oops...cain is pro choice

[Liability]

The Rabbi doesn't think slavery is immoral. It's not as if a racially offensive post by him is somehow out of character.

That again?

I don't believe that his position is that slavery is not immoral.

I believe he was making a very different point and using the Socratic method to educate you.

As I recall the thread you are alluding to, he wanted you to make the case that slavery IS immoral so that he could use your answers in a form that would expose your inconsistency.

It was a bad strategy to use with you since, obviously, you prefer to use the example as evidence of something for which it does not really constitute evidence, to attack your opponent on the ad hominem level and to deflect.

Actually, fat boy, he said I was the only one who attempted to seriously debate him.

Then he ran off without debating.

Actually lard ass, he was trying to educate you when you typically turned into the pussy you are and deflected it dishonestly.

Hurry back to your girlfriend, SimplyAssholic, now. It's time for you two to toss each other's salads and compare notes again. Between the two of you maybe you can steal somebody else's original thought.

 

[elvis]

That again?

I don't believe that his position is that slavery is not immoral.

I believe he was making a very different point and using the Socratic method to educate you.

As I recall the thread you are alluding to, he wanted you to make the case that slavery IS immoral so that he could use your answers in a form that would expose your inconsistency.

It was a bad strategy to use with you since, obviously, you prefer to use the example as evidence of something for which it does not really constitute evidence, to attack your opponent on the ad hominem level and to deflect.

Actually, fat boy, he said I was the only one who attempted to seriously debate him.

Then he ran off without debating.

Actually lard ass, he was trying to educate you when you typically turned into the pussy you are and deflected it dishonestly.

Hurry back to your girlfriend, SimplyAssholic, now. It's time for you two to toss each other's salads and compare notes again. Between the two of you maybe you can steal somebody else's original thought.

SimplyAssholic and NYCuminhisrear are lovers?

 

[Liability]

Actually, fat boy, he said I was the only one who attempted to seriously debate him.

Then he ran off without debating.

Actually lard ass, he was trying to educate you when you typically turned into the pussy you are and deflected it dishonestly.

Hurry back to your girlfriend, SimplyAssholic, now. It's time for you two to toss each other's salads and compare notes again. Between the two of you maybe you can steal somebody else's original thought.

SimplyAssholic and NYCuminhisrear are lovers?

It would appear so.

And isn't THAT a disgusting thought?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Herman Cain's position is:

"I think abortion should be illegal, but I support the right of a woman to choose to break the law to get one."

Carby's claim ^ is simply Carby being dishonest, some more.

He doesn't "think" that at all. And it's not even remotely akin to anything said by Mr. Cain.

Read it and weep, asslicher.

This is what Cain said TODAY:

"I do not think abortion should be legal in this country," Cain said on Fox today. "Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that's that family's decision."

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[Liability]

I think Herman Cain's position is:

"I think abortion should be illegal, but I support the right of a woman to choose to break the law to get one."

Carby's claim ^ is simply Carby being dishonest, some more.

He doesn't "think" that at all. And it's not even remotely akin to anything said by Mr. Cain.

Read it and weep, asslicher.

This is what Cain said TODAY:

"I do not think abortion should be legal in this country," Cain said on Fox today. "Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that's that family's decision."

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha.

It's interesting that a guy who is familiar with the standards of this Board generally manages not to source his "quotes" for some reason.

Let me show you HOW it's done:

* * * * And in case you missed it here is A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion by Leon H. Wolf at Red State, who initially piled on Mr. Cain but later relented. He writes:

I have come to understand that Herman Cain has in reality done far more for the pro-life movement than I ever have. For instance, he donated $1 million of his own money in an attempt to encourage black voters to vote pro-life. His 2004 Senate campaign made life acentral issue. His work opposing abortion – especially among the black population – has led many leftist organizations to denounce him with hysterical, shrieking screeds; which is probative evidence of the fact that they were to some degree effective.

Now, HERE's the LINK: Herman Cain on Fox News – Responds to Abortion Comments Controversy

The Fox video clip is in that link, dick gobbler. Now here's the point. I had to go look it up when YOU should have included the link so that I (and others) could check to see the CONTEXT.

Of course, that's why you excerpted just a small fragment of what Mr. Cain said and deliberately CHOSE to shy away from offering the context, you cowardly pussy.

I still don't agree with Mr. Cain's statement. But my disagreement isn't limited to YOUR petty contention (which isn't even true) that he is allegedly waffling. He's not. He is recognizing a fact. He is coming dangerously close to acknowledging that MAYBE this is one of the areas not specifically within the power (the limited enumerated powers) of the Federal Government. He is nibbling around the edges of admitting that MAYBE this is one of the wrenching moral issues properly reserved not even to the STATES, but to the PEOPLE.

Could he be clearer? Yeah. Should he make the effort to be clearer? Ok.

But if you'd stop being a hack for one second, you MIGHT have to admit something and THAT would just fry your petty ass. He isn't actually all that far off base. If a woman is impregnated because she got raped, who the FUCK is the government to TELL her to carry the child?

(I said before, my own position is not entirely consistent in logic. And it isn't. So maybe I have a higher tolerance for somebody else struggling with this issue, too. ) So instead of trying to snipe at Mr. Cain, you idiot, why not admit that maybe you even partially agree with him? Would that HURT you?

 

[Ropey]

Thank you for the included sources Liability. Cain is really under the hammers I see.

And such a tough issue. I see Cain applying the US's application of separation of Church and State to Cain the man and Cain the US politician.

He is separating it. Am I missing something here?

 

[Liability]

Thank you for the included sources Liability. Cain is really under the hammers I see.

And such a tough issue. I see Cain applying the US's application of separation of Church and State to Cain the man and Cain the US politician.

He is separating it. Am I missing something here?

He is clearly attempting to take note of what the "law" might say (regardless of whether the law should even address the topic) on the one hand and what the PEOPLE might DO on the other hand.

I don't think he and his people have given this as much thought as I have.

But, to be fair, Mr. Cain has certainly put a lot of his money where his MOUTH is. He clearly sees abortion as morally wrong and he also sees the terrible damage it has done and might still do to black Americans.

Personally, I agree that abortion is wrong. Personally, I think that to the extent we value human life, and that the right to life itself is the most important "right" any of us can possibly have, that it necessarily follows that protection of that life is one of the duties of the government. But, since my logic is not impeccable, I believe that it is also wrong (maybe even an "evil") to compel a woman -- who has been raped or who is the victim of incest or whose life or health is going to be jeopardized -- to go full term.

My sense of it is that Mr. Cain is also aware of this sharp division between opposing one moral wrong and embracing another moral wrong. I simply cannot fault him for not being the kind of man who pretends that HE is in possession of the sole truth.

I have never agreed that abortion laws are strictly a STATE Law issue. And yet, part of me agrees that when push comes to shove, the right of the family to make tough moral choices of that nature is a RIGHT arguably reserved TO the PEOPLE.

I do not ascribe this thinking to Mr. Cain. But I think I'd like him even more if he would stake that out AS his position. Some of the more fervent anti-abortion absolutists would take it out on him, though.

Too bad. Concern for such political considerations does lend itself to the offering of some unclear statements.

 

[Ropey]

Thank you for the included sources Liability. Cain is really under the hammers I see.

And such a tough issue. I see Cain applying the US's application of separation of Church and State to Cain the man and Cain the US politician.

He is separating it. Am I missing something here?

He is clearly attempting to take note of what the "law" might say (regardless of whether the law should even address the topic) on the one hand and what the PEOPLE might DO on the other hand.

I don't think he and his people have given this as much thought as I have.

But, to be fair, Mr. Cain has certainly put a lot of his money where his MOUTH is. He clearly sees abortion as morally wrong and he also sees the terrible damage it has done and might still do to black Americans.

Personally, I agree that abortion is wrong. Personally, I think that to the extent we value human life, and that the right to life itself is the most important "right" any of us can possibly have, that it necessarily follows that protection of that life is one of the duties of the government. But, since my logic is not impeccable, I believe that it is also wrong (maybe even an "evil") to compel a woman -- who has been raped or who is the victim of incest or whose life or health is going to be jeopardized -- to go full term.

My sense of it is that Mr. Cain is also aware of this sharp division between opposing one moral wrong and embracing another moral wrong. I simply cannot fault him for not being the kind of man who pretends that HE is in possession of the sole truth.

I have never agreed that abortion laws are strictly a STATE Law issue. And yet, part of me agrees that when push comes to shove, the right of the family to make tough moral choices of that nature is a RIGHT arguably reserved TO the PEOPLE.

I do not ascribe this thinking to Mr. Cain. But I think I'd like him even more if he would stake that out AS his position. Some of the more fervent anti-abortion absolutists would take it out on him, though.

Too bad. Concern for such political considerations does lend itself to the offering of some unclear statements.

I would say he'll let it out more when he's not under the gun. He's in a bit of a protection mode, but I get a clear willingness to share his views from him once he's got a good concept. He's clearly not smooth edged with media. Good. I know others who were very smooth, who got it far easier and turned out pretty bad.

Edit:

And he's not telling us what he can see from his back porch either.

 

[Ravi]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey* is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.


_____________

EDIT: Actually, the question was asked by JoeB131, and kind of echoed by Ropey. Otherwise, my reply stands.

Except liberals don't call anyone that.

Quite the justification there, Liarbility. What an ass.

 

[Full-Auto]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey* is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.


_____________

EDIT: Actually, the question was asked by JoeB131, and kind of echoed by Ropey. Otherwise, my reply stands.

Except liberals don't call anyone that.

Quite the justification there, Liarbility. What an ass.

They dont? When did the official change come about? It seems some didnt get the word.


Maloney uses the "N" word - On Congress - POLITICO.com


FRANKEN’S VICIOUS USE OF THE “N” WORD | Minnesota Democrats Exposed

 

[JoeB131]

For the record, that word shouldn't be used by anyone.

Not Republicans, not Democrats, not Rap Artists. (Seriously, "Rap Artist" is an oxymoron).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carby's claim ^ is simply Carby being dishonest, some more.

He doesn't "think" that at all. And it's not even remotely akin to anything said by Mr. Cain.

Read it and weep, asslicher.

This is what Cain said TODAY:

"I do not think abortion should be legal in this country," Cain said on Fox today. "Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that's that family's decision."

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha.

It's interesting that a guy who is familiar with the standards of this Board generally manages not to source his "quotes" for some reason.

shut up. You got owned like the fat bitch you are. Try for once in your pathetic existence to take it like a man.

 

[Liability]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey* is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.


_____________

EDIT: Actually, the question was asked by JoeB131, and kind of echoed by Ropey. Otherwise, my reply stands.

Except liberals don't call anyone that.

Quite the justification there, Liarbility. What an ass.

Except that you are lying and liberal Dumbocraps sure DO use that term, and even a skanky liar like you knows it.

You are indeed an ass. An asshole. Raving Dishonesty, you have "struck" again. Thankfully, nobody takes you seriously, given your known lack of integrity.

 

[Liability]

Read it and weep, asslicher.

This is what Cain said TODAY:

"I do not think abortion should be legal in this country," Cain said on Fox today. "Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that's that family's decision."

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha.

It's interesting that a guy who is familiar with the standards of this Board generally manages not to source his "quotes" for some reason.

shut up. You got owned like the fat bitch you are. Try for once in your pathetic existence to take it like a man.

Your claim, as is usually the case, is empty.

The context is what matters, and you hid it. Everyone can see what you tried to do, there, bitch.

Give honesty a try someday. You really need all the help you can get.

You have been weighed and found lacking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting that a guy who is familiar with the standards of this Board generally manages not to source his "quotes" for some reason.

shut up. You got owned like the fat bitch you are. Try for once in your pathetic existence to take it like a man.

Your claim, as is usually the case, is empty.

The context is what matters, and you hid it. Everyone can see what you tried to do, there, bitch.

Give honesty a try someday. You really need all the help you can get.

You have been weighed and found lacking.

There is NO context that changes the fact that Cain said exactly what YOU claimed he didn't come close to believing.

The funniest part is, what I originally said was a joke. I just made up something absurd to be funny,

and then, dammit, it turns out to be the guy's actual position. This is the frustration of making fun of the rightwing nut crowd you belong to...

...you can't make up shit that's any funnier than the real thing.

 

[Liability]

shut up. You got owned like the fat bitch you are. Try for once in your pathetic existence to take it like a man.

Your claim, as is usually the case, is empty.

The context is what matters, and you hid it. Everyone can see what you tried to do, there, bitch.

Give honesty a try someday. You really need all the help you can get.

You have been weighed and found lacking.

There is NO context that changes the fact that Cain said exactly what YOU claimed he didn't come close to believing.

The funniest part is, what I originally said was a joke. I just made up something absurd to be funny,

and then, dammit, it turns out to be the guy's actual position. This is the frustration of making fun of the rightwing nut crowd you belong to...

...you can't make up shit that's any funnier than the real thing.

Your obvious dishonesty is already a given, pin head.

Yes, there was a context to what he said.

You, not surprisingly, chose to hide it.

But, what he said (in full) provides the missing context, bitch.

So, your out of context quote is NOT evidence that your claim has any validity.

Carbuncle, you needle dick fly fucker, your dishonest position and you got snagged on the truth yet again. This is as it should be.

 

[jillian]

You know me better than that Jillian. You are a smart woman and know exactly what I meant.
Not too long ago MSNBC did an interview with Cain, and instead of asking pertinant questions to his views on his politics, they went after him in a personal way.
So we can play sides or find out what the persons views with the issues really are.
Have I clarified myself?

i was being funny. it wasn't intended as personal.

or should i get all bent out of shape by intense's post (above)? i figure he was being a wisearse, too.

but so long as you mention it... what's a personal way? i figure calling someone a kenyansocialistunamericanmuslimnazi is pretty personal and that's all i've heard for three years.

i know what cain's views are. i agreed with one thing he said... and then he recanted. i hope the GOP hasn't sunk to where they think someone who said he'd consider emptying Gitmo in exchange for a single soldier is an appropriate candidate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCan5_y2nQ&feature=related]Herman Cain Blasts Lawrence O'Donnell in Interview on Civil Rights Movement Part1 Video RightFace.us - YouTube[/ame]

the thing about things like that is that if you're inclined to think cain is a flim flam artist (with his 9-9-9 footlong... oops... i mean, plan) then you're going to think lawrence o'donnell made him look like an idiot. (which i do). if you're inclined to think he has something valuable to offer (which i don't) then you'll think he made o'donnell look bad.

personally, i don't think he should go anywhere near washington, d.c., so there ya go.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Your obvious dishonesty is already a given, pin head.

.

Let's review the exchange, just for clarity, and just because it's so fucking funny:

I say:

I think Herman Cain's position is:

"I think abortion should be illegal, but I support the right of a woman to choose to break the law to get one."

Then Liability says:

Carby's claim ^ is simply Carby being dishonest, some more.

He doesn't "think" that at all. And it's not even remotely akin to anything said by Mr. Cain.

And then Cain says:

"Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that's that family's decision."

Dang, how great is that?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

so herman cain said he doesn't think government has a role in telling a woman what to do with her body.



man are the rightwingnuts gonna be ticked.

I actually agree with that statement.

The govt shouldn't be able to tell a man or a woman what they can do with their body.....yeah that means no obamacare and no govt getting involved in abortion in any way (sorry planned parenthood).


I personally feel having an abortion is a bad moral decision, however as a liberty loving american I don't think the govt has the right to promote or prevent it (and its definately not a constitutional authority)

 

[G.T.]

so herman cain said he doesn't think government has a role in telling a woman what to do with her body.



man are the rightwingnuts gonna be ticked.

I actually agree with that statement.

The govt shouldn't be able to tell a man or a woman what they can do with their body.....yeah that means no obamacare and no govt getting involved in abortion in any way (sorry planned parenthood).


I personally feel having an abortion is a bad moral decision, however as a liberty loving american I don't think the govt has the right to promote or prevent it (and its definately not a constitutional authority)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSGLBAinETc]Confused Cain Says Abortions Should Be Both Legal And Illegal - YouTube[/ame]