Paul Ryan would ban abortion in cases of rape and incest - Page 2

Puppycow · 22nd August 2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

You mean this one?:
"Paul Ryan co-sponsored HR 212 (along with Todd Akin, who thinks that raped women can't get pregnant), which would ban all abortions, most forms of birth control, and most IVF treatments."

Then you stand by something that is demonstratively false. Again,

You are citing the opinion of Politifact as evidence that it is "demonstratively false".

I submit that it is, in fact, arguably true, and I'll make the argument.

1) The bill would define a zygote (a newly fertilized egg) as a "human being".
2) The bill also states that "every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood".
3) Given points 1 and 2, any preexisting law that applies to a "human being" would also apply to a zygote.
4) A legal definition of murder is as follows:

Quote:

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

Given points 1-4, an argument could be made that existing laws against murder could be used to prosecute for an abortion, or even for using a kind of birth control that kills a zygote, such as an IUD or a morning after pill.
It would be up to a judge to interpret the law, but there is a pretty straightforward logic that suggests that even without any new laws specifically about abortion or birth control, that existing laws against murder, assault, child endangerment, etc. could be used as a legal basis to prosecute these acts. Hence, the implications are uncertain, not "demonstratively false".

rocketdodger · 22nd August 2012, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

As a practical matter, abortion is not going to be banned no matter who is in the WH, and the Democrats use "they're going to ban Abortion!" the same way the Republicans use "they're going to ban guns!"

In politics, nothing sells better than fear.

I don't view it that way.

I view it as knowing the character of those in office, who are "practically" coming up with other legislation every day.

Banning abortion is extreme and probably would never happen. But a politician who would ban abortion, were it practical to try and ban abortion, is likely to vote in ways that I don't agree with on many other matters of lesser importance that, when taken in sum, add up quickly.

If a Republican is scared of the way a liberal politician might vote on other issues, based on the fact that they might vote to ban guns were a gun ban practical, then I guess they would feel the same way. However let me suggest that it take a monumental amount of stupidity to compare banning firearms to banning abortion, since owning a firearm is a privilege and having an abortion is a right ( in particular, since a woman can give herself an abortion, it just isn't very healthy ).

ponderingturtle · 23rd August 2012, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

First of all, a case would have to make it to the SC, and the case would need to be of a nature that would allow the SC to overturn Roe. I'm unaware of any such case on the horizon in the federal courts at this time.

Why would they want a case until they are sure they have the votes to win? A loosing case would be bad for them.

And your best argument comes from 20 years ago? Does that mean I can point out that national health care is a conservative value just look at Nixon?

Let's keep it simple the only thing republicans ever carefully about is emancipation. They are a one issue party.

varwoche · 23rd August 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

As a practical matter, abortion is not going to be banned no matter who is in the WH, and the Democrats use "they're going to ban Abortion!" the same way the Republicans use "they're going to ban guns!"

In politics, nothing sells better than fear.

Nonsense. All it takes is one SCOTUS appointment.

Neally · 23rd August 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I submit that it is, in fact, arguably true, and I'll make the argument.

1) The bill would define a zygote (a newly fertilized egg) as a "human being".
2) The bill also states that "every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood".
3) Given points 1 and 2, any preexisting law that applies to a "human being" would also apply to a zygote.
4) A legal definition of murder is as follows:

Given points 1-4, an argument could be made that existing laws against murder could be used to prosecute for an abortion, or even for using a kind of birth control that kills a zygote, such as an IUD or a morning after pill.
It would be up to a judge to interpret the law, but there is a pretty straightforward logic that suggests that even without any new laws specifically about abortion or birth control, that existing laws against murder, assault, child endangerment, etc. could be used as a legal basis to prosecute these acts. Hence, the implications are uncertain, not "demonstratively false".

Well then I will admit that the Politifact statement that, "Neither side in this debate, though, claims the measure would immediately outlaw abortions." is false. Seems there's someone always willing to deceptively and dishonestly twist this into something else.

BenBurch · 23rd August 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

Well then I will admit that the Politifact statement that, "Neither side in this debate, though, claims the measure would immediately outlaw abortions." is false. Seems there's someone always willing to deceptively and dishonestly twist this into something else.

Yeah, the GOP wants us to believe that such a definition has no effect in law.

In fact, when you redefine things other law is based upon, you redefine the actions of those laws.

Now, the Roe V Wade decision still gets in the way of abortion, that is true, but it should have immediate effect on IVF. "Snowflake Babies" if you will recall. And on any birth control which can cause a fertilized egg to not implant, and that is most things except spermicide and barriers.

Neally · 23rd August 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Yeah, the GOP wants us to believe that such a definition has no effect in law.

I guess that includes the GOP controlled puppet Politifact?

That same Politifact group that is so biased against the Dems? Oh wait...

BenBurch · 23rd August 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

I guess that includes the GOP controlled puppet Politifact?

That same Politifact group that is so biased against the Dems? Oh wait...

Everybody is allowed to be wrong.

BStrong · 23rd August 2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Nonsense. All it takes is one SCOTUS appointment.

You could replace the whole court - if they don't get an abortion rights case before the court, they can't overturn Roe.

ponderingturtle · 23rd August 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

You could replace the whole court - if they don't get an abortion rights case before the court, they can't overturn Roe.

Easy though. A favorable court, then Louisiana outlaws abortion, and you have your case.

Neally · 24th August 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Everybody is allowed to be wrong.

That now includes Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz who outright lied about the Romney platform on abortion in a fundraising letter, oh and then said that the lie "doesn't matter": http://www.politico.com/news/stories...088.html?hp=r6

BenBurch · 24th August 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

That now includes Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz who outright lied about the Romney platform on abortion in a fundraising letter, oh and then said that the lie "doesn't matter": http://www.politico.com/news/stories...088.html?hp=r6

LOL! Hilarious.

It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it. If he does not agree, it is his duty to withdraw his name from consideration.

The same of course goes for Obama.

Neally · 24th August 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it.

LOL. That's the same as saying you can't register or claim to be a Republican unless you believe in every word of their platform at the state and national level. Furthermore lies and intentional misquoting do matter to most people, unless of course you are of the ethical mind that the ends (scare tactic to generate donations) justify the means (lying about Romney).

fuelair · 24th August 2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

LOL. That's the same as saying you can't register or claim to be a Republican unless you believe in every word of their platform at the state and national level. Furthermore lies and intentional misquoting do matter to most people, unless of course you are of the ethical mind that the ends (scare tactic to generate donations) justify the means (lying about Romney).

Or, in other words, if you are a republicker.

Tricky · 24th August 2012, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

LOL! Hilarious.

It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it. If he does not agree, it is his duty to withdraw his name from consideration.

The same of course goes for Obama.

Sorry, Ben, but that's completely ridiculous. It is pretty much impossible to agree with everything anyone else says and still be a functioning individual. He may agree to support the platform, but that doesn't mean he agrees with every point on it.

Heck, as a mod, I agree to support the Membership Agreement, even though I don't agree with every single point.

Neally · 24th August 2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Or, in other words, if you are a republicker.

What part of "Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz outright lied in a campaign donations solicitation" do you not understand?

Dorian Gray · 24th August 2012, 06:56 PM

Seat belts in cars should be banned. They only encourage recklessness. The only way to prevent accidents is to completely abstain from driving. If you drive and get in an accident, no one should help you - you have to live with the consequences. Besides, if someone else forcibly runs into you, your car will resist the accident and emerge intact.

fuelair · 25th August 2012, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

What part of "Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz outright lied in a campaign donations solicitation" do you not understand?

the part where I truly do not care - as when a office running republicker opens it's mouth it lies when it says nothing but "hello." If it speaks further, it speaks what Mark Twain referred to as "damned lies" (lies only marginally less evil than statistics). If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil.

Hope this helps - and please do me the courtesy of believing I mean every word of what I wrote. I used to know of Republican office seekers that I could consider rational and capable of reasonable function. That has not been true for nearly 20 years - and very hard to find for 30. republickers long ago sold their souls to the xtian "right" and corporations.

mikedenk · 25th August 2012, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Are you a druggy pedophile or an inbred Nazi clown?

I'll just go ahead and mark it up as dishonesty.

Try harder.

RecoveringYuppy · 25th August 2012, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

I'll just go ahead and mark it up as dishonesty.

Try harder.

So let me get this straight. I say that Paul Ryan has identified Romney's position on abortion as a step in the right direction. You then quote the article quoting Ryan saying that Romney's position is a step in the right direction and somehow that's supposed to prove I'm lying? Huh?

Neally · 26th August 2012, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

the part where I truly do not care

Then that puts you in good company with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who said the fact that she lied, "doesn't matter".

Quote:

If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil.

So the ends justify the means, and Dem lies = good and GOP lies = bad. Got it. Hypocrisy much?

thaiboxerken · 26th August 2012, 02:59 PM

Romney may, or may not agree with the Republican platform. However, I have no doubt that he would do everything that the GOP tells him to do if he's elected. Mitt has no spine, he's malleable and is the idiot with a pen that they want. If the GOP has the house, the senate and the executive, they will ban abortion.

fuelair · 26th August 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Then that puts you in good company with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who said the fact that she lied, "doesn't matter".

So the ends justify the means, and Dem lies = good and GOP lies = bad. Got it. Hypocrisy much?

No - and I explained rather clearly why the two are in no way equivalent.

SumDood · 27th August 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

No - and I explained rather clearly why the two are in no way equivalent.

I assume you mean this:

Originally Posted by fuelair

the part where I truly do not care - as when a office running republicker opens it's mouth it lies when it says nothing but "hello." If it speaks further, it speaks what Mark Twain referred to as "damned lies" (lies only marginally less evil than statistics). If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil.

But you must be intelligent enough to realize this is EXACTLY what the right believes. That they must do what ever is necessary to protect the country from the evils of socialist/communists/Marxists like Obama.

applecorped · 27th August 2012, 05:19 PM

Vote Obama 2012 - The ends justify the means!

thaiboxerken · 27th August 2012, 07:28 PM

It's rather disturbing that people try to say that both sides are guilty of smear tactics and imply that both sides do it equally. It's false, of course. The Right is very good at smears, dishonesty and using any ends. Dems do it, but rarely, and when they do, they suck at it.

mikedenk · 27th August 2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's rather disturbing that people try to say that both sides are guilty of smear tactics and imply that both sides do it equally. It's false, of course. The Right is very good at smears, dishonesty and using any ends. Dems do it, but rarely, and when they do, they suck at it.

C'mon now.

22nd August 2012, 08:56 PM	#41
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Neally You mean this one?: *"Paul Ryan co-sponsored HR 212 (along with Todd Akin, who thinks that raped women can't get pregnant), which would ban all abortions, most forms of birth control, and most IVF treatments."* Then you stand by something that is demonstratively false. Again, You are citing the opinion of Politifact as evidence that it is "demonstratively false". I submit that it is, in fact, arguably true, and I'll make the argument. 1) The bill would define a zygote (a newly fertilized egg) as a "human being". 2) The bill also states that "every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood". 3) Given points 1 and 2, any preexisting law that applies to a "human being" would also apply to a zygote. 4) A legal definition of murder is as follows: Quote: murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. Given points 1-4, an argument could be made that existing laws against murder could be used to prosecute for an abortion, or even for using a kind of birth control that kills a zygote, such as an IUD or a morning after pill. It would be up to a judge to interpret the law, but there is a pretty straightforward logic that suggests that even without any new laws specifically about abortion or birth control, that existing laws against murder, assault, child endangerment, etc. could be used as a legal basis to prosecute these acts. Hence, the implications are uncertain, not "demonstratively false".
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

23rd August 2012, 03:31 AM	#43
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by BStrong First of all, a case would have to make it to the SC, and the case would need to be of a nature that would allow the SC to overturn Roe. I'm unaware of any such case on the horizon in the federal courts at this time. Why would they want a case until they are sure they have the votes to win? A loosing case would be bad for them. And your best argument comes from 20 years ago? Does that mean I can point out that national health care is a conservative value just look at Nixon? Let's keep it simple the only thing republicans ever carefully about is emancipation. They are a one issue party.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

23rd August 2012, 07:12 AM	#44
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,230	Originally Posted by BStrong As a practical matter, abortion is not going to be banned no matter who is in the WH, and the Democrats use "they're going to ban Abortion!" the same way the Republicans use "they're going to ban guns!" In politics, nothing sells better than fear. Nonsense. All it takes is one SCOTUS appointment.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

23rd August 2012, 08:20 AM	#45
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by Puppycow I submit that it is, in fact, arguably true, and I'll make the argument. 1) The bill would define a zygote (a newly fertilized egg) as a "human being". 2) The bill also states that "every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood". 3) Given points 1 and 2, any preexisting law that applies to a "human being" would also apply to a zygote. 4) A legal definition of murder is as follows: Given points 1-4, an argument could be made that existing laws against murder could be used to prosecute for an abortion, or even for using a kind of birth control that kills a zygote, such as an IUD or a morning after pill. It would be up to a judge to interpret the law, but there is a pretty straightforward logic that suggests that even without any new laws specifically about abortion or birth control, that existing laws against murder, assault, child endangerment, etc. could be used as a legal basis to prosecute these acts. Hence, the implications are uncertain, not "demonstratively false". Well then I will admit that the Politifact statement that, "Neither side in this debate, though, claims the measure would immediately outlaw abortions." is false. Seems there's someone always willing to deceptively and dishonestly twist this into something else.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

23rd August 2012, 09:44 AM	#46
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by Neally Well then I will admit that the Politifact statement that, "Neither side in this debate, though, claims the measure would immediately outlaw abortions." is false. Seems there's someone always willing to deceptively and dishonestly twist this into something else. Yeah, the GOP wants us to believe that such a definition has no effect in law. In fact, when you redefine things other law is based upon, you redefine the actions of those laws. Now, the Roe V Wade decision still gets in the way of abortion, that is true, but it should have immediate effect on IVF. "Snowflake Babies" if you will recall. And on any birth control which can cause a fertilized egg to not implant, and that is most things except spermicide and barriers.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

22nd August 2012, 09:14 PM	#42
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by BStrong As a practical matter, abortion is not going to be banned no matter who is in the WH, and the Democrats use "they're going to ban Abortion!" the same way the Republicans use "they're going to ban guns!" In politics, nothing sells better than fear. I don't view it that way. I view it as knowing the character of those in office, who are "practically" coming up with other legislation every day. Banning abortion is extreme and probably would never happen. But a politician who would ban abortion, were it practical to try and ban abortion, is likely to vote in ways that I don't agree with on many other matters of lesser importance that, when taken in sum, add up quickly. If a Republican is scared of the way a liberal politician might vote on other issues, based on the fact that they might vote to ban guns were a gun ban practical, then I guess they would feel the same way. However let me suggest that it take a monumental amount of stupidity to compare banning firearms to banning abortion, since owning a firearm is a privilege and having an abortion is a right ( in particular, since a woman can give herself an abortion, it just isn't very healthy ).

23rd August 2012, 10:01 AM	#47
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by BenBurch Yeah, the GOP wants us to believe that such a definition has no effect in law. I guess that includes the GOP controlled puppet Politifact? That same Politifact group that is so biased against the Dems? Oh wait...
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

23rd August 2012, 10:03 AM	#48
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by Neally I guess that includes the GOP controlled puppet Politifact? That same Politifact group that is so biased against the Dems? Oh wait... Everybody is allowed to be wrong.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

23rd August 2012, 12:05 PM	#49
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,798	Originally Posted by varwoche Nonsense. All it takes is one SCOTUS appointment. You could replace the whole court - if they don't get an abortion rights case before the court, they can't overturn Roe.

23rd August 2012, 01:01 PM	#50
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by BStrong You could replace the whole court - if they don't get an abortion rights case before the court, they can't overturn Roe. Easy though. A favorable court, then Louisiana outlaws abortion, and you have your case.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

24th August 2012, 09:08 AM	#51
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by BenBurch Everybody is allowed to be wrong. That now includes Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz who outright lied about the Romney platform on abortion in a fundraising letter, oh and then said that the lie "doesn't matter": http://www.politico.com/news/stories...088.html?hp=r6
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

24th August 2012, 10:26 AM	#52
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by Neally That now includes Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz who outright lied about the Romney platform on abortion in a fundraising letter, oh and then said that the lie "doesn't matter": http://www.politico.com/news/stories...088.html?hp=r6 LOL! Hilarious. It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it. If he does not agree, it is his duty to withdraw his name from consideration. The same of course goes for Obama.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

24th August 2012, 11:05 AM	#53
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by BenBurch It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it. LOL. That's the same as saying you can't register or claim to be a Republican unless you believe in every word of their platform at the state and national level. Furthermore lies and intentional misquoting do matter to most people, unless of course you are of the ethical mind that the ends (scare tactic to generate donations) justify the means (lying about Romney).
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

24th August 2012, 05:09 PM	#54
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by Neally LOL. That's the same as saying you can't register or claim to be a Republican unless you believe in every word of their platform at the state and national level. Furthermore lies and intentional misquoting do matter to most people, unless of course you are of the ethical mind that the ends (scare tactic to generate donations) justify the means (lying about Romney). Or, in other words, if you are a republicker.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

24th August 2012, 05:44 PM	#55
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by BenBurch LOL! Hilarious. It actually does not matter because if he allows himself to be nominated on that platform it means that he agrees with every part of it. If he does not agree, it is his duty to withdraw his name from consideration. The same of course goes for Obama. Sorry, Ben, but that's completely ridiculous. It is pretty much impossible to agree with everything anyone else says and still be a functioning individual. He may agree to support the platform, but that doesn't mean he agrees with every point on it. Heck, as a mod, I agree to support the Membership Agreement, even though I don't agree with every single point.

24th August 2012, 05:51 PM	#56
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by fuelair Or, in other words, if you are a republicker. What part of "Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz outright lied in a campaign donations solicitation" do you not understand?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

24th August 2012, 06:56 PM	#57
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	Seat belts in cars should be banned. They only encourage recklessness. The only way to prevent accidents is to completely abstain from driving. If you drive and get in an accident, no one should help you - you have to live with the consequences. Besides, if someone else forcibly runs into you, your car will resist the accident and emerge intact.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

25th August 2012, 02:01 PM	#58
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by Neally What part of "Chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz outright lied in a campaign donations solicitation" do you not understand? the part where I truly do not care - as when a office running republicker opens it's mouth it lies when it says nothing but "hello." If it speaks further, it speaks what Mark Twain referred to as "damned lies" (lies only marginally less evil than statistics). If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil. Hope this helps - and please do me the courtesy of believing I mean every word of what I wrote. I used to know of Republican office seekers that I could consider rational and capable of reasonable function. That has not been true for nearly 20 years - and very hard to find for 30. republickers long ago sold their souls to the xtian "right" and corporations.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

25th August 2012, 09:45 PM	#59
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 788	Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy Are you a druggy pedophile or an inbred Nazi clown? I'll just go ahead and mark it up as dishonesty. Try harder.

25th August 2012, 10:02 PM	#60
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,851	Originally Posted by mikedenk I'll just go ahead and mark it up as dishonesty. Try harder. So let me get this straight. I say that Paul Ryan has identified Romney's position on abortion as a step in the right direction. You then quote the article quoting Ryan saying that Romney's position is a step in the right direction and somehow that's supposed to prove I'm lying? Huh?
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

26th August 2012, 07:58 AM	#61
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086	Originally Posted by fuelair the part where I truly do not care Then that puts you in good company with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who said the fact that she lied, "doesn't matter". Quote: If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil. So the ends justify the means, and Dem lies = good and GOP lies = bad. Got it. Hypocrisy much?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,086

26th August 2012, 02:59 PM	#62
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	Romney may, or may not agree with the Republican platform. However, I have no doubt that he would do everything that the GOP tells him to do if he's elected. Mitt has no spine, he's malleable and is the idiot with a pen that they want. If the GOP has the house, the senate and the executive, they will ban abortion.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

26th August 2012, 05:55 PM	#63
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by Neally Then that puts you in good company with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who said the fact that she lied, "doesn't matter". So the ends justify the means, and Dem lies = good and GOP lies = bad. Got it. Hypocrisy much? No - and I explained rather clearly why the two are in no way equivalent.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

27th August 2012, 01:32 PM	#64
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by fuelair No - and I explained rather clearly why the two are in no way equivalent. I assume you mean this: Originally Posted by fuelair the part where I truly do not care - as when a office running republicker opens it's mouth it lies when it says nothing but "hello." If it speaks further, it speaks what Mark Twain referred to as "damned lies" (lies only marginally less evil than statistics). If Schultz lied, and the lie was to help keep the average (actually I know of no exceptions) republicker from achieving a position such that it can help wreck the United States (the only possible goal given republicker plans) then it is Good at it's heart and excused for it's intent to fight evil. But you must be intelligent enough to realize this is EXACTLY what the right believes. That they must do what ever is necessary to protect the country from the evils of socialist/communists/Marxists like Obama.
	__________________ All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for intelligent men to do nothing.

27th August 2012, 05:19 PM	#65
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,638	Vote Obama 2012 - The ends justify the means!
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

27th August 2012, 07:28 PM	#66
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	It's rather disturbing that people try to say that both sides are guilty of smear tactics and imply that both sides do it equally. It's false, of course. The Right is very good at smears, dishonesty and using any ends. Dems do it, but rarely, and when they do, they suck at it.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine