Hall of shame

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Crashk said:
Education for the rich only, belief in junk science for corporate profits, no rights for workers or women, slave labor. What's new about this? These are right wing core values. Nothing has changed in 100 yrs except the amount of hate propaganda that makes people vote against their own self interests. I've said for yrs. that the right no longer believes in American society, the proof is clear (if you don't believe Faux 'news')
Click to expand...

A champion of the Christian right and of family values, Rick Santorum opined that President Obama wanted more young adults to attend college so that they could undergo “indoctrination”.

“I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely,” Santorum told Glenn Beck.

 
\\((|))// said:
You thought the ignorance expressed by conservatives was funny, too?
Click to expand...

Yeah, clowns are clowns regardless of what side of the aisle they are from. I also found all the other stuff funny.

Basically, funny stuff is funny. Some of it was a bit weak and not quite as funny, but that's okay I always see the left as a bit weak on humor.
 
DQ,

Why would you groan that. The point on PETA and Grandin?

First off this contradicts me...
http://prime.peta.org/2010/02/temple-grandin-helping-the-animals-we-cant-save

However, just a week or two ago I heard one of their reps savage Grandin on NPR. She said that Grandin's work was mostly counterproductive. PETA, does seem to be moderating. But they are not on point and many of their memebers are really more concerned with being right than actually helping animals.

There ARE little bits of proof and science behind many of the things the snake oil salesman in the GOP use. They are not conclusive though or even very persuasive. They don't actually care about women's health. They are more concerned with profiting off the controversy.

It is very much the same thing with PETA, or has been (I do not care to chase them away from moderating so I am very willing to forgive and forget but they will have to be careful to remain on point). They have demanded, and many still do, that the perfect be the enemy of the good. They don't really care much about individual cows or even the whole herd, not as Grandin did. PETA had been an extremist group motivated by hate, guilt and locked in some death spiral against various industries.

But I am no more interested in bringing down PETA than I am in bringing down the GOP or DNC. It appears to me they are listening to some of there own Grandin's.

This is really the same theme for me. We have too many people seeking nuclear options based on their own little view of perfection. We have to cut their microphones. Now many will claim that includes Ron Paul, but the man was always moderate. He just was not very careful about the extremists in his movement.

The Santorum wing is not Ron Paul's. They dislike each other very much and part of the reason Santorum held on was to limit the influence of Paul. Many partisan Democrats don't get this because they insist that is all some big conspiracy. And I am said to have gone off the deep end. :)

But the Santorum wing is nothing but a drag on the GOP. They will lose this election because of it. The saber rattlers, like McCain, and the slightly more moderate NeoCons are a drag too. The American people are again tired of war.

I can tell you what happens after Romney loses too. But I will hold on to those cards for now. ;)
 
EchoSackett said:
DQ,

Why would you groan that. The point on PETA and Grandin?

First off this contradicts me...
http://prime.peta.org/2010/02/temple-grandin-helping-the-animals-we-cant-save

However, just a week or two ago I heard one of their reps savage Grandin on NPR. She said that Grandin's work was mostly counterproductive. PETA, does seem to be moderating. But they are not on point and many of their memebers are really more concerned with being right than actually helping animals.

There ARE little bits of proof and science behind many of the things the snake oil salesman in the GOP use. They are not conclusive though or even very persuasive. They don't actually care about women's health. They are more concerned with profiting off the controversy.

It is very much the same thing with PETA, or has been (I do not care to chase them away from moderating so I am very willing to forgive and forget but they will have to be careful to remain on point). They have demanded, and many still do, that the perfect be the enemy of the good. They don't really care much about individual cows or even the whole herd, not as Grandin did. PETA had been an extremist group motivated by hate, guilt and locked in some death spiral against various industries.

But I am no more interested in bringing down PETA than I am in bringing down the GOP or DNC. It appears to me they are listening to some of there own Grandin's.

This is really the same theme for me. We have too many people seeking nuclear options based on their own little view of perfection. We have to cut their microphones. Now many will claim that includes Ron Paul, but the man was always moderate. He just was not very careful about the extremists in his movement.

The Santorum wing is not Ron Paul's. They dislike each other very much and part of the reason Santorum held on was to limit the influence of Paul. Many partisan Democrats don't get this because they insist that is all some big conspiracy. And I am said to have gone off the deep end. :)

But the Santorum wing is nothing but a drag on the GOP. They will lose this election because of it. The saber rattlers, like McCain, and the slightly more moderate NeoCons are a drag too. The American people are again tired of war.

I can tell you what happens after Romney loses too. But I will hold on to those cards for now. ;)
Click to expand...

the following two lines are the reason for the groan, i agree with the rest

So there are two more for your hall.

Lead from behind or get out the way.
 
Damocles said:
At the Federal level? Nope.
Click to expand...

This issue is just too controversial to let each state develop it's own laws. Lower transportation costs make the separate laws rather meaningless but still quite inefficient and ineffective. If you outlaw abortion at the state level I would simply contribute to some group that would help poor women seek care elsewhere. The crazies will attempt to outlaw tranportation across state lines for purposes of abortion. These little battles have already been fought out. The right doesn't respect the interstate commerce clause any more than the progressives did/do. If there was some protection against that, then the insanity they are trying to implement at the state level might be tolerable.

"There are no winners in war. Only varying degrees of losing." - Admiral Ackbar
 
EchoSackett said:
This issue is just too controversial to let each state develop it's own laws. Lower transportation costs make the separate laws rather meaningless but still quite inefficient and ineffective. If you outlaw abortion at the state level I would simply contribute to some group that would help poor women seek care elsewhere. The crazies will attempt to outlaw tranportation across state lines for purposes of abortion. These little battles have already been fought out. The right doesn't respect the interstate commerce clause any more than the progressives did/do. If there was some protection against that, then the insanity they are trying to implement at the state level might be tolerable.

"There are no winners in war. Only varying degrees of losing." - Admiral Ackbar
Click to expand...

I think that would be problematic if the woman were underage. Taking a child to another state to get invasive surgery without parental approval could be considered kidnapping.

I agree that would be the way most people would handle it though. However, it is the only level that those laws can be enacted and the only level that people are trying to pass laws that will make abortion illegal.
 
\\((|))// said:
At all levels?

Yep.

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.


http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
Click to expand...

You do understand the difference between an Amendment and Legislation, don't you? First, such an Amendment will never pass 2/3 of the Congress, and if somehow it did by some great miracle, it wouldn't get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
 
Damocles said:
You do understand the difference between an Amendment and Legislation, don't you? First, such an Amendment will never pass 2/3 of the Congress, and if somehow it did by some great miracle, it wouldn't get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Click to expand...

Does that mean the GOP isn't supporting federal legislation to limit abortion?
 
\\((|))// said:
Does that mean the GOP isn't supporting federal legislation to limit abortion?
Click to expand...

Do you have links showing that they are?ni am sure you can find a bill somewhere. I can find obscure bills too. There will be no law passed by Congress restricting the murder of the unborn. But it is nice to see you all hot and bothered over it :rofl2:
 
Damocles said:
Yes. It does. Since one is different than the other.
Click to expand...

Legislation -- known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act -- was first introduced on July 29, 2010 by New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.). Ryan and Akin signed on as co-sponsors at the time of the bill’s introduction.

That version of the bill prohibited federal funding for abortions, except in certain cases -- including "forcible rape."


But with Democrats still in control of the House, the bill didn't move forward.


After the GOP took control of the House, Smith re-introduced the bill on Jan. 20, 2011. Again, at the time of introduction, Ryan and Akin became co-sponsors, and the legislation still contained the phrase "forcible rape."

Yet that term ignited an outcry among various critics, who said the phrase would exclude victims of statutory rape or rapes involving drugs.

By early February 2011, Smith had agreed to remove the term "forcible" from the legislation. When the House passed the bill in a 251-175 vote on May 4, 2011, the legislation allowed federal funding for abortions in all cases of rape.

The final version of the bill said such funding was permissible if "(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Ryan and Akin voted for the bill...


http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...yan-and-todd-akin-co-sponsored-bill-limiting/
 
Damocles said:
Did it also make abortion illegal? How about in California where they are also considered a person (in regard to murder)?
Click to expand...

killing a zygote is considered murder in ca?

i have lived here most of my life and while killing a fetus of a certain age is considered murder if done during the commission of a crime, i do not think that killing a zygote during the commission of a crime is considered murder

do you have a link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top