Hillary gave up (election+general politics thread as well)

[RySenkari offline]

Taelia, if you want to keep spouting this ultra-conservative ridiculousness, quit threatening to disown your liberal friends (by blocking them from AIM) for responding with their reasons why they think it's wrong.

[JesusFreak offline]

Taelia, if you want to keep spouting this ultra-conservative ridiculousness, quit threatening to disown your liberal friends (by blocking them from AIM) for responding with their reasons why they think it's wrong.

Kay, Imma agree with RySenkari here. Open, honest argument is one thing, but that's another. Don't sink to Jack Thompson's level!

[SilverPrince offline]

Taelia, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America. If he was not, it would have been discovered before he was even approved as a Presidential candidate.

In fact, if you want to worry about citizenship issues, did you know John McCain was born in Panama? The Panama Canal Zone was, at the time, under US control. So if John McCain is a US citizen capable of running for President- and he most certainly is- than so is Barack Obama. End. Of. Story. I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk, but I want to make sure my point gets across.

About abortion. I believe that, until the point that a fetus can survive outside of the mother, it is dependent on and part of the mother, and the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy. That does not mean that I want corner abortion clinics there for anyone who ends up pregnant to go and just get rid of the child. It means that I believe that a woman should have the choice of getting an abortion. However, I also believe that adoption is a wonderful alternative and should be encouraged.

And, as we all know, banning abortion won't end abortion. It will just cause desperate women to go to back alleys somewhere and have some freak with a rusty coat-hanger do the job.

Concerning "sex-ed". I think every parent has the right to give their child(ren) "the talk". That's part of raising a child. But I think that the basic anatomical functions of the human body concerning reproduction should also be taught in schools. Starting in 4th grade, like it did for me? Maybe not. And does the system need reform? You bet; the whole public school system does. But we can't just say "Oh, the parents will take care of it" because there are some parents out there who will keep the information from them, and every child should have the right to see different views on things and make their own judgment. After all, a child is not the exclusive "property" of a parent. Parents do not have the right of refusing their child(ren) of information about something- children have the right to make their own judgments.

[Mewberries151]

Mmmkay, guys...I'm not yelling at anyone in particular here (you all should know who you are in regards to what I'm going to say here anyway), and I'm not asking you guys to stop because honestly it seems like you've been handling this whole debate thing very maturely (if with an occasional firey-ness ^^ ), but <b>please, don't, swear</b>, on the open forum. I was willing to let it slide the first couple of times because I know it's hard not to get fired up about political issues but seriously, just keep it in mind.

...Spelling the word out counts as swearing too. It's not like we can't see what you were trying to say anyway. ^^;;

Anyway, I'll let you guys go back to your debate.

[Tangent128 offline]

Banning abortion won't end it, sure. But then, we banned theft, murder, etc. thousands of years ago too, but nobody suggests we legalize those because people will do them anyway.

Fetus transplants are worth researching, though.

[RySenkari offline]

If you ban abortion and force millions of women to have children when they aren't ready, be ready for a HUGE crime wave in about 16-20 years when all those poor, unwanted kids, who have been living crappy lives, decide to start robbing people to get drugs and money.

If those 16 years went a certain way, say if McCain was elected for 8 years and then Palin was elected for eight years more, their economic policies (which heavily benefit the rich and would royally screw over the poor) would REALLY rile up those millions of teenage supercriminals. Better invest in a security system and buy a dog.

[. offline]

Taelia, if you want to keep spouting this ultra-conservative ridiculousness, quit threatening to disown your liberal friends (by blocking them from AIM) for responding with their reasons why they think it's wrong.

Kay, Imma agree with RySenkari here. Open, honest argument is one thing, but that's another. Don't sink to Jack Thompson's level!

Agreed. I don't agree with what JF says, but I'll fight to the death his right to say it because most of it is just his opinion. But claiming crap like "OOHHH Hes not american! He's Muslim! Buddism Has A God! blah blah blah Obama doesn't hug his kids!" those are just incorrect facts.

BACK TO THE ABORTION, so okay it's not murder because theres no chance of being born... But lets say I have a girl willing to have sex with me, isn't it then a sin to choose to masturbate with that load then have sex? Cause then I'm denying alllllll those potential lives a chance to live.

[Tangent128 offline]

See, I don't look at "potential life". I find it to be a vague, ultimately useless buzzterm.
Conception is the most clear-cut line between a cell being part of the father's body, part of the mother's body, or part of a new body. Any later line is ambiguous/fuzzy; the only earlier line is meiosis. So why exclude that one? First, the body clearly treats gamete cells as disposable. Second, a sperm/ova doesn't have a mother/father respectively, while a child is typically defined to have two parents.*

* Of course, once you bring in cloning and such the typical definitions break down. I'm sure you'd at least agree with me that in the cloning case the point where you reset the cell / transplant the nucleus / perform whatever method is a sufficiently distinct begin-of-life line.

Also, I'd like to note that, contrary to stereotypes, most pro-lifers (essentially all I know, at least) do in fact believe that human life has value after birth as well, and would support programs to help mothers care for their children.

[Gauntlet offline]

Concerning "sex-ed". I think every parent has the right to give their child(ren) "the talk". That's part of raising a child. But I think that the basic anatomical functions of the human body concerning reproduction should also be taught in schools. Starting in 4th grade, like it did for me? Maybe not. And does the system need reform? You bet; the whole public school system does. But we can't just say "Oh, the parents will take care of it" because there are some parents out there who will keep the information from them, and every child should have the right to see different views on things and make their own judgment. After all, a child is not the exclusive "property" of a parent. Parents do not have the right of refusing their child(ren) of information about something- children have the right to make their own judgments.

lolol

It's funny because it's true. My parents are years overdue on "the talk". Anything mildly sexual makes them squeamish. I had already formed an opinion on reproduction (as well as almost everything else mildly concerning reproduction/reproductive organs) from a young age, so it stopped being a big deal really quick. I do agree that sex education should be taught in school, and that children have a right to such knowledge (for their own protection, at least)--though I do think, perhaps, that children should be told on an individual basis. I don't really have anything concrete to support this, but you can't help raising an eyebrow when half of the kids giggle during the teacher's lecture, because they find the correct term for a reproductive organ so foreign from their own familiar, vulgar terms.

Some are just ready for it, and some are not. Regardless, at some point, it should be taught in school. It's really a shame when people treat sex and reproduction less-than-respectably (a la objectifying women, etc., I remember it was common to hear in Junior High).

...[Obama] won't give his two daughtters presents on Christmas nor their birthdays...

Honestly? I can't remember the last time I received a gift for Christmas or my birthday. I guess some people just really feel some sense of entitlement for being born into this world, eh? <s>Oh, and don't ask me to rend apart Taelia's posts for its high ridiculousness content; arguing politics is not my forte.</s>


Closing point: Obama; yes, please.

[JesusFreak offline]

If you ban abortion and force millions of women to have children when they aren't ready, be ready for a HUGE crime wave in about 16-20 years when all those poor, unwanted kids, who have been living crappy lives, decide to start robbing people to get drugs and money.

Yep, cuz we ALL know that nobody ever tries to get out of poverty though legal means. Just doen't happen. The Pursuit of Happyness was a made up story.


You know what? I'm for government sponsored charities to help, where you get serious tax credit for donating (along with regular charirites like Charity Motors), but not government paychecks for poor people. I agree with 422 that welfare shouldn't be indefinate.

[RySenkari offline]

Have you read Freakonomics? There was predicted to be a massive crime wave in the early 90s, but instead, crime plummeted. It was 18-20 years after the passage of Roe v. Wade. Several million children, many of whom would've been born in poor home environments and would've grown up to be criminals, weren't born.

[JesusFreak offline]

Have you read Freakonomics? There was predicted to be a massive crime wave in the early 90s, but instead, crime plummeted. It was 18-20 years after the passage of Roe v. Wade. Several million children, many of whom would've been born in poor home environments and would've grown up to be criminals, weren't born.

>.>

*coughcoughRUDYGUILIANI*

[RySenkari offline]

Rudy Guiliani isn't mayor of the United States (he only took that lofty position on September 12, 2001). This was a nationwide trend.

[Tangent128 offline]

Killing the demographic most likely to become criminal probably will reduce your crime rate, sure. That doesn't make it right.

[RySenkari offline]

It does if they're not even aware about it and don't care. Unborn fetuses are NOT human.

[JesusFreak offline]

It does if they're not even aware about it and don't care. Unborn fetuses are NOT human.

Doesn't make it right, because that's EUGENICS. I find it hilarious how you liberals claim to love everyone and so casually defend the right to kill off "unwanted" babies


Unborn babies can have different gender, blood type, eye color, hair color, personality, bellybutton and differing facial features.


And do you consider a ship under construction part of a dock, because its anchored to it and being worked on there?

[Tangent128 offline]

Unborn fetuses are NOT human.

Citation needed.

Also, is it okay to kill somebody while they're unconscious? After all, they're not aware of it, and thus can't care.

[Lyoko Wario offline]

But it's not human yet, you guys. The fetus, I mean. It has no thought process or even a nervous system. There is a time when the thing starts looking and behaving like a human being. Before that, it's just a lifeless, lumpy work-in-progress. It's not okay to destroy the human-behaving one because it is human. It's perfectly fine to dispose of the aglamation of cells if it will cause more trouble than it's worth once it changes. That's why the decision has to be made quickly. After a certain time, I'm cool with illegalizing abortion. Before that, being so close-minded about it just limits women's freedoms.

[JesusFreak offline]

But it's not human yet, you guys. The fetus, I mean. It has no thought process or even a nervous system. There is a time when the thing starts looking and behaving like a human being. Before that, it's just a lifeless, lumpy work-in-progress. It's not okay to destroy the human-behaving one because it is human. It's perfectly fine to dispose of the aglamation of cells if it will cause more trouble than it's worth once it changes. That's why the decision has to be made quickly. After a certain time, I'm cool with illegalizing abortion. Before that, being so close-minded about it just limits women's freedoms.

Here's the thing; IT WILL BE. It won't turn into a dog, or a daisy, or a penguin, or Jack Thompson, or a toaster or a shovel, or a monkey, or a weasel....



Also, I'm sick of Obama quoting one of my chikdhood heroes; Bob the builder. Yes.

[RySenkari offline]

It's eugenics if you FORCE someone to have an abortion. ALLOWING someone who doesn't believe their ready to have a child to get an abortion is not eugenics, it's the choice of the mother.

BTW, about Joe the Plumber and taxes and what-not... Eisenhower was a communist.

Don't believe me?

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913

The % on the left is the lowest tax bracket. The % on the right is the highest. Notice the year when there was the least % of taxes on the rich.

1917 - 2% 67% Census
1918 - 6% 73% Census
1919-1920 - 4% 73% Census
1921 - 4% 73% Census
1922 - 4% 56% Census
1923 - 3% 56% Census
1924 - 1.5% 46% Census
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% Census
1929 - 0.375% 24% Census
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% Census
1932-1933 - 4% 63% Census
1934-1935 - 4% 63% Census
1936-1939 - 4% 79% Census
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% Census
1941 - 10% 81% Census
1942-1943 - 19% 88% Census
1944-1945 - 23% 94% Census
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% Census
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% Census
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% Census
1951 - 20.4% 91% Census
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% Census
1954-1963 - 20% 91% Census
1964 - 16% 77% Census
1965-1967 - 14% 70% Census
1968 - 14% 75.25% Census
1969 - 14% 77% Census
1970 - 14% 71.75% Census
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com ... hower.html

[Tangent128 offline]

So, why is a nervous system necessary to be human? Isn't that a close-minded definition?

[RySenkari offline]

A nervous system makes you a sapient, self-aware being, that's why.

[Tangent128 offline]

That doesn't mean protection should be withheld before then. Historically speaking, "they're not human" has not been used to justify the most favorable acts...

Also, there's the whole question of the soul.

[RySenkari offline]

Historically speaking, "they're not human" has not been used to justify the most favorable acts..

But those acts were committed against sapient beings. Fetuses are not sapient. And we cannot judge laws on questions of the soul.

[knifey offline]

While we're on the topic of being off-topic...

Has anyone noticed the irony of the thread? "Hillary'll never give up" yet, she dropped out of the race.