JM has said he would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

They are both scum bags.

Mere, I'm a "LIBERAL". Is this what you would say about me? To me, if we met?

Your presumptions about "LIBERALS" which I call PREJUDICE will keep you from getting to know some really nice people.

I try not to categorize people into GROUPS and make ASSUMPTIONS about GROUPS of people.

Only when YOU belong to the group being looked at.

YOU had zero problem doing this at other times on this site...and in FACT...you and I were on the same side in those discussions.

YOU also insisted on NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS until a black candidate is on board. All of a sudden the woman that said she wouldn't talk about this stuff...and that had NO INTEREST in the issues by her own admission..is all of a sudden a political junkie.

Gee, I wonder why?

Ummm...ok, mm.

That was a really convincing answer. Very logical. Because we all know every liberal is only out for debauchery and has an IQ of 25.

Have to go now, time for my daily fornicating.

Why is it that the one side always feels compelled to label the second as whatever type of abomination they can grasp at, while the latter just talks about why they don't agree with the former's policies? Why is it I'm not getting emails of cartoons of McCain intimating that he's actually a monkey, as I do about Obama? IMO, that says it all.

Just the smart ones.

I've never advocated PREJUDICE..have always spoken up against it.

Regarding POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS...I'm always growing and changing..wanting to LEARN new things...


I'm certainly far from being a POLITICAL JUNKIE...LOL...

Kettle Potato chips..that's another story...

Thank you for making my point.

Mimi, it is always so refreshing to see a black person use the racism and prejudcice card whenever someone disagrees with them..or dare question their motivations. I commend you for learning that lesson very well.

It's MERE that's being PREJUDICED unless she KNOWS ALL LIBERALS. That's what PREJUDICE is whether you're white, black, blue or green. It's called PREJUDGING... as in "DISRESPECTFUL JUDGMENTS"..you know it's spoken about on this FORUM alot..

How do you know I'm "BLACK" anyways?

That's not my COLOR.

Now back to my FORNICATING...

Please keep this discussion respectful. We don't want another OT locked thread if we can help it.

Thanks Everyone.

Mere, you are not making any sense. You quote something that is false, pure and simple. Then someone points out that what you quoted is false. And instead of acknowledging the mistake, you say the poster is "not getting it"? What's there to get other than you are quoting made up phrases?

AGG

"I just wondered - has there ever been an election where two potential presidents shared a view on abortion? Both Pro or Both Anti? Or is it a given that if one of the candidates takes the pro stance, then automatically the other will choose to go against? Has John mcCain actually stated that he will outlaw abortion or just that he is personally against it?

I can't vote. I'm just curious."

McCain's position on abortion is not something pro-life citizens are thrilled with. He's considered more moderate than pro-life. He has gained considerable pro-life support by choosing Feminist For Life member Sarah Palin as his running mate. Until then most pro-lifers were going to vote 'against' Obama by voting 'for' McCain because Obama is so extremely pro-abortion that McCain was considered the lesser evil.

McCain does support Roe v Wade being overturned, but that is actually a moderate POV, since polls consistently have shown that MOST U.S. citizens do NOT endorse the current legal status of abortion. The abortion industry, 'pro-choice' groups/politicions/lobbyists, and the biased media have been telling the public for decades that if Roe v Wade is overturned (or even ever slightly challenged) the result will be a total and immediate ban on all abortions nationwide. That is a blatant lie. All that will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned is the states/citizens will have their RIGHT to legislate what the legal status of abortion is, returned to them. There were already some states that had legalized abortion before Roe v Wade. Each state was already allowing the citizens, through the legislative process, the right to choose the legal status of abortion. THAT would obviously result in a moderate legal status of abortion, one that is supported by the citizenry, because it is arrived at via citizen involvement in the democratic process. The ONLY WAY that reversing Roe v Wade would result in all abortions being outlawed is if that is what the majority of the voting citizens actually wanted to have happen, and then made that happen by either passing laws through their state legislatures or by referendum vote. Polls consistently show that most citizens would endorse a moderate legal status for abortion, neither the current extreme nor a total ban.

The judges who passed Roe v Wade did intend for the states/citizens to still have the right to pass legislation to limit and regulate the abortion industry. Roe v Wade was SUPPOSED to allow the states/citizens to retain the right to pass legislation to regulate abortions in order to protect the women undergoing abortion. Roe v Wade itself contained ZERO safety or patient protection measures that would supposedly make legal abortions any safer than illegal ones! Again, those promised changes were supposed to be put in place by the legislative branch and weren't addressed by the judiciary branch. But guess who has put ALL the effort and funds into trying to pass such legislaton? Not 'pro-choicers' but pro-lifers. EVERY SINGLE legislative effort to protect aborting women has been fought by 'pro-choicers'. MOST of the legislative efforts sponsored by pro-lifers aren't even attempts to ban abortion but to grant aborting women the same standard patient protection rights and life-protecting safety standards as all other patients. Pro-choice citizens donate money, vote for 'pro-choice' politicians, buy 'pro-choice' bumper stickers, and chant the slogans because they want to 'keep' abortion 'safe and legal'. What they don't realize is they are giving more money and political power to the already wealthy and powerful abortion industry that is THE opponent of the legislative efforts to make legal abortions safer than illegal ones.

Abortion industry supporters dishonestly claim that all such legislative efforts are "threats to Roe v Wade" when in reality Roe v Wade provided for such legislation to be THE way that the abortion industry would be regulated so that legal abortion would be 'safer' than illegal abortion.

Roe v Wade also stated that the states would still have the right to limit 2nd trimester abortions and to even ban 3rd trimester abortions (unless the mother's 'health' is in danger).
But the abortion industry has opposed all legislative efforts to do so. Plus the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Doe v Bolton (same day as Roe v Wade) defined 'maternal health' excuses to abort to include financial, relationship, career 'health'... resulting to even 3rd trimester abortions on-demand being legal even if both the mother and baby are physically healthy! So even IF citizen legislative efforts succeed in putting in place a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with the exception of maternal health, that really doesn't protect any babies from abortion. Pro-aborts and the biased media accuse that pro-lifers would rather let a woman die than to kill a baby by abortion... the truth is the definition of matenal health provided in Doe v Bolton allows them to give the false impression that women having 3rd trimester abortions would die otherwise, when the mother's physical health/life is not really in danger. Very few people have even heard of Doe v Bolton even though it was passed the same day as Roe v Wade, BECAUSE the abortionindustry and the biased media don't want people to realize 3rd trimester abortion-on-demand, for non-medical excuses, is legal.

Overturing Roe v Wade is characterized as 'extremely-anti-abortion'. The truth is the current legal status of abortion is much more extreme than Roe v Wade ever intended because the legislation that was supposed to regulate legal abortion and make it 'safer' than illegal abortions never got passed. And all that willhappen if Roe v Wade is overturned is the legal status of abortion will be decided at the state legislature level. IMHO the BEST way to settle this decades old dispute, and to get rid of the decades old control the abortion industry has wielded, is to allow the voting citizens the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion by referendum vote.

McCain favors allowing the states/citizens the right to choose the legal status of abortion via the democratic process. THAT is what 'overturning Roe v Wade' actually translates to. And there is nothing extreme or even intrinsically pro-life really about that. It's just basic democracy, and it doesn't dictate in any way what the states/citizens will decide will be the legal status of abortion as the outcome. (However it is highly unlikely that the citizens will choose a legal status of abortion so totally unregulated as the status quo in regards to patient safety and so callous as to allow 3rd trimester babies to be brutally killed for shallow excuses. And since even a lot of people who call themselves pro-life would allow abortions for cases of rape and incest, it's a flat out lie that overturning Roe v Wade would result in a total ban on abortions in all such cases.)

It's taken a lot of time and pro-life efforts but the citizens ARE catching on that 'overturing Roe v Wade' is NOT synonymous with 'banning all abortions'.

Overturning Roe v Wade would be analogous to stating that slavery would no longer be left up to each individual slaveholder (and slave-seller) to determine the legality of, but would be decided by the citizens of each state via the legislative process. That wouldn't have been a total ban on slavery... and thank God that is not all that was done to stop slavery!

In fact the reason why a lot of pro-lifers support a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would grant legal 'personhood' and protection to babies before birth is because of the fact that overturning Roe v Wade would still leave so many innocent babies in danger. Even if/when Roe v Wade is overturned, it would take years and vast amounts of continued effort and funds to fight the abortion industry through the legislative process in order to scale back the legal status of abortion to what the citizens truly support. And since that would not result in a total ban of abortion anyway, those who want a total ban on abortion don't even see overturning Roe v Wade as the way to achieve that. (A citizen referendum vote would be much quicker, less expensive, and more democratic, but also would not result in a total ban on abortions.)

gee, I wonder why...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp

"Mere, I'm a "LIBERAL". Is this what you would say about me? To me, if we met?

Your presumptions about "LIBERALS" which I call PREJUDICE will keep you from getting to know some really nice people.

I try not to categorize people into GROUPS and make ASSUMPTIONS about GROUPS of people.'


You are so not getting it...

You know how some things can be so bitter that they seem sweet, and vice versa (I've heard that about honey and lemons.. or was it vanilel?) well there are people who think they are liberals but who really are so conformist they could be called conservatives and vice versa. I was the most extreme 'liberal' I knew personally, card carrying member and volunteer speaker for the ACLU even, pro-abortion, anti-religion to the point I thought it was the root of most evil and should be outlawed, did NOT vote for Reagan, and even at times expressed shame at how 'oppressive' our country was... Ironically as I learned more about liberlism vs conservatism, history, current events, and the 'liberal' causes, the more I realized that the founders of this nation were radical liberals in a sense; it's ironic that being patriotic is labeled 'conservative' now and many of those who call themselves 'liberal' don't seem to care if our country is taken over or absorbed into a global government. As I learned and matured I became REALLY radical - by becomig 'conservative' LOL

I totally get it that not all who call themselves 'liberal' believe or behave the exact same way. I DID NOT call you personally a 'fornicator' so lay off the false accusation, faked offense CENSORSHIP tactic already.

It is a fact that appeasing Islamic terrorists in order to maybe persuade them to not kill us is pretty much a 'liberal' viewpoint. I didn't exactly make that up and it is no way a put-down of liberals who in fact think that way (I imagine they believe it to be a superior way of thinking).

It is also a fact that those who do call themselves liberals AND also live the 'free sex' and 'abortion rights' lifestyle also dont' think of it as a personal insult to be acknowledged as such. (If you are an exception - a pro-life, anti-fornication, anti-porn... liberal say, then it would make more sense for you to confront your less moral fellow liberals than to chastise me, eh?)

*I* am not the one who hates liberals and wants to kill ALL liberals AND ALL Americans (even 4 year old grandbabies) because of the presumption that ALL AMERICANS (um not merely all liberals) are fornicating, aborting, porn purchasers... THAT is what Islamic fundamentalists think of ALL U.S. citizens.

Now my point was that if those who live that lifestyle (not all liberals do all those things but most of the people who do and defend those things are indeed liberals - it is not being prejudiced to acknowledge the fact that 'pro-choicer's are in fact predominantly liberals and vice versa is it?) stopped angering the Islamic fundamentalists by doing and defending those things, maybe the Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't feel so 'justified' in their zeal to kill all Americans?

Obama and liberals in general want to talk to terrorists and ask them what we did (wrong?) that made them want to kill us, right? And the presumption is that we indeed are doing something wrong that somehow causes Islamic terrorists to do things like kill my neighbor's grandson, something that we should stop doing, right? Well it's not exaclty some big secret that Islamic fundamentalists think a LOT of what we do in the U.S. is "evil" and justification for their Jihad against us:

things like abortion, women being allowed to drive, people not being forced to be Muslim, pornography, etc.

I refuse to play the: look moderators the mean anti-adultery, anti-abortion, anti-Obama poster is 'personally attacking' me game with you. Stop pretending what I posted was in any way a personal attack against you. I was talking about how Islamic terrorists are SO prejudiced against ALL U.S. citizens that they want to kill us all (THEIR stated agenda - not mine) and WHY they hate us. I probably should have stated that not everyone who calls themself a liberal lives the exact same lifestyle as all other liberals... but hey I'm not an Islamic terrorist advocating killing all U.S. citizens based on the prejudicial opinion THEY have of ALL U.S. citizens based on what they've observed of our predominantly liberal media.

The notion that talking to terrorists to find out what we supposedly did that was so "evil" that they are justified in their goal of killing us all is stupid. But for those who subscribe to that sort of thinking then wouldn't it be at least logical to stop ignoring the fact that many of the things they abhor about us are things like abortion, pornography, and fornication? IF it's 'logical' to talk to them in order to find out what we did that they didn't like, for the purpose of appeasing them so they won't kill us, then surely you don't naively assume they won't bring up those things that they see as evil about us?

Plus I was also pointing out that Islamic terrorists also want to kill us all because we believe in democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Funny how nobody whined 'personal attack' or 'prejudice' about those things... must be because it's understood that THOSE things really are NOT evil or something to be ashamed of.

I don't know what kind of e-mail list you've got yourself on, b/c I have NEVER seen or gotten ONE e-mail like that.

And I AM a political junkie.

It's weird how Obama keeps talking about how McCain is playing the race card, but is unable to site ONE example of it....

and now you're talking about receiving these strange e-mails.

How odd!

Could it be because you have democrats on your mailing list? I have received no such emails myself.

I have also never seen such an e-mail, or until now even heard of it. And I am on LOTS of pro-life, political, 'conservative', Christian, etc. e-mail lists.

AND I watch the liberal media and have yet to hear any accusations or whining about it.

Who sent it?

"IMO, that says it all."

What does it say? and about whom?

Everybody who knows me would know better than to send something like that to me!

I thought the same thing. No one would dare send me something like that because that is not the company I keep. Obviously someone feels free to email it to her.

I am just wondering if she may consort with the Daily KOS-style democrats. They are rabid dogs who are not sophisticated or intelligent enough to hide their racism like some of the smarter ones.

Ditto. I thought the same thing.


Either that, or else someone on the left is making up these racist emails and passing them along claiming they came from the right.