| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2007 11:14:15 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Hypothetical question...
3 candidates...
1 woman
1 black
1 white man
who wins? |
If that one white man is a hispanic governor (Mr. Bill Richardson) of New Mexico.... then democrats are really pushing it. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:40:47 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Hypothetical question...
3 candidates...
1 woman
1 black
1 white man
who wins? |
This is pretty much the crux of the matter imo. If the democrats push a woman or a black man as their presidential candidate, they are doomed. In the urban fishbowl, those might seem like progressive choices that 'America' is ready to accept. However I think that just reinforces the fact that the Dem party is woefully out of touch with a large swath of America.
I do not think, even in the 21st century, that large groups of voters in this country will vote for a Black president. I think it is arguable if the same folks would vote a woman into office, but if that woman is Hillary Clinton I think the answer is almost certainly not.
The Democrats need to take a look at their platform and their leadership and decide wether they want to be a progressive party pushing primarily liberal ideas or the party of the working man. I do not think that the two are compatible. A candidate preaching higher minimum wage and trade tarrifs will appeal to the blue collar unions. The same candidate preaching gay marriage and a weak millitary (just examples) is not. You can't have it both ways and I think that has been the parties problem recently. Some of the leadership is trying to go centric (or at least more moderatly liberal) while some are still clinging to very 'radical' liberal ideology. So it's a divided house. If the only time you are able to win is when the other side f**ks up royally, you really don't have a lot to build on going forward. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:46:57 AM · #28 |
| Maybe she can get a BJ in the Oval Office just like Billy did. :-) |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:02:17 PM · #29 |
I've found that most (all?) of my Hillary hating friends give so many people (politicians) a free pass on the same exact points they dislike about her.
I believe she's probably guilty of everything she's ever been accused of but like Dr Nick said...she's a politician. Doesn't make it right, mind you but it's weak bullshit to isolate or single her out in a large field of total pricks who do the same.
Do you get the feeling I don't like politicians much??? |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:05:14 PM · #30 |
I'm curious....are the Democrats putting up a "Black candidate" for President Or are they simply putting up a man as a candidate who happens to be black?
Same question for can be asked about Hillary being a woman. Well, you can call her a woman but I'm not really sure... ;)
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 12:07:22. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:07:06 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm curious....are the Democrats putting up a "Black candidate" for President Or are they simply putting up a man as a candidate who happens to be black? |
I think it would be incredibly naieve to think that a party doesn't consider political advantage in a candidates gender and/or race. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:12:28 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm curious....are the Democrats putting up a "Black candidate" for President Or are they simply putting up a man as a candidate who happens to be black? |
I think it would be incredibly naieve to think that a party doesn't consider political advantage in a candidates gender and/or race. |
Ahhh, your right. The Democratic party is dumb enough to place all it's chips on a losing hand.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 12:20:39. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:22:29 PM · #33 |
The real "problem" is that a candidate for any party's nomination must take extreme party positions in order to appeal to the more rabid voters within their party in order to gain the nomination. This is because in the majority of states, only voters registered to the same party can vote in the Primary elections of that party, and only the more loyal party members turn out to vote in the primaries.
After winning their parties' nominations however, the candidates must somehow become more centrist in their positions in order to appeal to voters of ALL parties, as the general elections are open to ALL.
And adding to that, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates must together appeal to regional voting blocks - the North-east, mid-Atlantic, mid-South, deep South, the Heartland, the Mid-west, the far West, the North-west, etc., etc. And, of course, it doesn't hurt if each is from a state having large electoral college vote counts ( e.g. New York, California, Texas, Illinois, etc. ) - those "home state" votes can make or break an election ( if Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, he would have beaten G.W. Bush in 2000 ). FWIW, Clinton is from New York ( 31 electoral votes ) and Obama is from Illinois ( 21 electoral votes ); together they represent states with 20% of the electoral votes needed for victory in the Presidential election.
There are, of course, other demographics that come into play - gender, race, culture, age, economic status, lifestyle, religion, etc. etc.
In the general election, you have to appeal to them all. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:31:32 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Ristyz:
Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
She'll say anything |
Well, she is a politician after all, isn't she? :D |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 12:34:52 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, Clinton is from New York ( 31 electoral votes ) and Obama is from Illinois ( 21 electoral votes ); together they represent states with 20% of the electoral votes needed for victory in the Presidential election. |
So a 1-2 democratic ticket including Clinton/Obama, or Clinton/Richardson, or Obama/Richardson or some other combination of the 3, could be a pretty substantial ticket?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:10:39 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by deapee:
Hypothetical question...
3 candidates...
1 woman
1 black
1 white man
who wins? |
Big oil? |
+1 FTW
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 03:11:02 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The liberals view, just confounds me. Let the criminals live, but kill the babies.
Something is wrong with that platform. |
How about if it is phrased this way:
Protect the rights of the living. Not to be shot, to control their bodies, not to be killed given the imperfections in the criminal justice system, not to live in a society that kills its own, that gives enduring respect to life and the living .
The only purported contradiction that you identify ("killing babies") only arises if you equate a foetus with a baby (often a belief arising out of arbitrary religious beliefs) - if you can comprehend that many do not, then it may help you overcome your confusion.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:11:48.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 03:38:01 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Progressive taxation, fiscal responsibility, strong environmental laws, strong gun control, moderately against abortion rights, moderately for "family values" (or whatever that means).
|
We're talking about a "Clinton". In other words, she's moderately for everything. The only thing she's truly for is getting elected.
If she were at the NAACP she'd be moderately for affirmative action. If she were at a KKK rally down south she'd be moderately for removal of racial fulfillment.
*shrug*
Barrack Hussein Obama is fairly unknown, he seems for a fair amount and mainly a mediator. Don't know enough about it, so people like him for that reason alone. I can see the campaign now... "Want to find Usama, vote for Obama." I can see the NY Times headline "Hussein to restore peace in Iraq". I think sadly, the name will hurt his candicacy for president. But I really don't think he's expecting the presidency. I think he's really hoping for the vice-presidency.
Guiliani, good leader but sucks on family values.
Conoliza Rice, she's smart and doesn't take much crap. Even the Russians respect her.
Who knows....we may see the tickets look like this:
Clinton/Obama
Rice/Guiliani or Guiliani/Rice (not quite sure which would be a stronger campaign)
Personally, I want to run Harrison Ford & James Earl Jones for President & Vice-President.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 03:43:56 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The only purported contradiction that you identify ("killing babies") only arises if you equate a foetus with a baby (often a belief arising out of arbitrary religious beliefs) - if you can comprehend that many do not, then it may help you overcome your confusion. |
Sorry, I call this bologne.
a) You insinuate that really the only reason people believe a foetus to be a baby and thus killing is religious. While in other discussions you're argue that morality can stand without religion and that religion is not the only motivation for believing murder to be wrong.
b) Will someone please tell me what the word foetus in the original latin means?
c) Science even questions the definition of terms such a viability, etc. A big issue many opponents have is that no definition is given. Thus when asked if they feel it's okay to abort a baby with a morning after pill within a couple of weeks they might be like uh..yeah it's just a few cells not a baby. But then there is no definition to differentiate from that all the way to partial birth abortions. Thousands of which have been done with no medical reason beyond the mental health (ie: mother didn't want a baby). There is no physical medical reason. The procedure is in fact more dangerous than giving birth and involes delivering the baby via a breach birth and until it is out up to it's neck and crushing it's skull.
Ironically, that baby can be 3 months older and far more viable with a much better chance of life than many of the 6 month old premie foetuses that are alive today.
Even more ironic is the fact that most people who support abortion would be horrified if they saw me squishing tadpoles. Which are frog fetuses.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:53:20. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:04:28 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Even more ironic is the fact that most people who support abortion would be horrified if they saw me squishing tadpoles. Which are frog fetuses. |
How would a tadpole be considered a fetus in the modern sense? It develops outside the body from an egg doesn't it?
EDIT: To answer the OP. Never would vote for Hillary. And for DrAchoo... Adolf Hitler... now there goes the thread. :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 16:09:27. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:05:32 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:30:50 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
If she were at a KKK rally down south she'd be moderately for removal of racial fulfillment.
*shrug* |
ya think? |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:42:34 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
a) You insinuate that really the only reason |
I said "often" - please let me know if the opposition is largely independent of identifiable religious groups. [off topic - of course morality is not derived from religion - more commonly, religion adopts and adapts to changing social mores.]
Originally posted by theSaj:
b) Will someone please tell me what the word foetus in the original latin means? |
If etymology has any bearing whatsoever (the word has its own meaning in English), it is derived from the Latin fetus, which means "offspring".
Originally posted by theSaj:
c) Science even questions the definition of terms such a viability, etc. A big issue many opponents have is that no definition is given. Thus when asked if they feel it's okay to abort a baby with a morning after pill within a couple of weeks they might be like uh..yeah it's just a few cells not a baby. But then there is no definition to differentiate from that all the way to partial birth abortions. |
yup - welcome to the analog reality of life. It is not all black and white, 1s and 0s, right or wrong. People have competing rights. In order to have some certainty in life, we make up rules that revolve around you may, or you may not. They do not fully reflect the analog reality. They do leave you knowing (pretty much) where you stand.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:42:50 PM · #44 |
Hey, I'm not for or against her but the usual Clinton bashing that people engage in, is such bulls`**t. Biased overblown fabrication that can be applied to almost any politician at any given moment. I will fully agree that Hillary is out for Hillary but there are only small hanful of politicians that aren't completely out for themselves.
I remember Bob Dole...who is a pretty square guy saying almost anything he could scramble up in his run against Bill.
"...a vote for Bob Dole is a vote for sex around the clock"
...which was an odd thing to hear at a KKK rally, I thought.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 16:45:57. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:43:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There goes the thread... |
sorry
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 05:01:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There goes the thread... |
sorry |
no prob Matthew.
Personally, I think the abortion debate is completely screwed up. Nobody in that realm is even speaking the right language. Abortion is about "personhood" not about "life". It is quite obvious that an embryo (and even a zygote) qualifies as "life" in any scientific meaning. However, society needs to decide when a human life becomes a "person", that is, when does a human get granted the rights we have come to expect as "human rights".
The answer is, in the end, arbitrary. Yes, there are methods of coming up with the definition that may be better than others, but it is ultimately the decision of the society. Personally my faith has quite a bit to do with where I see that point being, but I fully understand that my faith may hold zero relevance when discussing with another. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 06:18:19 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
We're talking about a "Clinton". In other words, she's moderately for everything. The only thing she's truly for is getting elected. |
It's been said that the Democrats don't stand for anything.
That's clearly not true -- the Democrats do stand for anything ...
Back to your regularly-scheduled diatribes ... |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 06:56:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by "technostorm":
How would a tadpole be considered a fetus in the modern sense? It develops outside the body from an egg doesn't it? |
Quite a few ways, to quote many pro-abortion advocates. Feotus is killable because it's not viable. Well, a tad pole isn't viable on land either. It's still in it's development cycle. For that matter, a newborn isn't very viable either.
So the difference between a tadpole and a feotus is it's womb. In the case of a tadpole it's womb is a pond. In the case of a human the womb is inside another. Take the sea horse and you've got a womb in another as well.
Many premature younger than many abortions are viable if given the right support environment.
This has been a long-standing argument I've received from people who support abortion. A tadpole is nothing more than a frog feutus. It's not a frog, nor is it quite the egg it once was.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I said "often" - please let me know if the opposition is largely independent of identifiable religious groups. [off topic - of course morality is not derived from religion - more commonly, religion adopts and adapts to changing social mores.] |
Actually, I've known a great number of pro-lifers who did not have religious motivations. Many were vegetarians and those who believe that it's wrong to kill life in general.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
b) Will someone please tell me what the word foetus in the original latin means?
If etymology has any bearing whatsoever (the word has its own meaning in English), it is derived from the Latin fetus, which means "offspring". |
Shouldn't we just call them offs instead? Then we'd just be "killing them off". Abortions surely are not offspring. A feotus is. So is a baby. The point is feotus does not mean it is not a baby/human/life. And it is not a part of the mother's body. That has been scientifically disproved for several decades.
It has human DNA which is different from the mother's. It can even have different blood type. Not the same body in the least. But they don't want to propogate that scientific knowledge. It's not politically beneficial to their cause.
Originally posted by "pawdrix":
I will fully agree that Hillary is out for Hillary but there are only small hanful of politicians that aren't completely out for themselves. |
FULLY AGREE.....don't really like most politicians.
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
Abortion is about "personhood" not about "life". |
The problem is that we usually do great evil when deciding the value of person hood or quality of life.
It's these decisions that allowed the mentally deficient, handicap, & Jews to killed in Europe. It's these decisions that allowed the ethnic slavery of Africans. It's these decisions that allow abortion to run rampant as an excuse for a lack of responsibility on the part of our society.
#1 cause for abortion is a lack of responsibility!
THAT SAID, I DO WANT TO GIVE LEGALBEAGLE SOME CREDIT. If I recall from a prior similar discussion he did give some ideas of definitive states (be it when the nerve system becomes functional). This is something I always get frustrated with because we have a very arbitrary determining factor that has very little to do with the actual state of the baby. Essentially, at present our rule is if the head has popped out. So a 6 month premie is more viable than a healthy baby at 9 months if we decide to breach birth, crush it's skull and abort it before the head pops out.
That is IMHO, not an acceptable definer for a society. I've been critical cause few have ever suggested things like once the brain waves are detected, etc. At least I'd feel there was some honesty instead of just society shirking it's responsibilities so it can continue to pursue it's selfish pleasures. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 07:03:23 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
THAT SAID, I DO WANT TO GIVE LEGALBEAGLE SOME CREDIT. If I recall from a prior similar discussion he did give some ideas of definitive states (be it when the nerve system becomes functional). This is something I always get frustrated with because we have a very arbitrary determining factor that has very little to do with the actual state of the baby. Essentially, at present our rule is if the head has popped out. So a 6 month premie is more viable than a healthy baby at 9 months if we decide to breach birth, crush it's skull and abort it before the head pops out. |
Just so you don't think I'm against you Jason (I'm generally "pro-life" or whatever that moniker denotes), but I highly doubt there are partial birth abortions beyond 23-24 weeks (term is 40 weeks)... |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:14:51 AM · #50 |
I know that this is hideously OT, but I would revert v briefly.
[snip]
apologies.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 18:01:54.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:17:46 PM EDT.
