Originally posted by wittywonkaI have to say, I'm sick to death of the left bashing conservatives for socially conservative issues. As the nation becomes fiscally insolvent they scream in the streets that gays need to marry???????????
Excellent selective reading there, whodey. A+.
Bachmann...
1) opposes abortion in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother.
2) opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (this goes above and beyond your "government in the bedroom" mind games).
3) opposes believing in man-made global warming, evolution, and the potential of ste ideology as Bachmann does, and for you to suggest otherwise constitutes a new low for you.
As for abortion, either they are human beings with rights or they are not. The quesiton as to how they got there is not the issue.
Of course, what else can a lefty do? I mean, its not as though he is going to discuss how the left will balance a budget. In fact, last time I checked they can't even pass one like they are obligated to do under the law.
As far as abortion goes, not to worry, the abortion industry has its hooks in the government because of the $$$$ they take in. In fact, Reagan was against aboriton. "W" was against abortion. Where did that exactly get us?
Originally posted by whodey
I'm sick to death of the left bashing conservatives for socially conservative issues.
I’m not bashing anybody. I’m arguing that it’s patently ludicrous to accuse me (or anybody else) of not supporting a conservative woman because she’s a woman, when in fact I don’t support (i.e., will not vote for) her because she would not represent my political ideology. Is there anything wrong with that?
As the nation becomes fiscally insolvent they scream in the streets that gays need to marry?
Where have I (or anybody else) argued that homosexuals’ access to marriage is a more pressing issue than preserving the solvency of the United States?
At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with arguing for what you believe to be a moral issue even in the context of changing economic times. Certainly dozens of GOP-run state-level governments have seemed more interested in defunding abortion clinics than spurring job growth.
The question as to how they got there is not the issue.
What a sensitive, considerate outlook on those “people” whose “lives” are more important than their mothers who were raped, or whose lives were at risk.
Just to clarify, do you yourself believe that a woman whose pregnancy results from being raped should be allowed to have an abortion? Let’s clear the air, by all means.
I mean, its not as though he is going to discuss how the left will balance a budget.
Republican politicians are the ones walking away from the negotiating table as of late.
In fact, last time I checked they can't even pass one like they are obligated to do under the law.
When’s the last time the government shut down because congress couldn’t pass a budget? Who controlled the House and Senate when that happened?
the abortion industry has its hooks in the government because of the $$$$ they take in.
By all means, let’s see a source.
Originally posted by bill718The penny quote is true. Federal checks often are rounded to the nearest dollar.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/ap_on_el_ge/us_bachmann_fact_check
It's early in the 2012 political races, and already Michele Bachman is digging herself into a hole.
* She tell people ""It's ironic and sad that the president released all of the oil from the strategic oil reserve. ... There's only a limited amount of oil that we have in the str ...[text shortened]... ocrats, as just political mudslinging. Now I'm beginning to wonder...
😕
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194068
Originally posted by whodeyUh, well, you can turn that around. As people are hungry for work (which outweighs fiscal insolvency for me by a mile) how many have time to obsess over whom somebody else shacks up with? And if you were denied the right to marry your wife, you might be up in arms as well, regardless of how solvent the budget is.
I have to say, I'm sick to death of the left bashing conservatives for socially conservative issues. As the nation becomes fiscally insolvent they scream in the streets that gays need to marry???????????
As for abortion, either they are human beings with rights or they are not. The quesiton as to how they got there is not the issue.
Of course, what el ...[text shortened]... act, Reagan was against aboriton. "W" was against abortion. Where did that exactly get us?
It's very simple: Obama committed gaffes---intelligent people can do that and get a way with it.
Reagan misspoke himself, and often "could not recall" what he had for breakfast. If you are a wildly popular cowboy with a great press team, youcan get away with that too.
Bill Clinton lied. He got away with it on pure, roguish charm. He IS intelligent, but a lot of smart guys have gone down the tubes when they tell a big fat one to the whole world, and then get caught. Charisma is nothing to be trifled with.
Palin, McCain, Bachman, Quayle, Edwards, H. Clinton, Trump, et. al. can NOT get away with mucking up facts. Some live and die by them, so if they screw up just one, they're toast. Others wouldn't know a fact if it was growing on their buttocks. These people will never be taken seriously by anyone, even the American people.
Originally posted by wittywonkaSure you are. The left rails about the right not caring about our "rights". The question is where does ones "right" begin and end? For example, if the unborn is one month old or 5 months old or viable in the womb, or just born. Where exactly does this magiecal transformation occur in which the rights of the woman give way to that of the child?
Originally posted by whodey
[b]I'm sick to death of the left bashing conservatives for socially conservative issues.
I’m not bashing anybody. I’m arguing that it’s patently ludicrous to accuse me (or anybody else) of not supporting a conservative woman because she’s a woman, when in fact I don’t support (i.e., will not vote for) her because she would not represent my political ideology. Is there anything wrong with that?
[
Originally posted by wittywonkaIt's not in what you say, its what you exclude. The only time the left talks about fiscal issues is when they try to demonize those who try to reign in entitlements. You then have commercials about granny being thrown off the cliff. So either granny is being thrown off a cliff or the right is trying to take away everyones rights. There is no real sensable discussion is there? In the interim, we can raise the debt ceiling indefinately, or demonze those who refuse to do so. There is not middle ground with such extremists.
Where have I (or anybody else) argued that homosexuals’ access to marriage is a more pressing issue than preserving the solvency of the United States?
At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with arguing for what you believe to be a moral issue even in the context of changing economic times. Certainly dozens of GOP-run state-level governments have seemed more interested in defunding abortion clinics than spurring job growth.
Originally posted by wittywonkaLst me ask you this. What if a woman carries her pregnancy to term after being raped and then decides that she can't stand the sight of the child because it reminds her of the person who raped her? Can she then kill it? Where is your sensativity?
[What a sensitive, considerate outlook on those “people” whose “lives” are more important than their mothers who were raped, or whose lives were at risk.
Just to clarify, do you yourself believe that a woman whose pregnancy results from being raped should be allowed to have an abortion? Let’s clear the air, by all means.
As far as waiting too long to terminate a pregnancy, at what poin is too late in your opinion? Is it viability or is the sky the limit so long as his or her head out of the womb?
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhy even have a negotiating table? I mean, its not like the Dems needed the GOP to pass health care reform. It's Obama's way or the highway. Then again, I can't really tell the difference from when "W" was in charge of things. The two parties just blur together in my mind.
Republican politicians are the ones walking away from the negotiating table as of late.
[
Originally posted by whodey
Gay marriage! [...] Abortion! [...] Deficits! [...] More abortion! [...] The evil Democrats!
I’m not going to keep running in circles just to keep up with how fast you decide to spin the topic of discussion.
The OP pointed out recent gaffes (most of which were completely insignificant in the first place) by Bachmann. You immediately came back with the throwaway comments:
Don't worry, she is just another large political target American air headed floozy. When will the GOP learn not to allow women to run for the Presidency?
and
What can I say, it's a man's world
and likewise implied that anybody who disagrees with/doesn’t support/won’t vote for Bachmann must be a misogynist. That is absolute nonsense, and you know it is. It's as nonsensical as anybody on the left accusing Republicans of being racist solely because they disagree with Obama's politics.
If you described a politician to me who had the following political positions:
-Believes that abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstances;
-Believes that the U.S. should enact a constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution exclusively between one man and one woman (not to mention believes that homosexual adolescents are mentally ill);
-Believes that the U.S. should potentially consider a nuclear strike on Iran (not a limited assault, but a nuclear strike);
-Believes that the U.S. should risk default rather than raise the debt ceiling;
-Doesn’t believe that stem cell research is legitimate, that humans contribute to global warming, or that “intelligent design” shouldn’t be taught alongside the theory of evolution;
then I wouldn’t care if you were talking about a testosterone-using male wrestler or the most outspoken female feminist in the world. I wouldn’t support, agree with, or vote for him or her.
Michelle Bachmann is a likeable person (three cheers for being a foster parent), and she seems as informed as anybody else who shares her own political positions. She also seems fervently patriotic and clearly has a vision of what she would like to accopmlish as president (i.e., she seems to love the U.S. as much as anybody else does). I simply don’t want her to represent me because I disagree with her politics.
By all means, tell me why that is an inexcusable offense.
With that said, we can argue about the legitimacy of her political persuasions (or mine, or anybody else’s) all day long--you certainly seem to want to--but until you concede that I or anybody else who disagrees with her politics isn’t somehow inherently misogynistic, I’m not going to indulge you any more.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not in what you say, its what you exclude.
It's not in what you say, its what you exclude. The only time the left talks about fiscal issues is when they try to demonize those who try to reign in entitlements. You then have commercials about granny being thrown off the cliff. So either granny is being thrown off a cliff or the right is trying to take away everyones rights. There is no real sensable ...[text shortened]... nately, or demonze those who refuse to do so. There is not middle ground with such extremists.
In other words, whatever you choose to read between the lines. If I were Witty, I just wouldn’t play with you anymore, ‘cause you cheat. That’s his business, though. You really have become a first class jackass. No one here should take you seriously at all.
Witty an extremist? You’re the extremist: “Lst me ask you this. What if a woman carries her pregnancy to term after being raped and then decides that she can't stand the sight of the child because it reminds her of the person who raped her? Can she then kill it? Where is your sensativity?” How ridiculous (and deceitful) to read such a position into anything that Witty said; or to simply impute such an extreme position to anyone on here. The reason that people here keep saying that you’re deceitful is because—you are.
I used to think, years back, that you were a resonable person to debate with. You're not. And now—I am not going to play with you anymore; you can have all the shrieking, slobbering, hissy-fit last words you want…
Originally posted by whodeyAs for abortion, either they are human beings with rights or they are not.
I have to say, I'm sick to death of the left bashing conservatives for socially conservative issues. As the nation becomes fiscally insolvent they scream in the streets that gays need to marry???????????
As for abortion, either they are human beings with rights or they are not. The quesiton as to how they got there is not the issue.
Of course, what el ...[text shortened]... act, Reagan was against aboriton. "W" was against abortion. Where did that exactly get us?
No, the question of moral personhood with respect to the fetus certainly does not exhaust relevant considerations here. Even if it were setted (which it isn't...) that they are persons within our normative community, that doesn't settle many important questions. It leads into further discussion of "conflict of claims" between moral persons. This is exactly what Witty was pointing out when he mentioned, for example, cases of endangerment to the mother.
If you are going to be so vocal about it, at least start doing your homework.
Originally posted by wittywonkaSorry but being "out of the mainstream" doesn't disqualify a candidate, especially when the mainstream is defined by one side of the political spectrum. The mainstream has a way of changing course.
Because you've been so serious and supportive of women in politics?
[quote]As far as looks, the one that gave me the willies was Barbara Bush. Those "bug eyes" just sent shivers up and down my spine.
Then to add insult to injury, she looked twice the age of Bush Sr.
Now to try and decide who the best looking first ladies were, I would have to ...[text shortened]... community on issues of evolution, medical research and the environment.
Originally posted by normbenignI never said, nor meant to say, nor meant to imply, that being "out of the mainstream" somehow prevents a potential candidate from winning the nomination. "Mainstream" U.S. political positions, as defined by opinion polls, are typically representative of the U.S. population at large, not of the voting U.S. population at large.
Sorry but being "out of the mainstream" doesn't disqualify a candidate, especially when the mainstream is defined by one side of the political spectrum. The mainstream has a way of changing course.
With that said, that's not the crux of whodey's and my disagreement. I assume that much was obvious.
