2012 Elections

[msduncan]

And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Here's what she said in her statement:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

You know as well as I do that she was speaking to assisted suicide. It had nothing to do with the death penalty.

[msduncan]

Here's what she said in her statement:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

FYI, the actual pledge says nothing about "natural death" or death penalty issues:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

The fact that they specifically want a staunch pro-lifer at the head of the DoJ says all sorts of (bad) things to me.

It says all kinds of bad things to you, and all kinds of good things to other people.

[wire]

I'd like to see every single social issue that seems to be dominating our political landscape these days shelved and the priority be on fixing the things that should matter the most...like keeping the citizens of this country working and in their homes. Abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, assisted suicide...doesn't put food on our tables or keep a roof over our heads. Fuck the social issues...

I know it's a pipe dream...

[Exodor]

And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Here's what she said in her statement:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

You know as well as I do that she was speaking to assisted suicide. It had nothing to do with the death penalty.

Why?

Is the death penalty natural death?

[Holman]

[debate]

Why?

Is the death penalty natural death?

The terms of this debate have been established for a long time. Everyone involved knows what everyone means. When pro-lifers are against "unnatural death" they mean "No more Schiavo." They don't mean death in war, or death from exterminating bedbugs, or death from processing cattle into beef. Nor do they mean the death penalty.

[Defiant]

I'd like to see every single social issue that seems to be dominating our political landscape these days shelved and the priority be on fixing the things that should matter the most...like keeping the citizens of this country working and in their homes. Abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, assisted suicide...doesn't put food on our tables or keep a roof over our heads. Fuck the social issues...

I know it's a pipe dream...

For some, one or more social issue are more important precisely because it affects them more.

[geezer]

Here's what she said in her statement:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

FYI, the actual pledge says nothing about "natural death" or death penalty issues:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

The fact that they specifically want a staunch pro-lifer at the head of the DoJ says all sorts of (bad) things to me.

It says all kinds of bad things to you, and all kinds of good things to other people.

Yeah, well, there's no accounting for hypocrites and sanctimonious fucktards, is there?

[YellowKing]

Cage match:

Who is more sanctomonious? Pro-lifers or people who call other people sanctimonious fucktards? FIGHT!

[geezer]

Cage match:

Who is more sanctomonious? Pro-lifers or people who call other people sanctimonious fucktards? FIGHT!

Fair enough, the difference being that I'm not the one trying to make my sanctimony or my subjective whim into law that binds those who have honest disagreement with my theories/opinions/moral code. If you see equivalency between "It should be a law - people HAVE to allow for the greatest practical range of diversity" with "It should be a law - people HAVE to ascribe to my moral view regardless of their agreement or lack thereof" then we have a fundamental difference about the rights of the individual.

But I don't think we do. I think instead that you're just giving me a little bit of the old "liberals suck b/c they claim to be open minded yet still have the audacity to criticize people" canard.

[El Guapo]

Cage match:

Who is more sanctomonious? Pro-lifers or people who call other people sanctimonious fucktards? FIGHT!

Fair enough, the difference being that I'm not the one trying to make my sanctimony or my subjective whim into law that binds those who have honest disagreement with my theories/opinions/moral code. If you see equivalency between "It should be a law - people HAVE to allow for the greatest practical range of diversity" with "It should be a law - people HAVE to ascribe to my moral view regardless of their agreement or lack thereof" then we have a fundamental difference about the rights of the individual.

But I don't think we do. I think instead that you're just giving me a little bit of the old "liberals suck b/c they claim to be open minded yet still have the audacity to criticize people" canard.

Just do a little thought experiment: take it for a given that a fetus is human live more or less equivalent to a born person like you or I. Now think through the implications of that. IF a fetus is a person, then hundreds of thousands (or whatever the number is) of people who haven't even had the chance to do anything wrong are losing their lives every year.

Now, I'm largely pro-choice because I don't think that a fertilized fetus is a person (at least not at the moment of conception). But it's not crazy to think so (certainly it will become a person absent intervention), and once you accept that factual premise I understand entirely why you would take a passionate position on the issue.

So it's a little more complicated than "people HAVE to ascribe to my moral view regardless of their agreement or lack thereof." From the pro-life perspective they're protecting the rights of the helpless, not just imposing an arbitrary moral code.

[geezer]

Cage match:

Who is more sanctomonious? Pro-lifers or people who call other people sanctimonious fucktards? FIGHT!

Fair enough, the difference being that I'm not the one trying to make my sanctimony or my subjective whim into law that binds those who have honest disagreement with my theories/opinions/moral code. If you see equivalency between "It should be a law - people HAVE to allow for the greatest practical range of diversity" with "It should be a law - people HAVE to ascribe to my moral view regardless of their agreement or lack thereof" then we have a fundamental difference about the rights of the individual.

But I don't think we do. I think instead that you're just giving me a little bit of the old "liberals suck b/c they claim to be open minded yet still have the audacity to criticize people" canard.

Just do a little thought experiment: take it for a given that a fetus is human live more or less equivalent to a born person like you or I. Now think through the implications of that. IF a fetus is a person, then hundreds of thousands (or whatever the number is) of people who haven't even had the chance to do anything wrong are losing their lives every year.

Now, I'm largely pro-choice because I don't think that a fertilized fetus is a person (at least not at the moment of conception). But it's not crazy to think so (certainly it will become a person absent intervention), and once you accept that factual premise I understand entirely why you would take a passionate position on the issue.

So it's a little more complicated than "people HAVE to ascribe to my moral view regardless of their agreement or lack thereof." From the pro-life perspective they're protecting the rights of the helpless, not just imposing an arbitrary moral code.

I don't disagree with a single point you've written, but "if," on force of faith, you take it as a given that a fetus in any stage of development is a human life, and that that preservation of such is paramount, it seems that it should go without question that and actual mature, living human being is worthy of that same respect for life, and that preservation of those lives should also be paramount. Those who, for sake of ideology or politics, protect one with a fervor bordering on zealotry and dismiss the other as a matter of unfortunate consequence are worthy of nothing but contempt.

[silverjon]

I don't disagree with a single point you've written, but "if," on force of faith, you take it as a given that a fetus in any stage of development is a human life, and that that preservation of such is paramount, it seems that it should go without question that and actual mature, living human being is worthy of that same respect for life, and that preservation of those lives should also be paramount. Those who, for sake of ideology or politics, protect one with a fervor bordering on zealotry and dismiss the other as a matter of unfortunate consequence are worthy of nothing but contempt.

Again, the internal consistency is that the unborn hasn't had an opportunity to do anything wrong yet. There is justification that a severe enough crime could be punished by death, but a completely innocent life should be protected. Thus, also even internally consistent with sentencing doctors who perform abortions to death, since the courts won't punish them for being (in their view) mass murderers.

It is not a view that all life is sacred. It is a view that they have the right to judge which life is worthy of protection (but, so do those who are pro-choice and anti-capital punishment).

[geezer]

I don't disagree with a single point you've written, but "if," on force of faith, you take it as a given that a fetus in any stage of development is a human life, and that that preservation of such is paramount, it seems that it should go without question that and actual mature, living human being is worthy of that same respect for life, and that preservation of those lives should also be paramount. Those who, for sake of ideology or politics, protect one with a fervor bordering on zealotry and dismiss the other as a matter of unfortunate consequence are worthy of nothing but contempt.

Again, the internal consistency is that the unborn hasn't had an opportunity to do anything wrong yet. There is justification that a severe enough crime could be punished by death, but a completely innocent life should be protected. Thus, also even internally consistent with sentencing doctors who perform abortions to death, since the courts won't do punish them for being (in their view) mass murderers.

It is not a view that all life is sacred. It is a view that they have the right to judge which life is worthy of protection (but, so do those who are pro-choice and anti-capital punishment).

Indeed - but I'm talking not about the guilty that are killed, but the innocent that are mistakenly condemned to death. I'm talking about the "collateral damage" in war, and those that starve or die of exposure for lack of charity. I'm talking about my contempt for people who would preserve one form of innocent theoretical life, but rationalize away the value of real, innocent people when it suits their preferences.

[silverjon]

I'd guess it's something like all babies are innocent, but only some adults are killed by mistake (or die because they made bad choices in life). I'm not saying I agree with the rationalization, only that I think I see how it works.

Edit: My attitude is that pro-lifers should be likewise in favour of making sure that all the babies have a reasonable standard of living after they're born, be loved, get enough healthy food and a good education, etc. That's fair, right?

[Smoove_B]

Edit: My attitude is that pro-lifers should be likewise in favour of making sure that all the babies have a reasonable standard of living after they're born, be loved, get enough healthy food and a good education, etc. That's fair, right?

Socialist

[silverjon]

I'm Canadian!

[Texian]

Saw this on Mother Jones:

http://motherjones.com/media/2011/06/zi ... hmann-hymn" target="_blank

PZ Myers added the caption, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

Really hope the country wizens up and does not elect one those damned religiocentric candidates.

[Arcanis]

I'm Canadian!

In that case Socialist 'eh.

[geezer]

I'd guess it's something like all babies are innocent, but only some adults are killed by mistake (or die because they made bad choices in life). I'm not saying I agree with the rationalization, only that I think I see how it works.

Edit: My attitude is that pro-lifers should be likewise in favour of making sure that all the babies have a reasonable standard of living after they're born, be loved, get enough healthy food and a good education, etc. That's fair, right?

*I* think so, but then again, that would require revenue-side adjustments, and that's just downright unconscionable. It's much easier just to assume God will provide, and if He doesn't, well, then the starving toddlers must not be working hard enough. Or something.

[Exodor]

Bob Dornan: Not a fan of Gingrich.

I’d like to talk to you folks about Newt Gingrich. What a piece of work. … The guy that single-handedly left us Dennis Hastert for eight years! The super-hypocrite going after Clinton when he was just as bad!

[Defiant]

Bachman's gunna run a killer campaign.

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ohn-wayne/" target="_blank

[Pyperkub]

I'd guess it's something like all babies are innocent, but only some adults are killed by mistake (or die because they made bad choices in life). I'm not saying I agree with the rationalization, only that I think I see how it works.

Edit: My attitude is that pro-lifers should be likewise in favour of making sure that all the babies have a reasonable standard of living after they're born, be loved, get enough healthy food and a good education, etc. That's fair, right?

Is that before or after they're deported?

[Pyperkub]

Bob Dornan: Not a fan of Gingrich.

I’d like to talk to you folks about Newt Gingrich. What a piece of work. … The guy that single-handedly left us Dennis Hastert for eight years! The super-hypocrite going after Clinton when he was just as bad!

It kind of makes me like Gingrich more. Dornan is a tool.

[Freezer-TPF-]

Bachman's gunna run a killer campaign.

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ohn-wayne/" target="_blank

Her new campaign slogan: Why So Serious?

[LordMortis]

Bachman's gunna run a killer campaign.

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ohn-wayne/" target="_blank

Her new campaign slogan: Why So Serious?

She's gonna knock 'em dead.

[Holman]

That's... impossible. Is she really running a campaign without even an intern to wikipedia-fact-check her speeches?

[Teggy]

The article says she grew up in that town - how could she not know who had actually lived there?

[Kraken]

Bachman's gunna run a killer campaign.

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

The only problem, as one eagle-eyed reader notes: Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... ohn-wayne/" target="_blank

Now THAT is classic. This will be a very entertaining campaign season for as long as she stays in to liven it up.

[Smoove_B]

Rep. Michele Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign on Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, and in one interview surrounding the official event she promised to mimic the spirit of Waterloo's own John Wayne.

Well...

"Kiss my ass."

[Fireball]

[debate]

Why?

Is the death penalty natural death?

The terms of this debate have been established for a long time. Everyone involved knows what everyone means. When pro-lifers are against "unnatural death" they mean "No more Schiavo." They don't mean death in war, or death from exterminating bedbugs, or death from processing cattle into beef. Nor do they mean the death penalty.

Of course, Terri Schiavo died a completely natural death -- either at the time her embolism occurred and destroyed her brain and ability for consciousness, or at the time the vacant shell of her body passed away peacefully without the use of any artificial agent to cause the cessation of autonomous biological functions, depending on one's point of view.

[silverjon]

Or prevent the cessation of life function, for that matter.

[SpaceLord]

You're welcome.

[Defiant]

Michele Bachmann's claim that she has "never gotten a penny" from a family farm that's been subsidized by the government is at odds with her financial disclosure statements. They show tens of thousands in personal income from the operation.

Examining 24 of her statements, Politifact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, found just one to be fully true and 17 to be false (seven of them "pants on fire" false). No other Republican candidate whose statements have been vigorously vetted matched that record of inaccuracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-bachma ... 45347.html" target="_blank

[silverjon]

Was "pants on fire" false an official point on the scale? Heh.

[Defiant]

Yep.

[El Guapo]

Wow. Obama leads Perry (and Palin) in a poll of Texas. Sounds like a great nomination choice for the GOP.

[Exodor]

Wow. Obama leads Perry (and Palin) in a poll of Texas. Sounds like a great nomination choice for the GOP.

He's also outpolling Palin in Alaska

[Zarathud]

Yep.

Michele Bachmann is just taking "not intended as a factual statement" to the next level.

[Texian]

Michelle Bachmann, source of much humor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rling.html" target="_blank

[SpaceLord]

Wow. Obama leads Perry (and Palin) in a poll of Texas. Sounds like a great nomination choice for the GOP.

He's also outpolling Palin in Alaska

If the economy improves, he will crush anything the GOP can throw at him, unless they find a transformative, charismatic Obama-like game-changer. It'd also help him to make progress on immigration reform.