What is it about Obama that these people like?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Obama offers a platform based on redistribution of wealth.  It's as simple as that.  Some people support that philosophy.  Some of us do not.

Yet another tired cliche.

Obama offers a platform based on a more even redistribution of wealth.

Rich people redistribute wealth all the time...
and republican government "free market" hypocrits engage in reverse welfare on a regular basis...

The Modern-day Republican Party = Privatized Profits and Socialized Risk.

I was explaining this at work to someone.

If you are a Republican and a Republican talks about 'wealth distribution', it's called 'trickle-down economics'.

If you are a Republican and a Democrat talks about wealth distribution, it's called 'socialism'.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Yeah, just one:  Someone was actually willing to marry you?

Not only that, but I've been able to procreate.  That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...

And I am sure you are teaching your kids the same ignorant, myopic views that you espouse.  Pretty scary.

Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing.  I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion.  But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.

Just as I would fight for your first amendment right to say all the stupid things that you do.

[HoneySuckle]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Yeah, just one:  Someone was actually willing to marry you?

Not only that, but I've been able to procreate.  That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...

Your responses and insults here are very uncharitable and unchristain.

[HoneySuckle]

You do remember that America and Germany were at war during WWII right?  Now we're buddies.  That we were in a senseless stupid war with Viet Nam, and now we're buddies?  It took presidents and others to mend those bridges.  If the world loves Obama and he can bring about peace between the countries and indeed, even stop terrorism or at least start the healing, what's wrong with that?

You really are a very narrow minded individual and it is sad there are so many of you out there.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Yeah, just one:  Someone was actually willing to marry you?

Not only that, but I've been able to procreate.  That's the problem with conservatives, they're not into vaccuming out their kids, so our stock is continually replenished...

Your responses and insults here are very uncharitable and unchristain.

Who cares if I'm unchristian?  

And speaking of "uncharitable" you should look at your own party.  Republicans consistently outgive democrats in charitable contributions. Look no further than your own VP candidate who gave less than $500 a year to charity for the last 10 years.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by HoneySuckle

You do remember that America and Germany were at war during WWII right?  Now we're buddies.  That we were in a senseless stupid war with Viet Nam, and now we're buddies?  It took presidents and others to mend those bridges.  If the world loves Obama and he can bring about peace between the countries and indeed, even stop terrorism or at least start the healing, what's wrong with that?

You really are a very narrow minded individual and it is sad there are so many of you out there.

We aren't buddies with Europe today because we elected an inexperienced pseudo-marxist in order to appease the world during WWII.  They love us because we liberated them and the rest of world from what would have been inevitable defeat at the hands of a brutal Nazi regime and totalitarian Japanese forces.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

And I am sure you are teaching your kids the same ignorant, myopic views that you espouse.  Pretty scary.

Yes. For no other reason than to fluster and irritate your kids 10 years from now.

quote:
Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing.  I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion.  But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.

Your subjective cries of liberty ring hollow.  The right to control YOUR body ends at the doorstep of another individual's right to live.  The child growing in that woman is genetically as distinct from that woman in every possible way as another fully formed adult.

Heaven forbid we expect adults to exercise some self-control or accept personal responsibility for their actions.

quote:
Just as I would fight for your first amendment right to say all the stupid things that you do.

Thanks, but I don't need your assistance.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Like most zealots, you seem to assume that those who believe in liberty, in the fundamental right to control our body, must also think that abortion is a good thing.  I have kids myself, and would never think of getting an abortion.  But I would fight to prevent the government from controlling another person's body.

Your subjective cries of liberty ring hollow.  The right to control YOUR body ends at the doorstep of another individual's right to live.  The child growing in that woman is genetically as distinct from that woman in every possible way as another fully formed adult.

At the risk of highjaking the topic, your claim that one's rights end at another person's right to live presuppose that the two can be separated.  The right for the fetus to continue to develop is not denied--simply the women has a right not to have that growth dependent upon her body.  We in this country do not require people to give blood transfusions, even though it saves actual lives.  We don't require one person to maintain the life of another, even when morally they should do so.  

quote:
Heaven forbid we expect adults to exercise some self-control or accept personal responsibility for their actions.

My biggest problem with this line of thinking is that it almost sounds as though you think women should be punished for having sex.  Do you disagree then with your idol, Palin, and believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest?  What about women whose birth control failed?  How will you determine whether rape or incest occurred?  Does there have to be a court case?  What will be the standard of proof?  Beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's so much easier to speak in absolutes, but the real world is messy, and having the government make those decisions--decisions that are intensely personal--only makes things messier.

Let me ask you IP--I have a friend who had an abortion.  Here are the facts--she is older, married in her late 30s, and was desperate to have a child before her biological time clock ran out.  She got pregnant, to her great joy.  At about 18 weeks, she was told following a sonogram that the fetus had a cogenital disorder, and would die immediately at birth.

Her were her choices--carry the fetus to term, give birth to a baby that would immediately die, wait 6 months to get pregnant again, at which time she might very well be too old to get pregnant.  Or she could get an abortion.  Her health was not at risk.  She was not raped or molested.

Do you think the government should force her to remain pregnant, and give birth to a baby who will immediately die?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
At the risk of highjaking the topic, your claim that one's rights end at another person's right to live presuppose that the two can be separated.  The right for the fetus to continue to develop is not denied--simply the women has a right not to have that growth dependent upon her body.  We in this country do not require people to give blood transfusions, even though it saves actual lives.  We don't require one person to maintain the life of another, even when morally they should do so.  

We have laws which impose a duty on a parent to maintain the life of another.  Any parent caught withholding food or starving a child would be guilty of a crime if that child were to die.

Bottom line is, the rights of a woman against the rights of an innocent third party.  You attack a moral argument (maintaining the life of another) by asserting another moral argument (that it would be wrong to deny a woman the "right" to choose).

quote:
It's so much easier to speak in absolutes, but the real world is messy, and having the government make those decisions--decisions that are intensely personal--only makes things messier.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that absolute truths don't exist?

quote:
Let me ask you IP--I have a friend who had an abortion.  Here are the facts--she is older, married in her late 30s, and was desperate to have a child before her biological time clock ran out.  She got pregnant, to her great joy.  At about 18 weeks, she was told following a sonogram that the fetus had a cogenital disorder, and would die immediately at birth.

Her were her choices--carry the fetus to term, give birth to a baby that would immediately die, wait 6 months to get pregnant again, at which time she might very well be too old to get pregnant.  Or she could get an abortion.  Her health was not at risk.  She was not raped or molested.

Do you think the government should force her to remain pregnant, and give birth to a baby who will immediately die?

I don't think anyone should FORCE her to do anything.  I think she should have the fortitude and compassion to give that child an opportunity to live, even if it's for one minute or one second.

I can only speak for myself and the discussions I've had with my wife who was a special ed teacher (so she knows something about the challenges these families have). She would carry a child to term, no matter the ultimate outcome. We had this very discussion before we went for our first ultrasound.

Doctors are often wrong.  They are not God and they do make mistakes.  Children who were not supposed to survive birth often do, and the are blessings to their family; even if they are ultimately disabled. I believe that every life should be accorded dignity and worth; even sick, dying or disabled babies.

I can't imagine not having the opportunity to hold my daughter in my arms, even if it was only ONE time before she died.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

We have laws which impose a duty on a parent to maintain the life of another.  Any parent caught withholding food or starving a child would be guilty of a crime if that child were to die.

Bottom line is, the rights of a woman against the rights of an innocent third party.  You attack a moral argument (maintaining the life of another) by asserting another moral argument (that it would be wrong to deny a woman the "right" to choose).

A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity.  Parents are free to put their children up for adoption.  Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents.  There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.

quote:Are you seriously attempting to argue that absolute truths don't exist?

God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes."  Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?

quote:I don't think anyone should FORCE her to do anything.  I think she should have the fortitude and compassion to give that child an opportunity to live, even if it's for one minute or one second.

OMG!!!!!! You are pro-choice!!!!!!  Do you understand that you're position is no different than the countless pro-choice advocates--that no one should force her to complete her pregnancy, even if morally, she should.

quote:
I can only speak for myself and the discussions I've had with my wife who was a special ed teacher (so she knows something about the challenges these families have). She would carry a child to term, no matter the ultimate outcome. We had this very discussion before we went for our first ultrasound.

Doctors are often wrong.  They are not God and they do make mistakes.  Children who were not supposed to survive birth often do, and the are blessings to their family; even if they are ultimately disabled. I believe that every life should be accorded dignity and worth; even sick, dying or disabled babies.

I can't imagine not having the opportunity to hold my daughter in my arms, even if it was only ONE time before she died.

I respect that decision.  But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend.  I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance.  But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity.  Parents are free to put their children up for adoption.  Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents.  

Not exactly.  If that parent decides to abandon that child and leave them in a dumpster after the child is born, they will be charged with a crime, and for good reason.  They don't have to assume any responsibility.  That duty already exists.

Adoption merely shifts the burden of the duty to another party.

quote:There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.

So they should die instead?  I never have understood this line of thinking.  What a great motto for the pro-choice movement: "Help prevent child abuse; have an abortion"

quote:
God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes."  Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?

No one argued that life "consists" of absolutes, as if all decisions have only two options, but the law of noncontradiction applies to all of reality.  So absolutes do exist.

Maybe a better question to ask is, do you believe in absolute truth?

quote:
I respect that decision.  But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend.  I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance.  But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.

Well, we disagree here. I don't think the government should be in the business of sanctioning the termination of innocent life. Every human being, even children in the womb, should be given the same rights guaranteed by our Constitiution.

Furthermore, I don't believe I should pay for those services as a tax payer.

The only innocent party without culpability in a pregnancy is the child.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
A parent's obligation to care for a child only exists if that parent assumes that responsiblity.  Parents are free to put their children up for adoption.  Not that I want to sound cold hearted, but I am glad that we as a society don't force parents to be parents.  

Not exactly.  If that parent decides to abandon that child and leave them in a dumpster after the child is born, they will be charged with a crime, and for good reason.  They don't have to assume any responsibility.  That duty already exists.

Adoption merely shifts the burden of the duty to another party.

Obviously, if you choose to assume the responsibility to raise a child, then you must care for that child.  And I agree with laws that punish women for harming a fetus when they do drugs or drink.  You have a right not to be a parent, but you don't have a right to harm a child.  

Adoption is not necessary to relinquish parental rights.  In all states, the ability to relinquish your rights to your child is as easy as taking that child to the proper officials, and declaring your intent to do so.

quote:

quote:There is nothing more harmful to a child than a parent that doesn't want them.

So they should die instead?  I never have understood this line of thinking.  What a great motto for the pro-choice movement: "Help prevent child abuse; have an abortion"

Good job twisting my words.  My point was towards relinquishing parental rights--I am glad that our government makes it easy to do so.  It encourages women to carry pregnancy to term if they know they can easily place the baby in the care of another.

quote:

quote:
God gave us a brain to think--not to listen to right wing radio spew the idiocy of "absolutes."  Do you seriously believe that life consists of absolutes?

No one argued that life "consists" of absolutes, as if all decisions have only two options, but the law of noncontradiction applies to all of reality.  So absolutes do exist.

Maybe a better question to ask is, do you believe in absolute truth?

Hey, I love a good esoteric discussion of logic.  But lets get back to reality--what do you believe to be an absolute truth and what does that have to do with the right of a person to control their body? Then maybe we can get back to discussing Aristotle, Plato, or whomever.

quote:

quote:
I respect that decision.  But at the same time, I don't condemn the decision of my friend.  I really don't know what the right decision is in her circumstance.  But I do know that the choice should be hers, not the governments.

Well, we disagree here. I don't think the government should be in the business of sanctioning the termination of innocent life. Every human being, even children in the womb, should be given the same rights guaranteed by our Constitiution.

Furthermore, I don't believe I should pay for those services as a tax payer.

The only innocent party without culpability in a pregnancy is the child.

You didn't respond to my other assertion.  If you believe that my friend should not be forced to remain pregnant, aren't you prochoice?  Do you not believe she should be able to make this decision on her own?

Allowing a choice is not the same thing as sanctioning something.  To say the federal goverment "sanctions" abortion is akin to saying the government sanctions hate speech simply because of the First Amendment.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions.

I disagree about the "only" innocent party being the fetus.  Tell me what you think my friend is guilty of?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
Obviously, if you choose to assume the responsibility to raise a child, then you must care for that child.  And I agree with laws that punish women for harming a fetus when they do drugs or drink.  You have a right not to be a parent, but you don't have a right to harm a child.  

Even if you don't "assume" that right, you are bound by it.  If a woman gives birth and dumps the kid a trash can, the defense attorney isn't going to get anywhere with a judge or jury by saying that she "didn't assume the responsibility."  That's not a valid defense.

quote:
Adoption is not necessary to relinquish parental rights.  In all states, the ability to relinquish your rights to your child is as easy as taking that child to the proper officials, and declaring your intent to do so.

Yes, but the duty of care is transfered to the state.  There is still a duty to protect the child, it just tarnsfered to the state.  Until the parent does so, they are charged with a responsibility to take care of that child.

quote:
Hey, I love a good esoteric discussion of logic.  But lets get back to reality--what do you believe to be an absolute truth and what does that have to do with the right of a person to control their body? Then maybe we can get back to discussing Aristotle, Plato, or whomever.

If you enjoy debating philosophy, you should just try answering my question.  It's a yes or no.

quote:
You didn't respond to my other assertion.  If you believe that my friend should not be forced to remain pregnant, aren't you prochoice?  Do you not believe she should be able to make this decision on her own?

Allowing a choice is not the same thing as sanctioning something.  To say the federal goverment "sanctions" abortion is akin to saying the government sanctions hate speech simply because of the First Amendment.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions.

I disagree about the "only" innocent party being the fetus.  Tell me what you think my friend is guilty of?

I'm sorry that I missed responding to something.  That was not my intent. I made my point previously.  I think she should have the courage of her convictions and make the right decision herself.  I don't think she should be able to have an abortion.  The first mistake in this debate is that I don't think there is a universal "right" to an abortion anywhere in the constitution.

Planned Parenthood receives 1/4 of its funding from government grants to the tune of 330+ million dollars a year, ergo, my tax dollars are being used to fund abortions.

Lastly, I should rephrase my statement.  In the case of every pregnancy the child is always an innocent party.

This discussion is going nowhere.  Neither side will change the other's POV.  We simply see life in fundamentally different ways and are just wasting one another's time arguing about who's is correct.  This is a discussion devoid of any possible resolution.

[Gaspar]

This just about sums it up.

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

[iplaw]

I poste that last week!  Where were you?