|
Post by stevec on Feb 21, 2014 23:18:30 GMT -6
It is because I do my homework and do serious research on subjects of interest to me, that I cannot accept your kind invitation to join. The internet and its forums are no place for someone like me who is always willing to let the chips fall where they may. I don't care if it is my pet opinion on some issue or yours. If the facts are against us, we must accept that reality and adjust our opinions accordingly. Just participating today reminds me how hard it is to challenge the status quo. When it comes to defending the indefensible, I am out of here. Even if it were really true that only conservatives value the lives of babies-- for political reasons, so what? It is better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than to do wrong (for which no reason is ever right). Another fine example that god doesn't make Christian soldiers like he use to. The slightest hint of adversity and this modern version runs and hides. What you consider "chips", I would call "shit" - the bigoted ignorant kind. I'm sorry folks, but since she said she was outta here, I felt the need to get in the last word .
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 21, 2014 23:30:56 GMT -6
I've heard complaints about every President going back to FDR. All sound pretty much the same.
My conclusion is the president no longer has any power. Just a figure head we can complain about and stay distracted as to how Congress is messing up the country.
Early on I learned about Presidents, I learned from Roosevelt it can be a lifetime Job. Truman showed me anybody can be president. Eisenhower showed me we don't even need a president.
But I keep hoping that one day out of the void, we will get a president that can actually think for Himself and actually want to help the USA.
There has to be another Cal Coolidge out there some place.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 0:24:40 GMT -6
When I tell you that babies have been stuck in broom closets and left to die of suffocation, you can believe it. Actually, what you said is that they are "usually" left to die in broom closets, which would imply a long documented streak of similar occurrences. But you don't have such documentation in reality--at best you have one sensationalized write up from a rabid lifer rag. Here's the political game behind "born alive" legislation: The vast majority of abortions occur well before the age of viability 1. Approximately 1% of abortions occur at > 21 weeks, when viability outside the uterus is at least possible. 2 In most states, legal protection for live births (or arguably live births, i.e. some signs of life) after the age of viability is already clearly articulated. Therefore, in the case of a botched "late term abortion", i.e. a tiny fraction of one percent of all abortion cases, legal protection for the live or potentially alive baby already exists. The BAIPA would then add a legal mandate for physicians to attempt to resuscitate deliveries before the age of potential viability. For example, if any sign of life was detected in a 12 week delivery, with statistical survival probability of 0%, doctors would then have to attempt to resuscitate (without any hope of success), because under the act, that 12 week conception is a person with legal rights. In the underscore, you see the true intent of the law. It is not to save babies, since the mandate would only kick in (above and beyond existing protections) when the babies were unsavable. Rather, the point was to add legal muscle to the argument that pre-viable feti are persons. In other words, the law had no real world significance grounded in neonatal resuscitation, but rather was advanced in hopes that it would lead to a full scale reversal of Roe v. Wade. That Obama opposed such a measure is simply to say that he is unswervingly pro-choice, a fact that is not in dispute. He apparently saw an apparently slippery slope within a bill that would actually do nothing in the real world. Mama Cass won't be bringing us a case series of babies suffocated "usually in broom closets" because his argument is grounded in sensationalism rather than fact. FWIW, I have been in quite a few operating rooms, and broom closets are not typical accessories. I am willing now, as always, to have a rational debate about abortion, but that is not what is being offered here. We are apparently dealing with someone for whom pro-life tracts are hard evidence. Until one can discern the difference between polemic and reportage, no production conversation can follow. Hoping for better, FB 1 Fetal viability by week (link)2 Abortion statistics (link)
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 0:31:01 GMT -6
I've heard complaints about every President going back to FDR. All sound pretty much the same. My conclusion is the president no longer has any power. Just a figure head we can complain about and stay distracted as to how Congress is messing up the country. Early on I learned about Presidents, I learned from Roosevelt it can be a lifetime Job. Truman showed me anybody can be president. Eisenhower showed me we don't even need a president. But I keep hoping that one day out of the void, we will get a president that can actually think for Himself and actually want to help the USA. There has to be another Cal Coolidge out there some place. If there is, you probably knew him personally. Your paragraph reminds me of Douglas Adams: It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 22, 2014 1:41:56 GMT -6
I've heard complaints about every President going back to FDR. All sound pretty much the same. My conclusion is the president no longer has any power. Just a figure head we can complain about and stay distracted as to how Congress is messing up the country. Early on I learned about Presidents, I learned from Roosevelt it can be a lifetime Job. Truman showed me anybody can be president. Eisenhower showed me we don't even need a president. But I keep hoping that one day out of the void, we will get a president that can actually think for Himself and actually want to help the USA. There has to be another Cal Coolidge out there some place. If there is, you probably knew him personally. Your paragraph reminds me of Douglas Adams: It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.I can not believe I never heard this before: It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Thanks for posting it.
That is now my favorite quote, at least until I read another that becomes my favorite. Not quite old enough to personally remember Cal. But old enough to have known kids named after him. My Second favorite President was Millard Fillmore, I even memorized his inauguration Address (He didn't give one and almost missed his inauguration by sleeping through it)
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 22, 2014 5:50:30 GMT -6
One of the best pieces of advice about Presidents that I ever heard came in answer to a question I once asked the late William Kunstler, "Young lady, anyone who aspires to that level of power is not to be trusted."
He's been proven right numerous times since.
|
|