OT Serious question

[LonVanOstran]

I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me.

When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best
policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the
Democrat him or her self.

When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best
policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever
published about that Republican is accepted as fact.

Now, for the serious question.

Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?

I ask that question because the vast majority of the Republicans I know
would rather change hearts than change laws regarding abortions other
than late term abortions, and almost NONE of them would deny women
access to birth control, yet more than half of the women in America fear
Republicans over these issues.

We've had opportunities, if indeed Republicans want to change these
laws. Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress. Yet
these fears have not been realized.

During campaigns, Republicans are asked the right questions. They answer
them. They are almost never believed, in spite of the fact that history
is there to be examined. When Republicans DO address these issues, it's
always about forcing someone to PAY for either abortion or birth control
when doing so is in violation of their moral beliefs.

Is it really all that important to Democrats that all employers must be
forced to pay for insurance coverage they find abhorrent? Or is it all
about scaring women into voting for Democrats?

It sure as hell isn't about outlawing birth control, because Congress
hasn't voted on that issue in my lifetime.

Lon

[nothermark]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:42 -0500, LonVanOstran
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me.
>
>When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best
>policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the
>Democrat him or her self.
>
>When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best
>policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever
>published about that Republican is accepted as fact.
>
>Now, for the serious question.

Serious answer

>
>Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
>opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
>free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?

First try the Republican Platform:

"We believe medicines and treatments should be designed to prolong and
enhance life, not destroy it. Therefore, federal funds should not be
used for drugs that cause the destruction of human life. Furthermore,
the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on use of controlled
substances for physician assisted suicide should be restored."

"Protecting Rights of Conscience

The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling. No
health care professional doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or organization
should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health
care service against their conscience for any reason. This is
especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major
portion of America�s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
faith communities."

"We renew our call for replacing �family planning� programs for teens
with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse
legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment�s protections
apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote
or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family
values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."

" We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a
parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to
assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an
unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on
the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than
abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering
abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those
who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and
we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has
followed Republican legislative initiatives."

You can read that to include refusing to provide any kind of family
planning services that potentially end a possible early term
pregnancy. I would say they cover contraception and abortion. YMMV.


Second, do a web search for republican roe v wade. You will find
ample posts from all political leanings that say the Republican Party
wants it overturned.

Third, check out all the fuss over Planned Parenthood or funding
family planning training with taxpayer money including donations to
the third world.

I could keep listing but there is enough here already.

>
>I ask that question because the vast majority of the Republicans I know
>would rather change hearts than change laws regarding abortions other
>than late term abortions, and almost NONE of them would deny women
>access to birth control, yet more than half of the women in America fear
>Republicans over these issues.

Remember the Rush Limbaugh tirade about the woman who testified about
family planning?

You do a have a good point though. I was one of those folks until
they also cranked up a few other issues to the point where they are
the more evil of the two parties.

>
>We've had opportunities, if indeed Republicans want to change these
>laws. Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress. Yet
>these fears have not been realized.
>
>During campaigns, Republicans are asked the right questions. They answer
>them. They are almost never believed, in spite of the fact that history
>is there to be examined. When Republicans DO address these issues, it's
>always about forcing someone to PAY for either abortion or birth control
>when doing so is in violation of their moral beliefs.

Pay is the a smokescreen. The real issue is to prevent their
availability.

There is another issue implicit with your statement. It implies that
somebody else's "moral values" trump mine. That is not a facet of a
free society. If anybody has a moral objection to providing a good or
service then do not go into the business where that is an issue.

>
>Is it really all that important to Democrats that all employers must be
>forced to pay for insurance coverage they find abhorrent? Or is it all
>about scaring women into voting for Democrats?

Actually it is about providing equal treatment to everyone. No one is
making anybody use the service. OTOH when there is no financial
burden to provide it there is no reason not to.

A more significant question is why any business has a right to impose
the moral values of part of that organization on all the folks working
for it.

>
>It sure as hell isn't about outlawing birth control, because Congress
>hasn't voted on that issue in my lifetime.
>
>Lon

Actually, they have. They did it when they voted over allowing folks
to use "moral objections" as a reason not to provide coverage:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-01/birth-control-politics/53313252/1


Your argument is regarded as rather disingenuous by most folks. The
issue is that the Republicans want Roe v Wade overturned via a SCOTUS
ruling. That way no congressrat has to vote and face the wrath of
it's constituency.

[LonVanOstran]

> portion of America�s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
> faith communities."
>
> "We renew our call for replacing �family planning� programs for teens

> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
> is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
> Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
> personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."
>
> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse

> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment�s protections

No! There isn't "enough already". You ignored my question and blew a
whole bunch of smoke up my ass. I wasn't drowning until you tried to
smother me with bullshit.

You ignore key words. "Funding" "allow" and "forced". What you posted in
response to my questions were LIES. The same lies always told by the
left when abortion and birth control are the questions.

You equate "pay for" and "allow" as though they are synonymous. Typical
liberal lies.

Lon

[Hank]

Why does it have to be a political issue at all? Why not let the women do as they wish? It's their body they are one's who have to deal with the consequences. Like taking illegal drugs, driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking and all, it's personal choice, but we the tax payers will pay for their errors.

Hank <~~~~~ runs with sissors

[LonVanOstran]

Damn! Did you miss EVERYTHING I wrote? Or just most of it?
Who has suggested limiting their choices?
What legislation has been presented, and who presented it?
You ASSumed the exact lie which caused my post. I refuse to address your
lie as though it were based upon anything factual. It's not.

Lon

[Bruce S]

> portion of America�s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
> faith communities."
>
> "We renew our call for replacing �family planning� programs for teens

> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
> is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
> Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
> personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."
>
> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse

> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment�s protections

Your argument is based on a LIE (actually several lies).

First, go back and read what Lon actually wrote, not what you wanted him
to write, but his actual words. Here I'll make it easy for you:

>> "Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
>> opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
>> free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?"

Do you see the words "outlaw" and "prevent" in there??? Can you find
anywhere in all the bullshit you copied and pasted where the Republicans
actually endorse "outlaw[ing]" "prevent[ing]" anything?

The only thing Republicans have advocated outlawing is having the
federal government pay for abortions and birth control pills. Are you
one of those idiots who think that making people pay for their own
medical procedures is the same as outlawing those procedures?

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �
Harry Browne

In other shocking news, if it wasn't bad enough that the poorest 20%
comprise a fifth of all citizens, they're ALSO in the bottom quintile!

[Bob Hatch]

On 8/15/2012 11:58 AM, Bruce S wrote:

>
> The only thing Republicans have advocated outlawing is having the
> federal government pay for abortions and birth control pills. Are you
> one of those idiots who think that making people pay for their own
> medical procedures is the same as outlawing those procedures?
>

You asked him what? :-)

--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[nothermark]

>> portion of America�s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
>> faith communities."
>>
>> "We renew our call for replacing �family planning� programs for teens

>> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
>> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
>> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
>> is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
>> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
>> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
>> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
>> Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
>> personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."
>>
>> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse

>> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment�s protections

You wanted a serious answer to your question and you got one. What I
listed is a small part of why folks on the other side do not trust the
Republican party. You can accept it or go play with yourself for all
I care. It is still the answer. You do not get to define how other
people think.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 04:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

Because a couple of religious groups cannot stand the idea of somebody
livig by different rules than they do. It's no different than Sharia
law to the Muslims.

[LonVanOstran]

>>> portion of America�s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
>>> faith communities."
>>>
>>> "We renew our call for replacing �family planning� programs for teens

>>> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
>>> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
>>> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
>>> is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
>>> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
>>> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
>>> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
>>> Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
>>> personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."
>>>
>>> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse

>>> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment�s protections

They don't trust the Republican party because they believe the bald
faced lies of the Democrats, and the press looks the other way while the
Dems lie.

Which Republican has presented WHAT BILL attempting to make birth
control illegal?

You can't present one because all you have are the lies of the Dems, and
their co-conspiritors in the press.

You didn't answer my question. All you've done so far is repeat the lies
I posted about. Where's the beef?

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

You are a liar. You've lied every time you've posted in this thread.
SHOW ME. Show me a law that Congress has passed while Republicans were
in control, that outlaws abortion and birth control. SHOW ME.

The Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress and the White
House. Where are the laws you bastards lie about?

Stop telling lies just once, long enough to present one shred of
evidence to support your bald faced lies. You can't do it.

You can't stop lying because if you did, you would either be silent, or
you would admit that the Dems have been playing on irrational fears that
are unfounded by fact.

Lon

[Hank]

You dipshit. You asked a question which involved politicians and stated republicans would outlaw abortions if given a chance. You obviously missed the point of my answer, which is why does it have to be political and involve any laws.

Hank <~~~~~ thinks Lon should get on birth control

[Bruce S]

I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
simply prove that you are an idiot.

[Max]

Weeeellll, *Not* all liberals lie and *not* all Republicans want to
outlaw abortions *BUT* some liberals lie and *some* Republicans want to
outlaw abortions.

[Bruce S]

So if you actually believe that some Republican politicians (after all
we were discussing political parties) want to outlaw abortions, name
one. Name even ONE Republican politician who has introduced any bill or
constitutional amendment to either the US House of Representatives, or
the US Senate for the purpose of outlawing abortions. If you can't do
it, admit that every time a Democrat politician brings up the subject,
it is to spread a LIE.

And, ALL liberals do lie - it is axiomatic - the only way to publicly
support liberal politics is to lie about what you believe.

[LonVanOstran]

This post was unnecessary. I already knew you were incapable of
understanding the question I asked.

Lon

[nothermark]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:48:27 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The claim is not a lie if you listen to a lot of folks who vote
Republican over abortion like I did over gun control. Like it or not
there is a large constituency that believes what the Republican
platform says indicates more than a simple issue over payment.

[LonVanOstran]

Max wrote:
> Weeeellll, *Not* all liberals lie and *not* all Republicans want to
> outlaw abortions *BUT* some liberals lie and *some* Republicans want to
> outlaw abortions.

Well duh!!!!!!!

The most consistent lie told by politicians in America today, is that
Republicans want to outlaw abortion and birth control. It's told to
scare women into voting for Democrats. Never mind that an INTELLIGENT
woman would notice that Republicans HAVE CONTROLLED both houses of
Congress and the White House at the same time, and those laws weren't
presented, let alone passed.

Yes! Some Republicans want both abortion and birth control outlawed. But
SOME DEMOCRATS believe Elvis is still alive and hiding out in the White
House basement.

Most Republicans, unlike most Democrats, recognize the fact that a law
outlawing either one would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. Sadly, it seems that an overwhelming percentage of women voters
are as ignorant as Democrats believe them to be. The lie has been
working for a long long long time. Sad! It's truly sad that so many
women are that ignorant. Democrats depend on it. I wish women would
educate themselves instead of living up to the Democrat stereotype.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 8/15/2012 6:52 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> >I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
>> >English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
>> >Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
>> >claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
>> >ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
>> >simply prove that you are an idiot.

> The claim is not a lie if you listen to a lot of folks who vote
> Republican over abortion like I did over gun control. Like it or not
> there is a large constituency that believes what the Republican
> platform says indicates more than a simple issue over payment.

So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Max. Since this was a
discussion about political parties, can you name even one Republican
member of Congress who has introduced any bill or constitutional
amendment to outlaw abortion. If not then to make the claim is a lie.

[Max]

I'm using the term Republican as a term to describe those who aren't
moderates or liberals. I personally know of a very large number of
people who fit that description. Some are adamantly opposed to abortion
and will support any politician who takes a stand against abortion
(think: Michelle Bachmann)
They consider abortion as "murder", plain and simple. No exceptions.
The abortion issue is a litmus test with them.

Why is it automatically a "lie" when someone's politics disagree with
yours? I know several liberals who are totally convinced, they really
truly believe, that our society will be a better society if the "riches"
are more evenly distributed. They can expound for hours about the value
of labor; about the importance of public schools and why the poor will
always be poor if they don't have access to proper education and on and
on about "liberal" causes. They're not "lying". they might be misled,
misinformed, improperly educated, poorly read and any number of other
descriptives but they're not "lying". They are merely giving "their truth".

Now if you're talking about the MSM, they *do* lie and it's not only
obvious, it's disgusting.

[LonVanOstran]

Why did you ignore the part about laws being proposed?
We on the right could focus on the fringe nutcases on the left who want
all logging shut down, all dams removed, and all traces of humanity
erased from the face of the earth. But we don't. We focus on what
Democrats are REALLY DOING. The truth is that the laws outlawing
abortion and birth control are NOT BEING PRESENTED or voted on. Not when
Democrats are in control, and not when Republicans are in control. It
DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
>> I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
>> >English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
>> >Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
>> >claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
>> >ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
>> >simply prove that you are an idiot.
> The claim is not a lie if you listen to a lot of folks who vote
> Republican over abortion like I did over gun control. Like it or not
> there is a large constituency that believes what the Republican
> platform says indicates more than a simple issue over payment.

It's a lie because there is no danger of it happening. Lefties USE IT,
knowing full well that Republicans HAVE BEEN IN CHARGE without making it
happen.

It's a lie. You KNOW it's a lie and keep telling it anyway. You KNOW
IT'S A LIE because we've been over this before, and you keep telling the
same tired old lies.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 8/15/2012 7:33 PM, Max wrote:
>>
>> So if you actually believe that some Republican politicians (after all
>> we were discussing political parties) want to outlaw abortions, name
>> one. Name even ONE Republican politician who has introduced any bill or
>> constitutional amendment to either the US House of Representatives, or
>> the US Senate for the purpose of outlawing abortions. If you can't do
>> it, admit that every time a Democrat politician brings up the subject,
>> it is to spread a LIE.
>>
>> And, ALL liberals do lie - it is axiomatic - the only way to publicly
>> support liberal politics is to lie about what you believe.
>
> I'm using the term Republican as a term to describe those who aren't
> moderates or liberals. I personally know of a very large number of
> people who fit that description. Some are adamantly opposed to abortion
> and will support any politician who takes a stand against abortion
> (think: Michelle Bachmann)

Whether you choose to think of it in "official" terms or not, when
someone makes the statement that "Republicans want this or that" they
are not (by definition) talking about the occasional man on the street -
they are (again, by definition) talking about the official position of
the Republican Party. It is not now, and has not been for at least 20
years, the policy of the Republican Party to outlaw abortions.
Therefore, for anyone to make the claim that Republicans want to ban
abortions, they are telling a lie.

> They consider abortion as "murder", plain and simple. No exceptions.
> The abortion issue is a litmus test with them.
>
> Why is it automatically a "lie" when someone's politics disagree with
> yours?

If it is simply a matter of disagreement, I do not accuse anyone of
lying. On the other hand, when they make a statement and attribute it
to me (or the Republican party, or even to you) and that statement is
demonstrably wrong, I WILL accuse them of a LIE - because it is a lie.

> I know several liberals who are totally convinced, they really
> truly believe, that our society will be a better society if the "riches"
> are more evenly distributed. They can expound for hours about the value
> of labor; about the importance of public schools and why the poor will
> always be poor if they don't have access to proper education and on and
> on about "liberal" causes. They're not "lying". they might be misled,
> misinformed, improperly educated, poorly read and any number of other
> descriptives but they're not "lying". They are merely giving "their truth".
>
> Now if you're talking about the MSM, they *do* lie and it's not only
> obvious, it's disgusting.

I will mostly agree with on the above points - with the proviso that on
your first point about some people merely being misinformed, we are
limiting that excuse only to people with no serious party affiliation.
For anyone to reach anything approaching "management" level (not to
mention elected level) they have been exposed to the truth. And anyone
who has been exposed to the truth and rejected it is ignorant by choice,
and that is no different from being in on the lie.

As examples, anyone who supports the claim that Mitt paid no income tax
(thus supporting Harry Reid) is a liar.
Anyone who repeats the lie that the Republicans want to cut Medicare -
even though the truth of the numbers has been available for two years -
is a liar.
Anyone who repeats the lie that Romney's association with Bain Capitol
was responsible for the death of the woman in the ad - even though the
truth of her having other insurance, and Romney not being involved with
Bain at the time - is a liar.

Every one of those lies is widely told by Democrat politicians, and
supported by people who have remained willfully ignorant. Everyone who
is part of that pattern of lies is a liar. As near as I can tell, that
includes EVERYONE in the democrat party.

[Bruce S]

And of course, I forgot the big lie told every day by every democrat, at
every level. The lie of the Rich not paying their fair share. The
numbers have been posted here several times showing that after the Bush
tax cuts, the "Rich" not only paid a greater share of overall tax
revenue, they paid more dollars than they had previously. This is not a
matter of opinion it is a matter of facts - the rich pay more not than
they ever have, and the liberals continue to lie and say they got tax
cuts.

In order to be a liberal, a person must be happy to be a liar.

[jerryosage]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:41:16 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And of course, I forgot the big lie told every day by every democrat, at
>every level. The lie of the Rich not paying their fair share. The
>numbers have been posted here several times showing that after the Bush
>tax cuts, the "Rich" not only paid a greater share of overall tax
>revenue, they paid more dollars than they had previously. This is not a
>matter of opinion it is a matter of facts - the rich pay more not than
>they ever have, and the liberals continue to lie and say they got tax
>cuts.
>
>In order to be a liberal, a person must be happy to be a liar.

Or to be so envious and jealous as to never let facts moderate their
hatred of the better off who must have screwed them out of their Fair
Share. Wealth must be a matter of luck and chicanery. If it was a
matter of hard work and dedication the losers might have to bear some
of the blame for their station in life. That will never happen, The
Wealthy stole that money right out of their pocket and must be
punished.

NM stated in another post - "When I win somebody else loses" That
pretty much sums up their mindset.

[Jenny6833A]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:54:04 PM UTC+2, Lon VanOstran wrote:
> Hank wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:19:42 PM UTC-4, Lon VanOstran wrote: >> I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me. >> >> >> >> When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best >> >> policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the >> >> Democrat him or her self. >> >> >> >> When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best >> >> policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever >> >> published about that Republican is accepted as fact. >> >> >> >> Now, for the serious question. >> >> >> >> Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the >> >> opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising >> >> free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights? >> >> >> >> I ask that question because the vast majority of the Republicans I know >> >> would rather change hearts than change laws regarding abortions other >> >> than late term abortions, and almost NONE of them would deny women >> >> access to birth control, yet more than half of the women in America fear >> >> Republicans over these issues. >> >> >> >> We've had opportunities, if indeed Republicans want to change these >> >> laws. Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress. Yet >> >> these fears have not been realized. >> >> >> >> During campaigns, Republicans are asked the right questions. They answer >> >> them. They are almost never believed, in spite of the fact that history >> >> is there to be examined. When Republicans DO address these issues, it's >> >> always about forcing someone to PAY for either abortion or birth control >> >> when doing so is in violation of their moral beliefs. >> >> >> >> Is it really all that important to Democrats that all employers must be >> >> forced to pay for insurance coverage they find abhorrent? Or is it all >> >> about scaring women into voting for Democrats? >> >> >> >> It sure as hell isn't about outlawing birth control, because Congress >> >> hasn't voted on that issue in my lifetime. >> >> >> >> Lon > > Why does it have to be a political issue at all? Why not let the women do as they wish? It's their body they are one's who have to deal with the consequences. Like taking illegal drugs, driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking and all, it's personal choice, but we the tax payers will pay for their errors. > > Hank <~~~~~ runs with sissors > Damn! Did you miss EVERYTHING I wrote? Or just most of it? Who has suggested limiting their choices? What legislation has been presented, and who presented it?

It seems to me that Republicans have done a lot to limit access to abortions and to prevent them happening: waiting periods requiring multiple trips to a far away provider; ludicrous requirements on clinics as to square footage, storage closets, etc; laws requiring women to watch videos of this and that; and on and on.

The intent of such laws is clearly (and avowedly) to limit and/or prevent abortions by making them difficult to obtain, unnecessarily expensive, unnecessarily time consuming, etc.

And all the self-serving yakkety-yak about protecting women is just garbage: childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in the death of the mother than is abortion. Yet, women are allowed to give birth at home or just about anywhere _without_ the "protect the woman" crap that Republicans impose on abortion clinics.

And, come to think of it, those who kill abortion providers, bomb abortion clinics, scream insults at women trying to enter one, and physically prevent women from exercising choice -- they sure aren't voting Democratic.

:-)

Jenny

[Hank]

I guess my response went over your head which is typical for you. I'll try to spell it out...

Lon started his rant with a political introduction. Lon and you, plus all politicians, want to make abortion a political issue. I feel politics, or laws, have nothing to do with a womans choice. The same way you feel drugs should be legalized. What a person does with their body is their business.

I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours.... so be it. If you don't like my "political" assessment, take your shit somehwere else. I am not going to be bullied by you and your constant yelling at everyone who disagrees with you that they are an idiot because they differ from you. I hope you grow up one of these days.

On another note, your candidate Romney has said he is against abortion. There is video if you want to search for it. Personally I don't give a shit.

Hank

[LonVanOstran]

Jenny6833A wrote:
> It seems to me that Republicans have done a lot to limit access to abortions and to prevent them happening: waiting periods requiring multiple trips to a far away provider; ludicrous requirements on clinics as to square footage, storage closets, etc; laws requiring women to watch videos of this and that; and on and on.
>
> The intent of such laws is clearly (and avowedly) to limit and/or prevent abortions by making them difficult to obtain, unnecessarily expensive, unnecessarily time consuming, etc.
>

> And all the self-serving yakkety-yak about protecting women is just garbage: childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in the death of the mother than is abortion. Yet, women are allowed to give birth at home or just about anywhere_without_ the "protect the woman" crap that Republicans impose on abortion clinics.

>
> And, come to think of it, those who kill abortion providers, bomb abortion clinics, scream insults at women trying to enter one, and physically prevent women from exercising choice -- they sure aren't voting Democratic.
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny

You've demonstrated an inability to dazzle us with brilliance, by
babbling a bunch of bullshit, which by the way failed to baffle us. Now
please present an example of a law that has been presented in either the
house or the Senate, which would outlaw either abortion or birth control.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Hank wrote:
> I guess my response went over your head which is typical for you. I'll try to spell it out...
>
> Lon started his rant with a political introduction. Lon and you, plus all politicians, want to make abortion a political issue. I feel politics, or laws, have nothing to do with a womans choice. The same way you feel drugs should be legalized.

Obviously Hank doesn't know the difference between an "election issue",
and something which is actually in danger of happening.

Lon

[Jenny6833A]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 12:54:47 PM UTC+2, Lon VanOstran wrote:
> Jenny6833A wrote: > It seems to me that Republicans have done a lot to limit access to abortions and to prevent them happening: waiting periods requiring multiple trips to a far away provider; ludicrous requirements on clinics as to square footage, storage closets, etc; laws requiring women to watch videos of this and that; and on and on. > > The intent of such laws is clearly (and avowedly) to limit and/or prevent abortions by making them difficult to obtain, unnecessarily expensive, unnecessarily time consuming, etc. > > And all the self-serving yakkety-yak about protecting women is just garbage: childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in the death of the mother than is abortion. Yet, women are allowed to give birth at home or just about anywhere_without_ the "protect the woman" crap that Republicans impose on abortion clinics. > > And, come to think of it, those who kill abortion providers, bomb abortion clinics, scream insults at women trying to enter one, and physically prevent women from exercising choice -- they sure aren't voting Democratic. > > :-) > > Jenny You've demonstrated an inability to dazzle us with brilliance, by babbling a bunch of bullshit, which by the way failed to baffle us. Now please present an example of a law that has been presented in either the house or the Senate, which would outlaw either abortion or birth control. Lon

If you're only considering _outlawing_ abortion or birth control at the federal level, you're being silly again, as usual. As long as a a bunch of SCOTUS rulings continue in force, any such laws would be void the moment they were passed. For that reason, the republican strategy has been and is to surround both rights with so many disincentives and unnecessary rules that it's effectively impossible to exercise them. The repugs are attempting to do that at both the federal and state levels. The intent of the repugs is clear. See Mark's quotes from the Repug platform. See also, as an example, the recently published 2012 Texas Repug Platform.

You're making a totally goofy argument.

:-)

Jenny

[nothermark]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:23:46 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/15/2012 6:52 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> >I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
>>> >English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
>>> >Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
>>> >claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
>>> >ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
>>> >simply prove that you are an idiot.
>
>> The claim is not a lie if you listen to a lot of folks who vote
>> Republican over abortion like I did over gun control. Like it or not
>> there is a large constituency that believes what the Republican
>> platform says indicates more than a simple issue over payment.
>
>So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Max. Since this was a
>discussion about political parties, can you name even one Republican
>member of Congress who has introduced any bill or constitutional
>amendment to outlaw abortion. If not then to make the claim is a lie.

It is not a lie. Differences in opinion and interpretation are not
lies but calling folks a liar because you do not agree with them is
abusively confrontational. You brand yourself when you go that
route.

As it stands there have been many state level attempts by Republican
Conservatives to pass anti abortion laws. That proves the point. Here
are recent attempts.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/mississippi/miss-anti-abortion-law-goes-before-federal-judge

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/federal-court-blocks-arizona-anti-abortion-law-85899408923

http://www.bluenc.com/federal-judge-blocks-part-anti-abortion-law-nc


As you can see, they always get shot down in Court. That leaves the
options of either trying for an amendment to the Constitution or to
stack the SCOTUS with enough folks to overturn Roe v Wade. It is one
of the reasons folks on both sides keep bringing up possible
retirements in the Court.

The only thing submitting federal legislation would do now is open the
sponsors to severe media criticism and a great deal of public
approbation. That leaves stacking the Court as the only option. The
latter gives me a chuckle when the Republican Platform talks about not
wanting Judges to pass an ideological litmus test.

In short, saying the Conservatives do not want to stop abortion is
like saying Sarah Brady does not want to get rid of guns.

[Larry]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:33:41 -0600, Max <thesam...@att.net> wrote:

>On 8/15/2012 6:44 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> So if you actually believe that some Republican politicians (after all
>> we were discussing political parties) want to outlaw abortions, name

>> one. If you can't do

>> it, admit that every time a Democrat politician brings up the subject,

>> it is to spread a LIE. Name even ONE Republican politician who has introduced any bill or

>> constitutional amendment to either the US House of Representatives, or
>> the US Senate for the purpose of outlawing abortions.
>>

>> And, ALL liberals do lie - it is axiomatic - the only way to publicly
>> support liberal politics is to lie about what you believe.
>>
>
>I'm using the term Republican as a term to describe those who aren't
>moderates or liberals. I personally know of a very large number of
>people who fit that description. Some are adamantly opposed to abortion
>and will support any politician who takes a stand against abortion
>(think: Michelle Bachmann)
>They consider abortion as "murder", plain and simple. No exceptions.
>The abortion issue is a litmus test with them.
>
>Why is it automatically a "lie" when someone's politics disagree with
>yours? I know several liberals who are totally convinced, they really
>truly believe, that our society will be a better society if the "riches"
>are more evenly distributed. They can expound for hours about the value
>of labor; about the importance of public schools and why the poor will
>always be poor if they don't have access to proper education and on and
>on about "liberal" causes. They're not "lying". they might be misled,
>misinformed, improperly educated, poorly read and any number of other
>descriptives but they're not "lying". They are merely giving "their truth".
>
>Now if you're talking about the MSM, they *do* lie and it's not only
>obvious, it's disgusting.
>

Max, you are still not addressing what Bruce asked you to do. You
sound just like nothermark when you answer a post with opinion to try
to divert and not answer a direct question.

I left the original request for you, from Bruce, above.

[nothermark]

Because it is true. It is also the way a lot of folks on the
capitalist side look at it. Especially marketing folks.

It all comes down to what constitutes a "fair" division of the
products of workers labor. If I employ a 100 workers making a product
do I deserve the same salary they do because we are all in it
together? Would 2x/10x/100x be more "fair" since I own the company?

I doubt you will get into the discussion so I will offer my assessment
as I keep getting called a Socialist. I would not work for the same
money. OTOH I would expect them to be able to make a reasonable
living. If that means I only make 2x and build equity in the company
so be it. If I can make 100x and pay them a comfortable salary we
have nirvana. If I lose my ass that's what I get for going into a
business I could not compete in. ;-)

[jerryosage]

What is to discuss?

You stated again that it is true and then veered off into what is
"Fair" by saying "It all comes down to what constitutes a "fair"

division of the products of workers labor."

That answers the question ??? How about me stating, "It all comes
down to the apple of 57." That makes as much sense as what you wrote.

I still fail to see how you, or me, becoming very sucessful forces
someone else to bcome very unsucessful.

Does that work everywhere? Does that mean that because my Daughter
earned top grades and recieved a scholorship to UC Berkeley that she
caused some kid to graduate HS without being able to understand and do
the 3 R's at a fourth grade level?

If we had known that she had that much free time, Mahoney would have
given her more chores around the house.

[Bruce S]

On 8/16/2012 5:10 AM, nothermark wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:23:46 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/2012 6:52 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
>>>>> English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
>>>>> Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
>>>>> claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
>>>>> ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
>>>>> simply prove that you are an idiot.
>>
>>> The claim is not a lie if you listen to a lot of folks who vote
>>> Republican over abortion like I did over gun control. Like it or not
>>> there is a large constituency that believes what the Republican
>>> platform says indicates more than a simple issue over payment.
>>
>> So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Max. Since this was a
>> discussion about political parties, can you name even one Republican
>> member of Congress who has introduced any bill or constitutional
>> amendment to outlaw abortion. If not then to make the claim is a lie.
>
> It is not a lie. Differences in opinion and interpretation are not
> lies but calling folks a liar because you do not agree with them is
> abusively confrontational. You brand yourself when you go that
> route.

It is not a matter of opinion though. When you claim that "the
Republicans" want to outlaw abortions, that is a lie. You cannot find
even one quote from the Republican party endorsing outlawing abortions.
Absolutely NONE of the bullshit you cut and pasted endorsed outlawing
abortions. This is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of FACT.

Since you continue the big lie, prove me wrong - it should be easy -
simply find a quote from the Republican party (I'll settle for a quote
from a party leader speaking for the party), where he says he wants to
outlaw abortions. You can't do it - because it is a lie.

> As it stands there have been many state level attempts by Republican
> Conservatives to pass anti abortion laws. That proves the point. Here
> are recent attempts.
>
> http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/mississippi/miss-anti-abortion-law-goes-before-federal-judge

More lies from mark - this is not a law banning abortions. It is a law
that requires that abortions be performed by a Doctor. Do you really
endorse surgery being performed by just anyone?

> http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/federal-court-blocks-arizona-anti-abortion-law-85899408923

This story was no longer available, so I looked up rulings on AZ anti
abortion law. Looks like mark has lied one more time. This law did not
ban abortions, only abortions performed after 20 weeks. And it was
ruled constitutional by the federal court.
>
> http://www.bluenc.com/federal-judge-blocks-part-anti-abortion-law-nc

Another lie from mark - this law did not attempt to ban abortions,
simply required ultrasound be performed first.

> As you can see, they always get shot down in Court.

And as you could have seen if you actually bothered to read any of those
cites, was that NONE of them were an attempt to ban abortions. 2 out of
three of them were requirements that the surgical procedure of abortion
be done in a safer manner. The third was an effort to protect a viable
fetus. Both good ideas that should be supported even by people who
support abortions. And in every case, they demonstrate that you would
rather lie to support your position than admit to the truth.

> That leaves the
> options of either trying for an amendment to the Constitution or to
> stack the SCOTUS with enough folks to overturn Roe v Wade. It is one
> of the reasons folks on both sides keep bringing up possible
> retirements in the Court.
>
> The only thing submitting federal legislation would do now is open the
> sponsors to severe media criticism and a great deal of public
> approbation. That leaves stacking the Court as the only option. The
> latter gives me a chuckle when the Republican Platform talks about not
> wanting Judges to pass an ideological litmus test.
>
> In short, saying the Conservatives do not want to stop abortion is
> like saying Sarah Brady does not want to get rid of guns.

If you think "stop abortions" and "ban abortions" are synonyms, you are
every bit as stupid as I believe you to be.

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." –

[Bruce S]

On 8/16/2012 3:25 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:48:27 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>>
>> I should wait for Lon to respond, but I have to ask, Can you read
>> English??? Lon asked why Liberals continually lie and claim that
>> Republicans would outlaw abortions. Did you miss the FACT that that
>> claim is a LIE??? You really are an idiot - you should go back to
>> ignoring political threads because every time you get into one, you
>> simply prove that you are an idiot.
>

> I guess my response went over your head which is typical for you. I'll try to spell it out...
> Lon started his rant with a political introduction. Lon and you, plus all politicians, want to make abortion a political issue.

And already you demonstrate that you did not understand what Lon wrote -
why am I not surprised? What Lon wrote was a pretty simple question -
Why do some politicians (liberals) insist on lying about what other
people believe about abortion and birth control. Lon did not bring up
his views at all except to say that it is a lie to claim he wants to ban
abortions or birth control.

Did I make that easy enough for you to understand? The only question is
why do liberals insist on lying about conservatives. Perhaps you have
something to add to that conversation.

> I feel politics, or laws, have nothing to do with a womans choice. The same way you feel drugs should be legalized. What a person does with their body is their business.

And you will get no argument from me - I only begin to argue when there
is another person involved, one who will pay the price of that woman's
choice.

> I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours.... so be it. If you don't like my "political" assessment, take your shit somehwere else. I am not going to be bullied by you and your constant yelling at everyone who disagrees with you that they are an idiot because they differ from you. I hope you grow up one of these days.

And I hope that you learn to read one of these days. If you had
actually stuck to the question Lon asked, rather than accusing him of
saying things he did not say, I would not even be part of this discussion.

> On another note, your candidate Romney has said he is against abortion.

Again, Romney may be opposed to abortion, but that is not what this
discussion was about - if you could read, you would already know that.
Being opposed to a thing is NOT the same as wanting to ban that thing.
Are you really too stupid to understand that difference?


--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." –

[Owen McKenzie]

Hey, Jenny, how do you think this guy will vote if he's not in jail at
election time?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-washingtonbre87e0vg-20120815,0,1976425.story

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Pigeon Forge, TN

We were promised hope and change.
We got hype and blame.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:53:33 -0500, LonVanOstran
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:

>nothermark wrote:

>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:18 -0500, LonVanOstran
>> <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> nothermark wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:19:42 -0500, LonVanOstran
>>>> <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me.
>>>>>
>>>>> When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best
>>>>> policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the
>>>>> Democrat him or her self.
>>>>>
>>>>> When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best
>>>>> policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever
>>>>> published about that Republican is accepted as fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, for the serious question.
>>>>

>>>> Serious answer

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
>>>>> opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
>>>>> free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?
>>>>

>>>> First try the Republican Platform:
>>>>
>>>> "We believe medicines and treatments should be designed to prolong and
>>>> enhance life, not destroy it. Therefore, federal funds should not be
>>>> used for drugs that cause the destruction of human life. Furthermore,
>>>> the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on use of controlled
>>>> substances for physician assisted suicide should be restored."
>>>>
>>>> "Protecting Rights of Conscience
>>>>
>>>> The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling. No
>>>> health care professional doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or organization
>>>> should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health
>>>> care service against their conscience for any reason. This is
>>>> especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major
>>>> portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of
>>>> faith communities."
>>>>
>>>> "We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens
>>>> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
>>>> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
>>>> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
>>>> is 100 percent effective against out-ofwedlock pregnancies and
>>>> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
>>>> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
>>>> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
>>>> Schools should not ask children to answer offensive or intrusive
>>>> personal nonacademic questionnaires without parental consent."
>>>>
>>>> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse
>>>> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
>>>> apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote
>>>> or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
>>>> We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family
>>>> values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."
>>>>
>>>> " We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a
>>>> parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to
>>>> assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an
>>>> unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on
>>>> the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than
>>>> abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering
>>>> abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those
>>>> who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and
>>>> we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has
>>>> followed Republican legislative initiatives."
>>>>
>>>> You can read that to include refusing to provide any kind of family
>>>> planning services that potentially end a possible early term
>>>> pregnancy. I would say they cover contraception and abortion. YMMV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, do a web search for republican roe v wade. You will find
>>>> ample posts from all political leanings that say the Republican Party
>>>> wants it overturned.
>>>>
>>>> Third, check out all the fuss over Planned Parenthood or funding
>>>> family planning training with taxpayer money including donations to
>>>> the third world.
>>>>
>>>> I could keep listing but there is enough here already.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask that question because the vast majority of the Republicans I know
>>>>> would rather change hearts than change laws regarding abortions other
>>>>> than late term abortions, and almost NONE of them would deny women
>>>>> access to birth control, yet more than half of the women in America fear
>>>>> Republicans over these issues.
>>>>

>>>> Remember the Rush Limbaugh tirade about the woman who testified about
>>>> family planning?
>>>>
>>>> You do a have a good point though. I was one of those folks until
>>>> they also cranked up a few other issues to the point where they are
>>>> the more evil of the two parties.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We've had opportunities, if indeed Republicans want to change these
>>>>> laws. Republicans have controlled the White House and Congress. Yet
>>>>> these fears have not been realized.
>>>>>
>>>>> During campaigns, Republicans are asked the right questions. They answer
>>>>> them. They are almost never believed, in spite of the fact that history
>>>>> is there to be examined. When Republicans DO address these issues, it's
>>>>> always about forcing someone to PAY for either abortion or birth control
>>>>> when doing so is in violation of their moral beliefs.
>>>>

>>>> Pay is the a smokescreen. The real issue is to prevent their
>>>> availability.
>>>>
>>>> There is another issue implicit with your statement. It implies that
>>>> somebody else's "moral values" trump mine. That is not a facet of a
>>>> free society. If anybody has a moral objection to providing a good or
>>>> service then do not go into the business where that is an issue.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it really all that important to Democrats that all employers must be
>>>>> forced to pay for insurance coverage they find abhorrent? Or is it all
>>>>> about scaring women into voting for Democrats?
>>>>

>>>> Actually it is about providing equal treatment to everyone. No one is
>>>> making anybody use the service. OTOH when there is no financial
>>>> burden to provide it there is no reason not to.
>>>>
>>>> A more significant question is why any business has a right to impose
>>>> the moral values of part of that organization on all the folks working
>>>> for it.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure as hell isn't about outlawing birth control, because Congress
>>>>> hasn't voted on that issue in my lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lon
>>>>

>>>> Actually, they have. They did it when they voted over allowing folks
>>>> to use "moral objections" as a reason not to provide coverage:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-01/birth-control-politics/53313252/1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your argument is regarded as rather disingenuous by most folks. The
>>>> issue is that the Republicans want Roe v Wade overturned via a SCOTUS
>>>> ruling. That way no congressrat has to vote and face the wrath of
>>>> it's constituency.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No! There isn't "enough already". You ignored my question and blew a
>>> whole bunch of smoke up my ass. I wasn't drowning until you tried to
>>> smother me with bullshit.
>>>
>>> You ignore key words. "Funding" "allow" and "forced". What you posted in
>>> response to my questions were LIES. The same lies always told by the
>>> left when abortion and birth control are the questions.
>>>
>>> You equate "pay for" and "allow" as though they are synonymous. Typical
>>> liberal lies.
>>>
>>> Lon
>>
>> You wanted a serious answer to your question and you got one. What I
>> listed is a small part of why folks on the other side do not trust the
>> Republican party. You can accept it or go play with yourself for all
>> I care. It is still the answer. You do not get to define how other
>> people think.
>>
>
>They don't trust the Republican party because they believe the bald
>faced lies of the Democrats, and the press looks the other way while the
>Dems lie.
>
>Which Republican has presented WHAT BILL attempting to make birth
>control illegal?
>
>You can't present one because all you have are the lies of the Dems, and
>their co-conspiritors in the press.
>
>You didn't answer my question. All you've done so far is repeat the lies
>I posted about. Where's the beef?
>
>Lon


Evidently the "beef" packed with your brains. Aside from the
gratuitous slams against liberals you asked why they think the
Conservatives want to outlaw birth control and abortion. I told you
why but you reject it. You seem to think you can dictate how other
folks should think. When you become God let us know.

Your complaint is that there have been no federal laws attempted
recently. That is a bogus argument. There have been multiple state
attempts to limit or prevent abortion. They all fail once they hit
the Courts because of Roe v Wade. The next move has to be to pack the
SCOTUS so they can overturn that decision. It's that or a
Constitutional amendment that does not have a snowball in Hell's
chance of passing. The congressrats know that. The politicians know
it. What I find interesting is that you do not seem to know it. Who
does that leave as the moron?

[nothermark]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:58:09 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Your argument is based on a LIE (actually several lies).
>
>First, go back and read what Lon actually wrote, not what you wanted him
>to write, but his actual words. Here I'll make it easy for you:

>
> >> "Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
> >> opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
> >> free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?"
>

>Do you see the words "outlaw" and "prevent" in there??? Can you find
>anywhere in all the bullshit you copied and pasted where the Republicans
>actually endorse "outlaw[ing]" "prevent[ing]" anything?
>
>The only thing Republicans have advocated outlawing is having the
>federal government pay for abortions and birth control pills. Are you
>one of those idiots who think that making people pay for their own
>medical procedures is the same as outlawing those procedures?


Matter of fact it is in there:

> "We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens
> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
> behavior.

Pretty much says to stop teaching and presumably making available
contraception other than abstinence.

>> "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse
>> legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
>> apply to unborn children.

Seems to say that a fetus has rights that trump the host.

>>We oppose using public revenues to promote
>> or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

Because since they cannot stop it all they can do is try to aoid
paying for it.

>> We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family
>> values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."

But they claim they do not support judicial litmus tests. Must be no
test as long as they are anti abortion.

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> Hey, Jenny, how do you think this guy will vote if he's not in jail at
> election time?
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-washingtonbre87e0vg-20120815,0,1976425.story

Differently than this guy would have?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30roeder.html

[nothermark]

How people get to be more wealthy than other people.

>
>You stated again that it is true and then veered off into what is
>"Fair" by saying "It all comes down to what constitutes a "fair"
>division of the products of workers labor."

It is an answer to the question. I have seen too many hard working
but low paid folks to think that work alone is the answer. I have
seem too many low paid smart folks to think raw mental capacity is the
answer. I have seen too many folks with well above an average
education that were not well paid to think education was the answer.
That tells me there are factors of luck and timing in the mix.

I have been in enough conversations with folks who succeeded well but
deny luck and timing to think that they reject it as it is the only
way they can justify their success to themselves.

>
>That answers the question ??? How about me stating, "It all comes
>down to the apple of 57." That makes as much sense as what you wrote.

Maybe to you. Not to me.

>
>I still fail to see how you, or me, becoming very sucessful forces
>someone else to bcome very unsucessful.

Somebody gets to corner the market.

I do not know of any way to make money that is not limited in some
way. Either the market's ability to absorb product or anyone's
ability to produce it creates a limit. If there is a limit then the
more one supplier gets the less that is left over for the other
suppliers. From there it's a matter of the size, value and number of
shares.

>
>Does that work everywhere? Does that mean that because my Daughter
>earned top grades and recieved a scholorship to UC Berkeley that she
>caused some kid to graduate HS without being able to understand and do
>the 3 R's at a fourth grade level?

As far as the underachiever goes there are levels of connection and
theories of causation that are beyond anything I am prepared to
discuss. I'll leave it to the Theologians and PhD Philosophers.

I will take it closer. Because your Daughter got the scholarship
somebody else presumably worked about as hard and missed it. Probably
many other somebodies depending on who was eligible. You can argue
she worked a smidgen harder than everybody else. I'll argue they all
worked very hard and she made a lucky guess or they made an unlucky
one that left her in the lead with the selection committee. I would
not try to guess what the tipping point was. I would be very
surprised to learn it was an easy decision for the committee to make.

>
> If we had known that she had that much free time, Mahoney would have
>given her more chores around the house.

But then you would not get to brag about her as much. ;-)) I am glad
she got it.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:21:58 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I am stupid about one thing. I thought we might have a rational
discussion.

[Owen McKenzie]

That is just as abhorrent. I was responding to Jenny's comment about not
voting democratic, but you knew that. You just taking another cheap shot
at something I posted.

[Max]

Briefly: Do I really believe that some Republicans want to outlaw
abortions? Is that the question to which you refer?
In case it is:
Hell yes I believe there are Republicans who *want* to outlaw abortions.
I'm not certain but I think Linus wants to outlaw abortions.
El Paso is heavily dominated by Democrats but I know of plenty of local
self described Republicans who would gladly outlaw abortion given half a
chance. I know of two local Republican politicians who have expressed
that desire. One is a state rep. and one is on the county
commissioner's court.
I have never alleged that a national politician intends to try to outlaw
abortion.

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 3:06 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> Hey, Jenny, how do you think this guy will vote if he's not in jail
>>> at election time?
>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-washingtonbre87e0vg-20120815,0,1976425.story
>>
>> Differently than this guy would have?
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30roeder.html
>>
>>
> That is just as abhorrent. I was responding to Jenny's comment about
> not voting democratic, but you knew that.

No, I didn't since I don't look at or read what "Jenny" posts.

>You just taking another
> cheap shot at something I posted.

No, I wasn't but I'm not much surprised that you would think so...

[Bruce S]

On 8/16/2012 3:16 PM, Max wrote:
>
> Briefly: Do I really believe that some Republicans want to outlaw
> abortions? Is that the question to which you refer?
> In case it is:
> Hell yes I believe there are Republicans who *want* to outlaw abortions.
> I'm not certain but I think Linus wants to outlaw abortions.
> El Paso is heavily dominated by Democrats but I know of plenty of local
> self described Republicans who would gladly outlaw abortion given half a
> chance. I know of two local Republican politicians who have expressed
> that desire. One is a state rep. and one is on the county
> commissioner's court.
> I have never alleged that a national politician intends to try to outlaw
> abortion.

And it is my contention that to say "republicans want ... " and then use
a single (or a few) meaningless low level individuals as your examples
is inherently a lie.

When you say, "republicans want ... " you are clearly indicting
republicans as a group, and therefore, must, if you have even a hint of
honesty, be referring to the majority of Republicans, or to the
Republican party. To say "republicans want ... " when you are talking
about some individuals is the very definition of a lie.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand how so many Democrats
would think that way, after all, every time someone around here says
"democrats want ... " every dem (or unaligned liberal) jumps in and
says, "I don't believe that." As if they are somehow important enough
to speak for the party - such narcissism would be embarrassing to see if
it weren't so rampant.

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
A bunch of bullshit having nothing to do with the question I asked,
which is typical of mark. He can't hold up his end of an honest
discussion, so he entertains the only kind of discussion he can handle.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Evidently the "beef" packed with your brains. Aside from the
> gratuitous slams against liberals you asked why they think the
> Conservatives want to outlaw birth control and abortion. I told you
> why but you reject it. You seem to think you can dictate how other
> folks should think. When you become God let us know.

I guess this means you can't answer the question. LOL

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Your complaint is that there have been no federal laws attempted
> recently. That is a bogus argument. There have been multiple state
> attempts to limit or prevent abortion. They all fail once they hit
> the Courts because of Roe v Wade. The next move has to be to pack the
> SCOTUS so they can overturn that decision. It's that or a
> Constitutional amendment that does not have a snowball in Hell's
> chance of passing. The congressrats know that. The politicians know
> it. What I find interesting is that you do not seem to know it. Who
> does that leave as the moron?

That would be you. You just demonstrated that you KNOW there isn't a
reasonable chance of Republicans changing the laws on abortion of birth
control. That was and is my point. It ain't gonna happen. You know it
ain't gonna happen, and you just explained WHY it ain't gonna happen.
Yet, you dishonest lying bastards on the Left keep telling the same lies
and damn lies about Republicans.

Lon, who recognizes mark's very first sentence as the lie it is, because
my only "complaint" was with the LIES TOLD BY liberals.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
>> What is to discuss?
> How people get to be more wealthy than other people.
>

You keep TRYING to discuss it, but actually only demonstrate that you
haven't the slightest clue how it's done. If you did, you might be
actually DOING IT, instead of whining about someone else getting rich.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Bruce S wrote:
> If you think "stop abortions" and "ban abortions" are synonyms, you are
> every bit as stupid as I believe you to be.

He KNOWS they aren't synonyms, but that doesn't mean he's not as stupid
as you believe him to be.

Lon5

[LonVanOstran]

Bruce S wrote:
>> I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours.... so be it. If you
>> don't like my "political" assessment, take your shit somehwere else. I
>> am not going to be bullied by you and your constant yelling at
>> everyone who disagrees with you that they are an idiot because they
>> differ from you. I hope you grow up one of these days.
>
> And I hope that you learn to read one of these days. If you had
> actually stuck to the question Lon asked, rather than accusing him of
> saying things he did not say, I would not even be part of this discussion.

I'm glad you chose to jump in here. I lack your patience. After 3 or 4
responses I find myself unable to wade through all of their lies,
distortions, misrepresentations, and interjected bullshit. So I start
treating them with the respect they've earned.

We need people like you to pick up the slack when my patience runs out.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Jenny6833A wrote:
> If you're only considering_outlawing_ abortion or birth control at the federal level, you're being silly again, as usual.

Then, why did you read such a "silly" thread, since that was my topic of
discussion?

The lie which has been repeated so often that most women in America
believe it, is that Republicans will take away your reproductive rights
if you are silly enough to vote for them.

Either their is a risk of that happening, or their is not. Which is it?
Which Congressman, Senator, or President, has presented a bill for
serious consideration at the federal level, which would eliminate any
woman's reproductive rights??

I hold that we are dealing with a bald faced lie that every Democrat
KNOWS to be a bald faced lie, yet they keep repeating the lie.

Are they lying, or are most Democrats simply so stupid that they are
buying into a bill of goods as well?

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

There is no limit to the extremes we will see on both sides of the
aisle, and on both sides of most issues. It's no more reasonable to hold
all Republicans responsible for the action of extremists, than it is to
hold all Democrats responsible for the actions of all Left wing
extremists. I don't believe we've seen Republicans trying to brand all
Democrats as tree spikers, or unibombers, etc......

There have been no serious efforts to pass bills outlawing either
abortion or birth control at the Federal level. Certainly no efforts
worthy of branding all Republicans as a danger to your reproductive rights.

Lon

[Bruce S]

;-)

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �

[Bruce S]

I'm back on my diet today after pigging out on Mexican food yesterday,
so my patience might be reduced as well. Nothing makes me as testy as
being hungry. ;-)

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �

[Vito]

"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote
| I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me.
|
| When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best
| policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the
| Democrat him or her self.
|
| When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best
| policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever
| published about that Republican is accepted as fact.
|
| Now, for the serious question.
|

| Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
| opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
| free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?

Maybe because the most vocal Repubs say they will do exactly that and the
rest (you and I??) fail to challenge them publicly.

What would happen if Mitt came out for the status quo on the issue
tomarrow? Makes sense to do so. But he cannot .....

[Lone Haranguer]

Max wrote:
> Briefly: Do I really believe that some Republicans want to
> outlaw abortions? Is that the question to which you refer?
> In case it is:
> Hell yes I believe there are Republicans who *want* to outlaw
> abortions.
> I'm not certain but I think Linus wants to outlaw abortions.

Max wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 6:30 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>>> Why is it that I almost never see a discussion about the torture
>>> that's imposed upon the babies that suffer the agonizingly
>>> slow death
>>> that results from terminal afflictions that can and often are
>>> diagnosed in the womb.
>>> If any one of you had ever witnessed the death spasms of an
>>> anencephalic birth that are endured because no one has the
>>> courage to
>>> prevent it you just might change your opinion a little bit.
>>> Extreme cases of Cystic fibrosis can be the same as can
>>> certain cases
>>> of Tay-Sachs disease.
>>> I have seen people die in war, in fires and in accidents but
>>> the image
>>> of a tiny baby dying is horrifying.
>>> On more than one occasion I have felt like saying, "goddamit, do
>>> something.
>>> YMMV
>> Fetuses also feel pain. There is some disagreement as to the
>> stage of
>> development when this occurs but there is no doubt that a fetus
>> feels pain.
>>
>> The only difference is that you have seen the suffering of
>> those you
>> mention but you haven't been present at a late-term abortion.
>> Would you
>> feel like intervening then?
>> LZ
>
> Damn right! I feel like intervening whenever it's established
> by a medical professional that there exists an affliction that
> is terminal.
> I'm *not* in favor of abortion for birth control.
> I *am* in favor of the right of a woman to terminate a
> pregnancy in the early stage (not after the 12th week) if the
> pregnancy is the result of incest or rape.
> I am also in favor of the right of a woman to terminate a
> pregnancy (prior to 12 weeks) if a medical professional
> determines that a child born from such pregnancy will be
> *permanently* *severely* handicapped.
>
>
I consider those to be reasonable compromises. As I have stated
in the past, I would favor each state have a referendum on their
abortion laws. If a person feels strongly enough about the
subject, they could always move to a state whose laws suit them.
People move now to change jobs, to avoid state taxes, to be near
relatives, for a warmer climate or find better schools for their
children. Or those seeking abortions could simply travel to a
state that has no restrictions. From what I've seen, it's the
"pro-choice" folks who oppose referendums on the topic.
LZ

You failed to read the response to your own post.
LZ

[Max]

On 8/16/2012 4:48 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 3:16 PM, Max wrote:
>>
>> Briefly: Do I really believe that some Republicans want to outlaw
>> abortions? Is that the question to which you refer?
>> In case it is:
>> Hell yes I believe there are Republicans who *want* to outlaw abortions.
>> I'm not certain but I think Linus wants to outlaw abortions.
>> El Paso is heavily dominated by Democrats but I know of plenty of local
>> self described Republicans who would gladly outlaw abortion given half a
>> chance. I know of two local Republican politicians who have expressed
>> that desire. One is a state rep. and one is on the county
>> commissioner's court.
>> I have never alleged that a national politician intends to try to outlaw
>> abortion.
>
> And it is my contention that to say "republicans want ... " and then use
> a single (or a few) meaningless low level individuals as your examples
> is inherently a lie.
>
> When you say, "republicans want ... " you are clearly indicting
> republicans as a group, and therefore, must, if you have even a hint of
> honesty, be referring to the majority of Republicans, or to the
> Republican party. To say "republicans want ... " when you are talking
> about some individuals is the very definition of a lie.
>

Um... reading for meaning? "There are", meaning there exist, meaning,
among republicans, there are those who, meaning not all but some;
meaning not the majority but some number more than one.
What if I were to say, "there are some prison guards who are brutal and
sadistic toward prisoners". Are you so sensitive that you would take
that as a personal affront?
I am not indicting anyone. I don't think it's a big deep dark secret
that that there are among the political group referred to as
republicans, some who would dearly love to see abortion outlawed.
I think there are some avowed democrats, and I'm not talking about the
democrat leadership, who would support a democrat candidate (if there
were such a thing) who would vote to outlaw abortion.
I think you're being at least a little dismissive toward the *average*
voter when you say, "a few *meaningless* low level individuals" as if
their opinion didn't count.
None of the foregoing is intended to demean the Republican party as a
whole. It is just the way I see it. Republicans aren't perfect... just
forgiven... ;-)

[Bruce S]

I apologize for confusing you. I was not addressing your comments as if
they existed without the context of the discussion as a whole. I was
addressing your comments only as they related to Lon's original post. I
am sure my use of the word "you" is what caused your confusion as to my
intent.

> What if I were to say, "there are some prison guards who are brutal and
> sadistic toward prisoners". Are you so sensitive that you would take
> that as a personal affront?

No, not at all, but if you were to say "prison guards are brutal and
sadistic towards prisoners." I WOULD take offense. You might later be
able to claim that you meant SOME guards, but that would not be what was
said.

And that brings us back to Lon's original complaint - Democrats (meaning
the Party, its spokesmen, and an apparent majority of the dimwits that
make up its membership) incessantly spread the lie that "Republicans"
want to outlaw abortion and birth control. That is NOT true - it may be
true that some republicans want to outlaw abortion (it is also probably
true that some democrats want to outlaw abortion), but that is not the
policy of the Party or the majority of its members and to make such a
claim is a lie.

Was I clearer this time.

> I am not indicting anyone. I don't think it's a big deep dark secret
> that that there are among the political group referred to as
> republicans, some who would dearly love to see abortion outlawed.
> I think there are some avowed democrats, and I'm not talking about the
> democrat leadership, who would support a democrat candidate (if there
> were such a thing) who would vote to outlaw abortion.
> I think you're being at least a little dismissive toward the *average*
> voter when you say, "a few *meaningless* low level individuals" as if
> their opinion didn't count.
> None of the foregoing is intended to demean the Republican party as a
> whole. It is just the way I see it. Republicans aren't perfect... just
> forgiven... ;-)

I think in the end, we have both said the same thing, and as I said, I
suspect it was my wording - the use of "you" that caused your confusion.
But I stand by my opinion that it is a lie to say "the Republicans
want to ban abortion" when what they mean is that SOME republicans want
to ban abortions.

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." –

[Bob]

In article <k0epuv$btj$1...@dont-email.me>, Lvano...@gmail.com says...

>
> I've been contemplating. A serious question keeps baffling me.
>
> When someone wants to know what a Democrat believes to be the best
> policy, it's almost universally practiced that they will ask the
> Democrat him or her self.
>
> When someone wants to know what a Republican believes to be the best
> policy, it's almost universally practiced that every rumor ever
> published about that Republican is accepted as fact.
>
> Now, for the serious question.
>
> Why is it almost universally accepted that Republicans, given the
> opportunity, would outlaw abortion and prevent women from exercising
> free choice when it comes to their reproductive rights?
>

> I ask that question because the vast majority of the Republicans I know
> would rather change hearts than change laws regarding abortions other
> than late term abortions, and almost NONE of them would deny women
> access to birth control, yet more than half of the women in America fear
> Republicans over these issues.
>

The Republicans in Texas are doing their best to do just that.

Bob

[Cole Martin]

Yes, just like McSame picked the airhead Sarah to tighten the noose
around his neck, Romney's choice of Paul Ryan will undoubtedly sink
his presidential ship!

Many, even members of his own party, are thinking Romney's selection
of Wisconsin senator Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate
is a move designed to assure he loses the election.


The entire campaign waged between Romney and Obama has been mostly
off
Broadway antics and no one has seriously thought Romney has stood
even
the slightest chance of winning. So the question becomes what do they
have planned for us over the next four years with Obama reelected?


In America, Republicans and Romney backers are confident the GOP
candidate can win based on dissatisfaction with Obama, but the truth
is there is simply not as much of an amount of negativity against the
current president as many in the GOP would hope us to believe.


In a vastly, fastly changing of demographics in America, there is a
large support base for Obama even if he messes up once in awhile, as
long as he holds steady and does nothing majorly wrong.


It is very clear even before either political convention, Obama will
be relected to the office of President of the United States.


The main reason will be because the Republicans, for some mysterious
reason failed to bring forth a candidate who could beat the incument.
This seems to be a bad habit the nutcase right simply cannot stop
doing---shooting themselves in the foot.


HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-PATHETIC BASTARDS!


GUESS THE ASSHOLES WILL NEVER LEARN!

[Jan Orme]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nomark does love to twist and spin.

Jan

[nothermark]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

Then why not post what I wrote so folks could see what Lon is trying
to spin this time?

[LonVanOstran]

What if rational thought suddenly became one of your capabilities?

But it cannot.....

[LonVanOstran]

Max wrote:
> What if I were to say, "there are some prison guards who are brutal and
> sadistic toward prisoners". Are you so sensitive that you would take
> that as a personal affront?

Nah!!! Bruce would know right off that you meant Lampson.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Max wrote:
> Republicans aren't perfect... just forgiven... ;-)

Nope. Republicans are only slightly less evil than Democrats. Pray for
gridlock in Washington DC, for we are stuck with a 2 party system.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Bruce S wrote:
> I think in the end, we have both said the same thing, and as I said, I
> suspect it was my wording - the use of "you" that caused your confusion.
> But I stand by my opinion that it is a lie to say "the Republicans
> want to ban abortion" when what they mean is that SOME republicans want
> to ban abortions.

I started this thread after observing on Facebook the musings of a
family friend. She's 20 years old, and contemplating her first
Presidential election. Like most 20 year olds, she innocently believes
there is a GOOD choice. During her musings, she revealed that she is at
her core, a Republican who opposes most Liberal efforts to eliminate
economic freedom. At the same time, shes afraid to vote for a Republican
"because Republicans will take away my reproductive rights".

At her age, few issues seem more important that those rights. Sadly,
it's not possible to bring forth enough proof to sway a mind so
thoroughly brainwashed by the main stream press. She will vote for
Obama, because she's afraid Republicans will eliminate her choice of
having an abortion that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of her
ever needing. She's not that stupid, and I would bet my last dollar that
she wouldn't have an abortion anyway after seeing her mom with her
sister's baby.

One day, reality will striker her between the eyes, most likely after 8
years of Republicans being in control and NOT banning abortion and birth
control, at which time she'll come around and never vote for a lying
Democrat again.

Lon

[nothermark]

Or you do not want to hear the answer. I think that is the case here.
All the planks in the Republican platform as well as others I did not
bother to pull out indicate a desire to limit contraception and
abortion to what is supported by the Roman Catholic church dogma. Not
what is practiced but what is preached.

[nothermark]

Lon, who is spinning like a top, skipped over the possiblility to
change the law. If the Conservatives can stack the SCOTUS with enough
justices who pass their "sanctity of life" litmus test they can
overturn Roe V Wade. If that happens all the states that tried
restrictive laws can have them. If enough politicians want to they
can pass a bill that will make it a national prohibition. It is not
impossible to do. The fact that it is too possible is part of what
has a lot of folks concerned about letting the Conservatives win
anything. They are anti freedom and anti American.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Lon, who is spinning like a top, skipped over the possiblility to
> change the law. If the Conservatives can stack the SCOTUS with enough
> justices who pass their "sanctity of life" litmus test they can
> overturn Roe V Wade. If that happens all the states that tried
> restrictive laws can have them. If enough politicians want to they
> can pass a bill that will make it a national prohibition. It is not
> impossible to do. The fact that it is too possible is part of what
> has a lot of folks concerned about letting the Conservatives win
> anything. They are anti freedom and anti American.

ROFL
When was the last time a Republican succeeded in nominating a SC
candidate that wasn't hand picked by the left wing press? Real
Conservatives get "Borked" every time.

Lon, who expect more and more diversion as Mark reveal his "real" side.

[LonVanOstran]

It hasn't been removed from the archives. If you can't remember what you
wrote, go look it up.

Lon

[Hank]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:44:58 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
> I think in the end, we have both said the same thing, and as I said, I
>
> suspect it was my wording - the use of "you" that caused your confusion.
>
> But I stand by my opinion that it is a lie to say "the Republicans
>
> want to ban abortion" when what they mean is that SOME republicans want
>
> to ban abortions.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

You seem to lump everyone together all the time. If 1 so-called "liberal" says something, you accuse them all to believe the same thing. Kinda two-faced aren't ya?

Hank

[Hank]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:19:35 AM UTC-4, Lon VanOstran wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> I started this thread after observing on Facebook the musings of a
>
> family friend. She's 20 years old, and contemplating her first
>
> Presidential election. Like most 20 year olds, she innocently believes
>
> there is a GOOD choice. During her musings, she revealed that she is at
>
> her core, a Republican who opposes most Liberal efforts to eliminate
>
> economic freedom. At the same time, shes afraid to vote for a Republican
>
> "because Republicans will take away my reproductive rights".
>
>
>
> At her age, few issues seem more important that those rights. Sadly,
>
> it's not possible to bring forth enough proof to sway a mind so
>
> thoroughly brainwashed by the main stream press. She will vote for
>
> Obama, because she's afraid Republicans will eliminate her choice of
>
> having an abortion that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of her
>
> ever needing. She's not that stupid, and I would bet my last dollar that
>
> she wouldn't have an abortion anyway after seeing her mom with her
>
> sister's baby.
>
>
>
> One day, reality will striker her between the eyes, most likely after 8
>
> years of Republicans being in control and NOT banning abortion and birth
>
> control, at which time she'll come around and never vote for a lying
>
> Democrat again.
>
>
>
> Lon

She is voting on what is important to her, not you, or me, or anybody else. Why can't you respect her opinion? Just because it differs from yours doesn't make it wrong. She has more life to live than you do.

Don't all people vote for what will benefit them and their families the most?

Like I said in my first response to this thread... Abortion (pro or con) should not be a political platform of ANY party, or decided by any court. JMO

Hank

[Bruce S]

If you have any evidence of me doing that, trot it out. And if you see
me do it in the future, call me on it. But right now I don't believe
you can do it.

--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �

[LonVanOstran]

Hank wrote:
>> >One day, reality will striker her between the eyes, most likely after 8
>> >
>> >years of Republicans being in control and NOT banning abortion and birth
>> >
>> >control, at which time she'll come around and never vote for a lying
>> >
>> >Democrat again.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Lon
> She is voting on what is important to her, not you, or me, or anybody else. Why can't you respect her opinion?

Because it's founded in an irrational fear which has absolutely no fact
behind it. She's been brainwashed by liars who feed upon her naive fear.
I respect her right to vote as she deems proper. But I'll NEVER respect
the lying bastards who've convinced her by deceiving her.

>Just because it differs from yours doesn't make it wrong.

That's absolutely correct. It isn't wrong because her opinion is
different from mine. That opinion would be wrong, no matter who holds
it, no matter who agrees with it, and no matter how many fools repeat
it. It's wrong because it is founded in irrational and dishonest lies,
spread by people who KNOW they are lies.

> She has more life to live than you do.

We sure hope so.

>
> Don't all people vote for what will benefit them and their families the most?

Nope. They vote for what they THINK will benefit them and their families
the most. Liberal Democrats count on that, create their propaganda
accordingly, and tell whichever lie will be most apt to win those votes.

>
> Like I said in my first response to this thread... Abortion (pro or con) should not be a political platform of ANY party, or decided by any court. JMO

Damn!!!! Since you admit to agreeing with me, why do you reject
everything upon which that opinion is founded?


Lon

[LonVanOstran]

How could anyone read what Bruce posts and come to that
conclusion???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Lon

[nothermark]

Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
right then and he scared me let alone the leftists. The problem is
the precedent that was set. Now *both* sides are playing stupid games
over appointments.

I would have said Roberts until the health care decision. Now it will
be interesting to see if he is another Earl Warren. Warren Burger
also did a fair job. Actually I don't feel like looking back to when
a Democrat was Chief Justice. None of them were picked by a left wing
press. I would say that up until around the Reagan or Clinton
administrations it was not a big deal who was picked. About that time
politics started down the slope of confrontation instead of
cooperation. There is a lot of room for argument over where the
movement became a downhill slide.

BTW, while researching dates I found this quote about Bork:

"Bork had more success as an antitrust scholar, where his
once-idiosyncratic view that antitrust law should focus on maximizing
consumer welfare has come to dominate American legal thinking on the
subject"

It could be that if he would have been appointed business would really
hate him now. He is still living so presumably would still be on the
bench. ;-))

[nothermark]

I know what I wrote. The point was only quoting half the needed
information. Problem is that then most folks would know what BS the
whine is.

[Technobarbarian]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ef7e6c3a-b826-4467...@googlegroups.com...

The Republicans want it both ways. They want the votes they get by
pandering to the religious right, but they don't think there should be a
price to pay for doing this. "Relax darling, it's all ok. Don't worry your
pretty little head about things that seem important to you. We'll make these
decisions for you. The government knows what's best for you."

TB

[LonVanOstran]

I always quote the portion of a post that is relevant to my response.
You've been pissing and moaning about that for weeks. In case you are so
stupid that you need it spelled out for you, here's the way it is.

If you don't like the way I post, FILTER ME. I'm not going to change my
posting style over you lying, whining, pissing and moaning like a whiny
little teenage girl. Grow up and act like a man. Surely there is a
teenage chat room where you'll feel more at home if you don't like the
posting here.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
>> nothermark wrote:
>>> >>Lon, who is spinning like a top, skipped over the possiblility to
>>> >>change the law. If the Conservatives can stack the SCOTUS with enough
>>> >>justices who pass their "sanctity of life" litmus test they can
>>> >>overturn Roe V Wade. If that happens all the states that tried
>>> >>restrictive laws can have them. If enough politicians want to they
>>> >>can pass a bill that will make it a national prohibition. It is not
>>> >>impossible to do. The fact that it is too possible is part of what
>>> >>has a lot of folks concerned about letting the Conservatives win
>>> >>anything. They are anti freedom and anti American.
>> >
>> >ROFL
>> >When was the last time a Republican succeeded in nominating a SC
>> >candidate that wasn't hand picked by the left wing press? Real
>> >Conservatives get "Borked" every time.
>> >
>> >Lon, who expect more and more diversion as Mark reveal his "real" side.
> Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
> right then and he scared me let alone the leftists. The problem is

> the precedent that was set. Now*both* sides are playing stupid games
> over appointments.


See? LOL You finally admit that you've always wet you whiny ass pants
every time you meet a real conservative.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Technobarbarian wrote:
> The Republicans want it both ways. They want the votes they get by
> pandering to the religious right, but they don't think there should be a
> price to pay for doing this. "Relax darling, it's all ok. Don't worry
> your pretty little head about things that seem important to you. We'll
> make these decisions for you. The government knows what's best for you."

So how is that different from the Dems pandering to the radial left
enviro-nazis while expecting not to have to accept responsibility for
all of the dastardly deeds of those very same crack-pots?

The truth is that Republicans don't build their argument on lies because
Conservatism is founded in truth and fact while Liberalism is founded in
lies and more lies.

Both sides need all of the votes they can get. The difference is that
Conservatives don't have to lie to get theirs.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 8/17/2012 11:35 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> She is voting on what is important to her, not you, or me, or anybody else. Why can't you respect her opinion? Just because it differs from yours doesn't make it wrong.

An opinion based on a lie IS WRONG. For example if someone had been
told that 0bama was a child molester, and decided not to vote for him
based solely on that, that person would be wrong. There are a lot of
legitimate reason not to vote for him, but basing a decision on a lie is
always wrong. It is the same thing with the abortion lie, if the voter
believes the lie and votes against a candidate solely because of a lie,
that voter has made a mistake.

Abortion (pro or con) should not be a political platform of ANY party,
or decided by any court.

If you really mean that, tell it to the people telling the lie, not
those attempting to correct the lie.

[Bruce S]

On 8/17/2012 12:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
>
> Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
> right then and he scared me let alone the leftists.

If Bork scared you, you were never conservative, right wing, or
libertarian. You have always been a liberal.

> The problem is
> the precedent that was set. Now *both* sides are playing stupid games
> over appointments.

As usual you are wrong. Look at the nominations of Roberts and Alito,
and compare them with the nominations and appointments of Sotomayor and
Kagan, then come back and tell us who is politicizing the process.

If you are capable of looking at the confirmation votes, and if you can
provide an honest answer for a change, you will report that it is the
Democrats who are holding the process political hostage. And despite
the fact that It was the Democrats who started the politicization with
Bork, and continued it with every Republican nominee since, the
Republicans have never stopped a Democrat Supreme Court Nomination.

[LonVanOstran]

Bruce S wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 12:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
>> right then and he scared me let alone the leftists.
>
> If Bork scared you, you were never conservative, right wing, or
> libertarian. You have always been a liberal.
>
>> The problem is
>> the precedent that was set. Now *both* sides are playing stupid games
>> over appointments.
>
> As usual you are wrong. Look at the nominations of Roberts and Alito,
> and compare them with the nominations and appointments of Sotomayor and
> Kagan, then come back and tell us who is politicizing the process.
>
> If you are capable of looking at the confirmation votes, and if you can
> provide an honest answer for a change, you will report that it is the
> Democrats who are holding the process political hostage. And despite
> the fact that It was the Democrats who started the politicization with
> Bork, and continued it with every Republican nominee since, the
> Republicans have never stopped a Democrat Supreme Court Nomination.
>

I'm now convinced that mark understands all of this and is simply
trolling. No serious poster could possibly be as stupid as mark pretends
to be.

Lon

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

Bear in mind that to Bruce the John Birch society was a bunch of
pinko's. ;-)

[nothermark]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:05 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<jomck...@escapees.com> wrote:

>On 8/16/2012 6:54 AM, LonVanOstran wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>> It seems to me that Republicans have done a lot to limit access to
>>> abortions and to prevent them happening: waiting periods requiring
>>> multiple trips to a far away provider; ludicrous requirements on
>>> clinics as to square footage, storage closets, etc; laws requiring
>>> women to watch videos of this and that; and on and on.
>>>
>>> The intent of such laws is clearly (and avowedly) to limit and/or
>>> prevent abortions by making them difficult to obtain, unnecessarily
>>> expensive, unnecessarily time consuming, etc.
>>>
>>> And all the self-serving yakkety-yak about protecting women is just
>>> garbage: childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in the death of
>>> the mother than is abortion. Yet, women are allowed to give birth at
>>> home or just about anywhere_without_ the "protect the woman" crap
>>> that Republicans impose on abortion clinics.
>>>
>>> And, come to think of it, those who kill abortion providers, bomb
>>> abortion clinics, scream insults at women trying to enter one, and
>>> physically prevent women from exercising choice -- they sure aren't
>>> voting Democratic.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>
>>
>> You've demonstrated an inability to dazzle us with brilliance, by
>> babbling a bunch of bullshit, which by the way failed to baffle us. Now
>> please present an example of a law that has been presented in either the
>> house or the Senate, which would outlaw either abortion or birth control.
>>
>> Lon
>Hey, Jenny, how do you think this guy will vote if he's not in jail at
>election time?
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-washingtonbre87e0vg-20120815,0,1976425.story


What all you flaming geniuses are missing is that it does not matter
how you interpret what is done/not done. The issue is how the folks
in question look at the actions and rhetoric. All your clever little
slams and gotcha's just convince folks you are liars.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Bear in mind that to Bruce the John Birch society was a bunch of
> pinko's

Was?

Lon

[Hank]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 11:35 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> >
>
> > She is voting on what is important to her, not you, or me, or anybody else. Why can't you respect her opinion? Just because it differs from yours doesn't make it wrong.
>
>
>
> An opinion based on a lie IS WRONG. For example if someone had been
>
> told that 0bama was a child molester, and decided not to vote for him
>
> based solely on that, that person would be wrong. There are a lot of
>
> legitimate reason not to vote for him, but basing a decision on a lie is
>
> always wrong. It is the same thing with the abortion lie, if the voter
>
> believes the lie and votes against a candidate solely because of a lie,
>
> that voter has made a mistake.
>
>
>
> Abortion (pro or con) should not be a political platform of ANY party,
>
> or decided by any court.
>
>
>
> If you really mean that, tell it to the people telling the lie, not
>
> those attempting to correct the lie.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

I don't believe anything a politician says because they ALL lie. You probably won't agree, but even Republicans lie. So, how many times have you been duped, or lied to, into voting for someone and they didn't follow thru with their promise?

Apparently Lon's relative (or friend) doesn't believe him... for reasons I understand. :-)

Hank

[George Anthony]

"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0ml13$r30$1...@dont-email.me...
...

>>
>
> I'm now convinced that mark understands all of this and is simply
> trolling. No serious poster could possibly be as stupid as mark pretends
> to be.
>
> Lon

He could be twins.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:30:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/17/2012 12:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
>> right then and he scared me let alone the leftists.
>
>If Bork scared you, you were never conservative, right wing, or
>libertarian. You have always been a liberal.
>
>> The problem is
>> the precedent that was set. Now *both* sides are playing stupid games
>> over appointments.
>
>As usual you are wrong. Look at the nominations of Roberts and Alito,
>and compare them with the nominations and appointments of Sotomayor and
>Kagan, then come back and tell us who is politicizing the process.
>
>If you are capable of looking at the confirmation votes, and if you can
>provide an honest answer for a change, you will report that it is the
>Democrats who are holding the process political hostage. And despite
>the fact that It was the Democrats who started the politicization with
>Bork, and continued it with every Republican nominee since, the
>Republicans have never stopped a Democrat Supreme Court Nomination.

I never said otherwise. The Conservatives pick anti choice candidates
and the Democrats try to block them. The question is who had the
litmus test. I'd say the Conservatives when they picked the
candidate.

BTW, I also used Conservative because most Republicans were pro
choice. That is one reason many have become independents. If you did
around I think you will find the party was socially liberal until the
Conservatives left the Democrats over abortion and birth control

;-).

[LonVanOstran]

George Anthony wrote:
>
>
> "LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k0ml13$r30$1...@dont-email.me...

> ....

>>>
>>
>> I'm now convinced that mark understands all of this and is simply
>> trolling. No serious poster could possibly be as stupid as mark
>> pretends to be.
>>
>> Lon
>
> He could be twins.

That would explain a lot.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 8/17/2012 9:54 PM, nothermark wrote:
> Bear in mind that to Bruce the John Birch society was a bunch of
> pinko's.;-)

And in your mind Thomas Jefferson was a right wing extremist.


--
Bruce
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it." �

[Bruce S]

On 8/18/2012 9:20 AM, nothermark wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:30:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2012 12:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>> Bork was an asshole who deserved to be stopped. I was pretty hard
>>> right then and he scared me let alone the leftists.
>>
>> If Bork scared you, you were never conservative, right wing, or
>> libertarian. You have always been a liberal.
>>
>>> The problem is
>>> the precedent that was set. Now *both* sides are playing stupid games
>>> over appointments.
>>
>> As usual you are wrong. Look at the nominations of Roberts and Alito,
>> and compare them with the nominations and appointments of Sotomayor and
>> Kagan, then come back and tell us who is politicizing the process.
>>
>> If you are capable of looking at the confirmation votes, and if you can
>> provide an honest answer for a change, you will report that it is the
>> Democrats who are holding the process political hostage. And despite
>> the fact that It was the Democrats who started the politicization with
>> Bork, and continued it with every Republican nominee since, the
>> Republicans have never stopped a Democrat Supreme Court Nomination.
>
>
> I never said otherwise. The Conservatives pick anti choice candidates
> and the Democrats try to block them. The question is who had the
> litmus test. I'd say the Conservatives when they picked the
> candidate.

So it is your opinion that politics IS a justification for not ratifying
the President's choice for the Court?

I only hope that the Republicans follow that line of thought for EVERY
candidate ever nominated by any Democrat from this date onward.

[Owen McKenzie]

I've left the entire post. Please explain, in small words so that I, who
is easily confused, will be able to understand just exactly what you are
saying in that post.

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Pigeon Forge, TN

We were promised hope and change.
We got hype and blame.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:13:27 -0400, Owen McKenzie

The basic question is why liberals think conservatives would ban
abortion if they could.

When anybody tries to explain it Lon or Bruce or somebody else trys to
shut them down with the arguement that the explanation is not valid.

My point is that if someone who thinks like a lberal looks at what the
conservatives say and do it looks to them like the conservervatives
want to end abortion and birth control.

It does not matter if a conservative does not see it that way as the
question is why liberals see it that way. One has to have a liberal
point of view. If one has a liberal point of view a lot of what
conservatives say looks like the conservative intent is to stop
abortions and birth control.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> The basic question is why liberals think conservatives would ban
> abortion if they could.
>
> When anybody tries to explain it Lon or Bruce or somebody else trys to
> shut them down with the arguement that the explanation is not valid.
>
> My point is that if someone who thinks like a lberal looks at what the
> conservatives say and do it looks to them like the conservervatives
> want to end abortion and birth control.
>
> It does not matter if a conservative does not see it that way as the
> question is why liberals see it that way. One has to have a liberal
> point of view. If one has a liberal point of view a lot of what
> conservatives say looks like the conservative intent is to stop
> abortions and birth control.

.
You know, Mark, your argument has some basis in reality. We, as
Conservatives who have observed what passes for thought on the part of
Liberals, should know that you would listen to what SOME Republicans
say, ignore the vast collection of Republican ACTIONS, and the results
of those actions, only to conclude that all Republicans are guilty of
wanting to do what no Republican has accomplished in all of the 39 years
since Roe v. Wade.

You are absolutely correct Mark. We really SHOULD have known that
Liberal Democrats are that freaking stupid.................or dishonest.

Lon