Are you sure you want Cain in the White House?

[dogtowner]

You are bringing back the abortion issue, but in a very outrageous fashion .. .again!

NO ONE, NO legislation is preconizing to leave a "breathing, living child on a shelf." I am not saying that this incident didn't happen. . .what I am saying (and you KNOW this) is that there will be "wrong" done at times, but those "wrongs" are usually far beyond the law.

In fact, I am willing to go look for the "conclusion" of that sad accident.

Here is one occurence. . .which had NOTHING to do with legal abortion, and everything to do with murder (which could have been prevented by early abortion!)




And here is a Factcheck.org analysis:



There will be criminals in every corners of society. . . blaming the PRESIDENT for voting for against a bill when he was a senator one is unfair and ridiculous. AND YOU KNOW IT!

And. . .did you look at the COST of that "fence" Cain is preconizing? $2,000 miles, at a cost of $4 million per mile, for a "project" that couldn't possibly be completed before at least 20 years!

I didn't know you were that much of a "dreamer!"

Abortion ? No. Trying draw a distinction between active and responsive/passive near as I can tell.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are bringing back the abortion issue, but in a very outrageous fashion .. .again!

NO ONE, NO legislation is preconizing to leave a "breathing, living child on a shelf." I am not saying that this incident didn't happen. . .what I am saying (and you KNOW this) is that there will be "wrong" done at times, but those "wrongs" are usually far beyond the law.

In fact, I am willing to go look for the "conclusion" of that sad accident.

There will be criminals in every corners of society. . . blaming the PRESIDENT for voting for against a bill when he was a senator one is unfair and ridiculous. AND YOU KNOW IT!

And. . .did you look at the COST of that "fence" Cain is preconizing? $2,000 miles, at a cost of $4 million per mile, for a "project" that couldn't possibly be completed before at least 20 years!

I didn't know you were that much of a "dreamer!"

(I deleted portions of that to make it shorter)

The abortion issue is only ridiculous because the bill Obama supported was so ridiculous.

Umm, he did not vote against it he voted FOR it. Our president actually voted FOR a bill that would allow medical staff to withhold all sustenance (water, food, warmth) from living human babies that were born persons and viable, for the express purpose of letting them die. It is likewise monstrous that assuming you know any of the details of it that you defend this. The only right thing to say is "yes obama was wrong" and if you then want to talk about Cain being kooky go ahead but at least we will have the comparison.

It is a shame that it is tied to the abortion issue but it really is not about abortion since these babies or already completely born.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Pres is a monster!!!

What Cain did pales in comparison. Yes Cain's idea is kooky and unpractical. The comparison is an idea that is horrifically monstrous.

{the media makes a big stink about a rock that Perry's grandfather saw, and later covered, when he rented a ranch but if an equal amount of coverage had been granted to the horrific treatment of babies Obama supported he would never have been president}

 

[Openmind]

(I deleted portions of that to make it shorter)

The abortion issue is only ridiculous because the bill Obama supported was so ridiculous.

Umm, he did not vote against it he voted FOR it. Our president actually voted FOR a bill that would allow medical staff to withhold all sustenance (water, food, warmth) from living human babies that were born persons and viable, for the express purpose of letting them die. It is likewise monstrous that assuming you know any of the details of it that you defend this. The only right thing to say is "yes obama was wrong" and if you then want to talk about Cain being kooky go ahead but at least we will have the comparison.

It is a shame that it is tied to the abortion issue but it really is not about abortion since these babies or already completely born.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Pres is a monster!!!

What Cain did pales in comparison. Yes Cain's idea is kooky and unpractical. The comparison is an idea that is horrifically monstrous.

{the media makes a big stink about a rock that Perry's grandfather saw, and later covered, when he rented a ranch but if an equal amount of coverage had been granted to the horrific treatment of babies Obama supported he would never have been president}

The bill doesn't talk about full term babies but fetus who are under 24 weeks of development, who are NOT viable.

It is just an issue to "rally" the GOP troops. . .nothing more.
And the "horror" stories are exactly that, isolated incidents of bad behavior from insensitive care providers.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and didn't mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and did mean it.

 

[Dr.Who]

The bill doesn't talk about full term babies but fetus who are under 24 weeks of development, who are NOT viable.

Three corrections need to be made here:

1. I was wrong when I said he voted for a bil to allow this. In fact he voted against a bill to forbid this. A bill I would add that even NARAL said was fine.

2. Once it is born it is no longer a fetus (which is also baby) it is a only baby and can no longer be called a fetus (by definition). A fetus is a baby both before it is born AND after. And in the case of this bill the bill was addressing late term situations. So you were wrong.

3. It does not matter in any way if a living human born person of whatever age is viable or not, we don't get to abandon them to die. But you are incorrect in saying that they were not viable - some would be viable and some would not be since the bill covered any age.

He did not vote for a bill that would protect the life of babies that would be of any age and would often be viable knowing that it would result in more babies dying this way. Naral did not oppose the bill and when it was up for a vote in the federal congress it was passed by an overwhelming majority of both dems and pubs.

He stands virtually alone in not supporting the bill. He did it because he thought it would mean that living human born babies would then be called persons - which is exactly what they are. And he wrongly thought that if living born human babies were persons that would mean that living unborn human babies could be called persons too. Naral disagrees and says the law has absolutely no bearing on abortion at all since the babies are born.

He is a monster who let living born human babies (who are persons by virtually ANYONE'S definition) die in the mistaken belief that a definition would be threatened.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and didn't mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and did mean it.

I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and did mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and did mean it.

In fact, I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and did mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and didn't mean it

 

[pocketfullofshells]

" lower taxes and less government regulation and spending" is what we need so if thatsa what he's selling its no wonder he's enjoying support.

to bad what he is selling, is not what you end up buying...

unless you make 200,000 or more, sounds like you get your taxes raised.
make less then 30,000 and it was like a 20% increase...

Cain, the 1% need a bail out, the rest of you pay it

 

[Openmind]

I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and did mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and did mean it.

In fact, I would much rather have someone in the White House who said he'd put an electric fence along the border, and did mean it...

...than someone who said he wanted to use the power of government to "spread the wealth around", and didn't mean it

Where you in favor of the bErlin wall also? did you cry when it fell?

Have you been upset by the "power of the BUSH government" toput in place tax cuts and deregulation policies that greatly benefitted the wealthy over the middle class and the poor and thus "gathered thewealth within the top percentile?"

Or doesnt't that matter?

 

[Dr.Who]

Where you in favor of the bErlin wall also? did you cry when it fell?

Have you been upset by the "power of the BUSH government" toput in place tax cuts and deregulation policies that greatly benefitted the wealthy over the middle class and the poor and thus "gathered thewealth within the top percentile?"

Or doesnt't that matter?

The Berlin wal was a symbol of communism so yes I was glad when it fell.

The wall Cain speaks of is not a symbol of communism but an ill advised means to enforce border laws. I personally would not build it but it is not in the same ball park as the berlin wall.

Your facts are wrong. The bush tax cuts resulted in the tax burden being shifted so that the rich paid even more of the share - the bush tax cuts made the tax system more progressive not less.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where you in favor of the bErlin wall also? did you cry when it fell?

How dedicated a big-government, force-them-for-their-own-good leftist does someone have to be, to pretend the Berlin Wall had anything in common with a fence along the US-Mexico border?

The Berlin Wall was built by a leftist government, for the purpose of forcing peoiple who wanted nothing to do with their failing leftist economy, to stay IN it anyway; and to kill the people who tried to escape it.

The fence along the US-Mexico border is built by a government presiding over a (relatively) free economy, to keep people who didn't contribute to it but want to take its benefits, OUT of the country. And people who violate the border, are given better housing (even in jail) than they ever had at home, three squares a day, and are simply transported back to their home country and set free.

The only possible similarity between the two, lies in the future: If the big-government leftists get their way, then border fences around the US will change in purpose, and will be used to keep people IN the United States, since millions will want to flee the failing country the leftists have created and the compulsion and force the leftists will have to use to force American subjects (by then citizens in name only). By then, people outside the country will no longer want to come in, any more than West Berliners wanted to emigrate to East Berlin.

Fortunately, Democrats have show their big-government-compulsion nature so much in the last few years, that people have started voting them out of power en masse, starting in 2010 and continuing for the next sewveral major elections, so we've got a pretty good chance of avoiding the scenario above. IF Republicans keep doing what they've mostly done for the last few years - something the jury is still out on.

 

[Openmind]

How dedicated a big-government, force-them-for-their-own-good leftist does someone have to be, to pretend the Berlin Wall had anything in common with a fence along the US-Mexico border?

The Berlin Wall was built by a leftist government, for the purpose of forcing peoiple who wanted nothing to do with their failing leftist economy, to stay IN it anyway; and to kill the people who tried to escape it.

The fence along the US-Mexico border is built by a government presiding over a (relatively) free economy, to keep people who didn't contribute to it but want to take its benefits, OUT of the country. And people who violate the border, are given better housing (even in jail) than they ever had at home, three squares a day, and are simply transported back to their home country and set free.

The only possible similarity between the two, lies in the future: If the big-government leftists get their way, then border fences around the US will change in purpose, and will be used to keep people IN the United States, since millions will want to flee the failing country the leftists have created and the compulsion and force the leftists will have to use to force American subjects (by then citizens in name only). By then, people outside the country will no longer want to come in, any more than West Berliners wanted to emigrate to East Berlin.

Fortunately, Democrats have show their big-government-compulsion nature so much in the last few years, that people have started voting them out of power en masse, starting in 2010 and continuing for the next sewveral major elections, so we've got a pretty good chance of avoiding the scenario above. IF Republicans keep doing what they've mostly done for the last few years - something the jury is still out on.

A wall, whether to keep people in, or keep people out, separate people, often families.

Your "definition" of the USSR as a "leftist" government is kind of interesting! Like comparing a malignant tumor to a mosquitoe bite!

But. . . I stand by my point.

 

[Openmind]

The Berlin wal was a symbol of communism so yes I was glad when it fell.

The wall Cain speaks of is not a symbol of communism but an ill advised means to enforce border laws. I personally would not build it but it is not in the same ball park as the berlin wall.

Your facts are wrong. The bush tax cuts resulted in the tax burden being shifted so that the rich paid even more of the share - the bush tax cuts made the tax system more progressive not less.

No, the wall Cain speaks about is not a symbol of communism, not even a symbol of capitalism, as it certainly is outside the norms of the "free market!"

And if the Bush tax cuts were created to shift more of the tax burden to the rich. . .how come you accepted such a "redistribution of wealth?" Was it constitutional THEN?

But we all know that it wasn't the intent of those tax cuts... and in term of PROOF that it shifted more wealth in the pocket of the very wealthy. . .it is simple, look at the way wealth increased in the top percentiles, and decrease every place else.

Wikepedia: In terms of increasing inequality, the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, middle and lower class is contentious. Most economists argue that the cuts have benefited the nation's richest households at the expense of the middle and lower class,[13] while libertarians and conservatives[14] have claimed that tax cuts have benefitted all taxpayers.[15] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[16]Between 2003 and 2004, following the 2003 tax cuts, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2% in 2003 to 14.0% in 2004. (This followed the period from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined the most for the top 1%.)[17] At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3%,[18] as the result of a tax system which became more progressive since 2000.[19]

 

[Little-Acorn]

A wall, whether to keep people in, or keep people out, separate people, often families.

The fence along the US border does not separate families.

People who violate longstanding immigration laws, setting themselves up for deporation, and then produce families, are the ones who separate families.

The illegal aliens who crossed the border against US law and then married spouses or produced children who are U.S. citizens, knew long before they married or produced them that they themselves were subject to deportation for violating U.S. immigration laws. Yet they married those citizens, or produced children who were citizens, anyway.

What were those illegal aliens' plans for their citizen spouses or children, in the event they themselves were deported? And why did they put their own spouses or children at risk of having their families torn apart?

They knew they were exposing their children and spouses to this risk when they violated the law, and long before they married the spouse or produced the children. Yet they decided to do it anyway.

Since you pretend to be so concerned about "separating families", have you asked any of these people what they planned to happen to their families if and when they got deported?

But. . . I stand by my point.

Meaning you have no reply to the things I said showing your point to be wrong?

 

[Openmind]

The fence along the US border does not separate families.

People who violate longstanding immigration laws, setting themselves up for deporation, and then produce families, are the ones who separate families.

The illegal aliens who crossed the border against US law and then married spouses or produced children who are U.S. citizens, knew long before they married or produced them that they themselves were subject to deportation for violating U.S. immigration laws. Yet they married those citizens, or produced children who were citizens, anyway.

What were those illegal aliens' plans for their citizen spouses or children, in the event they themselves were deported? And why did they put their own spouses or children at risk of having their families torn apart?

They knew they were exposing their children and spouses to this risk when they violated the law, and long before they married the spouse or produced the children. Yet they decided to do it anyway.

Since you pretend to be so concerned about "separating families", have you asked any of these people what they planned to happen to their families if and when they got deported?



Meaning you have no reply to the things I said showing your point to be wrong?

The "things you said to show my point to be wrong" have no more value than my point!

I respect your right to your opinion. . .I will keep my opinion that the wall proposed by Cain is pretty much in the same category of "pie in the sky" as his other ideas.

He has a big (and pleasant) mouth, he presents VERY simple ideas that even people with little education and little imagination can grasp, but these ideas do NOT match the complexity of the issues.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The "things you said to show my point to be wrong" have no more value than my point!

I respect your right to your opinion. . .I will keep my opinion that the wall proposed by Cain is pretty much in the same category of "pie in the sky" as his other ideas.

He has a big (and pleasant) mouth, he presents VERY simple ideas that even people with little education and little imagination can grasp, but these ideas do NOT match the complexity of the issues.

The usual vague assertions, the usual smears, the usual complete lack of any evidence to back them up.

Sorry I wasted your (and my) time.