Which Candidate has imploded more rapidly?

Here is another guy that is "on the record".


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/

Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider who killed babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors was found guilty of first-degree murder on Monday.
The conviction on three counts of first-degree murder means Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, could be sentenced to death.


Gosnell, who is not a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist,was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24 weeks or older.
In Pennsylvania, abortions past 24 weeks are illegal unless the health of the mother is at stake.

I admit the late term abortions doesn't really sit well with me, but even if outlawed it is still going to happen. Just like that article shows.

A candidates views on abortion it totally irrelevant to me, because frankly we have far bigger issues we need to face. Abortion is just used for the partisans to try to prove their side is some how "better".
 
Whatsamata, Pinworm. Is preventing the killing of children a little too obstructionist for you?

Put yourself on record, as Canndo and Buck already did. Do you support the unfettered right to abort a fetus all the way up to forty weeks gestation, or, to borrow a famous phrase, do you think there ought to be some "common sense" controls placed on aborting fetuses? I will go on record as supporting a twenty week limit; after twenty weeks of gestation then abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother.

I think I agree with DD on this.
 
Here is another guy that is "on the record".


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/

Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider who killed babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors was found guilty of first-degree murder on Monday.
The conviction on three counts of first-degree murder means Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, could be sentenced to death.


Gosnell, who is not a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist,was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24 weeks or older.
In Pennsylvania, abortions past 24 weeks are illegal unless the health of the mother is at stake.

by your logic, we should ban all guns if anyone does anything bad with their gun.

is that what you want, my misogynist friend?
 
I admit the late term abortions doesn't really sit well with me, but even if outlawed it is still going to happen. Just like that article shows.

A candidates views on abortion it totally irrelevant to me, because frankly we have far bigger issues we need to face. Abortion is just used for the partisans to try to prove their side is some how "better".

I pretty much agree with you. Late term abortions don't sit well with me either. At some point they become murder, currently at about 50 weeks after conception in some places, 24 weeks after conception in Philly. Murder is illegal, as it should be illegal even though it will sometimes still happen.

I also agree that there are bigger issues, but that doesn't mean that the issue of late term abortions should not be dealt with at the same time. You are right about the abortion issue being used by some to just score partisan points, e.g. it's "the war on women".
 
You are right about the abortion issue being used by some to just score partisan points

good job admitting that you are just going for cheap political points via misogyny.

but you never did answer me: how does a freedom loving libertarian like yourself propose we punish women who exercise their constitutional liberties?

in other words, how would the libertarian punish women for their liberty?

thanks a lot.

PS - you ever gonna get back to spamming rawn pawl like you used to, or did that phase pass you by?
 
I pretty much agree with you. Late term abortions don't sit well with me either. At some point they become murder, currently at about 50 weeks after conception in some places, 24 weeks after conception in Philly. Murder is illegal, as it should be illegal even though it will sometimes still happen.

I also agree that there are bigger issues, but that doesn't mean that the issue of late term abortions should not be dealt with at the same time. You are right about the abortion issue being used by some to just score partisan points, e.g. it's "the war on women".

Who the fuck are you to decide what constitutes "murder"?
 
I pretty much agree with you. Late term abortions don't sit well with me either. At some point they become murder, currently at about 50 weeks after conception in some places, 24 weeks after conception in Philly. Murder is illegal, as it should be illegal even though it will sometimes still happen.

I also agree that there are bigger issues, but that doesn't mean that the issue of late term abortions should not be dealt with at the same time. You are right about the abortion issue being used by some to just score partisan points, e.g. it's "the war on women".

I think people look to hard for perfection in the candidates, to where it's to the point of being impossible to find such a person. I have always looked at what benefits the working class in America. The social issues are just a fools game used by politicians to get votes from the single issue voters. Welfare, drug laws, abortion, ect won't matter one bit if we are all broke.

Roe vs Wade brought us George The Lesser, who brought us Obama

Who the fuck are you to decide what constitutes "murder"?

I think it should be left up to the voters of each state personally.
 
I pretty much agree with you. Late term abortions don't sit well with me either. At some point they become murder, currently at about 50 weeks after conception in some places, 24 weeks after conception in Philly. Murder is illegal, as it should be illegal even though it will sometimes still happen.

I also agree that there are bigger issues, but that doesn't mean that the issue of late term abortions should not be dealt with at the same time. You are right about the abortion issue being used by some to just score partisan points, e.g. it's "the war on women".

They dont become murder until the child is born. I figure after 20 weeks the mother should of already decided if she wants to carry the baby to term or not.
 
Wendy should have gone to medical school instead of law school, then she could have joined the practice of that Philadelphia abortionist and murdered a few full term infants. Nothing like crushing the skull of a baby to get the blood flowing in the morning.

reported...
 
I cant say rapidly but I think Obama, once he is done will be one of those listed below Carter...

He is imploding hard...

you are a complete and utter failure.

The Worst President Ever?



A controversial President is seeking re-election in a nation that is sharply divided. His election only exacerbated the situation. He is perceived as a radical who is changing America, a man who can make eloquent speeches but who could not produce the results the nation needed to solve its most important problem. His opponent argues that, because of his experience, he would be more effective in solving the most pressing issue of the day. The President makes a controversial announcement prior to the election. He bypasses Congress with an executive order that opponents characterize as purely political. This man simply does not fit the mold of other presidents and many consider his first term a failure. Even though he followed a man considered to be a weak president, expectations of winning a second term are low. Evidently even the President himself has serious doubts about being re-elected.

Sound familiar? Well, perhaps not. The year was 1864 and the President seeking re-election was Abraham Lincoln.

If you see a bumper sticker proclaiming “The Worst President Ever,” consider that conditions in 1864 were quite similar to today’s situation. Most of Lincoln’s contemporaries would have scoffed at the suggestion that Lincoln would be memorialized as perhaps our finest President. Few predicted that he would be re-elected.

Lincoln had won the White House as a largely unknown candidate, running as “Honest Abe the Rail Splitter.” Opponents viewed him an inexperienced upstart. Political rhetoric portrayed him as an “ungainly, commonplace prairie lawyer.” The media (newspaper editors and cartoonists) portrayed him as a gorilla or a baboon, a “slang-whanging stump speaker.” He had little experience in government, had served but one term in the House and had twice been defeated for the Senate. They were certain his “comic awkwardness and limited intellect” would be a “national embarrassment.”

Not that they were passionate about Lincoln’s opponent, a fellow Mid-western lawyer, Stephen Douglas. The New York World lamented that the Age of Statesmen had been replaced by “the age of rail splitters, buffoons and boors, and fanatics.” In a crisis pf appalling magnitude “the country is asked to consider the claims of two ignorant, boorish, third-rate backwoods lawyers.” The editorial concluded: “God save the Republic!”

The event that triggered the secession of seven states and the start of the Civil War was the simple fact of Lincoln’s election. Although he tried to assure the South that he had no intention of ending their way of life, seven states left the union before his inauguration, convinced that the newly elected president would end slavery. Lincoln was so despised and so distrusted by so many that the mere thought of him in the White House was cause to treat the government as enemy. Thanks to a split opposition, Lincoln won the White House with a plurality of just forty percent of the
vote. Clearly the nation was divided in more ways than just North versus South. Race was the focus of much of the hatred of Lincoln in the North as well as the South,

Lincoln’s first term was eventful, characterized by critics as both radical and as a failure. His first term had strengthened the federal government in significant ways. He censored the Press and by executive order eliminated the constitutional right of habeas corpus, resulting in the arrest of war critics without benefit of trial. He established the nation’s first graduated income tax, assessing only the top earners with a 3% tax. He re-established the National Banking System that Andrew Jackson had destroyed thirty years earlier. He made the federal government a force in public education by signing into law the Morrill Act, giving seventeen million acres of federal land to the states in order to establish land grant colleges. The Legal Tender Act had taken the nation off the gold standard, substituting paper money printed by the government, with a concomitant rise in inflation as the country experienced its largest national debt to date.

Lincoln was arguably the most active president to reside in the White House to date. As Commander in Chief and Chief Executive he had elevated the Presidency to a position supreme over the Congress and the Courts. But now there was another issue. Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862. His move to free the slaves in the South was viewed as simply a political ploy.

The campaign for re-election in 1864 saw an intensified vitriol in the racist rhetoric of the attacks. True, Lincoln was demonized as a filthy storyteller, a braggart, a despot, a liar and a fiend, a radical who had subverted the government, but the issue of race drew the most heated rhetoric. Northern newspapers such as the New York Herald had predicted that should he be re-elected “hundreds of thousands of fugitive slaves would come north to compete with white men” and their “fair daughters” would fall prey to “African amalgamation.” Opponents dubbed him “Abraham Africanus the First.” The campaign against Lincoln’s re-election appealed to base fears based on a deep-seated racism.

But the overriding issue for most in 1864 was the war that had dragged on until the public had grown weary of it. Clearly Lincoln was vulnerable. Newspapers that had supported him now doubted he could be re-elected and called for substitutes to run, prompting other candidates in his own party to get in the race. Powerful editor and former supporter Horace Greeley editorialized: “Mr. Lincoln is already beaten. He cannot be elected.” Eleven weeks prior to the vote Lincoln himself wrote: “it seems exceedingly probable that this administration will not be re-elected.”

Democrats ran against him on a peace platform, urging negotiations to end the terrible conflict. They nominated a candidate who was not known for firm political positions but who was personable and could negotiate a peace. Their choice was George McClellan, the general Lincoln had fired for his failure to pursue victory aggressively. Prospects for re-election looked dim for Mr. Lincoln until just a few weeks before the election.

But then in September there were victories by the Northern armies, most notable the conquest of Atlanta by General Sherman. Newspapers returned to his support and public opinion veered toward victory rather than negotiation. Candidate McClellan quickly announced that he would ignore the party’s peace platform and intensify the war effort instead. His main advantage would be, he proclaimed, that he would pursue the war more effectively than Lincoln and, that having military experience, he knew how to win the war. Lincoln won with 55% of the vote.

Presidents are often controversial figures in their own day. It is only in retrospect that Americans agree on the greatness of national leaders. Perhaps nothing better illustrates how Lincoln was denigrated while he was president than his speech at the battlefield in Gettysburg. Today the Gettysburg Address is part of our national scripture, yet was dismissed by contemporaries as trivial. The Chicago Times commented, "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances;” the Harrisburg Patriot said it would “ pass o v e r t h e silly r e m a r k s o f t h e President willing t h a t the veil o f oblivion shall b e dropped o v e r t h e m a n d t h a t they shall n o m o r e b e r e p e a t e d o r t h o u g h t o f . ”

Soon after the war’s end Lincoln was on his way to becoming iconic hero. In 1886 Henry W. Grady, an influential Georgia journalist, spoke to a New York audience. He recalled that America had resulted from two historical traditions: the Puritans of the North and the Cavaliers of the South. Referring to the statement that the typical America is yet to come, Grady proclaimed that he had already come: “From the union of these colonial Puritans and Cavaliers came he who stands as the first typical American: Abraham Lincoln, greater than Puritan greater than Cavalier, in that he was American.” Lincoln’s status in American history has only grown since then.

Perhaps one should wait a bit before deciding “worst president ever” or “best president ever.”

Rating presidents requires the perspective of history.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/13238-the-worst-president-ever
 
They dont become murder until the child is born. I figure after 20 weeks the mother should of already decided if she wants to carry the baby to term or not.

The demarcation point between murder and abortion on demand is completely arbitrary, and I don't see any way for it not be arbitrary. If a fetus is 40 weeks old and ten minutes from delivery it can be aborted legally in some places, and if that forty weeks old and ten minutes after delivery it is killed that is murder in every state in the union. Despite Pinworm's pinheadedness, he gets to have an opinion if his testicles are up to the challenge of taking a stand. Intentionally killing a ten minute old infant is murder and I see no moral difference between murdering a ten minute old infant or a fetus ten minutes from a healthy delivery. The people who support such a practice are no less kooky than the ones who claim an eight cell zygote implanted in the uterine wall is fully human.

I proposed a 20 week limit, on abortion on demand, (actually I would prefer 12 weeks) and that too is an arbitrary dividing line and for me is the outer bound of acceptability for abortion for convenience. I don't claim to have the world market on ethics captured so maybe 21 weeks is acceptable but surely 39 weeks is not acceptable. I have been astounded to read here that some support any and all abortions at any point during a pregnancy and for any reason: Pinhead, Canndo, and Unclebuck so far. One would imagine the same sort of thinking goes on in the heads of mass murderers.

Pinhead claims to have no uterus and is thereby absolved from the discussion. Apparently he has no brain nor conscience either.
 
Whatsamata, Pinworm. Is preventing the killing of children a little too obstructionist for you?

Put yourself on record, as Canndo and Buck already did. Do you support the unfettered right to abort a fetus all the way up to forty weeks gestation, or, to borrow a famous phrase, do you think there ought to be some "common sense" controls placed on aborting fetuses? I will go on record as supporting a twenty week limit; after twenty weeks of gestation then abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother.

fail, fail, fail..you need to stop listening to rush, desert dud..don't you ever check the facts before you word vomit?

[h=1]The Anti-Abortion Law That Wendy Davis Filibustered For 11 Hours Is Headed To Court[/h]

More than a dozen health care providers in Texas have joined forces to file a lawsuit against new abortion restrictions that the state legislature enacted this summer. The reproductive health advocates are asking a federal court to block two separate provisions of House Bill 2, the anti-choice law that inspired massive protests at the state capitol and captured national attention after Sen. Wendy Davis (D) filibustered it for 11 hours.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a Texas law firm are all partnering on the legal challenge. If they’re not successful, HB 2 will take effect in its entirety on October 29.

The women’s health groups are trying to block what they see as the most harmful portions of the sweeping new law. Their challenge specifically concerns the provision that will require abortion clinics to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals — an unnecessary requirement that has been blocked from taking effect in other states — as well as the provision that requires doctors to adhere to an outdated protocol for administering the abortion pill.

“Any one of these restrictions would have a devastating impact across the state of Texas,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, noted in a statement. “Together they would be catastrophic.”

Under HB 2, it’s estimated that 90 percent of the abortion clinics in Texas will be forced to close their doors. In fact, in anticipation of the burdensome new requirements, some clinics have already started shutting down. And the latest round of clinic closures follows the overall shrinking of women’s health services in Texas over the past several years. Under Gov. Rick Perry (R), the state has already slashed family planning funds and defunded Planned Parenthood, which has forced dozens of formerly state-funded clinics to contract their services.

The situation in Texas reflects a broader national trend, as abortion clinics across the country have been forced out of business at a record-breaking pace. “This law is part of a coordinated national strategy to shut down women’s health centers and outlaw abortion all across the country,” Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, pointed out in a statement.

Women’s health experts have warned that low-income women in Texas, who already struggle to access abortion services, will have even fewer options under HB 2. They expect an increasing number of people to seek illegal abortion care across the border in Mexico. They’re particularly worried about potentially dangerous “flea market abortions,” as desperate women turn to the black market to purchase abortion-inducing herbal remedies.

“If this law goes into effect, there is no doubt it will end access to safe and legal abortion for many women, leaving some to resort to desperate and dangerous measures,” Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards said. “We won’t let that happen.”
 
reported...

To who? For what? LOL

Skylar, you told me in a different thread weeks ago that nobody is arguing against a 20 week limit on abortions. You have been conspicuously silent in this thread where your philosophical brethren are ardently supporting any abortion at any time for any reason. Do you share that opinion with Pinhead and his defective uterus?
 
The demarcation point between murder and abortion on demand is completely arbitrary, and I don't see any way for it not be arbitrary. If a fetus is 40 weeks old and ten minutes from delivery it can be aborted legally in some places, and if that forty weeks old and ten minutes after delivery it is killed that is murder in every state in the union. Despite Pinworm's pinheadedness, he gets to have an opinion if his testicles are up to the challenge of taking a stand. Intentionally killing a ten minute old infant is murder and I see no moral difference between murdering a ten minute old infant or a fetus ten minutes from a healthy delivery. The people who support such a practice are no less kooky than the ones who claim an eight cell zygote implanted in the uterine wall is fully human.

I proposed a 20 week limit, on abortion on demand, (actually I would prefer 12 weeks) and that too is an arbitrary dividing line and for me is the outer bound of acceptability for abortion for convenience. I don't claim to have the world market on ethics captured so maybe 21 weeks is acceptable but surely 39 weeks is not acceptable. I have been astounded to read here that some support any and all abortions at any point during a pregnancy and for any reason: Pinhead, Canndo, and Unclebuck so far. One would imagine the same sort of thinking goes on in the heads of mass murderers.

Pinhead claims to have no uterus and is thereby absolved from the discussion. Apparently he has no brain nor conscience either.

I believe that it should be between a woman and her state board certified doctor and none of the government nor societies business what a woman wants to do with her body.

If you want freedom you have to be prepared to be offended by other peoples use of that same freedom. You dont have to like it but you have to understand it should be a basic right unlike it is today.
 
Back
Top