Hillary compares Repbulicans to Terrorists

[juansavage1]

1. Nothing to do with what I typed...but cool

2. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0113/How-many-Muslim-extremists-are-there-Just-the-facts-please (weren't you supposed to be the facts guy?)

3. You should probably know what he said, before you attempt to incorrectly contextualize what he said

4. If I'm ever on Jeopardy and that's the Final Jeopardy question...I'm set

1. You said:

 

It also ignores the fact that the number one victims of groups like ISIS...Muslims. The group most likely to be killed by ISIS...Muslims....the group most actively fighting ISIS...Muslims

ISIS and the Muslims fighting them don't see themselves as part of the same group. That's why Schilling said "radical" Muslims. He was making the same distinction that ISIS and anti-ISIS Muslims make.

 

2. The fact is that a significant percentage of the Muslim world sympathizes with radical terrorists. Otherwise, ISIS wouldn't even exist, right?

 

3. Did Schilling preface Muslim with radical or not?

[hen3ry]

All this thread reminds me is that we're potentially one election from the Holy Theocratic Empire.   And that gives me all the reason I'll ever need to hold my nose with both hands and vote for Hillary (with my toe, I guess).

[juansavage1]

People have always rationalized mistreatment of people by denying them their humanity. Hitler did that to what he termed the subhumans and American slavers did it with blacks.

 

People are killing babies? What the hell...if they are going to kill the baby why the hell don't they just have an abortion when it's a fetus?

 

I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you MT. I know your view on that subject, you know mine.

[InsideThePark]

I love how every thread lately is being turned into an abortion debate.

[fan_since79]

All this thread reminds me is that we're potentially one election from the Holy Theocratic Empire.   And that gives me all the reason I'll ever need to hold my nose with both hands and vote for Hillary (with my toe, I guess).

 

Changing the legal status of abortion, or even regulating it more stringently, is hardly akin to establishing a "Holy Theocratic Empire". Hyperbolize much?

 

And Hillary might end up in jail and not be on the ballot come 2016. But Sanders and Biden are pro-abortion, so you'll be able to choose one of them.

[InsideThePark]

Pro-abortion!

[fan_since79]

Pro-abortion!

 

Yep. They advocate for a woman's 'right' to abort her child, and often very fervently. They call it the "right to choose" but never say what it is they're choosing.

 

No euphemisms here.

[InsideThePark]

Perhaps, but none of that equates to being pro-abortion or an abortion advocate.

[hen3ry]

Changing the legal status of abortion, or even regulating it more stringently, is hardly akin to establishing a "Holy Theocratic Empire". Hyperbolize much?

 

And Hillary might end up in jail and not be on the ballot come 2016. But Sanders and Biden are pro-abortion, so you'll be able to choose one of them.

 

Abortion isn't the only issue that's 5-4 at the Supreme Court.  It's just the one you all get all worked up over.  The entire anti abortion argument from top to bottom is a pure appeal to emotion, theology, or both.   I'll take your side seriously when you start actually proposing things that actually reduce the number of people stuck in the no-win situation of considering an abortion in the first place, rather than just put up emotional appeals and bureaucratic roadblocks in lieu of being able to throw people in jail quite yet for even talking about it.

 

And yes, I'd choose Biden or Sanders in a heartbeat over any of the 17 clowns running on your side.  Then again, I literally cannot think of anyone who I wouldn't vote for over allowing a Republican in the WH - except of course for another Republican.  The Supreme Court is too important to allow someone who treats a book written by and for a bunch of desert nomads a few thousand years ago with superior weight to actual knowledge or scientific evidence on any issue.  

[Schildog]

i like the cut of your jib

[the dude abides]

i like the cut of your jib

He's got moxie.

[Angelsjunky]

My issue is comparing the GOP with terrorist views and saying Hillary is kind of right. No, she is wrong, you are wrong and the whole ****ing dialogue of Abortion rights in every presidential primary and election is wrong because there is no debate, it was completely setting in 1973, over 40 years ago ad before you were born. It is skeleton rattling and is not an issue in America these days other than to create division and try and demonize either side of the argument.

 

I am so fed up with this bullshit every election, pulling up non issues and ignoring the core problems of our country so we can engage in circular arguments that pull us away from what really needs an honest discussion.

 

**** Hillary.

 

OK, so you're mad and I was an easy and safe target. I get it. And you know, I don't entirely disagree with you on this, that Hillary is going a bit too far.

 

But so we don't waste too much time mincing words, what do you think "really needs an honest discussion?"

 

And by the way, I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I'll vote for her if I have to, but it is definitely a lesser of two evils thing. I'm a Bernie Sanders guy.

 

I like how these days terminating a fetus is a "procedure"

 

Fixed.

 

People have always rationalized mistreatment of people by denying them their humanity. Hitler did that to what he termed the subhumans and American slavers did it with blacks.

 

Juan Savage gets us to Godwin's Law. If someone was going to do it, might as well be Juan.

 

you all would be a hoot if the interwebz existed for people to give their opinionzzzzz in the mid 1800s, and you were transported to that time. 

 

anything today is tame by comparison.  

 

i will say that the stupidity coming out of the mouths of all candidates right now, regardless of party, is about as close as we've gotten to 19th century polemics in a long time. not a good thing. 

 

Except for Bernie Sanders.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Trump is the anti-politician and that's driving his insane popularity. 

 

People are really fed up with the status quo. I think the media underestimated the anger and frustration out there.

 

I completely agree. People are sick of politicians who pander to whatever group they happen to be speaking to. Trump has no filter, and some people find that refreshing. I don't expect him to get anywhere near the nomination, let alone the White House, but it's going to be an interesting year.

[halobob]

I am so happy Bernie has no chance.

[fan_since79]

 a book written by and for a bunch of desert nomads a few thousand years ago

 

Well, at least we know what you think of the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

You get points for honesty.

Edited August 28, 2015 by fan_since79

[fan_since79]

mtangelsfan, on 27 Aug 2015 - 5:54 PM, said:

 

I like how these days terminating a fetus' life is a "procedure"

 

 

 Fixed again.

Edited August 28, 2015 by fan_since79

[Angelsjunky]

Well, at least we know what you think of the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

Idiotic comment, but at least you're honest, so you get points for that.

 

What about that sentence that you quoted isn't true, though? The Old Testament was written a few thousand years ago ago (or so) by and for a desert nomadic people.

[hen3ry]

Well, at least we know what you think of the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

What, "Holy Theocratic Empire" didn't get the point across?    I suppose it really was a bit too subtle, in retrospect.  

[juansavage1]

Abortion isn't the only issue that's 5-4 at the Supreme Court.  It's just the one you all get all worked up over.  The entire anti abortion argument from top to bottom is a pure appeal to emotion, theology, or both.   I'll take your side seriously when you start actually proposing things that actually reduce the number of people stuck in the no-win situation of considering an abortion in the first place, rather than just put up emotional appeals and bureaucratic roadblocks in lieu of being able to throw people in jail quite yet for even talking about it.

 

And yes, I'd choose Biden or Sanders in a heartbeat over any of the 17 clowns running on your side.  Then again, I literally cannot think of anyone who I wouldn't vote for over allowing a Republican in the WH - except of course for another Republican.  The Supreme Court is too important to allow someone who treats a book written by and for a bunch of desert nomads a few thousand years ago with superior weight to actual knowledge or scientific evidence on any issue. 

What do you appeal to when deciding the morality of abortion? This is your chance to explain. I'll explain my reasoning:

 

Unborn babies have intrinsic worth similar or equal to born people. People should be protected from harm by authorities. Therefore, they should be protected by society.

 

Yours would be something like: 

 

Unborn babies don't have intrinsic worth and therefore don't deserve societal protection or Unborn babies only have the worth the mother places on them and are therefore protected to the extent that the mother wants it to be.

 

So, why is yours more rational than mine?

[juansavage1]

What, "Holy Theocratic Empire" didn't get the point across?    I suppose it really was a bit too subtle, in retrospect.  

First, the only explicitly Theocratic Empire in Western history were the Papal estates. Explicitly Anti-theocratic empires were the Communist countries, the French Republic, and the Nazis.

 

Second, how do you decide the morality of something? Let's take the following issues:

 

1. Slavery (Let's say you had slaves and your livlihood depended on it. What argument would have dissuaded you from holding slaves?

2. Medical experimentation.

3. Animal cruelty.

4. Poverty programs.

5. Wars of conquest.

[fan_since79]

What about that sentence that you quoted isn't true, though? The Old Testament was written a few thousand years ago ago (or so) by and for a desert nomadic people.

 

He's simply wrong. The Old Testament was written over the course of a few thousand years, and many of the people who wrote it were well settled in cities and towns. Some of the books were written when the Jews were still largely nomadic, during the time after they fled Egypt and wandered in the desert before entering the Promised Land, but not most of them.

 

In the context of the rest of his post, it also reveals a lot. And we're on different wavelengths in the discussion since it's implied that he doesn't believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, that it was written for posterity and holds truths about the value of human life that transcend merely human, scientific judgments. He thinks it's a book written merely by men for people at a single place and time. That's not even what most of the authors intended, and that can be discerned very easily.

 

By the way, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was an abortionist, was converted to the pro-life cause by the scientific realization that what he was doing was ending a human life. Other abortionists and clinic workers have similar stories. The Bible itself doesn't have a whole lot to say specifically about abortion, to my knowledge. Much of the teaching flows from the Fifth Commandment and there's a lot of natural law reasoning behind it.

[Jay]

Clinton is drowning and grasping for anything that might keep her afloat.

[InsideThePark]

But the Bible says that God is the creator of all life, and that by and large is the driving force behind your position on abortion.

[juansavage1]

But the Bible says that God is the creator of all life, and that by and large is the driving force behind your position on abortion.

Any position that requires people to put aside their desires requires something above people's opinion. Absent the inherent morality of an issue, you merely have might. In a democracy, might is the opinion of most people.

 

For example. I have dog and I want to torture him. You don't like this idea because you have an emotional attachment to dogs and the thought of dog torture makes you sad (there's no inherent wrongness to my desire). You can either try to convince me in which you'd say ummm, nothing except that it makes the dog feels bad. Or, you can get with other people who like dogs and use force to stop me.

[hen3ry]

 

What do you appeal to when deciding the morality of abortion? This is your chance to explain. I'll explain my reasoning:

 

Unborn babies have intrinsic worth similar or equal to born people. People should be protected from harm by authorities. Therefore, they should be protected by society.

 

Yours would be something like: 

 

Unborn babies don't have intrinsic worth and therefore don't deserve societal protection or Unborn babies only have the worth the mother places on them and are therefore protected to the extent that the mother wants it to be.

 

So, why is yours more rational than mine?

 

 

I will concede that if a fetus is a baby, you win the argument.  

 

The problem is that you can no more prove a fetus is a baby to me than I can prove that it isn't one to you.  That's why we're in this position as a society in the first place.  Personhood is a continuum.   Somewhere between your parents' having sex and your first words, you become a person.  

 

Absent a mass extinction event, the abortion rate will never go to zero.  Abortion existed before Roe, even in the states where it was illegal.  People do illegal things every day.  So we're talking about reducing the abortion rate, at best.   The point I was making has to do with how your side goes about trying to reduce it.

 

Standing outside clinics with posters.  Cancer tumors are disgusting to look at too, but I'm not about to ban oncology.

 

Waiting periods.  Something which is oddly opposed when it comes to obtaining tools of violence is somehow good when it comes to a medical procedure.

 

Mandatory ultrasounds.  Unnecessary medical tests are opposed - except when it has the dual benefit of raising the price of an abortion, and making the pregnant woman stare at the lump of cells she wants to excise.  (No one makes a person stare at a tumor and look at it throb.)

 

This new "admitting privileges" argument.  No emergency room in this nation has the right to turn away a patient because of what they were doing when they got hurt.  And no dentist, dermatologist, plastic surgeon, or chiropractor is required to have admitting privileges in order to run a medical office, or perform procedures in their office, even though there is a chance of something going wrong in each of those professions as well.  

 

Not once, however, do we hear about doing things that would actually reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate in the first place.  Instead, it's all about putting additional emotional burden on someone who's in a tough spot in the first place, in the hopes that they will decide differently, and increasing the costs and reducing the access to make the decision in the first place.  It's extremely paternalistic.  "Honey, make a choice.  No you chose wrong, try again.  No that's still wrong, try again."

 

 

 

All of that said, I'm ok with people exposing pro-life views.  Whether a fetus is a person or not is a matter of opinion, and reasonable people can differ.  But if you're going to be pro-life, you better be pro-life completely.  I have no respect at all for those who want to make the rape and incest exception.  What part of the conception makes the resulting fetus less of a person?  

 

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by hen3ry