The Official Republican Debates Thread

[no1tovote4]

Once they pop out, well then they are on their own.

Hopefully they survive to become enlistment age.

The foder is running low.

More emotive talking points. Look at the R platform and you will see that welfare is on it. There is no end to the emotive rhetoric made to make people think that Rs have no compassion that caring somehow is removed from people when they become Rs.

This is strawman argument.

 

[no1tovote4]

i beg to differ no1, DISMEMBERMENT of the fetus in the womb, is the other LEGAL alternative... injection in through the womb and in to the fetus to poison them to death is not as safe as they thought...from what i have read....

either way, banning partial birth abortion, will not in any way, shape or form, stop the demise of the child to be, and now requires a woman to dismember in her womb and extract her child to be even if she does have medical problems with her child, she will be forced to do this other barbaric procedure of detaching the head from the torso inside the womb, and this woman will not be able to deliver an intact baby, that she can hold and mourn....

i have a problem with this ruling without the woman's health being considered.

and if concerns of a woman's headache would be considered ''health'' of a woman then it could have been worded to correct this loophole.


care

Seriously, this is emotive rhetoric, dismemberment is not the only option. The way the progeny is killed in this procedure was barbaric and unnecessary. Saying that they think there may be more complications than they thought from requiring the death of the progeny before hand was not considered strong enough after the testimony of many doctors giving a different viewpoint.

So, disagree if you wish, but this "dismemberment" garbage is emotive rhetoric.

They simply gave the progeny a way of dying far less discomfiting than first being delivered almost all the way by forceps then killed before delivering the head without any painkiller. If you have ever watched an injured infant project you would not be promoting such a death for them.

 

[no1tovote4]

Really.... I thought that I had read that most ALL partial birth abortions take place between 20-24 weeks?

And perhaps those children at 24 weeks could survive outside of the womb with alot of medical care/incubators etc but at 20 weeks it is highly unlikely of survival out side of the womb...

Partial birth abortion ban did NOTHING to save the demise of the child to be...don't fool yourself in to believing otherwise.

I listened to the Supreme court hearing on this on c-span and came away shocked at what I learned!

Care

The youngest child to survive early birth was at 20 weeks. It seems that many of these children could be saved.

 

[musicman]

So how do we punish the men they're so animalistically promiscuous with for their own animalistic promiscuity? Shotgun weddings?
Are we still trying to pretend only the sluttiest of girls ever had sex before their wedding nights until the Pill was invented? Seriously? We're still trying to pull off this Madonna/Whore bullshit?

No - we're trying to "pull offf" a realistic appraisal of what serves the interests of the respective genders. Women possessed a better understanding of this, before the sexual revolution sold them the lie that they ought to be as stupid, short-sighted, self-absorbed, and determinedly self-destructive through carnality as men.

Nevertheless, I recognize the abortion issue as a highly-charged, emotional question of behavior - one that a self-governing people ought to be able to determine for themselves. I'd be quite content to put it before the voters. Would you?

Obviously I'm not seeing it the way you are. Seems pointless to argue about someone's intentions in saying something unless at least one of us has some evidence of what those intentions were. We'll only go in circles.

Oh, I don't know. I think we can pin it down to at least a degree that's acceptable to both of us. Our perceptions are not without importance simply because they're our perceptions.

Do you perceive Bill Clinton's "safe and rare" statement as having emanated from a sincere, guileless, and straightforward intelligence?

 

[maineman]

Nevertheless, I recognize the abortion issue as a highly-charged, emotional question of behavior - one that a self-governing people ought to be able to determine for themselves. I'd be quite content to put it before the voters. Would you?

What a ridiculous assertion. Do you think we should have put school desegregation before the voters in southern states in 1954? Since when do we allow the majority to take away constitutional rights from the minority at the ballot box?

 

[musicman]

What a ridiculous assertion. Do you think we should have put school desegregation before the voters in southern states in 1954? Since when do we allow the majority to take away constitutional rights from the minority at the ballot box?

Oh, I don't know...how about, since "constitutional rights" begin being conjured up out of thin air by agenda-driven tyrants, and enforced though they directly contradict the clear, simple language of the Constitution itself?

 

[maineman]

Oh, I don't know...how about, since "constitutional rights" begin being conjured up out of thin air by agenda-driven tyrants, and enforced though they directly contradict the clear, simple language of the Constitution itself?

constitutional rights have been determined by the supreme court...the way our founding fathers wanted them to be....you got a problem with that, then the way to deal with it is to elect presidents who will nominated judges to the supreme court that will overturn the rights previously established.

Why not answer my question vis a vis Brown v. Board of Education? Would you have the southern states vote on school desegregation, or are you claiming the right to second guess some of the supreme court decisions but not all?

 

[wiggles]

No - we're trying to "pull offf" a realistic appraisal of what serves the interests of the respective genders. Women possessed a better understanding of this, before the sexual revolution sold them the lie that they ought to be as stupid, short-sighted, self-absorbed, and determinedly self-destructive through carnality as men.

and these stupid self-destructive men that knock them up? consequences for their behavior? anything? what's "best" for their "respective gender," hmm?

Oh, I don't know. I think we can pin it down to at least a degree that's acceptable to both of us. Our perceptions are not without importance simply because they're our perceptions.

Do you perceive Bill Clinton's "safe and rare" statement as having emanated from a sincere, guileless, and straightforward intelligence?

Yes. Christ. Is that your favorite debate tactic? You ask the same question over and over until the person you're asking gives you the answer you want just to get you to shut up?

 

[musicman]

constitutional rights have been determined by the supreme court...the way our founding fathers wanted them to be....you got a problem with that, then the way to deal with it is to elect presidents who will nominated judges to the supreme court that will overturn the rights previously established.

Why not answer my question vis a vis Brown v. Board of Education? Would you have the southern states vote on school desegregation, or are you claiming the right to second guess some of the supreme court decisions but not all?

A weak attempt at sliming me with a false conclusion. Clearly, the states overstepped their bounds in trying to enforce segregation; it put them in direct opposition to the law of the land. The federal government has a very few, very specific, Constitutionally-assigned areas of responsibility - but the Court acted appropriately in the matter of Brown.

Let's disabuse ourselves of the notion, though, that Supreme court Justices are somehow the high priests of our society. Personally, I like Ann Coulter's suggestion that they be made to wear lime-green leisure suits instead of black robes. Awe before authority is simply not in the American character; we can second-guess any damn thing we want.

 

[maineman]

A weak attempt at sliming me with a false conclusion. Clearly, the states overstepped their bounds in trying to enforce segregation; it put them in direct opposition to the law of the land. The federal government has a very few, very specific, Constitutionally-assigned areas of responsibility - but the Court acted appropriately in the matter of Brown.

Let's disabuse ourselves of the notion, though, that Supreme court Justices are somehow the high priests of our society. Personally, I like Ann Coulter's suggestion that they be made to wear lime-green leisure suits instead of black robes. Awe before authority is simply not in the American character; we can second-guess any damn thing we want.

Like I said....do you put yourself above the Supreme Court on Roe v Wade only, or do you think you are smarter than nine learned justices on all counts?

and if so, what, pray tell, are your qualifications?

 

[no1tovote4]

Like I said....do you put yourself above the Supreme Court on Roe v Wade only, or do you think you are smarter than nine learned justices on all counts?

and if so, what, pray tell, are your qualifications?

Do you put yourself below them, or do you question their rulings on occasion? Maybe like the current late-term abortion ruling....

Would you have questioned the Dredd Scott ruling?

 

[maineman]

Do you put yourself below them, or do you question their rulings on occasion? Maybe like the current late-term abortion ruling....

Would you have questioned the Dredd Scott ruling?

I have never questioned the authority of the supreme court....and even if they were to overturn Roe v. Wade, I would still not question their authority.

I would have questioned the wisdom of Dredd Scott decision, but never the authority of the court to hold in the manner that they did.

 

[no1tovote4]

I have never questioned the authority of the supreme court....and even if they were to overturn Roe v. Wade, I would still not question their authority.

I would have questioned the wisdom of Dredd Scott decision, but never the authority of the court to hold in the manner that they did.

So, when a Republican questions the wisdom of the Court they are questioning the Authority of the court but when an avowed Democrat does it they are only questioning the wisdom?

I think that consistently questioning the wisdom of the courts rulings is just one more way that we have checks and balances.

 

[maineman]

I guess being the son of an attorney makes me seriously question when a layman such as musicman claims to know when the court has acted appropriately and when they have not.

I mean, who the **** is HE to say that HE has a better understanding of the constitution than the nine best and brightest jurist in America?

 

[musicman]

and these stupid self-destructive men that knock them up? consequences for their behavior?

Once upon a time, the consequences were "no sex with any decent, self-respecting woman until he'd demonstrated that he could act in the interests of something besides 'what feels good, what tastes good, and what's going to make me happy in the next thirty seconds of my life' ". Hopelessly archaic, I know - but certainly successful for a long period of time. And, ample proof that we men - while hopelessly hardheaded - can be trained to better see where our interrests ultimately lie.

anything? what's "best" for their "respective gender," hmm?

No sex with any decent, self-respecting woman until he's demonstrated that he can act in the interests of something other than, "what feels good, what tastes good, and what's going to make me happy in the next thirty seconds of my life" - mmm'k?

Yes. Christ. Is that your favorite debate tactic? You ask the same question over and over until the person you're asking gives you the answer you want just to get you to shut up?

Perhaps the person might consider giving a straight answer to begin with.

You REALLY believe that about Clinton? Wow. I have no choice but to take you at your word; you've never been anything but honest with me. With all goodwill, though, I wonder if you're being as honest with yourself.

 

[no1tovote4]

I guess being the son of an attorney makes me seriously question when a layman such as musicman claims to know when the court has acted appropriately and when they have not.

I mean, who the **** is HE to say that HE has a better understanding of the constitution than the nine best and brightest jurist in America?

And who are you to question the wisdom of the Dredd Scott decision? Saying that somebody thinks they ruled wrongly is simply questioning the wisdom of their decision. Now if they said that they would willfully disobey them, that would be questioning their authority. Which he has not done.

So, it is either good to question our leadership's wisdom or not. I personally believe that it was what our system was designed around. But to suggest that his questioning is somehow different and questions their actual authority when he clearly makes no argument that the laws are not enforceable does not logically follow.

 

[musicman]

I guess being the son of an attorney makes me seriously question when a layman such as musicman claims to know when the court has acted appropriately and when they have not.

I mean, who the **** is HE to say that HE has a better understanding of the constitution than the nine best and brightest jurist in America?

I'm an American, Jack. I have an innate lack of awe for authority. I'm allowed to have that, you see. I'm allowed to think, and speak, and question. You are likewise allowed to quake and piss your pants at the sight of a black robe, if that's your freaky thing. We're a free people.

 

[maineman]

I cannot argue against that assertion.

 

[Paul Revere]

The youngest child to survive early birth was at 20 weeks. It seems that many of these children could be saved.

RSR?

 

[Paul Revere]

More emotive talking points. Look at the R platform and you will see that welfare is on it. There is no end to the emotive rhetoric made to make people think that Rs have no compassion that caring somehow is removed from people when they become Rs.

This is strawman argument.

I was an R until R became an N.
Now I am an I.