I Wonder if Obama Even Cares....

[89Hen]

Cleetzang, why are you trying to change the discussion?

Because having a debate with somebody that cannot be fundamentally honest on a particular topic
is a waste of time

Everybody has to play by the same ground rules
lying about our position and about what we don't know and do know makes it worthless

You're a moron.

[kalm]

Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate

Well, when one equates positions to polling numbers, it's apparent they don't believe its obvious...

The somewhat infamous Princeton study from a few years back proves this. Political outcomes have very little to do with polling (the desires of the voters) and very much to do with what the donors and establishment want.

[Chizzang]

Because having a debate with somebody that cannot be fundamentally honest on a particular topic
is a waste of time

Everybody has to play by the same ground rules
lying about our position and about what we don't know and do know makes it worthless

You're a moron.

That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
But my original point still stands

You can't play tennis without a net
You say you do not want doctors interfering / then you do / then you don't
all based on the definition of the word fetus (that you choose to call baby)



Frankly it's like watching Joe explain there are only a few thousand child rapists in the organization
Not hundreds of thousands - so all of us are wrong

Tennis without the net

[CAA Flagship]

You're a moron.

That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
But my original point still stands

You can't play tennis without a net
You say you do not want doctors interfering / then you do / then you don't
all based on the definition of the word fetus (that you choose to call baby)



Frankly it's like watching Joe explain there are only a few thousand child rapists in the organization
Not hundreds of thousands - so all of us are wrong

Tennis without the net

Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.

[89Hen]

That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)

That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.

The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.

[Chizzang]

That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)

That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.

The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.

A baby absolutely has rights !
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without



The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?

[Grizalltheway]

That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
But my original point still stands

You can't play tennis without a net
You say you do not want doctors interfering / then you do / then you don't
all based on the definition of the word fetus (that you choose to call baby)



Frankly it's like watching Joe explain there are only a few thousand child rapists in the organization
Not hundreds of thousands - so all of us are wrong

Tennis without the net

Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.

Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.

[CAA Flagship]

Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.

Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.

I never see anyone run into the net.
But you would know better than me so pad the wall.

[Grizalltheway]

Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.

I never see anyone run into the net.
But you would know better than me so pad the wall.

The net thing has worked fine for 150 years. If it ain't fixed, don't broke it.

[CAA Flagship]

I never see anyone run into the net.
But you would know better than me so pad the wall.

The net thing has worked fine for 150 years. If it ain't fixed, don't broke it.

No. We must build the wall to keep the terrorists on their side of the court.

[Grizalltheway]

I thought that was for Meheecans?

[89Hen]

That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.

The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.

A baby absolutely has rights !
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without



The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?

The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.

"cannot live without..." there you go again. Trying to jump ahead or insert other things. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.

[CAA Flagship]

I thought that was for Meheecans?

No. I like some of their food.

[BDKJMU]

I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.

But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?

Where do you put issues like judges, immigration, nat security, environmental, etc. Fiscal? Social? Both? Neither? Think there's a lot of issues that can be labeled both fiscal and social, or neither..

[Chizzang]

A baby absolutely has rights !
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without



The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?

The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.

"cannot live without..." there you go again. Trying to jump ahead or insert other things. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.

Who's life..?
define who's life you're talking about exactly..?

[AZGrizFan]

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?

Where do you put issues like judges, immigration, nat security, environmental, etc. Fiscal? Social? Both? Neither? Think there's a lot of issues that can be labeled both fiscal and social, or neither..

Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.

National Security, Environmental, etc., are first and foremost financial issues for me. We can't "spend" ourselves to safety or clean air. Besides, the only thing worse than no security is the "illusion" of security and that's what our billions have bought us...the illusion that we're safe.

When I say "social" issues, I'm talking about welfare, immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. I support work for welfare, but time limits on receipt of welfare benefits, a path to naturalization, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc.

[CID1990]

That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.

The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.

A baby absolutely has rights !
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without



The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?

I think only a precious few people suggest that the fetus has rights that exceed the mother's.

It can be as easily said that a mother's "right" to convenience should not exceed the fetus' right to life after the point when that fetus can in fact survive outside the mother.

You're coming awfully close to abortion sloganeering there, Clitz. disappointing

[BDKJMU]

Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?

Where do you put issues like judges, immigration, nat security, environmental, etc. Fiscal? Social? Both? Neither? Think there's a lot of issues that can be labeled both fiscal and social, or neither..

Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.

National Security, Environmental, etc., are first and foremost financial issues for me. We can't "spend" ourselves to safety or clean air. Besides, the only thing worse than no security is the "illusion" of security and that's what our billions have bought us...the illusion that we're safe.

When I say "social" issues, I'm talking about welfare, immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. I support work for welfare, but time limits on receipt of welfare benefits, a path to naturalization, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc.

Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..

Welfare I think is just as much if not more a fiscal issue as social due to the fiscal costs. I would include under that unbrella direct cash payments, EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc..

[89Hen]

The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.

"cannot live without..." there you go again. Trying to jump ahead or insert other things. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.

Who's life..?
define who's life you're talking about exactly..?

The only one being terminated asshat.

[AZGrizFan]

Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.

National Security, Environmental, etc., are first and foremost financial issues for me. We can't "spend" ourselves to safety or clean air. Besides, the only thing worse than no security is the "illusion" of security and that's what our billions have bought us...the illusion that we're safe.

When I say "social" issues, I'm talking about welfare, immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. I support work for welfare, but time limits on receipt of welfare benefits, a path to naturalization, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc.

Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..

Welfare I think is just as much if not more a fiscal issue as social due to the fiscal costs. I would include under that unbrella direct cash payments, EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc..

Why are you hell bent on parsing this? Yes, EVERYTHING ultimately is a fiscal issue. Especially if a government program/dept is started up to "manage" it. But first and foremost, it's a social issue. The SOLUTION to it is fiscal.

Really didn't think that was too difficult to understand.

[Ibanez]

Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..

Welfare I think is just as much if not more a fiscal issue as social due to the fiscal costs. I would include under that unbrella direct cash payments, EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc..

Why are you hell bent on parsing this? Yes, EVERYTHING ultimately is a fiscal issue. Especially if a government program/dept is started up to "manage" it. But first and foremost, it's a social issue. The SOLUTION to it is fiscal.

Really didn't think that was too difficult to understand.

BDK has a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees.