Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m ignoring nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not pose an immediate threat to the US and Bush, Cheney et al knew that, yet chose to misrepresent the facts to the American people. The case for war was based on the threat of the use of WMDs against the US, not on UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

All the rhetoric you use about “countries that sponsored terrorism and posed a threat to the west” can’t obscure the fact that, unlike al Qaeda and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq had absolutely no motivation to sponsor terrorism against the US. Hussein was a terrible dictator and abused his own people and his neighbors, but he had no particular grudge against the US like bin Laden did, he was not a jihadist ideologue like bin Laden, he was a secularist dictator. It’s too bad the pro-war Right doesn’t seem to understand or care about facts like that. Whatever his other faults, even Trump is smart enough to realize that the Iraq war has been totally discredited.
Actually, this country’s paradigm had shifted (I am explaining this again) AFTER 911 on how to deal with NATIONS that sponsored terrorism.

It is NOT an OBSCURE fact. It was an ACTUAL FACT that Iraq sponsored terrorism and in fact posed a threat to the west. Specifically the US.

You bring bin laden and it has nothing to do with it. Saddam had no grudge against the US? Wow.

I will say it again, and you an DISMISS this fact again if you want. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long BEFORE Bush took office. Which means the democrats promulgated the existence of WMDs.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

BTW, you know how much oil this country got from this? Basically nothing, and before someone brings up the typical Halliburton cliche, should know that too is an out and out lie.
 
I’m ignoring nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not pose an immediate threat to the US and Bush, Cheney et al knew that, yet chose to misrepresent the facts to the American people. The case for war was based on the threat of the use of WMDs against the US, not on UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

All the rhetoric you use about “countries that sponsored terrorism and posed a threat to the west” can’t obscure the fact that, unlike al Qaeda and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq had absolutely no motivation to sponsor terrorism against the US. Hussein was a terrible dictator and abused his own people and his neighbors, but he had no particular grudge against the US like bin Laden did, he was not a jihadist ideologue like bin Laden, he was a secularist dictator. It’s too bad the pro-war Right doesn’t seem to understand or care about facts like that. Whatever his other faults, even Trump is smart enough to realize that the Iraq war has been totally discredited.
Here is what UNSCOM found long before Bush took office.

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, “There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons,” or “that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.” However, the IAEA did find that “Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] … and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon.” Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that “the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program.”

Therefore, the Commission concluded, “it has not been possible to verify” Iraq’s statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.

Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in “obliterated” in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq “retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge” after 1991.

Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated).

UNSCOM found, however, that “bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated,” given the resources available to Iraq’s BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.

Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes “the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed… and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq.”

Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

**BW Warheads: **Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq’s story.

BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were “guesses.” UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

Remaining Bacterial Growth Media: UNSCOM determined that there remained substantial bacterial growth media imported into Iraq which remains unaccounted for: 460 kg. of casien; 80 kg. of thioglocollate broth; 520 kg. of yeast extract; and 1100 kg of peptone. The report says that “the amounts that are ‘missing’ are significant, and would be sufficient to produce quantities of agent comparable to that already declared by Iraq.”

fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm
 
Well, it could have been worse. Rumsfeld might have taken in a ball game with that murderer, Raul Castro instead of doing a “diplomatic handshake” with Saddam Hussein.
 
Another totally irrelevant piece. We were enemies with iran, who had declared a jihad against America. Totally and complete failure of Jimmy Carter policies which led to the hostage crisis.

As a result our country had an ally with iraq.

This country made an ally with stalin at one point This country was once enemies with England.

Besides not sure what point is. What, was Bush friends with saddam?

Sigh…

I’m done with this subject. We have went way of topic.
 
Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”
I’m not offering an opinion at this point on what the Bishop means, but rather offering so that people can read it and determine for themselves. It seems clear to me.

Again, here is a key passage, though I recommend reading the entire article as well as the Faithful Citizenship guide.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.
 
Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”
The main problem being there are no pro-life alternatives with Trump and Cruz being so pro-death.

It’s more a matter of weighing which candidate one thinks will cause the least amount of carnage.
 
The main problem being there are no pro-life alternatives with Trump and Cruz being so pro-death.

It’s more a matter of weighing which candidate one thinks will cause the least amount of carnage.
Not much of a question there. On one side, we have candidates whose party has enshrined the unrestricted “right” of a woman to kill her child - something that happens 2000-3000 times every day. On the other side, we have candidates who support policies that might at some point in the future cause harm to an undetermined number of people.

Which side is “pro-death”?

In the time it took me to type this, another 8 children were killed.
 
Not much of a question there. On one side, we have candidates whose party has enshrined the unrestricted “right” of a woman to kill her child - something that happens 2000-3000 times every day. On the other side, we have candidates who support policies that might at some point in the future cause harm to an undetermined number of people.

Which side is “pro-death”?

In the time it took me to type this, another 8 children were killed.
But who will do the most good for the American people?

And do you really think someone like Ted Cruz can stop abortion on demand? It’s going to be states’ rights issue, not one settled by the Supreme Court. They have already spoken regarding the Constitution.
 
But who will do the most good for the American people?

And do you really think someone like Ted Cruz can stop abortion on demand? It’s going to be states’ rights issue, not one settled by the Supreme Court. They have already spoken regarding the Constitution.
Do you not understand that Roe V Wade stripped the rights of the states to vote on the legality of abortion.

***Currently states have very limited rights to legislate abortion. ***

Roe broke down pregnancy in trimesters.

States may not limit abortion in the first trimester. Certain limits may happen in the second trimester, finally the states may limit abortion in the third trimester, but it needs to remain legal for life and health reasons.

Doe v Bolton decided on the same day as Roe that health reasons are so broad that they include financial health.

A pro-life president can limit abortions, such as when partial birth abortion was made illegal. Congress decided, and President Bush signed into law.

Mr. Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban bill.
 
Do you not understand that Roe V Wade stripped the rights of the states to vote on the legality of abortion.
I don’t think it did:

nullifyabortion.org/alabama-to-consider-bill-that-would-effectively-end-most-abortions/

nbc4i.com/2016/04/15/bill-to-completely-ban-abortion-with-no-exceptions-advances-through-alabama-legislature/

thenation.com/article/how-states-could-ban-abortion-roe-still-standing/

Even the late Justice Scalia said it should be a states’ rights issue. He was an expert in constitutional law.
 
Yes he was an expert. His decision was the dissenting decision in PP vs Casey, though.

When the SCOTUS issues a decision, then the dissenting views are also issued

The states are currently limited to the Roe language.

Alabama might successfully pass the legislation. It will be perhaps 10-15 minutes before the legislation is challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Pretend that the lower courts agree and it is challenged at the SCOTUS. Do you think Sanders or Clinton will appoint judges that will agree with Alabama?

No.
 
Yes he was an expert. His decision was the dissenting decision in PP vs Casey, though.

When the SCOTUS issues a decision, then the dissenting views are also issued

The states are currently limited to the Roe language.

Alabama might successfully pass the legislation. It will be perhaps 10-15 minutes before the legislation is challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Pretend that the lower courts agree and it is challenged at the SCOTUS. Do you think Sanders or Clinton will appoint judges that will agree with Alabama?

No.
I don’t think they know or even care. It was a Republican Supreme Court that upheld Roe and made abortion legal. It was likewise a Republican Supreme Court that decided PP v Casey. Abortions have declined 13% under Obama. Supreme Court justices aren’t the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

And states can still ban abortion:

thenation.com/article/how-states-could-ban-abortion-roe-still-standing/

The laws in Indiana, Nebraska, and Ohio laws are still standing, so I think the Alabama bill, if it passes, will stand.
 
I don’t think they know or even care. It was a Republican Supreme Court that upheld Roe and made abortion legal. It was likewise a Republican Supreme Court that decided PP v Casey. Abortions have declined 13% under Obama. Supreme Court justices aren’t the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

And states can still ban abortion:

thenation.com/article/how-states-could-ban-abortion-roe-still-standing/

The laws in Indiana, Nebraska, and Ohio laws are still standing, so I think the Alabama bill, if it passes, will stand.
Abortion is currently legal in Indiana, Nebraska and Ohio.
 
I’m not offering an opinion at this point on what the Bishop means, but rather offering so that people can read it and determine for themselves. It seems clear to me.

Again, here is a key passage, though I recommend reading the entire article as well as the Faithful Citizenship guide.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.
Still waiting for that quote…
 
As Catholics we loook to Holy Mother Church for guidance on these issues Not judges , elected officials or the personal opinion of internet posters Our Church says we must always oppose abortion and must never acquiesce to a culture that has legalized it. We have a responsibility to work to overcome the legalization of this evil and never vote to empower those who have vowed to keep it legal.
 
But who will do the most good for the American people?

And do you really think someone like Ted Cruz can stop abortion on demand? It’s going to be states’ rights issue, not one settled by the Supreme Court. They have already spoken regarding the Constitution.
Which is the greater good: Working to stop the murder of 1 million children per year that’s going on right now, or shutting down coal companies because of the possibility that there might be some impact to the climate in the future? Passing legislation to limit the funds going to the single largest provider of abortions, or raising taxes to pay for Flooty McHooperson’s degree in Ancient Indonesian LGBT Literature? Securing our borders and shoring up our economy, or continuing to allow unfettered border crossings so that we’ll always have a cheap underclass to exploit for their labor?

The platform of the Democratic Party supports definite evils and damaging practices that are happening now. The Republican Party platform supports practices that might be questionable, but also explicitly supports stopping those evils that are currently happening.

136 US children have died from abortion since my last post.
 
I don’t think they know or even care. It was a Republican Supreme Court that upheld Roe and made abortion legal. It was likewise a Republican Supreme Court that decided PP v Casey. Abortions have declined 13% under Obama. Supreme Court justices aren’t the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

.
As you know well, Roe was decided out of the blue by judges that nobody knew would rule on abortion, let alone in that way. And it was a generation ago.

More relevant to the present, when it came to partial birth abortion bans, every Repub justice voted to uphold bans on it. Every Dem appointee voted against banning partial birth abortions. Even renegade Kennedy voted against partial birth abortion, but not a single Democrat.

That tells us a lot more about where the parties are now than a decision made 40+ years ago. Presidents now know very well what their appointees’ views of abortion are, especially the Democrat presidents because NARAL does the vetting for them.

No Democrat appointee will ever vote to ban abortion, and for 40+ years now, none has.

Nor will any Democrat president appoint any justice who is not pro-abortion.

A vote for a Democrat president is a vote for abortion on demand. No question about it.

Any decline in abortions under Obama is probably due to the increased use of abortifacients that he wants to make us all pay for, including the Little Sisters of the Poor. And too, in an aging population, fewer women become pregnant.
 
Still waiting for that quote…
Ugh. I keep getting notifications of new posts in this thread and I keep checking in, hoping to find something new. But with few exceptions, each “new” post isn’t new at all – it’s **literally **the same thing (same point, same language) posted over and over. Please make it stop.
 
I don’t think they know or even care. It was a Republican Supreme Court that upheld Roe and made abortion legal. It was likewise a Republican Supreme Court that decided PP v Casey. Abortions have declined 13% under Obama. Supreme Court justices aren’t the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

And states can still ban abortion:

thenation.com/article/how-states-could-ban-abortion-roe-still-standing/

The laws in Indiana, Nebraska, and Ohio laws are still standing, so I think the Alabama bill, if it passes, will stand.
You’re overstating what the SCOTUS did in in PP v. Casey.

That decision wasn’t a complete carte blanche upholding of Roe.

Roe v. Wade was partially overruled by PP. v. Casey.

PP. v. Casey upheld the “essential holding” of Roe, but the SCOTUS decision greatly lowered the legal scrutiny standard applied to laws regulating abortion from a Strict Scrutiny Legal Standard (i.e., a government law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest), the most stringent standard of judicial review in Constitutional Law applied to laws affecting Constitutional Fundamental Rights to a greatly lower form of Constitutional protection called an “undue burden” standard (i.e., if a government law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus).

Thus, PP. v. Casey held that abortion is no longer a Constitutional fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and partially overruled Roe.

See, News Media blasts its propaganda nonstop 24/7 + 365 that the Republican U.S. Supreme Court Justices completely upheld Roe in PP v. Casey but the Truth is different from the fictional world the handful of Talking Heads and couple of thousand news writers depict.
 
To wit:
In replacing the trimester framework with the viability framework, the plurality also replaced the strict scrutiny analysis under Roe, with the “undue burden” standard previously developed by O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.[18] A legal restriction posing an undue burden is one that has “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”[19] An undue burden is found even where a statute purports to further the interest of potential life or another valid state interest, if it places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s fundamental right to choice.[20]
In applying this new standard, the plurality overruled City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986),[21] each of which applied “strict scrutiny” to abortion restrictions.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#The_undue_burden_standard
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top