oops...cain is pro choice

[Wry Catcher]

It is true that Obama was dealt a shitty hand but sooner or later we all get one and we have to play the hand that we are dealt. Some know when to fold and take a new deal; some know how to bluff effectively and some know how to calculate the odds and come out ahead. Those who don't only reduce the assets they had to start with.

Obama doesn't apparently know when he has a bad hand; he isn't smart enough to bluff effectively; and he sure doesn't know how to get ahead in the game by playing the good cards effectively. In other words he is a terrible poker player which is a metaphor for terrible President but seems to think nobody notices that.

I have to believe that because the alternative is that he is intentionally squandering his stack of chips. And as much as it looks that way sometimes, I don't want to believe that he is hammering the American economy and standing in the world on purpose.

Obama knows he has been dealt a bad hand, and knows that the Congressional Leadership will deal from the bottom of the deck if he folds. Better to play a bad hand when the opponent has shown his cards and they are worthless. Even a 8-high will beat what the Republican's hold, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Boehener bet on catching an inside straight and failed.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't have the ability to inflict (especially from your keyboard); you do proselytize ad nauseam. Cain is two-faced, if his position on abortion is indicative.

It is not two-faced to say that one believes both that abortion is wrong (and should be illegal in most cases) AND that it is not the province of the Federal Government to interject itself into the question which is properly either one for the States or the People.

It is perfectly coherent and consistent. This explains your unending confusion, Fly Catcher.

When did Cain assert abortion was a states-right's issue? Cain was clear, clear in that he was opposed to abortion ("I support life") and clear that he supported a women's right to choose. Even if outlawed by a state government, would his position on choice change? No one knows. My guess, he (and you) hope to create confusion, and yes that is two-faced and dishonest.

Cain is creating problems for himself by speaking from the heart instead of from a position of political PC and his opponents will continue to use that to their advantage. I can easily see how somebody can say that abortion should be illegal but that the government making it so is not the way to go. It should be illegal in our hearts, in our sense of propriety and culture, in the way we view right and wrong, but it is not the governments place to make that choice for us.

I can easily see Cain supporting laws that reinforce Roe v Wade that makes abortion a matter between the woman and her doctor in the first trimester but gives the state increasing interest after that. Not by the wildest stretch of imagination did Roe intend to make abortion on demand at ANY stage of pregnancy or in ANY circumstances automatically legal. It would absolutely give the state the right to forbid partial birth abortion, for instance, except in the case that both the baby and mother would die without the procedure and I doubt that has ever happened.

I do not see Cain actively supporting overturning Roe v Wade.

My best hope, if Cain actually is the best choice of the lot, is that the American people are so sick of the PC crap and rhetoric of convenience that they will see past the political maneuvering and vote for the intent. Can I see that happening? Absolutely.

 

[Liability]

You don't have the ability to inflict (especially from your keyboard); you do proselytize ad nauseam. Cain is two-faced, if his position on abortion is indicative.

It is not two-faced to say that one believes both that abortion is wrong (and should be illegal in most cases) AND that it is not the province of the Federal Government to interject itself into the question which is properly either one for the States or the People.

It is perfectly coherent and consistent. This explains your unending confusion, Fly Catcher.

When did Cain assert abortion was a states-right's issue? Cain was clear, clear in that he was opposed to abortion ("I support life") and clear that he supported a women's right to choose. Even if outlawed by a state government, would his position on choice change? No one knows. My guess, he (and you) hope to create confusion, and yes that is two-faced and dishonest.

I happen to have a different view on abortion. My view is not entirely self-consistent. My view rejects the claim that the Federal Government (under the mandate of the Constitution) has no proper voice in the issue. But, even so, there are plenty of conservatives who reject my Point of View. They contend that the issue should be governed by STATES' laws, not by the Federal law.

What Mr. Cain said appears a little contradictory and perhaps a little unclear.

So what?

The bottom line is that to the extent that WHAT he has said amounts to the position that the question is not a FEDERAL Government issue, that only leaves two other options. That it is entirely a STATE law issue of that it is a purely personal issue (i.e., one reserved TO the People).

Is he pro life? Yep. Is his "position" somewhat less than clear? Yep. Does he maintain that there is no "right" to an abortion found in the Constitution? Yep.

Has he SAID, clearly or otherwise, that it is a States' law matter? No, not in so many words (at least that I can find). Is that a reasonable inference, though, from what he has said? Possibly. Has he suggested that under certain circumstances, it has to be a personal matter? Yes. Is he in danger of waffling on this issue? Apparently.

Will this hurt him politically? Probably yes, it will, at least with with the so-called "religious right," unless he can clarify his position and do so in a manner they prefer.

Since my own (nuanced) position on abortion is worthy of no greater accolades in terms of "consistency" or clarity, I am not as troubled as Wry Catcher.

Wry Catcher's problem with the Cain position is odd, though, since obviously there are no circumstances under which Wry Catcher would ever vote for Mr. Cain, anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.

The Rabbi doesn't think slavery is immoral. It's not as if a racially offensive post by him is somehow out of character.

 

[Liability]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.

The Rabbi doesn't think slavery is immoral. It's not as if a racially offensive post by him is somehow out of character.

That again?

I don't believe that his position is that slavery is not immoral.

I believe he was making a very different point and using the Socratic method to educate you.

As I recall the thread you are alluding to, he wanted you to make the case that slavery IS immoral so that he could use your answers in a form that would expose your inconsistency.

It was a bad strategy to use with you since, obviously, you prefer to use the example as evidence of something for which it does not really constitute evidence, to attack your opponent on the ad hominem level and to deflect.

 

[Ropey]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.

I would then use quotes to allow others to see that it is clearly being used as an indictment to the use.

"******" is not the N-Word used as a bigot and it shows a clear demarcation. Then the dishonesty is circumvented.

Unless the dishonest person is really not very quick. Thanks for the two way door to its clarification Liability.

 

[The T]

It is not two-faced to say that one believes both that abortion is wrong (and should be illegal in most cases) AND that it is not the province of the Federal Government to interject itself into the question which is properly either one for the States or the People.

It is perfectly coherent and consistent. This explains your unending confusion, Fly Catcher.

When did Cain assert abortion was a states-right's issue? Cain was clear, clear in that he was opposed to abortion ("I support life") and clear that he supported a women's right to choose. Even if outlawed by a state government, would his position on choice change? No one knows. My guess, he (and you) hope to create confusion, and yes that is two-faced and dishonest.

Cain is creating problems for himself by speaking from the heart instead of from a position of political PC and his opponents will continue to use that to their advantage. I can easily see how somebody can say that abortion should be illegal but that the government making it so is not the way to go. It should be illegal in our hearts, in our sense of propriety and culture, in the way we view right and wrong, but it is not the governments place to make that choice for us.

I can easily see Cain supporting laws that reinforce Roe v Wade that makes abortion a matter between the woman and her doctor in the first trimester but gives the state increasing interest after that. Not by the wildest stretch of imagination did Roe intend to make abortion on demand at ANY stage of pregnancy or in ANY circumstances automatically legal. It would absolutely give the state the right to forbid partial birth abortion, for instance, except in the case that both the baby and mother would die without the procedure and I doubt that has ever happened.

I do not see Cain actively supporting overturning Roe v Wade.

My best hope, if Cain actually is the best choice of the lot, is that the American people are so sick of the PC crap and rhetoric of convenience that they will see past the political maneuvering and vote for the intent. Can I see that happening? Absolutely.

1/2 the battle...and Cain speaks from that perspective...

More to the point of the proper functioning of Government as laid out by the Founders... LIFE (#1 for a reason), Liberty, and Persuit of Happiness...simple guidelines.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

That is exactly how Democrats think of blacks. It isn't my slur. It's their's.
Do I need to repost cartoons from the left of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I dont think so.

 

[bodecea]

so herman cain said he doesn't think government has a role in telling a woman what to do with her body.



man are the rightwingnuts gonna be ticked.

Makes me more interested in him.

 

[Ropey]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

That is exactly how Democrats think of blacks. It isn't my slur. It's their's.
Do I need to repost cartoons from the left of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I dont think so.

If you couch the term in quotes ie. "******", then the dishonesty from others attempting to attach it as a personal attack is circumvented.

And you can really laugh at them if they do... imo

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya know, the Rabbi is not really the one using that term. If you look at his post carefully, what he was arguing was that liberal Democrats are the racist ones because THEY don't vote for (what they refer to) as the "n-words" who fail to stay on the plantation.

If one is quoting a biased liberal Democratic (or speaking the way they often speak), that doesn't really mean that one favors the use of such language.

Could the Rabbi have made his point without resort to the offensive term? Probably. Should he have? Arguably.

The question asked by Ropey is fair.

But the pile on crap from Carbuncle is dishonesty by him. No surprise there.

The Rabbi doesn't think slavery is immoral. It's not as if a racially offensive post by him is somehow out of character.

That again?

I don't believe that his position is that slavery is not immoral.

I believe he was making a very different point and using the Socratic method to educate you.

As I recall the thread you are alluding to, he wanted you to make the case that slavery IS immoral so that he could use your answers in a form that would expose your inconsistency.

It was a bad strategy to use with you since, obviously, you prefer to use the example as evidence of something for which it does not really constitute evidence, to attack your opponent on the ad hominem level and to deflect.

Actually, fat boy, he said I was the only one who attempted to seriously debate him.

Then he ran off without debating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

That is exactly how Democrats think of blacks. It isn't my slur. It's their's.
Do I need to repost cartoons from the left of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I dont think so.

Post the cartoons that all Democrats have acknowledged accurately represent their personal views.

 

[Ropey]

^ Couching in quoted terms also ends the above stuff.

 

[Caroljo]

Well.. I also like Cain and I've always liked Bebe, But cheap shots seem to be the protocol for some here.

Since this is a Cain thread, I won't take that topic line.

But I don't see what Jillian said as a cheap shot, just a difference of opinion. It just threw me. Everyone has the right to their view.

I just wanted to be sure if Jillian thinks Gilad should still be in the hands of the Hamas so as to keep the thousand Muslim prisoners. The question is doubly so now that we have his live soul back. With her response I wonder? Would the trade back be a good thing in her mind?

A repeal of health care kind of thing I wonder?

I'll kind of stick around here to find her mind.

I think there are more soldiers. There are always more soldiers. And trading 1,000 terrorists for him was stupid. I'm shocked that Bibi did that. But phrasing it as if i *want* Gilad back in captivity is absurd. I'm thrilled he's out. I celebrate that. But again... he is ONE soldier. What happens when the 1,000 freed for him start blowing up babies in carriages. And what happens when they take the next soldier? Who did they protect? One man? At what cost?

Do you think it's such a good idea then?

And don't talk about me in the third person. While I really have no desire to be dragged into jroc's neo-con lunacy, i'm free to answer questions and can read.... if i CHOOSE to answer a question posed to me.

as for the health care part of your question... not worth responding to.

I agree with you on this Jillian...and i don't ALWAYS agree with you
I'm very pro Israel, but to release 1000 terrorists for 1 person really shocked me. And Hamas said they plan on capturing more Israelis so they can keep doing this! ONE Israeli for 1000 terrorists! I would not hate my country for not doing this if i was the one prisoner. I thinks its wonderful that he got to go home...but at what price?

 

[Ropey]

Since this is a Cain thread, I won't take that topic line.

But I don't see what Jillian said as a cheap shot, just a difference of opinion. It just threw me. Everyone has the right to their view.

I just wanted to be sure if Jillian thinks Gilad should still be in the hands of the Hamas so as to keep the thousand Muslim prisoners. The question is doubly so now that we have his live soul back. With her response I wonder? Would the trade back be a good thing in her mind?

A repeal of health care kind of thing I wonder?

I'll kind of stick around here to find her mind.

I think there are more soldiers. There are always more soldiers. And trading 1,000 terrorists for him was stupid. I'm shocked that Bibi did that. But phrasing it as if i *want* Gilad back in captivity is absurd. I'm thrilled he's out. I celebrate that. But again... he is ONE soldier. What happens when the 1,000 freed for him start blowing up babies in carriages. And what happens when they take the next soldier? Who did they protect? One man? At what cost?

Do you think it's such a good idea then?

And don't talk about me in the third person. While I really have no desire to be dragged into jroc's neo-con lunacy, i'm free to answer questions and can read.... if i CHOOSE to answer a question posed to me.

as for the health care part of your question... not worth responding to.

I agree with you on this Jillian...and i don't ALWAYS agree with you
I'm very pro Israel, but to release 1000 terrorists for 1 person really shocked me. And Hamas said they plan on capturing more Israelis so they can keep doing this! ONE Israeli for 1000 terrorists! I would not hate my country for not doing this if i was the one prisoner. I thinks its wonderful that he got to go home...but at what price?

Do you know the details that Israel went through to make this decision? If so, please link us to them so I can make my own personal decision with the true facts.

Until then, I go with Benjamin and the Israeli decision.

Like Cain.

And I still disagree with the conflation of the two events.

 

[Caroljo]

I think there are more soldiers. There are always more soldiers. And trading 1,000 terrorists for him was stupid. I'm shocked that Bibi did that. But phrasing it as if i *want* Gilad back in captivity is absurd. I'm thrilled he's out. I celebrate that. But again... he is ONE soldier. What happens when the 1,000 freed for him start blowing up babies in carriages. And what happens when they take the next soldier? Who did they protect? One man? At what cost?

Do you think it's such a good idea then?

And don't talk about me in the third person. While I really have no desire to be dragged into jroc's neo-con lunacy, i'm free to answer questions and can read.... if i CHOOSE to answer a question posed to me.

as for the health care part of your question... not worth responding to.

I agree with you on this Jillian...and i don't ALWAYS agree with you
I'm very pro Israel, but to release 1000 terrorists for 1 person really shocked me. And Hamas said they plan on capturing more Israelis so they can keep doing this! ONE Israeli for 1000 terrorists! I would not hate my country for not doing this if i was the one prisoner. I thinks its wonderful that he got to go home...but at what price?

Do you know the details that Israel went through to make this decision? If so, please link us to them so I can make my own personal decision with the true facts.

Until then, I go with Benjamin and the Israeli decision.

Like Cain.

And I still disagree with the conflation of the two events.

I understand what you mean, and i have alot of respect for Benjamin. I don't know (yet) what the reason was that he did it, but it's articles like this that are very disturbing...

Gilad Shalit's release has given Hamas a boost, says Tzipi Livni | World news | The Guardian

I like Cain too

 

[Full-Auto]

I agree with you on this Jillian...and i don't ALWAYS agree with you
I'm very pro Israel, but to release 1000 terrorists for 1 person really shocked me. And Hamas said they plan on capturing more Israelis so they can keep doing this! ONE Israeli for 1000 terrorists! I would not hate my country for not doing this if i was the one prisoner. I thinks its wonderful that he got to go home...but at what price?

Do you know the details that Israel went through to make this decision? If so, please link us to them so I can make my own personal decision with the true facts.

Until then, I go with Benjamin and the Israeli decision.

Like Cain.

And I still disagree with the conflation of the two events.

I understand what you mean, and i have alot of respect for Benjamin. I don't know (yet) what the reason was that he did it, but it's articles like this that are very disturbing...

Gilad Shalit's release has given Hamas a boost, says Tzipi Livni | World news | The Guardian

I like Cain too

It was a move looking forward to a bigger picture. Now they can spank back hard if needed.

 

[Ropey]

I agree with you on this Jillian...and i don't ALWAYS agree with you
I'm very pro Israel, but to release 1000 terrorists for 1 person really shocked me. And Hamas said they plan on capturing more Israelis so they can keep doing this! ONE Israeli for 1000 terrorists! I would not hate my country for not doing this if i was the one prisoner. I thinks its wonderful that he got to go home...but at what price?

Do you know the details that Israel went through to make this decision? If so, please link us to them so I can make my own personal decision with the true facts.

Until then, I go with Benjamin and the Israeli decision.

Like Cain.

And I still disagree with the conflation of the two events.

I understand what you mean, and i have alot of respect for Benjamin. I don't know (yet) what the reason was that he did it, but it's articles like this that are very disturbing...

Gilad Shalit's release has given Hamas a boost, says Tzipi Livni | World news | The Guardian

I like Cain too

Yes, but I would not go to the UK for my 'opinionated news' on Israeli subjects. There's a lot of control there against Israel.

Let's face it, when even some Jews are miming the conflations, it's bound to be going around pretty powerfully.

 

[JoeB131]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

That is exactly how Democrats think of blacks. It isn't my slur. It's their's.
Do I need to repost cartoons from the left of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I dont think so.

I question how you know what they are thinking, I can't help but think that you really enjoy using that word when you can get away with it...

 

[Ropey]

Rabbi, was the racial slur called for?

That is exactly how Democrats think of blacks. It isn't my slur. It's their's.
Do I need to repost cartoons from the left of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? I dont think so.

I question how you know what they are thinking, I can't help but think that you really enjoy using that word when you can get away with it...

It depends on how often one uses it I would think. Used as such in repetition it becomes a useless scorn. Used to pointedly emphasize a view it becomes a fine weapon. I think that the intelligent know how to use it, and the less intelligent (or mentally lazy) usually either do not use it or they abuse it.