A Question Of Those On The Left...

[timesjoke]

Wow, now that was skill, answer the question and still not answer it at the same time, I have to tip my hat on that one, I cannot play with words that well.


Of course the only way that reply works is if she is saying she does not know the true Liberal stand on these two issues. We know she does from her other comments so if we compare all the comments made, we see she still completely dodged both the question and the spirit of the conversation.

A true master.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Wow, now that was skill, answer the question and still not answer it at the same time, I have to tip my hat on that one, I cannot play with words that well.


Of course the only way that reply works is if she is saying she does not know the true Liberal stand on these two issues. We know she does from her other comments so if we compare all the comments made, we see she still completely dodged both the question and the spirit of the conversation.

A true master.

In her defense, she is in Australia and the term "liberal" has a different meaning there and I don't think she understands the strenghth of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As far as her thinking the Bill of Rights should be changed, it should only be changed by an Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the states. The problem is, people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, murdered that thought, unconstitutionally when they treated it as a "living document".

Also, as far as the 2A right to bear arms, the Supreme Court upheld this as an "individual right" just this year.

 

[timesjoke]

I have some aussie members on my board, they understand these issues better then you might think. Her first comments showed her understanding and was the basis of my comment, I did carefully look at what she said and how she said it before I commented.


Look, you made a great first post, it was clear and had an honest question with depth and comparison to show the spirit of your question. It was no fault of your post that they did what they did, it is their mindset that does not allow questioning of their issues, so your a bad person for even asking.


That is why your honest and clear question was dodged and made fun of, why they called into question your motives, and pulled the "I'm offended" card.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I just find it funny how, left thinking people, are not capable of answering this question, because they even know that it defies all logic and reason, and to answer it, honestly, would make them look foolish.

 

[Anna Perenna]

In her defense, she is in Australia and the term "liberal" has a different meaning there and I don't think she understands the strenghth of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As far as her thinking the Bill of Rights should be changed, it should only be changed by an Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the states. The problem is, people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, murdered that thought, unconstitutionally when they treated it as a "living document".

Also, as far as the 2A right to bear arms, the Supreme Court upheld this as an "individual right" just this year.

So ..... can you please answer my questions? They are genuine.

I just find it funny how, left thinking people, are not capable of answering this question, because they even know that it defies all logic and reason, and to answer it, honestly, would make them look foolish.

This statement is totally unjustified.

 

[hugo]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions. Ms. Palin should thank God for the Roe v. Wade decision. Without it she would not be the VP nominee and would quite possibly still be a simple housewife. One thing for sure no court decision in our century screwed up Presidential politics more.

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

Of course, McCain/ Feingold was the greatest attack on the 1st Amendments free speech guarantees since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 it's co-author got the nomination of the so-called conservative party.

A few quotes:

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

 

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions. Ms. Palin should thank God for the Roe v. Wade decision. Without it she would not be the VP nominee and would quite possibly still be a simple housewife. One thing for sure no court decision in our century screwed up Presidential politics more.

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

I understand Roe v. Wade but if you talk to the far left, they operate under the presumption that there shouldn't be limits on abortion and this is a Constitutional right and cite Roe v. Wade as their backup.

 

[ImWithStupid]

So ..... can you please answer my questions? They are genuine..

I'm sorry. What question do you mean, sweetie.

 

[hugo]

I understand Roe v. Wade but if you talk to the far left, they operate under the presumption that there shouldn't be limits on abortion and this is a Constitutional right and cite Roe v. Wade as their backup.

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays, I see little sentiment on the left for aborting a healthy full tem infant. In fact the left, as I stated earlier, almost universally supports Roe v. Wade despite the fact that Roe v. Wade limits abortions.

Anna, actually there is a process to amend the constitution. That is why blacks and women can now vote (good amendments) and we have a federal income tax (a bad amendment), Some of these amendments aren't that old. What our Constitution tried to prevent is an all powerful federal government and a tyranny of a temporary majority. Neither abortion rights or gun rights have any possibility of being subject to a constitutional amendment, at this time, due to the fact amendments require super majorities.

 

[ImWithStupid]

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays.

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.

Nancy Pelosi

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Supported funding contraception and UN family planning. (Jul 1999)

Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

 

[hugo]

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.



Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

And she fully supports Roe v. Wade with it's allowing states to restrict abortion.
From Roe v Wade

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN
POTENTIAL LIFE, THE "COMPELLING" POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO
BECAUSE THE FETUS THEN PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE
OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE
AFTER VIABILITY THUS HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF
THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY
GO SO FAR AS TO PROSCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MEASURED AGAINST
THESE STANDARDS, ART. 1196 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, IN RESTRICTING LEGAL
ABORTIONS TO THOSE "PROCURED OR ATTEMPTED BY MEDICAL ADVICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER," SWEEPS TOO BROADLY. THE
STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABORTIONS PERFORMED EARLY IN
PREGNANCY AND THOSE PERFORMED LATER, AND IT LIMITS TO A SINGLE REASON,
"SAVING" THE MOTHER'S LIFE, THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE.
THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, CANNOT SURVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK MADE
UPON IT HERE.

 

[Fullauto]

Difference is, they don't hold high offices in Congress.



Nancy Pelosi on the Issues

good point... Both sides have radicals... but the left seems to vote them power more than the right...

in fairness, can anyone here list a senator or congressman with such right radical view?

Senator Byrd? He's said some stupid shyt, but has he voted that way... he's supposed to represent... can ya pull his record?

 

[ImWithStupid]

good point... Both sides have radicals... but the left seems to vote them power more than the right...

in fairness, can anyone here list a senator or congressman with such right radical view?

Senator Byrd? He's said some stupid shyt, but has he voted that way... he's supposed to represent... can ya pull his record?

That website will show the voting records based on various issues. It even has the Supreme Court Justices stances on the issues.

OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

Sen. Robert Byrd (D) WV.

Robert Byrd on the Issues

You can click on the topic at the top.

 

[hugo]

I happen to be a radical myself. Ron Paul is certainly considered a radical and is certainly less mainstream than Pelosi. Whenever you see a 400-1 vote the dissenter is most likely Paul.

 

[Anna Perenna]

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions.

I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue.

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays, I see little sentiment on the left for aborting a healthy full tem infant. In fact the left, as I stated earlier, almost universally supports Roe v. Wade despite the fact that Roe v. Wade limits abortions.

Anna, actually there is a process to amend the constitution. That is why blacks and women can now vote (good amendments) and we have a federal income tax (a bad amendment), Some of these amendments aren't that old. What our Constitution tried to prevent is an all powerful federal government and a tyranny of a temporary majority. Neither abortion rights or gun rights have any possibility of being subject to a constitutional amendment, at this time, due to the fact amendments require super majorities.

Cheers for the info.

And she fully supports Roe v. Wade with it's allowing states to restrict abortion.
From Roe v Wade

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN
POTENTIAL LIFE, THE "COMPELLING" POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO
BECAUSE THE FETUS THEN PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE
OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE
AFTER VIABILITY THUS HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF
THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY
GO SO FAR AS TO PROSCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MEASURED AGAINST THESE STANDARDS, ART. 1196 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, IN RESTRICTING LEGAL ABORTIONS TO THOSE "PROCURED OR ATTEMPTED BY MEDICAL ADVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER," SWEEPS TOO BROADLY. THE STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABORTIONS PERFORMED EARLY IN PREGNANCY AND THOSE PERFORMED LATER, AND IT LIMITS TO A SINGLE REASON, "SAVING" THE MOTHER'S LIFE, THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE. THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, CANNOT SURVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK MADE UPON IT HERE.

I happen to be a radical myself. Ron Paul is certainly considered a radical and is certainly less mainstream than Pelosi. Whenever you see a 400-1 vote the dissenter is most likely Paul.

Thanks Hugo. These calm, reasonable and utterly emotionless posts are why you're my favourite conservative. As always, I heart you.

So, IWS, what was the purpose of this thread, again? Are you really after an answer or are you just trying to instigate yet more (YAWN) liberal-bashing?

The saddest thing is, all the liberal bashing on this forum just makes me despise the right-wing agenda of (some of the) people here even more. Telling me over and over how terrible and stupid liberals are doesn't make you look smart or reasonable. It makes you look like a nasty, frustrated broken record - ie, not someone I'm interested in paying attention to, let alone siding with.

 

[ImWithStupid]

So, IWS, what was the purpose of this thread, again? Are you really after an answer or are you just trying to instigate yet more (YAWN) liberal-bashing?

Wow. Someone needs to settle down and take a chill pill on the acusations. Defensive much.

No. I just like to point out irony where I see it. I kept saying it had nothing to do with morals, just reason.

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment. How people can argue that abortion is fine since the embryo isn't a life yet will back charging someone with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman.

My point is, either a right is a right, or it isn't. One issue is specifically spelled out in the founding documents and the other isn't. either neither should be limited or both can be. To argue that the 2A shouldn't be limited but abortion should, until ruled otherwise, is just as bad as wanting to limit the 2A and not abortion.

They are all contradictive.

 

[eddo]

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment.
...
They are all contradictive.

I do struggle with that one. I am most definitely pro-life when it comes to pregnancies, But not so much when it comes to people that commit crimes that deserve the ultimate punishment.

the revenge part of me wants these people to die for their heinous crimes, but the part of me the trusts in God knows that I shouldn't be after that revenge, but instead let Him handle it.

It is most definitely a contradiction in my views, and it is one that I often reassess how I stand on.

 

[snafu]

I believe in giving a life the chance thus pro-life. I also believe once given the chance and you abuse it you should pay thus pro capital punishment.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I believe in giving a life the chance thus pro-life. I also believe once given the chance and you abuse it you should pay thus pro capital punishment.

But isn't that actually, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, not pro-life.

 

[snafu]

But isn't that actually, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, not pro-life.

Yes that would be a better way to put it.