DescentBB

That's no strawman. It's a well-known cultural tragedy wrapped in a want of responsibility and natural affection. All that is needed to make the gears of the monstrosity turn is the dehumanization of the unborn... oh wait... The "need" for the convenience is already there, and without a real appreciation for life it is nothing less than an inevitability, despite what things may look sound like in your circle, slick.

nice tirade, Thorne, but you didn't come remotely close to answering a question that wasn't directed to you in the first place. You do, on the other hand, demonstrate the mindset that demonizes the pro-choice opposition to the point where some in the "pro-life" movement find it perfectly acceptable to harass, threaten and even kill their fellow citizens.

slickster wrote:I don't accept your answer, Thorne. You're a good example of people who kill other people! Citizens!!

You're so full of sh**, slick. You were dressing up reality to suit your political positions and I called you on it. I don't doubt that there is a portion of society ignorant enough to back abortion for the reasons you give, but your claim that they are all there are is pure political convenience--willful blindness.

callmeslick wrote:find me, CUDA, a significant part of the population that supports late term abortion in ANY case not DIRECTLY tied to the survival/viability of the mother. You are creating a strawman, for what purpose I don't know.

The only strawman there is you. You narrowed the parameters down so far to fit your position want to narrow it down further? Would you like the address of the one person that fits your limited criteria?

You know there are groups out there that support late term. Denying it only diminishes your position in this manner. If you are in favor of killing babies just man up and admit it. Dont skirt the subject

“Unlike fellow Texan Ted Cruz, whose anti-ObamaCare filibuster was widely reviled in the mainstream media, Davis’s attempt to obstruct the bill imposing new regulations on abortion clinics and restrictions on late-term abortion made her a national star and a likely Democratic candidate for governor.”

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

slickster wrote:I don't accept your answer, Thorne. You're a good example of people who kill other people! Citizens!!

You're so full of sh**, slick. You were dressing up reality to suit your political positions and I called you on it. I don't doubt that there is a portion of society ignorant enough to back abortion for the reasons you give, but your claim that they are all there are is pure political convenience--willful blindness.

another goofy tirade. As I put it to CUDA, find me one body of people COMPLETELY supporting late-term abortions with NO medical pre-condition to justify same.

Spidey wrote:“Unlike fellow Texan Ted Cruz, whose anti-ObamaCare filibuster was widely reviled in the mainstream media, Davis’s attempt to obstruct the bill imposing new regulations on abortion clinics and restrictions on late-term abortion made her a national star and a likely Democratic candidate for governor.”

yup, and according to some early polls I've seen, likely to win.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:find me, CUDA, a significant part of the population that supports late term abortion in ANY case not DIRECTLY tied to the survival/viability of the mother. You are creating a strawman, for what purpose I don't know.

The only strawman there is you. You narrowed the parameters down so far to fit your position want to narrow it down further? Would you like the address of the one person that fits your limited criteria?

You know there are groups out there that support late term. Denying it only diminishes your position in this manner. If you are in favor of killing babies just man up and admit it. Dont skirt the subject

not skirting anything. Are you saying you DEMAND that the unborn child be saved, even if it means the death of the mother? Seriously?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:find me, CUDA, a significant part of the population that supports late term abortion in ANY case not DIRECTLY tied to the survival/viability of the mother. You are creating a strawman, for what purpose I don't know.

The only strawman there is you. You narrowed the parameters down so far to fit your position want to narrow it down further? Would you like the address of the one person that fits your limited criteria?

You know there are groups out there that support late term. Denying it only diminishes your position in this manner. If you are in favor of killing babies just man up and admit it. Dont skirt the subject

not skirting anything. Are you saying you DEMAND that the unborn child be saved, even if it means the death of the mother? Seriously?

Please show me where I said that.... SERIOUSLY?
moving the goal posts again I see.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

slickster wrote:I don't accept your answer, Thorne. You're a good example of people who kill other people! Citizens!!

You're so full of sh**, slick. You were dressing up reality to suit your political positions and I called you on it. I don't doubt that there is a portion of society ignorant enough to back abortion for the reasons you give, but your claim that they are all there are is pure political convenience--willful blindness.

another goofy tirade. As I put it to CUDA, find me one body of people COMPLETELY supporting late-term abortions with NO medical pre-condition to justify same.

The body (removing your nonsense "late-term" stipulation) is right there for everyone to see. It's the abortion count. Every single one of the ~50 million abortions (wikipedia number) since 1973 (works out to more than a million per year, average) has been performed on someone who was in favor of abortion. The onus is on you to prove that a majority were due to medial conditions effecting the life of the mother, because every person on this board knows better than you believe they all are. I think it's a good bet that most of us have heard of at least one girl in our circle of experience that had an abortion that had nothing to do with medical concerns. They do it because they're afraid--because they've created responsibilities they weren't ready for and aren't willing to accept. Maybe they do it to keep their activities from coming out, in some cases. Most in our day probably do it so they can finish school and get on with their career. I don't know the numbers, but the truth is neither do you, and your position is convenient and disingenuous. Convenient murder of children is not something that many people would be willing to wear on their sleeve. It's the elephant in the room. You people are liars, and your actions contribute to the murder of unborn children. Welcome to reality.

Add one President of the United States to that body, as well. He doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby. You can add some bull**** about pre-existing medical conditions in there if it helps you sleep at night.

CUDA wrote:The freedom for an abortion late term? That's what I mean by unfettered. And don't deny that there is a portion of the populace that is in favor of it.
And I agree with spidey. Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that abortion is anything but women wanting to kill their unborn child because they don't want it. And that its much easier to call it a fetus tgen what it really is. An unborn child. Just be honest about it. I can respect that. I might not agree but I can respect the honesty of it.

No, late term, third trimester abortions are wrong and should be banned, period, except in cases that a woman's life is in danger. I'm not willing to trade a life for another life. If a women doesn't know by then that they don't want the pregnancy for any reason, it's too late. But I'm taking issue with what Republicans are already putting into law in many states, like banning all abortions even before the first term, forcing trans-vaginal ultrasounds just to get an abortion (which is not needed when a women is in the third term anyway), telling doctors and patients what they need to know, do and say just to get a personal medical procedure peformed, putting in restrictive regulations the sole purpose of which is to shut down as many women's health clinics as possible, and banning ALL forms of birth control, including hormonal. That's too far of an overreach for many women, and me.

so, TC, in your opinion, aborting a 30 week old fetus if it is determined that continuation of the pregnancy is likely fatal to the mother is out of the question?? That is all any late-terms are performed for, at least by legitimate professionals. It is rare, but the situation DOES arise, generally due to internal infections or physical abnormalities within the womb.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The body (removing your nonsense "late-term" stipulation) is right there for everyone to see. It's the abortion count. Every single one of the ~50 million abortions (wikipedia number) since 1973 (works out to more than a million per year, average) has been performed on someone who was in favor of abortion. The onus is on you to prove that a majority were due to medial conditions effecting the life of the mother, because every person on this board knows better than you believe they all are.

I referred SPECIFICALLY to late-term(post 24-week) abortions ONLY. Can't you read?

I think it's a good bet that most of us have heard of at least one girl in our circle of experience that had an abortion that had nothing to do with medical concerns. They do it because they're afraid--because they've created responsibilities they weren't ready for and aren't willing to accept. Maybe they do it to keep their activities from coming out, in some cases. Most in our day probably do it so they can finish school and get on with their career. I don't know the numbers, but the truth is neither do you, and your position is convenient and disingenuous. Convenient murder of children is not something that many people would be willing to wear on their sleeve. It's the elephant in the room. You people are liars, and your actions contribute to the murder of unborn children. Welcome to reality.

early term abortions SHOULD, in my opinion be a matter of choice for the mother(parents), so such decisions as you cite above are fine by me, as I have no plan to start judging others, especially as a man.

Add one President of the United States to that body, as well. He doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby. You can add some bull**** about pre-existing medical conditions in there if it helps you sleep at night.

of course, in the context of being raped, which I believe was his example in using those words. Once again, selective editting, out-of-context quotes and outright nonsense don't bolster your position. I sleep just fine at night, because I understand free choice, free will and the realities facing young women who are pregnant. You, clearly don't give a ★■◆●.

callmeslick wrote:so, TC, in your opinion, aborting a 30 week old fetus if it is determined that continuation of the pregnancy is likely fatal to the mother is out of the question?? That is all any late-terms are performed for, at least by legitimate professionals. It is rare, but the situation DOES arise, generally due to internal infections or physical abnormalities within the womb.

No, I think the mother's health should come first, no matter what the preterm age of the fetus is. I don't like the idea of trading away an already existing life for another. Ethically, how do you choose anyway? Which life is more important, that of the mother or that of the fetus? If the mother survives, she could possibly try to have another child, although I'd think twice about it if I were in that situation. Personally, going through an abortion once would be too traumatic in the first place.

callmeslick wrote:I referred SPECIFICALLY to late-term(post 24-week) abortions ONLY. Can't you read?

And I said that was nonsense, don't you read?

callmeslick wrote:... such decisions as you cite above are fine by me ... I have no plan to start judging others, especially as a man.

You say you have no plan to judge others, and yet here above you clearly have judged. Is this truly an acknowledgement of a perceived inability to judge correctly, or a convenient or cowardly refusal to judge that which may ultimately speak against yourself or someone you owe?

callmeslick wrote:

Add one President of the United States to that body, as well. He doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby. You can add some bull**** about pre-existing medical conditions in there if it helps you sleep at night.

of course, in the context of being raped, which I believe was his example in using those words. Once again, selective editting, out-of-context quotes and outright nonsense don't bolster your position. I sleep just fine at night, because I understand free choice, free will and the realities facing young women who are pregnant. You, clearly don't give a ****.

Your personal attacks and character judgements ( ) don't mean sh** to me, so you might think about a better expenditure of your energies. The truth is I clearly take issue with your position, and whether I "give a ****" or not has never even entered into the discussion. The president was specifically speaking in the context of one of his daughters "making a mistake". He was not speaking of rape. Look it up.

As to whether I care or not, I care enough that I think any young woman should find it in her heart to keep her child, or at least be inconvenienced to adopt it out. How can I get all misty-eyed when I know that the real problem came before the pregnancy, and may, in part, be laid squarely at the feet of our culture in general, which for the shallow, selfish gratification of all involved turns young women into sluts and young men into dogs?

SCOTUS weighs in on invasive GOP laws around abortion......again:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11 ... -case?lite

back to original point:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/big-bus ... 2D11577339

I’m not a tea party supporter by any stretch, but I do lean libertarian, and I do think it’s good for democracy to let all voices be heard, and it never hurts to shake things up every now and then.

Tea parties come and go, but they usually have a lasting affect, hopefully in this case it will be the focus on the debt and deficit.

What we really need is the breakup of the 2 party system.


On a side note…I really doubt a RINO like Christie can make it past the primaries.

how anyone can call Christie a RINO is beyond me, at least in the standard Republican sense:
1. he is anti-union
2. he is conservative on most social issues
3. he wants lean, efficient, less costly government and balanced budgets
4. he wants lower taxes
5. he is in favor of an aggressive foreign policy(a recent GOP stance, but consistent for 30 or more years).

Why, Spidey, would you, or anyone, call him a RINO?? What the heck else is he but a traditional Republican??

Gee, I don’t know…when I joined the party we had something called loyalty, and after the way he spouted off after Sandy…one only has to wonder.

Funny how a “traditional Republican” gets elected in a big way in a blue state…also makes you wonder.

Well me anyway. And yea…it was kind of a slur, because I was thinking he should shut his big fat mouth after Sandy…so take it as you will.

Spidey wrote:Gee, I don’t know…when I joined the party we had something called loyalty, and after the way he spouted off after Sandy…one only has to wonder.

so party loyalty means NOT reaching out and working with a President who holds ALL the cards regarding the funds for immediate assistance of the citizens you are sworn to protect? That, in a nutshell, is exactly where politics have gone off the rails. It used to be one's office first, and party politics second. He spouted off mostly after the election, when his party in Congress sat on granting the rebuild money. Once again, job first, party second....as it should be.

Funny how a “traditional Republican” gets elected in a big way in a blue state…also makes you wonder.

frankly he's run against a hated candidate(Corzine) and then a really weak candidate(Buono), but some people simply like that he DOES work for the good of the state, in keeping with conservative principles. Remember, Independants make up an ever larger chunk of the electorate in most states.

Well me anyway. And yea…it was kind of a slur, because I was thinking he should shut his big fat mouth after Sandy…so take it as you will.

please, since you are determined to harp on it, what exactly did he say that riled you up? I remember him saying little except a muted 'thank-you' to Obama after the storm itself, and lighting into the House GOP holding up a vote on the funds the following January. If that is all you see, what is wrong with either? If you saw, or remembered, something more, fill me in. If not, then if you are reflective of Republican voters as a whole, let me be among the first to say, kiss that party goodbye.

Jeeze, it was just an offhand remark…

And no, I’m in no way a “typical Republican” I left that party years ago. And I could care less what happens to either party.

Spidey wrote:Funny how a “traditional Republican” gets elected in a big way in a blue state…also makes you wonder.

It's because the alternative modern Republican, ie., tea partier, is too weird, nutty and extreme for most-middle-of-the-road-leaning-right voters. And since they lean right in a blue state, they'll vote for any Republican that looks halfway moderate before voting for a Democrat.

I don't know about weird, nutty, and extreme. To be honest I don't follow the tea party movement that closely, but at the same time I think any perceived agreement between an average American and a big party politician is mostly just a result of good marketing. People can be pretty "extreme" in their opinions, unless those opinions were handed to then by the media (if the Republicans dropped the veneer of being anti-debt from their platform, all of a sudden that would be an extreme position). I think when it comes down to actually understanding what we stand for and why, and what politicians ACTUALLY stand for, the average American is nowhere near any of those folks--we're just told we are (or they are) by another element of society which also pretends to be anything like us. If we all knew who we were, and who everyone else is, and had a clear view of the relationships and differences, there would probably be revolution.

To be totally fair, TC, I grant you that some of the extremity from the tea party, and like-minded folks is a result of having transitions from a popular position to a less popular "solution" without really having entirely understood its pros and cons. This is muddled further by venom from supporters of the status quo who themselves do not fully comprehend the consequences of where they stand.

Personally I don’t see the Tea Party as being extreme at all, but they do seem a little immature as a movement, and have terrible tactics.

Spidey wrote:Personally I don’t see the Tea Party as being extreme at all, but they do seem a little immature as a movement, and have terrible tactics.

guess what? Most of your fellow citizens disagree. Strongly, in many cases. If you don't find the concept of slashing government to the bone to be an economic disaster for you, personally, and extreme for the long-term strength of the nation as a whole, heaven help you.

yet another example, folks, of someone's politics running counter to their own self-interest.

More bull★■◆●, I have never heard any Tea Party member suggest cutting government to the bone.

Exaggeration is a form of dishonesty.

........

And that was not a political statement, that was an observation…nahhh nahhh nah nah nah.

Are we out of kindergarten yet?

Spidey wrote:More ****, I have never heard any Tea Party member suggest cutting government to the bone.

really? I heard just that, in central PA, at two separate rallies back in 2009.

Exaggeration is a form of dishonesty.

and, ignorance is bliss, apparently.

........

And that was not a political statement, that was an observation…nahhh nahhh nah nah nah.

Are we out of kindergarten yet?

some of us are, see comment elsewhere about getting a mirror and using it.

Spidey wrote:More ****, I have never heard any Tea Party member suggest cutting government to the bone.

Exaggeration is a form of dishonesty.

........

And that was not a political statement, that was an observation…nahhh nahhh nah nah nah.

Are we out of kindergarten yet?

Spidey, even prominent conservatives are calling the tea party "a bunch of wackos". If they even see it, it must be true.

So how about this tea party wish list for cuts?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/26/news/ec ... /index.htm

Oh, and defense spending doesn't really get hit too bad on this list. And SS and Medicare are a big part of the growing debt problem as well, so I wonder what they want to do with those 2 issues? They haven't really elaborated....yet.

Hey slick, what do you think of Cuccinelli's tactics and the close AG race in Virginia that's starting to look more like a Dem sweep?

TC, Cuccinelli is the first sitting AG that didn't step down to run for higher office since like 1870 or so. So, he further tarnishes his image by changing the verification rules for provisionals at the last minute, which didn't keep people from flooding the offices to file. Now, he gets to 'oversee' the recount. As you say, it still looks like nothing will work, and the Dem will win by a couple hundred votes.

So let me see, these “wacko” want to trim whatever out of 20% of government spending…and that is considered “slashing to the bone”.

Even if they cut the entire 20%...80% of the government would remain intact. Not to mention you always start high, so you have room to negotiate.

As I said before, I’m not a Tea Party supporter, but how can you have an honest discussion starting from “slashing to the bone”.

Insult my intelligence then expect some rational debate….not logical.

I'll agree, Spidey, that the language is over-the-top. What is meant, I think, is that you are slashing to the bone certain programs(in that 20%) that have great benefits for a lot of folks who really need them. And, what I was getting at earlier is that darlings of that movement(Rand and Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, etc) have suggested going and privatizing Social Security, turning Medicare into a much less generous voucher scheme, and, in the case of the Paul clan, nearly eliminating the Defense department. Most people find all of those things unacceptable.

Most people don't understand these things, and the ones that do hope that the most continue to accept the good VS evil representation of the topics which will keep the status quo going the way they want it. We could cut our military and still be just fine.

Spidey wrote:So let me see, these “wacko” want to trim whatever out of 20% of government spending…and that is considered “slashing to the bone”.

Even if they cut the entire 20%...80% of the government would remain intact. Not to mention you always start high, so you have room to negotiate.

As I said before, I’m not a Tea Party supporter, but how can you have an honest discussion starting from “slashing to the bone”.

Insult my intelligence then expect some rational debate….not logical.

Like I said, I want to hear their concrete plans for SS and Medicare, not a bunch of demagoguery. All I've heard is grumblings of privatization, which IMHO, would not fix the problem of people falling through the cracks and lacking health care when they get older. Just throw people into the markets and hope for the best. Nice solution for a safe and stable society.

You know, cutting the federal budget by 20-30% should be reasonably possible, but the problem is how you implement it. All at once and you will be driving right off a cliff that will have consequences that will violently shake the global economy. But if you work hard to gradually optimize the talent, increase efficiency of programs and departments and slowly work in necessary cuts over the course of 15-20 years, it could totally be accomplished painlessly, perhaps even helping the economy considerably.

Of course it would require cooperation and planning more than 0.3 seconds ahead, so it is pretty much impossible for the current legislature.

Krom makes a very good point.

He is right.

Only problem is you'll have the lib politicians screaming, those bad fiscal conservatives are trying to cut your benefits. They hate you. Vote me into office and I'll give you everything you want and so much more.

CUDA wrote:He is right.

Only problem is you'll have the lib politicians screaming, those bad fiscal conservatives are trying to cut your benefits. They hate you. Vote me into office and I'll give you everything you want and so much more.

not really, the idea of gradual efficiency improvement is precisely the theme Obama got nominated for and elected to do. Unfortunately, he ran into constant roadblocks from folks who want drastic change RIGHT NOW, and refuse to see that sometimes short term needs require more outlays. The key point Krom makes is the timeframe to plan for(20-30 years) and NEITHER side likes to deal in anything past the next election cycle.

Yes really.

if a conservative increases spending on a social program from the previous budget. But the dont increase it as much as a liberal want to increase it, The liberal starts to demagogue the conservative and claim the conservative want to cut your benefits. They do it EVERY TIME. It is still on increase, just a smaller one. If you want to cut the federal budget as Krom stated and you agreed with then you need to slow the rate of spending. And start cutting the waste.

CUDA wrote:Yes really.

if a conservative increases spending on a social program from the previous budget. But the dont increase it as much as a liberal want to increase it, The liberal starts to demagogue the conservative and claim the conservative want to cut your benefits. They do it EVERY TIME. It is still on increase, just a smaller one. If you want to cut the federal budget as Krom stated and you agreed with then you need to slow the rate of spending. And start cutting the waste.

you slow the rate of spending BY cutting the waste. You don't focus on the cuts before figuring out how to do so efficiently. That is where we differ, CUDA, and note that I am carefully avoiding 'conservative' or 'liberal' tags, as handling the budget in such a fashion is mere common sense, not a matter of political spectrum.