Moore or Jones?

[homersapien 11,357]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm sure those who stood up against Nazi-Germany or the Three-Fifths Compromise were told that as well... 

Irony.  

Nobody delved into personal reproductive rights like the Nazis.  Do we really want a state that would compel a woman to give birth?  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Irony.  

Nobody delved into personal reproductive rights like the Nazis.  Do we really want a state that would compel a woman to give birth?  

you completely missed my point.

At what time do rights attach to the "thing," which i call a baby, inside the mothers womb? At what point does value attach? Conception, or some later point? It would seems as though, by default, rights/value attach at conception. But obviously this isn't true for you because if it was, you simply couldn't not maintain the rhetoric that makes abortion all about the woman and not about the living "baby" inside of her that's actually being terminated. So please, inform me. What time do fundamental rights and value attach? Because if it attaches prior to abortion, then the reasoning becomes analogous with three-fifths compromise or Nazi-Germany - not only that one group's rights and values trump the others, but the others are counted as less than human, and thus inhumane treatment is permissible. 

And no, it's not "compelling" anything, its protecting the rights of the unborn. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes. Quote me.

I already did. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Irony.  

Nobody delved into personal reproductive rights like the Nazis.  Do we really want a state that would compel a woman to give birth?  

Um, China and other totalitarian governments say hello.  It's just that they compelled abortions rather than births.

I want a state and moreover a culture that recognizes that human life is precious and has inherent worth and dignity, and that there is more than one person's life and well-being at stake here.  Other people frequently make unasked-for demands on us personally.  They sometimes end up being a responsibility and burden that we wish we did not have.  They are costly, inconvenient, cause mental stress and anguish and prevent us from living the lives we wish to live.  But we don't get to kill them to alleviate those concerns for ourselves.

We need more support for pregnant women and young mothers, both in terms of our health care situation and in terms of family-friendly policies like paid family leave, more flexible workplaces, affordable childcare, support for adoption services.  I'd even trade off more resources for education on contraception (with reasonable exemptions for certain groups on disputed methods of contraception) if we could stop killing children.
 

[aubearcat 2,136]

It’s interesting that some on here clamoring for abortion and for the government to stay out of a woman’s medical decisions, were the same ones that wanted to argue for the government to force vaccinations. Now that’s ironic. 

[alexava 6,973]

10 hours ago, aubearcat said:

It’s interesting that some on here clamoring for abortion and for the government to stay out of a woman’s medical decisions, were the same ones that wanted to argue for the government to force vaccinations. Now that’s ironic. 

Who

[aubearcat 2,136]

9 hours ago, alexava said:

Who

I was pretty sure that you and homes both were in on that conversation. It was in the thread about Rand Paul saying vaccinations should not be mandatory and should be optional. 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, aubearcat said:

I was pretty sure that you and homes both were in on that conversation. It was in the thread about Rand Paul saying vaccinations should not be mandatory and should be optional. 

When 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Here's the thing.  Regardless of all this, here is the bottom line:

To believe Roy Moore you have to believe that now 9 women and over 30 corroborating witnesses are all lying and part of some grand conspiracy.  You have to believe that multiple people who remember that his behavior in this regard was a well-known "secret" around town are all lying.  You have to believe that multiple people from that area and time are all lying about his behavior at the mall and that security and others were watching him for harassing teenage girls.  You have to believe that all the women who worked at the mall who've come forward and said he used to constantly be hitting on them and being creepy when they were 16 or so and he was in his 30s are all lying.  

Everyone of these folks, most of whom are on the record with the names and faces now, are ganging up against Roy Moore but only Moore is being truthful.  

He also has yet to make good on any threat to sue any of these people, nor has he taken up the offer from at least one of them to testify under oath before Congress over it.  If a woman made these claims about me and I knew they were 100% false, I'd tell her to meet me in Washington tomorrow.  I'll bring the Bible we can both swear on and let's get down to it.  But Roy Moore doesn't want to go under oath and common sense should tell you why.

At some point, common sense tells you that even if there's someone or a few people in this large group who are exaggerating or lying, they can't all be lying and exaggerating.  It just beggars belief.  And if you ask yourself, "would I doubt this many people making the same claims about a politician I don't support or that's from the other party," my bet is that the honest answer would be "no."  You would believe them.

I hate that Doug Jones is probably going to win this now and be a senator until 2020.  He doesn't represent the views of most Alabamians.  He might be a fine man in many regards, but there's no question he's out of step with those whom he will represent in Congress for 3 years.  But that falls on Roy Moore, first for being a gigantic phony using Christianity as a political tool, and second for being a self-centered, pompous, egotistical ass and refusing to step down.  I knew within a couple of days that this idiot would rather burn everything around him to the ground than to admit wrong and step aside.  Because of that, independents are going to vote for Jones.  Level-headed conservatives are sickened by his behavior and while they cannot in good conscience vote for Jones, they will write in another candidate or not cast a vote, thus wiping out any 10-12 point lead he was enjoying a few short weeks ago.

But make no mistake, when Doug Jones is sworn in to fulfill the rest of Jeff Sessions' term in the Senate, the blame will not be on disloyal Republicans.  The blame will squarely be on that gigantic phony hiding behind his granite Ten Commandments sculpture.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

And now another Alabama pastor says something stupid to try and defend Moore.

Key quote:

"I don't know how much these women are getting paid, but I can only believe they’re getting a healthy sum," pastor Earl Wise told the Boston Globe. "How these gals came up with this, I don't know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line."

"Plus," Wise added, "there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alabama-pastor-on-roy-moore-allegations-there-are-some-14-year-olds-who-could-pass-for-20/ar-BBFoH8B?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

[aubearcat 2,136]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

When 

It was in the "Rand Paul in Action" thread (at about page 3 or 4). It was homer and another not you. My apologies.

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

It was in the "Rand Paul in Action" thread (at about page 3 or 4). It was homer and another not you. My apologies.

So you don't believe in utilizing vaccinations?  Figures.

As far as having the gov't force you, I'd like to see the quote you are referring to.

I do think they should be required to enroll in public schools.   Beyond that, I support the parent's right to choice, even if at the expense of their child.  It's sad, but you cannot save people from themselves and live in a free society.

[AUcivE09 582]

I can't vote for a guy who will go to DC and fall right in line with every other democrat up there voting "no" on everything and drag heels on nominations. I am voting for Moore with the hope that the senate refuses to seat him which then falls back on Kay Ivey to nominate Sessions replacement. Best case scenario I can see at the moment. I am honestly surprised this is not the thought being pushed by the republican party.

Moore is not the "moral" candidate, but he serves as a "yes" vote who will not be on any committees IF he makes it. The guy has basically been neutered and is done for after 2020 (if not sooner). The women have already won regardless of whether or not he gets elected. I am voting for what is best for my family and hoping to send a vote to DC, whether Moore or someone else, that reflects what I want to see happen.

[alexava 6,973]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

It was in the "Rand Paul in Action" thread (at about page 3 or 4). It was homer and another not you. My apologies.

I have a different stance than most on this issue. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

49 minutes ago, AUcivE09 said:

I can't vote for a guy who will go to DC and fall right in line with every other democrat up there voting "no" on everything and drag heels on nominations. I am voting for Moore with the hope that the senate refuses to seat him which then falls back on Kay Ivey to nominate Sessions replacement. Best case scenario I can see at the moment. I am honestly surprised this is not the thought being pushed by the republican party.

You're pinning your hopes on a dysfunctional GOP utilizing an arcane political maneuver that hasn't been used since the Civil War to clean up our mess?  That's some faith that would make a martyr proud.

 

Quote

Moore is not the "moral" candidate, but he serves as a "yes" vote who will not be on any committees IF he makes it. The guy has basically been neutered and is done for after 2020 (if not sooner). The women have already won regardless of whether or not he gets elected. I am voting for what is best for my family and hoping to send a vote to DC, whether Moore or someone else, that reflects what I want to see happen.

I'm done eating whatever s*** sandwich comes in a GOP wrapper.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

35 minutes ago, AUcivE09 said:

I can't vote for a guy who will go to DC and fall right in line with every other democrat up there voting "no" on everything and drag heels on nominations. I am voting for Moore with the hope that the senate refuses to seat him which then falls back on Kay Ivey to nominate Sessions replacement. Best case scenario I can see at the moment. I am honestly surprised this is not the thought being pushed by the republican party.

Moore is not the "moral" candidate, but he serves as a "yes" vote who will not be on any committees IF he makes it. The guy has basically been neutered and is done for after 2020 (if not sooner). The women have already won regardless of whether or not he gets elected. I am voting for what is best for my family and hoping to send a vote to DC, whether Moore or someone else, that reflects what I want to see happen.

Amen

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 10:59 AM, aubearcat said:

It’s interesting that some on here clamoring for abortion and for the government to stay out of a woman’s medical decisions, were the same ones that wanted to argue for the government to force vaccinations. Now that’s ironic. 

This forum is full of......... irony.

[AUDub 11,137]

The abortion issue doesn't sway my vote in the least. Abortion is one of those convenient wedge issues that has little political substance. The only "gains" for the pro-life groups are making things more punitive and generally onerous for women seeking abortions or making it more expensive, thus denying access only to the disadvantaged. The only way abortion is ending in this country is if we have some right-wing Christian ethno-state coup d'etat like The Handmaid's Tale. So I wouldn't bet on it.

You're literally a dummy if you vote based only on the abortion stance. It has almost no substance to the vast majority of the decisions they make and it will not result in the end goal you desire. I don't think the ones pulling the levers truly want the issue resolved. Too useful.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

The abortion issue doesn't sway my vote in the least. Abortion is one of those convenient wedge issues that has little political substance. The only "gains" for the pro-life groups are making things more punitive and generally onerous for women seeking abortions or making it more expensive, thus denying access only to the disadvantaged. The only way abortion is going be end in this country is if we have some right-wing Christian ethno-state coup d'etat like The Handmaid's Tale. So I wouldn't bet on it.

You're literally a dummy if you vote based only on the abortion stance. It has almost no substance to the vast majority of the decisions they make and it will not result in the end state goal you desire. I don't think the ones pulling the levers truly want the issue resolved. Too useful.

Check out some of the campaign stuff for hardcore pro-choice advocates in blue states.  Pro-lifers aren't the only ones clanging that bell to energize the base.

[aubearcat 2,136]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

So you don't believe in utilizing vaccinations?  Figures.

As far as having the gov't force you, I'd like to see the quote you are referring to.

I do think they should be required to enroll in public schools.   Beyond that, I support the parent's right to choice, even if at the expense of their child.  It's sad, but you cannot save people from themselves and live in a free society.

Well, I believe a parent shouldn’t be forced to vaccinate their children. Also, unless you get a booster every few years, you are no longer vaccinated. So anyway..,

[aubearcat 2,136]

So for those that apathetic toward abortion, when does equal protection kick in? Is it never until the baby is fully delivered or when? Are you also in favor of the justice system doing away with homicide charges when an unborn baby is killed in a criminal act?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

45 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

So for those that apathetic toward abortion, when does equal protection kick in? Is it never until the baby is fully delivered or when? Are you also in favor of the justice system doing away with homicide charges when an unborn baby is killed in a criminal act?

For me, yes, it's when the baby is being delivered (basically when the water breaks).  And yeah, I'm fine with doing away with homicide charges for the second part here as well.  There's just so many variables that come into play in these situations that I think the law doesn't cover well.  What if the criminal doesn't realize the woman is pregnant (early stages, not showing) and commits a lower level crime against her like assault and battery / robbery which would only carry a few years?  How do you then prove malicious intent to murder?

[aubearcat 2,136]

28 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For me, yes, it's when the baby is being delivered (basically when the water breaks).  And yeah, I'm fine with doing away with homicide charges for the second part here as well.  There's just so many variables that come into play in these situations that I think the law doesn't cover well.  What if the criminal doesn't realize the woman is pregnant (early stages, not showing) and commits a lower level crime against her like assault and battery / robbery which would only carry a few years?  How do you then prove malicious intent to murder?

Thank you for your honesty. As an opposing view, I believe that equal protection begins at life ( because if not, that says that some life is more equal than other) which of course I believe is at conception. Also, when you commit a crime, ignorance is not an excuse so when you take a chance an do said crime, you're taking the chance at all the penalties that may arise from it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

37 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For me, yes, it's when the baby is being delivered (basically when the water breaks). 

I do not understand how a child who can sense pain, who can respond to a person's voice, who can survive outside the womb would be a viable candidate for being killed to anyone.  Note, I'm just going on what you've said here.  You give no qualifiers such as the mother's life being in danger if she attempts delivery, or the child being born with a severe congenital defect that would make it so it won't survive long after birth or anything of the sort.  Literally going by your statement above, you are perfectly fine with it being legal for a child that is full term being exterminated for any reason.

Is this an accurate description of your view?

[AUDub 11,137]

So apparently, Jones is soft on crime.

Somebody should ask Thomas Blanton, currently rotting in St. Clair Correctional Facility and will almost certainly die in there, about that.