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

[some other dude]

Wrong. But I'm just repeating myself.

Would an "anti-abort" vote for a "pro-abort"?

 

[some other dude]

Sorry for the delay. I got sidetracked going through Christmas decorations.

My point is this: if you voted for McCain, then in a sense, you voted for what you call a "pro abort", since he is in favor of allowing some abortions. I always get the impression that you are a "no exceptions" kinda guy. Yet if someone voted for Obama, who supports a woman's right to choose, you don't think it is the same thing at all. If you are against abortion, you are against ALL abortions - if not, then you are really a pro choice person. At least in my opinion. I voted third party, since I didn't like either of the big party choices.

Consider it like this. In 2008 you had a choice between two candidates who had a realistic chance to win the presidency.

Imagine the deaths of aborted babies to be a stream of blood flowing into an empty swimming pool.

One candidate wants to slow that stream to a trickle.

The other candidate is determined to overflow the pool.

The candidates who want to turn that flow off entirely don't have a chance.

Do you vote for the guy who wants to slow the stream, or do you vote for the guy who wants to overflow the pool?

As for Sarah Palin...she scares me. I really don't believe she is very smart, or very well informed

The liberal media has done its job.


Interesting that you didn't have the same concerns about Joe Biden.

 

[kmoney]

Would an "anti-abort" vote for a "pro-abort"?

Possibly.

 

[some other dude]

Possibly.

Can you understand why their motivations for doing so might be suspect?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"


Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"


..

Hmm, it would still seem that the basic premise of irony is beyond your scope SOD. Perhaps this will help you:

i·ro·ny1   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.
Literature.
a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Possibly.

The problem is in the way Sod sets it out. He assumes a connection between the President and the issue that determines on point. There's no such animal. The Court appointments won't end Roe. The President won't either. And any bill the President means to pass relating to it must be sustained by Congress, where objection would overwhelm it.

I've also been clear as to how the practice must and, to my mind, can only be ended.

Now there are/were a number of issues the President could and does determine and this one promised to apply himself to those in ways I agreed with more strongly than his challenger...he mostly failed to honor those promises, but that was the reason for my support, along with a serious reservation concerning Palin's place as second in command given the toll that office takes on the men who step into it.

Sod knows all of this, but he ignores it because it doesn't allow him to do what he really means to do, which is to vent that irrational hostility of his that has nothing, nothing to do with this issue at hand. Both it and the tactic it sponsored in him existed far in advance of this discussion and evidenced itself when the only real foundation for it was that I made fun of him and his practice as a thread-baiter.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Can you understand why their motivations for doing so might be suspect?

I can understand why some explanation is required. An anti-abortion person voting for someone who is openly pro-choice is contradictory on the surface. But I think that TH has sufficiently explained himself.

You are free to disagree with his reasoning and logic, but I don't think it is fair to accuse him of being a pro-abort.

Also, if TH really was a closet pro-abort, why would he spend so much time arguing against abortion on TOL? Why make the effort? :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

The problem is in the way Sod sets it out. He assumes a connection between the President and the issue that determines on point. There's no such animal. The Court appointments won't end Roe. The President won't either. And any bill the President means to pass relating to it must be sustained by Congress, where objection would overwhelm it.

I've also been clear as to how the practice must and, to my mind, can only be ended.

Now there are/were a number of issues the President could and does determine and this one promised to apply himself to those in ways I agreed with more strongly than his challenger...he mostly failed to honor those promises, but that was the reason for my support, along with a serious reservation concerning Palin's place as second in command given the toll that office takes on the men who step into it.

Sod knows all of this, but he ignores it because it doesn't allow him to do what he really means to do, which is to vent that irrational hostility of his that has nothing, nothing to do with this issue at hand. Both it and the tactic it sponsored in him existed far in advance of this discussion and evidenced itself when the only real foundation for it was that I made fun of him and his practice as a thread-baiter.

:e4e:

And there is another clear explanation. :e4e:

 

[some other dude]

Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"


Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"

 

[some other dude]

But I think that TH has sufficiently explained himself.

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

For instance: "He assumes a connection between the President and the issue that determines on point. There's no such animal. "

Accepted on face value, it seems reasonable.

Take it apart, and, like much of the legalese Town uses to "pound into sand" those with whom he disagrees, there's no foundation.

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

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

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?



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

McCain probably wouldn't have done that.

 

[Town Heretic]

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

So now you know what he thinks of anyone who doesn't agree with him. lain:

For instance: "He assumes a connection between the President and the issue that determines on point. There's no such animal. "

Accepted on face value, it seems reasonable.

That's because it is reasonable and reasoned.

Take it apart, and, like much of the legalese Town uses to "pound into sand" those with whom he disagrees, there's no foundation.

None of that is legalese. :nono: Not a single term of art. And I've never said I try to pound everyone who disagrees with me to sand.

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

Hence, determines on point. The President won't settle the issue. His ideas on it aren't hidden, any more than my disagreement with them is.

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

Steer? Who determines, who pays and approves? Like I said in my answer.

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

The Court will not reverse the entrenched precedent of Roe. And Roe was set out by a Court dominated by Republican appointments.

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

Which I'd oppose and which will, again, never get through Congress.

McCain probably wouldn't have done that.

Propose? Gee, that's really something. But he'd have stamped a bill that allowed for abortion when and where he approves of it. The distinction between the two men on that point is in degree. Thankfully, neither control the issue or can/will settle it.

 

[some other dude]

kmo, my response was to you.

You seem reasonable. There's no possible way I can convince our slippery little friend here of even admitting the possibility that he might be wrong. He has too much personal investment in always being right.

But with you kmo, I will enjoy discussing this.

 

[Breathe]

Consider it like this. In 2008 you had a choice between two candidates who had a realistic chance to win the presidency.

Imagine the deaths of aborted babies to be a stream of blood flowing into an empty swimming pool.

One candidate wants to slow that stream to a trickle.

The other candidate is determined to overflow the pool.

The candidates who want to turn that flow off entirely don't have a chance.

Do you vote for the guy who wants to slow the stream, or do you vote for the guy who wants to overflow the pool?

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. If abortion is a sin, it is always a sin - and whomever supports it (a little or a lot) is equally sinful. So no matter which of the two candidates you support, both are equally sinful in the eyes of God. By you own logic, in supporting McCain, you are a "pro abort". :juggle:

The liberal media has done its job.


Interesting that you didn't have the same concerns about Joe Biden.

You didn't ask what I thought of Biden, only Palin. But remember, I said I was not happy with either party's candidates, and had voted third party. I think Joe Biden is a bumbling fool. Probably a nice man, but lacking any brakes between his brain and his mouth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"


Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"

Hmm, it would still seem that the basic premise of irony is beyond your scope SOD. Perhaps this will help you:

i·ro·ny1   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.
Literature.
a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

If on second reading you're still floundering then perhaps your teachers will be able to help...

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

kmo, my response was to you.

About me. There's a novelty.

You seem reasonable. There's no possible way I can convince our slippery little friend here of even admitting the possibility that he might be wrong.

If you tried it, argument, that would be novel.

He has too much personal investment in always being right.

Unlike you, who seem dead set on demonstrating your error at every turn?

 

[some other dude]

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. If abortion is a sin, it is always a sin - and whomever supports it (a little or a lot) is equally sinful. So no matter which of the two candidates you support, both are equally sinful in the eyes of God. By you own logic, in supporting McCain, you are a "pro abort". :juggle:

Three and a half million children murdered in the three years that Obama's been President.

How many fewer would it take to convince you that McCain would have been a better choice?

One child?

Ten children?

A million?

 

[some other dude]

Arthur Brain: "lets give a big round of applause to the nazis who wiped out so many of the 'scourge' in concentration camps"


Arthur Brain again: "The nazis were right! Jews are absolute evil!"

 

[Town Heretic]

Three and a half million children murdered in the three years that Obama's been President.

How many fewer would it take to convince you that McCain would have been a better choice?

One child?

Ten children?

A million?

Assumes facts not in evidence (now that was a phrase grounded in art). How many different children does McCain have to support the slaughter of before he's unacceptable? One, ten, twenty? A million?

 

[Breathe]

Three and a half million children murdered in the three years that Obama's been President.

How many fewer would it take to convince you that McCain would have been a better choice?

One child?

Ten children?

A million?

A president cannot outlaw abortion with the wave of hs hand. If McCain had been elected president, the odds are that abortion would still be legal in the US.

 

[some other dude]

A president cannot outlaw abortion with the wave of hs hand.

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.