• Welcome to the Yamaha FZ6 Forums. Member registration disables ads and allows you to post and share. Register Here.

I'm voting for Hillary

  • Thread starter Thread starter HavBlue
  • Start date Start date
HavBlue said:
This is it but unfortunately they never had real backing.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that point. Check out campaign contributions for the various conservative candidates. Ron Paul is in the lead as far as contributions go.

But he's a boat rocker, and so even the other republicans don't want him. He's been kept out of the news as much as possible. And that's all it takes to sabotage his campaign.

Same thing happened four years ago with Howard Dean. He made the Democrats nervous and they shunned him, even though he was the best candidate for them to run. Result, they lost the election.

The Republicans are making the same mistake with Ron Paul. If they got behind him, he could win it. They're going to blow the election on Guliani or Huckabee instead.
 
Fred said:
I'd argue that point. Check out campaign contributions for the various conservative candidates. Ron Paul is in the lead as far as contributions go.

But he's a boat rocker, and so even the other republicans don't want him. He's been kept out of the news as much as possible. And that's all it takes to sabotage his campaign.

Same thing happened four years ago with Howard Dean. He made the Democrats nervous and they shunned him, even though he was the best candidate for them to run. Result, they lost the election.

The Republicans are making the same mistake with Ron Paul. If they got behind him, he could win it. They're going to blow the election on Guliani or Huckabee instead.
Click to expand...

At question is the third party candidate winning, not the Dem or Rep getting behind them for this would make them something other than a third party candidate. Realistically what that third party candidate has turned into is an election spoiler taking votes away from either of the big 2. I have no problem with this but what effects has it had on us as a nation clearly divided?
 
I don't have a clue yet, everytime I start to agree with someone I do a little research and end up not likeing them either.

John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney... who knows???
 
HavBlue said:
Ah yes, Mr. Watergate attorney and the man that wants to overturn Rowe V Wade..
Click to expand...
Only when he is not killing bunnies, burning liberals, and raping small woodland critters.



Ok if we are going to go with Roe Vs. Wade. Lets go.

35,000,000 and counting human babies have be killed since 1973.

In 1973 46 states thru REPRESENTATIVE democracy had outlawed abortion.
9 justices (male) found a secret clause in the constitution making it legal and no longer a state right.

In a Los Angeles Times poll (A basition of republican speech)
57% of the respondents believe abortion is "murder"
72% of women and 58% of men said that abortion should be illegal after the first three months.

NOTE above men are much more supportive of abortion that women.

Abortion can not, would not, and will not be legal if a vote is ever taken on it. It was legislated at the federal level.

However Mr. Thompson can not repeal Roe Vs. Wade and you know that. You know that very well.
However he can continue what 8 years of republican presidency has done and keep nominating conservitive member to the supreme court. They can concievably overturn Roe V. Wade and at that point.
WHAT HAPPENS?
CLASS?

IT REVERTS TO THE STATES TO VOTE USING REPRESENTIATIVE DEMOCRACY TO DECIDE.
Oh my Oh no. Let the people decide if its ok to continue to add to the OVER 35 million executed children. That would be just terrible.





I will be glad to address the lawyer for Nixon comment if you like. It is amazingly simple as well.
 
wrightme43 said:
Only when he is not killing bunnies, burning liberals, and raping small woodland critters.



Ok if we are going to go with Roe Vs. Wade. Lets go.

35,000,000 and counting human babies have be killed since 1973.

In 1973 46 states thru REPRESENTATIVE democracy had outlawed abortion.
9 justices (male) found a secret clause in the constitution making it legal and no longer a state right.

In a Los Angeles Times poll (A basition of republican speech)
57% of the respondents believe abortion is "murder"
72% of women and 58% of men said that abortion should be illegal after the first three months.

NOTE above men are much more supportive of abortion that women.

Abortion can not, would not, and will not be legal if a vote is ever taken on it. It was legislated at the federal level.

However Mr. Thompson can not repeal Roe Vs. Wade and you know that. You know that very well.
However he can continue what 8 years of republican presidency has done and keep nominating conservitive member to the supreme court. They can concievably overturn Roe V. Wade and at that point.
WHAT HAPPENS?
CLASS?

IT REVERTS TO THE STATES TO VOTE USING REPRESENTIATIVE DEMOCRACY TO DECIDE.
Oh my Oh no. Let the people decide if its ok to continue to add to the OVER 35 million executed children. That would be just terrible.





I will be glad to address the lawyer for Nixon comment if you like. It is amazingly simple as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. I especially like the reference to 35 million human babies part, too funny. Had you used the term fetus as opposed to baby and there is a huge difference, you may have been somewhat believable however, you failed to address the true nature of Rowe v Wade. Again. with the use of the terminology "executed children" you are wrong as a fetus has yet to survive on it's own and can't. As such it has legally not made the grade to child as defined by law. I as you may have notice happen to agree with the true intent of Rowe v Wade although I do not agree with the direction our courts have allowed it to develop. God I love bible belt democrats......
 
HavBlue said:
Interesting comment. I especially like the reference to 35 million human babies part, too funny. Had you used the term fetus as opposed to baby and there is a huge difference, you may have been somewhat believable however, you failed to address the true nature of Rowe v Wade. Again. with the use of the terminology "executed children" you are wrong as a fetus has yet to survive on it's own and can't. As such it has legally not made the grade to child as defined by law. I as you may have notice happen to agree with the true intent of Rowe v Wade although I do not agree with the direction our courts have allowed it to develop. God I love bible belt democrats......
Click to expand...


Not a democrat and not from the bible belt. I am a KY implant. I dont go to church, and I am a Republican.
That out of the way.
Lets get back to it.

You are arguing terms not the underlying statements.
You have not stated the "true intent of Roe Vs Wade."

Are you saying that they are not babies? Female humans have (what?) inside them up untill a certain day determined by the Supreme court and then it turns into a baby? What is it? A puppy? A kitten?

You have presented no argument only attacking the wording I chose, and disparaging me as a "bible belt democrat"

Lets discuss the true intent of Roe Vs. Wade.
Where and how exactly is it found that hidden in the constition is a clause stating the execution of a human is the right of the mother? However the father has no rights to the life at all?

How was it decided? Do you know? I do, and will be glad to post it for you.
Why is it a federal law and not a state law? Do you know?

Seriously present a argument. You believe that Fred Thompson wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, and that is a reason against him. Explain why.

For the sake of completly open debate. I would have a 17 year old son or daughter right now were it not for abortion on demand. I have a very vested intrest in the subject. If you would like to attack that as well, please go ahead.
What I would love for you to do though would be present some sort of reasoned response not involving my religous beliefs or choice of political parties. I would also love to hear "The true intent of Roe Vs. Wade that you agree with."
 
wrightme43 said:
Not a democrat and not from the bible belt. I am a KY implant. I dont go to church, and I am a Republican.
That out of the way.
Lets get back to it.

You are arguing terms not the underlying statements.
You have not stated the "true intent of Roe Vs Wade."

Are you saying that they are not babies? Female humans have (what?) inside them up untill a certain day determined by the Supreme court and then it turns into a baby? What is it? A puppy? A kitten?

You have presented no argument only attacking the wording I chose, and disparaging me as a "bible belt democrat"

Lets discuss the true intent of Roe Vs. Wade.
Where and how exactly is it found that hidden in the constition is a clause stating the execution of a human is the right of the mother? However the father has no rights to the life at all?

How was it decided? Do you know? I do, and will be glad to post it for you.
Why is it a federal law and not a state law? Do you know?

Seriously present a argument. You believe that Fred Thompson wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, and that is a reason against him. Explain why.

For the sake of completly open debate. I would have a 17 year old son or daughter right now were it not for abortion on demand. I have a very vested intrest in the subject. If you would like to attack that as well, please go ahead.
What I would love for you to do though would be present some sort of reasoned response not involving my religous beliefs or choice of political parties. I would also love to hear "The true intent of Roe Vs. Wade that you agree with."
Click to expand...

Well, I can see you know little of Roe V Wade. This landmark case actually involved the 14th amendment and the right to privacy. It was first brought to court in Texas in 1970 and first argued before the Supreme Court in December of 1971. The opinion wasn't decided until January of 1973. The decision changed laws in 46 states and so it should have as the due process clause of the 14th amendment was being violated by those states. My agreement with the courts true intent follows the phrase "viability of the fetus." This as a general rule is approximately 28 weeks.

You may want to revue Doe v Bolton in your research path. Texas abortion laws were struck down after Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court ruling was based not on abortion rights but rather a lack of privacy and the due process clause with the 14th Amendment. The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed. This was an effort to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v Bolton. Any attempt to bring religious, moral or emotional views into the argument should be avoided as they simply bring ambiguity into these issues. I do believe a woman has the right to choose but only to a point and I do not consider a method to birth control as an acceptable reason for abortion. This was not the courts intent although the laws have semed to allow this path.
 
HavBlue said:
Well, I can see you know little of Roe V Wade. This landmark case actually involved the 14th amendment and the right to privacy. It was first brought to court in Texas in 1970 and first argued before the Supreme Court in December of 1971. The opinion wasn't decided until January of 1973. The decision changed laws in 46 states and so it should have as the due process clause of the 14th amendment was being violated by those states. My agreement with the courts true intent follows the phrase "viability of the fetus." This as a general rule is approximately 28 weeks.

You may want to revue Doe v Bolton in your research path. Texas abortion laws were struck down after Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court ruling was based not on abortion rights but rather a lack of privacy and the due process clause with the 14th Amendment. The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed. This was an effort to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v Bolton. Any attempt to bring religious, moral or emotional views into the argument should be avoided as they simply bring ambiguity into these issues. I do believe a woman has the right to choose but only to a point and I do not consider a method to birth control as an acceptable reason for abortion. This was not the courts intent although the laws have semed to allow this path.
Click to expand...

To begin,

Recently, the lessons to
be learned from the history of the abortion cases have come into
sharper focus because of the donation of the late Justice Thurgood
Marshall's papers to the Library of Congress.

None of the Justices claim there is a specific textual guarantee
of abortion to be found anywhere in the constitutional document. Nor
does the abortion claim find legitimacy within the background
principles of common law out of which the American Constitution
emerged.

As Bracton records, and the draft opinions within the
internal Marshall papers indicate the Justices knew, abortion has
little common law support, and was clearly thought by some to be
homicide. [II Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England 341 (Thorne
ed. 1968), a citation to which can be found in Justice Blackmun's 4th
circulated draft in December 1972]. Because of the more rudimentary
nature of science in the 18th and 19th centuries, the common law drew
a distinction between abortions before and after quickening [16 to 18
weeks], but under English codification in 1803 both were criminal only
in different degrees. When medical science advanced, the quickening
distinction receded, and penalties for all abortions increased. In
1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, statutory prohibitions or
restrictions on abortion were commonplace. Twenty-eight states of the
then 37 and 8 territories banned or limited abortion. [J. Mohr,
Abortion in America at 200 (1978)].

Oh noes!! Whats this?

Maybe I do have a clue about what I am talking about? Maybe the "you know little about Roe Vs. Wade" hey at least your spelling it right now.

Lets go a little further. I just cant fit it all in one post. Lets put one more in here though.

Hippocratic oath? Does that mean anything? Maybe? What?

The Court's drafts also reveal that the decision was not being
guided by ancient precepts of medical ethics. In this respect, the
Hippocratic Oath dating back three to four hundred years before
Christ, had doctors pledging that they "will give no deadly medicine
to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner
. . . not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." [The 4th
circulated draft of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe cites the
Hippocratic Oath, but cavalierly dismisses it on the basis of academic
writing that found it to be held as true only within Pythagorean Greek
culture. Why the Pythagoreans should be so ill-treated, or deemed
uninfluential, is not explained. Indeed the Oath, which coincides
with prevalent Christian belief since the end of antiquity, became the
"nucleus" of medical ethics.]
 
since we're on the subject of abortion. Why is it that when a man wants a vasectomy and he is married, the wife has to sign papers, basically for approval of the vasectomy, but yet a woman that wants to have an abortion does not have to have consent from the father?
 
But neither text, nor the common law, nor medical ethics as
embodied in the Hippocratic Oath was to steer the Supreme Court in its
discovery of a non-textual abortion right. What did guide the Court?

I regret to say, little more than pragmatic, expedient politics; an
exercise in judicial will, not judgment.

When Roe [and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton] were first
argued in late 1971, there were only 7 members of the Court. Justices
Harlan and Black had both recently retired, and would shortly
thereafter, die. While many of us associate the abortion right with
Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, mid-December 1971 correspondence
actually identifies William O. Douglas to be the strongest advocate
for abortion as an extension of his earlier opinion in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) invalidating a Connecticut law
limiting the use of artificial contraception. (Letter from William O.
Douglas to Chief Justice Warren Burger, dated December 18, 19711 .
Following oral argument, the Justices discuss cases and take a straw
vote. The senior justice in the majority [or the Chief Justice if he
is in the majority] then usually assigns the opinion writing. Chief
Justice Burger reports that the discussion following the first [Roe]
argument was so confused, that there were "literally not enough
columns to mark up an accurate reflection of the voting." [Letter
from Warren Burger to William O. Douglas, dated December 20, 1971].


Out of expedience, perhaps, Burger assigned the draft writing to
Blackmun, his fellow Minnesotan. This infuriated Douglas, since
Blackmun was perceived by Douglas as then favoring state abortion
restriction. (Blackmun had been appointed to the Court by President
Nixon about a year earlier]. By mid-January 1972, Blackmun had looked
at the cases and found the issue so unclear that he urged the Chief
Justice to ask for re-argument in both Roe and Doe. (Letter from
Harry Blackmun to Warren Burger, dated January 18, 1972].

Douglas steadfastly resisted reargument. Matters dragged on
nonetheless and by mid-May, 1972, Justice Blackmun tried to rid the
Court of the issue on procedural grounds -- namely, that the Texas
statute was too vague to be enforced. He wrote: "I think that
[vagueness] would be all that is necessary for disposition of the
case, and that we need not get into the more complex Ninth Amendment
issue." [Memorandum to Conference from Harry Blackmun, dated May 18,
1972]. This did not suit Justice Douglas, who argued that there were
at least 4 votes [enough for a majority on an understaffed Court] that
"an abortion [may] be performed by a licensed physician within a
limited time after conception." (Letter from William O. Douglas to
Harry Blackmun, dated May 19, 1972]. Douglas must have talked with
Justice Brennan, because at about the same time Brennan by letter
gives his support for the abortion proposition in almost identical
language; namely, that "an abortion be performed by a licensed
physician within some limited time after conception." [Letter from
William Brennan to Harry Blackmun, dated May 18, 19721.

Several things are striking about this internal correspondence
beyond, of course, Justice Blackmun's change of posture from assigned
draftsman to abortion advocate and the overall bewilderment of the
Court after the case was first argued. First, there was considerable
internal pressure to get a decision, perhaps before new members of the
Court might change the outcome. [Nixon appointees' Lewis Powell and
William Rehnquist replaced Black and Harlan; as it later turned out,
Powell and Rehnquist split over the issue]. Douglas, in particular,
seemed especially agitated to push the opinions out, writing "I feel
very strongly that [Roe and Doe] should not be reargued. . . I hope
the 5 can agree to get the cases down this Term, so that we can spend
our energies next Term on other matters." [Letter from William O.
Douglas to Harry Blackmun, dated May 31, 1972]. Second, the internal
correspondence is almost completely devoid of what one could call
constitutional argument. Instead of a careful examination of the
common law or argumentation premised upon the textual provisions of
the Constitutional document, there is merely vote counting and
assertion. Third, taking Justices Douglas and Brennan at their word,
the initial 4-person majority envisioned only a very narrowly-worded
abortion privilege -- one that would be confined to a limited time
after conception. The last point is particularly striking in light of
President Clinton's insupportable claim and recent veto that the
abortion license formulated by the Court extends even to the most
graphically hideous procedure and to the moment of birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Shaky at low speed
Replies
11
Views
1K
Mmelanson36
M
M
Need Help Speedometer problem
Replies
6
Views
717
Gary in NJ
Gary in NJ
grcamna7
Clutch cable maintenance?
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
grahammarsden
grahammarsden
B
Question Misfire at low revs
Replies
8
Views
1K
BButch
B
T
Weird sound gone after loosening the chain
Replies
6
Views
2K
grahammarsden
grahammarsden
Back
Top