Now that Ive cooled off....

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Voice

I shouldn't have to provide you with proof of information that has been widespread through our nation on CNN.

Next thing he'll say is that CNN is an "dubious" source.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice

1. I never said bush lost 6 million jobs, I never said we were in a Theocracy.



2. However, George W. Bush is a supporter of Outsourcing, which will only further remove jobs from America.

3. I believe in the other political thread, someone brought up that Clinton managed to get unemployment down to somewhere near 3.9% in 4 years. George W. Bush has had his 4 years...and we're still near 6% unemployment.



4. My point, which you missed, was that just because of our personal feelings on an issue as huge as abortion, doesn't mean we should just blanket the issue by making it illegal. If it bothers you in your personal life, then do something about it. But don't take that right away from millions of people just because you personally believe it to be wrong.

5. I've already stated many times that i think abortion is the wrong thing. But I don't think it should be illegal, and I am not going to repeat myself on the reasons why for the umpteenth time just because you tend to constantly ignore it.



6. Excuse me? Ignorantly label them as religious? Every single time I have gotten in a discussion with someone about abortion, it always winds up being wrong because GOD SAYS SO. It's always been about religion when it comes to abortion. Don't try to make it appear as if it isn't.



7. Excuse me again, but once again you are labeling me as Liberal, which I am not. Again, it's not your choice whether a woman gets an abortion or not. It's not the governments choice, it's not my choice. It's her choice. And making it illegal will not stop her from making that choice. You can't seem to grasp this concept for whatever reason. And I can't seem to understand why, because you've made statements like this.......



8. But then you try to tell me that somehow making abortion illegal will stop women from getting abortions? What kind of logic is that?

9. I called you an ******* because you keep on trying to bunch me in with these extremist liberals that you seem to despise so much. When in fact I am neither liberal, conservative, or a centralist.

How could I be extremely liberal when I am telling you that I believe abortion to be wrong? Or did you just ignore that?



10. You seem to have this idea that you can predict the future. You can't tell me that abortion will never be made illegal. Just as I can't tell you that it will be made illegal. I used the 11 states voting for making same sex marriage illegal as an expample that it is quite possible that it could happen. More than likely, the people who voted on those same sex marriage cases, voted for the illegalization of it because of religious beliefs. Before you even say it, yes a few just believe it is wrong and shouldn't happen without religious reasons. But not a great enough percent to even matter.

These same people who voted in these states to make same sex marriages illegal, will be the ones voting when an abortion ammendment makes it's way to the table. Which way do you suppose they'll vote?



11. I shouldn't have to provide you with proof of information that has been widespread through our nation on CNN. You know that George W. Bush is against same sex marriage and abortion. You know that he wants both to be illegal as ammendments to the constitution.

Am I concerning myself with the possibilty that it will never be able to happen? No i'm not, it's pointless to do that. I am concerning myself with the fact that our president wants to make these ILLEGAL, regardless of if it is actually possible to achieve.

I'm more concerned about the fact that it MIGHT happen.

I think that alot of people in office have problems with George W. Bush and camp as well. With all the resignations of our nation's top leaders.....certainly something must be wrong in there.



12. Again, i've already said that there is some bad in both sides, and some good in both sides. And you can't do that, because every single comment I make is replied to by you with....you're ill-informed, you listen to michael moore too much, you're too far to the left....or simply by telling me that it's ok for someone to want abortion to be illegal, because lots of people think it's wrong.

Then why isn't it ok for me to think that it shouldn't be illegal, because alot of people think the same thing that I do.

No, KCAA said we lost six million jobs. He lied, and then he tried to play it off as an 'overstatement'. You DID say 'we're damn close' to a theocracy, and yet you've been unable to demonstrate why. So far you've cited gay marriage and abortion legislation, neither of which will pass for what should be obvious reasons:

If they did pass, they'd be the first ammendments to the constitution that RESTRICTED freedoms, and whether one thinks those freedoms should be restricted or not, no proposed ammendment that would restrict freedom has ever even come close to passing. We have but a mere handful of ammendments to the constitution, even though there have been tens of thousands of proposals to ammend it.

2. If by not opposing it and illegally forcing companies to operate in America, you mean he is for it, then you're right. The bullshit allegation that we're losing all these jobs to outsourcing is just that- bullshit. Yeah, we've lost some under Bush, just as we lost some under Clinton, and Bush 41 and Reagan, because no president can force any company to operate solely in America.

What should Bush do? Ramrod legislation that would penalize companies for outsourcing? Yeah, that would do wonders for the economy. When you learn the first ****ing thing about economics, we'll talk about the impact of outsourcing versus other economic factors. Until then, shut up.

3. Clinton didn't do SHIT to bring down the unemployment rate. You don't seem to get the simple ****ing point that presidents do NOT have direct impact over jobs or the economic outside of expansion of government. The ONLY way a president, liberal or not, can directly create jobs or reduce unemployment is by expanding government.

The fact that you think a president has shit to do with unemployment proves how ****ing ignorant you are.

4 & 5. What you don't get is that it's not about personal feeling. There are so many things I abhor that I believe should be legal. The idiotic notion that abortion is solely about a woman's right to choose what she does with 'her' body is ridiculous. Parents have a legal accountability for all life they create, and abortion as a means of birth control is ****ing murder for convenience.

6. No I will not excuse you. Just because the only people you talk to on this issue believe it to be religious in nature does not mean the issue, as it affects the nation, is religious in nature. There is a legal argument about the rights of a fetus, and a clear legal dispute over when, exactly, life begins. There are millions of people who are against abortion because of the human rights aspect of it, me being one of them, and it has nothing to do with religion. I'm sorry that everyone out there in ****wheat, Kansas are only capable of arguing the religious aspect of the issue, but that's not my fault.

7. Voice, if I'm white, I'm white no matter what I choose to call myself. Denying the label doesn't make it go away. You can say "I'm not a liberal" until you're blue in the face, but the obvious fact that you support every single liberal issue makes your protests a moot point.

As for you not being a liberal because you think abortion is wrong, it doesn't matter what you think about the morality if you vote to allow it, assuming you exercise your right to vote.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are you want it to have free medical coverage, a government stipend and all the abortions it wants. That you'd actually say "I'm not a liberal" just proves how ignorant you are.

8. Making abortion illegal would stop a lot of women, not all, and I never stated it would cause all abortion to cease. Are you even paying attention?

9. You called me an ******* because your only recourse was a petty ad hominem attack, which in case you haven't noticed, I am all to glad to hand right back. If you want to fill this conversation full of vitriol, be my guest, but rest assured that calling me an ******* is not going to promote civil discussion, and it's most definitely not a game you want to play with me.

Thinking abortion is wrong doesn't change the fact that you're a bleeding heart liberal. My believing drugs should be legalized doesn't mean I am not a conservative. At least I'm not ashamed of my political ideology; that you are should tell you something about what you believe in.

10. It doesn't really matter if those people vote to ban abortion, and once again you display fantastic ignorance of the law, the constitution, and how the courts work.

For any federal ammendment to the constitution to be valid, it must be voted on by the majority of the people, ratified by 38 of the 50 states, and must withstand judicial review. No federal ban to same sex marriage would pass because it would violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and no federal ban on abortion would pass because it would never be ratified by the people.

I can't predict the future, but I CAN ****ing read, and I DO have an actual education, and I took the time to inform myself of the issues we're arguing about. You're once again translating your ignorance as truth- you don't know what I'm talking about, so I must be wrong! What a ****ing joke.

11. Jesus, where to begin. I know that Bush wants a ban on gay marriage and abortion. Have I ever even implied that he didn't?

As for resignations in his cabinet, I suggest you hit up Google and educate yourself, young man. It's not at ALL suprising to see cabinet members resign after one term when their president is re-elected:

"Although several of President Clinton's Cabinet secretaries served the full eight years, the average tenure in recent history has been less than three years, said G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in presidential appointments."

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

Once again you translate your ignorance as truth. You weren't aware that many cabinet members often resign after one term, so the fact that it's happening with Bush must mean something.

I'm tired of you. You're ignorant, and worse than that, you're willfully and forcefully ignorant. You haven't a ****ing clue, and you're unwilling to do anything to remedy that.

I've never seen such a militantly ignorant person. I don't know if it's just your hatred of Bush, or a new trend these days, or both. I do know that more and more young people are spewing bullshit liberal hyperbole without the faintest ****ing clue as to how absurd they sound.

I'm done with the vitriolic debates. You called me an ******* and then justified it. This was my response. I've said everything about politics I ever care to say to you, and this is my final reply. In the future, I suggest you do one of two things:

A. Educate yourself on the issues
B. Keep your mouth shut

[Odin]

Good Christ, it's a chore just plodding through the muck in this discussion. I think I found what I was after, though. Don't worry, guys--I'm okay.

Practically speaking, however, would you not agree that some wars, even ones that cannot be won, should at the least be fought?

Certainly, yes, but I don't think abortion is one of them. I think that Sisyphean willingness to fight the battles that are manifestly unwinnable is what's responsible for damaging the discourse surrounding abortion so badly. I think the war on drugs is misguided, too, but for rather different reasons that are somewhat tangential to the topic we're onto now, so I'll try to resist discussing them here. The war on terror, though, is a good example: certainly the United States has a duty to comb the planet and crush terrorism wherever we find it, the impracticality notwithstanding. That's a little different, though, because that's a cause behind which the country has rallied absolutely. The United States is really split down the middle as far as abortion is concerned; it seems to me that fighting that war has proved already to be so alienating and self-destructive that the righteousness to which the extremists from both sides stake claims has been thorougly blurred, rendered thorougly meaningless, by partisan invective. This battle just causes more problems than it solves.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Odin
1. Good Christ, it's a chore just plodding through the muck in this discussion. I think I found what I was after, though. Don't worry, guys--I'm okay.

2. Certainly, yes, but I don't think abortion is one of them. I think that Sisyphean willingness to fight the battles that are manifestly unwinnable is what's responsible for damaging the discourse surrounding abortion so badly. I think the war on drugs is misguided, too, but for rather different reasons that are somewhat tangential to the topic we're onto now, so I'll try to resist discussing them here. The war on terror, though, is a good example: certainly the United States has a duty to comb the planet and crush terrorism wherever we find it, the impracticality notwithstanding. That's a little different, though, because that's a cause behind which the country has rallied absolutely. The United States is really split down the middle as far as abortion is concerned; it seems to me that fighting that war has proved already to be so alienating and self-destructive that the righteousness to which the extremists from both sides stake claims have been thorougly blurred by partisan invective.

1. I'm glad you're okay. I could use a drink, though, after wading through the last post I replied to.

2. Certainly, whether or not one feels an unwinnable war should be fought depends on their take on the issue. Right now I'm actually rather ambivalent on abortion; the only thing I know for sure is that I believe abortion as birth control is absolutely wrong in every sense of the word.

I'm not going to state whether I'd support a federal ban on abortion since I doubt it will ever pass, but I would be in support of reforms on abortion that limit when a woman is entitle to make choices regarding 'her' body.

As a sidenote, what was your take on the partial birth abortion ban Bush passed and got rejected? Did you think the intent was good, and the language bad? Or would you favor partial birth abortion?

Personally, I would have supported the bill, and it probably would have passed, had their been provisions included for preserving the safety of the mother.

[Odin]

You hit it--I think I would have been behind it had the authors included a provision for the health of the mother. Supporting absolute bans on specific types of abortion makes the liberal in me a little nervous, though, so I'd have to really read up before I supported it too vocally. I'm not sure Bush's intention wasn't just to shove a little snowball down the mountain, hoping eventually to outlaw different kinds. Like I said, though, I probably would have supported it.

the only thing I know for sure is that I believe abortion as birth control is absolutely wrong in every sense of the word.

Yeah, I agree. That's about where I am at this point in my life, as well. There's birth control out there that works, and having to abort a pregnancy because you don't want a child is not only reprehensible, it exhibits a chilling carelessness with and an utter disregard for the "sanctity of life," to borrow a buzz-phrase.

One more thing:

I can't predict the future, but I CAN ****ing read

Great line. I really felt that one.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Odin
1. You hit it--I think I would have been behind it had the authors included a provision for the health of the mother. Supporting absolute bans on specific types of abortion makes the liberal in me a little nervous, though, so I'd have to really read up before I supported it too vocally. I'm not sure Bush's intention wasn't just to shove a little snowball down the mountain, hoping eventually to outlaw different kinds. Like I said, though, I probably would have supported it.


2. Yeah, I agree. That's about where I am at this point in my life, as well. There's birth control out there that works, and having to abort a pregnancy because you don't want a child is not only reprehensible, it exhibits a chilling carelessness with and an utter disregard for the "sanctity of life," to borrow a buzz-phrase.

3. One more thing:

Great line. I really felt that one.

1. From what I understood, there was basically a straight cutoff date where abortion was no longer allowed, mother's safety no exception. That's really where the problem came in, because while there is no reason for an arbitrary partial birth abortion, there are times when it may be medically neccesary; I think forcing a mother to risk her life and her child's just so she won't have an abortion not only makes no sense, but actually flies right in the face of that 'sanctity of life' thing that you brought up, that Bush cites as the reason for the need for such a ban.

2. Yeah, and if abortion wasn't used so often as a means of simply terminating an unwanted pregnancy, I certainly wouldn't be so adamantly opposed. While I'd never be in favor of completely taking away the option of abortion for a variety of reasons, including a number of exceptions, I take great offense to the casual termination of life for the sole purpose of evading personal accountability for one's own actions.

3. You know I live to make you laugh, Odin :P

[Voice]

thought i'd point out that we have the same opinion when it comes to the use of abortion.

also.....I'm nearly 24 years old. So don't talk to me like I'm 16.

All I ever tried to say was that we are seeing laws directly associated with religious undertones making their way to the table.

I already knew that they had little chance (if any) at being passed as actual ammendments, which I stated in my last post. I also said that the thing that I'm concerned with, is that our president is pushing for these. It gives me the willies (for lack of a better term) just the idea of it, makes my mind start working over-time wondering what else George W. Bush has plannes for the next 4 years.

The President (with the help of his camp....congress....everyone) are directly responsible for the job issue. I never meant to imply that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for the drop in unemployment rates. I just meant that during his presidency that happened in 4 years.....and during George W. Bush's presidency, it's gone up.


Regardless of what you may think, Outsourcing does take away jobs from Americans. Which I think.....(couldn't tell by your round-about sarcastic answer).....you agree with? I never meant that we losing millions and millions of jobs, but it adds to the unemployment of our country.

No I will not excuse you. Just because the only people you talk to on this issue believe it to be religious in nature does not mean the issue, as it affects the nation, is religious in nature. There is a legal argument about the rights of a fetus, and a clear legal dispute over when, exactly, life begins. There are millions of people who are against abortion because of the human rights aspect of it, me being one of them, and it has nothing to do with religion. I'm sorry that everyone out there in ****wheat, Kansas are only capable of arguing the religious aspect of the issue, but that's not my fault.

This one really bothers me alot, so I'll end on this one.

The legal arguements about the rights of a fetus, BASED ON RELIGION.

The legal dispute over when life begins, BASED ON RELIGION.

When life begins, Christians would have you belief that life starts at the time of conception. All the way to some people believing that life doesn't start until the baby is born.

Whatever someone believes, the foundation of the arguement is based on a religious belief.

I'll give you the Human Rights arguement, that certainly can be non-religion based.

What I won't give you is your assumption that the only people i've talked to about this are people in Kansas. I'm from Seattle, Washington, I've been in every single state from the west coast, to the middle of the country.

I've talked to many many different kinds of people about this issue. Yet again, you are putting me in a category of people that I don't belong in.

It's funny to me that when I post something, ideas on abortion.....human rights....you ignore all of that, and focus on the negatives, or things that I may not be all too well informed on....

Then in the post directly after that, you state your opinions on abortion, and they are pretty much the same exact thing I said in the post that you replied to.

[Voice]

I forgot.

I have an Official Kansas High School Diploma.

So, I have a real education as well Ryan.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice



So, I have a real education as well Ryan.

I wonder.

You think any argument on when life begins is based on religion? There are tons of scientific debates about when brain activity constitutes sentience, and whether or not sentience constitutes life or not. It's based on science, not religion. I've even been in debates about whether or not certain types of birth control should be considered, from a scientific perspective, abortion due to the fact that while they're primarily designed to prevent fertilization of the egg, their secondary function is to prevent an already fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

There is an obvious and heated debate about when life begins from a scientific standpoint, and this debate is central to the debate on abortion.

That you are apparently completely ignorant of this fact, and that it doesn't stop you from spouting off about shit you don't understand, makes me wonder how educated you actually are.

And you still have yet to provide ONE modicum of evidence that demonstrates we are closer to a theocracy today than we were five years ago. Just give me one. Bush's push to get certain unpassable legislation passed doesn't count for a variety of reasons, namely that they haven't passed and they're only two proposed pieces of legislation in a veritable flood of proposed legislation.

Until you can provide some factual evidence to back up the bullshit you're shoveling, every single point you make is summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Ryan H.
It's based on science, not religion.

Sorry, but no. And I bet ALOT of people will disagree there.,