Trump Will Not Run.

#76
#76
CSVol said:
I agree that the economy will be the focus. But how will the right spin 180 and support Romney after trashing Obamacare for 4 years?
Click to expand...

he has already said that the 1st thing he will do (if elected) is repeal ObamaCare. He will stress that HC is a state specific issue. He will hammer the point that nobody called him to talk to discuss what worked and what didnt prior to ObamaCare being signed into law

If the main issues by 2012 are jobs and HC, then Obama cannot win because he has failed at both
 
#77
#77
Fair enough. You gave a better answer than the 2 cons. on the McGlauhlin Group.
 
#78
#78
CSVol said:
Fair enough. You gave a better answer than the 2 cons. on the McGlauhlin Group.
Click to expand...

ISSUE 1...

Sorry just had to say that


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/05/romney_fundrais.html

Mitt Romney raised $10.25 million from his National Call Day here today, far exceeding the haul he brought in from a similar fundraising day in Boston four years ago.

With around 720 supporters placing calls around the country throughout the day, he sought to put on full display one of the most important attributes for his emerging campaign: raising money.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
volinbham said:
I love this logic:

Oppose abortion = sexist
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't have a problem if some people aren't really bothered by abortion, but I can't think of anything more irritating than the assertion that being against abortion means you're anti women's rights.

I remember last year seeing some protesters of an abortion group holding signs up saying "RIP Women's Rights" as if people are pro-life because they hate women.
 
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
Oh, okay. I agree with the racism thing 100 percent. The sexism notion I think a valid argument can be made that the choice aspect of the issue has some bearing on women's rights. But that is from the perspective of the pro-choice crowd, so I don't view being anti-abortion as being motivated by being anti-woman, or anti-woman's free choice. The pro-choice crowd may feel it has that effect (i.e. reduces the power a woman has), but in terms of motive, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

no one is outlawing abortion, just the public funding of it.
 
#83
#83
MG1968 said:
google "Margaret Sanger"

'Flicka is calling Herman Cain's criticism of PP "racist", or at least racially motivated (ridiculous in and of itself), however, PP's founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and looked at black people as inferior. It's no secret that there are a lot of black women having abortions. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider what PP is going "genocidal".
Click to expand...

I never at one point called it racist, dude. Pump your brakes.

And yes, it's a STUPID stretch to consider it genocide... because, by his standards, it would mean that black people are willingly killing themselves.

What? Is dissolving PP going to force them into stopping? Puh-leez.

Regardless of what you think, attacking abortion, to a certain (albeit limited) extent, is attacking a concept that is centered around women's rights. Men cannot have abortions. If we outlawed vasectomies, do you really think men would shut up about it?
 
Last edited:
#84
#84
DinkinFlicka said:
I never at one point called it racist, dude. Pump your brakes.

And yes, it's a STUPID stretch to consider it genocide... because, by his standards, it would mean that black people are willingly killing themselves.

What? Is dissolving PP going to force them into stopping? Puh-leez.

Regardless of what you think, attacking abortion, to a certain (albeit limited) extent, is attacking a concept that is centered around women's rights. Men cannot have abortions. If we outlawed vasectomies, do you really think men would shut up about it?
Click to expand...

How is cutting off federal funding for PP "dissolving" it?

btw, I'm ambivalent toward abortion (my views were laid out somewhere on these forums), but I don't believe for one second that someone who is anti-abortion is somehow against women's rights.

and equating a vasectomy to an abortion is about as stupid a comparison as any LG has ever come up with.
 
#85
#85
MG1968 said:
How is cutting off federal funding for PP "dissolving" it?

btw, I'm ambivalent toward abortion (my views were laid out somewhere on these forums), but I don't believe for one second that someone who is anti-abortion is somehow against women's rights.

and equating a vasectomy to an abortion is about as stupid a comparison as any LG has ever come up with.
Click to expand...

Cutting off federal funding would force costs to go up, making it unaffordable to many of those who need it.

That's just fabulous that you don't believe it's an infringement on women's rights. Heard you the first time. Fact is, an attack on abortion is an attack on a service only available to women. Why men even have a say in this, I'll never have a clue, but we shouldn't.

Where's the ambivalence? It's hard to logically argue against abortion. If you want to tie it to morals then I really could care less about continuing this discussion. Yes, it's founding was on shady terms, but it's grown into a safe, efficient alternative to forcing unprepared mothers to have children they aren't prepared to raise.

God, are you obsessed with LG? I think you've probably said "LG" more than anyone on this board.

Why don't you outline just how bad of a comparison it is instead of throwing around petty critiques? Vasectomies are a form of male contraception. That's where I'm drawing the comparison from. It's a service only available to men, just as abortions are a service only available to women (although it is a bit past the contraception stage).
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
DinkinFlicka said:
Cutting off federal funding would force costs to go up, making it unaffordable to many of those who need it.
Click to expand...

condoms are cheaper and it's not like an abortion isn't an avoidable expense. It's also not one where I want to help another pay for it. Sorry but life has consequences
 
#87
#87
DinkinFlicka said:
Cutting off federal funding would force costs to go up, making it unaffordable to many of those who need it.

That's just fabulous that you don't believe it's an infringement on women's rights. Heard you the first time. Fact is, an attack on abortion is an attack on a service only available to women. Why men even have a say in this, I'll never have a clue, but we shouldn't.

Where's the ambivalence? It's hard to logically argue against abortion. If you want to tie it to morals then I really could care less about continuing this discussion. Yes, it's founding was on shady terms, but it's grown into a safe, efficient alternative to forcing unprepared mothers to have children they aren't prepared to raised.

God, are you obsessed with LG? I think you've probably said "LG" more than anyone on this board.

Why don't you outline just how bad of a comparison is instead of throwing around petty critiques? Vasectomies are a form of male contraception. That's where I'm drawing the comparison from.
Click to expand...

you consider abortion a form of contraception? how much would the cost go up for an abortion if federal funding was dropped? do you have any evidence this would stop people from getting them? this is a rather stupid argument. there are plenty of subsidies that if removed would effect one group over another. do we need to base policy off of even distribution of benefits/costs?
 
#88
#88
droski said:
you consider abortion a form of contraception? how much would the cost go up for an abortion if federal funding was dropped? do you have any evidence this would stop people from getting them?
Click to expand...

I went back and corrected that.

If you don't think the cost to have an abortion done would go up after federal funding was cut off, just what in the hell do you think it would affect?
 
#89
#89
a vasectomy would be the medical equivalent of a tubal ligation, not an abortion.

apparently, you view abortion as birth control, which is your prerogative. I view it as an optional medical procedure that is legal, and has it's place, but should never be used as a form of contraception, especially beyond an as-yet-to-be-determined viability date.
 
#90
#90
utvolpj said:
condoms are cheaper and it's not like an abortion isn't an avoidable expense. It's also not one where I want to help another pay for it. Sorry but life has consequences
Click to expand...

Because condoms ALWAYS work...

Life has consequences? Sounds like you've never been in the position of an unplanned pregnancy. Yeah, sh*t happens, but it doesn't mean affordable alternatives shouldn't be available to help fix things.
 
#91
#91
MG1968 said:
a vasectomy would be the medical equivalent of a tubal ligation, not an abortion.

apparently, you view abortion as birth control, which is your prerogative. I view it as an optional medical procedure that is legal, and has it's place, but should never be used as a form of contraception, especially beyond an as-yet-to-be-determined viability date.
Click to expand...

Again, I went back and corrected that.
 
#92
#92
DinkinFlicka said:
I went back and corrected that.

If you don't think the cost to have an abortion done would go up after federal funding was cut off, just what in the hell do you think it would affect?
Click to expand...

so if it goes up $5 than we have to keep the funding? planned parenthood couldn't possibly cut back on other things and keep teh cost of an abortion for poor people the same?
 
#93
#93
DinkinFlicka said:
Because condoms ALWAYS work...

Life has consequences? Sounds like you've never been in the position of an unplanned pregnancy. Yeah, sh*t happens, but it doesn't mean affordable alternatives shouldn't be available to help fix things.
Click to expand...

condoms are better than just taking a shot based on the calendar right?

fortunately no I was smart enough to plan the pregnancy when I was in a committed relationship and could afford a child. I know, crazy stuff

affordable alternative != gov't funded
 
#94
#94
DinkinFlicka said:
Because condoms ALWAYS work...

Life has consequences? Sounds like you've never been in the position of an unplanned pregnancy. Yeah, sh*t happens, but it doesn't mean affordable alternatives shouldn't be available to help fix things.
Click to expand...

i'd be willing to bet the number of abortions in this country that happen yearly because someone used birth control properly and it didn't work is in the hundreds at most or at the very least a VERY small %.
 
#95
#95
DinkinFlicka said:
I went back and corrected that.

If you don't think the cost to have an abortion done would go up after federal funding was cut off, just what in the hell do you think it would affect?
Click to expand...

actually, federal law prohibits federal money being used to fund abortions.
 
#96
#96
droski said:
so if it goes up $5 than we have to keep the funding? planned parenthood couldn't possibly cut back on other things and keep teh cost of an abortion for poor people the same?
Click to expand...

5 bucks is a bit of an easy estimation for someone on your side of this debate to make, especially considering it cost a friend of mine around 300 to have it done.

What would they cut back on? Just wondering since we're taking guesses.

utvolpj said:
condoms are better than just taking a shot based on the calendar right?

fortunately no I was smart enough to plan the pregnancy when I was in a committed relationship and could afford a child. I know, crazy stuff

affordable alternative != gov't funded
Click to expand...

A lot of people aren't as smart or fortunate as you, dude. condoms rip, they leak, they come off. Again, sh*t happens. I know your world is perfect, but the truth is that you're just lucky.
 
#99
#99
DinkinFlicka said:
5 bucks is a bit of an easy estimation for someone on your side of this debate to make, especially considering it cost a friend of mine around 300 to have it done.

What would they cut back on? Just wondering since we're taking guesses.



A lot of people aren't as smart or fortunate as you, dude. condoms rip, they leak, they come off. Again, sh*t happens. I know your world is perfect, but the truth is that you're just lucky.
Click to expand...

so say it goes up to $400. these same people who can afford flat screens can't put $400 on their credit card?

how about staff?

bs. he's not lucky. he's smart. it's absurdly easy to not get someone pregnant.
 
#100
#100
DinkinFlicka said:
And?
Click to expand...

and therefore it's a pointless argument? this is like pulling out the "what about rape victims?" card when people argue against late term abortion. when we start legislating on 1% of the cases we start doing dumb**** things.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top