"War on Terror" Renamed

[guido911]

Obama's press secretary announced that the Obama administration will refer to the "war on terror" now as "challenges". Good to know that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are battling challengers rather than jihadists or terrorists.

[Conan71]

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

[Hawkins]

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

No, he did not.  He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion.  He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions."  Please.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

War on Pregnancy?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

No, he did not.  He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion.  He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions."  Please.

So none of these places perform abortions or use federal funding?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?

No, he did not.  He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion.  He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions."  Please.

Here's an article on the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

"WASHINGTON – In a long-expected move, President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

Liberal groups welcomed the decision while abortion rights foes criticized the president. Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method."

I think you are splitting a very fine hair PM. Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Did we win the "war on drugs?"

A "war on poverty?"

The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.

The British dropped the term over a year ago.

Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.

I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.

--

Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.

BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.

Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:

http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.

Just going along with the semantics route..

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.

Just going along with the semantics route..

I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.

Just going along with the semantics route..

I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.

We can all find a different definitions to anything so it suits our way of thinking. If not just re-write it, just like the Bible has been many times over[]

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.

Just going along with the semantics route..

I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.

Here's something for you semantic folks out there:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.

I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.

What difference does it make what it's called?

For many, it's simply re-active birth control for those without common sense enough to use contraception.

Before you libbers jump on my assertion, the overall incidence of abortion due to rape or incest is incredibly low, I believe less than 5%.

I do believe that abortion is a personal moral decision and honestly don't see where the abortion policies of the previous admin are problematic.  I simply don't believe the government should play enabler, nor finance the practice of it.

[cannon_fodder]

I don't get it.  What's the point there Guido?

At 21 weeks it looks like a baby?  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  The question wasn't if a 21 week old fetus looks like a baby, it was when is it medically defined as a baby.  Which is a linguistic argument akin to magma and lava and has no moral bearing on the abortion debate.

What I find more telling is that the MD performing the surgery attest that he reach in and took the hand out and held on to it, asserting that it was totally anesthetized.  The photographer says that such was not the case.   Why do you have to argue that a conscious being to make the picture interesting?

At 21 weeks the fetus has a brain about the size of a squirrel but lacks that intellectual level.  The brain doesn't even really START to develop for a couple more weeks.  More than a month from being responsive to stimulus.  What I'm saying is the implied storyline that a concerned baby reached out and grabbed a hand simply isn't plausible... at least not medically.

So yep.  A 21 week fetus looks like a baby.  Stick that in your semantics pipe and smoke it!