US "Ready To Invade" another Country

Here we go again..

US ready to attack

This is a lose-lose proposition. Hit them with some drones or take out their weapons and air capability and then get the hell out. Can't we get a UN force in there like Clinton did in Kosovo?

Some1 should kill thouse US politicans,JFK style and hang that wigger Obama high....fuck it maybe nuke the whole US just in case there are some nazi left overs....

Uh....we want to prop up a al queda lead rebellion trying to set up a islamic state in syria why?

to keep the military industrial complex going strong, pure and simple. to delve a bit deeper into it, the majority of the western world is sick to hell of our constant war, so as of right now we have neither the world support or the domestic support to put "boots on the ground". that sure can change though if assad is taken out of the picture and the "terrorists", who we are now backing, take over. it then becomes much easier to spin it that going in is necessary to stop AQ and keep us safe. sadly, most of the idiots in this country will go along with that narrative, some people just never learn.

all that aside, this latest "chemical weapons" attack reeks of bullshit to me. first off, how do we even know these weapons were used, because we were shown some pictures of dead children and told so? second, even if they were used, how can we be sure it was the assad regime that used them? again, because we were told so. why would the assad regime, who have stabalized the situation to a degree in recent weeks, use chemical weapons when the west has said on numerous occasions that they would intervene if that was the case? the answer, i doubt he would and this is nothing more than more propaganda being shoved down our throats, truely sickening! if chemical weapons were used, my money would be that it was the rebels, possibly with some shady backing. when i hear this kind of shit, my mind asks me who benefits the most from an attack, and in this case the answer is as plain as day.

Congratulations. You just lived up to your screen name.

That's an awful thing to say.

Extremely thoughtful, intelligent post. Did you go to Donald Trump University?

Thanks I looove my screen name a lot.

Every time some1 says something wrong about the US,its an awful thing right!?Just because I said something out of rage doesn't mean I really mean it,i have fam over there,plus I don't like seeing civilans get hurt,not like some ppl around here.But would've been awful if I said something like "Nuke the whole Taliban"?!

DonTomas....HAIL HITLER

Well, it's clear where this thread is going.

Hey there JL!! Haven't seen you around. Hope all is well.

Believe me this isn't the ONLY thread. I don't think DeNiro intended for it to go in this direction, and there is a lot of hate in other threads as well. You haven't missed much.



TIS

I'm still here regularly, even if I'm not posting. Actually right now, I'm on a beach in Aruba.

What? Aruba? Lucky you!! I imagine the weather is great? Enjoy yourself!!!


TIS

Thanks. Weather is perfect, as it always is here.

I agree don if we hit it needs to be airstrikes ONLY. No American should be in ANY ground action in this. Let the UN pussies do it. I want our guys controlling drones and bombing the hell out of these idiots.

UN pussies? You mean like the nations that have been working hand in hand with Americans in Afghanistan? Which country would you prefer to see sacrifice its young men?
Canadians? Brits? Sweds? Belgians? French? Aussies? Kiwis? Spaniards? I could go on.

If you ask me, keep everyone far, far away from this. No Western army should be side by side with the FSA in any fashion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-YlD9UrpA4
Little motivation for my boy Barack.
Plain and simple, we decapitate and do business with whats left.
And while were at it lets send some troops go see that fuck toodoped.

I think that is the plan from what i've read. Cruise missles and some bombers. But i haven't heard or read anything on putting troops on the ground there and i hope that never happens.

But like everything in the Middle East it can quickly escalate. Iran said today if we hit Syria then Israel will pay the price. So who knows how any of this will really play out. I would bet after any missle attack on Israel they will then send bombers over Iran and try to take out their nuclear program sites.

Please let Iran do that so we can get rid of these fuckers once and for all. When are people going to realize that these fucks are the problem. Israel is the only place in that part of the world that is worth anything.

Yes I said it right, the UN pussies. You know the ones that hid while being shot at in Syria? That should be enough to wipe the assholes off the Earth there but yet the UN wants more evidence. WTF?

I'm with you again Vinnie, I wish Iran would have the balls to try to go to war with Israel. Many people don't realize that if we let Israel loose they would wipe most of those Middle Eastern countries off the map. They are begging to do it and as usual the U.S. is holding them back. I honestly hope for once we let them fight, as they would embarrass Iran in a full out war. We have had plenty of war games with Israel and their fighter pilots are some of the best out there. Please Iran buck up and watch what happens!

Just curious but do young guys still have to register with the Selective Service these days?

It stopped after the war in Nam but then Jimmy Carter started it back up during the American Hostage situation with Iran in the late 1970's. They got me on record but i'm too old to ever get called up.

Good question Gianacarlo. Back when I was young ALL young men had to register for the draft. I had two girls so it didn't affect my family. However, I'm guessing young men would have to be registered, even tho there is no draft anymore. There has to be some way to keep track I would think.

I don't know but I'm sure someone here has the answer.


TIS

Was that for the North or the South, Tis?

God bless Chris Rock.....



Peace

Obama has promised to not use ground troops if we take action. It will be drones or misssles, not soldiers. I hope he sticks to that strategy if we get involved. It looks like the United States is going to be doing something within the next few days, going by what I have been seeing on the news.

LOL! Chris Rock is great....i love his stand up comedy.

Did you ever hear his routine on how we should tax bullets? It was either $1,000 or $10,000 per round. Then he said if anyone ever got shot you'd know he probably deserved it since the bullet that shot him cost 10k. It was on one of his HBO shows.

Yes you still have to register for the Selective Service, I am too old for it myself but I registered in 1998 when I graduated.

These days it is tied to your drivers license, at least here in Alabama it is. When you sign your DL card, you are signing up for the draft. I'm not sure if this is nationwide or not but I'd imagine it probably is. Check your DMV the next time you go, it will be posted on their announcement boards.

After i turned 18 a couple of years ago i got something in the mail telling me i was now registered for the draft.

Thanks DIxie. Israel has the best army in the world outside of the US. They could wipe these fucks back into the stone ages... or, since they already live in the stone ages further back than that.

Peace and love peace and love. Either same something of consequence or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Chris rock is a funny guy. BUt if you go to him for politics it reveals where your at intellectually. He is another liberal celebrity who falls in line with the rest of the rich drones.

Israeli is the only worthwhile place in the middle east. Let the arabs destroy what little civilization exists out there, every year they seem intent on going further back to the 7th century.

i disagree, that distinction easily belongs to the brits.

What in 1955? The Brits are a complete joke today- a disintegrating welfare society with a two bit military. They don't even have kids anymore and have to bring in shit tons of immigrants to fill their ranks.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you. The Israeli's are tough, smart, tactical and have the resources. I am not saying the two would ever go at it. I am just saying, if I was a bookie, i'd put my money on the Israelis. Those are some tough sob's.
See yom kippur and 6 day wars. Despite being outnumbered, they have always found a way to win.

You are talking as if your posts were of consequence. Just shouting "hooray the Israelians and the USA, fuck the arabs!" isn't much more meaningful than saying "peace and love", as you put it, so you may SHUT THE FUCK UP as well with you belligerent attitude.

Actually Dwalin thats actually a much more practical policy than peace and love. Your right, lets hug these terrorist fucks, maybe if we suck their dicks hard enough they won't hate us. Oh wait, the only way they won't hate us is if we convert to Islam thereby aleviating ourselves of the plague that is Infidel status.

what would the israeli's be without the boatloads of money, technology, and training that we have given them?

besides the US, who has the best navy in the world? it sure isn't israel! the UK has a tremendously powerful and technologically advanced airforce. the royal marines might be a small fighting force but they are extremely well trained. their intelligence networks have been the model that all other western nations have followed. they were responsible for basically coming up with the concept of "special forces", and to this day a very strong agrument can be made that the SAS are the very best. now take all of that and combine it with one of the most battle-hardened forces in the world with regards to everything from anti-terrorism to special ops to large-scale conventional warfare. honestly, anyone who things that israel would even stand a chance against the UK in a conventional war scenario should take a huge step back and re-evaluate things.

No need to go from one extreme to another. Not bombing every country whose politicians and terrorists you have problems with doesn't equal to suck their dicks.

There you go Five, show your animosity for the Jewish state. I knew it was hidden in there somewhere.
I never said shit about who would win, I just said I think Israel would have a shot in a hypo scenario which will likely never occur, unless the Arabs keep taking over as they are already doing.
And for me to school you on what Israel brings to the table would be difficult for a guy like you. How bout Intellect, how bout a functioning economy not built on Oil? How bout not raping and pillaging their own people like all these sultan arabs do. Yea, these arab countries have great stable economies.

And for the record, I think the US should stop giving aid to all these countries. It would allow Israel to do what is necessary to these guys, without intervention from the US.

seeing how you don't like or agree with my statement as far as military power goes, i guess its only fair to frame me as anti jewish. are you a dontomasso alt? if you want to educate me, or anybody else with your amazing worldly knowledge, either present your facts, or shut up.

for the record, i don't give a shit what happens to israel. they are no saints, and are directly responsible for a great deal of the problems in the middle east. on top of that, i'm sick and tired of us as a country having to flood them with money. let them do what they want, let the cards fall where they may, i don't care.

Why would a lefty like Obama care about keeping the military-industrial complex going? It's easy to believe that Assad did, in fact, use chemical weapons on his people.

Yes I said it right, the UN pussies. You know the ones that hid while being shot at in Syria? That should be enough to wipe the assholes off the Earth there but yet the UN wants more evidence. WTF?



+1



+1

Israeli military > British military

Five. Why would I waste my time presenting facts to you? WE both know your gonna hate for no reason. You want to defund Israel but not the arab countries we give millions too? Why not?
Case settled. If you want to defund the Jews, and not the Arabs then you are an Jew hater, plane and simple. If you want to defund everyone then thats fine, ill believe you do not hate Jews. But if they truly de-funded everyone, Israel would wipe the floor with all these arabs. If you think differently, that is your right, but in time we will see whats what.

The Brits are still mostly white Little Nicky last I checked the number was 85 percent ethnic British. But it's true a lot of the European countries have had Arab and African immigrants come into the country. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I also wouldn't discount the UK. These are the people who fought against Hitler to the last man in WW2 and stuck it out until the US came along. They still have a formidable military and navy and their special forces are some of the best in the world along with ours and the Israelis.

Personally, I would love to see Iran get wiped off the map. Let them try those backward ass fundamentalists. Israel's been dying to let them have it, I say let em. It's no loss. Right now, Syria just needs to be stabilized badly.

Enough said. The strongest two militaries in the world are the USA and Israel. Its a fact.
God bless America. I hope that we put a world of hurt on these assholes without losing one soldier.

because its not a left/right issue at all, its a money issue plain and simple. as we have seen over the past few decades, both sides are guilty of selling out to those in positions of great financial power.



look how silly you are. this whole "argument" started because i said that i believed that the british military is more capable than the israeli military, nothing more, nothing less. i stated some of the reasons why i felt the way i do. where did i say that i believed we should only fund one side or the other? let me save you the trouble, i didn't. we should stop all foreign aid imo, we simply don't have the money at this point and we should worry about the people suffering here before taking up some misguided political objectives elsewhere in the world disguised as "foreign aid", "humanitarian aid" or whatever other silly spin those in power wish to put on it. let me say again, please share whatever info/reasons you may have that might differ from the views that i've expressed, thats generally how a debate works.

Come on that's not fair. FF is a good man. I think that the tension in the middle east is mostly from the Arabs not putting up and shutting up about Palestine. Israel can't let their guard down or else they can kiss their nation good-bye. But just because he thinks differently doesn't mean he's an anti-Semite. Don't jump to conclusions

Five. YOu said and I quote; "on top of that, i'm sick and tired of us as a country having to flood them with money. let them do what they want, let the cards fall where they may, i don't care." That pretty strong man. I didn't see you mention any other country but Israel. Whats your argument? That Israel is at fault for the problems in the Middle east? Thats such a ridiculous statement that its not even worth a response. Really?
Let me guess, you think Israel knocked down the towers.
It's not silly to spot out a hater and reveal him for what he his.
So you think that Israels military is weaker than Britain. Fine. But I think there is much more going on here than just numbers.
See the 6 day war. The yom kippur war when the Arabs attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar when every jew in Israel was in Synagogue. Who won that one?
Whatever,
I have no animosity towards you. Agree to disagree.

correct, but i sure didn't follow it up with anything like "we should give all of the foreign aid marked for israel to palestine instead so that the can get rid of them". my point is, and has been pretty simple and consistent: the middle- east is a powder keg that has already exploded due to people on all sides. we have no business getting involved. we don't have the money to get involved. we should fix the countless problems over here before going around as the policemen of the world proclaiming ourselves the keepers of all that is right and just. i'm sick of it. i'm sick of the constant war. i'm sick of living in a country where i feel the economy is bound to implode. i'm sick of this highschool like "click" attitude that we have employed to no end over the years that leaves us no other option than to side with our "friends" even when we weren't directly involved with the problem in the first place. i'm sick of living in a country that always thinks they are on the right side when violence is concerned. i'm sick of all of the countless lies, deceit, and abuses of our freedoms here at home shoved down our throats all done or directly attributed to the problems in the middle-east.

Russian Army > All your pussy armies

Thanks for that expert opinion mate. I don't know where you get your info from?? You may be right about a big surge in immigration into our country but none of them are in the Army.

Look at europe demographics across the board, the place is a disaster. Germany will shrink by 20 percent over the next few decades because nobody has kids. Who is going to pay for the social programs in these places?

The arab immigration is also disaster. nothing like bringing people from the 7th century to a modern society to engage in anti-gay stuff, honor killings and putting down women. Many are on welfare. But I guess when the third worlders do it its cultural diversity and wonderful.

Did you know the British navy is the only one with glass bottom ships?
That and the French. Bunch a tools.

DING! That hit it right on the head. We could only dream of that one happening. It sure would be nice though.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Yogi, sadly there is a coterie of new "people" on the boards who make up their "facts" as they are going along.

Whoosh!!!! Hilarious.

Israel is a great Army. Best intelligence is Mossad outside of the CIA. They got agents wacking people in Iran. When was the last time British intelligence wacked a chemical weapons scientist in Iran? Seriously, you guys sit on your fucking hands and placate these zealots while they take over your country. Disgraceful.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Yogi, sadly there is a coterie of new "people" on the boards who make up their "facts" as they are going along. [/quote]

If you and British buddy could read correctly- i was talking about British society in general and not the military. As he conceded, the birth rates are so low now and they rely increasingly on arabs/pakis/etc to fill their working ranks. Those kind of demographics are part and parcel with a society in decline.

Read What to Expect When No One's Expecting- dont worry Britian isn't allow in this issue.

Seriously dude that's fucked up. I'm not seeing zealots taking over Britain they are a strong ally and friend to the US for many years. Show some respect

Ask the IRA and The Falklands how weak the UK is.
Ask the CIA and MOssad how bad British intelligence is.
Please stop making things up to prove your points. This isnt Fox.

Good one. Anyways, when was the last time you were in Britain JoeSchmo? I have been there, and France recently. I cant tell you, it is not safe to walk with a yarmulka in many places. Not that you give a fuck anyways.

I was in Britain five years ago actually. Great place, I enjoyed my time there, love the people. Instead of being a douche bag why don't you show some gratitude to the UK, who are by no means weak or going down the shitter. I have the utmost respect for the British and it's people, military and it's intelligence. I also care greatly about the Israeli state, so don't put words in my mouth okay?

What a silly non-argument. The Israelis and the Brits are our two greatest allies. Period.

But I don't think anyone can argue the fact that Europe is going down the toilet in terms of the economy and their desperate need for immigration. And being that Western Europe has always been a bellwether for America, we shouldn't be so glib about it. It's not so much that it can happen to us, it's that it's already happening to us. It's no fucking joke.

I agree they are the US allies. But Britain is not a strong Israel ally.
I never said they were going to go at it. I just said Israel has a tough army. Toughest outside of the great USA.

No argument that England is quickly becoming a radical Muslim stronghold. But so is Michigan, for that matter. That's why I said it's no joke.

Michigan of all places. Couldn't say I saw that one coming in 1999. It's true Western Europe is having a lot of problems with immigration and depleted population. Who's the filling those ranks? Arabs. While I think most of those immigrants aren't causing problems, that radical faction is an ever present danger.

In addition, Europe's oh so perfect welfare/cradle to grave society is going down the shitter because they can't pay for it. I mean France bumped up taxes to those making above 1.3 mil 75%! Call me crazy but that's a little high

Fuck the French .

Perfect.
That actor Gerard Depardu or whatever moved to russia because of the taxes.

Hell we have to carry and save the Brits and French all the time anyways, who cares what they think? Haha

This could get good though if we hit Syria, then Syria and Iran hits Israel. I just don't think we'd hold them back if attacked. But I'm also afraid it would provoke us into ground action, and I just don't want to see that at all in this mess. I agree our ONLY fight in this is the concern over chemical weapons. Desperate people do desperate things, if he will use it on his own people he is bound to do it to others they DON'T LIKE.

Thing is now Obama has to back up his crossing the line speech or he looks weak.

You see the size of that guy? He looks fatter then Brando did. Anyway i read the other day he didn't like Russia so Belgium awarded him honorary citizenship. I think thats where he is now.

In no way has the US ever carried the UK. For instance there was about 15000+ more UK troops at the Normandy landings than US. I heavily respect the US as our allies, i don't get why a random amount of hate has came out in this thread towards the UK. After 9/11 the UK were one of the first countries to offer aid to the US in many different ways. Apparently our massive 7th century muslim population would've been celebrating, but i'm willing to bet 99.0+ instantly condemned it.

I don't get the US hate towards the UK, we sent 10000's of troops to join you in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many did Israel send? Don't get me wrong though i heavily support Israel.

i don't either, but i don't think the majority of americans feel that way. alot of it stems from the silly stereotypes of the arrogant, cocky, know-it-alls that they are often portrayed as in tv/movies.

i'm also a bit confused as to why so many here are trying to seemingly frame the country almost as a failed state. sure, the economy has hit a rough patch, but its held up much better than many other european countries, and its hardly a problem that we are exempt from over here. i'm no fan of the "big-brother" style of government over there, and the welfare system sure could use a tweaking, but again, that goes for us over here as well.

on top of all that, i've always found the culture over there very interesting, and it helped form the base of ours to boot. you guys brew some of the best beers in the world, and most of the popular american styles originated in the uk, with ipa's being a prime example. you guys have without a doubt the highest quality and best varieties of distilled spirits in the world, i'm a big fan of glenfiddich 12 y/o! you guys also have a real under-rated food scene as well, i love fish and chips with malt vinegar! plus, gordon ramsey is one of the most talented and entertaining chefs in the world!

No, i completely agree it's clearly a small amount of Americans and vice-versa. The majority would agree that we are the closest of allies, and that our cultures are intertwined, both sides have National treasures as it's called here, and both sides have many more fucking idiots like Kim Kardashian = Katie Price, any group of idiots = Jedward.

Have you been to any of Ramsay's restraunts? I haven't, i've been to the Fat duck (Heston Blumenthal) and a few of Jamie Oliver's restraunts (inluding the one that failed in Glasgow) though.

Who doesn't like the UK? I've never been there but it's on the top of my list (after Italy) to visit. My parents traveled there twice and loved it. They said people were very friendly.




TIS

All the syrian shit that went down
mossad was the first intelligence agency to figure it all out
Mossad Got them on tape. Wasnt hte brits my friend.
And calling me out for partisanship is hilarious coming from a guy who said Obama is the best president ever.
I think you have been watching a bit too much of RAchel Madcow.

Wasn't the Americans either my friend.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sas-hunting-syrian-missiles-allies-2231694

British special forces were last night hunting Syrian missiles in readiness for Allied strikes which could start as early as tomorrow night.

Cruise missile attacks and RAF raids are expected in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.

A military source said: “It is vital they find every missile site that could threaten British ships or RAF jets and they will probably be taken out by missiles fired from offshore. The risk of capture to these special forces units is off the scale and nobody can be trusted in Syria.”

The British hunt for missiles and chemical weapons – which includes the SAS, Special Boat Service, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and MI6 spies – is one of the most hazardous in modern times as they are up against Assad’s forces as well as some rebel elements.

At the top of the hit list are the President’s sophisticated long-range mobile missile batteries – some of which could be used against our jets.

Special forces troops will use laser and satellite technology to pinpoint the exact location of the key sites so they can be hit in a way that minimises the risk to civilians.

SAS
Warrior: One of our elite SAS men
Getty Images

It comes after the Assad regime’s chemical weapons attack last week, which killed up to 1,300 civilians, including children.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: “This regime has huge stocks of chemical weapons. We know they have used them on at least 10 occasions prior to this last widescale use. They have both the motive and the opportunity.”

Spies have already found scores of major military installations and ammo dumps in the war-stricken country.

Now the British military is waiting for the political green light as it prepares to act.

A huge force of Royal Navy warships and RAF jets could be called into action if MPs vote for air and sea strikes.

But it is likely any attack would involve a small number of precision missile strikes, launched from outside Syria.

The Navy will spearhead any UK operation against Assad, followed by the RAF, both working with US and French forces, but regular troops will not be sent in.

It is thought nuclear submarine HMS Tireless has been repositioned in the Mediterranean in readiness to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against Assad’s military.

Well I am the friendliest fella in the world TIS, but avoid the guy 3 doors down from me. Never speaks

Syria crisis: David Cameron's plea to MPs over evidence

MPs are debating a government motion which could pave the way for military action in Syria following a chemical attack near Damascus.

David Cameron said he was convinced the Assad regime was behind the attack and there was a "clear legal basis" for targeted strikes to save lives.

But he understood public cynicism about it after "the Iraq episode".

Labour's Ed Miliband said he was not against intervention but more evidence was needed to give it "legitimacy".

MPs had been recalled from their summer break early to vote on whether the UK should join in US-led strikes on Syria, if they go ahead.

'Abhorrent'
But the prime minister was forced to water down the government's motion after Labour refused to back it and a second vote will now be needed to authorise military strikes.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said a further recall of Parliament over the weekend had not been ruled out - as a report by UN inspectors, currently in Damascus, could go to the Security Council as early as Saturday.

Continue reading the main story
image of Nick Robinson
Analysis
Nick Robinson
Political editor
“
Start Quote

Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday - If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him”

Read more from Nick
Setting out the government's case at the beginning of a special Commons debate, Mr Cameron described last week's attack on the outskirts of Damascus as "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century, slaughtering innocent men, women and children".

He said: "Interfering in another country's affairs should not be undertaken except in the most exceptional circumstances. It must be a humanitarian catastrophe and it must be a last resort.

"But by any standards, this is a humanitarian catastrophe, and if there are no consequences for it there is nothing to stop Assad and other dictators from using these weapons again and again."

He said it was "not about taking sides in the conflict, it's not about invading, it's not about regime change or indeed working more closely with the (Syrian) Opposition" but it was about responding to a "war crime".

Continue reading the main story
Labour and the Syrian crisis

How Labour's position on Syria has developed this week:

Monday: Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander asked for a recall of Parliament saying he would "expect the prime minister to make his case to Parliament" before a decision was made about UK involvement.
Tuesday: Ed Miliband said there was a "lot of evidence" pointing to the past use of chemical weapons by the Assad's regime but any international response must be legally sound and be based on precise, achievable objectives. He did not mention the UN.
Wednesday morning: Mr Alexander stressed the need to see evidence from UN weapons inspectors.
Wednesday evening: At 17:15 BST Mr Miliband called the prime minister and said he could not promise support for the government's motion and would table amendment.
Wednesday evening: Labour published an amendment calling for "compelling evidence" that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons before agreeing to support a military response.
Thursday: Labour says it will vote against the government's "opaque" motion.
In a swipe at his Labour predecessor Tony Blair, he said "the well of public opinion has been well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode".

But he insisited the current crisis was not like Iraq and MPs would "decide which next steps" the UK would take.

Labour leader Ed Miliband told MPs he was not against military intervention. But he said Britain had to be "clear eyed" about the possible consequences of such action - including deepening Britain's involvement in Syria's bitter civil war.

'Moral authority'
He said Britain should not make the decision based on an "artificial timetable or political timetable set elsewhere" but should go through a "sequential road map" of events set out in his party's amendment to the government's motion - which includes gathering "compelling evidence" that President Assad's regime was to blame for last week's attack.

He said the way the decision was made would "determine the legitimacy and moral authority" of any action the UK undertook.

"I'm not with those who rule out action - the horrific events unfolding in Syria do ask us to consider the options available. But we owe it to the Syrian people, to our own country and to the future security of our world to scrutinise any plans on the basis of the consequences they have."

Downing Street has released a statement, based on legal advice by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, that states limited military strikes to deter future chemical weapons attacks would be in line with international law.

An assessment published by the Joint Intelligence Committee also argued it was "not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale".

But Labour MPs will vote against the government's motion later, tabling their own amendment saying there must be "compelling evidence" that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

A Commons vote is expected around 2200 BST. The House of Lords is also debating the motion but will not vote.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said he believed the government would still win Thursday night's vote - partly because Conservative MPs would be unwilling to hand Labour a victory.

Syria has accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike and says a UK strike would be an "aggressive and unprovoked act of war".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

Show me where I said I hated the UK?

all american males age 18-25 jhave to register for the selective service list.

aside from that who ever siad why dont we take thier weapons away, where the one who gave them thier weapons to begin with, just like when we gave alqueda weapons and CIA trianing to take on russia, they later used that CIA trianing agisnt us( hence 9/11)... WE NEED TO MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS, BUT WHEN CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE USED AGIANST INOCENT CHILDREN WE NEED EVALUATE IT AND POSSIBLy DOSOMETHING.

were really in our a rough shape as a country ourselves whos to sya we wont have a civil war 15 years from they haves agianst the have nots.

THE americans, brittish and french will be the frist to do anything if anyone does.

Try your spell check.

so the british parliament has voted down a military strike in syria, good for them. at least the issue is being discussed over there at the very highest levels, as opposed to this country where obama hasn't made his decision yet, which translates to he's made his decision.

This isn't the 1980's.

It's about time we start impeachment proceedings....

Obama Ignores Congress on Approval For Syria Attack

He's about to do what he said in public in '07 that shouldn't be allowed -- after all, he's a Constitutional Lawyer, right?

Obama should Read Constitution to Avoid Allying with Al-Qaeda

Even Bush got Congressional approval before searching for the WMD's that didn't exist. There's doubt about this (where there wasn't then), so this makes it much more serious!

...but not just that. There are over 100 Reasons To Impeach Barack Obama ...but no one has the balls!

Brace yourself, for the New World Order is about to unleash WWIII!

US readies possible solo action against Syria

[No, not the U.S., but OBAMA himself, disregarding once again the Constitution of the United States of America!]



Wow.

"WMDs" all over again......

Problem is... "on his own" means that WE are ALL in jeopardy now! Way to go, Commander!

this is a lose-lose situation in which Mr. Obama has himself.

To say the very least. And let's be honest, if Bush was pulling this shit we'd be screaming our heads off and calling him Hitler.

It's enough already with this ridiculous partisanship that's dividing this country even more than it was divided under Bush and Cheney (and that's really saying something).

I read somewhere that there'll be a second vote after the UN inspection. Depending on the results, there's every chance they'll vote yes since it was only defeated by 13 votes.

If Bush was still in power you would have been in Syria long ago..

Obama isn't going to invade Syria. He's going to order a few bombing runs and lob a few cruise missles and that will be it.

Europe wants no part of it and honestly i think we should just stay out of it. Send some arms maybe but thats it. If Iran attacks Israel let them fight it out. Israel has a large stockpile of nukes of their own. If it comes down to it they could incinerate Iran. I'm sick of us having to fight over there, shit we didn't even get any free oil after all that bullshit in Iraq. Let them all kill each other for all i care.

Its not our fight. Im all for saving the lives of syrian civilians who may be caught in cross fire/chemical weapons, amd what all. So how about we give syrians refugee status? A land invasion will solve nothing, and in case we havent learned from iraq or afghanistan, we usually are not welcome in these countries anyways

There's no way you could possibly know that so don't generalize, though I was opposed to Iraq

Troops are still being killed in the Middle East under Obama, who was elected for first term on a promise of getting us out of there. We're still there. An American soldier was just killed there today.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/2013082...hanistan-combat

not electing this man president may very well have been the last hope we had to enjoy peace and prosperity, shame on us for continuing to "play the game"!

Now looking back, it seems Obama made a mistake of drawing a red line of using chemical weapons for US military interference in Syria. Now he has to act on it, whether he wants to or not, otherwise America's red line for other countries, including Iran, North Korea and the rest of axis of evil! means nothing anymore. It's never about innocent civilians dying with chemical weapons. US kept quiet and content when Saddam used it against his own people, the cities that were invaded by Iran during the 8 year war between Iraq and Iran. And here Cameron says Syria's use of chemical weapons are the event of the century. Dude, the chemical weapons are the event of the century. It's not like Hitler had chemical weapons. They've been used before, and the international community seemed pleased with it then. It's hard to believe these guys.

Here's another American soldier killed in Afghanistan this past week:

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130830/NEWS/308300026/Drum-soldier-killed-Afghanistan


Where are all the anti-war protesters who were always following President Bush around? It's obvious that Obama is being treated differently by them, and by media. He is not getting much grief for not folowing up on his promise to get our troops out of The Middle East if elected. 2 killed this week, and no major coverage about it on news.

He is drawing down the troops in the Middle East. He was talked into the Surge in Afghanistan ( a mistake) but he is pulling out. We are effectively out of Iraq. Now with this Syria thing I have a question: Are we going to have to call the toast used with eggs benedict "freedom muffins?"

I read that Labour leader Ed Miliband had promised Cameron his support but then voted against. Cam the Spam is furious and a Downing Street "source" claims he called Red Ed a "copper bottomed chicken s**t c**t"......

Well of course he is....he's a politician!!!

if it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be a bit funnier, but what the hell is wrong with john mccain? i seriously can't remember when his answers to seemingly all foreign problems hasn't been military intervention. it's a bit puzzling to me given his P.O.W. status. you would think, or in his case hope, that someone who has gone through such an ordeal as a direct result of a misguided war would try their best to make sure others can avoid the same fate. the guy is a toxic person, and the sooner he's gone, the better!

it's nice to see that public pressure has thrown a monkey wrench into the grand designs of certain authoritarians. looks like our dear leader will seek congressional approval before taking any military action.

So true!

I heard different though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23879744

It is without modern precedent for a prime minister to lose control of his foreign policy, let alone decisions about peace and war.

That, though, is what has happened in the past 24 hours.

David Cameron summoned MPs to return early from their summer break in order to vote for British involvement in military strikes against Syria within days.

The timetable was not his. It was President Obama's.

Having declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be the crossing of a red line, the White House was under pressure to act and to act fast.

No guarantee
In addition, Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday.

If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him.

The government simply could not guarantee that its own MPs would give it a majority in the vote tonight. They needed Labour's support.

Ed Miliband showed every sign of offering it in a series of face-to-face meetings with David Cameron until last night, when he insisted that MPs be given a second vote after the UN weapons inspectors in Syria had reported.

“
Start Quote

David Cameron has consistently talked tough on Syria and consistently proved unable to act tough. Today he will try to present that as a search for consensus after the painful wounds of Iraq.”

It is impossible to know whether he was acting out of principle or in response to pressure from his own MPs. The answer is probably both.

In response the prime minister felt he had no choice but to buckle. So, now MPs are being asked to vote on the "principle" of military action but with the promise that they will get another say before any missiles are fired.

Labour are still not happy. They are tabling an amendment which sets out what they call a "road map" to a decision - in effect a series of hurdles that have to be crossed before action can be taken.

The one that could prove trickiest is the one that may seem the easiest. It is the call for "compelling evidence" that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime.

The UN weapons inspectors in Damascus will not produce that evidence.

I think I read that story in the Daily Star...not known for its hunt for truth

^^^^^^

that dumbass should've realized which country he lives in

join the US military and it ain't no telling where the fuck you're getting sent

when people use "ain't" in almost all of their responses, i tend not to take them too serious, not like it would make any difference in your case though. the fact that you would even refer to him as a dumbass only further shows what a misguided person you are. the point of the image, much like everything else, has sailed right over your head. people join the military for any # of reasons, but the desire to protect and serve our country is generally at the root of it. if someone doesn't feel like the current action that we are planning to take coincides with those reasons, than its a big problem. morale is probably the most important thing for our military, and if its low or in question, then the reasons are worth exploring, particularly if impending military action is the cause.

I agree Semper Fi!!

He has a point though..

Living in close proximity to Ft Bragg I still know guys going to Iraq and A'Stan. Remember when Saddam Hussein's bomb maker "Chemical Allie. defected to USA and told us that they did in fact have weapons of mass destruction but that they were moved into Syria fore the US found them?? Well now they are coming to the surface again

Bigboy I forgot about that. Interesting.

About the word "ain't", well it is commonly used here in the South so I can't hate a guy for saying it.

And on the picture I can agree with him. We can't win in Syria except for getting rid of the dirty bombs. If we back Syria we are supporting a pig that used Sarin on his own people. If we back the rebels we are supporting Al Qaeda like we did when we supplied Bin Laden when they fought the Russians and we thought it was funny to help them against the Russsians. That sure bit us on our ass.

Well since we're on the brink of WWIII...
How about a little bit of lame humor?

Leaked conversation between world leaders about Syria

Nice prediction.

Now John Boehner and Eric Cantor are on board with Obama going to war against Syria. Dumbest move they could make. They had the perfect opportunity to stand on principle and find something that the majority of American people agree on. The fact that John McCain is for it is reason enough to be against it. Some people never learn. I wish the House had a Rand Paul to run against those two buffoons.

Being that I was a Navy wife for 20 years I agree with that Sailor. Our military go where they are told to but that that don't mean they have to like it. My hub didn't like that he had to go to the first gulf war but the ship went anyways.

ain't is in the dictionary

you have way too many grammatical errors to call in question others intelligence

"Don't take them too serious" That would be "seriosly."

Also after a sentence ends and you put a period there, the following word is capitalized.

People who live in glass houses....

You missed the point completely you tool. You insulted one of the men who fights for this country because of your own ignorance and stupidity

People join the service because other people are ignorant and stupid? I never knew that was the motive.

You mean "seriously"?

well guess what? he's fighting for his country

he just disagrees with the reason he might have to go to war

I don't see you running to take his place in the armed forces

Source: CBS NEWS.com

Syria attack resolution passed by U.S. senate panel

Resolution passes by 10 to 7 vote, aided by support of three Republicans
Sep 4, 2013 1:47 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 4, 2013 4:44 PM ET

A Senate panel has voted to give U.S. President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against Syria in response to what the White House claims was a deadly chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian regime.

The resolution passed by a 10 to 7 vote, aided by support of three Republicans, including Senator John McCain.

Earlier, McCain, an outspoken advocate of intervention in Syria, had said he did not support the resolution, saying he wanted more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action. He had also sought a stronger response aimed at "reversing the momentum on the battlefield" and hastening the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Some minor changes to the resolution were made.

The resolution would permit Obama to order a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn't exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations.

The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, crafted the resolution.

The vote marked the first time lawmakers have voted to authorize military action since the October 2002 votes giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

The committee's vote is the first in a series as the president's request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.

The administration also needs to persuade a Republican-dominated House of Representatives that has opposed almost everything on Obama's agenda since the party seized the majority more than three years ago. The top opposition Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, has signalled key support, saying the U.S. has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're on the other side of the debate, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe said he was not persuaded to support military action, saying the military has been "decimated" by budget cuts and "we're just not in a position to take on any major confrontation."

@cook county

of course he disagrees, this Syria thing is a bundle of controversy.

But I'm not made for the military. Some people are but I'm not one of them, however I have infinite respect for people who serve for this country.

In any case I don't see you rushing to join up either so don't give me that crap

LOL alot of people on this board dont know shit about world affairs.

If this was 5 years ago and we decided to attack any nation britian would of been the first to join and be our bitch.The world power is shifting the biggest threat is china who has has taken all the local jobs of all western countries and whos millions of citizens overpopulate these western countries and the Chinese government stays out of world affairs and then comes in takes more of the econimies

ASAD IS BACKED BY RUSSIA its not like Libya or iraq or egypt wre some rebel group is going to take over.Israel isnt this great army the media has potrayed they have been fighting with rock armed Palestinians for the past 50 years and still haven't wiped them out.Stop watching NBC or Fox news and start getting your info from the internet

The idea of attacking Syria doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see where there is a key US interest at stake, nor have we been attacked. Chemical weapons have been used before. There have been civil wars in other nations before. There is a fair question as to who used chemical weapons which needs to be answered.

It's interesting how people's opinions sometimes vary on war powers depending on who sits in the big seat. Congress has only declared war five times in US history. On at least 100 occasions the President has ordered war/attacks without authorization from Congress. I think that was all wrong but let's not pretend this President is the first to do so or say he can. This "unitary executive" idea has defenders in all parties and across the political spectrum. Many people who would usually be pro-war are against it because they do not like this President. Some who are usually against war are for it because they like this President. I think war is too important to be a partisan issue.

I've been inundating my representative with emails/phone calls to not support the President on this. I think that's all anyone can do. Let your representative and Seantors know how you feel, organize, agitate and vote.

Several of the rebel groups include some pretty nasty people and I just don't see how the US makes things better by bombing. The rebels are not, from what I can see, reluctant warriors who yearn to put down their guns and return to moisture farms on Tattooine.

That's something i'll never grasp about Americans, nothing should be a partisan issue. I don't know about the rest of the UK, but at least here in Glasgow i've never met a hardcore Labour or Conservative party hack. After we vote for whoever we quickly get pissed when they do something wrong or vice versa, we don't get into the Obama is terrible camp or the we must defend Obama camp. Then again this is just my personal experience with the attitude towards politicians, there is of course plenty of partisans here.

Bombing is not the answer. It is just going to make things worse, kill more people and maybe draw us into another war. Reagan allowed Saddam to use nerve gas when he was fighting Iran, and apparently gas has been used in Syria before. If we were going to fire a "warning shot" at him, it should have been done the day after the chemial attacks with drones and tomahawks hitting Syrian airfields, crippling Assad's air force. That time has come and gone. It is not likely the House will pass the resolution, and if the president bombs them with a no vote from congress there is a constitutional crisis brewing here.
The real problem in Syria is there do not appear to be any "good guys" fighting on either side. Yes women and children are dying, but thats what happens in a civil war. The truth is as long as these factions fight each other the weaker it makes them, which maybe is not all that bad a thing.

As for all nonsense about how this may affect iran and North Korea, it is simply not the case. N Korea is not going to Storm Seoul becuase China won't let them, and Iran is going to get the bomb. Period. Who are we or who is anyone to say who can or cant have the bomb?

Great idea. Just go online and find some blog that is appealing and go with it. I would suggest reading the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. You will get liberal and conservative tilts to relatively honest reporting. Also read the Economist magizine to get an international flavor. Skip Cable television altogether, unless you want sheer entertainment.

By the way, Lilo. You're spot-on about how people quickly change their postitions about war depending on who's sitting in the Oval Office. If this was Bush the liberals would be comparing him to Hitler, and the conservatives would be all for it. Flip-flop, anyone?

But it's no surprising. Unfortunately some people (maybe most people) need to identify with one side or the other. The lines have to be drawn for them because they're either too weak or too stupid to draw them for themselves. They're sheep who will tow the party line every single time. It's really kinda sad.

I agree.

Well said PB, well said.

Personally i'm not so sure those Syrian "Rebels" are any better then the thug already in power. I've been reading some pretty nasty stories on these so called freedom fighters. I think both sides are all cut from the same cloth myself.

Maybe arm and train the side you want but i wouldn't want to lose 1 of our guys over there for either side. Both sides hate our guts so why even start shit you know we won't support for any length of time? And just a symbolic missle strike will make us look weak in my opinion like we're too scared to put our guys on the ground.

Whatever nerve gas they have has most likely been moved so whats the sense of hitting some empty bunker or whatever? For what? Just political points back home? Obama played this one real poorly in my opinion.

I don't think the conservatives would be for this one. There's a lot of evidence to show that many of the rebels are allied with Al Qaeda. Unfortunately it seems that a police state is necessary to keep Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies in check. Look at what's going on in Egypt right now, with supporters of Morsi bombing and blowing up churches. Many so-called freedom fighters want the freedom to establish Shari'a and the persecution of Jews and Christians. So I'm not so sure that the conservatives would be the ones flip-flopping. Meanwhile the Congressional Black Congress (all Democrats) has decided to support this ONLY because they are supporting Obama. THAT is hypocrisy.

These shots across the bow don't work and never have worked. They merely just piss off all sides involve and make us look like the bad guy to every conceivable side. If anything, they make things worse: our enemies know we are too weak to actually fight a real war. See Clinton bombing the aspirin factory, and the fallout with 9/11 (Osama said it was at that moment he knew america was too weak to take his organization on).

I see there being two coherent arguments: a call for a real war and a collecting of the chemical weapons with boots on the ground OR stay the f out and let allah sort it out. Anything else is just attempting to salvage Obama's rep with symbolism.

you mean America's reputation as the worlds protector

now we're getting into it with a country that's ready to use chemical weapons

we probably sold them the weapons but that's another topic

Now they're saying Russia stepped in and says Syria will give up their chemical weapons.

Watch them give up one or two dirty bombs and say THAT'S IT!

Yea, because America has such a great record on chemical weapons:
http://fpif.org/the_us_and_chemical_weapons_no_leg_to_stand_on/

http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/10/the-cynical-us-policy-on-chemical-weapon

You should be slightly more questioning about horeshit humanitarian rhetoric and moralizing from cynical politicans. It's the oldest and most historically used trick in the book for starting aggressive conflicts. For some reason, I think if the president wasn't black or named George Bush you would be singing a different tune. Just admit you have undying loyalty to the man and are willing to have soldiers die for his incoherent, off the cuff remarks about red lines.

This time it's Kerry's off the cuff remarks that got the administration in trouble on their path to war making. This deal is the best possible scenario (getting the weapons out, impossible wo boots on the ground), but the admin will try to take the statement back now. Putin has one this match.

It's thoroughly amateur hour over there.

so it's obamas fault that he has to keep up Americas charade?

Syria used wmd on their own people so now freedom fighting USA has to step in

So that we can overthrow what is a semi-secular government of limited danger to the west and israeli and replace it with an al queda led rebel group that will be left with a stockpile of chemical weapons to use on the west? Or do you just mean damaging him as little as possible as a response, but don't try to change the balance of the war, accomplishing nothing and leaving both sides hating us even more?

Its a incoherent policy by any metric. Your man in the white house is making a mess of things.

@littlenicky


America has been doing that since Obama was like 3 years old

the middle east hates us because of the shit we pulled in the 80s

Obama wasn't president then

Can you please respond in any way other than 2 or 3 vague sentences for once? Plenty of people have responded to you in detail and you throw out 3 empty sentences, start with this: the middle east hates us because of the shit we pulled in the 80s

The Muslim Middle East hates us because we have historically supported Israel. It has nothing to do with the Left-wing empty rhetoric about the 80s (if it was about the 80s, then why did Iran take 52 American hostages during the Carter administration?).

Even before the creation of Israel in 1948 the Muslim Brotherhood and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked with the Nazis to destroy the Jewish population of Palestine. You should read up on all the Islamic terrorist organizations that were created as Muslim Brotherhood offshoots. The common element all these organizations have in their hatred of America is because the USA supports Israel and is the home to millions of Jews.

We should stay out of there. Let them all kill each other. If they mess with Isreal, we should give Israel the green light to do whatever they want.

BINGO!! Bottom line is the U.S. has handled 9/11 very poorly. Bush screwed up at Tora Bora, and then he misled us into the disaster that was and is Iraq.
Bush and Obama have trampled on our civil liberties, and Obama was wrong to want to go into Syria, and completely off the tracks when he sent the issue to Congress. And now we are going to trust Putin? Please! If we were to have taken military action it should have been a few tomahawks and drones to take out Syria's airfields within a weeek of the gas attacks, and nothing more. No way do we need to get into another conflict over there.

I am sick of this thousand year war over which side really is the "true" faith if Islam. Fuck 'em all. Let them kill each other another thousand years. Maybe sooner or later they wll come to their senses, maybe not. If they mess with sreal, Isreal should get the green light. If they mess with us lob some bombs, but NO MORE WARS. BTW In hindsight we now see what a great Secretary of State Hilary was. Kerry is a bufoon. He would have been a terrible president.

Israel could have sent every last Palestinian to the great sandbox in the sky a long time ago. But they've shown the mercy to their enemies they'd never receive in return if their enemies could wipe them out. Don't mistake restraint for weakness.

THIS.
Ivy is a stand up guy.

it's an odd coincidence that Britain doesn't back us so suddenly

I hope the brits ain't holding a grudge against blackbama

the US needs to stay outta other countries business

it's gonna be fucked up when china/Russia/and a lot of muslim countries attack us

Cook,

You are entitled to your opinions and your political views. You are more than welcomed to discuss and debate those opinions and views here on these boards. However I am going to ask you to please refrain from assigning racially themed names to anyone that you are discussing or debating with. Your name labeling in your post above of the President of The United States is totally uncalled for. Feel free to voice your displeasure with him and his policies if you may, but keep the racially themed nicknames off these boards.

rewrite the constituition??

civil war??

creation of a new country??

regain our privacies and rights??

hmm seems like we should mind our own business and try to get our own joke of a country back on track, or find a solution to our numerous current problems.

it does suck when human rights are being violated, but we are in no condition to be sticking our noses in places we dont belong.. our country is falling apart.... FACT.

IvyLeague actively suggesting genocide as a viable option ever for Israel to deal with the Palestinian issue is either an actively naive, stupid opinion or worse a fucking scary insight into his view of the world.

Killing thousands (millions?) of people would turn as Ivy suggested would pretty much make Israel into the pariah state overnight, even among Americans. Israel wouldn't consider this option for tactical reasons, nevermind you know that's goddamn insane.

Did this thread just abort common sense?



What happened in Parliament was what would've happened in the U.S. Congress if not for the Russian deal. In the UK, there was no domestic or political support for Syria and was reflected as such in that vote. Before that deal, Obama was set to be rejected by Congress, which might've be the first time in our nation's history that an executive's request for war/military action was denied by the legislative body.

I don't think Obama wanted to do anything. If he really wanted to do something, he wouldn't ask for congress' permission. A congress that doesn't do anything and is sure to go against the president is at least good for these times to get out of the corner he pretty much put himself there in the first place by setting a red line.

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the rest didn't want war, but now don't want the negotiations either. It doesn't matter what this president does, they are against it, no matter how many times they have to change their positions.

It's funny to read the complaints of those who say that no matter what the president does Congress goes against it. Were they making the same complaints when the Democrat-run House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi refused to go along with anything former President Bush said or did? Where were they then?

And by the way, maybe the House Republicans are against President Obama's policies because they disagree with his left-wing agenda of European-style socialism, punishing fines for those who don't want to purchase health insurance, businesses cutting hours for employees to 29 1/2 hours from 40 because of his Affordable Care Act, abortion extremism, and a foolish foreign policy that appeases Islamism.

90% of republicans that hate Obama hated him before he opened his fucking mouth

that's a fact

^is it now show me some proof

For the record, that wasn't a complaint. For once this do nothing congress has done what it's doing best: Doing nothing.

The fact is, congress has never been this useless, and if republicans are really the party of small government and individual responsibility, they shouldn't have restricted abortion like never before or have gone against Affordable Care Act, which holds individuals responsible for their own healthcare. They are full of themselves to call themselves republicans, it's obvious what they are.

Well they were right to be concerned about the ACA, it's a very flawed piece of legislation that should not have been passed without some major loopholes being addressed first.

Oh, yeah, they were right to try to repeal ACA 40 times or so already. Nice use of time and money. At this point, this is not concern. It's childish tantrum.

Not saying it was right, but what I am saying is that they're right in thinking that the bill itself would cause problems if not properly fixed which it wasn't. Now it's law and what we will see in the coming years does not bode well. I'm not completely anti-ACA it was a good concept. It needed and still needs to be fine tuned. I hate to break everyone's bubble but it won't be the end all solution to the health care problems in the U.S.

Obama didn't exactly achieve much during his first 2 years either when he controlled both the House and the Senate. The fact is he can blame the repubs in Congress, but at the end of the day getting Republicans to work with him is part of his job, Clinton did it well. I just think Obama was to inexperienced for this job to begin with. Even though Clinton was about the same age he had ran a state for a decade or so while Obama had been a Senator for a very short period.

It's not only childish and not right, but also is not for the right reasons. They aren't after closing the loopholes. They aren't after making it better. They're only after getting tea party donations knowing full well that ACA is here to stay.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/18/the-obamacare-swindle-it-s-not-what-you-think.html

Not when the senate minority leader says it is their "job" not to let this president get anything done. Notice that he doesn't think his job is to pass laws that are good for people. Clinton was a white Southerner who knew the language to GOP base and signed DOMA for pete's sake. Obama made Hillary who dragged him through the mud his SoS. That's how much he is willing to work with others. If republicans were remotely up for it, he would've worked with them. They shot down their own bills when he went for those bills. Case in point: Simpson-Bowles. Look it up. And then NSA, and now Syria. They couldn't be more obvious as to why they hate this president so much.

I'd like to point out it's debatable whether the laws Obama wants to pass are "good for people" also it's mainly Obamas fault the Simpson-Bowles plan didn't go through. It was a brilliant solution, but in the end he didn't endorse the damn thing that he commissioned! Blame the GOP all you want but democrats and the president are just as stubborn and just as unwilling to meet halfway. Both sides are to blame

Amen. They all suck.

First that was said once the Republicans got the majority in the house, Obama had already had 2 full years with full Democrat control of the Congress. Secondly i don't think it's fair to pull a random line out of a full interview.

NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.

Here’s how McConnell explained his remarks in a speech after the election, when Republicans had taken over the House of Representatives and made huge gains in the Senate:
“Let’s start with the big picture. Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office. But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it. And it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...a83bf_blog.html

So when it's seen in full context, he's talking about Obama cooperating with the Republicans just as Clinton did. Everything else you said is correct, but it's ridiculous when Obama supporters blame it 100% on the Republicans, as has already been said in this thread both sides are to blame.

Would you explain your point instead of just saying it was his fault? How possibly could that be his fault that once he is for something GOPers proposed, then suddenly they are against it? You could deny it all you want, but Obama's fault with GOP is being black and his middle name and heritage of his father pretty much. Damn shame, he is a great man.

Do you know what a Clintonian flip is? It's pretty much responsible for the financial meltdown of 2008. Yeah, if you bend backward for the GOP and let them screw you over, they wouldn't shut down your government. You agree to take out the SEC regulations from financial institutes and let the coming presidents worry about the consequences. That's being Clinton. You agree to sign jokes like DOMA. That's Clinton. Meeting halfway? Oh pauleeeze.

Making things up does not constitute a fact. Where's the evidence? If anything 96% of Democrats hated G. W. Bush hated him before he opened his mouth. There are even books with "hate" in the title about Bush and his administration. Where are the "I Hate Obama" books? Answer: Nowhere. There aren't any. What you wrote is a combination of projection and hypocrisy.

Jesus Christ is that how it is with every liberal on here?? That the GOP and every person against Obama doesn't like him because they think he's a Muslim and he's black??

Let me clue you in. It's policy. Not race or religion. Policy, the GOP think many things, but they aren't dumb enough to question his citizenship, loyalty and skin color. He is the President, an ineffective one, but the President. They must show respect.

Republicans do not like Obama due to policy. The same reason Democrats don't like them: policy. Their stupid, maddening idealistic views (both sides) are what is bringing this country to ruin rather than finding common ground. And for the last time, IT'S BOTH SIDES. Not just the Republicans.

Obama commissioned Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles, two very different people on the political spectrum to come up with a solution to our budget problems. What they came up with was absolutely what we needed to do. But what does Obama do when it comes to the floor? Nothing. Ultimately it's up to him to come up with bipartisan support for a bill of that magnitude and he doesn't even endorse it! He needed to be compromising but firm, he needed to talk to Republicans and Democrats about this. But he sat back and did nothing. And now a perfectly good plan is down the shitter.

And lastly, do not call Barack Obama a "great man". That title is reserved is for people who DO things of a great magnitude and significance to this nation. Like Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt or Truman closely followed by Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Teddy. But do us the favor of sparing us the Obama Kool-Aid and do not refer to President Obama as great. He has done absolutely nothing to earn that title.

And yet, you didn't explain anything, except repeating it's policy, it's policy, it's policy. As if when you repeat it enough time, it becomes the truth. When republicans constantly flip positions depending what he proposes, it cannot be policy. It's pure racism. And it's my opinion that Obama is a great man. Deal with it.

It's absolutely ridiculous that, as a white person, you can't disagree with Obama without being branded a racist. Period.

You could disagree with him, but when he says okay you are right, let's go with your plan and then you say, "Oh, no, that's an awful policy, such a debacle, why are you all over the place," then you are racist.

Too bad the Democratic Congress from 2006 to 2010 didn't do nothing. Instead it did a lot of damage.

Your assertions about abortion and Obamacare are pretty laughable. First, legislating against abortion isn't legislating against personal responsibility. If there was personal responsibility involved it would have happened before the child was conceived. The legislation is about protecting a defenseless human being. By your logic if a mother kills her 7-year-old that shouldn't be a crime either. She took the personal responsibility of terminating a life that she could not care for.

UnAffordable Healthcare Act making people responsible for their own healthcare? R u serious? It makes people purchase healthcare at ever-increasing costs under the threat of massive fines and prison. It takes away free market competition and adds new taxes on medical devices while increasing overall costs. Many insurers are now leaving states where there are exchanges because they can't survive without making any profit. Doctors are quitting in numbers higher than ever before. Worst of all, employers are taking full-time employees and making them part-timers at 29 1/2 hours a week, making Americans poorer. For those who are still full-time the employee contribution is increasing.

Obamacare isn't responsibility, it's European-style socialism, and bad one at that. It increases waiting times before appointments and turns the IRS into the enforcing agency. You really want the IRS knowing all your healthcare information and making life and death decisions? I don't.

Maybe you're a racist for calling people who disagree with you racists.

BTW, when did Obama ever say, "okay you are right, let's go with your plan"?

And for the record, Republicans disagreed with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter too. I guess that means they are anti-White racists.

I don't remember that congress ever shutting down Bush administration. If they did any damage, it was by standing aside and let the Bush administration start two wars without paying for them.

Now as for abortion, a 7 year old can live on his own. His or her needs can be met by anyone. You cannot be saddled with a 7 year old against your will. Otherwise, that would pretty much be slavery.

As for ACA, and how affordable it is, the price of buying healthcare in California is dropping, since the companies have to compete now to lower their prices. It doesn't take away free market at all, on the contrary. I suppose it depends if governors want to implement it as they should or not. And it's your personal responsibility not to be a burden when you get sick.

Did you read this thread? It was originally about Syria. It was how Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the rest were against war, and now they are somehow against not going to war. Rand Paul has the audacity to say Obama is all over the place. I wonder if he ever listens to himself.

Then read some history on the Reid-Pelosi Congress during the last two years of the Bush presidency. They undermined and fought with everything he did, including trying to rein in the housing crisis in 2006 and 2007. As for those wars, it was ONE war, the war on terror, and almost all the Democrats voted for it, included Clinton and Kerry. It must be convenient to forget recent history when it doesn't support our arguments.

So living on their own is your criteria? Then I guess everyone in hospitals and nursing homes should be killed since they need help and can't live on their own. For that matter, babies and young children can't live on their own either, so I guess it's okay to kill them too. It's funny how Democrats use the same or similar arguments for abortion that were used to support slavery almost 200 years ago. Some things never change.

Where do you get your facts on the ACA? I work in health care in California and your claims have no connection to reality. Costs are going up, choice is going down, waiting times are increasing as is unemployment and underemployment. You got to turn off MSNBC once in a while and read the papers. Even the Los Angeles Times has covered these stories.

War on terror? Are you kidding me? And when was Iraq part of terror?

I said a 7 year old's need can be met by anyone. No one is forced to take care of him/her. Just as those working in nursing homes. They choose to do that job. They get paid. They can change their job any time they want. They are not forced to take care of anyone. And so a woman cannot be forced to do anything she doesn't want to, cause after all, she isn't a slave.

I searched LA times, I didn't find anything close to dramatic picture you are drawing. Would you mind giving me a couple of links?

Not necessarily. Even if that was the case, it just means they're backstabbers not racism. Don't be so simple on this subject. Democrats are not the good and pure statesman you think they are.

And your opinion is unfounded. What in the hell has Obama done to earn the title of "great?" How has he bettered this country, which still struggles even to this day. It's ridiculous, you're drunk off the Kool-Aid. And because I'm not in full swing with his policies I'm a racist? How many times are people going to get the same crap just because they disagree with Obama?

That's what it was called, the War on Terror. I know facts are funny, but not as funny as people making up history cuz they feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Your pro-abortion argument jumped the shark because it makes no sense and has no relationship to what I wrote. Anyone can get a job to take care of someone else. Uh, so? What does that have to do with abortion? Taking care of one's own children is slavery? Really? As a father I take care of my children out of love, same with my wife. Calling that slavery is an insult to all mothers and slaves.

Here's some links I plucked off Google. It took me a whole second to find them. They are different sources and one used the Times as a source:

http://www.californiahealthline.org/arti...er-of-providers

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-16/obamacare-doctor-rationing-begins-in-california.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...iums-by-64-146/

Backstabbers? I call them pure evil. I mean, I'm willing to give up my label of racism only for that.

As for you, I never called you racist. I said all these GOPers who flip just when Obama changes his position are racists. Are you finally confessing you are a republican? And did you change your position on this war just when Obama did? So please don't change the argument. Nice try!

I'm not denying Bush administration used the term "war on terror," to understand why I laugh, you can read the criticism part right there and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror

My argument is fine. You can't make anyone take care of others against their will. Insult to mothers and fathers? Mothers and fathers might leave their families. If they stay they choose to do so. People who are made to do something against their will are slaves.

And you said read LA times. As I said I searched LA times. There was nothing to the effect of that there. As for these links, even these don't reflect the gloomy picture you painted. It's about how those with pre-existing conditions might get a higher rate. These customers might not have been covered before or might have been made to pay more. At any rate I would still wait to see how ACA would work out once it's actually there.

There you go again playing the racism card again. Believe it or not there are better explanations for the GOP and democratic fighting. I've given you several and yet you choose to ignore them.

My stance on Syria was perhaps bomb assad and his regime but nothing more. There is still so much we don't know and we have too many problems within our own country to play cop anymore. That being said Obama should not have drawn the red line so clearly, giving away his position. But the basic mess our government is right now is to blame not Obama or the GOP.

I defend the republican point of view on here because so many including yourself attack it relentlessly. It's not perfect, far from it, I'm simply trying to engage another point of view which you point blank refuse to reason with. Would it kill you to be more bipartisan?

If you haven't change positions, then why take my comment as an insult to yourself? That's the real question.

It would kill me to be anywhere near a party that I have no respect for any of their recent views. A party that stands in the way of women rights, minority rights, wants to restrict voting, is homophobic and refuses to accept scientific facts, I want nothing to do with it. The old GOP of Lincoln era is no more.

Again your being simplistic. Many on the GOP including my father don't feel that way. Don't let the tea party be the template for republicans for you. You cannot honestly think that's what republicans stand for despite all the shortcomings. Women's rights? Please do not start with that again. The liberation front is dead and achieved its objective can we not focus on that?

The republicans are set back by their extreme faction. Even their more moderate members have to give way to the idiots, which if they plan on winning back the White House, have to get rid of or tame before 2016. Give me someone like Reagan or McCain or Christie in terms of economic policy. But more importantly an experienced stateman and willing to work with democrats

Of course, details are important...


"stand in the way of women's rights" = stop women from having their own children inside them killed (usually for petty and selfish reasons)

"stand in the way of minority rights" = is against reverse racism in the form of affirmative action

"restrict voting" = require every voter to have some form of ID (no more than one would need to rent a movie)

"homophobic" = not celebrate deviant lifestyles, recognizes that marriage between a man and woman is the fundamental building block of society

"refuses to accept scientific facts" = hasn't forgotten the theory part in the "theory of evolution"

Let me rephrase your comments as how they actually are:



Usually for petty and selfish reasons that sex shouldn't be enjoyable for women, those who are afraid that no woman would ever have their child, make women carry a fetus to the term, in hopes of maybe someday if they get a woman drunk enough, they end up reproducing.



Reverse racism? Right, cause if you can't get a job or education, there's a minority stealing it from you and it's not that you weren't good enough, cause you are a white male. How can you not be good enough? You are better than any other minority that ever walked the earth.


Screw them, we don't want anyone who can't even rent a movie vote now, do we?


Right, cause every other sort of family that's not like mine is screwed up and can't be a useful block of society. I'm not a xenophobe at all.



Earth is 6000 years old. Women's reproduction system shuts down and refuses to get pregnant if there's been actual rape. If I'm descended from monkeys, where's my tail? Vaccines make you retarded.

So I guess you won't mind if the rest of us laugh at Obama's foreign policy, right?

On to abortion: according to you, people who do something against their will are slaves. No, people who are in servitude to others for no remuneration against their will are slaves. That's the definition of slavery. Back to the drawing board in search of a defense of killing unborn babies. Oh yes, a woman won't have as much pleasure if she gives birth to a baby she conceived. Aw, my little violin weeps. Pleasure overrules protecting a human life everytime, right? Isn't that you're argument to Ivy? "Hey, honey, little Julia is choking on a piece of bread, but I'm in the middle of playing Grand Theft Auto. When you get home later could you check on her? Thanks. I'm scoring some serious points right now so I don't have time to do the Heimlich on Julia."

As for the L.A. Times, here's an article from Sept. 15: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-doctor-networks-20130915,0,2814725.story

Yes, Obamacare is a disaster. All those things that I previously wrote plus causing a major increase to the national debt. Guess you must want to bankrupt America so no one will have healthcare. Right on. Who needs healthcare anyway? Survival of the fittest, isn't that what Darwin said?

Sorry righties, ACA WILL WORK. It is not going to be repealed, and within a year or two it will be loved by a vast majority of the American people. Write it down, mark the date, and tell me I was right when the time comes.

Yeah, go right ahead and laugh.

You can babel nonsense all you want but the only thing according to me is that making a woman carry to the term against her will is enslaving her. Period. In fact it's none of your business to make decisions for her life in the first place.

Again, this article doesn't paint the picture you intend and say. All it says is that maybe for cheaper plans, there would be longer waiting time to see a doctor. I suppose that's better than paying an arm and a leg for a medical bill when you have no insurance. American people did vote for Obama along with his signature bill. If it's such a disaster perhaps now Romney was president.

You keep saying this and I hope you're kidding. But knowing you you're not which makes it all the more disturbing. Are you so biased towards the left that you cannot see that ACA is not the perfect solution to our health care problems? It's got more holes on it than Swiss cheese

i never said it was perfect, but when you have idiots like Cruz and Scott torpedoing it things are worse.

Got any better ideas?

If it wouldn't work, why Boehner tries to defund it? If it does work, GOP could kiss 2016 goodbye. But what he doesn't seem to get is that there was already a greater number of people who voted democrat for the House in 2012, and they won because of gerrymandering. They might not be this lucky come midterms.

If they try this shutdown nonsense they could lose the House in 2014.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. But he is now hellbent of getting Obama any which way he can. It's pathetic.

I would not underestimate Obama. He is going through a rough patch, but at the end of the day he may come out smelling like a rose. That will really drive them crazy!

It seems he is gonna get a deal with Iran, so it will be hard to beat that.

Deal with Iran, no war in Syria, fractured Republican party, and ACA kicks in in 11 days. He is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.

Fingers crossed.

I do agree the house needs to stop with their nonsense if they don't they could very well lose their majority next year.

The Republican Party is not completely full of whack jobs and idiots I hope everyone realizes that. Similar to Michael Moore and nancy pelosi don't let morons dictate the image. I actually like boehner, he's just held back by the conservative faction

Right now Putin is laughing enough for all of us. Obama has made America a laughing stock because of his colossal ignorance of foreign affairs.

Babelling nonsense is what you've been writing on this forum. According to you?!? Sorry, but no one died and made you God. Your irrational thinking is just making you look silly. And wrong. It's all of our business to protect innocent defenseless human life. Right and wrong don't have genders, and if murder isn't always a legal crime it is always a moral one.

And of course a single article isn't going to repeat what I wrote. I summarized. The fact that a left-wing paper like the L.A. Times prints something critical is saying something. It's like Pravda criticizing Communism. Your either/or fallacy doesn't work either. There were other options available that Obama never considered, like opening up competition by allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. Another thing would be to make sure to not include illegal immigrants. Doing things to cut the cost of higher education, like allowing more medical schools. It's your type of out-of-date black and white thinking that got us into this mess. Dr. Ben Carson had some brilliant ideas that the left-wing totally ignored. Maybe it's because he's a BLACK neurosurgeon. Hmmm....

Someone who supports a party led by dunces like Obama and the mentally retarded like Biden has no right in calling brilliant men like Cruz and Scott idiots.

Yeah, I'm sure that you're worried about the Republicans losing the House in 2014. Maybe if more Americans start thinking corrupt Harry Reid and the Dems will lose the Senate!

I wouldn't go as far to call them brilliant. Cruz and Scott aren't idiots but they are very conservative and are not in any way progressive

I don't see why Putin can't laugh, after all he did made the deal, and it's a good deal that wouldn't make you spend what you already don't have.

Second of all you aren't God either to dictate a woman what to do with her body, and what's not born isn't yet qualified to be defended by you. A woman is not a dedicated incubator that is bound to pop babies if she doesn't want to. Deal with it. Or don't. That's why I NEVER want anything to do with any GOPier. That's my most important issue.

Of course no article is going to say nonsense you are saying, because you make a lot of things up, when the plan is not even implemented yet.

Just to imitate your great debating skills, you are wrong and what you say makes you look silly.

If all you base your politics on is women's rights then I feel bad for you. There are FAR more important issues at stake here. I'm just thankful your not in the senate because you would only add to the problem we have currently

Btw Putin is a despicable fuck who deserves to sleep on a bed of nails. It's a disgrace the way he runs that country

So you mainly feel bad for yourself that why a woman can't get passed getting screwed by men. Everyone think about themselves first, otherwise they would be saints and saints have no place in politics.

And I suppose that's for Russian people to decide, isn't it?

The dictates what people can do to their bodies all the time. If someone decides to cut off their arm they are going to be locked up in a mental hospital (after the arm is treated) for being a danger to themselves. Deal with that. Because the Democrats don't want to defend innocent human life and instead defend murder, that's why I never want to become a Demoncrat.

Regarding the article, once again, I summarized the facts. As they say, facts to a left-winger are like kryptonite to Superman. BTW, I gave support for my facts with evidence while you supplied none. Ergo, you not only made things up, you also project you making up facts skills on to me.

Just to imitate your great debating skills, you are wrong and a racist.

Not sure what you were trying to say there, but if people can get their penis cut off and have a sex change op, you can decide not to be pregnant as well. Deal with that.

You made up the worst case scenario with a right wing bias, that's not called fact.

Are you so blind to the plight of Russia? It's obvious that Putin has twisted and corrupted the Russian constitution and it's people. Relations haven't been this bad since the Cold War. You would defend Putin? A scumbag and a greaseball.

And as for women's rights I believe in them and I've defended them before but it's not the number one thing I look for in a politician or president especially in this day and age, when women are not slaves in a household or held back. I tend to look for things like objectivity, economic policy, foreign policy, health care, the debt, our problem with benefits and pensions. You know, stuff that's dragging the United States down. oh it's also where YOU DON'T LIVE.

And other people can eviscerate their vaginas and have sex changes and decide not to get pregnant. That makes as much sense as what you wrote. The easiest way to not get pregnant is to not have the sex that leads to pregnancy, or at the very least using relatively effective prevention. Deal with that.

No, I presented an accurate picture of healthcare as one who knows about it from the front lines. You presented a left-wing biased picture by looking at it through rose-colored glasses. You can call dog feces a bed of roses, but the inaccurate description can't cover up what it really is.

This is why you've been written off a a complete nut job by more than a few on this board. "What's not born isn't yet qualified to be defended?" You're basically saying that a baby can be aborted up the very moment it's actually born. This is the kind of sick, selfish, and outright evil thinking that and secular liberalism (including feminism) has brought us.

Sick-ular leftism my man LOL

There are left-wingers out there who believe in abortion up to TWO YEARS OLD. One is Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton. There are others. The baby-killing movement is growing. After all, if one can justify partial-birth abortion/murder, then no one is safe.

Are you so blind to the plight of people in Saudi Arabia? Or the rest of the dictators US have worked with? How is that you have deals with their governments, but when it comes to Russia, you suddenly see the plight?

Putin is an elected government and like it or not, international community would have to work with him. It's up to people of each country to change what's broken.

It's funny how you tell me I don't live somewhere, but get sanctimonious when you talk about Russia. Guess what, you don't live there either.

As for other issues, I had a long list of why GOP sucks. Top of it is women's rights. As for benefits, pensions, foreign policy, and general IQ of the government, I don't see any how I could even consider GOP.

I'm a nut job? Look who is talking.

Yeah, build a straw man, defeat it, and you won the argument against abortion. Right.

Consider the GOP because they are more fiscally responsible than Obama who spends and spends and fucking spends. Now don't reference Bush, but many Republicans have good ideas regarding pension plans and benefits that many states CANNOT PAY FOR. So in this situation, I'm inclined to go with an able minded, fiscal Republican NOT someone who's racking up the debt and deficit and this goddamn health care bill will not work. We will see more problems than ever before. I like it's concept but the end result was not the solution to our problems.

Putin cannot be called elected. He fucking rigged them. The Russian people don't want him, but what can they do in the face of a tyrant who rules with an iron fist? As for the other middle eastern countries, well they have to figure it out. The middle east is in the dark ages, they need democracy, but they won't get it the first try. They also have to get rid of extreme Islam which plagues the region and makes Westerners flip the fuck out every time they see a guy in a turban.

I disagree with Ivy on more than a few things, but he's right in the sense that you're so blindingly left, you won't listen to another argument. Who the fuck are you kidding? You'd follow a Democrat off a cliff if he/she told you too. It's ridiculous. I'm just glad you're stuck in that piece of shit country Iran and not here.

Putin is a politico-gangster who runs Russia like a Mafia-state. To call him "elected" is a joke. And he couldn't care less about the United Nations or international cooperation. He's running interference for his client state, Syria, plain and simple.

As usual, afsaneh77 misses the obvious.

Yes, you built straw men and we defeated them. Have you read Peter Singer? Do you even know who he is?

Here's some sources:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/06/writers-defend-infanticide-so-called-after-birth-abortions/

With guys like McCain who want to start another war? The guy cares so much, (yeah, right) he plays poker on his phone while campaigning for another war in the middle east. Your other boy Christie, if surviving primaries is a tough decision away from heart attack. And why should I not reference Bush? It's not just Bush, it's their pledge to Norquist not to increase taxes. While there has to be cuts, you have to increase taxes to pay for things you already took without paying for, such as "war on terror." So anyone from GOP would further sink the US in debt.

I've a Russian friend. She used to be here. I asked her about Putin. She said that she couldn't say if he really cheated, but he does have a massive support there and that "plight of Russian people" is such a strong word. I think if you are looking for an excuse to start another war, that's another story.

No wonder Putin would have a massive support there, it's the kind of patronizing way you talk about other countries (plight? really?) that make people go after the first guy with anti-american rhetoric. If you want to know why GOP sucks, you don't have to look further than a mirror. A person who "would love to see Iran get wiped off the map" exactly belongs to the kind of war mongering party that doesn't mind setting fire to the world and watch it burn. It's the kind of person in a party that say they like freedom of speech, but when hearing the opposition, thank their lucky stars she cannot vote and would call her country shithole. That's why you and your party suck.

Straw man argument here is that you find a crazy person that says you can abort what's not a pregnancy anymore, and you say since he is crazy, so other arguments for abortion is crazy as well. I can't believe I have to explain this.

Thanks DT.

Ditto!! Afs, you've got patience.


TIS


Btw Afs, is your new President, Rouhani, really for real? What's your/your country's assessment of him?

Thanks TIS!

As for Rouhani, I did vote for him, what he is saying is the reason Iranians elected him. This is the best we could do peacefully. There are still people in prison due to their demonstrations from the previous election and many paid a hefty price for questioning that election. Some were freed yesterday. He promised to reconcile with the West, clear any doubt other countries have about Iran's nuclear program which government insists it's peaceful and work with the US to eliminate sanctions against Iran. I'm hopeful he accomplishes all he promised.

I didn't say he was crazy. I say he's evil. Big difference. The morally unjustifiably taking of all innocent human life is evil. Just because one is in a certain location or below a certain age doesn't make it alright to be murdered.

As for McCain and his warmongering, I agree with you (and for the record, McCain is not very popular with most GOP). We don't need to go to Syria, especially since the side he and Obama want to support are probably Al Qaeda. Moreover, anyone who says they want to blow up Iran is spewing crazy rhetoric. Not all Iranians support Ali Khamenei or the other ayatollahs. There was a time when the USA and Iran were friendly and it is possible that may happen again in the future. But the hateful rhetoric of Khamenei and the various presidents and diplomats toward the USA and Israel don't help. Iran once was friendly to Christians and Jews, with not only greater freedom of religion but freedom of expression too. Early in his presidency Obama had the chance to support those who supported greater Iranian freedom but he dropped the ball.

republicans are responsible for is the current state of the US which ain't good

bottom line....the country went broke on bush's watch......thee end

bush and the republicans did damage to this country that it wont recover from

Bullcrap. Cite evidence instead of left-wing Democratic talking points.

Oh look we've heard from the peanut gallery once more. Do us a favor don't talk about things you know little to nothing about.

As for abortion, I don't think I want to get in the debate of good and evil, or moral of the matter. Of course there are circumstances that I consider abortion to be immoral. (Anything other than rape or the life of the mother being in danger) However, I don't think when an egg and sperm meet, anything special per se has happened that you call that life. There's another important ingredient that's the will of the woman to further contribute to the process and keep it till it becomes a human being. Without it, this might've just happened outside the womb and you don't get anything. That will is important to me. It should be there, the choice has to be there.

As for the US and Iran relations, it's long overdue. Supporters of Ali Khamenei are in the minority. There were about 4 million votes for the candidate he wanted to get elected. About 50 million people were eligible to vote, 36 million voted and Rouhani got 18.5 million votes. I suppose those 14 million who didn't vote, don't want this regime at all. So you wouldn't find a nation in the middle east friendlier to the American people than that of Iran. We're hoping that this new president would bring about relationship with the US. As for Obama dropping the ball during the previous elections, I think he did the right thing staying out of it. I don't see a revolution like movement here in Iran. Reforms have to happen over the time to further isolate the hardliners.

Re the abortion issue, as a medical matter the beginning of human life is usually considered to be at the zygote stage, the rest of the process follows from there, but at that point there is a separate and new human being. As for a woman's will in the process, it's really irrelevant once the new life was created and nothing traumatic happens to the developing embryo/fetus/child. When the baby is ready to come, it's going to come. Even a comatose woman can give birth.

Most pro-lifers have no issue when it's to save the life of the mother, because the goal is preserving life. In the case of rape there is some flexibility also, not because it is right or good (after all, the baby is the victim of the rape too and has a rapist for a father), but because if we were to limit abortion to those two things it would cut down on the abortion rate. In many countries women face ostracism and persecution for keeping the children of rapes; in the USA we are more accepting. All that needs to be considered too. Many children of rapes have turned out to be successful, beautiful people.

On Iran, I think it should be understood that Ali Khamenei narrowed the field of presidential candidates so all those who had a chance had to bow to him. Rouhani is going to do whatever Khamenei tells him to do. And it wasn't too long ago that Iran did have a revolution, and I think there were things that could have been done to keep it alive. I respect that you are from there, but I know plenty of others from there who would disagree with you who believe that Obama should have given the people against the Ayatollah more support. It seems to me that for Iran to be friendlier to the USA there will have to be an Ayatollah friendlier to the USA, and I just don't see that happening.

@joeschmo & faithful


the country was in surplus when bush took over

the country was in deficit when bush left office

The country was in surplus? Here is the national debt from 2000-2012 from the Treasury:

09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

At the end of Clinton's term the debt was $5,662,216,013,697.
At the end of Bush's term it was $10,699,804,864,612. So in two terms the debt under Bush went up about $5 trillion. At the end of 2012 under Obama the debt was $16,432,730,050,569. So under Obama the debt went up by close to $6 trillion. That's twice the debt for one of Obama's terms than both of Bush's terms combined. Also, for the first time in American history, the debt is 103% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The highest it went under Bush was 74.1%, and that was while the Democratic Congress was fighting everything he did tooth and nail. Before the Democrats took over Congress under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the debt was 64.8% of the GDP.

So you are wrong on both counts. We had national debt before Bush took office and he made it worse. That's the honest truth, but he did want to do things to reduce the debt that the Dems refused to cooperate on. The Dems had no plan to lower the debt. Don't forget that we had a national disaster (9/11) and a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Obama the fighting in Iraq ended yet spending still went up at MORE than twice the rate it did under Bush. Obama is the bigger spender and the first president in American history to have the debt exceed the GDP, and the first time in history to have our credit rating downgraded. Let's see if you own up to those facts, Cook County.

(This is another source I used: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)

Yes, he did. It's not like I could run for presidency. Rouhani was certainly the lesser of the evils available to us. I know many Iranians would disagree with me when it comes to Obama's approach to Iran, but coincidentally most of them live outside Iran. They are looking for a complete change of government through revolution and wouldn't settle for less. But then I don't see them coming here to fight it and putting themselves in danger. They want us to do it, and you have to understand, even traffic police here doesn't have a gun. This is not a militant country. The last revolution only was won because Shah didn't want to rule where most of the middle class didn't want him. He saw the peaceful demonstrations and realized that's the end of his era and just left the country. These Ayatollahs aren't Shah to do such graceful things. they answered people's demonstrations with bullets and arrests. My posts from four years ago is here, you could refer to them. Back then I didn't think Obama should have supported the green movement, because first of all the leaders of that movement were the same as someone like Rouhani, part of this regime anyway, so he had to be cautious and second of all, even if he were to say he is supporting them, the regime could kill them based on being agents loyal to the West. He did the right thing. If that movement could go on and win the next election, it was because regime couldn't eliminate all of them with labeling them American sympathizers.

I live here and I see how things are, people aren't after another chaotic revolution with no clear outcome that follows a power vacuum. We're not ready to die for another power hungry dictator that could be the outcome of another chaos. This is a republic already. We have elections. We've a constitution that would support freedom of speech and assemblies. Sure it needs a couple of amendments to take the absolute power of Supreme leader out of it, but the base is there. The only thing we need to accomplish is to get the filtering of the Guardian Council for the candidates of each election out of it, and that would take a long and steady reform. Rouhani is a step in the right direction.

What a load of liberal crap. The will of the woman? Your whole argument - which is the argument of the left - is that the will (or feelings) of the mother is more important than the life of the child inside her. That's why you and your kind call yourselves "Pro-Choice." You've made it all about the woman and what she wants or needs. Meanwhile, doing everything you can to make people forget about the child within her, or minimizing it to the point of not even being worthy of protection. You don't have the guts to come out and say it but it's obvious that you think abortion is fine up until the baby is actually born. You're the perfect example of the sick, Godless, liberal.

Please don't confuse cookcounty with the facts.

All cookcounty sees is that there's a black president in the office. Obama can do no wrong as far as he's concerned. And, like many blacks, he thinks it's always the Republican's fault.

Well, if you call what's inside a child, then perhaps it could already be in care of someone else. As I said, you could mix egg and sperm anywhere outside the womb and not get a child, so it takes more than that to have a child.

If the woman who has a mind of her own is not willing, there wont be a child, period.

The one thing I can never understand is how anyone can support third trimester abortion. It's a disgrace to us that we allow that procedure take place.

Isn't the Roe v. Wade putting viability at 24 weeks? Meaning 6 months, meaning not in the 3rd trimester? For the record, I don't support abortions after that.

Well, wait a minute. What if it's the woman's "will" to have an abortion during the third trimester? After all, isn't the woman's "will" important?

And who really came up with this first two trimester nonsense and what exactly gave them the medical and moral authority to do so? So, the baby can be aborted the 24th week but not the 25th week? What magically happens during that time that suddenly gives the baby a right to be protected? Pro-abortionists (and that's what they are) don't want to recognize how arbitrary and absurd it is.

The magic of life happens. As the law says it becomes "viable." If the life of the mother is in danger, they can do a c-section. Depending on how early the childbirth is, it may need medical assistance, but it can live outside the womb on its own. Believe me, I don't have it in for babies. Jeez.

I think aside from the health of the mother that can be in danger at any time, for instance in case of rape, the decision is usually made very early anyway. I don't see the logic of getting an abortion in the 2nd trimester either when the body is well on the way of giving birth.

That is the major flaw in Roe v. Wade. They just made up the trimester thing on the fly. The truth is that there have been great advances since Roe was decided, and the day will come when a fertilized egg can be removed safely from a woman's womb, placed into an artificial womb and then go to full term. Does this mean Roe will be its own demise? Quite possibly.

My own view is that abortion rights should be viewed most liberally from the time of conception, and more and more narrowly from that time through birth.

I was looking at Roe v. Wade in Wikipedia and it's said there that:

"The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability."

So I guess it doesn't really have much to do with trimesters. Say a pregnant woman is in need of chemotherapy, I suppose it's up to the doctor to decide if the fetus is viable and they can do a c-section, or they have to abort the pregnancy altogether, should she decide to do so.

As for artificial wombs, who would pay for them? Would the government pick up the tab? It's interesting to see what happens then.

And I completely agree with your last paragraph.

Ironic the name of the case is "Roe"

Roe v. Sperm?

Actually it presents an option with regard to crossing a river: Row v. Wade.

Justice O'Connor raised this point in the 80s. The state's interest in the health of the mother and prenatal child will always be weighed against the mother's privacy right under the XIV Amendment, the reasoning of Roe is on shifting sands, subject to advances in science that push back the date of fetal viability. When we reach that point, the matter will be decided on Roe's judicial progeny.

There was another abortion decision the same day called Doe v Bolton. This was followed up by numerous others, such as Casey v Planned Parenthood. Abortion laws constantly change, but the thing that many legal scholars agree on is that Roe v Wade is bad case law since there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that creates a right to an abortion, especially one that overrides all 50 states. The states have types of laws and statutes on the books and most of those were not overriden by some sort of federal law. Even Norma McCorvey, the woman who was the "Roe" in Roe v Wade, said she was lied to and regrets taking any part in the original decision.

Faithful, you are absolutely wrong on this. Read the case law starting with Griswold v. Connecticut to see how the right to privacy evolved as a common law outgrowth of the rights granted by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the constitution. The word "privacy" is not contained in the constitution, but this does not mean there is no constitutional right to privacy. Also, when you say things like "many legal scholars" or whatever it is, sounds like Donald Trump when he says "people tell me." Name the scholars you cite, and by that I do not mean Scalia who is a Justice, and I do not mean Thomas who is also a justice but no scholar.

Your analysis, taken to its logical conclusion, would restrict the Second amnendment to muskets and whatever else they had in 1783 which were considered "arms."

The fact that the plaintiff in Roe had a late life change of heart has absolutely nothing to do with a constitutional analysis of Roe.

No dontomasso, you are absolutely wrong on this. Calling Roe good case law is like saying Dred Scott v Sanford was.

A right to privacy has never been absolute and has never entailed everything. Do you have a right to beat your children or your wife so long as it's done behind closed doors? Can you build a nuclear weapon or develop anthrax in privacy? It was also an argument slave owners used to defend the institution ("If you don't like slavery, don't buy a slave!")
It's a typical example of left-wing insanity. Privacy has to have reasonable limits, and it is reasonable that privacy cannot be a cover for the taking of innocent human life.

Well, while you may not consider Thomas a scholar, there can be no doubt that White, Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia and Alito were/are. Liberals who disagreed with Roe included John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Kermit Roosevelt, Alan Dershowitz, Eugene Volokh, Edward Lazarus, Hadley Arkes, etc.

I brought in McCorvey to show that the case was based on fraud and deception.

Faithful I gotta say you really make great points on many issues on this board. You add freshness to these debates, as you bring an opposite but level headed point of view from the lefties on here

Where do I say Roe is "good case law?"

The right to privacy was established in Griswold under the legal fiction that the "penumbra" of rights created by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment established this right. This has come under severe criticism from the beginning. The whole "penumbra" thing was invented by Justice Douglas and adopted by the Warren court at the height of its powers. From that roe evolved.

What you have to understand is the context. Pre-Griswold the states had the right to outlaw contraception and just about anything else they wanted. This is pretty much what the far right wants to restore today.

Of course there is no right to beat children, that's a huge stretch. There is a right however for consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their homes so long as they are not causing danger to one another.

The right to privacy necessarily entails a restriction on governmental interference in people's personal affairs. I would think a true conservative would be in favor of this.

In other words, they are completely non-textual, ideological made-up "rights" that came from the radical liberal justices in the 1970s. You think liberals would have learned from the slaughterhouse cases and Lochner that is just as dangerous in the other direction.

And it is not either you are for this new judicial legislator superbody or you are for banning contraceptives. The political process, as pointed out and predicted by the dissent, would have taken care of this issue on its own. There isn't a state in the union, despite your conspiracies, that would pass anything even resembling the Griswald statute today because of political pressure. Everyone recognized Griswald was a paints-on-head retarded statute, but decent justices realized that court cannot invent new rights to fix statutory shortcomings. The court radically overreached politically in the 70s with Roe and Griswald. It culminated in the Lawerence decision that decided the founders wrote the constitution to protect anal ex under the pretend right to privacy. Another issue that the political process would have solved on its own.

If you don't like it amend the constitution.

dontomasso and other far left wing extremists don't want to amend the Constitution, they want to interpret it in ways that are totally foreign to its original meaning. It's like taking a steak dinner from a restaurant's menu and saying it really means soy burger. Notice how he brings in contraception as if there's any possibility of that happening. It's far left scare tactics that are devoid of any truth or reality.

Then dontomasso writes: "Of course there is no right to beat children, that's a huge stretch. There is a right however for consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their homes so long as they are not causing danger to one another.

The right to privacy necessarily entails a restriction on governmental interference in people's personal affairs. I would think a true conservative would be in favor of this."

While he says that beating children is a huge stretch (ignoring the huge stretch he made when he brought up contraception), he overlooks his own words "causing danger to one another." A baby being killed is the ultimate danger. And by the way, babies aren't being murdered in people's bedrooms, but in stale abortion clinics. He sort of gets what conservative wants about governmental interference in personal affairs (by the way, where are the complaints about Obama's spying that far exceeded what Bush did?) but forgets that it stops when someone is harmed. The ultimate harm is being murdered. The straw man creating a phony conservative argument overlooks the harm caused to the developing baby.

Finally, dontomasso recognizes the fundamental lie of the penumbra that was created out of thin air, yet he defends the lie in the face of his scare story of states taking away contraception. Even Justice Brennan's own clerk, Edward Lazarus, saw through that fraud. It's the Dred Scott case of the 20th century and the far left defends it.

I've always been amazed at the mental gymnastics liberals have to do in order to justify their support for abortion. You can tell most of them know, deep down, they're full of crap.

Oh, I get it, you righties believe in that "original intent" crap. So I guess you believe only property holding men should vote, that governors should appoint senators, and that each african-american counts as 3/5 of a person. Thats what the founders believed, so that is what you must believe, otherwise you would be one of those crazy liberals who understand the constitution is a living document.

It must really be painful to always be on the wrong side of history. Maybe this explains all your rage,

Only a leftie would say such moronic things. Us so-called "righties" believe that the Constitution can be AMENDED. Voting rules are made by the states (but can be regulated federally if there is provable unfairness), and that 3/5 of a person business was corrected by the 13th-15th amendments. Get a clue about what original intent means. It also applies to subsequent amendments. See righties, unlike lefties, believe in the rule of law. But because left-wingers don't respect law and legal process they invented this "living document" crap (and that IS crap, maybe even more disgusting and fetid than the real thing) to make it mean anything they want, which works really well for the schizophrenics out there.

"Wrong side of history"? That's another weasel phrase used by people who have no good arguments to support their positions. Just like the use of the word "rage" when others and myself engage in peaceful debate. Weasel words, name-calling, ad hominem, poisoning the well -- all tools of the left-winger desperate for a fact.

It seems every 7 or 8 months I feel the need to remind posters to familiarize themselves with substantive due process, inherent in the XIV Amendment and the meaning of liberty within the Amendment.

Those, who argue for original intent as the sole method of constitutional interpretation are misguided. Original meaning is more appropriate to describe one of the methods of applying constitutional law to a given set of facts. When the uninformed shout for original intent, it begs the question, "Whose intent? the framers? If so, the framers, starting with the founding fathers, had different perspectives on the general provisions they drafted. Moreover, does one then consider the intent of the the state legislatures or constitutional conventions that ratified the Amendments?

There are arguments to be made intelligently about the several approaches a court may take in applying constitutional principle, but by saying that left wingers invented the living document crap to make it anything they want reflects an ignorance of the constitutional process from Marbury v. Madison onward.

I keep saying that the uninformed always attack decisions they see as activist as liberal abuses, but decisions, such as the Heller case, which was activist in expanding the II Amendment, and the recent voting rights act decision, eviscerating the act show that activism isn't limited to the left wing.

Ivory tower pomposity is often used to degrade and demean those with whom we disagree using ostentatious verbosity as a form of abusive ad hominem. Notice the use of "uninformed," which clearly assumes a set a facts not in evidence. It assumes legal, historical and hermeneutical ignorance. No attempts to prove the unfounded assertion were even attempted.

In common parlance original intent is used synonymously with original meaning or public meaning. As Georgetown University Law Professor Lawrence Solum wrote: "Most contemporary originalists believe that the relevant inquiry is into the original "public meaning" of the constitutional provision at issue. Hardly anyone thinks that the intentions, expectations, or purposes of the framer's are independently entitled to interpretive authority--although they may be evidence of original public meaning."

When speaking of SDP, for example, one side may only have knowledge of post Lochner decisions while completely dismissing the many valid Lochner-era decisions or even the pre-Lochner era. Whatever the case, the sort of liberty that William O. Douglas found in the 14th Amendment's SDP was something that most hermeneutical scholars would call eisogesis, reading something into the text that is not there. Why not claim that penumbras and emanations exist in every document? Why not see penumbras and emanations in simple conversations, or food labels, or everything else? It is simply the legal equivalent of spontaneous generation.

Contrary to ignorant declarations that claim Marbury v Madison saw the Constitution as a living document, it needs to be pointed out that there is a modern meaning and an older one. The older definition of "living document" is a document subject to editing and amending. The modern definition is of loose constructionism, which allows the text to have meaning changes as the surrounding culture changes or social demand. The modern form of "living document," or in this case, "living Constitution," goes back to Woodrow Wilson, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis. To conflate the new meaning with the older is to engage in historical anachronism and equivocation. The defender of the "living Constitution" approach wants to engage in a legal form of special pleading and utilize a hermeneutic that is not applied to other legal documents. I have yet to see this approach taken to a restaurant menu or to an automotive repair manual. If I ever witness such an event I hope I have the opportunity to document it to see exactly where the penumbras and emanations are found in the description for a chicken burrito or a plate of linguini.

Those who decry, demean and dismiss valid legal decisions that are perfectly in concert with the original understanding and public meaning of the Second Amendment and others are usually the most flagrant exploiters of definitional distortion such as redefining activism to mean its opposite. It not only reflects a poor understanding of American Constitutional history, but history in general.

I will not even go into the fact origanlism has nothing to do with the founder intents. But clearly you have figured everything out, so I will not advise reading on the subject.

As I said before, amend the constitution if you don't like. All those terrible things above were amended, not the results of judges making up new doctrines under a living constitution (ie what the lords and ladies at Yale Law School think at the time).

Do you seriously want to compare making up doctrines out of whole cloth like Abortion out of a bizarre compilations of amendments to defining the details of something clearly mandated under the constitution (gun rights)? One has a textual basis, the other does not.

If things are so flexible under your view of the constitution, what exactly was wrong with Lochner or the Slaughter house cases? Is it just a ideological litmus test of "i agree with this policy"? Because I agree with underlying substance of Lochner, but realize it was legislating from the bench and hence wrong. Those like me will try to convince the public and change policy through the political process- not encourage philosopher kings.

It's not a bizarre compilation of amendments. The XIV and V Amendments dovetail each other in protecting life, liberty and property, and the pervasive interests of liberty -the right to be left alone- is inherent in the First and Fourth Amendments. Certainly you believe there are unenumerated constitutional rights as well as numerated rights. The framers did, and the several states that ratified the Bill of Rights would not have done so without the Ninth.

And regarding Heller, there is no textual argument that the second Amendment protects a person's right to own firearms for self-defense as Heller suggests in a 5-4 decision. Here's where original meaning comes into play. A key phrase in the Amendment is "The people." When dealing with individual rights, like those in the Fifth Amendment, the word "person" is used to connote a personal right. When the term ""the people" is used (as in We, the people, or the people's right to assemble), it refers to the citizenry of free men acting for a public purpose. The language of the Second Amendment tying the right of "the people" to the purpose of national defense, defines the right. Moreover, some state constitutions at the time of the federal constitution's origins included provisions recognizing self-defense and hunting as bases for the right to own firearms. The founders specifically rejected these as a basis for the Second Amendment. Also, the phrase "bear arms" carried a connotation that was limited to military or national or state defense, not for an individual purpose.

Therefore Heller (the first time the Second Amendment was ever interpreted to involve an individual right and"invented" right to owning a gun for self-defense) is an activist decision that expanded the meaning of the Amendment.

The Slaughterhouse cases were based on the privileges and immunities clause while Lochner was based on the due process clause. Nobody puts much credence in slaughterhouse as good law, and Lochner is also deemed as flawed. But these are economic cases, which today have a nuch lower level of scrutiny by the courts than individual rights and fundamental rights.

Regarding the Heller case you don't know what you're talking about. This is where historical context is of the utmost importance, and your anti-self-defense bias is clearly clouding your interpretation. Clayton Cramer, for example, showed that for the entire early American period firearms were present in many homes for defensive purposes. It was normal for homes to be armed against aggressors as well as for hunting purposes. To make the claim that arms holding was limited to militias is historically absurd.

The left-winger wants to take away the inherent right of self-defense from a citizen to who faces armed attackers. It's simply unconscionable.

Under the standard you state above, I can create madeup doctrines based on the XIV and V in almost any respect. There is no limiting principle at all, except maybe political pressure on the court. The fact you think the XIV and V stand for or can be constructed in a fashion on-demand abortions on a national level is laughable. It is ahistorical, atextual, and has a shifting, completely indeterminate justification. I will not even get into the federalism concerns raised by the doctrine, as clearly the constitution stood for much stronger federalism than enforced today.

You still haven't answered my question: Why can't I rejustify lochner using those "rights" under XIV and V? People have a right to contract with others without the government getting involved in their private transactions. There are liberty and property interests at stake. At least it wouldnt be ahistorical.

On the other hand, you are going after clearly textual rights that were extremely important to the framing process. The 2nd amendment meaning clearly refers the people's right to overthrown the government when it become tyrannical. Without a right to bear arms individual, that is a impossible task.

Only under a warped jurisprudence could you look at the constitution and see the framers endorsing on-demand national abortion rights and see no right to have a weapon in your own home. I honestly support abortion rights for the most part, but Roe is a moronic decision on every level and permanently ruined the courts standing in our society as a fair arbitrator.

[quote=Faithful1

The left-winger wants to take away the inherent right of self-defense from a citizen to who faces armed attackers. It's simply unconscionable. [/quote]

This is the kind of statement that devoids you of credibility. I am a left winger and am in favor of a citizen's right to self defense from armed attackers. I am not in favor of schizophrenics or drug addicts or other mentally disturned people carrying firearms, I am not in favor of the "right" to carry firearms into bars or moie theaters, and I most certainly not in favor of the "right" for a vigilante to arm himself, follow a kid he profiles all around a neighborhood, be told by the cops to stand down, who then gets out of his car and shoots the kid to death get away with it.


Your legal analysis, the logical conclusion is that Marbury v. Madison, which gave the Supreme Court the powers it has was a bad case, and that it opened the floodgates to everything that has come forward since.

As for Roe, it was the right decision for the wrong reasons. The Court learned its lesson in the recent Gay marriage decision, which has opened the door to Gay marriage, but not proclaimed it the law of the land as they did in Roe. They could have limited Roe to the facts at bar and ruled favorably in a narrower manner. Incidentally Roe was technically moot by the time it got to the court, but it was heard under the doctrine (also not found in the constitution) of "capable of repitition yet evading review.

There are most certainaly unenumerated rights, and some are ancient ones. It is the law of this country that anything not covered by the constitution statutes or U.S. Common law is still governed by the laws of pre 1776 England. A good example is Riparian rights, which goes back forever. Statutes have changed it a great deal, but it is never mentioned in the constitution, but the rights and liabilities came from England to the US courts and legislatures.

dontomasso, you are in no position to question anyone's credibility. I was right about what I wrote about left-wingers and self-defense. You are for it in theory, but then you kill it with a death of a thousand cuts by adding qualifier after qualifier, then bring in the Zimmerman case out of the blue because bringing him evidently makes you feel better about yourself.

Talk about not having credibility, your summary of what he did is way off base. He didn't follow "a kid" around a neighborhood, there was no evidence he racially profiled him (even if he did -- so what?), he wasn't a vigilante, the cops didn't tell him to stand down, and he didn't get out his car and shoot "the kid" to death. Damn, have you not read anything about the case? Sounds like some far left-wing MSNBC talking point.

Roe was the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Things aren't right just cuz you like them. Right means either morally good or factually correct. The Roe decision is neither.

Nobody seems to want or be able to counter Little Nicky's arguments. I find that rather illuminating given the great legal minds that this site has.

Bottom line, for the Supreme Court to legalize abortion on the basis of the "right to privacy" in the Constitution was such a stretch as to be laughable to anyone who is honest about it. That's the problem with the libs and their "living document" bull crap. The twist and pervert the meaning of the Constitution to whatever they want.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. First of all don't assume what my policy view points are. I assure you know less about them than you do about the origins of the Second Amendment. It is laughable that you suggest that because many men owned firearms before, during and after the ratification of the Bill of rights, it somehow shows that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own firearms for the various purposes, for which they were being used. You neglect two major facts in the shallow analysis:

1. The Bill of Rights, when ratified, were inapplicable to the several states. Ownership of guns among the citizenry existed, unaffected by the Amendments.

2. The state constitutions, which addressed owning guns and bearing arms (two distinct things), governed the rights of ownership. Some states included a right to gun ownership for hunting. Others did not, but that didn't mean it was outlawed.

There is actually a hell of a lot that prevents the Lochner-type case from becoming law. First, one of the major recognized problems of the case is that it was decided the XIV Amendment grounds of liberty. The Supreme Court in the 1920s and early 30s struck down many laws on this basis, frequently New Deal legislation. However, for the past 75 years the Court has applied a rational basis test to determining these cases involving economic cases. Therefore, precedent has established review of these cases on a standard that the law is constitutional if there is a rational basis for its enactment to achieve a legitimate govrnment purpose.

If you understand the process of certiorari, you know that a miniscule percentage of cases seeking SC review actually are granted review. It is rare that a case, like Lochner, that does not involve a fundamental right, and had been decided by the Circuit Court according to the low level of scrutiny, firmly established by decades of precedent, even makes it to the SC for consideration (4 justices need to agree to accept it). Through stare decisis and the application of tests for review, it is highly unlikely, you would see Lochner reborn in this day .

Klydon, my friend, you and I and others are wasting time with these knuckle dragging right wing holes. They sonsider their opinions, however ill advised to be "facts," and there is nothing that can be donne to change their minds. I'm quits with these people and their posts. Just take heart in the dact they cnstitute about 23 per cent of the electorate, and they will prevent the Republicans from taking the White House for at least 11 more years, assuming Hillary does 8. By then Ted Cruz and Tea Party will be trivia pursuit questions.

What kind of shit can law school did you go to? I hope your motions for summary judgement aren't filled with that many spelling errors.

Don, you have a split personality. One minute your preaching neutrality, the next your revealing your left-wing ideology. If there is one thing the conservatives on this site are, it is consistent. You on the other hand can't seem to keep straight what end of the spectrum you are on. At least be consistent, and stop trying to appear to be a moderate in your "What happened" posts.

Your a typical left wing plaintiff side litigator. You have no concept of economics and everything is about social justice to you.

The idea that the II Amendmentexists the right of the people to overthrow its government is a ludicrous myth, perpetuated by the likes of Glenn Beck, who rip a few quotes out of context. There simply is no historical basis for this idea.

The Constitutional Convention was called by Congress in no small part as a result of Shay's Rebellion, in which farmers took arms against the tyrannical government of Massachusetts. The framers, particularly Washington and Madison, vociferously condemned the rebellion, praised Massachusetts for raising a militia to crush it and confiscate the guns of all involved.

There was absolutely no consideration in the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution and the subsequent debates that generated the Bill of Rights to permit a means for the people to overthrow a government by force. The idea is irrational. The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.

On the contrary the clear meaning and impetus behind the Amendment, drafted by Madison, reflected the opposite view. Keep in mind that the Founders, Federalist and Anti-federalist, were adamantly opposed to a standing army, and recognized that protection from inside and outside the boarders, depended on calling on a militia of the free citizenry as Massachusetts had done in 1786. The militia was envisioned as a necessary governmental instrument, not as an adversary or check on the government. As the Constitution itself explains, its purpose is to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions," not to allow for insurrections.

Somehow, it's become a romanticized notion that the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms against our own government. But there is no historic basis. I think it started in the Timothy McVeigh nut job school of Second Amendment history.

If by "consistent" you mean consistently misinformed, then I concur.

Klydon.

Lol. I hope your employer cuts your ass down to sub 30 hours a week to avoid obama care as I am advising small business owners to do. Serves you right. Let it hit home for you to get the message.

Wow, I have never seen such outright rude and boorish behavior. No wonder everyone else has left this thread, because trying to debate ideas here is like arguing with a tree stump, and perhaps stump would be more open-minded.

As the kids would say, Later, Haters!

Not covering every detail due to personal time considerations is not neglect. That's one of the many false statements and assumptions that you regularly post here. As you can see, I've been a member here since 2006 yet I have only recently broken the 200 post barrier, unlike you who has thousands of posts. I have no desire to invest as much time into posting here as you do because of other things I am involved in. It is not a priority for me. So don't make assumptions about what I know by what I post, and I won't make assumptions about the extent of your arrogance. I assure you I know far more than what I write on this site.

As for the two points you made, those facts are not news to me. But ignoring historical context as you have done is not laughable, it is sad. Notice too, that I have limited my argument to firearm use for self-defense. The language of the Second Amendment is clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is separate from the preceding clause which depended on it, and the majority view was that the militia was the "body of the citizenry." The general idea was not that the newly formed United States was going to become a tyranny, but that the people would theoretically fight off a foreign attacker, and that it was better without a standing army. Even with a standing army, it was irrelevant to the accepted belief that there was an inherent right to defend oneself (and family and country). It was seen as a natural right.

My not going into the details of the different ratification committees, the reformational and enlightenment influences on the thoughts of the various Constitutional authors, etc., should be used to create the false assumption that I am unfamiliar with them.

As opposed to left-wingers being consistently wrong.

You're doing it again, DT. You're letting your adversaries here goad you into making ridiculous predictions like this one. She'll never be President. Ever. And I don't care how many people tell me that I'm crazy for saying so. Too many people hate her.

The Republicans who have been in her corner will turn on her at the drop of a hat the minute she announces her candidacy. Her Middle East skeletons will come back to haunt her on both sides (her support of the war in Iraq still sticks in the craw of the Left, and the Benghazi mess will be exploited by the Right). Not to mention that who wants another 70 year old, male or female, back in the White House? And who knows what the hell will be with her health three years from now, let alone eleven years from now? I've read that her health scare last year was much more serious that the press was willing to admit.

And you know what else? I was a Democrat for a good many years and wouldn't vote for her with a gun to my head. It's enough already with the fucking Clintons and their sense of entitlement. I hope that idiot Biden at least goes down swinging. It's DISGRACEFUL that a sitting Vice President should be expected to step aside to accommodate a candidate just because their name is Clinton . Not that he has a chance in hell of beating her in the primary, but he can put enough stink on her to cost her the general election.

President Christie. Get used to the sound of it. And I don't even like the guy.

I would like to see Christie in office. Guy is as sharp as a needle

I read an article in the paper not to long ago with the head line saying Christie was to fat to be president lol.

Which is why he had the lap band surgery. Christie has some good points. His reaction to Sandy was perfection. He showed care and concern for his constituents, he wasn't afraid to let his emotions show and he proved that he could put aside bipartisan blinders for the greater good. However, he needs to learn to watch his temper and keep his big mouth shut.

This most recent pissing contest, and with a reporter no less, proves to me that he's not ready for the Presidency.

If a senator who barely started his first term in office was ready for the presidency, then Christie is way beyond ready.

Could not agree more.

BINGO.

Ridiculous.

Why? Because Christie shows characteristics of leadership and has a backbone? Let's face it. Obama didn't have a clue about what he was getting into

Pizza makes a great case- but underestimates the stupidity of the American people. I will bet anyone on here Hillary "my only accomplishment was sleeping ONCE with Bill" Clinton is our next president.

One point of disagreement: Joe Biden is among the biggest jokes in VP history. His own president has shoved him aside intentionally for the Clintons- and not only because the Clintons still control the party, but because Biden is a third tier attorney like Don.

Dons arguments are the equivalent off "democrats in power nanny nanny nanny you cant do anything about it." And "obama is the best ever, nanny nanny nanny".

Stop with the school yard child's talk. Don't you have a JD for christ's sake? Yeah its probably from a terrible school but nonetheless, a JD. I mean, we all know how highly regarded that degree is these days.

No, because he's a blowhard who doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut. That shows immaturity and impulsiveness, two things that don't work for the office of the Presidency.

As I said, he has some very good traits. He may mature into a better candidate for the job, but I don't think he's ready now. It has nothing to do President Obama vs. Governor Christie.

Kind of like the big O commenting about how Trayvon could have been his son or Syria was a red line. Let's not pretend the current guy is a stoic philosopher.

I don't like Christie or Obama, but think they are wrong on policy grounds, I would rather not choose my presidents on this bullshit People magazine celebrity like analysis of their personalities.

>The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.

That really has worked well. I'm sure the NSA is super scared of some some words on the paper and a worthless judiciary. Again, by your standard, the Soviet Union had the most free society ever because it promised so much freedom in its constitution.

I can also pull tons of work from the time of ratification about protection against tyranny by the people through revolution. You know the famous Jefferson quotes, so I guess he was influenced by old timmy as well. When force comes to bear, they were smart enough to realize there is nothing law that can protect the people. "People" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection.

Do you really think it impossible at some future time that the government may go tyrannical? Take the long view of history, every republic to this point ends in tyranny.

Additional point: I like how you cut out my post about your approach being completely indeterminate and without a limiting principle. Why can't Lochner be passed by the same right of privacy, besides of course, your disagreement with the free market system?

Eight of the thirteen original states adopted bills of rights prior to the ratification of the federal constitution. Each had a provision concerning the right of militias and arms. These declarations formed the basis of the Second Amendment, and none of the declarations remotely implied that the right to bear arms is related in any way to overthrowing a tyrannical government. Their stated purpose is just the opposite. It is to defend the state, not overthrow it. They were opposed to standing armies and recognized that the militias, consisting of free and able men, be under the control of civil authority. Pennsylvania and Vermont extended the right to include self-defense, but this language was omitted by the other states and rejected by the Fathers when drafting the Amendment.

It's interesting to note that there was no intent on the part of the founding fathers to include a Bill of Rights as they thought that the state constitutions were adequate. Anti-federalists complained and so the Bill of Rights was drafted. But in the discussions for the second Amendment, various reasons were put forth for the amendment. The frontier states were concerned about attacks from outside the borders by Indians. George Mason of Virginia expressed the southern states' having to defend against possible insurrections from the slaves(Talk about having a reason to oppose a tyrranical government, the slaves had the best cause).
While the declaration of Independence which is not a legal document, correctly identifies an inalienable right to sever the bonds from an oppressive regime, that right is not imbedded in the Second Amendment and has never been interpreted as the reason for the Second Amendment.

I don't know what you mean by my disagreement with the free market system, but the short answer why a case, like Lochner, can't be decided on privacy grounds under the XIV or IX Amendment grounds is that working your job and earning a living is simply not a private activity.

The first, third, fourth, fifth amendments all embody privacy considerations. Privacy rights have been narrowly shaped by caselaw to deal with issues of personal autonomy (as Justice Brandeis recognized in the 19th century- "the right to be left alone"). The privacy rights are personal, rooted in family, procreation, child raising, marriage.

Precedent has resisted extending the rights to commercial activities, like running a bakery in Lochner, an activity that requires hiring people, paying rent, buying from vendors, selling to others, basically an enterprise conducted in the public, openly and for profit.

government actions that impinge a privacy right, like criminalizing homosexuality (Bowers), abortion (Roe) involve a privacy right under the Fourteenth. This is not to say the law automatically fails, but it is subject to strict scrutiny requiring the State to show a compelling state interest to justify the infringement as the first prong of strict scrutiny test.

Contrsry to belief, the Court has been rigid in extending the right of privacy beyond private considerations.

The court holds government intrusion into the regulation of all bakers to a rational basis test, but when the government enters the bedroom to arrest two consenting adults for not having sex the way the government mandates, then, yes, the strictest scrutiny is warrantesd.

As I said above, I disgree with a constitutional right to abortion. But it's not because of privacy as a right. I believe that a law precluding abortion should be subject to strict scrutiny as it impacts private, procreative rights. I feel that the state has a compelling interest in safeguarding the prenatal life.

This is a positive development. Sounds like a libertarian argument. The definition that Casey came up with, that the state may protect its "profound interest" in potential life so long as it does not do so in a way that has the intent or effect of posing an undue burden on the woman's right to terminate pregnancy prior to viability," is based on a misunderstanding of biology since the developing embryo/fetus is not a "potential life," but an actual one, although not capable of living independently. However the viability standard, which is interpreted to mean independence, could extend to infants since they are clearly not able to live independently either, nor for that matter, surgical patients, comatose patients, those with severe mental and developmental disabilities, etc.

Here is the argument from Libertarians For Life:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Hey, stupid, why don't you back up your conclusions with scientific evidence?

Not only does he call me stupid, but he doesn't even spell stupid right! LOL

Since when? What law mandates this? Parents could stop being parents. They aren't murderers for abandoning their children.

Your argument for saying not being viable is the same as a person who needs medical assistance is simply false. The very big difference is that you don't make anyone take care of them. Those who do, do it voluntarily with love, or professionally with pays and benefits. Both can walk out any time they wish.

BTW, I do believe abortion must be protected as a privacy right. All medical matters of a person are subjected to privacy rights.

Until Faithful and Schmo are banned forever I am not posting in this section.

It depends on the point of view. To me, they are no better than murderers. Morality and the sense of compassion for the abandoned children matter very much to me, more than THIS kind of "rights". Freedom is a good concept, but when people are free to do really EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION, society will disappear.


So a child is not a person with a right to live no matter what?

Let's be clear, legal matters don't depend on point of views or morality. He said they have no right. But they do. They can abandon their children in churches, fire stations and locations like that and stop being parents. Morality is a whole other issue which I wasn't talking about. If someone can't provide for their children, maybe it isn't that immoral in my book either. Someone who can't feed themselves, are not expected to take care of another dependent.



Of course all living beings have a right to life. However, that right should not be forced on others. If you be the only one who can give body parts to your dying child and save him/her, and if you choose not to do so, are you a murderer? I don't think so. It's your body. You legally are not required to do so. That's a person. Its life depends on you. Still you don't have to save it.

That was the argument posted at Libertarians for Life.

I think the form of abandonment they have in mind is NOT bringing their unwanted children to a hospital or fire station, but abandoning them to the elements, as in leaving them in their cribs and totally ignoring/neglecting them, including not giving them food or water. Leaving the baby in the crib while the rest of the family moves out of the house never to return. THAT sort of abandonment. I don't consider giving up a child to be adopted abandonment -- that can actually be a very loving thing.

Regarding what a person does to themselves in privacy doesn't wash either. Take for example a mentally disturbed person cuts off her own hand, or nose. Is she going to be left alone because of her privacy rights? I let you answer that one.

That's mighty fascist of you, dontomasso. Someone disagrees with you and you want them banned. Heil, dontomasso!

Abortion clearly is not what a person does to herself, it's what's being done to her, at her choice, by a healthcare professional. Are trying to say that women wanting abortion are mentally disrupted? Wow. Are those who refuse to give body part to their children are mentally disrupted as well? It's their obvious right.

Clearly a person is morally disturbed, to coin a phrase, if they are willing to kill their own child, and often mentally disturbed as well. As for it being a right, that's only because a certain US Supreme Court decided that way. If it decided the other way it wouldn't be a FEDERAL legal right. As such, rights that are given can easily be taken away. Moreover, just because it's a right doesn't make it morally good. If a right is nothing more than a choice, then it is a right to rob a bank. However, that doesn't make it the right thing to do in a moral sense.

First of all, you evade my question. Should there be a law that make people give body parts to their children? Should medical information of people be made public so that they get blamed for not doing so?

As for Roe, the case is based on other cases that give women right to their privacy to use contraception. I doubt there would be grounds for overturning that without overturning a lot of other cases that would not happen. But then GOP sells that to its less bright base just to gather votes.

I didn't answer your question because the way its worded doesn't make sense. "Should there be a law that make people give body parts to their children?" If you rewrite it in a way that makes sense then I can answer. The way you wrote it, it sounds like you're advocating a law for cannibalism.

As for medical info being made public, thanks to Obamacare it is now in the hands of the IRS.

We already went over Roe being bad law based on something Justice Brennan made up and does not follow logically from privacy concerns. You shouldn't insult the GOP base. It's the Democrats who bring mentally retarded patients who have no idea about politics to vote (they get to go into the voting booth with them), so they're not only the evil party, but the mentally retarded party. The criticism I'll make on the GOP is that they're a wimpy party that's afraid to fight back (with a few exceptions).

You didn't answer it, because you don't want to show the hypocrisy of your argument. My question is clear. Should there be laws that mandates parents to donate body parts to their children in need of a transplant? If you choose not to do so, have you murdered your child? Should this matter be presented to public and not just IRS that doesn't picket outside hospital?

You went over why you think Roe is a bad case. I never said I agree with you.

Actually, I only meant that for me abortion is murder. I didn't mean that not donating body parts is murder, I was only talking about killing unborn children (or abandoning those already born, but that was another question), not about organ donation.

But it's the same thing. Isn't the dying child in need of kidney innocent? Isn't it your child? So why shouldn't there be a law that make you donate a kidney or part of your liver or whatnot? Is it just women who are taken for granted? Don't they have a say if they don't want to donate their womb to a fetus?

When you assume things you make an ass of yourself. Don't assume to know what my thoughts or motivations are. I wrote why I didn't answer you the first time and that was why. A law to mandate that parents give their body parts when their children are in need of a transplant shows a total lack of understanding of genetics. Children have both sets of DNA -- one from each parent. A single parent may not be a match for any given organ, plus there are registries available. Parents may also need those organs so they can work to make the money that pays for the child's care, so not donating does not imply neglect or abuse. Some organs one cannot live without. A parent cannot donate his/her heart/brain/liver/etc and still live. It would be suicide, and would leave the child without a parent.

Your question is a non-sequitur, and to answer "No" (as I do), is not an example of hypocrisy but of logical thinking and a knowledge of reality. I'll add that if a parent refuses to donate an organ to their child (for whatever reason), it is not a case of the active taking of a human life. There is no intention of ending the human life. In the case of abortion there is an active deliberate taking of a human life. If you refuse to give your child your liver you are not trying to kill your child, but if you skin your child alive or chop it to pieces (as abortion does), then you are actively and deliberately murdering your child. BIG DIFFERENCE.

On Roe, did you mean you never said you DIDN'T agree with me?

Oh, please, it's obvious what I meant. I meant what if a parent is the only candidate available at the time that can donate a body part that would save their child and let them live, such as a kidney, liver or bone marrow. After all it's not like it's legal to donate a heart or brain of a living person. So if they passively sit and let their child die, it's not murder. So I challenge you to make such a case a matter of public record as you think abortion should be and see how public would react to your choice.

In Roe, I meant what I said in that post. Read it again. "I never said I agree with you." It means I don't agree with you.

It might have been obvious in your mind, but we aren't mind readers. You needed to be clear and you were not. I don't presume to know what you're thinking as you shouldn't presume to know what I'm thinking. We're arguing both philosophical and legal issues here, so arguments have to be precise to be understood accurately.

How the public reacts shows how little you understand logical reasoning. An argument isn't true because it's popular. Opinions are fluid and easily changeable, easily influenced. If want a popularity contest, don't debate philosophy.

It was already obvious that you agreed with Roe and didn't agree with me on it, so what you wrote was either pointless or confused. It made more sense for it to be in error with a word left out, but you wanted it to be pointless. If you want to restate what really is obvious, well that's your right.

As if you don't intend to win a philosophical argument based on popularity contest, one that's already won in Roe by greater minds than yours.

Roe wasn't won by popularity, it was won by force, by minds lower than dirt.

For the record I never said Roe won by popularity. Not sure how you read my posts. Just wow.

This thread is a perfect example of how low this board has gone

And why is that, Don Marco? Please enlighten us.

This thread has an interesting title. However, belatedly, this is the first time I've surfed here. How did it evolve into a thread about abortion?

Allow me to enlighten you. There was once a time when the members here could engage in civilized debates without insulting one another. Now, it is impossible to disagree with someone without making a personal attack against them. There is no respect between board members anymore.

Half of you are damned lucky that I don't moderate these boards.

I don't recall without looking at the older entries. Maybe there should be a separate abortion topic.

I'm all for civilized debate. One of the less civilized debaters not only threw out a bunch of insults at me but even pm'd a few. If we can all agree to be gentlemen (and ladies) here and agree to disagree without being disagreeable, I'm all for it. I'd like to see others make that pledge.

Here's an excellent piece about the Democrat lack of civility:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/doves-and-peaceniks-no-more-these-democrats-relish/