Is it correct that Obama stands for these things?

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

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

I'll try one more time since you are so upset, I was showing that labels are generalizations and a very bad idea...Pro-choice, Pro-life, Anti-abortion, Babby killer, Anti-choice, Anti-women's rights....

That labeling someone one of those terms is simply an attempt to pigeonhole them and doesn't take into consideration the person's entire view of the complex matter.

So, no I wasn't labeling you a baby killer, I was showing how ineffective it is to use labels in a discussion, because you ultimately just piss people off and don'ty talk abotu the issue at hand.

digster

reborncareerist wrote:

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 .

Well, in many if not most cases that has been the goal. Plantiffs bring a civil suit. There's been a few famous cases of this in NYC, where I live; we have strict gun control laws, but when people do get shot it's often because the criminal picked it up from some out-of-state black market that was a backdoor deal for the gun manufacturers. We're talking like these plantiffs are suing a marble company because a child swallowed one; that's the comparison that's not applicable. What is the reasoning behind cop-killer bullets? Behind easy access to AK-47s? Guns sold to citizens (not police officers) that are automatic...I guess you've got to make really sure that if you didn't kill that deer with the first shot, the next fifty rounds you'll shoot in the next 20 seconds will make sure.

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

Well, in many if not most cases that has been the goal. Plantiffs bring a civil suit. There's been a few famous cases of this in NYC, where I live; we have strict gun control laws, but when people do get shot it's often because the criminal picked it up from some out-of-state black market that was a backdoor deal for the gun manufacturers. We're talking like these plantiffs are suing a marble company because a child swallowed one; that's the comparison that's not applicable. What is the reasoning behind cop-killer bullets? Behind easy access to AK-47s? Guns sold to citizens (not police officers) that are automatic...I guess you've got to make really sure that if you didn't kill that deer with the first shot, the next fifty rounds you'll shoot in the next 20 seconds will make sure.

Perhaps I generalized too much, but I was dealing with a 1 line statement. I see some of your point, I still think it's very dangerous.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

I'll try one more time since you are so upset, I was showing that labels are generalizations and a very bad idea...Pro-choice, Pro-life, Anti-abortion, Babby killer, Anti-choice, Anti-women's rights....

That labeling someone one of those terms is simply an attempt to pigeonhole them and doesn't take into consideration the person's entire view of the complex matter.

So, no I wasn't labeling you a baby killer, I was showing how ineffective it is to use labels in a discussion, because you ultimately just piss people off and don'ty talk abotu the issue at hand.

But this thing is, you took out a portion of my post, a post where I *was* trying to exactly what you are talking about (removing labels) and adding context around Obama's position.

as for the part you did quote, I was talking about myself ... not someone else, not pigeon holing anyone ... I used several labels in conjunction to explain where I come from, my beliefs.

Then, you made what I find to be a truly tasteless joke, about me ... I don't care if it was a joke or if it was trying to prove a point ... I have treated you respect even when we have disagreed ... I've listened to other views. Even if it was a joke ... to see ANYONE even hint at the fact that I am a baby killer, to have my name and that lebel next to each other, is beyond insulting.

rebornFixer

digster wrote:

Well, in many if not most cases that has been the goal. Plantiffs bring a civil suit. There's been a few famous cases of this in NYC, where I live; we have strict gun control laws, but when people do get shot it's often because the criminal picked it up from some out-of-state black market that was a backdoor deal for the gun manufacturers. We're talking like these plantiffs are suing a marble company because a child swallowed one; that's the comparison that's not applicable. What is the reasoning behind cop-killer bullets? Behind easy access to AK-47s? Guns sold to citizens (not police officers) that are automatic...I guess you've got to make really sure that if you didn't kill that deer with the first shot, the next fifty rounds you'll shoot in the next 20 seconds will make sure.

Easy access to AK-47s and cop-killer bullets has much to do with the legislation in some distincts and sociocultural factors ... The manufacturers of these items are but part of the problem. Prove that said manufacturers do "backdoor deals" with any sort of black market, and now we are talking about criminal acts, not civil law. By all means, charge these folks.

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

But this thing is, you took out a portion of my post, a post where I *was* trying to exactly what you are talking about (removing labels) and adding context around Obama's position.

as for the part you did quote, I was talking about myself ... not someone else, not pigeon holing anyone ... I used several labels in conjunction to explain where I come from, my beliefs.

Then, you made what I find to be a truly tasteless joke, about me ... I don't care if it was a joke or if it was trying to prove a point ... I have treated you respect even when we have disagreed ... I've listened to other views. Even if it was a joke ... to see ANYONE even hint at the fact that I am a baby killer, to have my name and that lebel next to each other, is beyond insulting.

Honestly, I think you are overreacting.

I in no way was calling you a baby killer...so I apologize.

If I were you I'd avoid any abortion threads on this site, it'll save you a lot of grief.

Collin

cincybearcat wrote:

Honestly, I think you are overreacting.

I in no way was calling you a baby killer...so I apologize.

If I were you I'd avoid any abortion threads on this site, it'll save you a lot of grief.

One might label him a drama queen.

_

PEPPER wrote:

This is what a partial birth abortion is:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessaryand should be prohibited.

yes, your democtrate canidate accepts this as an OK alternative for abortion, child is born and killed.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

The child is not born!!! Note the use of the word "partial". It's still halfway inside the woman. It has not taken a breath. It is not an alternative to abortion - it is an abortion. No abortion attempt has failed; no child survived a botched abortion.

Besides, "partial birth abortion" is a legal term - not a medical one. In the medical community, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". There is a procedure similar to the one described, but it is very rarely used and is sometimes necessary to protect the health of the mother. This ban does not provide an exception for such cases. It is a bunch of politicians banning doctors from using their medical judgement to decide what's in the best interest of the health of their patients.

I commend Obama for seeing past the rhetoric and voting against this bill.

digster

reborncareerist wrote:

Easy access to AK-47s and cop-killer bullets has much to do with the legislation in some distincts and sociocultural factors ... The manufacturers of these items are but part of the problem. Prove that said manufacturers do "backdoor deals" with any sort of black market, and now we are talking about criminal acts, not civil law. By all means, charge these folks.

You make that sound like it's easy...a criminal charge would be thrown out far faster than a civil suit, for several reasons. One, it is difficult to definitively prove that gun manufacturers operate on the black market. Even then, if you can prove it, prosecutors would find it difficult to find a charge that would apply. Murder, manslaughter, etc...none of these apply because the gun manufacturers had no direct involvement or knowledge of the death. Conspiracy to commit is useless because there was no overt conspiracy to cause death, only conspiracy to shamelessly and recklessly make a product that would result in death more easily. Criminal endangerment, etc. are possibilities but gun manufacturers often have access to the best and most expensive lawyers in the land, and since they are never convicted they would never be charged. I think in this instance a civil suit would be the best course of action.

You say that the easy access to these weapons has much to do with legislation and sociocultural factors in the areas where they are bought and sold. Maybe so. But think back to the Civil Rights era. The Brown v. Board of Education decision came down when there were still segregated schools throughout the nation. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act was passed when there was harsh opposition to it. It is not unprecedented for the judicial or legislative wings of our government and country to act in advance of the changing will of the people. Sometimes it's how people change.

Wilds

cincybearcat wrote:

I'll try one more time since you are so upset, I was showing that labels are generalizations and a very bad idea...Pro-choice, Pro-life, Anti-abortion, Babby killer, Anti-choice, Anti-women's rights....

That labeling someone one of those terms is simply an attempt to pigeonhole them and doesn't take into consideration the person's entire view of the complex matter.

So, no I wasn't labeling you a baby killer, I was showing how ineffective it is to use labels in a discussion, because you ultimately just piss people off and don'ty talk abotu the issue at hand.

I'm with cincybearcat on this.

The offended party totally missed the joke. It had NOTHING to do with labeling you a baby killer. He was saying labeling is stupid.

The fact that you can't understand his humor, and causes you to lose respect for him is your problem.

Cincybearcat, in the future please realize that only about 10% of the people on this board can even begin to recognize sarcasm. It is almost useless to try and be witty.

Hell, even I miss it once and a while. Sometime the written word just doesn't translate.

Peace all.

Collin

Wilds wrote:

I'm with cincybearcat on this.

The offended party totally missed the joke. It had NOTHING to do with labeling you a baby killer. He was saying labeling is stupid.

The fact that you can't understand his humor, and causes you to lose respect for him is your problem.

Cincybearcat, in the future please realize that only about 10% of the people on this board can even begin to recognize sarcasm. It is almost useless to try and be witty.

Hell, even I miss it once and a while. Sometime the written word just doesn't translate.

Peace all.

It was quite obvious, though.

jimed14

he explained that his use of "baby killer" was a just a joke about labeling ...

but ... in this joke about labels, he used the term "baby killer" with me.

and I just find that incredibly insulting.

rebornFixer

digster wrote:

You make that sound like it's easy...a criminal charge would be thrown out far faster than a civil suit, for several reasons. One, it is difficult to definitively prove that gun manufacturers operate on the black market. Even then, if you can prove it, prosecutors would find it difficult to find a charge that would apply. Murder, manslaughter, etc...none of these apply because the gun manufacturers had no direct involvement or knowledge of the death. Conspiracy to commit is useless because there was no overt conspiracy to cause death, only conspiracy to shamelessly and recklessly make a product that would result in death more easily. Criminal endangerment, etc. are possibilities but gun manufacturers often have access to the best and most expensive lawyers in the land, and since they are never convicted they would never be charged. I think in this instance a civil suit would be the best course of action.

You say that the easy access to these weapons has much to do with legislation and sociocultural factors in the areas where they are bought and sold. Maybe so. But think back to the Civil Rights era. The Brown v. Board of Education decision came down when there were still segregated schools throughout the nation. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act was passed when there was harsh opposition to it. It is not unprecedented for the judicial or legislative wings of our government and country to act in advance of the changing will of the people. Sometimes it's how people change.

At the end of the day, I'd probably get behind a civil suit, if and only if said suit was an explicit attempt to take illegal weapons off the streets. I still cannot get behind the idea of suing a company for accidental death as a result of use of a product, or even for deliberate misuse of something like a hunting rifle. I think you and I can agree on that?

NeilJam

scb wrote:

The child is not born!!! Note the use of the word "partial". It's still halfway inside the woman. It has not taken a breath. It is not an alternative to abortion - it is an abortion. No abortion attempt has failed; no child survived a botched abortion.

Besides, "partial birth abortion" is a legal term - not a medical one. In the medical community, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". There is a procedure similar to the one described, but it is very rarely used and is sometimes necessary to protect the health of the mother. This ban does not provide an exception for such cases. It is a bunch of politicians banning doctors from using their medical judgement to decide what's in the best interest of the health of their patients.

I commend Obama for seeing past the rhetoric and voting against this bill.

That description you quoted is just one used by those against abortion to make it sound so disgusting in order to convince others to agree with them. Any type of abortion certainly isn't pretty, but it is a decision that should left to the patient and doctor.

Some Washington politicians say they don't want to get between you and your doctor as an argument against universal healthcare (it's better that the insurance companies do that), but don't mind intervening when it comes to decisions on abortion.

NeilJam

Collin wrote:

It was quite obvious, though.

I don't think it was so obvious. Who the fuck really thinks making a joke by labeling anyone a baby killer is funny? That's like joking about molesting children.

Collin

jimed14 wrote:

he explained that his use of "baby killer" was a just a joke about labeling ...

but ... in this joke about labels, he used the term "baby killer" with me.

and I just find that incredibly insulting.

Yeah... we know. He apologized despite the fact it wasn't his intention to insult and despite the fact he didn't actually call you a baby killer.

jimed14

Collin wrote:

Yeah... we know. He apologized despite the fact it wasn't his intention to insult and despite the fact he didn't actually call you a baby killer.

an apology I appreciate, sincerely

rebornFixer

NeilJam wrote:

I don't think it was so obvious. Who the fuck really thinks making a joke by labeling anyone a baby killer is funny? That's like joking about molesting children.

Well, he's apologized several times, so letting it drop now is probably a good idea. Most of us got his point.

digster

reborncareerist wrote:

I still cannot get behind the idea of suing a company for accidental death as a result of use of a product, or even for deliberate misuse of something like a hunting rifle. I think you and I can agree on that?

No argument here. I agree that frivolous lawsuits are a problem, but I have to admit, I don't know if I've ever seen a lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer for someone who was killed with a hunting rifle or something. I could be missing some other cases, but most of what I've seen has been centered around changing the policies and practices of these gun manufacturers, which have been extremely slimy in the past.

rebornFixer

digster wrote:

No argument here. I agree that frivolous lawsuits are a problem, but I have to admit, I don't know if I've ever seen a lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer for someone who was killed with a hunting rifle or something. I could be missing some other cases, but most of what I've seen has been centered around changing the policies and practices of these gun manufacturers, which have been extremely slimy in the past.

Indeed, I am not aware of any cases ... My brain tends to jump to potential problems with any course of action. You've made the case well, though.