Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Updated Political Poll
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • …
  • 25
Updated Political Poll
Tweet Topic Started: May 22 2016, 08:44 PM (3,326 Views)
Mr Gray Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM Post #241
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
mongo
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
rkl15
Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges.

This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM Post #242
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
mongo
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
rkl15
Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges.

This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM Post #243
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM Post #244
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM Post #245
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
mongo
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
rkl15
Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 10 2016, 02:18 AM
How does a president's stance on guns affect the 2nd amendment rights of anyone?
There is this little thing called SCOTUS and the next POTUS will most likely nominate 2 Judges.

This could drastically change the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mongo Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM Post #246
Coach
Posts:
11,595
Group:
Members
Member
#160
Joined:
February 12, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
mongo
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM
rkl15
Sep 10 2016, 09:29 AM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
The second amendment isn't going anywhere....unfortunately. You gun people need to relax. I remember hearing for 8 years how Obama was gonna round up all your guns. Don't recall that ever happening...
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
Posted Image

"Son, if you really want something in this life you have to work hard for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM Post #247
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
mongo
Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM
mongo
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 AM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Same reason abortion stance is pretty much moot point for me. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is president and who they nominate for scotus.
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM Post #248
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
mongo
Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 01:39 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Roe v wade will likely get overturned as technology advances and continues to show the humanity of a fetus. You can find writings from ignorant people 150 years ago or so similar to your statement, but referring to the rights and humanity of black people.

Many people already view the fetus as a human, and many laws already recognize this such as homicide convictions when someone hurts a pregnant woman and kills the baby...etc.
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 14 2016, 07:14 PM Post #249
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
mongo
Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 08:33 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Don't you see? 150 years ago abortion was outlawed. Just as the the world progressed with the rights of black people, so it did with the rights of women.
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck
Lol. No no no
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Sep 14 2016, 07:52 PM Post #250
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM
dreachon
Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also.
Yes. That's definitely what it is.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM Post #251
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them.

However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 14 2016, 09:56 PM Post #252
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 07:14 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 14 2016, 06:57 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 11:39 AM
mongo
Sep 14 2016, 09:30 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2016, 07:19 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2016, 10:54 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 10 2016, 09:37 PM
dreachon
Sep 10 2016, 09:08 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Read my post. It will be about the human rights of the fetus. That is where we will progress.
I read both his and yours, and I see no reason why your point of view is more valid.
You and dreach are pro choice. Agreeing with my take here would mean admitting that your own current view will prove to be wrong.........I wouldn't expect you to see that.

Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
you assume that your opinion is the right direction. And t works both ways....you being pro-life would mean that agreeing with dreach's take would be admitting that your own current view is wrong.

Your view also assumes a scientific conclusion prior to the actual testing process being done. That's not how science works.

I also am not (and have said before) militantly pro-choice. I see validity in both positions and it's really not a position I put any kind of weight in when voting for a candidate.

If you believe that technology will so clearly prove your position, then why would a person's position on the issue make a difference in your vote?
Science actually already supports my contention that the fetus is a human life. Society and the law of the land just doesn't currently view it as a "full" human worthy of the same protections that we have.

Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Did you vote both times for W?
I did the first time, but not the second. In 2000, I was pretty young and not really thinking in depth about these issues.
You voted for Senator Swiftboat, aka Lurch? Yuck
Lol. No no no
Ok, good, I was worried.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 15 2016, 03:32 AM Post #253
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them.

However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty.
I established my stance on the death penalty in 2010. I didn't vote for Romney.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 15 2016, 03:38 AM Post #254
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Sep 14 2016, 07:52 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:09 AM
dreachon
Sep 11 2016, 02:06 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2016, 06:31 AM
Regarding dreach's comment on the progression towards abortion compared to slavery of blacks. Black people were not always considered lesser humans in this world. It progressed the wrong way at some point in history (roughly during periods of European technology advancements) and then reversed course and headed the right direction. So based on dreach's own assessment of the comparison, my theory would again be valid.
lol
I thought your lack of understanding and thought on the issue was sort of funny also.
Yes. That's definitely what it is.
If science proved to you that say a 3 month old fetus had a desire to survive and definitely felt pain, agony and sorrow during an abortion, just like your born children would if someone were trying to kill them, would you still feel that it's a woman's right to inflict such pain dread and death? This is not a "gotcha" dreach because this technology does not exist that I'm aware of. But you do need to seriously think about it outside of your established ideology.

Think about your own children and the agony you would experience at the thought of their mother trying to kill them while they fought through pain to try to survive. If you knew that the fetus went through the same feelings, would you still feel that it is the moms right?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 15 2016, 09:07 AM Post #255
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 15 2016, 03:32 AM
brumdog44
Sep 14 2016, 09:25 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 14 2016, 08:13 AM
Regarding your last question, I personally think that the protection of human life should be of primary importance in selecting a leader who is given so much power of such issues. Regardless of what direction I think the law will go, I see it as a character trait issue with the candidate, and I am not interested in a candidate who doesn't view human life with the importance that I view it with. For the record, I am consistent with this regarding all life issues, such as the death penalty and war for example.
Which was my original statement: it wouldn't matter if a candidate agreed with you on every position if they were pro-choice....you wouldn't vote for them.

However, I would guess that you most definitely have voted for candidates that are pro-death penalty. George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all pro-death penalty.
I established my stance on the death penalty in 2010. I didn't vote for Romney.
Would you agree that going forward there is very little chance that you will vote for one of the two major parties in a national election given that it's not likely thst either party will put forth a candidate that is pro-life and anti-death penalty?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Our users say it best:
"Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used."
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • …
  • 25

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:52 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy