147 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
CVC wrote:
Quote:
Shouildn't our government be separated from religion? What Biden was saying was that he felt he is in no position to dictate to you. That he doesn't believe his ideas on morality are any more worthy than other peoples. The reason we reject the Muslim practice is because we as a society don't believe one person (parents) should make such a decision for a another.

The government dictates to us everyday based on morality and religious beliefs. We can't gamble, prostitution is illegal, hunting is illegal on Sundays in some states,

Parent's make decisions for their children everyday. How many circumcisions do you think are performed every day in this country?

Let's set aside first trimester abortions and talk about late term abortions. A late term abortion kills a viable baby. No and ifs or buts - a viable baby is breeched, partially delievered and then killed.

So, you think we should let women decide if this is ok for them? If so, if it is up to a mother to decide whether or not to kill a partially delivered baby then why draw the line there?

Bottom line, it is a safe answer to say, for me it's wrong, but who am I to dictate to others. He, as a senator, dictates his beliefs every day that he passes a law. So, yes, it was a cop out answer.

I am against late term abortions as at this point it has developed into a baby. I am not against a woman choosing to abort in the first trimester or having access to the morning after pill.

We are so concerned about human life until that baby has passed through the birth canal and that's where repub concerns stops if that baby is born into poverty and the ghetto. Then that baby becomes one of those lazy welfare leeches who wants to steal money from the repubs and his life suddenly isn't worth so much.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
cowgal wrote:
Well SoCo, be prepared to give up more of your nice $80,000 per year income if Obama wins. Guess you'll be doing your duty in helping out the poor. Our taxing system is a lot more complex than simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

McCain is not Bush. Different person, different approach to our country's problems.

And by the way, I'm an independent. Like I stated above, I research the candidates and try to learn all I can about them before voting. I am not swayed by pretty speeches or charm.

Well Mam, you may be independent but from what I've read some more republican to me. I think you are mistaken and if as you stated before aren't making over 250,000 annually I think me and you will be hurting under more of the same policies of the last eight years. And, I do think Mccain will be pretty much singing the same tune and dancing the same dance as Bush.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
Simple question - the Democrats are in control of Congress, they are in control of funding the war in Iraq so why are we still there?

BTW, I voted for my Congresswoman, a Democrat, in part to get us out of the war. I most likely will vote to reelect her because even though she failed on this one issue, she does support the 2nd amendment and does her best to represent her constituents.

The only person on here that I see repeatedly stating that Obama is going to steal anyone's guns is you. No one else has said that. Now we believe he does not support the 2nd amendment and will work to limit gun ownership by legal gun owners (far different than keeping guns from criminals), but no one said he is going to come in and steal our guns.

Obama is smart enough to know he can't do that and won't even try.

Oh yeah, right, uh huh, just let the Dems pull the plug on funding as if they could right now with as civetcat pointed out the thin majority they have right now and watch the rightwing wingnuts go postal screaming how they hate the troops and want them to die. Yeah they should do that then the repubs would have total control again to start more uneeded wars, more unnecessary death and more bills for middle America to pay. But hey, seems like many in Middle America are masochists and like such treatment.

So what you're saying is that the Dems have no moral fortitude and will only vote in a manner that is politically expedient?

You are adament that the war is wrong and I believe you'd have the backbone to do what is right. Is that too much to expect from our elected representatives?

Perhaps if they voted to cut funding and the people voted them out it is because they weren't in touch with their constituents? Aren't they suppose to represent their state's voters? If the voters don't support the war then end it. Pretty simple.

Very different approach than McCain's. He'd rather lose the election than the war. Disagree on the war, but respect the man for his integrity. He'll do what he believes in even if it costs him the election. Seems like your Dems don't have that same integrity.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
Quote:
Shouildn't our government be separated from religion? What Biden was saying was that he felt he is in no position to dictate to you. That he doesn't believe his ideas on morality are any more worthy than other peoples. The reason we reject the Muslim practice is because we as a society don't believe one person (parents) should make such a decision for a another.

The government dictates to us everyday based on morality and religious beliefs. We can't gamble, prostitution is illegal, hunting is illegal on Sundays in some states,

Parent's make decisions for their children everyday. How many circumcisions do you think are performed every day in this country?

Let's set aside first trimester abortions and talk about late term abortions. A late term abortion kills a viable baby. No and ifs or buts - a viable baby is breeched, partially delievered and then killed.

So, you think we should let women decide if this is ok for them? If so, if it is up to a mother to decide whether or not to kill a partially delivered baby then why draw the line there?

Bottom line, it is a safe answer to say, for me it's wrong, but who am I to dictate to others. He, as a senator, dictates his beliefs every day that he passes a law. So, yes, it was a cop out answer.

I am against late term abortions as at this point it has developed into a baby. I am not against a woman choosing to abort in the first trimester or having access to the morning after pill.

We are so concerned about human life until that baby has passed through the birth canal and that's where repub concerns stops if that baby is born into poverty and the ghetto. Then that baby becomes one of those lazy welfare leeches who wants to steal money from the repubs and his life suddenly isn't worth so much.

You may be against late term abortions, but Biden isn't even though he personally believes life begins at conception. Cop Out.

Obama supports late term abortion just like Clinton did. It is murder and should be outlawed. Delivering a viable baby and killing it is wrong. Not that I believe that the republicans aren't concerned about the welfare of children, but just for argument's sake, let's say they are, how does that change late term abortions of viable children being wrong?

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
CVC wrote:
[quote="SoCoKHntr
You may be against late term abortions, but Biden isn't even though he personally believes life begins at conception. Cop Out.

Obama supports late term abortion just like Clinton did. It is murder and should be outlawed. Delivering a viable baby and killing it is wrong. Not that I believe that the republicans aren't concerned about the welfare of children, but just for argument's sake, let's say they are, how does that change late term abortions of viable children being wrong?

Prove this statement! Link, quote, anything, but prove this is 100% legit.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
CVC wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
Very different approach than McCain's. He'd rather lose the election than the war. Disagree on the war, but respect the man for his integrity. He'll do what he believes in even if it costs him the election. Seems like your Dems don't have that same integrity.

It's not his integrity I judge, it's his judgment. He supported this deceptive war from the get go and after three years of ethnic cleansing where Sunni's and Shites murdered each other wholesale they then pump in more troops and the violence goes down somewhat and they want to claim victory after eight years of catastrophic consequences. Now it's coming out in Woodward's book that even though Bush said he listened to his commanders, told this to the American people, it was really his advisor who pushed for the Surge, so surprise surprise another lie. Did Mccain know of the lie? Did he play along? Or did he just have bad judgement?

I remember when he toured Baghdad with a platoon and airsupport escorting him and saying everything was hunky dory. Was that bad judgement or was he knowingly being deceptive.

And to me the bottom line is Surge success or not let us not forget this war was started based on mistruths if not outright lies and he was and continues to be a willing participant in that lie.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate

Wow -- this thread's been busy. I'll have to back up and digest it all.

In the meantime, I'll point out that liberals invented the pigeonholing game. Funny how they change gears to victimhood when it comes back on them.

As far as support for veterans goes, dead soldiers don't draw benefits. And if Obama gets into office, his naiive and misguided foreign policy vision, coupled with his ineptitude for waging war, will kill more soldiers than the alternative. I will not sign my kids up for broader conflict in the future in order to bury my head in the sand via a modern-day Neville Chamberlain.

Likewise, SoCo keeps talking about how mistaken we'll all be IF Obama goes four years without taking our guns. I for one am not willing to take that chance. Why would I be so stupid to gamble with my Constitutional freedoms? I trust Jefferson and Madison over Obama any day.

Judgement? What judgment has Obama shown? When he opposed the surge and consistently declared it a failure for months until all of a sudden declaring it a huge success (while still claiming he wouldn't support it)? Is it judgement based on him claiming executive experience from running his own campaign? Was it the judgment he used when hanging out with Rev Wright for decades and declaring him his "spiritual mentor" until cutting him loose when the political winds blew against him? Was it judgment he used when he hung out with William Ayers? Was it judgment he used when he cut the house deal with Rezko? Or was it the judgment he used when he asked for the $1 million earmark for his wife's employer after she just got a huge raise? Maybe it was the judgment he used when he voted "present" over 100 times rather than actually taking a stand on something?

As for his judgment opposing the war, he wasn't in the Senate during that vote -- so he's not accountable for it, is he? It's easy to oppose something you're not accountable for the decision.

Perhaps it was his vast judgment he displayed when he recently decided he almost joined the military in 1979 but didn't because we weren't fighting a war at the time (of course, he never said anything about that until now and it's not verifiable). Or maybe it was the judgment he used when he said McCain and Palin haven't bucked confronted their own party (say WHAT??) when he himself has never reached across the aisle unless it was unanimous.

I've got to see actual evidence of judgment -- not just his word for it. So far, I'm not seeing it.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
[quote="SoCoKHntr
........Obama supports late term abortion just like Clinton did. It is murder and should be outlawed. Delivering a viable baby and killing it is wrong. Not that I believe that the republicans aren't concerned about the welfare of children, but just for argument's sake, let's say they are, how does that change late term abortions of viable children being wrong?

Prove this statement! Link, quote, anything, but prove this is 100% legit.

Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

This appears on the non-partisan website http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
There are listed positions on ALL the candidates and I am sorry to say you can find Obama side stepping and contradicting himself on many of his statements.

My personal opinion is that it would be a womans choice if it were a part of her body being removed, DNA test would prove otherwise for a fetus, it is NOT a part of the womans body but rather a separate person.
Why is it only called "pro choice" when the mother decides to kill her baby?

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1780
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate
JTapia wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
CVC wrote:
Voted against banning partial birth abortion
Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

This appears on the non-partisan website http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
There are listed positions on ALL the candidates and I am sorry to say you can find Obama side stepping and contradicting himself on many of his statements.

My personal opinion is that it would be a womans choice if it were a part of her body being removed, DNA test would prove otherwise for a fetus, it is NOT a part of the womans body but rather a separate person.
Why is it only called "pro choice" when the mother decides to kill her baby?

This just shows he favors being pro womans choice it does nothing to support CVC's claim that he and Clinton favored 'MURDERING' babies right before birth.

This is where I stand, I am for sex education to teach kids the consequences of having sex and then supplying them with ample contraceptives so that if as in Sara Palin's case the kids still want to go ahead and get busy they won't be saddled with an unwanted pregnancy that can have far reaching consequences for their and their childs life. I am also pro womans choice up to the first trimester of pregnancy.

Most unwanted pregnancies and cases of children having children happen in the impoverished areas of our country, whether that's the minority entrenched inner citty ghettos or the trailer park white impoverished areas of America. You want to stop the scourge of welfare stop the cycle of unwanted pregnancies in these areas through sex education, contraception, and termination of unwanted pregnancies through things like the morning after pill.

That's the pragmatic approach that can offer real results, but no, the evangelical repubs say NO don't you dare teach sex education, NO don't you dare give them rubbers, NO, don't you dare offer that fifteen year old mother who already has two kids the morning after pill because she's too ignorant to keep her drawers on and will pump out two more kids before she's eighteen ensuring a life lived on gov. assistance passing on her great habits to her kids.

No, let's just act like we care so much about human life until these kids are born and then we'll abandon them because their just poor welfare leeches and are just out for handouts. Yeah, makes heaps of sense to me.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate

Teaching teenagers to be responsible about sex by giving them contraceptives is like teaching Rosie O'Donnell about dieting by giving her a gift certificate to Krispy Kreme.

Abstinence is the only thing that's 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancies and venereal disease -- but like any form of birth control, it only works when it's used. I have a significant problem with people who think it's wrong to teach kids to stay chaste.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
The Right Is Wrong on McCainbitmasher1402/15/2008 08:45 am
NRA Interviews McCainbitmasher605/30/2008 21:07 pm
An interview with John McCainbitmasher107/31/2009 23:05 pm
Paris Hilton's mom wants her money backcivetcat508/06/2008 17:54 pm
Will vote for McCain but....CVC2610/15/2008 18:20 pm