[QUOTE=rcmodels;169985]Hillary is the only choice in this election. She's got a 3 point plan to end the war, to which there is no military solution. She's fought hard for over 35 years, dedicating herself to public service straight out of law school going to work for the children's defense fund, rather than taking a well paying job at a firm. No one in this election would be talking about universal health care were it not for her. Her plan is the only sensible plan. It allows those who like their coverage to keep it, prevents companies from denying coverage to people and forces them to compete on the basis of quality of care, rather than for the safest clients. By mandating coverage her plan covers everyone while making it affordable for all. It creates no new bureaucracy. When you compare her plan and Obama's, his plan leaves 15 million people uninsured, which when they require care will ultimately cost us more when they show up in the emergency room. Paul Krugman from the NY Times has a comparison showing that the cost per person is $2,000 more under Obama's plan. Hillary's plan just makes more sense, and is truly universal. She's got the best energy policy, it will stop the promotion of nuclear power, take away the unnecessary oil subsidies that lead to $40 billion in windfall profits, and reinvest that into our scientific community to further development of renewable energy technologies and most importantly, actually put those into application.
There are only two options in this election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama has very little experience. He lacks a platform, its great that he inspires and makes us feel all warm and fuzzy, but that isn't what we need. We need someone who is going to get stuff done. Hillary has a record that shows she has delivered change in the past and will do so for us again.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for a 3rd Bush term. That is not what this country needs. There is no military solution in Iraq. McCain is no maverick as the media portrays him. Don't be fooled. He won't end this war. He won't change healthcare.
If you look at the polls, Hillary actually has a higher favorability rating than Obama, and lower unfavorable ratings. The idea that she is more polarizing than anyone else out there is a myth. Look at the data. Barack Obama is not going to transcend party lines or anything like that. Statistically all candidates end up with roughly equal favorability ratings by the end of the election. Don't for a minute think that republicans will wake up one morning and suddenly have some epiphany that they're going to vote for a candidate who's plans and ideologies are contradictory to their own philosophies.
There are no skeletons in Hillary's closet, everything is in the open. She's successfully taken on the republicans and beaten them. She's stood up to the republican smear machine and survived and only expanded her popularity in NY. She'll take on McCain and win.[/QUOTE]
With deepest respect, you may want to take a step back for a moment, no candidate in this election is as clear a choice as you claim, and no candidate's policies would be the end all and be all.
I am not sure experience is really the best direction to head this time. I am more interested in a person who will reverse the ackamony that has been emblematic of the body politic over the past 16 years. I am not certain of many things, but one I am sure is that Clinton will not reverse that trend. Of course the sad part is that at this point, it has less to do with her, but the players in both parties over the past couple decades, unfortunately she is the figurehead of the division between political idealogies in this country.
Sure, no died-in-the-wool GOP member will vote for Obama, but there is a huge swath of the electorate that is not strongly tied to either party, a group that is much larger than either party's core, these types of voters tend to head toward both Obama and McCain.
And finally, I am not sure why you'd want to stop the promotion of nuclear power, I think it is an important part of any energy policy.
Research what partial birth abortion is (NOT your standard abortion)
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.
Now, womens right to choose and all that aside, I think any civilized person can agree that it's pretty barbaric to jam scissors into someones skull and suck their brains out.
Yet she fought to keep that legal. Didn't just vote against the ban like Obama did, but fought to prevent the ban on it. Value of human life rank anywhere on here?
Her husband did good for the economy, but she's not Bill. Ever wonder why she didn't divorce him? I gurentee you it's not out of loyalty to him as a devoted wife, it's because she gets to keep the name "Clinton" giving her a shot at the whitehouse.
Womans a liar, and a darn good one at that. Frankly, I prefer a bad liar to a good one in the whitehouse.
None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).
All in all, I'll probably just do a write in for Ron Paul come election day. Throwing my vote away, sure...but hell...if I vote for anyone that makes it to the general elections I'm throwing my nation away.
[COLOR="DarkOrange"]A2597 is saddened to see the value of human life drop to 0%[/COLOR]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=A2597;170012]Research what partial birth abortion is (NOT your standard abortion)
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity (I find the practice as abhorent as you do), why was she fighting against the ban? Was the proposed ban complete and outright, even in the case where it's necessary to save the mother?
[quote]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/quote]
Politician? Honest? Nah... :D
[quote]All in all, I'll probably just do a write in for Ron Paul come election day. Throwing my vote away, sure...but hell...if I vote for anyone that makes it to the general elections I'm throwing my nation away.[/quote]
The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote. Any vote, no matter what, is valid and you shouldn't look at it as "throwing your vote away" to vote for someone you think is good for the job. If everyone didn't think that they have to vote for one of only two people, things would be very different. Hell, if you have a "no confidence" option (like we do on NZ ballots), a majority could say none of the candidates are suitable, and then another election would have to be held, encouraging other, potentially better, candidates to join in.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;170013]So, just how many times has the US invaded Canada? 4?
We don't have a place to store nuclear wast now. lots of it is sitting around in containers waiting to find a home. For several thousand years.[/QUOTE]
Consider the following: zero-use nuclear waste is actually a fairly low volume product of a nationwide nuclear power infrastructure. Any of this waste that cannot be processed further Will also be suitably stored in the [I]one day[/I] complete [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain"]Yucca Mountain complex[/URL]. They may be around for thousands of years, but the grand total for generated waste is significantly lower than conventional power with exceptionally low emissions of any sort. The vast majority of these would be from the freight rail and cargo trucks carrying the waste from the plant to the reprocessing facility or storage depot.
[QUOTE=A2597;170012]yea, Hillary scares the crap out of me frankly.
Research what partial birth abortion is (NOT your standard abortion)
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.
Now, womens right to choose and all that aside, I think any civilized person can agree that it's pretty barbaric to jam scissors into someones skull and suck their brains out.
Yet she fought to keep that legal. Didn't just vote against the ban like Obama did, but fought to prevent the ban on it. Value of human life rank anywhere on here?
[I][/I][/QUOTE]
I don't consider myself particularly informed as to the particular mechanisms used to carry out an abortion, but I also do not go in with rosy thoughts about such things. It isn't something friendly to visualize. I think the more important thing to consider here is not [B]what[/B] is done, but why it is done. When and why would such an abortion be considered and why would it be done? What are the benefits of doing so and would performing the act offer any significantly better options than allowing the birth to go through? I'm not intending to trigger a debate here on that matter so lets avoid getting to involved in the subject, but I do believe that from a political stance, this is a good course of action.
[QUOTE=rcmodels;169985][I][/I] She's got the best energy policy, it will stop the promotion of nuclear power, take away the unnecessary oil subsidies that lead to $40 billion in windfall profits, and reinvest that into our scientific community to further development of renewable energy technologies and most importantly, actually put those into application.
[I][/I]
There are no skeletons in Hillary's closet, everything is in the open. She's successfully taken on the republicans and beaten them. She's stood up to the republican smear machine and survived and only expanded her popularity in NY. She'll take on McCain and win.[/QUOTE]
I fail to understand the fear this nation has of nuclear power. A few minutes of research into the modern power systems is more than enough to reassure even the most frightened, but I just don't see it happening. The only other options that would provide a suitable capacity increase within the united states are either large sources of pollution or only serve to continue the dependence on petroleum products/by-products. And as mentioned by others in other threads, "Eco-friendly" generation systems all have to pull their energy from somewhere. Wind power leeches kinetic energy from the moving air, tidal generators absorb wave energy and are likely to produce other side-effects that we are not particularly aware of, likely related to erosion or local aquatic environmental development, etc. Nuclear is one of the lowest-impact options and gives us 100+ years of potential energy.
I disagree with that last point. The Republicans are/were aiming for a fight against Hillary, not Obama. They have a great deal of ammunition prepped for her selection and I feel her presence would only serve to make a harsh campaign environment even worse and further draw it away from the issues. And as a New Yorker, I can say that her general reputation here is not quite so hot. Her initial campaign was based largely around attacking Lazio and ripping apart his lesser points while ignoring most of the issues of great concern. Her run following election was fairly weak and barely even accomplished a number of her more trivial promises and goals. I don't feel this would change too much once she enters office and, as many above have already mentioned, and only serves to continue the harsh partisan bullshit that is causing so much trouble right now.
[QUOTE=Biggles;170020]Just out of curiosity (I find the practice as abhorent as you do), why was she fighting against the ban? Was the proposed ban complete and outright, even in the case where it's necessary to save the mother?
[/QUOTE]
The proposed ban prohibited the use of Partial Birth abortion in all cases - except when the life of the mother was at risk.
Hillary has a long voting record of pro-choice , or as some of the right wingers like to put it "Anti-Family". Some snippets from her voting record:
# Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
(On the issues is about as unbiased a source as you can find btw, just list quotes and voting records on a variety of issues, highly recommend it. )
And since we all know that the personal views of a politician are worthless, since it's their sponsors that actually tell them how to do things, find otu where your candidates money comes from, and you'll find out who runs the nation:
[url]http://www.opensecrets.org/[/url]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Chaosed;170013] We don't have a place to store nuclear wast now. lots of it is sitting around in containers waiting to find a home. For several thousand years.[/QUOTE]
The "It'll be around for thousands of years!" argument makes the unreasonable assumption that we'll never develop a safe way to get the stuff to orbit, because once that happens it's all going straight into the Sun. :p
[QUOTE=A2597;170012]Womans a liar, and a darn good one at that. Frankly, I prefer a bad liar to a good one in the whitehouse.
[/QUOTE]
No, you don't. That's like asking for an honest lawyer, or a shark without teeth. Politicians lie the moment they open their mouths. And if they are any good at it, they don't get caught in a lie. And if they don't lie outright, they exaggerate, distort the truth or they don't tell you the whole truth. Not answering a direct (yes/no) question by answering a different one used to be a common practice for politicians, but I guess it's a dying art form. The current administration can't even be bothered to hide their game or to pretend they care about people. Now how sad is that?
[QUOTE]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/QUOTE]
That's the tell-tale sign of a good liar if you think he's honest. :D
[QUOTE=A2597;170015][COLOR="DarkOrange"]A2597 is saddened to see the value of human life drop to 0%[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Breaking news, human life hits an all-time low since... forever. If history teaches us anything, it's that human life isn't worth anything at all. We are sheep, lemmings, consumers, cows to be milked and slaughtered.
Don't wish to start a debate here but I for a long time was strongly anti-abortion till I had a long conversation with my ex who had an abortion. It is very heart wrenching but it was necessary she could not afford to take care of herself much less the kid and she broke up with the boyfriend. Had she had the baby she would have been in much worse circumstances then she is now. Not that we keep in touch anymore but from what I've learned she would not have survived with a son or daughter at her feet. She said it was a hard decision but she had no choice. She was already spending upwards of $20,000 a year on her own health.
[QUOTE=JohnnyOnTheSpot;170040]Don't wish to start a debate here but I for a long time was strongly anti-abortion till I had a long conversation with my ex who had an abortion. It is very heart wrenching but it was necessary she could not afford to take care of herself much less the kid and she broke up with the boyfriend. Had she had the baby she would have been in much worse circumstances then she is now. Not that we keep in touch anymore but from what I've learned she would not have survived with a son or daughter at her feet. She said it was a hard decision but she had no choice. She was already spending upwards of $20,000 a year on her own health.[/QUOTE]
Having had an abortion with an ex, even though I was using condoms she became pregnant. It was probably harder on me than her, but we were both convinced we couldnt have a baby just then, and luckily we didnt. If we had had it, neither she or me would have had an education, and would have found life hard. People who say pro abortionists dont value life much, must get it through their head that they themselves dont value the life of the potential mother very highly. Suffice to say, women should be able to make choices about their own bodies, ney their own futures, and have meaningful relationships without having to worry about what is to come, say when they are 18 years old..
[QUOTE=Biggles;170029]The "It'll be around for thousands of years!" argument makes the unreasonable assumption that we'll never develop a safe way to get the stuff to orbit, because once that happens it's all going straight into the Sun. :p[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JohnnyOnTheSpot;170043]That statement doesn't scare you A#? IT sure scares me...[/QUOTE]
I think you might have missed some of my previous post:
[quote=A2597]Obama - If it's between McCain and Obama, Obama gets my vote.[/quote]
[quote=A2597]Yea, well..I don't like McCain one bit. And while there is something off about Obama, he does strike me as someone that might actually bring about some positive change. McCain...he'd make it worse.[/quote]
[quote=A2597]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/quote]
Yea, that statement does scare me. I'm saying much as I don't want McCain in office, I'm more afraid of Hillary than McCain. (which is impressive really) I don't want either one though.
You realize that the Dilate and Extract method of abortion has only been used in extreme cases? The people against it always call it partial-birth abortion to make it sound as horrible as possible and never mention that it's almost never used. Doctors will only perform this in cases where the fetus is not viable or the mother's life is at risk and there's no other way to do it.
This bill was used by the anti-abortion people as a wedge bill to get a foot in the legislative door on their quest to outlaw all abortions.
A2597's statement: The value of human life dropped to 0.
That is a political statement. Bush the Bloody would let that same baby die in a hospital as he signed a bill in Texas to let babies with terminal illnesses die if the parents don't have the money to pay.
I value the life of the mother over the fatally ill baby.
My way the mother lives. The other way they may both be dead in a few years.
My value = 1
The other value other is 0 or 1.
Partial birth is a political name for a medical proceeder.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;170056]A2597's statement: The value of human life dropped to 0.
That is a political statement. Bush the Bloody would let that same baby die in a hospital as he signed a bill in Texas to let babies with terminal illnesses die if the parents don't have the money to pay.
I value the life of the mother over the fatally ill baby.
My way the mother lives. The other way they may both be dead in a few years.
My value = 1
The other value other is 0 or 1.
Partial birth is a political name for a medical proceeder.
Fell for it I didn't. :P[/QUOTE]
2,200 - 5,000 a year seems pretty high for "Medical nessesity" to me.
[URL="http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/partial-birth-abortion.htm"]Source 1[/URL]
If it were only used in the case of life or death of a mother, I don't think people would have much of an issue, except I really fail to see how this method is safer...I mean, you pull the kid out and suck out it's brains while it's head is still inside the mother...how exactly is that safer? Oh yea, we can't let it's head out, otherwise it's a human. So long as it's head is inside, it's something we can kill because it's not sucking down it's own oxygen...
sorry, I can't justify it. If it will save the mothers life...ok, last resort.
But it was being used far more often than medically necessary if those numbers are at all accurate, and surely you would agree that it's not something to be done on a whim as often seems the case.
[QUOTE=A2597;170061]2,200 - 5,000 a year seems pretty high for "Medical nessesity" to me.[/QUOTE]
Not to me. Remember, this is a country of over 300 million people. 5,000 isn't even enough to support a magazine. That number is dwarfed by the overall amount of abortions performed in the country, as well as the overall number of natural miscarriages. I could easily believe that there's such a miniscule amount of pregnancies that become dangerous to the life of the mother at an extremely late stage. Indeed, I almost expect it to be higher.
Population growth for Caucasians is negative in Europe and North America, I guess that is the way it is supposed to end up. Let the white women kill all their babies this is part of survival of the fittist and should be embraced.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Moving back to the original topic (shock!)... I found this quite amusing.
[QUOTE=Space Ghost;170067]IMHO [Obama] is MUCH more charismatic than Clinton.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=croxis;170071]The same was said of Bush vs Gore and Kerry too[/QUOTE]
If there is something to learn from that, is that you don't vote for someone just because he or she is charismatic. As Bill Maher said, you don't have to "f*ck'em", just vote for them. Who cares if he or she is likable? Intuition isn't going to be of much help here.
I fear that the democrats are playing a dangerous game right now and that McCain will be the one laughing... Someone's going to have to surrender at some point. It almost seems like the Blue-Ray/HD-DVD tech-war. Those who don't want to choose between Clinton and Obama may vote for McCain. In a way Romney made it much easier for McCain.
Well, both Obama and Clinton can't be in the presidential election, one will come out in the end. I'm of the camp where I prefer one, but I would be happy with the other.
[QUOTE=PSI-KILLER;170064]Population growth for Caucasians is negative in Europe and North America, I guess that is the way it is supposed to end up. Let the white women kill all their babies this is part of survival of the fittist and should be embraced.[/QUOTE]
end result: Europe becomes a Muslim nation, and North America becomes part of Mexico. :D
Comments
How can the United States balance the budget, get universal healthcare, get out of iraq, and make the world love us again all at the same time?
Spoiler: By declaring way against Canada and immediately surrendering
There are only two options in this election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama has very little experience. He lacks a platform, its great that he inspires and makes us feel all warm and fuzzy, but that isn't what we need. We need someone who is going to get stuff done. Hillary has a record that shows she has delivered change in the past and will do so for us again.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for a 3rd Bush term. That is not what this country needs. There is no military solution in Iraq. McCain is no maverick as the media portrays him. Don't be fooled. He won't end this war. He won't change healthcare.
If you look at the polls, Hillary actually has a higher favorability rating than Obama, and lower unfavorable ratings. The idea that she is more polarizing than anyone else out there is a myth. Look at the data. Barack Obama is not going to transcend party lines or anything like that. Statistically all candidates end up with roughly equal favorability ratings by the end of the election. Don't for a minute think that republicans will wake up one morning and suddenly have some epiphany that they're going to vote for a candidate who's plans and ideologies are contradictory to their own philosophies.
There are no skeletons in Hillary's closet, everything is in the open. She's successfully taken on the republicans and beaten them. She's stood up to the republican smear machine and survived and only expanded her popularity in NY. She'll take on McCain and win.[/QUOTE]
With deepest respect, you may want to take a step back for a moment, no candidate in this election is as clear a choice as you claim, and no candidate's policies would be the end all and be all.
I am not sure experience is really the best direction to head this time. I am more interested in a person who will reverse the ackamony that has been emblematic of the body politic over the past 16 years. I am not certain of many things, but one I am sure is that Clinton will not reverse that trend. Of course the sad part is that at this point, it has less to do with her, but the players in both parties over the past couple decades, unfortunately she is the figurehead of the division between political idealogies in this country.
Sure, no died-in-the-wool GOP member will vote for Obama, but there is a huge swath of the electorate that is not strongly tied to either party, a group that is much larger than either party's core, these types of voters tend to head toward both Obama and McCain.
And finally, I am not sure why you'd want to stop the promotion of nuclear power, I think it is an important part of any energy policy.
Jake
Research what partial birth abortion is (NOT your standard abortion)
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.
Now, womens right to choose and all that aside, I think any civilized person can agree that it's pretty barbaric to jam scissors into someones skull and suck their brains out.
Yet she fought to keep that legal. Didn't just vote against the ban like Obama did, but fought to prevent the ban on it. Value of human life rank anywhere on here?
Her husband did good for the economy, but she's not Bill. Ever wonder why she didn't divorce him? I gurentee you it's not out of loyalty to him as a devoted wife, it's because she gets to keep the name "Clinton" giving her a shot at the whitehouse.
Womans a liar, and a darn good one at that. Frankly, I prefer a bad liar to a good one in the whitehouse.
None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).
All in all, I'll probably just do a write in for Ron Paul come election day. Throwing my vote away, sure...but hell...if I vote for anyone that makes it to the general elections I'm throwing my nation away.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
We don't have a place to store nuclear wast now. lots of it is sitting around in containers waiting to find a home. For several thousand years.
Research, the kid dies in a few years anyway. Why risk the life of the mother?
Why the hell am I married? as far as that goes.
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity (I find the practice as abhorent as you do), why was she fighting against the ban? Was the proposed ban complete and outright, even in the case where it's necessary to save the mother?
[quote]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/quote]
Politician? Honest? Nah... :D
[quote]All in all, I'll probably just do a write in for Ron Paul come election day. Throwing my vote away, sure...but hell...if I vote for anyone that makes it to the general elections I'm throwing my nation away.[/quote]
The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote. Any vote, no matter what, is valid and you shouldn't look at it as "throwing your vote away" to vote for someone you think is good for the job. If everyone didn't think that they have to vote for one of only two people, things would be very different. Hell, if you have a "no confidence" option (like we do on NZ ballots), a majority could say none of the candidates are suitable, and then another election would have to be held, encouraging other, potentially better, candidates to join in.
We don't have a place to store nuclear wast now. lots of it is sitting around in containers waiting to find a home. For several thousand years.[/QUOTE]
Consider the following: zero-use nuclear waste is actually a fairly low volume product of a nationwide nuclear power infrastructure. Any of this waste that cannot be processed further Will also be suitably stored in the [I]one day[/I] complete [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain"]Yucca Mountain complex[/URL]. They may be around for thousands of years, but the grand total for generated waste is significantly lower than conventional power with exceptionally low emissions of any sort. The vast majority of these would be from the freight rail and cargo trucks carrying the waste from the plant to the reprocessing facility or storage depot.
[QUOTE=A2597;170012]yea, Hillary scares the crap out of me frankly.
Research what partial birth abortion is (NOT your standard abortion)
And the research how hard Hillary faught to keep it from being banned.
Now, womens right to choose and all that aside, I think any civilized person can agree that it's pretty barbaric to jam scissors into someones skull and suck their brains out.
Yet she fought to keep that legal. Didn't just vote against the ban like Obama did, but fought to prevent the ban on it. Value of human life rank anywhere on here?
[I][/I][/QUOTE]
I don't consider myself particularly informed as to the particular mechanisms used to carry out an abortion, but I also do not go in with rosy thoughts about such things. It isn't something friendly to visualize. I think the more important thing to consider here is not [B]what[/B] is done, but why it is done. When and why would such an abortion be considered and why would it be done? What are the benefits of doing so and would performing the act offer any significantly better options than allowing the birth to go through? I'm not intending to trigger a debate here on that matter so lets avoid getting to involved in the subject, but I do believe that from a political stance, this is a good course of action.
[QUOTE=rcmodels;169985][I][/I] She's got the best energy policy, it will stop the promotion of nuclear power, take away the unnecessary oil subsidies that lead to $40 billion in windfall profits, and reinvest that into our scientific community to further development of renewable energy technologies and most importantly, actually put those into application.
[I][/I]
There are no skeletons in Hillary's closet, everything is in the open. She's successfully taken on the republicans and beaten them. She's stood up to the republican smear machine and survived and only expanded her popularity in NY. She'll take on McCain and win.[/QUOTE]
I fail to understand the fear this nation has of nuclear power. A few minutes of research into the modern power systems is more than enough to reassure even the most frightened, but I just don't see it happening. The only other options that would provide a suitable capacity increase within the united states are either large sources of pollution or only serve to continue the dependence on petroleum products/by-products. And as mentioned by others in other threads, "Eco-friendly" generation systems all have to pull their energy from somewhere. Wind power leeches kinetic energy from the moving air, tidal generators absorb wave energy and are likely to produce other side-effects that we are not particularly aware of, likely related to erosion or local aquatic environmental development, etc. Nuclear is one of the lowest-impact options and gives us 100+ years of potential energy.
I disagree with that last point. The Republicans are/were aiming for a fight against Hillary, not Obama. They have a great deal of ammunition prepped for her selection and I feel her presence would only serve to make a harsh campaign environment even worse and further draw it away from the issues. And as a New Yorker, I can say that her general reputation here is not quite so hot. Her initial campaign was based largely around attacking Lazio and ripping apart his lesser points while ignoring most of the issues of great concern. Her run following election was fairly weak and barely even accomplished a number of her more trivial promises and goals. I don't feel this would change too much once she enters office and, as many above have already mentioned, and only serves to continue the harsh partisan bullshit that is causing so much trouble right now.
[/QUOTE]
The proposed ban prohibited the use of Partial Birth abortion in all cases - except when the life of the mother was at risk.
Hillary has a long voting record of pro-choice , or as some of the right wingers like to put it "Anti-Family". Some snippets from her voting record:
# Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
[URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm"]Source[/URL]
(On the issues is about as unbiased a source as you can find btw, just list quotes and voting records on a variety of issues, highly recommend it. )
And since we all know that the personal views of a politician are worthless, since it's their sponsors that actually tell them how to do things, find otu where your candidates money comes from, and you'll find out who runs the nation:
[url]http://www.opensecrets.org/[/url]
The "It'll be around for thousands of years!" argument makes the unreasonable assumption that we'll never develop a safe way to get the stuff to orbit, because once that happens it's all going straight into the Sun. :p
[/QUOTE]
No, you don't. That's like asking for an honest lawyer, or a shark without teeth. Politicians lie the moment they open their mouths. And if they are any good at it, they don't get caught in a lie. And if they don't lie outright, they exaggerate, distort the truth or they don't tell you the whole truth. Not answering a direct (yes/no) question by answering a different one used to be a common practice for politicians, but I guess it's a dying art form. The current administration can't even be bothered to hide their game or to pretend they care about people. Now how sad is that?
[QUOTE]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/QUOTE]
That's the tell-tale sign of a good liar if you think he's honest. :D
[QUOTE=A2597;170015][COLOR="DarkOrange"]A2597 is saddened to see the value of human life drop to 0%[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Breaking news, human life hits an all-time low since... forever. If history teaches us anything, it's that human life isn't worth anything at all. We are sheep, lemmings, consumers, cows to be milked and slaughtered.
That's the tell-tale sign of a good liar if you think he's honest. :D
[/QUOTE]
See what you said about the current administration?
he's the same way. He just can't be arsed to care to even bother lieing. "We're staying in Iraq another hundred years!" is a prime example.
Having had an abortion with an ex, even though I was using condoms she became pregnant. It was probably harder on me than her, but we were both convinced we couldnt have a baby just then, and luckily we didnt. If we had had it, neither she or me would have had an education, and would have found life hard. People who say pro abortionists dont value life much, must get it through their head that they themselves dont value the life of the potential mother very highly. Suffice to say, women should be able to make choices about their own bodies, ney their own futures, and have meaningful relationships without having to worry about what is to come, say when they are 18 years old..
Star polluter!!!
I think you might have missed some of my previous post:
[quote=A2597]Obama - If it's between McCain and Obama, Obama gets my vote.[/quote]
[quote=A2597]Yea, well..I don't like McCain one bit. And while there is something off about Obama, he does strike me as someone that might actually bring about some positive change. McCain...he'd make it worse.[/quote]
[quote=A2597]None of the options up there are good, but I'd honestly take McCain over Hillary, and that man scares me. (But hey, at least he's somewhat honest).[/quote]
Yea, that statement does scare me. I'm saying much as I don't want McCain in office, I'm more afraid of Hillary than McCain. (which is impressive really) I don't want either one though.
This bill was used by the anti-abortion people as a wedge bill to get a foot in the legislative door on their quest to outlaw all abortions.
That is a political statement. Bush the Bloody would let that same baby die in a hospital as he signed a bill in Texas to let babies with terminal illnesses die if the parents don't have the money to pay.
I value the life of the mother over the fatally ill baby.
My way the mother lives. The other way they may both be dead in a few years.
My value = 1
The other value other is 0 or 1.
Partial birth is a political name for a medical proceeder.
Fell for it I didn't. :P
That is a political statement. Bush the Bloody would let that same baby die in a hospital as he signed a bill in Texas to let babies with terminal illnesses die if the parents don't have the money to pay.
I value the life of the mother over the fatally ill baby.
My way the mother lives. The other way they may both be dead in a few years.
My value = 1
The other value other is 0 or 1.
Partial birth is a political name for a medical proceeder.
Fell for it I didn't. :P[/QUOTE]
2,200 - 5,000 a year seems pretty high for "Medical nessesity" to me.
[URL="http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/partial-birth-abortion.htm"]Source 1[/URL]
[URL="http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/release011503.html"]Source 2[/URL]
If it were only used in the case of life or death of a mother, I don't think people would have much of an issue, except I really fail to see how this method is safer...I mean, you pull the kid out and suck out it's brains while it's head is still inside the mother...how exactly is that safer? Oh yea, we can't let it's head out, otherwise it's a human. So long as it's head is inside, it's something we can kill because it's not sucking down it's own oxygen...
sorry, I can't justify it. If it will save the mothers life...ok, last resort.
But it was being used far more often than medically necessary if those numbers are at all accurate, and surely you would agree that it's not something to be done on a whim as often seems the case.
Not to me. Remember, this is a country of over 300 million people. 5,000 isn't even enough to support a magazine. That number is dwarfed by the overall amount of abortions performed in the country, as well as the overall number of natural miscarriages. I could easily believe that there's such a miniscule amount of pregnancies that become dangerous to the life of the mother at an extremely late stage. Indeed, I almost expect it to be higher.
[url]http://www.videosift.com/video/Obama-Knows-His-Computer-Science[/url]
[QUOTE=croxis;170071]The same was said of Bush vs Gore and Kerry too[/QUOTE]
If there is something to learn from that, is that you don't vote for someone just because he or she is charismatic. As Bill Maher said, you don't have to "f*ck'em", just vote for them. Who cares if he or she is likable? Intuition isn't going to be of much help here.
I fear that the democrats are playing a dangerous game right now and that McCain will be the one laughing... Someone's going to have to surrender at some point. It almost seems like the Blue-Ray/HD-DVD tech-war. Those who don't want to choose between Clinton and Obama may vote for McCain. In a way Romney made it much easier for McCain.
end result: Europe becomes a Muslim nation, and North America becomes part of Mexico. :D