US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t think Ryan’s co-sponsorship of the personhood amendment reflects an ideological position and is a bit extreme?
He is clearly a pro-life Republican. I know you equate pro-life with “forcing religion down my throat” but in point of fact it is a question of human rights, not religious practice. As I’ve said many times before, I was pro-life before I was even a Christian. I know you don’t want to go down the abortion road but Ryan (and I and many many more) believe that an unborn baby is a human being and should receive all of the rights of those of us surviving pregnancy and the birth process. I believe disabled people, those with mental illnesses and or mental impairment are also human. Not everyone agrees with this either. Those who opposed civil rights were also considered extreme. Doesn’t mean they are or were right.

I do not see this as dangerous or extreme. If Paul Ryan were to propose legislation requiring everyone to attend church on Sunday or how about legislation requiring us to eat broccoli twice a day, that would be extreme. Supporting basic human rights does not seem extreme to me anymore than the novel idea that skin color is irrelevant.

Again I don’t expect you to agree since you clearly think the only reason to prohibit abortion is to require a religious practice but I fundamentally disagree with this as well as your position on Ryan.

Lisa
 
I think Obama’s vaunted intelligence is overblown. Without his teleprompter, he strikes me as an average thinker, at best. His peers at the University of Chicago Law School were largely unimpressed by him. The same goes for students who rated him so-so after his first few years behind the podium. The people behind Obama made him what he is. Obama is an Empty Suit. Hillary beat him on the debate stage; Romney has done so once and will do so again.
Absolutely in full screaming agreement with you. He is NOT quick on his feet. He has a few pat phrases “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires” “fair share and fair shake” “corporate jet owners” and he regurgitates on cue like a seal clapping for a fish. You wonder if he ever had an original thought. Further and even more detrimental to this country, he seems to have rested on his laurels after inauguration day. Coming into office without even a smattering of private industry experience, you’d think he would want to learn how the economy works. Instead he relied on “experts” most of whom have long since left this sinking ship. Ditto with foreign policy. He seems to think living in Indonesia as a child is enough to understand the various cultures in the Middle East, the various players, the history and how best to deal with these foreign countries and their leaders. Our foreign policy is in a shambles and he couldn’t be bothered to attend daily briefings until he was "outed’ recently. He ‘outsourced’ even his signature legislation to Congress. I think he likes the jet and the perks but doesn’t much like the governing part of things.

They used to lambast George Bush for being anti-intellectual and incurious. This in spite of his strong attention to detail, starting early and being disciplined about attending daily briefings and staying in touch with his generals and advisers. He and Karl Rove had a contest who could read the most books. This hardly denotes an incurious or anti-intellectual.

The moral of the story is that it’s all about perception. People perceive Obama as smart because the MSM says he’s smart, HE certainly thinks he’s smart and he’s got an Ivy League education. Beyond that…the evidence please?

Lisa
 
He is clearly a pro-life Republican. I know you equate pro-life with “forcing religion down my throat” but in point of fact it is a question of human rights, not religious practice. As I’ve said many times before, I was pro-life before I was even a Christian. I know you don’t want to go down the abortion road but Ryan (and I and many many more) believe that an unborn baby is a human being and should receive all of the rights of those of us surviving pregnancy and the birth process. I believe disabled people, those with mental illnesses and or mental impairment are also human. Not everyone agrees with this either. Those who opposed civil rights were also considered extreme. Doesn’t mean they are or were right.

I do not see this as dangerous or extreme. If Paul Ryan were to propose legislation requiring everyone to attend church on Sunday or how about legislation requiring us to eat broccoli twice a day, that would be extreme. Supporting basic human rights does not seem extreme to me anymore than the novel idea that skin color is irrelevant.

Again I don’t expect you to agree since you clearly think the only reason to prohibit abortion is to require a religious practice but I fundamentally disagree with this as well as your position on Ryan.

Lisa
There you go again…Well, Nancy and I…Where was I? Yes, Lisa, your views on abortion and human rights are crystal clear to me by now, so no need to go down that road again. But the personhood amendment goes even further down the road and was rejected by Mississippi, an otherwise conservative state on social issues. I think only a true ideologue would want to amend the Constitution by declaring an embryo a person with the potential rights of a person. The implications of this might include prosecuting a woman, not only her doctor, for having an abortion since she would be instrumental in killing a person. And not only because of this stance do I consider Paul Ryan a right-wing ideologue, a worthy counterpart to the left-wing ideologue that is Obama. Romney, the pragmatist businessman, is not of the same ilk although he has the uncanny ability to morph into whomever he pleases.
 
Alas Hillary. She who should have been President, not Obama. Romney wouldn’t have had a prayer against her IMO. Worse yet, I blew $1,000 contributing to her campaign. :ouch: :crying:
I disagree. The African-American vote would be up for grabs if she did the same things Obama did.

But I have my doubts that the AHA would be law and she’d keep her hands off the RCC.
 
He is leading by more than that. 🙂
I think you’re right with respect to conservative Catholics (those faithful to the Magisterium and the Holy See), but I’m concerned about the milquetoast Catholic vote, not to mention leftist Catholics.
 
There you go again…Well, Nancy and I…Where was I? Yes, Lisa, your views on abortion and human rights are crystal clear to me by now, so no need to go down that road again. But the personhood amendment goes even further down the road and was rejected by Mississippi, an otherwise conservative state on social issues. I think only a true ideologue would want to amend the Constitution by declaring an embryo a person with the potential rights of a person. The implications of this might include prosecuting a woman, not only her doctor, for having an abortion since she would be instrumental in killing a person. And not only because of this stance do I consider Paul Ryan a right-wing ideologue, a worthy counterpart to the left-wing ideologue that is Obama. Romney, the pragmatist businessman, is not of the same ilk although he has the uncanny ability to morph into whomever he pleases.
Meltzerboy did you actually read the legislation or did you read someone else’s interpretation of the legislation? Must have been the latter as there is NOTHING in the legislation that says women or doctors will be prosecuted. It basically sends the issue back to the states and thus could allow people to decide what level of protection to provide. Further in making the line of demarcation the fertilization rather than stage of pregnancy, it removes the arbitrary nature of various earlier decisions regarding unborn babies.

The legislation is below. It hardly evokes the hair on fire, look out for the black helicopters response from the usual suspects.

At any rate, I don’t see this as meaning that Ryan is some frothing at the mouth crazy person who should be feared. It is his (and many others’) belief that unborn persons are persons. Crazy I know:shrug:

BTW as you noted, this didn’t pass in MIssissippi and it didn’t pass here either. Again hardly something to strike fear in the hearts of voters.

***To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
Code:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
Code:
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Human Life Act'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION.
Code:
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--

    (1) the Congress declares that--

        (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

        (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

    (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Code:
For purposes of this Act:

    (1) FERTILIZATION- The term `fertilization' means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

    (2) CLONING- The term `cloning' means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

    (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

 
"We’ve Heard It All Before" (Extended Cut)

youtube.com/watch?v=fZgQhnNRSuw&feature=share

If you have been thinking to yourself that some of the stuff President Obama is promising to do sounds a bit, familiar, you aren’t crazy.
SCARY!

Throw the seal a fish! He performs! He gestures! He regurgitates the same lines with the same gestures. I’ve seen cartoons of Obama as a puppet with Soros as evil puppetmaster. You have to wonder…

Lisa
 
Meltzerboy did you actually read the legislation or did you read someone else’s interpretation of the legislation? Must have been the latter as there is NOTHING in the legislation that says women or doctors will be prosecuted. It basically sends the issue back to the states and thus could allow people to decide what level of protection to provide. Further in making the line of demarcation the fertilization rather than stage of pregnancy, it removes the arbitrary nature of various earlier decisions regarding unborn babies.

The legislation is below. It hardly evokes the hair on fire, look out for the black helicopters response from the usual suspects.

At any rate, I don’t see this as meaning that Ryan is some frothing at the mouth crazy person who should be feared. It is his (and many others’) belief that unborn persons are persons. Crazy I know:shrug:

BTW as you noted, this didn’t pass in MIssissippi and it didn’t pass here either. Again hardly something to strike fear in the hearts of voters.

***To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
Code:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
Code:
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Human Life Act'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION.
Code:
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--

    (1) the Congress declares that--

        (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

        (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

    (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Code:
For purposes of this Act:

    (1) FERTILIZATION- The term `fertilization' means the process of a human spermatozoan penetrating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to create a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, which is a new unique human being.

    (2) CLONING- The term `cloning' means the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make a human embryo.

    (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of development, created by the process of fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.

Implications, Lisa, implications, not direct statements. BTW, is this the entire bill? If the legislation is so innocuous and typical of pro-life advocates, why then did it not pass in socially conservative states like MS and elsewhere? I mean, what were people afraid of that they voted it down?
 
SCARY!

Throw the seal a fish! He performs! He gestures! He regurgitates the same lines with the same gestures. I’ve seen cartoons of Obama as a puppet with Soros as evil puppetmaster. You have to wonder…

Lisa
I don’t wonder. I believe Obama’s ideological strings are being pulled by George Soros and others of his ilk.

Romney should run this as a political ad. It shows the complete emptiness of Obama’s promises.
 
Implications, Lisa, implications, not direct statements. BTW, is this the entire bill? If the legislation is so innocuous and typical of pro-life advocates, why then did it not pass in socially conservative states like MS and elsewhere? I mean, what were people afraid of that they voted it down?
Yes this is IT. I looked up the actual bill rather than the various editorials and blog postings which of course were full of editorial comments, and the FUD approach (fear, uncertainty, doubt). This is all there is. As you said, pretty innocuous on its own. My theory is this is a way around Roe in that it allows the states to decide at what level personhood or protection of the unborn is determined. What a lot of people don’t know is that before Roe abortion was legal in a number of states including my own. Further if you look at different states there are different laws regarding the death of an unborn baby if for example the mother is killed in a car accident or murdered or if the mother is injured and the baby dies as a result. Some states allow the bringing of charges for the death of the baby, some do not.

I do not have the Mississippi bill but I suspect it was a lot more detailed as to what potential legal action might be taken. I heard Haley Barbour speak about the bill and he voted against it as he said it went too far. Barbour is VERY conservative and pro-life so it’s probably a good indication the bill had some sort of onerous provision.

Lisa
 
A question, if I may:

Romney has said that he would lower income tax rates “paying” for them by eliminating deductions. Which deductions?:confused:
 
A question, if I may:

Romney has said that he would lower income tax rates “paying” for them by eliminating deductions. Which deductions?:confused:
Obviously he can’t give the exact deductions because a) he’s not Congress b) he can’t predict what will be enacted and c) if he does the Democrats will find something to pick on.

However if you follow Romney, in the past he has spoken of limiting some itemized deductions such as the second home for people of certain income levels. These deductions allow wealthy people to buy condos in Aspen and yachts so not so much exactly a middle class benefit. In the past he has also spoken of limiting beneficial treatment of dividends and capital gains after a certain limit. Further something he’s used such as “carried interest” may be on the table. With respect to businesses at the debate he spoke about a special deduction for oil & gas companies.

At this point he has to stick to concepts and overall ideas. Wading in the weeds will get him nowhere.

Lisa
 
Obviously he can’t give the exact deductions because a) he’s not Congress b) he can’t predict what will be enacted and c) if he does the Democrats will find something to pick on.

However if you follow Romney, in the past he has spoken of limiting some itemized deductions such as the second home for people of certain income levels. These deductions allow wealthy people to buy condos in Aspen and yachts so not so much exactly a middle class benefit. In the past he has also spoken of limiting beneficial treatment of dividends and capital gains after a certain limit. Further something he’s used such as “carried interest” may be on the table. With respect to businesses at the debate he spoke about a special deduction for oil & gas companies.

At this point he has to stick to concepts and overall ideas. Wading in the weeds will get him nowhere.

Lisa
Thank you, Lisa:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top