Octopus Overlords

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote: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.

geezer wrote:

AWS260 wrote:

Exodor wrote: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.

msduncan wrote:

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote: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.

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote:[debate]

Why?

Is the death penalty natural death?

wire wrote: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...

msduncan wrote:

geezer wrote:

AWS260 wrote:

Exodor wrote: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.

YellowKing wrote:Cage match:

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

geezer wrote:

YellowKing wrote: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 wrote:

geezer wrote:

YellowKing wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

geezer wrote: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).

silverjon wrote: 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?

silverjon wrote:I'm Canadian!

silverjon wrote: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’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!

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.

silverjon wrote: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?

Exodor wrote: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 wrote: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

Freezer-TPF- wrote:

Defiant wrote: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?

Defiant wrote: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

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.

John Wayne Gacy's last words wrote:"Kiss my ass."

Holman wrote:

Exodor wrote:

msduncan wrote:[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.

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.

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

Defiant wrote:Yep.

Exodor wrote:

El Guapo wrote: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