Is it correct that Obama stands for these things?

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

+ Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
Don't know. Probably.

That kind of thinking scares me...why the hell would anyone think that it's a good idea?

So, do we allow lawsuits against the Louisville Slugger company anytime someone uses one for assault or robbery? Where does that end?

cincybearcat

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

Maybe you could adopt all of those babies. And all the other kids who need families!

Why don;t you pay for everyone's health care then!

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

I am pro-choice, but I am not pro-abortion ... these are two different things.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Can we stop with the labels already baby killer?

rebornFixer

cincybearcat wrote:

That kind of thinking scares me...why the hell would anyone think that it's a good idea?

So, do we allow lawsuits against the Louisville Slugger company anytime someone uses one for assault or robbery? Where does that end?

Heck, I slipped and fell on my tailbone the other day. I am going to sue the floorwax manufacturer.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Can we stop with the labels already baby killer?

um ... what?

dude, did you just call me a baby killer?

I support a woman's right to choose for herself ... but, I would never want a girlfriend/wife of mine to go through with it unless her life was in jeopardy ...

but, seriously, are you calling me a baby killer for this?

cincybearcat

reborncareerist wrote:

Heck, I slipped and fell on my tailbone the other day. I am going to sue the floorwax manufacturer.

Why stop there....who made the floor? How come your pants didn't provide the necessary protection? Who made the shoes? Lots of lawsuits available.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

um ... what?

dude, did you just call me a baby killer?

I support a woman's right to choose for herself ... but, I would never want a girlfriend/wife of mine to go through with it unless her life was in jeopardy ...

but, seriously, are you calling me a baby killer for this?

Ummm...I guess you missed it...I'll show you a replay...

"Can we stop with the LABELS already BABY KILLER"

Stop labeling...then I labeled you...ah, nevermind, it wasn;t funny anyway.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Ummm...I guess you missed it...I'll show you a replay...

"Can we stop with the LABELS already BABY KILLER"

Stop labeling...then I labeled you...ah, nevermind, it wasn;t funny anyway.

no man ... calling me a baby killer, even if it was a joke is absolutely fucking disgusting.

brandon10

cincybearcat wrote:

That kind of thinking scares me...why the hell would anyone think that it's a good idea?

So, do we allow lawsuits against the Louisville Slugger company anytime someone uses one for assault or robbery? Where does that end?

How about we get logical here. Can you handle that? Bats are MADE for baseball, guns are MADE for killing. Understand? I bet you don't.

rebornFixer

brandon10 wrote:

How about we get logical here. Can you handle that? Bats are MADE for baseball, guns are MADE for killing. Understand? I bet you don't.

Even assuming that the statement "guns are made for killing" is 100% true ... How does that translate into sueing manufacturers? What's not logical is wanting to live in a world that litigious.

keeponrockin

I don't have a problem with the following:

acoustic guy wrote:

· He voted for partial birth abortion.
· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair. (I dont understand_
· Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in20high school and in college.
· His religious convictions are very murky.
· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with Muslim nations. Why?
· Opposed the Patriot Act.
· First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
· Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
· Supports universal health-care.
· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
· Voted yes on compre hensive immigration reform.
· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
· Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.

I am DEFINITLEY, DEFINITLEY, DEFINITLEY in agreement with the seperation of church and state. The State shouldn't run the church, and the church should stay wayyy the hell away from the state.

As for smoking pot, haven't most people in this day in age? Honestly it is not a big deal.

Universal Healthcare, sounds like a hell of a plan. In Canada, we're healthier, and spend less on healthcare per person, AMAZING isn't it!

Meeting with Castro, Kim Jong Il, that sounds like, diplomacy! That's usually a good idea. Ditto for meeting with the Muslim countries.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

no man ... calling me a baby killer, even if it was a joke is absolutely fucking disgusting.

Ok then...replay not effective....

rebornFixer

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok then...replay not effective....

He must be a baseball fan ...

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

That kind of thinking scares me...why the hell would anyone think that it's a good idea?

So, do we allow lawsuits against the Louisville Slugger company anytime someone uses one for assault or robbery? Where does that end?

Well, that's one way to completely alter the argument.

There's a difference between what you're saying and what I believe; you believe in a generalized argument, that I and other liberals must want to sue a gun manufacturer every time someone uses a gun in a gun-related crime. Huh? The Second Amendment? The right to bear arms is pretty clear, and it's not going anywhere. But there's a difference between a hunting rifle, and a gun manufacturer that designs armor-piercing hollow point bullets (cop killers, as they're affectionately called), where gun manufacturers routinely dump handguns and other weapons onto the U.S. black market to cut costs, where shady advertising and construction practices lead to a weapon that has obviously not been made to kill deer, but is designed and manufactured to kill the most people as effectively as possible. Such business practices are a threat to the general welfare of our people, and the people should be allowed a judicial avenue to follow. Despite the sarcasm, it's nothing like suing Louisville, unless Louisville designed a baseball bat with the obvious purpose of being the most effective inflicter of harm on a human life in the entire industry, and then used little to no discretion in how they sold that product regardless of the consequences; There's more to it than simply, "2nd Amendment! 2nd Amendment!" and I think to say otherwise is avoiding the complexity of the problem and the argument.

People sued cigarette companies to get the hazardous health warnings on the label and to get kid-friendly advertising off our airwaves. You don't think these people deserve to have their cases heard?

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

How about we get logical here. Can you handle that? Bats are MADE for baseball, guns are MADE for killing. Understand? I bet you don't.

Bats are made for baseball, guns are made for hunting....Logical enough?

It's beyond assanine to think it's okay to sue the manufacturers for misuse of their product. It's why we have the dumbass situation we currently have with wasteful lawsuits...effecting high medical costs as well.

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

How about we get logical here. Can you handle that? Bats are MADE for baseball, guns are MADE for killing. Understand? I bet you don't.

By the way..."I bet you don't" What the hell is wrong with you tough guy?

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok then...replay not effective....

no not at all ... a complete loss of respect for you.

Collin

cincybearcat wrote:

Bats are made for baseball, guns are made for hunting....Logical enough?

It's beyond assanine to think it's okay to sue the manufacturers for misuse of their product. It's why we have the dumbass situation we currently have with wasteful lawsuits...effecting high medical costs as well.

I don't think making it legal to sue or not will change anything.

It's the ridiculous mentality of the people, and you can't change that by law.

Collin

By the way, this thread is quite logical.

rebornFixer

digster wrote:

Well, that's one way to completely alter the argument.

There's a difference between what you're saying and what I believe; you believe in a generalized argument, that I and other liberals must want to sue a gun manufacturer every time someone uses a gun in a gun-related crime. Huh? The Second Amendment? The right to bear arms is pretty clear, and it's not going anywhere. But there's a difference between a hunting rifle, and a gun manufacturer that designs armor-piercing hollow point bullets (cop killers, as they're affectionately called), where gun manufacturers routinely dump handguns and other weapons onto the U.S. black market to cut costs, where shady advertising and construction practices lead to a weapon that has obviously not been made to kill deer, but is designed and manufactured to kill the most people as effectively as possible. Such business practices are a threat to the general welfare of our people, and the people should be allowed a judicial avenue to follow. Despite the sarcasm, it's nothing like suing Louisville, unless Louisville designed a baseball bat with the obvious purpose of being the most effective inflicter of harm on a human life in the entire industry, and then used little to no discretion in how they sold that product regardless of the consequences; There's more to it than simply, "2nd Amendment! 2nd Amendment!" and I think to say otherwise is avoiding the complexity of the problem and the argument.

People sued cigarette companies to get the hazardous health warnings on the label and to get kid-friendly advertising off our airwaves. You don't think these people deserve to have their cases heard?

I don't know if the tobacco company example is the best comparison ... I suppose one could take legal action against gun makers, not with the goal of shutting them down completely but with the goal of getting them to stop making thinks like submachine guns ... Of course, the latter have legitimate police/military applications, whereas there is no corresponding legit reason for a tobacco company to target kids with adverts ...