out of touch republicans

brianlux

cincybearcat wrote:

brianlux wrote:

It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.

One could argue that over 50% of the people in the world barely resemble a human being.

It only seems that way, Cincy. Most people are just ordinary folks trying to get by. But I get what you're saying.

pj1981

brianlux wrote:

It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.

They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you can read the whole thing here if you like.

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

still didn't see war on women anywhere in the platform, which is what you were talking about when you said it was in the platform right? If that wasn't what you were referring to there I am sorry, I went back a ways to catch up on the thread but maybe I just didn't go back far enough.

it is summarized in my posts earlier in the thread.

gimmesometruth27

let's all pile on ron paul now. i knew what he was trying to say in his tweet and i respect him for saying it. it is funny how quickly the conservative media and other republicans will stumble all over each other just to eat their own...

Ron Paul's puzzling critique of murdered SEAL Chris Kyle

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-puzzlin ... 00026.html

In 140 characters, the newly retired congressman reminds us why he — and maybe his son — won't top the GOP presidential ticket

When news started spreading that Chris Kyle, a former SEAL and author of the best-selling autobiography American Sniper, was shot dead with a friend over the weekend — allegedly at the hands of a PTSD-suffering former Marine he was trying to help by taking him shooting at a hunting range — conservatives were incensed over the callous tweets of "some on the anti-gun Left." And then this happened:



"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense"

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

And just like that, the three-time Republican presidential candidate's tenuous coalition of pro-gun libertarians, anti–Federal Reserve goldbugs, and foreign policy non-interventionists crumbled. Paul is an opponent of gun control — saying after December's Newtown, Conn., grade school massacre that "more guns equals less crime" and that "private gun ownership prevents many shootings" — but also of U.S. military adventurism. Kyle, also an outspoken gun-rights advocate, earned a reputation in Iraq as one of the deadliest snipers in U.S. military history. With Twitter erupting in outrage over his comment, Paul took to Facebook to explain himself:


As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle's family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

That not-quite-apology didn't quell the anger or the virtual yelling. "You really are vile," tweeted GOP strategist Rick Wilson; Commentary's John Podhoretz said Paul's tweet was "appalling." The newly liberated Paul "is more callous than ever, with an extra helping of sanctimony and a healthy dollop of anti-military sentiment," say the editors of Michelle Malkin's Twitchy. Not content with just "dancing on the grave of a military hero," Paul poured fuel on the fire by invoking Jesus to justify his "ghoulish" views. Even Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — rumored to have presidential ambitions himself — rushed out a statement to Breitbart.com: "Chris Kyle was a hero like all Americans who don the uniform to defend our country. Our prayers are with his family during this tragic time."

Et tu, Rand? says Ryan W. McMaken at Lew Rockwell's LRC Blog. Yes, "every American soldier is a hero, just like the Bronze-Star-winning Timothy McVeigh and the Marine Lee Harvey Oswald." But Rand isn't the only "sycophantic" conservative throwing Ron Paul under the bus for "truth-telling about the tragic outcomes that are sure to come from time spent in a military where rape, suicide, domestic abuse and general killing are widespread."



Who can be surprised that conservatives... have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus — in correct context, by the way — to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?... The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.... This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation.... Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals. [Lew Rockwell]

Well, for better of for worse, this is the genuine Ron Paul, says BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray. Paul has started sending off his own tweets "since he left office," according to a spokeswoman, so "get used to off-the-cuff Twitter activity from the former presidential candidate." Paul's "remarkably offensive 140 character eulogy" is certainly a good reminder why politicians are "protected from scrutiny by both aides trained in press relations and friendly journalistic outlets," says Noah Rothman at Mediaite.

Paul has long opposed American military action... but the former veteran has begun to conflate the missions that he opposes with the men and women who carry those missions out. The sentiment Paul broadcast in this tweet betrays a contempt for Kyle that is, at best, ill-timed.... Paul would be smart to apologize for this insensitive remark, but his political opponents should be thankful for the clarity this unguarded moment has provided the general public. Though the 2012 campaign is long over, Paul's most stalwart supporters continue to insist that the Texas libertarian is the only politician who has the best interests of the troops at heart. This tweet would suggest otherwise. [Mediaite]

JimmyV

Good for Ron Paul. Also, chalk this up as further proof that bouncing baby boy Rand is not his father.

mickeyrat

perhaps some better tact could have been used, but the point is still valid.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

let's all pile on ron paul now. i knew what he was trying to say in his tweet and i respect him for saying it. it is funny how quickly the conservative media and other republicans will stumble all over each other just to eat their own...

Ron Paul's puzzling critique of murdered SEAL Chris Kyle

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-puzzlin ... 00026.html

In 140 characters, the newly retired congressman reminds us why he — and maybe his son — won't top the GOP presidential ticket

When news started spreading that Chris Kyle, a former SEAL and author of the best-selling autobiography American Sniper, was shot dead with a friend over the weekend — allegedly at the hands of a PTSD-suffering former Marine he was trying to help by taking him shooting at a hunting range — conservatives were incensed over the callous tweets of "some on the anti-gun Left." And then this happened:



"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense"

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

And just like that, the three-time Republican presidential candidate's tenuous coalition of pro-gun libertarians, anti–Federal Reserve goldbugs, and foreign policy non-interventionists crumbled. Paul is an opponent of gun control — saying after December's Newtown, Conn., grade school massacre that "more guns equals less crime" and that "private gun ownership prevents many shootings" — but also of U.S. military adventurism. Kyle, also an outspoken gun-rights advocate, earned a reputation in Iraq as one of the deadliest snipers in U.S. military history. With Twitter erupting in outrage over his comment, Paul took to Facebook to explain himself:


As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle's family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

That not-quite-apology didn't quell the anger or the virtual yelling. "You really are vile," tweeted GOP strategist Rick Wilson; Commentary's John Podhoretz said Paul's tweet was "appalling." The newly liberated Paul "is more callous than ever, with an extra helping of sanctimony and a healthy dollop of anti-military sentiment," say the editors of Michelle Malkin's Twitchy. Not content with just "dancing on the grave of a military hero," Paul poured fuel on the fire by invoking Jesus to justify his "ghoulish" views. Even Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — rumored to have presidential ambitions himself — rushed out a statement to Breitbart.com: "Chris Kyle was a hero like all Americans who don the uniform to defend our country. Our prayers are with his family during this tragic time."

Et tu, Rand? says Ryan W. McMaken at Lew Rockwell's LRC Blog. Yes, "every American soldier is a hero, just like the Bronze-Star-winning Timothy McVeigh and the Marine Lee Harvey Oswald." But Rand isn't the only "sycophantic" conservative throwing Ron Paul under the bus for "truth-telling about the tragic outcomes that are sure to come from time spent in a military where rape, suicide, domestic abuse and general killing are widespread."



Who can be surprised that conservatives... have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus — in correct context, by the way — to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?... The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.... This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation.... Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals. [Lew Rockwell]

Well, for better of for worse, this is the genuine Ron Paul, says BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray. Paul has started sending off his own tweets "since he left office," according to a spokeswoman, so "get used to off-the-cuff Twitter activity from the former presidential candidate." Paul's "remarkably offensive 140 character eulogy" is certainly a good reminder why politicians are "protected from scrutiny by both aides trained in press relations and friendly journalistic outlets," says Noah Rothman at Mediaite.

Paul has long opposed American military action... but the former veteran has begun to conflate the missions that he opposes with the men and women who carry those missions out. The sentiment Paul broadcast in this tweet betrays a contempt for Kyle that is, at best, ill-timed.... Paul would be smart to apologize for this insensitive remark, but his political opponents should be thankful for the clarity this unguarded moment has provided the general public. Though the 2012 campaign is long over, Paul's most stalwart supporters continue to insist that the Texas libertarian is the only politician who has the best interests of the troops at heart. This tweet would suggest otherwise. [Mediaite]

God I love Ron Paul.

I am surprised conservative journalists know his name considering they all seemed to forget it during the primary season.

Second time Paul has been chastised for correctly using Christ's teachings...golden rule anyone?

People are just unwilling to have rational tough discussions in this country, everyone needs to apologize and toe the line or else...

mikepegg44

mickeyrat wrote:

perhaps some better tact could have been used, but the point is still valid.

I don't think anyone has ever accused Ron Paul of being tactful have they?

MG79478

Jeanwah wrote:

You can't propose a law to outlaw abortion if you're not going to take responsibility for its consequences. And that means hoards of unwanted babies and kids. The state systems are already overloaded with foster kids. They are hardly sufficiently in good care, these state programs are constantly looking for foster parents.
If politicians refuse to back birth control (and republicans do) then they need to take full responsibility of the problem that will result from such a law taking effect.

I see the Democrat's war on common sense and logic continues.... Yes, it is the Republican strategy to alienate 50% of the voters in the US. In fact they want they want to get elected solely by rich white guys. If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the identity politics of the left. Divide up the people in to groups, tell them they are being discriminated against, and promise to help in return for their vote.

Bringing up responsibility is ironic, because if women took responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't be having an abortion debate. Women already have the right to choose... to choose whether they engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy, and the choice to take precautions. Over 99% of abortions are not rape related; about 5% are due to health reasons. Thus ~94% could be avoided if women took responsibilities for their actions. You have obviously never considered that if abortions were illegal that women would take more responsibility for their actions and the need for abortions would go way down. Balance that with the fact that sometimes abortions are necessary for medical reasons or rape, and I think we could have a moderate common sense approach to it.

mickeyrat

[

Bentleyspop

MG79478

mickeyrat wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.

They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.

could they breath on their own or even with help?

no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.

Wow, what a stupid argument.

My buddy's dad can't breathe on his own or even without help. He's hooked up to a machine. I guess that means he doesn't resemble a person/human?

At what point does life begin? Is it at birth... if so is it not alive 2 minutes before birth? Is it at some random point in the 0-9 month range? The only logical point is at conception. There are single celled organisms on this planet, are they not considered alive?

Jeanwah

MG79478 wrote:

Bringing up responsibility is ironic, because if women took responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't be having an abortion debate. Women already have the right to choose... to choose whether they engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy, and the choice to take precautions. Over 99% of abortions are not rape related; about 5% are due to health reasons. Thus ~94% could be avoided if women took responsibilities for their actions. You have obviously never considered that if abortions were illegal that women would take more responsibility for their actions and the need for abortions would go way down. Balance that with the fact that sometimes abortions are necessary for medical reasons or rape, and I think we could have a moderate common sense approach to it.

Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.

JonnyPistachio

MG79478 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.

could they breath on their own or even with help?

no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.

Wow, what a stupid argument.

My buddy's dad can't breathe on his own or even without help. He's hooked up to a machine. I guess that means he doesn't resemble a person/human?

At what point does life begin? Is it at birth... if so is it not alive 2 minutes before birth? Is it at some random point in the 0-9 month range? The only logical point is at conception. There are single celled organisms on this planet, are they not considered alive?

Its not a stupid argument. Boy you have a friendly tone in these parts. :roll:
Some people use the argument that the fetus (up until a point) is an organism that is still a part of the woman's body, as if its an extension of her that couldnt survive on its own, hence, its her choice. So unless your buddy's dad is growing off the nourishment and livelihood that another person is directly providing biologically, your analogy is, well, to use your words, "stupid."

Personally, I have a big problem with most abortions, but I think it should be the woman's decision what to do with what is growing inside of her.. But I can see many people's arguments, and I'd never just blurt out that they are stupid because they have a personal belief that life begins at a different point than the next guy.

JimmyV

Good for FOX:

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/2013/02/ ... story.html

The line between news and propaganda is slim there as it is but when you have an "analyst" openly admitting he slanted his election predictions because he believed that was his job, you have to cut ties. Even though slanting those election predictions was indeed his job.

JimmyV

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Its not a stupid argument. Boy you have a friendly tone in these parts. :roll:
Some people use the argument that the fetus (up until a point) is an organism that is still a part of the woman's body, as if its an extension of her that couldnt survive on its own, hence, its her choice. So unless your buddy's dad is growing off the nourishment and livelihood that another person is directly providing biologically, your analogy is, well, to use your words, "stupid."

Personally, I have a big problem with most abortions, but I think it should be the woman's decision what to do with what is growing inside of her.. But I can see many people's arguments, and I'd never just blurt out that they are stupid because they have a personal belief that life begins at a different point than the next guy.

Well said.

pj1981

mickeyrat wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.

They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.

could they breath on their own or even with help?

no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.

Yes that's true, my grandpa was in an iron lung too, how he lived as long as he did.
It's all still life, just need some aid/care right?
Same with the very tiny newborns now being saved at 21 weeks, they wouldn't without proper
care. It's all life, yes?

cincybearcat

mickeyrat wrote:

pj1981 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.

They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.

could they breath on their own or even with help?

no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.

Theres a ton of people that would die without help.

MG79478

Jeanwah wrote:

Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.

I wasn't laying all responsibility on women, I was actually trying to empower them. Surely men can also choose to not engage in sex, or can choose to use protection. But I don't know how a guy can have sex without a girl who says "yes". So ultimately the decision is hers to have sex. So do you think the father should be able to have a say in the abortion too?

Contraception is already dirt cheap, and shouldn't be covered by insurance as it is not a NEED. If you've ever had kids, you'll realize that it can be quite difficult for people actually trying to get pregnant.

I'm not sure what further education is required, what teenager doesn't know where babies come from?

mickeyrat

MG79478 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.

I wasn't laying all responsibility on women, I was actually trying to empower them. Surely men can also choose to not engage in sex, or can choose to use protection. But I don't know how a guy can have sex without a girl who says "yes". So ultimately the decision is hers to have sex. So do you think the father should be able to have a say in the abortion too?

Contraception is already dirt cheap, and shouldn't be covered by insurance as it is not a NEED. If you've ever had kids, you'll realize that it can be quite difficult for people actually trying to get pregnant.

I'm not sure what further education is required, what teenager doesn't know where babies come from?

and what of the other medically indicated diagnoses for this medication for something other than birth control? That should be covered , shouldnt it?