toldailytopic: Raising Cain. What do you make of Cain's sexual harassment charges

[Breathe]

Never said he could. But he can push legislation and programs that reduce support for abortions and he can use his bully pulpit to speak out against the vile practice.

In other words, he has the opportunity to lead.

In other words, he has the opportunity to make himself unelectable.
Unfortunately, abortion is not a hot topic issue to many Americans. Right now they are worried about keeping their jobs to support the children they already have. A president whose main focus is an issue which most consider to be a moral and religious judgement will not get a second term.

 

[Granite]

Any of you who complain about sod, then indulge him and respond to his posts, should be slapped upside the head.

Quit giving him what he wants. Otherwise you're just gluttons for punishment. The rotten little bird turd only thrives when people give him attention.

 

[some other dude]

True. But it's amazing how often people get reelected with low approval rates. Of those up for election, how much of Congress do you expect will get voted out this time around?

I missed this Rex and wanted to come back to it if you're still following this thread.

The low approval rating for Congress overall is indeed disturbing. However, when pollsters ask respondents to rate their own Representatives or Senators, the approval ratings are much higher, especially when respondents don't know what party their Congressperson belongs to or when the respondents identify as independents.

Yes, we're all dissatisfied with Congress. But we want to see the other guys' Representative fired, not ours.

 

[some other dude]

A president whose main focus is an issue which most consider to be a moral and religious judgement will not get a second term.

I disagree. A strong leader will convince the crowd to follow him. Consider Reagan.

 

[Breathe]

Any of you who complain about sod, then indulge him and respond to his posts, should be slapped upside the head.

Quit giving him what he wants. Otherwise you're just gluttons for punishment. The rotten little bird turd only thrives when people give him attention.

You're right. I'm so ashamed.
But it's like shooting fish in a barrel. lain:

 

[Breathe]

I disagree. A strong leader will convince the crowd to follow him. Consider Reagan.

Things have changed a lot since the eighties.
Remind me, what did Regan do to stop abortion?

 

[some other dude]

Things have changed a lot since the eighties.
Remind me, what did Regan do to stop abortion?

Used his bully pulpit. Was it effective? :idunno:

Reagan said, “Now I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism.”
The most disturbing evidence of this attitude was Washington’s funding of clinics that provided “birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.” Sex was being secularized. “Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm?“ Apparently, yes, for that cynicism extended to the womb:

”Abortion on demand“ now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives--the lives of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother?
Medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of thes moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn--for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions.

The real question today is not when human life begins, but What is the value of human life? The abortionists who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether than tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law--the same right we have.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The "Dred Scott" decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain suppressed.

The tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade" is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all out nation's wars.

 

[some other dude]

You're right. I'm so ashamed.
But it's like shooting fish in a barrel. lain:

:idea: Or hey!

Like ripping an innocent child apart in the womb and throwing it in the trash!


I guess none of this really matters to you, eh? It's just playing games and scoring points.

 

[Breathe]

Used his bully pulpit. Was it effective? :idunno:

Not really. Teens can still get contraceptives without their parents permission, and abortion is still legal.

 

[Breathe]

I guess none of this really matters to you, eh? It's just playing games and scoring points.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about me. Guess you know what that makes you?

Granite was right. It's impossible to have an intelligent and thought provoking discussion with you. I'm tired of trying. :wave:

 

[some other dude]

You make an awful lot of assumptions about me. Guess you know what that makes you?

Granite was right. It's impossible to have an intelligent and thought provoking discussion with you. I'm tired of trying. :wave:

Granite is a cowardly idiot, afraid to face a challenge to his stupidity. He wants the room to be a hit and run poster, like Greenrage, so he puts on ignore those who disagree with him.

If you want to have an intelligent and thought provoking conversation with me, leave the "shooting fish in a barrel" comments to your PMs.

Or, quit whining when I slap you back. :idunno:

 

[some other dude]

Not really. Teens can still get contraceptives without their parents permission, and abortion is still legal.

Did you read Reagan's quotes? He recognized that it would be a long haul. He also recognized that it was worth the effort.

 

[Town Heretic]

:idea: Or hey!

Like ripping an innocent child apart in the womb and throwing it in the trash!

I guess none of this really matters to you, eh? It's just playing games and scoring points.

See? Disagree with this fellow long enough and eventually you're "playing games". It only gets worse from there Breathe.

 

[some other dude]

What a sad needy immature little fellow you are Town.


Oh well. At least you have your God-hating sycophants to prop up your ego.

 

[Breathe]

See? Disagree with this fellow long enough and eventually you're "playing games". It only gets worse from there Breathe.

Haha! I noticed. For my own peace of mind, he is on ignore for now. It's hard for me to just ignore someone I can see, because it bugs me not to answer. Best to blindfold myself to him for a while, before my head explodes from sheer irritation.

 

[some other dude]

:banana:

 

[kmoney]

Indeed he has. In a very "clever" way, designed to sway those who aren't very discerning.

Or he has just presented his viewpoint for those who are interested.

Does the President have a bully pulpit on issues like this? Of course.

The President certainly can do this. But is this an issue you think the President will have any influence on?

Does the President have the ability to steer legislation, on stem cell research, on Planned Parenthood funding, on parental notification? Of course.

I assume that by steer legislation you mostly mean the bully pulpit thing again. If not, what do you mean?

Does the President have the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will influence this debate for years to come? Of course.


Did Obama appoint another Antonin Scalia? No, he appointed a Sonia Sotomayor. Which do you suppose will be more receptive to the inevitable Personhood case that will come before it?

Except I don't really think the SCOTUS will have an influence. The Court decided this back in the 70s and I don't see future courts overturning it. Judicial precedent.

Meanwhile, we have Obama pushing legislation to include free abortions in his health care plan.

McCain probably wouldn't have done that.

I find that unlikely to happen. But of course, I doubt McCain would even try to pursue that. Although, it's just a logical extension since abortion is legal. Why wouldn't a government health care plan pay for it? :idunno:

 

[some other dude]

The President certainly can do this. But is this an issue you think the President will have any influence on?

Of course. A President can choose to use his bully pulpit for anything he wishes. No child left behind, thousand points of light, american fitness, universal health care, etc...

I assume that by steer legislation you mostly mean the bully pulpit thing again. If not, what do you mean?

Veto power over legislation he does not favor, introducing legislation that he favors (like universal health care), etc.

Except I don't really think the SCOTUS will have an influence. The Court decided this back in the 70s and I don't see future courts overturning it. Judicial precedent.

Mississppi came close to passing a state law on Personhood the other day. If it ever passes, in any state, it will inevitably be contested up to the Supreme Court.

Where it will either be upheld or ruled against, based largely on the Justice's personal leanings.

I find that unlikely to happen. But of course, I doubt McCain would even try to pursue that. Although, it's just a logical extension since abortion is legal. Why wouldn't a government health care plan pay for it? :idunno:

And would we have an abortion of a government health plan if McCain was President?

 

[kmoney]

Of course. A President can choose to use his bully pulpit for anything he wishes. No child left behind, thousand points of light, american fitness, universal health care, etc...

Even if a President bullies Congress into passing an anti-abortion law, which is unlikely, any law is going to be contested in the courts and I can only believe that the courts will side with the pro-choice side because of precedent.

Veto power over legislation he does not favor, introducing legislation that he favors (like universal health care), etc.

And this is unlikely to get us very far.

Mississppi came close to passing a state law on Personhood the other day. If it ever passes, in any state, it will inevitably be contested up to the Supreme Court.

Where it will either be upheld or ruled against, based largely on the Justice's personal leanings.

My point, and TH's, is that the Justice's personal views are somewhat taken out of the picture because of precedent.

And would we have an abortion of a government health plan if McCain was President?

An abortion of a government health plan?

I assume you mean abortions covered in a government health plan. And my guess is no.



The President may be able to use some power/influence to change how many abortions happen, but that's about it. The real battle is not in the office of the President.

 

[some other dude]

Even if a President bullies Congress into passing an anti-abortion law, which is unlikely, any law is going to be contested in the courts ...

Of course. It's predictable. Bammy's Health Plan is winding its way towards the SCOTUS right now.

And this is unlikely to get us very far.

:idunno:

My point, and TH's, is that the Justice's personal views are somewhat taken out of the picture because of precedent.

Nonsense. They overturned centuries of precedent with Roe v Wade.

An abortion of a government health plan?

I assume you mean abortions covered in a government health plan.

No, I mean the disgusting mess of a bill that they passed in a rush that probably won't stand up to judicial scrutiny.

And my guess is no.

Good guess. :chuckle:

The President may be able to use some power/influence to change how many abortions happen, but that's about it.

Isn't that significant?

The real battle is not in the office of the President.

I agree. But it's an important component. Do you see the difference between a leader of the nation who views unwanted pregnancies as "punishment", and a leader of the nation who states unequivocally that life begins at conception?