Which Direction?

[GSUhooligan]

Watch this Video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD-uwTTP ... I-uMZ_xJnA[/youtube]

[Gil Dobie]

I'm in 89's camp on this one. I'm all pro-birth control in really almost every form of it. But once conception occurs and the egg's in the uterus, it's living - the life process has started. Granted, it may stop or fail on its own, but it's started. At some point science is going to keep improving and the viability outside of the womb will get closer and closer to conception - just like science has improved where viability once was at birth now it's at something like 20 weeks. If we do get viability outside the womb to be right at conception, how would abortion be viewed or considered?

To me, it would mean the same as it does today. I don't agree with abortion, but there are a lot of other things I don't agree with, but I don't believe in restricting people from making choices that affect their body.

[Seahawks08]

Democrats do not significantly lower defense spending for starters..

Significantly? No. Do Dems lower defense spending? Yes.

Proof: Carter lowered it to about 4.5% of GDP, and didn't get below 4% until Clinton became president. While Obama kept raising it in his first term, I suspect it will be reduced to under 4% by the time he leaves. Of course, that means we didn't go to war with Iran. We'll see.

[DSUrocks07]

I've personally never equated abortion to being a form of birth control. Its a medical procedure and should be treated as such. But I think that those who are seeing this in that light (birth control) are the ones who are in the wrong. My main issue is that there's this line in the sand where:

Pro-choice: abortions for any woman who wants it

Pro-life: no abortions for any woman, no questions asked

And you HAVE to be on one side or the other.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Grizalltheway]

I've personally never equated abortion to being a form of birth control. Its a medical procedure and should be treated as such. But I think that those who are seeing this in that light (birth control) are the ones who are in the wrong. My main issue is that there's this line in the sand where:

Pro-choice: abortions for any woman who wants it

Pro-life: no abortions for any woman, no questions asked

And you HAVE to be on one side or the other.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. It's people like 89 who try to make it a strictly black-and-white issue, when it isn't, and never will be.

[UNI88]

I've personally never equated abortion to being a form of birth control. Its a medical procedure and should be treated as such. But I think that those who are seeing this in that light (birth control) are the ones who are in the wrong. My main issue is that there's this line in the sand where:

Pro-choice: abortions for any woman who wants it

Pro-life: no abortions for any woman, no questions asked

And you HAVE to be on one side or the other.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. It's people like 89 who try to make it a strictly black-and-white issue, when it isn't, and never will be.

I don't think 89's position is unreasonable. It's a question of when does life begin. If I understand him correctly, for 89 it begins at conception. So abortion is taking a life. You can disagree with him but I understand and respect his position.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Like I said on another thread on another day, the Reps will not win the presidency as long as they keep their current social views. A majority of Women and today's youth are not buying their bs. The world is passing them by.

If you do a google search, I think you will find there are polls showing Gen. Y is generally more pro-life than their parents generation.

The problem are the whackadoodles that raise a stink about birth control availability "encouraging promiscuity". Contrary to what dumb liberal feminazis say, many women don't see abortion as being some kind of a vital sacrament and generally think abortion is a hideous thing.

I agree.

The Republicans do not need to go pro-choice to win elections in the future. Pro-life is a worthy stance on this issue. Yes, there are far-right wackos on the right but also on the left has wackos promoting their agenda.

Elections go in cycles. When people get tired of busting their a**es so others can enjoy their entitlements then things will change. Color of your skin will not matter.

[death dealer]

You know what? I'm actually anti-abortion. It has nothing to do with god (there is none), or morals (god knows, we should probably mandate a few million more abortions a year worldwide among the dependent classes to reduce the demand on already overburdened resources), but instead has to do with the laws of averages. The genetic crapshoot that is procreation is tricky. It can produce an Einstein. It can much more likely produce a D1B. But we never know when that perfect combination of strands will produce the next great mind that will be the one to solve some great problem. How many cures have been flushed away? Did the mind that would have figured out faster than light travel get rinsed down the drain? That's the kind of shit that wakes me up at 3 a.m.

[Chizzang]

[SeattleGriz]

You are exhibiting the precisely the position of denial that a baby is not a tumor.

BTW, if socialized medicine is put in place, which party do think would really be standing between US and our doctors?

FWIW - I get less barriers to referrals, tests, and medication ordering from Medicare, than I do from the commercial plans. Not something some people want you to know.

Medicare pays quite well too, correct? How do you deal with Medicaid since you accept Medicare?

[death dealer]

FWIW - I get less barriers to referrals, tests, and medication ordering from Medicare, than I do from the commercial plans. Not something some people want you to know.

Medicare pays quite well too, correct? How do you deal with Medicaid since you accept Medicare?

Medicare is pretty good. Medicaid sucks.

[houndawg]

You are exhibiting the precisely the position of denial that a baby is not a tumor.

BTW, if socialized medicine is put in place, which party do think would really be standing between US and our doctors?

FWIW - I get less barriers to referrals, tests, and medication ordering from Medicare, than I do from the commercial plans. Not something some people want you to know.

What I don't understand about health insurance is how anybody can be foolish enough to think that a for-profit company will put your health ahead of their profits.

[JohnStOnge]

They will possibly move towards what you're calling the "center."

But they should not do that just for the sake of doing better in elections. A party should establish principles then make the case for those principles. Do we really want people to take their positions based on what they think will give them the maximum political advantage? Sure, they do it. But is that what we really want?

Aside from that, as a practical matter, the "Tea Party" phenomenon was a factor in getting them as big an overall win as they got in 2010. This year, for some reason, there was a lack of turnout on the "Republican" side. Romney got about the same amoung of votes than McCain did. That really surprised me as I thought the Republican side would be chomping at the bit to go vote.

One interesting thing is that if you use the exit polls and do the math you come up with about 53.8 million White Protestants voting in 2008 vs. only 46.9 million of that group voting in 2012. That's a pretty significant decline. I'm wondering if Romney being a Mormon really did have the effect some wondered about.

If 53.8 million White Protestants had turned out this time and voted at the same rate as those who did vote did (Romney 69%, Obama 30%), it would've been a net plus of about 2.7 million votes for Romney. Obama won by 3.2 million in the popular vote so that in itself wouldn't have been enough to give Romney the popular vote edge. But it's possible that Romney's Mormonism also hurt him with others as well so that the lower turnout by White Protestant wasn't all that cost Romney votes due to his religious affiliation.

But if I'm a Republican I'm seeing that one of the big problems this time was lack of turnout by White Protestants. So I don't know if I'm going to be inclined to do anything to lessen their enthusiasm about voting and voting Republican any further even if I am thinking in just practical terms.

EDIT: I see that the popular vote is still not final as far as I can tell. When all is said and done it might not be beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that having the same turnout among White Protestants as McCain got would have put Romney over the top in terms of the popular vote.

[houndawg]

They will possibly move towards what you're calling the "center."

But they should not do that just for the sake of doing better in elections. A party should establish principles then make the case for those principles. Do we really want people to take their positions based on what they think will give them the maximum political advantage? Sure, they do it. But is that what we really want?

Aside from that, as a practical matter, the "Tea Party" phenomenon was a factor in getting them as big an overall win as they got in 2010. This year, for some reason, there was a lack of turnout on the "Republican" side. Romney got about the same amoung of votes than McCain did. That really surprised me as I thought the Republican side would be chomping at the bit to go vote.

One interesting thing is that if you use the exit polls and do the math you come up with about 53.8 million White Protestants voting in 2008 vs. only 46.9 million of that group voting in 2012. That's a pretty significant decline. I'm wondering if Romney being a Mormon really did have the effect some wondered about.

If 53.8 million White Protestants had turned out this time and voted at the same rate as those who did vote did (Romney 69%, Obama 30%), it would've been a net plus of about 2.7 million votes for Romney. Obama won by 3.2 million in the popular vote so that in itself wouldn't have been enough to give Romney the popular vote edge. But it's possible that Romney's Mormonism also hurt him with others as well so that the lower turnout by White Protestant wasn't all that cost Romney votes due to his religious affiliation.

But if I'm a Republican I'm seeing that one of the big problems this time was lack of turnout by White Protestants. So I don't know if I'm going to be inclined to do anything to lessen their enthusiasm about voting and voting Republican any further even if I am thinking in just practical terms.

EDIT: I see that the popular vote is still not final as far as I can tell. When all is said and done it might not be beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that having the same turnout among White Protestants as McCain got would have put Romney over the top in terms of the popular vote.

Gotta put the fear in them...

[89Hen]

Well, since you're anti choice, I'm going to demand that you be completely consistent with that view. Should we start prosecuting abortions, even early-term ones, as murder? What about if the mother's life is in danger? Is it morally acceptable to you to end the life of a fetus to save the mother's?

Yes. We prosecute child abuse. Mother's life in danger is morally acceptable to choose at that point IMO.

[89Hen]

I'm in 89's camp on this one. I'm all pro-birth control in really almost every form of it. But once conception occurs and the egg's in the uterus, it's living - the life process has started. Granted, it may stop or fail on its own, but it's started. At some point science is going to keep improving and the viability outside of the womb will get closer and closer to conception - just like science has improved where viability once was at birth now it's at something like 20 weeks. If we do get viability outside the womb to be right at conception, how would abortion be viewed or considered?

To me, it would mean the same as it does today. I don't agree with abortion, but there are a lot of other things I don't agree with, but I don't believe in restricting people from making choices that affect their body.

You are a big contradiction Gil.

[89Hen]

I've personally never equated abortion to being a form of birth control. Its a medical procedure and should be treated as such. But I think that those who are seeing this in that light (birth control) are the ones who are in the wrong. My main issue is that there's this line in the sand where:

Pro-choice: abortions for any woman who wants it

Pro-life: no abortions for any woman, no questions asked

And you HAVE to be on one side or the other.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. It's people like 89 who try to make it a strictly black-and-white issue, when it isn't, and never will be.

Ooops, maybe you should have waited for my answer to your question before you

[89Hen]

I don't think 89's position is unreasonable. It's a question of when does life begin. If I understand him correctly, for 89 it begins at conception. So abortion is taking a life. You can disagree with him but I understand and respect his position.

Almost. I clearly said I don't know when "life" begins so IMO you must err on the side of caution. It is pro-choice people who pretend to know when life begins.

[houndawg]

I don't think 89's position is unreasonable. It's a question of when does life begin. If I understand him correctly, for 89 it begins at conception. So abortion is taking a life. You can disagree with him but I understand and respect his position.

Almost. I clearly said I don't know when "life" begins so IMO you must err on the side of caution. It is pro-choice people who pretend to know when life begins.

Pro-choicers want a nanny state.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually, all this conversation aside, I think what it all comes down to for Republicans is to come up with better candidates in terms of "telegenicity" and charisma. It's a fairly evenly divided electorate and, as I said back during the Republican primaries that Obama would win because the Republicans did not have a candidate with those traits while Obama does have them, it's very important. A shame that it is. But it is.

Republicans have not had a charismatic, telegenic candidate since Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had Clinton and Obama.

While I can never know, I fully believe that if the Republicans had had a telegenic, charismatic candidate who was a smooth talker with a radio announcer's voice like Obama has this time Obama would've been blown out. It would not have been close. It was remarkable that Romney came as close as he did being a Mormon who came off very still and kind of awkward.

The next time a candidate that has the advantage in telegenicity and charisma loses a Presidential election will the first time that happens in my lifetime.

[Grizalltheway]

Exactly. It's people like 89 who try to make it a strictly black-and-white issue, when it isn't, and never will be.

Ooops, maybe you should have waited for my answer to your question before you

Why? It was about as lame as I expected.

[houndawg]

Actually, all this conversation aside, I think what it all comes down to for Republicans is to come up with better candidates in terms of "telegenicity" and charisma. It's a fairly evenly divided electorate and, as I said back during the Republican primaries that Obama would win because the Republicans did not have a candidate with those traits while Obama does have them, it's very important. A shame that it is. But it is.

Republicans have not had a charismatic, telegenic candidate since Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had Clinton and Obama.

While I can never know, I fully believe that if the Republicans had had a telegenic, charismatic candidate who was a smooth talker with a radio announcer's voice like Obama has this time Obama would've been blown out. It would not have been close. It was remarkable that Romney came as close as he did being a Mormon who came off very still and kind of awkward.

The next time a candidate that has the advantage in telegenicity and charisma loses a Presidential election will the first time that happens in my lifetime.

You have to be the most out-of-touch person in these United States, John. Let uncle houndawg explain the facts of life for you: Candidates don't matter much anymore. The country is divided in half, one half is about hope and the other half is about fear and we each know which half we stand with.

[DSUrocks07]

Actually, all this conversation aside, I think what it all comes down to for Republicans is to come up with better candidates in terms of "telegenicity" and charisma. It's a fairly evenly divided electorate and, as I said back during the Republican primaries that Obama would win because the Republicans did not have a candidate with those traits while Obama does have them, it's very important. A shame that it is. But it is.

Republicans have not had a charismatic, telegenic candidate since Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had Clinton and Obama.

While I can never know, I fully believe that if the Republicans had had a telegenic, charismatic candidate who was a smooth talker with a radio announcer's voice like Obama has this time Obama would've been blown out. It would not have been close. It was remarkable that Romney came as close as he did being a Mormon who came off very still and kind of awkward.

The next time a candidate that has the advantage in telegenicity and charisma loses a Presidential election will the first time that happens in my lifetime.

You have to be the most out-of-touch person in these United States, John. Let uncle houndawg explain the facts of life for you: Candidates don't matter much anymore. The country is divided in half, one half is about hope and the other half is about fear and we each know which half we stand with.

So who is actually about getting **** done? That's who I want to see leading the country. Not "hoping" for things to get better or trying to make me "fearful" about change.

Both parties are just a bunch of insecure babies who truly have no idea how to fix things but would rather claim that the other side is stopping them from doing so.

US two party system, WAFJ

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[89Hen]

Ooops, maybe you should have waited for my answer to your question before you

Why? It was about as lame as I expected.

Lame in what way? If you believed abortion was killing a child, you wouldn't be for prosecuting as such? And am I being too reasonable when it comes to the life of the mother?

BTW, there are plenty of places where killing a pregnant woman can be a double homicide. That's lame when it comes to consistency.

[death dealer]

Actually, all this conversation aside, I think what it all comes down to for Republicans is to come up with better candidates in terms of "telegenicity" and charisma. It's a fairly evenly divided electorate and, as I said back during the Republican primaries that Obama would win because the Republicans did not have a candidate with those traits while Obama does have them, it's very important. A shame that it is. But it is.

Republicans have not had a charismatic, telegenic candidate since Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had Clinton and Obama.

While I can never know, I fully believe that if the Republicans had had a telegenic, charismatic candidate who was a smooth talker with a radio announcer's voice like Obama has this time Obama would've been blown out. It would not have been close. It was remarkable that Romney came as close as he did being a Mormon who came off very still and kind of awkward.

The next time a candidate that has the advantage in telegenicity and charisma loses a Presidential election will the first time that happens in my lifetime.

You have to be the most out-of-touch person in these United States, John. Let uncle houndawg explain the facts of life for you: Candidates don't matter much anymore. The country is divided in half, one half is about hope and the other half is about fear and we each know which half we stand with.

A tad oversimplified. Also wrong, insulting, rude, and....at the same time a little too true. there are a ton of people out there who voted slightly one way or the other on very narrow issues. Had Romney run his national campaign as he the true moderate he is, it would have been a different story. Give us a republican who opens his arms to Hispanics, and distances himself from the homophobia of the right ( and I don't think he actually has to openly advocate for gays, just turn his back on the open hostility of the current party platform, and he'd beat anyone. Not gonna happen, but its true.