| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The story really broke with Sean.
Yeah, back it up with links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
The story really broke with Sean. |
Lennon or Penn? |
Connery, silly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| There is no way that this is coincidence that Obama announced his VP the day after this story broke. He knows the potential of how it can derail his presidency. |
You're right, it was not a coincidence, but the coincidence is that Sean timed this BS issue so that it would detract from the news value of Obama's VP choice, which everyone has known for at least a week would happen on or the day before 8/22.
You cravenly make it sound as though Obama scrambled to have something newsworthy to announce in the wake of Sean's reiteration of a story that has no legs outside the narrowly focused and easily duped Radical Religious Right.
Give it up. If Obama loses the election, this won't be why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Very good. This is how you rebut a claim.
| Quote: |
Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois' legal precedents on abortion.
Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that's similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.
The groups opposed the entire group of "born alive" bills that were introduced starting in 2001, saying they could ultimately threaten the physician-patient relationship and increase civil liability for doctors.
In 2005, Illinois lawmakers inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect "existing federal or state law regarding abortion." The measure passed without opposition from Planned Parenthood and with the support of groups opposed to abortion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Kuros:
Thanks for that. But, respectfully, I think you were a bit off when you wrote...
| Quote: |
| Additionally, the recent Democratic position (and this includes Obama) is to restrict actual abortions. |
This sounds like the Democrats want to legally prohibit some abortions. But I didn't see anything like that in the new platform discussed by Brody. Rather, they talk about reducing the need for abortion, via sex education, support programs, etc. |
Your wording is better. My point is that the Democrats are trying to soften the impact of Roe v. Wade. They're in a defensive posture, and this revelation about Obama's voting record does not help this position or his reputation as someone who goes back and forth on the issue. |
Yes, but even people who are more open-minded about late-term fetal-rights are not viewing the issue retroactively. What I mean is that even if someone wants to implement some measure of protection for late-term fetuses, that doesn't mean he wants to look backwards and punish the people who were arguing against such rights in the past.
You can compare the issue to animal-cruelty legislation. Let's say a bill outlawing some sort of inhumane farming practice is introduced in 2008, and passes with widespread public support. Even people who think the legislation is long overdue are not going to worry too much if they're told that a presidential candidate was against similar legislation four years ago back in his home state, any more than they would feel any deep sort of animosity toward farmers who were using the technique when it was legal to do so. It's just not the kind of issue that people look backwards on.
Same with fetal rights. Most people know that late-term abortions are taking place, but even those who have qualms about it don't really think that(for example) women who have such procedures should be tried as murderers. Why? Because, at the end of the day, public opinion does not regard unborn fetuses as equivalent to born people. So I stand by original assertion that this is not going to be an issue in the election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Very good. This is how you rebut a claim. |
Noted. And here I thought the proper method was to run to the batter's box and pinch hit for Sean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Looks like a complicated issue. I would hate to believe that Obama would stand for infanticide so I hope the chicagotribune story is true. But HANNITY usually doesn't screw up like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But HANNITY usually doesn't screw up like that. |
Indeed. FOXNews is pretty much gospel in this time of heathens, communists, and the far left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But HANNITY usually doesn't screw up like that. |
I don't know about anyone else, but if Hannity screws up like this ten more times I'm going to have to start to begin to consider maybe sometimes asking questions about what he reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But HANNITY usually doesn't screw up like that. |
Indeed. FOXNews is pretty much gospel in this time of heathens, communists, and the far left. |
Not that I trust FOXNEWS...who has better coverage? Who can a person trust? Noone is impartial in their reporting and most are far left leaning.
But I don't think this issue is over yet. We'll see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| most are far left leaning |
Define 'far left'. I find them annoyingly conservative while Fox is reactionary at best. Deliberately deceptive is a more accurate way to describe Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unborn fetuses - and even small infants - are not materially equal to more developed humans, but there is always a sinful (karmic) reaction to unnecessary killing of any living beings, and national policies entail collective karma.
Hopefully, the total number of abortions can steadily be reduced - even if pragmatic politics dictates that some lip-service be paid to so-called "abortion rights".
Here's an interesting link to some Vedic scientists evaluation of abortion:
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/articles/id/spiritualresearch/spiritualscience/lifebeforebirth/lifeinthewomb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Define 'far left'. |
Anything to the left of one's shining pillar of moderation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anything to the left of one's shining pillar of moderation. |
Yes, but in this dude's case, that means anything to the left of Moses when he was channeling the Book of Deuteronomy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
