PDA

View Full Version : Guiliani just took a major step back in getting the repub nomination



Hatfield
4/4/2007, 04:21 PM
imo.

he will have a very tough time with getting enough support from their base with statements/stances like this.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions
Watch Giuliani on abortion in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash.
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.

A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

But the presidential candidate reiterated his personal opposition to the practice.

"I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago when I ran for mayor -- which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion, hope to find the money for it," he said. "But it is your choice, an individual right. You get to make that choice, and I don't think society should be putting you in jail."

Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.

"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."

Giuliani's support of publicly funded abortions is one of several issues that are likely to put him at odds with social conservatives in his party.

Regarding Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land's recent criticisms of Giuliani's three marriages, the former New York City Mayor said, "I've made mistakes. I've had a rocky road. I regret them. But they are between me, God, my conscience and the people involved. I wish I had led a perfect life. I keep striving, I keep trying to learn, I keep praying for help.

Watch Dana Bash's complete wide-ranging interview with Giuliani tonight at 7 p.m. ET on "The Situation Room." The presidential candidate also discusses his opponents for the GOP nomination, his views on Iraq, his relationship with his son and his fight with cancer.

OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:31 PM
Murder shouldn't be a right.

There just isn't an easy anwer to this question, is there?

yermom
4/4/2007, 04:36 PM
i can see where it makes sense from a city and state perspective...

but i'm with Tuba on this one

did i just say that??? ;)

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 04:40 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think it's murder, how is abortion in any way a "constitutional right"?

Hatfield
4/4/2007, 04:42 PM
i don't think there is an easy answer to the issue of abortion, it is a deeply personal issue....what I am merely saying is I don't think he has much chance of getting the repub nod with this out there.

Dio
4/4/2007, 04:55 PM
If you want to kill it, you should pay for it your own f***ing self.

Rudy can suck it.

Dio
4/4/2007, 04:56 PM
Double post, but damn, Rudy is the worst excuse I've seen for a "Republican" since LAS got baned. Advocating genocide, and then advocating socialism to pay for the genocide. What a ******.

Howzit
4/4/2007, 04:59 PM
Not sure why he "just" took a step back. Hasn't this been his position all along? I thought the knock on Rudy getting the Republican nomination was his stance on some social issues...

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/4/2007, 05:05 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think it's murder, how is abortion in any way a "constitutional right"?Kudos, captain!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/4/2007, 05:09 PM
Rudy is tough on crime and natl defense. That might be good enough for most folks, and he has a likeable personality. Just don't know if he's up to take the sh*t-barrage from the media. It will get MUCH worse, as we all(should) know.

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 05:18 PM
why should we fund abortions for poor women? I can understand medical emergencies, molestations and rapes but if poor women don't want a baby they should abstain or use protection (which they give away)

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 05:20 PM
but still I'd take him over Hillary, or O'Bama

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 05:26 PM
Rudy is tough on crime and natl defense. That might be good enough for most folks, and he has a likeable personality.

He seems to have a better chance of winning the election than he does of winning the nomination. Are pubz going to be like the dimz and shoot themselves in the foot by picking the most ideaological (and thus unelectable) candidate? I wouldn't have voted for Bush in 2000 if I knew he was going to be such a wingnut. Hmmm...is Bush a moderate in wingnut disguise now, or was he a wingnut in moderate disguise in 2000?

Scott D
4/4/2007, 05:28 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think it's murder, how is abortion in any way a "constitutional right"?

I could be wrong, but I believe the SCOTUS ruling in "Roe v. Wade" assured it as a constitutional right. Part of the reason why there has been such a strong push to get that decision reversed for the last 35 years.

fadada1
4/4/2007, 05:29 PM
Regardless of whether or not you think it's murder, how is abortion in any way a "constitutional right"?
devil's advocate... how is it NOT a constitutional right?

possibly the toughest political/social/ethical question in the history of mankind. so many variables influence your decision on this matter. most of which come down to your religious beliefs. then, of course, we run into the "seperation of church and state" debate.

there simply is no right or wrong answer, no matter what side you're on.

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 05:31 PM
if poor women don't want a baby they should...use protection (which they give away)

Not if the holy rollers get their way. They seem to think the best way to reduce abortions is by doing away with sex education and accessible birth control. Brilliant!

Scott D
4/4/2007, 05:32 PM
why should we fund abortions for poor women? I can understand medical emergencies, molestations and rapes but if poor women don't want a baby they should abstain or use protection (which they give away)

hmm...I wonder what the correlation between high birth rate and income is worldwide.

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 05:35 PM
devil's advocate... how is it NOT a constitutional right?


To me, the gist of Rudy's spiel was that government funding of abortions is somehow a constituional right. Whether or not it's constitutionally protected, I don't see how it's constitutionally guaranteed.

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 05:36 PM
devil's advocate... how is it NOT a constitutional right?

possibly the toughest political/social/ethical question in the history of mankind. so many variables influence your decision on this matter. most of which come down to your religious beliefs. then, of course, we run into the "seperation of church and state" debate.

there simply is no right or wrong answer, no matter what side you're on.

The argument against abortion isn't necessarily reduced to a question of religion. For example, I personally believe that a fetus is a living human being and is therefore protected from murder just as any other human being would be.

As for your question, the Constitution tells us what areas the Federal government has purview in and nowhere in the constitution does that include regulating abortion one way or another; these tough issues are suppose to be left up to the individual states to decide for themselves and craft a policy consistent with the beliefs of the citizens of those states. Technically speaking, there really isn't an explicit right to privacy in the constitution which is the lynch pin of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Everyone is right though, it is a VERY tough issues which is why the Feds need to stay the hell out of it and move the question to the states.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 05:45 PM
I could be wrong, but I believe the SCOTUS ruling in "Roe v. Wade" assured it as a constitutional right.

Yeah, but SCOTUS ruled that it is a right in the sense that it is something the government may not interfere with.

That's totally different than a right in the sense that the government must provide for it (as is the case with public defenders).

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 05:52 PM
The Supreme Court is not the voice of God. They're quite capable of getting it wrong and most of the current Supreme Court justices agree that Roe v. Wade was wrong, at the very least on technical grounds, and yet won't reverse it because of prior precedent and that Americans have become "accustomed" to the right.

This is a great reason why I'm not a HUGE fan of judicial review especially without the right of nullification.

Octavian
4/4/2007, 06:20 PM
i don't think there is an easy answer to the issue of abortion, it is a deeply personal issue....what I am merely saying is I don't think he has much chance of getting the repub nod with this out there.


yeah, that's odd...especially this early.


there's some sort've strategy behind this move....he's clearly trying to separate himself from the rest of the field as the middle-of-the-road Republican...someone who isn't a zealot but is still "tough."


Huckabee will gain ground among the social conservatives as the race goes on IMO....I bet they probably think the same.


His strategists are banking on something...perhaps a low turnout among evangelicals because of Bush's failure to push the kind of social policy they elected him to push. But maybe not.


They've undoubtedly analyzed the GOP base and know that tax-cut economics, national defense, and 2nd Amendment rights are more important to more GOP voters than just abortion.


It's a gamble and I don't know why they're doing it now because it's so early...but they must think they're on to something.

SoonerStormchaser
4/4/2007, 06:27 PM
Look...I'm anti-abortion like the rest of you...but politics isn't about being a "yes sir, no sir" person. I don't agree with or like all of Rudy's politics...I don't agree with all of W's politics.

But this guy at least states his positions in the OPEN! That's something very few of the other Republicans have done.


And I'd take this guy any goddamn day over Hillary and Barack Hussein.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 07:39 PM
"Barak Hussein"??

Are we now ignoring people's LAST NAMES?

Fine...I think George Walker is a horrible President. :rolleyes:

Try to be a little more racially inflammatory, why don't you?

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 07:48 PM
I could be wrong, but I believe the SCOTUS ruling in "Roe v. Wade" assured it as a constitutional right. Part of the reason why there has been such a strong push to get that decision reversed for the last 35 years.

constitutional right to have it federally funded?

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 07:50 PM
i dont see Rudy as "electable".....for every moderate democrat vote he pulls over, he'll lose one from the right who do make abortion a voting issue

i'd like to see more of what Fred Thompson has to say....the race is VERY early

alot of things are going to change nationally and around the world between now and the start of next year....i'll wait till the primaries to start listening to candidates

tommieharris91
4/4/2007, 07:53 PM
I was interested in what Giuliani had to say, but now I'm not. I don't want my tax dollars to fund murders.

FroggyStyle22
4/4/2007, 07:58 PM
I was interested in what Giuliani had to say, but now I'm not. I don't want my tax dollars to fund murders.

So you must hate GWB, being for the death penalty and all?

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 08:00 PM
So you must hate GWB, being for the death penalty and all?

i love it when libs make this comparison

they're all about saving convicted murderers, but all about allowing for the killing of an innocent unborn baby

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 08:05 PM
Pro-Life's official stance is Anti-Abortion, Anti-Death Penalty and Anti-Euthanasia.

I guess you're not Pro-Life.

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 08:13 PM
Pro-Life's official stance is Anti-Abortion, Anti-Death Penalty and Anti-Euthanasia.

I guess you're not Pro-Life.

There's an official pro-life stance?

Scott D
4/4/2007, 08:16 PM
constitutional right to have it federally funded?

the two statements about being federally funded and a constitutional right to have an abortion are completely separate and only relevant to each other because they were statements in regards to a political stance on abortion. At no point did he say that it was a constitutional right to have federally funded abortions.

The whole interview is pretty simple.

Politically Giuiliani says abortions have been ruled constitutional.
Personally Giuiliani doesn't necessarily support abortions, but recognizes that they are protected by law.

Politically Giuiliani says that perhaps the Federal Govt. should subsidize abortions for low income women (to the SF.com crowd they are all probably "welfare whores" anyhow)
Personally Rudy doesn't feel abortions are the way to go and that these women should look to put those children up for adoption after birth rather than getting an abortion in any of the trimesters.

The linchpin. The connection between public funding and a constitutional right is in regards to someone being denied a constitutional right due to not being able to afford it. That brings us back to the question I posed earlier for usmc in regards as to the income status of those whom tend to get pregnant more often and/or bring more children into the world.

My view is Rudy is saying that if someone can't afford to get an abortion, and doesn't look at adoption as a viable solution to 'deal' with their impending child. That it can be considered the responsibility of the government to subsidize it.

Can't say I'm a fan of spending federal money for abortions either, since I'm of the mindset that there are only particular situations where it should be a consideration. But I'm also wise enough to know that others don't feel that way.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 08:17 PM
no, but he supports funding them with tax dollars

then the issue of the constitutionality of abortion came up

Hatfield
4/4/2007, 08:33 PM
i love it when libs make this comparison

they're all about saving convicted murderers, but all about allowing for the killing of an innocent unborn baby

i also love it when your side blindly ignores that it is a valid comparison.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 08:35 PM
i also love it when your side blindly ignores that it is a valid comparison.

comparing an unborn baby to a convicted murderer?

yeah, thats valid as hell

perhaps for you, not for me

murderers make choices in light of knowing what the rules are...thus the consequences

fetuses dont have any choices to make, nor have they committed any crime

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 08:37 PM
comparing an unborn baby to a convicted murderer?

yeah, thats valid as hell

perhaps for you, not for me

murderers make choices in light of knowing what the rules are...thus the consequences

fetuses dont have any choices to make, nor have they committed any crime

I'll second that.

OCUDad
4/4/2007, 08:40 PM
I'll second that.It's good to finally hear from a woman on this topic. Up till now, SicEm was as close as we got.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 08:42 PM
Hooray, back to dancing around the issue on both sides.

Just meet it head on: Either prove that a fetus is a human being to the pro-choicer's satisfaction, or prove that it's not to the pro-lifer's satisfaction.

If you believe that a fetus is a human being from conception, there's no way you can ethically support abortion rights. And if you don't, there's no way you can ethically fail to support abortion rights. It's that simple. There's no point in even discussing it unless you can get one side or the other to budge on one of those two points.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 08:43 PM
agreed........it all comes down to when life begins, or when you think it does

tommieharris91
4/4/2007, 08:44 PM
i also love it when your side blindly ignores that it is a valid comparison.

I don't see how. I don't understand how killing someone who has committed heinous crimes should get the right to live and have a probability of escaping and/or committing more crimes, while an unborn, innocent child is sacrificed due to someone's "unfortunate mistake". How is this comparison valid? The only idea that could support your conclusion is an idea of killing someone before they kill someone else.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 08:45 PM
There's an official pro-life stance?
Yes.

Pro-LIFE. Hence Anti-Killing Babies (dead). Anti-Killing Convicts (dead) and Anti-Killing Old People (dead)

Pro-Life.

It's also the official stance of the very Pro-Life Roman Catholic Church.

tommieharris91
4/4/2007, 08:47 PM
Hooray, back to dancing around the issue on both sides.

Just meet it head on: Either prove that a fetus is a human being to the pro-choicer's satisfaction, or prove that it's not to the pro-lifer's satisfaction.

If you believe that a fetus is a human being from conception, there's no way you can ethically support abortion rights. And if you don't, there's no way you can ethically fail to support abortion rights. It's that simple. There's no point in even discussing it unless you can get one side or the other to budge on one of those two points.

This is why there is an abortion argument.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 08:48 PM
I don't see how. I don't understand how killing someone who has committed heinous crimes should get the right to live and have a probability of escaping and/or committing more crimes, while an unborn, innocent child is sacrificed due to someone's "unfortunate mistake". How is this comparison valid?

The comparison pre-supposes that the fetus is not a human being. If you accept that premise, then the comparison is completely valid -- how can a non-human have more rights than a human, even one that has committed heinous crimes?

Of course, it's a totally unpersuasive argument to the anti-abortion crowd because they totally reject the premise.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 08:51 PM
This is why there is an abortion argument.

This is why there is an abortion argument, but it is not usually how it's conducted.

Both sides typically put forth their arguments, and found their arguments in their side's premise -- one that the OTHER side wholly rejects. And then they're suprised when the argument is rejected by the other side.

You can't do that if you want to make any headway. If you want to chance the other guy's position, you have to change his mind about the underlying premise. Anything else is pointless.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 08:51 PM
Hooray, back to dancing around the issue on both sides.

Just meet it head on: Either prove that a fetus is a human being to the pro-choicer's satisfaction, or prove that it's not to the pro-lifer's satisfaction.

If you believe that a fetus is a human being from conception, there's no way you can ethically support abortion rights. And if you don't, there's no way you can ethically fail to support abortion rights. It's that simple. There's no point in even discussing it unless you can get one side or the other to budge on one of those two points.
Unless you don't have an ethical problem with murder.

:pop:

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 08:52 PM
Unless you don't have an ethical problem with murder.

That's true, but arguing with sociopaths about ethics is likewise pointless.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 08:54 PM
So all people who have no problem with murder are sociopaths and have no ethics?

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 08:54 PM
It's good to finally hear from a woman on this topic. Up till now, SicEm was as close as we got.

I'll second that.

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 08:55 PM
Yes.

Pro-LIFE. Hence Anti-Killing Babies (dead). Anti-Killing Convicts (dead) and Anti-Killing Old People (dead)

Pro-Life.

It's also the official stance of the very Pro-Life Roman Catholic Church.

Well, I'm not Catholic and I'm pretty certain that neither the Catholic church nor the pope speak for everyone. I'm all for saving the life of an innocent unborn child and all for killing any son of a bitch who purposely takes the life of another human being.

olevetonahill
4/4/2007, 08:57 PM
I pretty much agree with Scotts statements .
Scotus said its a right .
Untill and unless that is reversed . Are only the ones who can afford it entitled ?
Nope If its a right , then It should be availible to all .
By the way I dont agree with it either .
But change the Damn law , untill then Make the damn killin availible to ALL .

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 08:59 PM
Well, I'm not Catholic and I'm pretty certain that neither the Catholic church nor the pope speak for everyone. I'm all for saving the life of an innocent unborn child and all for killing any son of a bitch who purposely takes the life of another human being.Then you're not Pro-Life as defined by the official organization's stance.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 09:02 PM
So all people who have no problem with murder are sociopaths and have no ethics?

I'm no psychologist, but I believe the mental make-up required to have no problem with murder is pretty much the mental make-up of a sociopath.

(note that I'm not stating specific murders or murder under certain circumstances, I'm talking about unqualified acceptance of murder)

And as far as having no ethics goes, isn't that pretty much the price of admission to being a sociopath?

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 09:05 PM
Then you're not Pro-Life as defined by the official organization's stance.
I'm still at a loss for what organization you're referring to. The pro-life movement is a conglomerate of various organizations and pro-life positions.

Are you speaking of the Catholic Church? Again, I'd say it's absurd to consider them as some sort of official pro-life governing body.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:07 PM
I'm no psychologist, but I believe the mental make-up required to have no problem with murder is pretty much the mental make-up of a sociopath.

(note that I'm not stating specific murders or murder under certain circumstances, I'm talking about unqualified acceptance of murder)

And as far as having no ethics goes, isn't that pretty much the price of admission to being a sociopath?

So if you have no problem with:
a) killing unborn babies within the first trimester
b) killing convicted murderers and traitors to the state who have received the death penalty
c) allowing the elderly and terminally infirm to mercifully take their own lives as their choice
d) sending troops into battle to be murdered in order to protect you
e) sending troops into battle to commit murder in order to protect you

Then does that make you a sociopath?
Does that mean you have no ethics?

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 09:08 PM
Each one of those situations is qualified.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:09 PM
I'm still at a loss for what organization you're referring to. The pro-life movement is a conglomerate of various organizations and pro-life positions.

Are you speaking of the Catholic Church? Again, I'd say it's absurd to consider them as some sort of official pro-life governing body.
Simple Wiki-search'll help ya


Pro-life
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.

Many pro-life individuals believe that personhood begins at conception rather than at birth or at some point in-between. This perspective is historically derived from the Christian and Islamic tradition and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo kills a human being. Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.

A major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life". This would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized.

Some pro-lifers, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong and would also hold firm stances on issues relating to other choices where life may be ended. Others argue that the death penalty can be a fair punishment for murder, justifiably inflicted by lawful authority, whereas abortion is an attack on innocent human life that could never be considered just. This issue is one that has gained more attention in recent years as some pro-life persons wish to have the concept represent a more unified pro-life ideal that includes outlawing the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest proponents of this outlook. This is particularly controversial and may be gaining attention because of the larger Catholic following in the pro-life movement that is also striving to adhere to recent religious statements from the Vatican on the death penalty.

While some pro-lifers are opposed to euthanasia of humans under all circumstances, others do believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their life if they become terminally ill or severely disabled. One area of controversy is that many such individuals are unable to communicate their wishes. While some believe that direct euthanasia should only be an option for persons with the ability to communicate at the time the procedure would be considered, others believe that individuals should be allowed to state their wishes in advance, such as in a living will, or that family members and/or persons with power of attorney or guardianship should be allowed to make decisions regarding euthanasia for persons who are unable to communicate.

Cessation of life support for an individual who is unable to live without it is sometimes referred to as indirect or passive euthanasia. Although many pro-lifers support indirect euthanasia for persons judged by their doctors as having little or no hope for recovery, other pro-lifers oppose indirect euthanasia, even under those circumstances. Some pro-lifers strongly disagree with the court decisions which allowed Terri Schiavo's husband to have her feeding tube removed. Indeed, most pro-lifers commenting on Terri Schiavo's case framed the issue as one of direct euthanasia, on the grounds that nutrition and hydration, in their view, do not constitute "life support".

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:10 PM
Each one of those situations is qualified.
Sorry to be dense, but do you mean each is a "qualified situation" or each situation qualifies as sociopathic?

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 09:12 PM
Sorry to be dense, but do you mean each is a "qualified situation" or each situation qualifies as sociopathic?

That means each situation has conditions attached. What I'm talking about is unqualified acceptance; no matter what the situation is, murder is okay.

Jerk
4/4/2007, 09:14 PM
If government funding of abortion is a right because abortion itself is a consitutional right, does that mean that the .gov should pay me to speak my mind? Or pay me to go or not go to church? Or pay me to buy a gun?

Think about it. Someone is too poor to have an abortion, but they have a 'right' to it, so by God, the taxpayer must foot the bill. What about guns?

I think some people are getting confused between 'rights' and 'entitlements.'

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:14 PM
That means each situation has conditions attached. What I'm talking about is unqualified acceptance; no matter what the situation is, murder is okay.
Ah, okay. Then I'm not a sociopath.

Er...what about duels? What if I felt that duels with guns or swords should be re-legalized?

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:15 PM
If government funding of abortion is a right because abortion itself is a consitutional right, does that mean that the .gov should pay me to speak my mind? Or pay me to go or not go to church? Or pay me to buy a gun?
Oh, ask a serious question, man...:rolleyes:

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 09:16 PM
Sorry to be dense, but do you mean each is a "qualified situation" or each situation qualifies as sociopathic?

I can't speak for anyone else... but I for one would never call you dense... something else most definitely... but never dense.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:19 PM
I can't speak for anyone else... but I for one would never call you dense... something else most definitely... but never dense.
Awww...quit flirtin'. :O

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 09:19 PM
Ah, okay. Then I'm not a sociopath.

Er...what about duels? What if I felt that duels with guns or swords should be re-legalized?

Duels imply certain legal obligations and requirements. Definitely qualified.

Jerk
4/4/2007, 09:20 PM
Oh, ask a serious question, man...:rolleyes:

Why? Because your marxist mind can't answer it. It is a valid question.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:23 PM
Why? Because your marxist mind can't answer it. It is a valid question.
No, dude. Because A) I'm a Libertarian, not a Marxist and B) You don't have to pay to speak your mind C) You don't have to pay to go to church (unless you're in one of those Crazy Evangelical ones) and D) I'm sure your father willed you plenty of arms to defend the country with.

Oh..and E) Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Communist" or a "Marxist" doesn't really help your credibility factor whenever you post. Just a little FYI.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:24 PM
Duels imply certain legal obligations and requirements. Definitely qualified.
Sweeeeeet. I'm not a sociopath.

I TOLD my therapist that, but he wouldn't believe me!!!



:D

Jerk
4/4/2007, 09:25 PM
No, dude. Because A) I'm a Libertarian, not a Marxist and B) You don't have to pay to speak your mind C) You don't have to pay to go to church (unless you're in one of those Crazy Evangelical ones) and D) I'm sure your father willed you plenty of arms to defend the country with.

Oh..and E) Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Communist" or a "Marxist" doesn't really help your credibility factor whenever you post. Just a little FYI.

Libertarian my arse. The DC Court just ruled that the 2nd amendment was an 'individual right.' The 5th circuit court did the same thing earlier this decade. If it goes to the Supremes, and they agree, then by your logic, everyone too poor to purchase a firearm should be given one on taxpayer dime.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:27 PM
Libertarian my dear sir! The DC Court just ruled that the 2nd amendment was an 'individual right.' The 5th circuit court did the same thing earlier this decade. If it goes to the Supremes, and they agree, then by your logic, everyone too poor to purchase a firearm should be given one on taxpayer dime.
*shrug* Okay, then, if it's the law, I don't have a problem with it. I personally own about 25 rifles, shotguns and handguns. Don't bug me none if other people got guns. Does it bug you?






oh...and...fixeditforyou ;)

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 09:28 PM
I can't speak for anyone else... but I for one would never call you dense... something else most definitely... but never dense.

I'd just call him LAS, however I liked him better as LAS instead of him with a goofball name pretending not to be LAS and using the same signatures and stuff.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:31 PM
I'd just call him LAS, however I liked him better as LAS instead of him with a goofball name pretending not to be LAS and using the same signatures and stuff.
Man...you just have an obsession with Los Angeles Sooner. He's right across the office from me, you want me to give him your phone number so you two can go on a date and get it over with already?!?! :rolleyes:

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 09:32 PM
I'd just call him LAS, however I liked him better as LAS instead of him with a goofball name pretending not to be LAS and using the same signatures and stuff.

Oh... there's plenty of things I'd love to call him, but LAS isn't one of them.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 09:33 PM
Awww...quit flirtin'. :O

Don't flatter yourself.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:33 PM
Oh... there's plenty of things I'd love to call him, but LAS isn't one of them.
See?! She's SUCH a FLIRT!!!

Oh, stop...I'm all verklempt! :O

olevetonahill
4/4/2007, 09:35 PM
Sweeeeeet. I'm not a sociopath.

I TOLD my therapist that, but he wouldn't believe me!!!



:D
Last shrink I saw , died of a heartattack !:eek:

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 09:35 PM
Simple Wiki-search'll help ya
Uhm, you just proved my point.

There are some liberal posters around here who make great well reasoned and intelligent arguments, you are not one of them.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:38 PM
Uhm, you just proved my point.

There are some liberal posters around here who make great well reasoned and intelligent arguments, you are not one of them.
Heh...this coming from you...is almost a compliment!

Man, I love how a little clique of you guys just roam around personally attacking people. I'm trying to keep this convo light! Alas...pearls before swine...pearls before swine...

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 09:39 PM
Man...you just have an obsession with Los Angeles Sooner. He's right across the office from me, you want me to give him your phone number so you two can go on a date and get it over with already?!?! :rolleyes:

oh we've exchanged pm's. I offered to come see him on a TAD trip to Pendleton, he didn't want to meet as bad as he made out like on the internet.

I just think how lame does a person have to be to be so ate up with lame *** politics to the point of constantly getting banned on a football site, to only reregister under a new name just to get into the same lame assed political arguments.

The instant response was classic. Only LAS waits on baited breath for that next argument with me. BTW only you and LAS leave me those little neg messages, although different people neg me only SS and LAS leave the "good" ones.

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 09:41 PM
Heh...this coming from you...is almost a compliment!

Man, I love how a little clique of you guys just roam around personally attacking people. I'm trying to keep this convo light! Alas...pearls before swine...pearls before swine...


oh my gawd another classic LAS response, he's being personally attacked again for like the millionth time.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:42 PM
oh we've exchanged pm's. I offered to come see him on a TAD trip to Pendleton, he didn't want to meet as bad as he made out like on the internet.

I just think how lame does a person have to be to be so ate up with lame *** politics to the point of constantly getting banned on a football site, to only reregister under a new name just to get into the same lame assed political arguments.

The instant response was classic. Only LAS waits on baited breath for that next argument with me. BTW only you and LAS leave me those little neg messages, although different people neg me only SS and LAS leave the "good" ones.
Huh?

I don't think I've negged you, or anyone for that matter, in a long while.

And I've never been baned. You can insult LAS all you want. Hell, half the time I think he's a doofus, but he's freakin good at his job, so I don't mind him. But we disagree on quite a few issues.


oh my gawd another classic LAS response, he's being personally attacked again for like the millionth time.
You ever think more than one person (and in reality quite a few people) feel this way because it's freakin' TRUE?

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 09:43 PM
Heh...this coming from you...is almost a compliment!

Man, I love how a little clique of you guys just roam around personally attacking people. I'm trying to keep this convo light! Alas...pearls before swine...pearls before swine...

I'm not personally attacking you. You kept speaking of some kind of super pro-life governmening body that defines the movement via decree or something, and I pointed out that the pro-life movement is a conglomeration of various organizations and different political interests.

You point me to a wiki article that says........the pro-life movement is a conglomerate movement of various organizations and interests.

Let me make a suggestion, instead of saying that there is some kind of pro-life governing body that decides what is and what is not pro-life why don't you just say that being anti-death penalty is often an aspect of being pro-life especially as it relates to the catholic faith.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 09:43 PM
and 2nd Amendment rights are more important to more GOP voters than just abortion.


It's a gamble and I don't know why they're doing it now because it's so early...but they must think they're on to something.

Possibly the fact that Guiliani hasn't swayed from his stance on this matter whereas Romney has. I'm not too sure about McCain, but I think he's switched his opinion on this a few times as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure Guiliani's camp wants to make this fact well known before Thompson throws his hat into the race... if he decides to run.

Standing firm on your convictions mean bonus points because the last thing voters want is someone who keeps flip flopping on their opinions.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:47 PM
I'm not personally attacking you. You kept speaking of some kind of super pro-life governmening body that defines the movement via decree or something, and I pointed out that the pro-life movement is a conglomeration of various organizations and different political interests.

You point me to a wiki article that says........the pro-life movement is a conglomerate movement of various organizations and interests.

Let me make a suggestion, instead of saying that there is some kind of pro-life governing body that decides what is and what is not pro-life why don't you just say that being anti-death penalty is often an aspect of being pro-life especially as it relates to the catholic faith.
But it covers more than just the Catholics. Many Pro-Lifers, in fact, believe this way. And if you look at the strict definition of pro-life, ALL fall under this belief. Only some choose NOT to follow that path.

Now, I'm not saying you're right or wrong for believing whatever you believe, I'm just pointing out the proper definition of things. If you're pro-death penalty, it is inaccurate to describe yourself as a Pro-Lifer. Doesn't make your stance wrong, just means you're describing it the wrong way.

Clearer?


Possibly the fact that Guiliani hasn't swayed from his stance on this matter whereas Romney has. I'm not too sure about McCain, but I think he's switched his opinion on this a few times as well. (Correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure Guiliani's camp wants to make this fact well known before Thompson throws his hat into the race... if he decides to run.

Standing firm on your convictions mean bonus points because the last thing voters want is someone who keeps flip flopping on their opinions.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. It's one of the many reasons I can't stand Hill-Dawg.

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 09:50 PM
Huh?

I don't think I've negged you, or anyone for that matter, in a long while.

And I've never been baned. You can insult LAS all you want. Hell, half the time I think he's a doofus, but he's freakin good at his job, so I don't mind him. But we disagree on quite a few issues.


You ever think more than one person (and in reality quite a few people) feel this way because it's freakin' TRUE?


oohh so you're a co-worker? Hell I thought he worked from home as some kind of movie writer. Anyways he sure was big on the stupid pm's and speks, which I've gotten a few from you as well. Funny how when I couldn't post without a response from him, but when I let him know I'd be TAD at Oceanside not a freakin peep. :texan:

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 09:57 PM
oohh so you're a co-worker? Hell I thought he worked from home as some kind of movie writer. Anyways he sure was big on the stupid pm's and speks, which I've gotten a few from you as well. Funny how when I couldn't post without a response from him, but when I let him know I'd be TAD at Oceanside not a freakin peep. :texan:
Well, I don't know what the heck you're talking about with regards to "TAD at Oceanside", but if you are trying to say you wanted to "come beat him up" then, *snap* You Go Girl! With your macho internet tough guy speak!!!! *snap* *snap* *SNAP!* (in the form of a Z!)

As for writers working from home, I'm sure they do, when they're not on a project. But we're both in production right now and share an office.
So I guess that 'splains it.

Now you may commence with more of your "I'll beat you stupid spek posters up!" speak.

:pop:

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 09:59 PM
d) sending troops into battle to be murdered in order to protect you
e) sending troops into battle to commit murder in order to protect you



Is this what you think? That sending soldiers into battle to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of others is murder? And am I to understand that you're saying that if a soldier then kills someone in defense of those freedoms he has committed a murder?

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:00 PM
As for writers working from home, I'm sure they do, when they're not on a project. But we're both in production right now and share an office.
So I guess that 'splains it.



Actually a better explanation would be that you have a split personality...

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 10:01 PM
Is this what you think? That sending soldiers into battle to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of others is murder?

What do call "colateral damage"?

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 10:06 PM
They're all murder, technically.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:08 PM
co-workers......lol......jeezus it gets more lame with every post

nice way to "cover" the matching IP's.......how lucky for LAS that he has another OU fan as a co-worker and that you enjoy the same message board

i was born at nite, but it wasnt last nite

C&CDean
4/4/2007, 10:08 PM
Don't push your luck Keith.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:08 PM
What do call "colateral damage"?

It's war. Things like that happen as regrettable as they are. But to cast soldiers in the same light as a criminal whose killed someone is wrong.

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 10:09 PM
Well, I don't know what the heck you're talking about with regards to "TAD at Oceanside", but if you are trying to say you wanted to "come beat him up" then, *snap* You Go Girl! With your macho internet tough guy speak!!!! *snap* *snap* *SNAP!* (in the form of a Z!)

As for writers working from home, I'm sure they do, when they're not on a project. But we're both in production right now and share an office.
So I guess that 'splains it.

Now you may commence with more of your "I'll beat you stupid spek posters up!" speak.

:pop:

well since you've (I mean LAS) challenged damn near half the board to "say it to your face" or fight, especially with the whole pm throw down you sent me, I thought it was pretty damn funny, I guess some people throw up a bluff and some don't.

BTW during your big production way out in Hollywood, did you introduce yourself as Bill Smith aka Sam Spade from Soonerfans and he was like really I'm Jerry Johnson aka LAS from Soonerfans I was banned but you should so like go on their and get into internet fights with usmc-sooner. If that's the case, it may be gayer than you using a different name to keep up these stupid arguments.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:10 PM
where oh where is that post where sam spade said "i dont know who this LAS guy is that you think i'm him"

but now you're co-workers with differing political views

almost as funny as gdc.......almost

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:13 PM
They're all murder, technically.

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. A soldier protecting himself or defending his country by killing someone is not unlawful.

However, reaching through my monitor and strangling you to death would be an unlawful killing....

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 10:13 PM
where oh where is that post where sam spade said "i dont know who this LAS guy is that you think i'm him"

but now you're co-workers with differing political views

almost as funny as gdc.......almost

he's pmed me and speked me with this same crap, along with all the colorful names he has for me.

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 10:14 PM
They're all murder, technically.

Not at the tactical level, but certainly at the strategic level. The death of innocents is guranteed in any substantial armed conflict. We should never ignore the fact that sending our military to war is going to put innocent blood on our collective hands.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:16 PM
Don't push your luck Keith.

Who's Keith and how is he pushing his luck... If I may ask.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:16 PM
We should never ignore the fact that sending our military to war is going to put innocent blood on our collective hands.

god please make it stop

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:18 PM
Who's Keith and how is he pushing his luck... If I may ask.

thats LAS/sam spades real first name

LAS was banned from this forum over a year or so ago

he does drive by postings here under his sam spade troll......tries to pretend he isnt him

hell when first accused of being the same poster, he had no clue who LAS was.....now they're co-workers

C&CDean
4/4/2007, 10:18 PM
Who's Keith and how is he pushing his luck... If I may ask.

Keith knows who Keith is, and Keith knows how he is pushing his luck. Nothing to see here, move on...

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:19 PM
Keith knows who Keith is, and Keith knows how he is pushing his luck. Nothing to see here, move on...

sorry, i will edit my post if necessary, or you can buhleteit

Harry Beanbag
4/4/2007, 10:25 PM
Keith is my hero.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:28 PM
Keith knows who Keith is, and Keith knows how he is pushing his luck. Nothing to see here, move on...

I think I just got scolded... :eek: :O :(

mdklatt
4/4/2007, 10:29 PM
I think I just got scolded... :eek: :O :(

You're an LAS troll too? :confused:

Harry Beanbag
4/4/2007, 10:31 PM
You're an LAS troll too? :confused:


Can't be, LAS doesn't have any troll handles.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 10:35 PM
Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. A soldier protecting himself or defending his country by killing someone is not unlawful.

However, reaching through my monitor and strangling you to death would be an unlawful killing....

Depends on the country writing the history book.

I'm sure that the Iraqi's who were killed viewed us as murderers. And visa versa.

yermom
4/4/2007, 10:35 PM
i didn't think LAS was even baned here anymore... was he rebaned?

and i'm with Jerk

just because you have a right to choose something doesn't mean that the govt. should be obliged to provide it for you.

and apparently a fetus is human as long as the mother hasn't decided to abort it :rolleyes:

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:37 PM
i didn't think LAS was even baned here anymore... was he rebaned?



he was

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 10:38 PM
Depends on the country writing the history book.

I'm sure that the Iraqi's who were killed viewed us as murderers. And visa versa.


go live over there, and view me however you want.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 10:38 PM
thats LAS/sam spades real first name

LAS was banned from this forum over a year or so ago

he does drive by postings here under his sam spade troll......tries to pretend he isnt him

hell when first accused of being the same poster, he had no clue who LAS was.....now they're co-workers
Actually I didn't know that LAS meant Los Angeles Sooner. Then someone told me in a later post. I hadn't been posting here for very long at the time. When LAS, whom I only knew at the time by his real name, showed me the site, he didn't say, "Oh, and by the way, my name is LAS! Cheerio!"

But don't let the truth hurt your little theory.

C&CDean
4/4/2007, 10:38 PM
I think I just got scolded... :eek: :O :(

Girl, if I scold you, you'll know it.

jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 10:39 PM
Actually I didn't know that LAS meant Los Angeles Sooner. Then someone told me in a later post.

But don't let the truth hurt your little theory.

right.....

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 10:45 PM
Actually I didn't know that LAS meant Los Angeles Sooner. Then someone told me in a later post. I hadn't been posting here for very long at the time. When LAS, whom I only knew at the time by his real name, showed me the site, he didn't say, "Oh, and by the way, my name is LAS! Cheerio!"

But don't let the truth hurt your little theory.


and this is why we can't take you seriously

Harry Beanbag
4/4/2007, 10:51 PM
and this is why we can't take you seriously


No kidding. I like how he edited it after jk quoted him, trying to better explain the unexplainable I guess. :rolleyes:

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 10:55 PM
No kidding. I like how he edited it after jk quoted him, trying to better explain the unexplainable I guess. :rolleyes:

like I said how lame do you have to be

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 10:55 PM
I really don't care if you take me seriously. I think you're about four cans short of a six pack, personally.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 10:57 PM
You're an LAS troll too? :confused:


NOOOOOO!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!! NOOOOO!!!!!!!

Dean got onto me for inquiring who Keith was....

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:00 PM
Well... he didn't actually get on to me. Apparently I'll know it if he does. ;) :D

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:03 PM
Depends on the country writing the history book.

I'm sure that the Iraqi's who were killed viewed us as murderers. And visa versa.

And to think that thousand upon thousands of brave men and women have died defending this country and defending your rights to make absured remarks like you have in this thread.

SoonerBBall
4/4/2007, 11:05 PM
I cannot believe you guys let this one slide by. That is cool, though, I'll take it.


the two statements about being federally funded and a constitutional right to have an abortion are completely separate and only relevant to each other because they were statements in regards to a political stance on abortion. At no point did he say that it was a constitutional right to have federally funded abortions.

The whole interview is pretty simple.

Politically Giuiliani says abortions have been ruled constitutional.
Personally Giuiliani doesn't necessarily support abortions, but recognizes that they are protected by law.

Politically Giuiliani says that perhaps the Federal Govt. should subsidize abortions for low income women (to the SF.com crowd they are all probably "welfare whores" anyhow)
Personally Rudy doesn't feel abortions are the way to go and that these women should look to put those children up for adoption after birth rather than getting an abortion in any of the trimesters.

The linchpin. The connection between public funding and a constitutional right is in regards to someone being denied a constitutional right due to not being able to afford it. That brings us back to the question I posed earlier for usmc in regards as to the income status of those whom tend to get pregnant more often and/or bring more children into the world.

My view is Rudy is saying that if someone can't afford to get an abortion, and doesn't look at adoption as a viable solution to 'deal' with their impending child. That it can be considered the responsibility of the government to subsidize it.

Can't say I'm a fan of spending federal money for abortions either, since I'm of the mindset that there are only particular situations where it should be a consideration. But I'm also wise enough to know that others don't feel that way.

First off, and let's make this very clear, there is no constitutional right to abortion. Just because the SCOTUS says that you can't stop a woman from getting an abortion doesn't mean that it is all of the sudden a constitutional right. The SC ruled that stopping a woman from getting an abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy.

Now, with that being established, it is not the government's job to provide something to a citizen just because they have a constitutional right to it. I have a constitutional right to privacy, too, but that doesn't mean the government should come put blinds in my windows or pay for regular sweeps of my house to make sure no one is spying on me.

Abortions are medical procedures that cost money. This is a sad fact of life. Poor people don't have money. This is also a sad fact of life. In almost all cases, an abortion is an elective procedure, and tax dollars should not be spent on elective procedures for the poor. How about we spend that money to put some more effective programs in place to educate the poor about the consequences, both financially and otherwise, of having children? How about we institute a welfare system that doesn't reward negative behavior? And before you condemn me for going off on welfare, I hardly blame the recepients of welfare for the poor state it is in. The government mishandled welfare disgustingly, and we have ended up with a system that rewards being lazy, greedy, stupid, selfish, lazy, or a combination of all of the above (yes lazy is in there twice, purposefully).

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 11:07 PM
I really don't care if you take me seriously. I think you're about four cans short of a six pack, personally.

why all the personal attacks :rolleyes:

and seriously if you wanted you could've found out how many cans I had not too long ago. I offered to open a can for you(co-worker) not too long ago. Probably easier to change your name, than follow through on your lame threats.

SoonerBBall
4/4/2007, 11:10 PM
And to think that thousand upon thousands of brave men and women have died defending this country and defending your rights to make absured remarks like you have in this thread.

Can we please not do this? Sam Spade has no right to post on this board. It is a privilege granted to him by Phil and that is why Phil can appoint admins (like Dean) who can revoke that right whenever and for whatever reason they see fit.

I'm not trying to be overbearing or anything, it just bugs me when people act refer to freedom of speech like it gives someone the right to say or do anything with no repercussions.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 11:10 PM
And to think that thousand upon thousands of brave men and women have died defending this country and defending your rights to make absured remarks like you have in this thread.

You don't follow the simple logic, do you? So, because you don't understand, you lable them "absurd remarks." Predictable.

Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 11:11 PM
why all the personal attacks :rolleyes:

and seriously if you wanted you could've found out how many cans I had not too long ago. I offered to open a can for you(co-worker) not too long ago. Probably easier to change your name, than follow through on your lame threats.
Are you STILL trying to pick a cyber fight with LAS?

Sheesh... :rolleyes:

Soonerus
4/4/2007, 11:12 PM
Do not discount McCain... he has a shot

1stTimeCaller
4/4/2007, 11:20 PM
If having the feds pay for an abortion is a constitutional right, I think the feds should buy me a new glock 22.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:21 PM
You don't follow the simple logic, do you? So, because you don't understand, you lable them "absurd remarks." Predictable.

With you there is no simple logic... just a spin on what everyone says. You twist and turn what people say into your demented little way and cry foul when someone actually calls you on the carpet about it.

You sir are a molecule in the universe....

Final warning... don't mess with me.

Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 11:24 PM
Sweeeeeet. I'm not a sociopath.

I TOLD my therapist that, but he wouldn't believe me!!!

Slow down! Having no problem with murder (unqualified) is in my book a sufficient condition, but it's not a necessary one. :D

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:24 PM
Can we please not do this? Sam Spade has no right to post on this board. It is a privilege granted to him by Phil and that is why Phil can appoint admins (like Dean) who can revoke that right whenever and for whatever reason they see fit.

I'm not trying to be overbearing or anything, it just bugs me when people act refer to freedom of speech like it gives someone the right to say or do anything with no repercussions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. But if it's anything negative towards me, I really don't think that's fair considering who my comments were directed to. I'm a fairly reasonable and easy going person, but there comes a time to stand up against antagonists and I was doing such.

Blue
4/4/2007, 11:28 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. But it's anything negative towards me, I really don't think that's fair considering who my comments were directed to. I'm a fairly resonable and easy going person, but there comes a time to stand up against antagonists and I was doing such.

I think he's saying our soldiers didn't die for trivial **** like this message board.

tommieharris91
4/4/2007, 11:31 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. But it's anything negative towards me, I really don't think that's fair considering who my comments were directed to. I'm a fairly resonable and easy going person, but there comes a time to stand up against antagonists and I was doing such.

I think he's trying to say "Neither you, nor me, nor Sam Spade are exempt from making personal attacks without repercussions."

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 11:31 PM
Are you STILL trying to pick a cyber fight with LAS?

Sheesh... :rolleyes:

no,no,no

just responding to his many invatations

but when I actually was there, in his city, he had a change of heart.

Actually I think grown men fighting over, crap on an internet board is stupid yet, I didn't initiate this.

probably why you get banned.

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 11:31 PM
You don't follow the simple logic, do you? So, because you don't understand, you lable them "absurd remarks." Predictable.
No, I think we both understand fully well what you're saying and label them "absurd remarks."

YES, people are going to have a different perspective depending on who you ask and that's especially true of history. Nonetheless, it is people who distort facts, the facts themselves are constant.

Soonerus
4/4/2007, 11:32 PM
I can't believe you all discuss divisive political issues on this board...

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 11:32 PM
I can't believe you all discuss divisive political issues on this board...
I discuss divisive political issues everywhere.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:36 PM
I think he's trying to say "Neither you, nor me, nor Sam Spade are exempt from making personal attacks without repercussions."

I accept full responsibilty for any reprocussions regarding my comments. However I don't see how my saying someones comments are "absurd" are personal attacks.

Soonerus
4/4/2007, 11:36 PM
That's cool, I am not going to engage because in my experience it is never ending...I respect those of you that zealously advocate your positions though...

tommieharris91
4/4/2007, 11:39 PM
I accept full responsibilty for any reprocussions regarding my comments. However I don't see how my saying someones comments are "absurd" are personal attacks.

Personally I thought your comments were more retaliatory. The Sam Spade/LAS guy took the argument from abortion to who's kicking who's ***.

usmc-sooner
4/4/2007, 11:40 PM
I can't believe you all discuss divisive political issues on this board...

hell, some of us discuss it ad nausiam even after they've been banned, at some point you'd think there's something better to do.

Blue
4/4/2007, 11:41 PM
I accept full responsibilty for any reprocussions regarding my comments. However I don't see how my saying someones comments are "absurd" are personal attacks.

His comments had nothing to do with you. He's saying don't use Freedom of Speech as an excuse for people to say whatever they want.

Soonerus
4/4/2007, 11:43 PM
hell, some of us discuss it ad nausiam even after they've been banned, at some point you'd think there's something better to do.

I am not criticizing just surprised...

SicEmBaylor
4/4/2007, 11:43 PM
His comments had nothing to do with you. He's saying don't use Freedom of Speech as an excuse for people to say whatever they want.
....on an internet message board since this is privately owned and operated and nobody has to be here posting any message.

That having been said, I'm willing to make a wild assumption here and assume that he makes those comments elsewhere as well which would constitute free speech making girl's comments even more valid and proving Spade to be a moron.

Blue
4/4/2007, 11:45 PM
Tru dat.

SoonerGirl06
4/4/2007, 11:50 PM
His comments had nothing to do with you. He's saying don't use Freedom of Speech as an excuse for people to say whatever they want.


....on an internet message board since this is privately owned and operated and nobody has to be here posting any message.

That having been said, I'm willing to make a wild assumption here and assume that he makes those comments elsewhere as well which would constitute free speech making girl's comments even more valid and proving Spade to be a moron.

Well, I'm glad we were able to clarify what SoonerBBall meant with his comments. Thank you.:D

soonerscuba
4/4/2007, 11:59 PM
You know what is absurd? That I read the last 3 pages of this thread.

To move on, McCain was sunk by the base by for being too liberal in 2000. If you actually think that the thrice married, pro-life ex-mayor of New York City is going to walk into S. Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas and come out the victor of a primary, I've got some beach front in Wyoming for ya. To this day, I am not even sure why he is getting any sort of support from Republicans beyond the fact that he was the face of the 9/11 response, while noble, doesn't qualify you to be leader of the free world.

SoonerBBall
4/5/2007, 12:01 AM
Well, I'm glad we were able to clarify what SoonerBBall meant with his comments. Thank you.:D

Damn, you step away to get some food and take a shower and all this happens....

No SoonerGirl, I wasn't dissing you, I also think that Sam Spade is just here to antagonize, much like LAS. I was just saying that Freedom of Speech has no meaning on this message board. Our soldiers don't fight and die so people with too much time on thier hands can post incendiary things on a message board. Their sacrifices are for much more than that. This board, however, is Phil's property and it is his decision who stay, who goes, and who enforces his laws. He could decide tomorrow to ban anyone who likes kitty cats, and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Phil is very cool, though, which is why people like LAS and Sam Spade get as many chances to be *********s as they do.

Soonerus
4/5/2007, 12:05 AM
I get so bored with the Dem. vs. Repub. spin and propoganda...

Fraggle145
4/5/2007, 12:10 AM
If government funding of abortion is a right because abortion itself is a consitutional right, does that mean that the .gov should pay me to speak my mind? Or pay me to go or not go to church? Or pay me to buy a gun?

Think about it. Someone is too poor to have an abortion, but they have a 'right' to it, so by God, the taxpayer must foot the bill. What about guns?

I think some people are getting confused between 'rights' and 'entitlements.'

I havent got all the way through this thread yet so this may have been addressed already... but I think this is a valid question. (Edit: and this is leaving my personal views out of it)

if this issue is put into economic terms: is it cheaper to the taxpayer to pay to have the abortion or to pay for the kid to be born cared for in the hospital (the mother too) and then put into foster care/adoption and thrust on the taxpayer the possibility for the expenses (if foster care) until it is an adult and possibly having to pay for the "psychological damage" that could occur that goes with it?

Edit: Okay made it through the thread. If Sam Spade were to be baned again I wouldnt be sad. JMHO.

Scott D
4/5/2007, 06:13 AM
I cannot believe you guys let this one slide by. That is cool, though, I'll take it.



First off, and let's make this very clear, there is no constitutional right to abortion. Just because the SCOTUS says that you can't stop a woman from getting an abortion doesn't mean that it is all of the sudden a constitutional right. The SC ruled that stopping a woman from getting an abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy.

Now, with that being established, it is not the government's job to provide something to a citizen just because they have a constitutional right to it. I have a constitutional right to privacy, too, but that doesn't mean the government should come put blinds in my windows or pay for regular sweeps of my house to make sure no one is spying on me.

Abortions are medical procedures that cost money. This is a sad fact of life. Poor people don't have money. This is also a sad fact of life. In almost all cases, an abortion is an elective procedure, and tax dollars should not be spent on elective procedures for the poor. How about we spend that money to put some more effective programs in place to educate the poor about the consequences, both financially and otherwise, of having children? How about we institute a welfare system that doesn't reward negative behavior? And before you condemn me for going off on welfare, I hardly blame the recepients of welfare for the poor state it is in. The government mishandled welfare disgustingly, and we have ended up with a system that rewards being lazy, greedy, stupid, selfish, lazy, or a combination of all of the above (yes lazy is in there twice, purposefully).

That would require getting to the root of why the poor tend to have probably 8x as many children as the rich. Once society figures out that one, then they might be able to do something about it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it.

As for constitutional, it wasn't only right to privacy, but the 14th amendment came into play.

SoonerBBall
4/5/2007, 09:07 AM
That would require getting to the root of why the poor tend to have probably 8x as many children as the rich. Once society figures out that one, then they might be able to do something about it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it.

As for constitutional, it wasn't only right to privacy, but the 14th amendment came into play.

They argued right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. ;)

Regardless, just because the government can't deprive us of our life, liberty, or property without due process doesn't mean it should use tax dollars to provide for any of those things. Those are very different things. A woman has the right to not have the governement decide whether or not she keeps the baby, but if she does keep it, it isn't up to the government to pay for it. Likewise, if she decides to get rid of it, it isn't up to the government to pay for that, either.

Scott D
4/5/2007, 09:13 AM
They argued right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. ;)

Regardless, just because the government can't deprive us of our life, liberty, or property without due process doesn't mean it should use tax dollars to provide for any of those things. Those are very different things. A woman has the right to not have the governement decide whether or not she keeps the baby, but if she does keep it, it isn't up to the government to pay for it. Likewise, if she decides to get rid of it, it isn't up to the government to pay for that, either.

agreed, however I still don't believe that Rudy is saying that there is a constitutional right for the government to pay for it, but rather that the right for a woman to choose that option is protected by constitutional rights. His idea of misappropriating funds to assist with it is really no different than the wide variety of ways that elected officials try to misappropriate tax dollars on a daily basis.

leavingthezoo
4/5/2007, 09:21 AM
Girl, if I scold you, you'll know it.

i can vouch for this. but the make up post is sooooooo worth it. :P

Hatfield
4/5/2007, 11:25 AM
i rule.

Hamhock
4/5/2007, 11:41 AM
have you guys ever taken mini-donuts, the white powdered kind in the bag, put them in a bowl with milk and eaten them like cereal?

i recommend it.

MamaMia
4/5/2007, 11:48 AM
No way am I going to vote for Guiliani in the primary if he thinks my tax dollars should be spent to help some gal get an abortion.

Fraggle145
4/5/2007, 11:55 AM
I havent got all the way through this thread yet so this may have been addressed already... but I think this is a valid question. (Edit: and this is leaving my personal views out of it)

if this issue is put into economic terms: is it cheaper to the taxpayer to pay to have the abortion or to pay for the kid to be born cared for in the hospital (the mother too) and then put into foster care/adoption and thrust on the taxpayer the possibility for the expenses (if foster care) until it is an adult and possibly having to pay for the "psychological damage" that could occur that goes with it?

Edit: Okay made it through the thread. If Sam Spade were to be baned again I wouldnt be sad. JMHO

I just wanted to know (again leaving my personal views out of it) if anyone that has said they dont want the government to pay for the abortion is going to address this point...

It also begs the question, what is the childs quality of life going to be if it doesnt get adopted? and as stated above who is going to pay for it?

yermom
4/5/2007, 11:59 AM
I just wanted to know (again leaving my personal views out of it) if anyone that has said they dont want the government to pay for the abortion is going to address this point...

It also begs the question, what is the childs quality of life going to be if it doesnt get adopted? and as stated above who is going to pay for it?

i kinda touched on this in my post when i said it makes sense from the state/city perspective

so how much money is it worth not having to have another poor person on the street? (cradle to grave)

Hamhock
4/5/2007, 12:01 PM
I just wanted to know (again leaving my personal views out of it) if anyone that has said they dont want the government to pay for the abortion is going to address this point...

It also begs the question, what is the childs quality of life going to be if it doesnt get adopted? and as stated above who is going to pay for it?


human life should not be decided based on cost.

so, if the kid is, in somebody's judgment, isn't going to have a good quality of life, he should be murdered? tell that to people who have overcome adversity and are now successful.

Vaevictis
4/5/2007, 12:09 PM
*snicker*

<ProChoicer> But seriously, if you would just accept the premise that it's not a human life, you would see the light and understand how much sense my arguments make!
<ProLifer> BUT I TOTALLY REJECT THE PREMISE!

(also, in reverse)

You know, if you just step back and realize how absurd this **** is, it's funny. That describes just about every conversation between the two sides throughout the history of the debate.

Fraggle145
4/5/2007, 12:10 PM
human life should not be decided based on cost.

so, if the kid is, in somebody's judgment, isn't going to have a good quality of life, he should be murdered? tell that to people who have overcome adversity and are now successful.

That is not what I said. And our government does make similiar value jusgements on various situations all of the time... for example who gets welfare, who gets a visa to live in this country, who goes to the chair. Also as mentioned earlier it comes down to ones own definition of life. I am not the one that originally brought up the economic aspect of the government paying or not paying for abortion.

I was just pointing out the discrepancy between the cost of the government paying for an abortion vs paying for 0-18. Basically stating that from a governments point of view, which is based on dollars and sense abortion might make more sense.

yermom
4/5/2007, 12:15 PM
or who to go to war with for economic reasons ;)

Fraggle145
4/5/2007, 12:16 PM
or who to go to war with for economic reasons ;)

:D

MamaMia
4/18/2007, 07:57 AM
Huh?

I don't think I've negged you, or anyone for that matter, in a long while.

And I've never been baned. You can insult LAS all you want. Hell, half the time I think he's a doofus, but he's freakin good at his job, so I don't mind him. But we disagree on quite a few issues.


You ever think more than one person (and in reality quite a few people) feel this way because it's freakin' TRUE? You dont "think" you negged him? How dare you!

Is this trouble maker banned yet? This joker is negging so many people that he cant even keep track of who he negs. He just neg'd me too...while I was asleep no less, the bully.

Lookie here mister...if you want to disagree with people thats fine, but at least respect the rights of others to have their own opinions without having your own personal neg fest. Its not nice for some n00b to come on our board and start negging people. Its very rude actually.

Dean...take him away!...please. :)
To quote Queen Elizabeth I...Strike up the virginals and the lute and lets all dance the Volta! :D

jk the sooner fan
4/18/2007, 08:00 AM
mama, he IS las.....his poor attempt at trying to convince everybody that he's not is.........well, rather pathetic

Hamhock
4/18/2007, 08:04 AM
You dont "think" Strike up the virginals and the lute and lets all dance the Volta! :D


i'd be interested in hearing more about these virginals. :texan:

MojoRisen
4/18/2007, 08:09 AM
devil's advocate... how is it NOT a constitutional right?

possibly the toughest political/social/ethical question in the history of mankind. so many variables influence your decision on this matter. most of which come down to your religious beliefs. then, of course, we run into the "seperation of church and state" debate.

there simply is no right or wrong answer, no matter what side you're on.


He basically said Pro life / Pro choice... and threw in public funding for poor folk which is very questionable.

He needs to uphold the laws as they stand- take it up with the supreme court- but until then it would be his duty to uphold law.

MamaMia
4/18/2007, 10:12 PM
i'd be interested in hearing more about these virginals. :texan:
A virginal is a musical instrument that Queen Elizabeth I really liked. :D