Impressed by Trump administration

• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848384 wrote:I've already given examples where that's not the case including our most recently appointed Supreme Court Justice.

  Right. He totally wouldn't overturn RvW. Come on, you've been watching too much Fox News. He will absolutely vote for Pro-life objectives which include outlawing safe abortions.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1848383 wrote:BIG liberal government should not necessarily be allowed to stand in the way of protecting innocent unborn children from being snuffed out.

  Big Government conservatives shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of a woman and her doctor.
  
  And again, it's Fetus. Not a child. Grow up.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848385 wrote:Right. He totally wouldn't overturn RvW. Come on, you've been watching too much Fox News. He will absolutely vote for Pro-life objectives which include outlawing safe abortions.

  I agree. He wouldn't. He was very clear in his conformation hearings that it's law and it has already been ruled on. Did you even hear his answer or are you making a generalized assumption of his position? I'm sure you could find it out there.
  
  I do hope he rules, however and if the law applies, for Pro-Life objectives. That's one of the reasons I was hopeful he would be appointed.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848382 wrote:Well then you should never vote for a Republican.

  I am not a one-issue voter, and I find the notion of being one extremely small-minded.
  
  However, I do avoid voting Republican about as often as I can.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848388 wrote:I agree. He wouldn't. He was very clear in his conformation hearings that it's law and it has already been ruled on. Did you even hear his answer or are you making a generalized assumption of his position? I'm sure you could find it out there.

  You don't revisit Roe v Wade; you pass a new law that sets a new precedent that abortion is illegal.
  
  Do you know how the legal system works? Your word games don't work in reality; you support OUTLAWING SAFE ABORTIONS. Reality, can't dance around it!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848390 wrote:You don't revisit Roe v Wade; you pass a new law that sets a new precedent that abortion is illegal.
  
  Do you know how the legal system works? Your word games don't work in reality; you support OUTLAWING SAFE ABORTIONS. Reality, can't dance around it!

  I didn't say you revisit Roe V Wade. I said that not all pro-Life candidates which it to be overturned and then gave the example of our recently appointed Supreme Court Justice.
  
  I believe I have a understanding of how the legal system works, yes.
  
  I've tried to answer you questions honestly. Why do you not answer mine when I pose them to you?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848391 wrote:I didn't say you revisit Roe V Wade. I said that not all pro-Life candidates which it to be overturned and then gave the example of our recently appointed Supreme Court Justice.
  
  I believe I have a understanding of how the legal system works, yes.
  
  I've tried to answer you questions honestly. Why do you not answer mine when I pose them to you?

  What questions am I not answering?
  
  You continue to misconstrue the idea that pro-life means not outlawing abortion. Here's a question for you, are you mentally retarded?
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848392 wrote:What questions am I not answering?
  
  You continue to misconstrue the idea that pro-life means not outlawing abortion. Here's a question for you, are you mentally retarded?

  In this "reality" you keep touting, that's a pretty textbook ad hominem.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1848393 wrote:In this "reality" you keep touting, that's a pretty textbook ad hominem.

  I have to ask because I don't know how "mean" I should be. If he is mentally retarded, like someone telling me that Pro-life means not outlawing abortion, then I will be kind. Otherwise, no.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848392 wrote:What questions am I not answering? ...

  You even quoted one of them. Are you not even reading the post you respond to? Here it is.

  ... Did you even hear his answer or are you making a generalized assumption of his position? ...

  
  

  sleeper;1848392 wrote: ...You continue to misconstrue the idea that pro-life means not outlawing abortion. ...

  I disagree.
  

  sleeper;1848392 wrote:...Here's a question for you, are you mentally retarded?

  No.
• sleeper

  

  Okay to answer your question, I did hear his answer and it is meaningless to the issue of outlawing abortion.
  
  He wants to outlaw abortion and he is pro-life. He played you.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848394 wrote:I have to ask because I don't know how "mean" I should be. If he is mentally retarded, like someone telling me that Pro-life means not outlawing abortion, then I will be kind. Otherwise, no.

  If you stick to actual logic, you don't need to worry about it. Since you're the one who is repeatedly having to tell people how logical you're being, and how your views align most closely with reality, it would be prudent to demonstrate it by sticking to those, instead of resorting to the sorts of things you accuse Republican supporters of.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1848397 wrote:If you stick to actual logic, you don't need to worry about it. Since you're the one who is repeatedly having to tell people how logical you're being, and how your views align most closely with reality, it would be prudent to demonstrate it by sticking to those, instead of resorting to the sorts of things you accuse Republican supporters of.

  Cut the shit. Republicans are horrible people. I don't accuse them of anything other than ignorance and a complete lack of empathy for the world.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848396 wrote:Okay to answer your question, I did hear his answer and it is meaningless to the issue of outlawing abortion.
  
  He wants to outlaw abortion and he is pro-life. He played you.

  SO why don't you answer my questions when asked of you???? By the way...that was another question. Thanks for answering this one...finally.
  
  I disagree that he played me. have you listened to some of the Senate members that voted against his appointment and what they though of his stance on Roe V Way being law?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848399 wrote:SO why don't you answer my questions when asked of you???? By the way...that was another question. Thanks for answering this one...finally.
  
  I disagree that he played me. have you listened to some of the Senate members that voted against his appointment and what they though of his stance on Roe V Way being law?

  I watched it all and not on Fox News. He is going to vote for laws that set a new precedent on outlawing abortion. It's so sad that you are ignorant to believe that pro-life is something other than supporting the complete ban on safe abortions. You aren't fooling anyone with your BS.
• Con_Alma

  Sleep...were you aware of many pro -lifers that are religiously affiliated, gasp, that don't want to see Roe V way overturned was publicized by a Pew Research Center Poll? By the way, that's a question.
  
  "...Slightly more than half (54%) of white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center study, favor completely overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion. No other religious group, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and white Catholics, agreed with completely overturning the ruling. ..."
  
  That leaves a lot of people that don't want to see it overturned.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848400 wrote:I watched it all and not on Fox News. He is going to vote for laws that set a new precedent on outlawing abortion. It's so sad that you are ignorant to believe that pro-life is something other than supporting the complete ban on safe abortions. You aren't fooling anyone with your BS.

  I have no need to fool anyone. You asked. I answered.
• Con_Alma

  "...In fact, substantial majorities of pro-life white Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be over turned, the survey found. But support for keeping Roe v. Wade intact does not mean these religious majorities believe abortion is morally acceptable. ..."
  
  From the Pew Research Center
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848401 wrote:Sleep...were you aware of many pro -lifers that are religiously affiliated, gasp, that don't want to see Roe V way overturned was publicized by a Pew Research Center Poll? By the way, that's a question.
  
  "...Slightly more than half (54%) of white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center study, favor completely overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion. No other religious group, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and white Catholics, agreed with completely overturning the ruling. ..."
  
  That leaves a lot of people that don't want to see it overturned.

  Then these people are misguided. Pro-life is about banning abortion. These people are not pro-life, they are delusional idiots searching for a way to defend their backwards 1500's ideology.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848403 wrote:"...In fact, substantial majorities of pro-life white Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be over turned, the survey found. But support for keeping Roe v. Wade intact does not mean these religious majorities believe abortion is morally acceptable. ..."
  
  From the Pew Research Center

  Then they aren't pro-life. Sorry, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. These people, as described above, would be pro-choice.
• Con_Alma

  I wonder what Judge Gorsuch's religious affiliation is. I believe he was raised Catholic but I though I heard somewhere that he and his wife now are members of the Episcopal Church. Could that possibly fit into the mainline Protestant's percentages listed above?
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848406 wrote:Then they aren't pro-life. Sorry, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. These people, as described above, would be pro-choice.

  There's more important things than the Roe V Wade decision. You yourself have said to reduce abortions we should keep it legal and fund PP.
  
  It's about working towards all of society not wanting an abortion no matter the circumstance. That does more than the law allowing or restricting the action.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848398 wrote:Cut the shit.

  Sleeper, meet irony.
  
  Irony, this is sleeper. Apparently, you two have never met.
  

  sleeper;1848398 wrote:Republicans are horrible people.

  In case you were unaware, this is an accusation. We'll be using this fact in a moment.
  

  sleeper;1848398 wrote:I don't accuse them of anything other than ignorance and a complete lack of empathy for the world.

  You accuse them of being horrible people above. This would appear to support the idea that, to you, what someone thinks has more to do with whether or not they're a good person than how someone behaves toward others. This would, then, justify the worldview reflected in your words on here, wherein you are frequently rather unkind, but you seem to justify it by thinking that having a certain set of beliefs makes it okay.
  
  Aside from that, you've also accused them of not living in reality and not using logic or reason. They have not, as far as I've seen, been nearly so insistent on waiving that banner. As such, they cannot be nearly as hypocritical as you, since you're using about the same level of logic that you accuse them of using.
  
  FFS, I support a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, but you're coming across as so emotionally-charged with a position essentially COMPRISED of logical fallacies that I'm spending more time poking at you.
  
  There's a difference between having the right answer because you arbitrarily or circumstantially happened upon it and having the right answer because you have the necessary knowledge to claim it. You appear to be demonstrating the former.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;1848299 wrote:It seems like this train always makes the station in most political threads if they go long enough.

  So what?
  
  I tell you what. I'll start an abortion thread so that everything happening in this current "discussion" can be contained there and be conveniently ignored by anybody who doesn't want to read 15 pages of back-and-forth pissing matches. It's not funny or interesting at this point. Fuck!
  
  Hopefully, some moderator can keep it on that thread, too.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848405 wrote:Then these people are misguided. Pro-life is about banning abortion. These people are not pro-life, they are delusional idiots searching for a way to defend their backwards 1500's ideology.

  There are other ways than trying oppose a court determined right. You yourself have stated as much.