Ma, please change your avatar, you keep making me think The Saint has joined the debate!

I wanna know if Obama will support my cartoon rendering of Islam's prophet. If you shit on one religion's beliefs then don't be a fucking pussy to shit on all of them. Yeah, faggot - marriage is considered a sacrament. Find another word for your union, you gay bastards, and show some respect like you demand from others. Fucking cry baby bitches.

i loves my baby Sterling is back.

(05-12-2012, 02:32 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: i loves my baby Sterling is back.

I just wish sterling wasn't so shy and would speak up about things He/ She believes in.

I apologize in advance if Obama and his team discovered the "gay" gene while I was out of the country. If they ain't found the gene, then I must take their professed homosexuality strictly on faith. That's what religion demands from me, too. So . . . since neither gay and God can be proven, feel free to use the Lord's name in vain while I continue to use fag and dyke in polite conversation without hesitation or reservation. Fucking Friends of Dorothy and their minions.

(05-12-2012, 01:38 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: Failed late term abortions? Is he chatting about third trimester D&C's where the life of the mother is clearly at risk?

Nah, BAIPA was passed unanimously by the Congress in 2002. It was a bill enacted because some elective (and medically-required) abortions simply fail and a baby is born with a heartbeat. There was widespread evidence that they were then discarded or just left to stop breathing.

Obama voted against the Illiniois state version of the bill 2 times when he was Senator; citing that he felt it could interfere with Roe vs. Wade and add extra burden on the woman. A clause was then added stating that the bill had no impact on right to choose or Roe vs. Wade (making the Illinois version exactly the same as the Fed version), and Obama voted against it a third time. BAIPA clarifies that once the fetus is no longer in utero and a live breathing entity is born, he/she is considered a person and entitled to legal rights, under the Constitution. It didn't really create a new law so much as specify/clarify that these babies are considered persons with legal rights with rights to be cared for.

A good many of us Pro-Choicers support BAIPA, but there's a lot to it when you consider costs and options for those babies born, but unwanted. That's a much bigger issue. While gay couples are having more babies and I'm sure that some will/have face the difficulty of requiring late term abortions, it's not really related to the issue of gay marriage rights, imo.

(05-12-2012, 03:30 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 01:38 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: Failed late term abortions? Is he chatting about third trimester D&C's where the life of the mother is clearly at risk?

Nah, BAIPA was passed unanimously by the Congress in 2002. It was a bill enacted because some elective (and medically-required) abortions simply fail and a baby is born with a heartbeat. There was widespread evidence that they were then discarded or just left to stop breathing.

Obama voted against the Illiniois state version of the bill 2 times when he was Senator; citing that he felt it could interfere with Roe vs. Wade and add extra burden on the woman. A clause was then added stating that the bill had no impact on right to choose or Roe vs. Wade (making the Illinois version exactly the same as the Fed version), and Obama voted against it a third time. BAIPA clarifies that once the fetus is no longer in utero and a live breathing entity is born, he/she is considered a person and entitled to legal rights, under the Constitution. It didn't really create a new law so much as specify/clarify that these babies are considered persons with legal rights with rights to be cared for.

A good many of us Pro-Choicers support BAIPA, but there's a lot to it when you consider costs and options for those babies born, but unwanted. That's a much bigger issue. While gay couples are having more babies and I'm sure that some will/have face the difficulty of requiring late term abortions, it's not really related to the issue of gay marriage rights, imo.

It wasn't brought up to suggest that they were related except that people will accept Obamas position on gay marriage and ignore his other positions on other subjects.

I find it interesting and a little bit stupid myself, when you elect someone to be the Presidnet you elect all of his positions not just one.

I'm pretty sure even Some Gay folks would find his position on those babies as offensive as I do.

(05-12-2012, 03:39 PM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 03:30 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 01:38 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: Failed late term abortions? Is he chatting about third trimester D&C's where the life of the mother is clearly at risk?

Nah, BAIPA was passed unanimously by the Congress in 2002. It was a bill enacted because some elective (and medically-required) abortions simply fail and a baby is born with a heartbeat. There was widespread evidence that they were then discarded or just left to stop breathing.

Obama voted against the Illiniois state version of the bill 2 times when he was Senator; citing that he felt it could interfere with Roe vs. Wade and add extra burden on the woman. A clause was then added stating that the bill had no impact on right to choose or Roe vs. Wade (making the Illinois version exactly the same as the Fed version), and Obama voted against it a third time. BAIPA clarifies that once the fetus is no longer in utero and a live breathing entity is born, he/she is considered a person and entitled to legal rights, under the Constitution. It didn't really create a new law so much as specify/clarify that these babies are considered persons with legal rights with rights to be cared for.

A good many of us Pro-Choicers support BAIPA, but there's a lot to it when you consider costs and options for those babies born, but unwanted. That's a much bigger issue. While gay couples are having more babies and I'm sure that some will/have face the difficulty of requiring late term abortions, it's not really related to the issue of gay marriage rights, imo.

It wasn't brought up to suggest that they were related except that people will accept Obamas position on gay marriage and ignore his other positions on other subjects.

I find it interesting and a little bit stupid myself, when you elect someone to be the Presidnet you elect all of his positions not just one.

I'm pretty sure even Some Gay folks would find his position on those babies as offensive as I do.

There will never be a candidate with whom I agree on all of his/her positions. I have to compromise and weigh the issues when deciding between assholes. I think choosing between them is easier for those who vote based only on party affiliation, conservative vs. liberal, or the candidates' voting records on their few hot issues. Harder for those of us who weigh a number of factors equally, imo.

That's a great response & exactly how most do it. Of course Dick will find fault with it on one level or another.

(05-12-2012, 03:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: There will never be a candidate with whom I agree on all of his/her positions. I have to compromise and weigh the issues when deciding between assholes. I think choosing between them is easier for those who vote based only on party affiliation, conservative vs. liberal, or the candidates' voting records on their few hot issues. Harder for those of us who weigh a number of factors equally, imo.

There are somethings I don't feel compelled to compromise on.

Were not talking about pink slime here.

(05-12-2012, 03:56 PM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 03:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: There will never be a candidate with whom I agree on all of his/her positions. I have to compromise and weigh the issues when deciding between assholes. I think choosing between them is easier for those who vote based only on party affiliation, conservative vs. liberal, or the candidates' voting records on their few hot issues. Harder for those of us who weigh a number of factors equally, imo.

There are somethings I don't feel compelled to compromise on.

Were not talking about pink slime here.

Understood and respected. We agree; my point was that your full commitment to right to life as a deciding factor makes it easier for you to choose between the assholes. While I'm pro-choice, I can't say for a fact that I would vote for a pro-choice candidate whose other positions were completely in opposition to mine instead of voting for a pro-life candidate with whom I agree on most all other issues that I consider extremely important. Nobody's right or wrong in how they choose between candidates, imo. Just making an observation.

(05-12-2012, 04:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 03:56 PM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 03:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: There will never be a candidate with whom I agree on all of his/her positions. I have to compromise and weigh the issues when deciding between assholes. I think choosing between them is easier for those who vote based only on party affiliation, conservative vs. liberal, or the candidates' voting records on their few hot issues. Harder for those of us who weigh a number of factors equally, imo.

There are somethings I don't feel compelled to compromise on.

Were not talking about pink slime here.

Understood and respected. We agree; my point was that your full commitment to right to life as a deciding factor makes it easier for you to choose between the assholes.

I assure you that I have many test points for anyone who runs for office, not just Federal,but state and local as well.

(05-12-2012, 04:10 PM)IMaDick Wrote: I assure you that I have many test points for anyone who runs for office, not just Federal,but state and local as well.

I believe that to be true based on your posts.

Let's say there was a candidate who supported gay marriage and was pro-choice. BUT, he/she was very attractive to you in terms of supporting minimal Federal involvement and leaving governing primarily up to the states, healthy investment in military security and support, minimization of entitlement programs, and the importance of a balanced budget (in line with your ideas about economic security).

Would you be able to consider choosing him/her over a candidate who was pro-life and opposed to gay marriage, but was less in snync with your ideals in terms of the other issues that I mentioned?

I can say for me the last few presidential elections, it's been the lesser of two evils when voting. I haven't liked any of the candidates. They all suck. Same thing with the NY governers. Although, I am not disappointed with Cuomo so far. He hasn't blown my socks off, but he hasn't totally sucked.

If by pro choice you mean abortion as a form of birth control and If by pro Gay marriage you mean forcing the states to accept their beliefs they would find themselves in the trash can.

They are entitled to their opinion and their beliefs.

You see this is what I was saying earlier about Romney, He can believe as he wants to without forcing his own opinion onto the people of the states, which is what I saw Obama do with his announcement, He is trying to force those who like him if they don't like gay marriage to follow him instead of their own moral compass.

I say fuck that!

Why in the world would you think that being pro-choice means one agrees with abortion as birth control?

(05-12-2012, 04:40 PM)IMaDick Wrote: If by pro choice you mean abortion as a form of birth control and If by pro Gay marriage you mean forcing the states to accept their beliefs they would find themselves in the trash can.

They are entitled to their opinion and their beliefs.

You see this is what I was saying earlier about Romney, He can believe as he wants to without forcing his own opinion onto the people of the states, which is what I saw Obama do with his announcement, He is trying to force those who like him if they don't like gay marriage to follow him instead of their own moral compass.

I say fuck that!

I respect your conviction, even though I disagree with some of your opinions on gay marriage and elective abortions. I do agree with you regarding BAIPA and minimal Federal involvement in state affairs.

It would be a real waste of time debating these issues if we all agreed and simply patted each other on the back. Fuck that!

(05-12-2012, 04:50 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I respect your conviction

I think he's batshit crazy.

(05-12-2012, 04:54 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-12-2012, 04:50 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I respect your conviction

I think he's batshit crazy.

Ain't we all, sometimes?!

(05-12-2012, 04:43 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Why in the world would you think that being pro-choice means one agrees with abortion as birth control?

Why in the world would think being pro choice is a limited position?