Game Over, Hillary

[Dogger]

I agree, Dogger. Great post on the subject. I doubt it will have any effect on Shogun. I'm almost convinced he wouldn't care if the mother was guaranteed to die because in his mind he is saving babies from being strangled at birth.

Thanks.

I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.

There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks.

I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.

There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.

I figured. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing out the idiocy of Shogun.

 

[Dogger]

I figured. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing out the idiocy of Shogun.

Ditto!

 

[Gunny]

Proving once again that maineman aka manfrommaine is a liar.

What are you talking about? Has he even posted in this thread? He hasn't been around in awhile.

 

[Shogun]

right on, ravi.


as a side bar, let me just say to shogun, or to anyone who is "pro-life", this issue is NOT about who thinks it's okey dokey to kill the unborn at random. it is about a woman's right to choose. the government can not be allowed to dictate that a woman must carry a baby to term. for most people, morality alone dictates that choice. for others, complex personal circumstances lead to the alternate choice. rather than assume awful things about those who stand up for a woman's right to choose, perhaps we could recognize that each of us could do more to fight for better circumstances for all women to be able to make better choices in the first place. for the record, i find the pro-life stance honorable, but it's frustrating to see the issue become so convoluted by the self righteous emotions involved.

thanks for your opinion. I care. I really do. Your freedom to kill babies for the sake of your irresponsible choice to fuck is clearly more importnant than the individual life of a human being who, as those familair with meiosis knows, is not merely a piece of a woman's body. Fuck you and your better circumstances for women if you are callous enough to disregard the life of a human fucking being for the sake of ignoring the GENETIC FACT of an unborn infant. I've got some 6x9 accomidations ready for you in the state penitentiary.


We give other murderers the same accomidations after their freedom to murder brushes up with what society says about killing other human beings. When the pendelum swings back, again let's all laugh at the last 2 scotus vetting litmus tests, you'll see why pretending RvW settled something was probably the wrong strategy to take.

 

[Shogun]

Of all those numbers, only ONE was above 50%. And most are split roughly evenly with less than a 5% gap between them. Thats pretty much the definition of no consensus.



I was hoping you would actually. Was quite easy to set you up for the fall there. Like stealing candy from a baby that was.

Edit: For some reason on the original quote not all the numbers showed up. The important policy questions are, for the most part, under 50%. Such as when abortions should be restricted and such.

You math skills are almost as amazing as your ability to admit the futility of your position. Feel free to believe that the pro-life crowd is just about to roll over and accept your blank check for dead babies.

NO consensus sure IS usually defined as an easy majority FOR the restriction of abortions.. yup. enjoy the litmus test vetting of the next scotus judge, dude. It's probably not a giant knee-slapper this side of your insistance that America loves abortions.

 

[Shogun]

Of course it was. Thats because Republicans in Congress are pro-life. Thats doing really well by them



Umm, no. Its massively hard to change for the very reason that its NOT a document of public opinion.

yea.. because ONLY republicans are against abortions!





Indeed, it probably IS their abortions stance, and NOT a fuckup president, that has affected republican popularity!




goddamn, dude..


and, stupid, it was pretty easy to fucking change in the 60s given the social outcry for equality, eh? It was pretty easy to change befor and after prohibition, eh? Yet, here we are almost 40 fucking years outside of RvW and YOU seem to think that the will of the American people CANT pull the rug out of your baby stomping feet.




Like I said, keep thinking that. You are going to be REAL pissed off when vetted testimony doesn't match the majority ruling of its eventual overturning.

 

[Shogun]

Shogie baby....

The Constitution a document of public opinion?

That might be one of the most bizarre statements I've ever seen.... the whole point of the Constitution is that IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION. And its supposed to protect me from zealous idiots like youi.

If it were, how long do you think you'd be able to hang on to your guns?

And this from the person who think the world ended when they made him put out his cigarettes in restaurants.

Long enough to thank you for bringing up the second, an amendment CLEARLY indicating a particular right, which doesn't rely on scotus interpretations since, and Im sure you must have forgotten, IS a restricted right that is happily limited by you gunhating token liberals. Thus, if an actual enumerated right can be minimized to the point of obscurity then guess how a fabricated "right" created by RvW can be treated.

Property rights are actually stated in the constitution. Where do you see mention of baby killing again? I don't recall reading anything about baby murder at all in our little group charter. Maybe you can point that out for me...



and yes, popular opinon. Which is why it took a 100years after the emancipation proc to actually kick it. Which is why the original "equality" talking point only applied to white, landownding men. Which is why prohibition was even ALLOWED top occure.


You are a lawyer, right?

 

[Shogun]

Not only is their no consensus, there isn't even a definition of terms. More difficult could mean something like what was voted on in my state recently: requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. That would certainly qualify as "more difficult."

btw, in a Republican controlled state, the measure failed.

HA!

Yea... and with the allowance of Dakota's strict ban on particular abortive procedures we sure do see that "MORE RESTRICTIVE" means just having an ultrasound.






High Court Upholds Curb on Abortion
5-4 Vote Affirms Ban on 'Partial-Birth' Procedure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html


yea.. sure.. of course we are just talking about ultrasounds and waiting periods.

sure.

 

[Shogun]

I'm surprised you didn't post this one:

A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion

--------------------Favor Oppose Unsure

11/11-13/05--------64----34----2
1/10-12/03---------72----26----2
7/25-28/96---------70----26----4
1/16-19/92---------73----25----2

The bitches are winning, run for the hills Shog!!!

Actually, this one surprised me.

Bitches are WINNING, eh?




and why should it surprise you that American's value equality outside of your vaginal crusade?

 

[AllieBaba]

Thanks.

I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.

There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.

Honestly, dogger, you should talk.

Shogun may be annoying and extremely rude and disgusting at times, but he is intelligent and presents many valid points.

I can handle rude and annoying, I can't handle elitist dillholes who don't even know that they are elitist or even what the word means, and who are too arrogant to 1. Look words up in a dictionary when they have been told repeatedly they use it incorrectly, and 2. Think they're much smarter than they are.

 

[Shogun]

First, let's note that the statistics cited earlier in the thread show that results can differ depending on how the question is framed. I've selected two differing poll references on the same topic: partial birth abortion. Two polls show a 15 point variance on this single issue:





When I tried to reframe the questions, Shogun responded, "Indeed, you just don't get to frame the results around your opinion." [Post #72]

But that wasn't accurate. I have read the partial birth statute and the court cases that resolved the Constitutional dispute. The big issue was whether the law could omit any exception to protect the HEALTH of the mother. The new law permits the procedure to save her life, but not her health. I reframed the questions to focus on this important distinction, by listing cases where partial birth abortion is banned, but horrible consequences would ensue.

The partial birth abortion law will not allow the procedure in the following cases:

• the fetus will not survive, but the mother will
• carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause irreparable psychological damage
• carrying the doomed fetus to term will cause permanent physical injury
• the damaged or injured mother will be rendered incapable of taking care of other children already in this world
• all of these circumstance will occur, but the doctor cannot certify the mother will die

Another problem comes from the uncertainity of modern medicine. If the doctor thinks the mother might die, but he can't be positive that an abortion is necessary to save her life, he takes a serious legal risk. Even if prosecutions are unsuccessful, the threat will deter enough doctors that some women will die.

This isn't idle speculation. This is real. For the most part, the people who support this law in polls don't understand what the Republican Congress really did. The monsters who wrote the law and the right-wing court that upheld it understood this, but just didn't care.

Cry me a fucking river. If ONLY it were the case that abortions were being administered according to a specific health risk to the mother.. you know.. BESIDES depression.




and, you can spare me your "im a lawyer, Im holier than thou" bullshit. Im quite sure that the people voting against killing babies know exactly what they are doing. Perhaps you do not put as much weight on the value of responsibility when killing a kid is as convenient as it is but, again, you might as well get pissed off now and be through with it.

 

[AllieBaba]

If he's a lawyer, I'm a ballerina.

 

[Shogun]

I agree, Dogger. Great post on the subject. I doubt it will have any effect on Shogun. I'm almost convinced he wouldn't care if the mother was guaranteed to die because in his mind he is saving babies from being strangled at birth.

and I'm pretty sure you would validate any ole whore scraping out the life of another human being because it hinders her cat scratch fever. Again, blame yourself for being as much of a hardline fanatic as your antithesis. Remember, none of this would EVER blossom into reality if you'd take the same zipper wisdom that you happily dole out to men.

 

[ReillyT]

If he's a lawyer, I'm a ballerina.

I am pretty sure he is a lawyer, and I have more faith that you were a ballerina than that you were ever a journalist - high school newspaper aside.

 

[Shogun]

Thanks.

I'm not trying to influence Shogun. I've seen cocker spaniels with a higher learning capicity.

There are rational people who read these posts, and will consider other points of view. That's my target.

yea.. I bet you saw quite a learning curve if the peanut butter were applied to just the right spot, dude.


Indeed, thankfully your standard for rational only applies to pro-lifers, eh? What other point of view have YOU considered in this thread?

oh, silly me.. there I go bursting your little pompous bubble again.

 

[Shogun]

I figured. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing out the idiocy of Shogun.

and you do it so well with all those personal, non-supported, opinons and school of fish shit talking.




Indeed, your ability to pipe in with rhetoric is MASTERFUL

 

[Larkinn]

You math skills are almost as amazing as your ability to admit the futility of your position. Feel free to believe that the pro-life crowd is just about to roll over and accept your blank check for dead babies.

Hmm when did I say there should be no restrictions again?

NO consensus sure IS usually defined as an easy majority FOR the restriction of abortions.. yup.

Are you really this dishonest? The majority wants restrictions, yes. However what you wilfully left out is that the restrictions that they want vary greatly .

By the way, the majority also doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

enjoy the litmus test vetting of the next scotus judge, dude. It's probably not a giant knee-slapper this side of your insistance that America loves abortions.

Considering the litmus test for Democrats is that the nominee won't overturn Roe v. Wade, and Democrats control the Senate, I will enjoy it actually.

yea.. because ONLY republicans are against abortions!

Did I say that? No. Might try to stick to the truth for once. What is true is that the pro-life, pro-choice divide falls roughtly equal with Democrats and Republicans.

and, stupid, it was pretty easy to fucking change in the 60s given the social outcry for equality, eh? It was pretty easy to change befor and after prohibition, eh? Yet, here we are almost 40 fucking years outside of RvW and YOU seem to think that the will of the American people CANT pull the rug out of your baby stomping feet.

Wait, you mean the 60% of Americans who don't want Roe v. Wade overturned?

Like I said, keep thinking that. You are going to be REAL pissed off when vetted testimony doesn't match the majority ruling of its eventual overturning.

Why does it even need to be overturned? I thought it wasn't law according to your brilliant legal analysis

Long enough to thank you for bringing up the second, an amendment CLEARLY indicating a particular right, which doesn't rely on scotus interpretations since, and Im sure you must have forgotten, IS a restricted right that is happily limited by you gunhating token liberals.

Which is why its before the USSC right now, right? Because its so clear and doesn't depend on interpretation?

Property rights are actually stated in the constitution. Where do you see mention of baby killing again? I don't recall reading anything about baby murder at all in our little group charter. Maybe you can point that out for me...

The USSC pointed out where the protections come in. They get to decide, not you. You don't see it where it says in the Constitution? Nobody gives a shit because your opinion is worth exactly 0.

 

[Dogger]

yap, yap, yap, yap, blah, blah, blah, . . . Im quite sure that the people voting against killing babies know exactly what they are doing.

In this case, I agree. I laid it out for you. They know exactly what they are doing. They are voting to kill women.

 

[AllieBaba]

I am pretty sure he is a lawyer, and I have more faith that you were a ballerina than that you were ever a journalist - high school newspaper aside.

high school, college and the East Oregonian.
I assure you, your high regard for journalists is misplaced. I was one of the more ethical.