always a case that the person on the ballot actually meets the requirements for the office. Sometimes it requires petitions with a set number of signatures. Other places it's as simple as having the filing fee. In West Va. ,all Judd needed to do was to send a check for $2,500 and a notarized certificate of announcement that he was a candidate. He won outright in coal country ,no suprise there .Obama has publicly stated his goal is to put the domestic coal industry out of business.

Out of business... what for, that's all coal miners know... generations of coal mining, what does he expect them to do for a living? What do they have to replace it? They're willing to take risk all these years, I don't even know how good their insurance policies are, if they even have insurance. I thought liberals fought for the little man. Oh wait a minute, and he wants to bankrupt the coal industry! I've had family in the mining industry, but that was gold and silver mines. I don't think he'll be mess'n with them... all that gold and silver worth billions of dollars above and below ground. The mountains and land are so desolate with deep groves and striped from any hopes of anything ever growing when they do shut it down. It's been closed a number of times and that's hard on the economy here and unemployment. Sorry to say it, but it becomes a good time to buy property when it happens. Hard hit everywhere, we've got our own challenges, Democrats and Republicans. I do own my land and home and try to appreciate my blessings while others don't even have a room let alone a house.

Yup ;it's one of those promises he kept from his 2008 campaign. Under his watch ,the share of electricity generated from coal in the U.S. has plummeted to 38 percent from 49 percent in 2007.While campaigning for the presidency Obama promised his cap and trade policy would make electricity prices “skyrocket” and he added, “So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it's just that it will bankrupt them.“

yup ;it's one of those promises he kept from his 2008 campaign. Under his watch ,the share of electricity generated from coal in the U.S. has plummeted to 38 percent from 49 percent in 2007.While campaigning for the presidency Obama promised his cap and trade policy would make electricity prices “skyrocket” and he added, “So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it's just that it will bankrupt them.“

So that's what happened. Now I understand why the coal fired plant didn't go through here in my area after all the hearings and debating back and forth, it just fell by the wayside. They even said the electricity was going to be cheap compared to other plants and that it would not cause any significant pollution. Not a good time, I didn't keep up all that much back then, heading for a d-i-v-o-r-c-e.

Okay here we go again, while its true many of the older coal fired plants are being replaced by law but by cleaner coal burning plants that capture more of the toxic emissions produced by the older plants, and have higher efficiency as a redult of new technologies. That's what was promised by the Obama administration, as well as development of alternative energy sources.

Obama plan cuts emissions for future coal plants - 28 Mar 2012 - News from BusinessGreen (http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2164159/obama-plan-cuts-emissions-future-coal-plants)


The proposed new rules will make it nearly impossible to build new coal power plants, unless they are outfitted with carbon capture and storage systems, a technology is still not in use on a commercial scale.

Coal plants will be given decades to meet the new standards.

The new rules will not apply to existing coal-fired plants, or plants due to go into operation this year. Jackson told reporters they would affect about 15 new coal power projects, currently in the planning phases

So lets be clear, its about efficiency, and part of cap and trade that's all of sudden another bad idea, that was a great idea when repubs came up with it, was to develop technology and infrasture that was safe and effective. As for coal mining,

Coal mining in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_the_United_States),

Then why the comment about bankruptcy? So you're saying it wasn't the Obama administration that stopped the coal plant here? This is an economically depressed area and we needed it. I do recall the Democratic representative fighting against it and all the regulatory issues being imposed.

That was about cap and trade where the highest polluters could buy credits from less polluters, to raise capital for upgrades.

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading)

Cap and Trade | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/captrade/)

He ran the right crazy because they didn't like the new emissions requirements, and would be fined and taxed heavily for the pollution they caused. Much like utility companies don't want to invest in grid improvements that prevent black outs and power outages. Efficiency cuts into profits.

I live in Dallas, and when its 100 degrees in the summer, they tell you to stay indoors. The air is almost as bad as China. Here's the whole quote,

http://voices.yahoo.com/barack-obama-bankrupt-coal-plants-2149160.html

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Of course what Tom doesn't tell you is that big coal and the utility companies just don't care about pollution, when it comes to paying for any type of upgrading. Though they are highly profiable, and pass the costs to consumers any way, but that's what cap and trade does, gives them revenue streams by which to upgrade over time. Not many know that coal dust, a bi product of coal burning, is POISON, and guess what they do with it?

Dump it in your backyard. So they not only pollute the air, but the water and land also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_dust

http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/coal/toxicity/dust/effects-on-health/coal-is-toxic

Just ask your family members who are miners about the effects of digging in coal mines for 30 years is. And the conditions they work under.

talaniman, Ok, trying not to jump to conclusions without facts. As we all should know the media is a powerful source for truth and misinformation. I live in an area where air pollution not an issue, but the ground might be another issue with radon reported in some outlining areas. I'm thousands of feet above sea level and Venus is bright in the sky most nights. It does snow and rain here, nights are cool in the summer and very cold in the winter. I never thought about us having acid rain here... I've got to check this out. Well it reads my air quality is "Good" and Ozone is 100 percent, and pollutants at zero. Thanks for the link... it's in my favorites now.

Tal ,the proof is in the effect it has had on the industry . If it was so profitable to live under the draconian EPA regs then of course the industry would be doing that instead of shut downs and layoffs. It really is a shame . We are sitting on the Saudia Arabia of coal energy potential ;and the President wants to strangle the industry . Meanwhile unregulated plumes of coal emissions float across the Pacific ocean to the American West coast. You think the Chinese are doing anything to restrict energy production in their country ?

The proof in what I say is the stat I stated ;and of course the fact that in the heart of the coal country ,they'd rather vote for a Federal convict than the President. Obiously he's not looking out for their interests .

In fact ;when given the choice between labor(especially proven sources of energy production) and extreme environmentalism , the President has consistently sided with the extreme environmentalists .

Okay Tom so that makes BO a greenie and a poof, far as I see they go together like you can have one without the other, but seriously, you want the utopia the greenies are offering you have to let go of something. So let the coal lay in the ground, its not going anywhere and one day China will be looking for it, then the worm will have turned.

It's all coming back to whether you are a climate change believer or not

Yeah I've heard that argument before . Hold onto your resources and burn the imports of others. I think it's dumb. We kill our trade balance and it impacts our national security.

Oh ,and I reject utopianism as a general rule . Utopia cannot be realized on this earth. Even the best of us live under rules built by imperfect people. That is why I go by a philosophy that thinks it's better to limit and enumerates the power that Caesar has .

Oh ,and I reject utopianism as a general rule . That is why I go by a philosophy that thinks it's better to limit and enumerates the power that Caesar has .Hello again, tom:

With the exception, MAYBE, of abortion.. If we gave Caesar the POWER, it COULD be eliminated... Drugs too.

Utopians unite! All Hail to Caesar!

excon

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Abortion doesn't even guarantee the baby due process.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

Abortion doesn't even guarantee the baby due process.Hello again, tom:

You'll forgive me, but over the years I've noticed that YOU have list of PEOPLE, who YOU don't believe are entitled to "due process", so I don't think we even agree on WHAT "due process" is. Certainly, I believe a woman has dominion over her own body. Isn't that a right YOU have? Why should SHE be treated differently? Where's her "due process"?

excon

Where is the child's "due process?"

Where is the child's "due process?"Hello again, Steve:

They're NOT recognized by the majority, just like the due process rights of Muslims to put their Mosque where THEY wanted, wasn't recognized by the majority. You might have even been a PART of that majority.

excon

My mosque remarks are easy enough to find without rehashing that old story. Since you just swerved past the last one I'll ask your question, Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?

My mosque remarks are easy enough to find without rehashing that old story. Since you just swerved past the last one I'll ask your question, Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?

Hi Steve,

They don't have any because of the way the 14 Amendment has been interpreted "Roe v Wade", I think it was.

Strange isn't it? The 14 Amendment works against the unborn while the same Amendment works for a non-living entity,viz corporate personhood.

Tut

Why should THE CHILD be treated differently?Hello again, Steve:

Simply put, when the child's rights are in conflict with the mothers, the mother wins.

excon

To sum up the difference. There is no God given right to build where one wants to . There are too many examples of community standards to document as an example of the restrictions.
But life was universally considered an unalienable right that one does not forfeit without due process(5th and 14th amendment ) .

to sum up the difference. there is no God given right to build where one wants to .Hello tom:

Not looking for a God given right - just a Constitutional one, and there IS one of them.

Plus, I see that you're QUANTIFYING "due process". Looks you you think some peoples due process rights are more important than others. And, that those rights should be protected while others aren't.

excon

There IS a constitutional right to freedom of religion that you're willing to trample but there is no constitutional right to the termination of unborn life.

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.

Hi again Steve,

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.

Google " Roe v Wade"

The only conceivable right that would conflict with the mother's is her right to life. Murder for the sake convenience isn't covered in the constitution.Hello again, Steve:

You asked me about the law - NOT to justify it. I cannot.

excon

Hi again Steve,

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.

Google " Roe v Wade"

Oh I'm familiar with Roe v. Wade, and the mother's right to life trumping that of the child is one I can acknowledge. It's all those other alleged "rights" of the mother's trumping that of the child's I don't see, like the right to party.

It is actually. As I said before, it is an unfortunate interpretation of the 14 Amendment.


The 14th covers that emanations from penumbras that divined the so called 'right to privacy ' out of whole cloth ;whereas the right to life is enumerated in the Bill of Rights(5th amendment ) AND the 14th (sec 1)

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3113363 It's all those other alleged "rights" of the mother's trumping that of the child's I don't see, like the right to party.[/QUOTE]

Hi Steve,

The short answer to that is, absence of evidence in not evidence of absence. Justice Scalia seems to like this one.

The long answer is that sometimes the tail wags the dog. The decision handed down in Roe versus Wade is probably a reflection of the social and political conditions of the time. In other words, the political leanings of SCOTUS at the time.

Tut

Tut, I was merely addressing ex's argument that "Simply put, when the child's rights are in conflict with the mothers, the mother wins."

What "mother's rights" - plural - conflict with the child's enumerated right to life? Only one, but then abortion proponents don't consider the child in the womb to be a person.

What "mother's rights" - plural - conflict with the child's enumerated right to life? Only one, but then abortion proponents don't consider the child in the womb to be a person.


Basically, just because rights are not enumerated doesn't mean they don't exist. So you have pretty much answered your own question here. If the unborn child did have natural rights then there would be a conflict of rights.

Unfortunately, Ex is probably correct. Up until a certain stage of development the mother basically wins. The "Roe v Wade" decision also includes the right of the individual to have freedom from intervention by the state in matters of privacy.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's how is see it.

Tiut

I did not know there was legal code describing when human life exists . If that can be done before birth than why can't the Leviathan decide what age a human should forfeit that right to life ?The United States of Logan's Run.

I did not know there was legal code describing when human life exists . If that can be done before birth than why can't the Leviathan decide what age a human should forfeit that right to life ?The United States of Logan's Run.Hello again, tom:

You're splitting hairs. The courts decided that a human wasn't a human unless it could sustain itself outside the womb. That's the LEGAL concept. Who's to say WHERE along the line it should exist, if it should exist at all. But as long as the court has determined WHEN it is, and they have, like Citizens United, you're going to need a LAW to change it.

You can't get that law now, but hold on to your britches... This upcoming cycle might very well give you the chance.

excon

Yeah the court making law ,that is the problem with the imperial judiciary... well we know that the baby can survive outside the womb long before that legal right to abort. When Roe was decide ,viability was at 24-28 weeks . However , 14 states have no restrictions on late term abortions ;and we know that as an Illinois Senator ,the President supported killing babies who had survived the abortion procedure.

Again ;if viability defines life then why can't it apply with the elderly and the infirmed ? There are plenty of people who only live because of the care others give them ,

"Again ;if viability defines life then why can't it apply with the elderly and the infirmed ? There are plenty of people who only live because of the care others give them"

Great question Tom, why can't it? Here's one reason,

Democurmudgeon: Meals on Wheels Funding cut to prevent Pentagon cuts. (http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/05/meals-on-wheels-funding-cut-to-prevent.html)

You remember him don't you?

For the pass 30 years, as a NATION, we have killed and killed millions of our own unborn kind because many of us have wanted a sexual revolution of casual sex, free sex or contraceptive sex only to have meaningless and emotionless sex because of self-gratification only, using each other for sex without the kind of endearing love to sustain a couple in creating the most fundamental unit of society…a family.

By choices or agency men leaving a trail of feminine broken hearts and fatherless innocent children left behind…who got a female pregnant then lied, denied or disappeared to avoid accountability, as it takes two in making this kind of error in judgment. Mothers abandon their unwanted children too, not as often, but still equally accountable. Many refuse to see that the only answer is abstinence until emotionally and financially prepared to sustain a marriage and family…therefore truly making this a better world for the children allowed to live, not always depending on the policies of government to do it. By the way, I'm offended at “Julia” she isn't even realistic for the majority of woman and my life hasn't been a cartoon! As we should all know, (paraphrasing) without public morality there can be no private virtue, something that begin in all of us along the way now lost in the masses.

Tal ,The problem is that you are so locked into this mentality that if the government doesn't feed the elderly that they won't get fed . I assure you that any cuts proposed won't put a dent in the program compared to the waste and fraud inherent in such a big government program. The same can be said of school lunches, hospital and nursing home meal programs .The food discarded would feed twice the number of recipients.

It never ceases to amaze me this attitude that if the government doesn't do it ,it doesn't get done.

Julia applies to many women if not you, and with more than a 50% divorce rate, I bet there are a lot of females (and males) with children who can use some help.

I mean when coporations lean down, or banks screw up, millions of grown people and children get caught in a lurch. Poverty can change your mind no matter what we believe, and have to live through. Sure you can defund the government, but then what? Will the corporations and banks build schools or buy you food or a roof over your head when your down and out, or poor? Homeless, jobless?? Four kids?

Lay off the teachers, make them poor, who teaches the kids? How do they get into an exclusive charter school that's FULL? And in the burbs?

What if they lay you off, and you go get a job that's only taken applications FROM working people. Yeah your abstinance sound like the answer to EVERYTHING! All due respect. What would you do to the ones that learned that too late to be of help?

tal ,The problem is that you are so locked into this mentality that if the government doesn't feed the elderly that they won't get fed . I assure you that any cuts proposed won't put a dent in the program compared to the waste and fraud inherent in such a big government program. The same can be said of school lunches, hospital and nursing home meal programs .The food discarded would feed twice the number of recipients.

It never ceases to amaze me this attitude that if the government doesn't do it ,it doesn't get done.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/10/bloomberg_articlesM3TEP01A1I4H01-M3TPG.DTL

Yeah let 'em eat the scraps, while you protect the rich, and build more tanks, and screw the guys who drive them and make sure you are free to dump on the poor, the sick, the old, any anyone else you don't like.

While you're at it, screw the gay soldiers too, Mitt will!

While you're at it, screw the gay soldiers too, Mitt will!

Tal, Do you know something we don't know, what has gay soldiers got to do with contraceptives, abortions or abstinence? I'm lost on that one. I haven't heard anything about "Don't ask, don't tell" being reversed or discriminating of gays from the Romney camp. I haven't had the time to read or listen to everything out there…maybe you have a point that sailed over my head.

Remember who stood for the gay soldier during the debates? NONE!! Now the congress has a bill to not allow gays soldiers to marry. Nor recognize their partners, for benefits.

House Republicans Attempt To Ban Gay Marriages On Military Bases (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/house-republicans-gay-marriage-military_n_1506786.html?ref=gay-voices)

Hello again, tom:

You're splitting hairs. The courts decided that a human wasn't a human unless it could sustain itself outside the womb. That's the LEGAL concept. Who's to say WHERE along the line it should exist, if it should exist at all. But as long as the court has determined WHEN it is, and they have, like Citizens United, you're gonna need a LAW to change it.

You can't get that law now, but hold on to your britches... This upcoming cycle might very well give you the chance.

excon


Hi Ex,

Mentioning Citizens United will only get me started again. But there is an important link here if you are prepared to stick with me.

Justice Scalia rightly argues that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So when he says that nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that natural rights do not apply to corporations he is correct. Nowhere does it say that freedom of speech cannot be done in association with other individuals.

Having just established this he offers up a modus tollens fallacy in the form of evidence of absence. He argues that the First Amendment was written in terms of "speech," not "speakers." "... and that its text offers no footholds for excluding the category of speaker.

If contrived rulings are the basis of this decision then it should be quite simple to come up with a ruling that gives natural rights to the unborn.

Steve can probably take heart as the same type of argument can be applied to the rights of the unborn. Nowhere does the Constitution exclude the rights of the unborn.

If a fetus was a corporation then it would have very quickly acquired some natural rights. I guess this shows where the priorities are.

Tut

If a fetus was a corporation then it would have very quickly acquired some natural rights. I guess this shows where the priorities are.

Tut

Now Tut you know you are wrong. A fetus has no money thus no voice

Again ;if viability defines life then why can't it apply with the elderly and the infirmed ? There are plenty of people who only live because of the care others give them ,

Hi Tom,

I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I would say that viability is not the only criteria. Not the criteria in a large majority of legal definitions anyway. On that basis the answer to your question is that the old and the infirmed are both conscious and are sensitive to pain.

Obviously that definition is not without its problems.

Tut

Now Tut you know you are wrong. a fetus has no money thus no voice

Exactly.

Now Tut you know you are wrong. a fetus has no money thus no voice
Hit the nail on the head. This is the American way.

Hit the nail on the head. This is the American way.

What is the american way; to slay the helpless. Yes I think I have noticed that tendency, whatever gets in the gun sights

what is the american way; to slay the helpless. yes I think I have noticed that tendency, whatever gets in the gun sights
No, that money gets the voice. It's all about money and appearing wealthy.

Right back at you . Both your countries murder babies too.

Ok.

We not only murder babies, we murder everybody,

Stand Your Ground: Florida voters support law - Sun Sentinel (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-05-10/news/fl-trayvon-stand-your-ground-poll-20120510_1_florida-voters-opinion-poll-independents-favor)

Age is only a number apparently!

Quite a leap from believing in your right to self-defense to "we murder everybody."

Where is this thread headed now... I'm not sure we want to go there? Other issues in other countries…? Maybe another thread for that.

One Quote to share and I'm assuming some of you have seen it flying across the Internet and it's a point of view about life, about life out there and life here.

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe...

So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?”

http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php

right back at you . Both your countries murder babies too.

Yes its remarkable how trends that start in the United States are slavishly followed everywhere, it is as though we must extend your definitions of freedom to include us. Freedom to commit mayhem, Freedom to commit murder, Freedom to run off at the mouth, Freedom to corrupt government, Freedom to dominate whoever you like or don't like as the case may be. You know it is remarkable how you got rid of that other freedom enshrined in your constitution, Freedom to own slaves. I cannot imagine what the world would be like with 40 million more of you exercising your freedom

Where is this thread headed now...I’m not sure we want to go there? Other issues in other countries…? Maybe another thread for that.

One Quote to share and I'm assuming some of you have seen it flying across the Internet and it's a point of view about life, about life out there and life here.

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe...

So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?”

http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php


Hi F.C.

I can answer that question but it may take a little time to present both sides of the argument.

If we accept that abortion is a moral issue (which it probably is) then we can look at it in three possible ways.

Basically, we can look at the debate in a few ways. Pro-abortion supporters tend to cite what is called a naturalistic explanation for their actions. In other words, our judgements as to whether certain actions right or wrong can ultimately be reduced to scientific explanations.

They agree that a single living cell is life. This living cell might divide into a billion living cells, but they would say it is still just life. The problem is that the cells haven't developed into a sentient being as yet. This is where the scientific definition comes into it. Science claims that it can tell us when a fetus becomes conscious. Once it becomes conscious it is regarded as sentient. I don't know what this translates into weeks and/or months; you could look that up.

We don't need to go to another planet to find life. Most people tread on insects and don't give it a second thought. We slaughter animals for food. Some people do give this a second thought but generally speaking most people are happy with this be cause there is the knowledge that most other life forms are not conscious in the way humans are.

Personally I am against abortion because I take what is called the emotivist position. Without going into too much detail I don't think that moral judgements in this particular instance can be reduced to scientific explanations.

In a nutshell no one know what consciousness actually is. If we don't know what consciousness is how can we claim to know the point when a living thing becomes sentient?

Tut

P.S.


There is a non-naturalist explanation as well.

Where is this thread headed now...I'm not sure we want to go there? Other issues in other countries…? Maybe another thread for that.

One Quote to share and I'm assuming some of you have seen it flying across the Internet and it's a point of view about life, about life out there and life here.

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe...

So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?”

http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php


I think its not an issue of definition, but how we treat the fact that it is life, as Tut points out, none of us has a problem stepping on bugs, and that's life too! Maybe the answer lies in how we treat other humans, and NOT compare that with "other" life! Since we consider ourselves as unique and separate beings from one another, then maybe recognizing and tolerating each others beliefs, and opinions as valid, and valued equally is a start.

Without respecting each others views, everything devolves into right and wrong, and creates conflict, NOT reasoned resolutions. Facts or beliefs fall by the wayside as powers that be take on side, or another, further stifling reasoned resolutions as communications are but rhetorical exclamations, and NOT debate.

That's no way to move forward. I respectfully submit, that if innocent life is so precious, why is it not as precious as it matures, and grows, or starts its descent-back to non existence?

Without respecting each others views, everything devolves into right and wrong, and creates conflict, NOT reasoned resolutions. Facts or beliefs fall by the wayside as powers that be take on side, or another, further stifling reasoned resolutions as communications are but rhetorical exclamations, and NOT debate.

That's no way to move forward. I respectfully submit, that if innocent life is so precious, why is it not as precious as it matures, and grows, or starts its descent-back to non existence?

I am unaware of any law that says someone already born can be murdered , Tal ,there is no compromise on this issue . How could there be ? Either you believe that there is human life in the womb that has a right to life ,or you don't .

If its NOT your womb, then I believe you should mind your own business, and if you are NOT going to be responsible for that life in the womb, then you cannot, or should not force that responsibility on the womb owner! I maybe against abortions, but I have NO womb. Neither do you.

The death penalty is legalized killing by the state, and WAR, is legalized on the federal level, and stand your ground is legalized killing if you feel like it, and none of the above is applied in a fair or reasonable way. At least not in my view.

I said murder ,not killing .

Define the difference!!

Murder is an unjustified killing.

Abortions are not against the law, murder is! Justification is left to a jury, or your own conscious. Not to an individual with an opinion or belief. Not a group of individuals with a shared opinion or belief.

Whether abortion is legalised murder is a question of whether your legislature has any moral fibre or not.

The judiciary of the US Supreme courts have alreay said its legal. States disagree. They make laws that make abortions hard, if not impossible within their state, but that only stops the poor and working poor, because money can buy many things, including an abortion.

Whether abortion is legalised murder is a question of whether your legislature has any moral fibre or not.


Hi Clete,

The legal system is bound by the legislation of the state country. In places where abortion is legal there would be a cut off point where an abortion can legally be performed. After this period (whatever the number of weeks/months) the procedure MAY be subject to criminal code. I use the word may because there are always extenuating circumstances.

A women who wanted an abortion at, say 8 weeks, would not be charged with murder in a state that has legal abortion. This is regardless of the fact that the judge may well feel this is tantamount to murder. If it so happens that an abortion is performed after the designated time for that particular state, then it MAY be a criminal act. Again this is regardless of what the judge thinks.

That's my understanding of how the law would work. Perhaps someone else may know the legal side of things better than myself.

A womb use to be a safe and warm place for an unborn at all stages of development... yet doctors go inside as intruders and killers taking the life of the developing baby making it the most dangerous place for unwanted growing and viable babies. Perhaps in some place in some space of time, if it is only for a moment, even the next life, all of us as humans might be allowed to hear what the screams and cries of all those babies sound like when they express in unison, the moment they were murdered. Because it is men's law does not make it God's law.
Here's how they kill viable babies! Actually in my opinion all stages are viable in a baby's development inside the womb. They feel pain beginning at 16 weeks in the womb or at least that is the earliest detection. We kill or allowed to be killed our own kind. What has happened to the sanctity of human life in this world of every nation, country and people?

"Doctors on Fetal Pain"


"Abortion at 20 weeks

Despite the fetus's advanced development at 20 weeks, the following abortion procedures are used:

■Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist, and tear the baby's body into pieces. This continues until the child's entire body is removed from the womb. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy describes the procedure saying, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”
■Digoxin abortion: A drug called digoxin is injected directly into the baby's heart, giving the fetus a fatal heart attack. The dead baby is then removed from his or her mother by dismemberment.
■Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother's abdomen. The fetus swallows this fluid, is poisoned, and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours.
■Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The baby is delivered feet first, up to the head, which is then punctured at the base of the skull. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (A federal ban on this method was upheld in 2007.)"

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion)

Thanks for making the case for FREE contraceptives. Then we don't have to cause all that pain right?? Yet many who support NO abortions also are against contraceptives and we know forced abstinence never has worked through out history any where in the world.

What's next, forced sterilization?

Don't run to the ridiculous Tal just because you begin to see the evils of abortion, contraception is a different if related issue. The whole argument exists because we exist in a heddonistic society which has no moral values and the excuse that the Surpreme Court says it is legal is no excuse. The Surpeme Court is a not an arbiteur of public morals Not everything that is legal is desirable

Contraceptives eliminate abortions. That's ridiculous? No wonder you guys can't be reasoned with.

Contraceptives eliminate abortions. That's ridiculous? No wonder you guys can't be reasoned with.

Contraceptives are not reliable for preventing unwanted babies.


The fact is that an overwhelming 53% of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives.


http://womenshealth.about.com/od/birthcontrol/a/contraceptive_failure.htm

A womb use to be a safe and warm place for an unborn at all stages of development...yet doctors go inside as intruders and killers taking the life of the developing baby making it the most dangerous place for unwanted growing and viable babies. Perhaps in some place in some space of time, if it is only for a moment, even the next life, all of us as humans might be allowed to hear what the screams and cries of all those babies sound like when they express in unison, the moment they were murdered. Because it is men's law does not make it God's law.
Here's how they kill viable babies! Actually in my opinion all stages are viable in a baby's development inside the womb. They feel pain beginning at 16 weeks in the womb or at least that is the earliest detection. We kill or allowed to be killed our own kind. What has happened to the sanctity of human life in this world of every nation, country and people?

"Doctors on Fetal Pain"



http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/


The problem is that at some stage there has been a predetermined decision that defines the difference between life and human life. That's pretty much what I have been trying to say rather unsuccessfully.

Tut