|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2008 04:56:31 PM · #426 |
| I also posted this on the country music thread. My question for Obama supporters is: do you find this McCain ad as a misrepresentation (lie) as well? If so, how so? |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 06:42:44 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?. |
Yes, that's sickening, but the article is misleading (no surprise there!). If such practices were taking place in that hospital, then the hospital personnel were breaking the law. According to Obama's website: "BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should âProvide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.â The Chicago Tribune reported, ââFor more than 20 years (emphasis added), Illinois law has required that when âthere is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,â an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes âit is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.â And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique âmost likely to preserve the life and health of the fetusâ and perform the abortion in the presence of âa physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.ââ [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
"Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]"
The legislation that Obama opposed was apparently an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. His votes against that legislation did not change the existing law in any respect. |
Quoting Obama's statement about his rationale for voting against the Illinois bill, from his own website, was
Originally posted by Obama:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, weâre saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to termâ¦That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. |
From the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "fetus"
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
Obviously, a "born alive infant" is no longer a "pre-viable fetus" even if the infant is not "viable". Once it is "born" alive, regardless of its viability, it is no longer a fetus, it is an infant. Therefore, his argument is without merit on the face of it, since the law would not, and could not, do what he opposes.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2008 06:52:28 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that the candidates should stay on the issues - but this article has me scratching my head. I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
Perhaps THIS article by Boston Globe staff writer Mary Leonard, dated March 4, 2000 will explain why McCain doesn't do email.
An excerpt:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball." |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 07:20:00 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?. |
Yes, that's sickening, but the article is misleading (no surprise there!). If such practices were taking place in that hospital, then the hospital personnel were breaking the law. According to Obama's website: "BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should âProvide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.â The Chicago Tribune reported, ââFor more than 20 years (emphasis added), Illinois law has required that when âthere is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,â an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes âit is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.â And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique âmost likely to preserve the life and health of the fetusâ and perform the abortion in the presence of âa physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.ââ [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
"Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]"
The legislation that Obama opposed was apparently an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. His votes against that legislation did not change the existing law in any respect. |
Quoting Obama's statement about his rationale for voting against the Illinois bill, from his own website, was
Originally posted by Obama:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, weâre saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to termâ¦That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. |
From the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "fetus"
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
Obviously, a "born alive infant" is no longer a "pre-viable fetus" even if the infant is not "viable". Once it is "born" alive, regardless of its viability, it is no longer a fetus, it is an infant. Therefore, his argument is without merit on the face of it, since the law would not, and could not, do what he opposes. |
So, you're saying that the 'Pro Lifers' can never get a law passed to prevent abortion? What reasoning would they have? Somebody better inform them as there is still a big fight between pro-life and pro-choice.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2008 07:29:40 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that the candidates should stay on the issues - but this article has me scratching my head. I understand the message but it doesn't sound like an issues ad to me. |
I think the idea that, in this day and age, our President could be someone who is computer illiterate is an issue. |
Perhaps THIS article by Boston Globe staff writer Mary Leonard, dated March 4, 2000 will explain why McCain doesn't do email.
An excerpt:
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball." |
AND... whats the point...
There is software that allows you to manage computer activities by voice command email to voicemail and voice to email this is a lame excuse. He simply does not want to learn any technology. He should admit it ... he wouldn't be alone there are many corporate CEOs that are in the same boat .
Message edited by author 2008-09-13 19:32:14. |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 08:46:01 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?. |
Yes, that's sickening, but the article is misleading (no surprise there!). If such practices were taking place in that hospital, then the hospital personnel were breaking the law. According to Obama's website: "BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should âProvide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.â The Chicago Tribune reported, ââFor more than 20 years (emphasis added), Illinois law has required that when âthere is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,â an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes âit is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.â And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique âmost likely to preserve the life and health of the fetusâ and perform the abortion in the presence of âa physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.ââ [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
"Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]"
The legislation that Obama opposed was apparently an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. His votes against that legislation did not change the existing law in any respect. |
Quoting Obama's statement about his rationale for voting against the Illinois bill, from his own website, was
Originally posted by Obama:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, weâre saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to termâ¦That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. |
From the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "fetus"
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
Obviously, a "born alive infant" is no longer a "pre-viable fetus" even if the infant is not "viable". Once it is "born" alive, regardless of its viability, it is no longer a fetus, it is an infant. Therefore, his argument is without merit on the face of it, since the law would not, and could not, do what he opposes. |
I understand the distinction you're making based on the lay definition of "unborn," but I'm not a legal expert and I don't know how the terms "fetus," "unborn," "infant," and "viable" are defined in this area of the law. Obviously, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) thought this law would undermine Roe v. Wade, and I'm sure they have attorneys on staff who work on these legal issues exclusively. They are the experts and should know what effect any given law will have on abortion rights. |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 10:01:48 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
Then this should really make you sick - but I wonder, does it?. |
Yes, that's sickening, but the article is misleading (no surprise there!). If such practices were taking place in that hospital, then the hospital personnel were breaking the law. According to Obama's website: "BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should âProvide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.â The Chicago Tribune reported, ââFor more than 20 years (emphasis added), Illinois law has required that when âthere is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,â an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes âit is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.â And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique âmost likely to preserve the life and health of the fetusâ and perform the abortion in the presence of âa physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.ââ [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
"Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]"
The legislation that Obama opposed was apparently an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. His votes against that legislation did not change the existing law in any respect. |
Quoting Obama's statement about his rationale for voting against the Illinois bill, from his own website, was
Originally posted by Obama:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, weâre saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to termâ¦That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. |
From the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "fetus"
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
Obviously, a "born alive infant" is no longer a "pre-viable fetus" even if the infant is not "viable". Once it is "born" alive, regardless of its viability, it is no longer a fetus, it is an infant. Therefore, his argument is without merit on the face of it, since the law would not, and could not, do what he opposes. |
I understand the distinction you're making based on the lay definition of "unborn," but I'm not a legal expert and I don't know how the terms "fetus," "unborn," "infant," and "viable" are defined in this area of the law. Obviously, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) thought this law would undermine Roe v. Wade, and I'm sure they have attorneys on staff who work on these legal issues exclusively. They are the experts and should know what effect any given law will have on abortion rights. |
And should we assume that Senator Obama, even though he was a lawyer, was so lacking in legal expertise that he relied on NARAL's opinion about the legal ramifications of the bill, without seeking input from other medical and legal professionals?
The answer is obvious - just from seeing his apparent lack of knowledge of what a 'fetus' is. I did an internet search and could find no instance where 'fetus' has any application, medically or legally, to an extra-utero being.
For what it's worth, Planned Parenthood has this statement bolded as a heading in material on their own website:
Originally posted by Planned Parenthood:
The fetus becomes a baby at birth. |
I would venture to guess that Planned Parenthood has as many lawyers as NARAL does.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2008 10:33:49 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I also posted this on the country music thread. My question for Obama supporters is: do you find this McCain ad as a misrepresentation (lie) as well? If so, how so? |
I am not a supporter of either side in this battle for the White House but would most certainly classify this at the very least as a distortion of the comments made. Was it a mistake for the USA to go to Iraq... Yes... at the very least a mistake and perhaps worse if we consider that the reasons for going there may not have been legitimate.
The young serviceman perception is base on personal experiences and those may or may not be related to the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq.
Ray
|
|
|
|
09/13/2008 11:41:45 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And should we assume that Senator Obama, even though he was a lawyer, was so lacking in legal expertise that he relied on NARAL's opinion about the legal ramifications of the bill, without seeking input from other medical and legal professionals?
The answer is obvious - just from seeing his apparent lack of knowledge of what a 'fetus' is. I did an internet search and could find no instance where 'fetus' has any application, medically or legally, to an extra-utero being.
For what it's worth, Planned Parenthood has this statement bolded as a heading in material on their own website:
Originally posted by Planned Parenthood:
The fetus becomes a baby at birth. |
I would venture to guess that Planned Parenthood has as many lawyers as NARAL does. |
So you think it should be called a pre-viable infant? My point is that NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Obama, and a lot of other state senators thought it was a bad law for abortion rights, and there was already law in place to protect infants/babies/fetuses born alive under those circumstances. |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 11:46:21 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also posted this on the country music thread. My question for Obama supporters is: do you find this McCain ad as a misrepresentation (lie) as well? If so, how so? |
I am not a supporter of either side in this battle for the White House but would most certainly classify this at the very least as a distortion of the comments made. Was it a mistake for the USA to go to Iraq... Yes... at the very least a mistake and perhaps worse if we consider that the reasons for going there may not have been legitimate.
The young serviceman perception is base on personal experiences and those may or may not be related to the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq.
Ray |
I don't think it's a lie. I think this soldier is misinterpreting Obama's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy as a criticism of his service and his sacrifice. |
|
|
|
09/13/2008 11:53:02 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also posted this on the country music thread. My question for Obama supporters is: do you find this McCain ad as a misrepresentation (lie) as well? If so, how so? |
I am not a supporter of either side in this battle for the White House but would most certainly classify this at the very least as a distortion of the comments made. Was it a mistake for the USA to go to Iraq... Yes... at the very least a mistake and perhaps worse if we consider that the reasons for going there may not have been legitimate.
The young serviceman perception is base on personal experiences and those may or may not be related to the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq.
Ray |
I don't think it's a lie. I think this soldier is misinterpreting Obama's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy as a criticism of his service and his sacrifice. |
Exactly... |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 11:36:02 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Our founding fathers wrote racism and slavery into the Constitution (see Article 1).
It was not until about 100 years later than an amendment was added to abolish slavery.
So, the way our founding fathers envisioned the constitution, allowing slavery and racism (and to some extent sexism by allowing states to decide who gets to vote) is not the way I want the constitution read. |
Actually you are mischaracterizing what the founding fathers envisioned or at least what they actually wrote. They didn't write anything to the effect that slavery is legal in fact they didn't use the words like "slavery", "slaves" or even referred to a specific group of people at all (i.e. blacks, people of color, etc). What they did write was a document that could change over time and by that I mean it used terms that were generic such as "persons" and "free persons" when describing certain restrictions. It is how those terms were and are interpreted that allow or disallow slavery or a woman's right to vote. So it's not fair to say the Constitution is a racist or sexist document. Today we use the same document to restrict voting to people under the age of 18, those who have been convicted of crimes and non-citizens. Perhaps in the future if as a society we deem these people should also have the right to vote then we'll pass another amendment that further clarifies the voting group in this country thanks largely to that original document that didn't explicitly forbid this. |
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
"Section 9: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
You are absolutely right, with the exception of Indians. But, both the 3/5's Compromise and the tax on the importation of people were acknowledgments of slavery. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there was no race imported or enslaved in the US save Africans. As far as I know, 100% of them were not white.
Also, while it seems natural enough for us to assume that the founding fathers meant to include women in those with rights, it took until 1920 to guarantee voting rights and, at this time, there still is no guarantee to equal rights under the constitution.
The founding fathers may have been very generic in their writing of the constitution but, at the time, women were not allowed to own property and so were not allowed to vote. That is sexist. Additionally, Indians were not allowed to vote, nor were slaves. Non-property owners were not allowed to vote and, in the south, free-blacks were not allowed to vote. Yes, its racist.
John Adams, on why women shouldn't be allowed to vote:
"But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own...it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote..."
You can pick herrings if you like, but the founding fathers were elitist, racist, and sexist. I do not want the Constitution of my country to rely on their intentions and visions when interpreting the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2008 02:57:45 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
But, both the 3/5's Compromise and the tax on the importation of people were acknowledgments of slavery. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there was no race imported or enslaved in the US save Africans. As far as I know, 100% of them were not white. |
And without that 3/5's Compromise the South would have had a far greater voice at the time. Is that what you would have wanted? The 3/5th compromise had nothing to do with placing an actual value on an individual rather it was a compromise to balance government representation with the North and South. The 3/5 compromise HELPED the North because the South wanted all of it's slaves to be counted as whole people (i.e. more people equal more say in government) and while on the surface that might sound like the right idea, the South had no intentions of giving that status (i.e. whole person) to their slaves. They merely wanted to just use them as pawns when it was time to count up the number of representations each state would have. Regardless, the 3/5 Compromise didn't legalize slavery, it acknowledge it's existence and dealt with the current state of affais as it pertained to state representation.
Originally posted by dahkota:
Also, while it seems natural enough for us to assume that the founding fathers meant to include women in those with rights, it took until 1920 to guarantee voting rights and, at this time, there still is no guarantee to equal rights under the constitution. |
This is probably where the disconnect is. The original Constitution was never intended to grant or protect personal rights. It's not until the Bill of Rights was added that certain personal rights started to be protected. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper No. 84 argued against the Bill of Rights as well as many others on the grounds that it was not only unneccessary but even dangerous. The rights that were granted could be abused and those rights not explicitly listed could mean they are not protected or granted at all. And it would seem like he was right in his fears. Just look at the issue of guns and gay marriage. Before the Bill of Rights, the Constitution couldn't be used to support or deny these rights but now it can and is used that way. Perhaps it is in those amendments, that change of Constitutional usage that you are really against?
Originally posted by dahkota:
The founding fathers may have been very generic in their writing of the constitution but, at the time, women were not allowed to own property and so were not allowed to vote. That is sexist. Additionally, Indians were not allowed to vote, nor were slaves. Non-property owners were not allowed to vote and, in the south, free-blacks were not allowed to vote. Yes, its racist. |
Yes that's sexist and racist but again the Constitution didn't deal with any of that. Is the IRS Tax Code homophobic because married but not legally recognized homosexual couples can't check off the marriage box? The IRS Tax Code has it's hands tied by other laws. The Constitution in a way was like that, in that it left those issues (i.e. voting regulations and determining free persons) up to the states to decide.
Originally posted by dahkota:
You can pick herrings if you like, but the founding fathers were elitist, racist, and sexist. I do not want the Constitution of my country to rely on their intentions and visions when interpreting the Constitution. |
Well then good luck finding something to rely on. At the time it was written and ratified (and lets not forget everyone had to agree on it to pass) it was the best they could do.
Just think for a moment what would be needed to write a similar document for say DPC. If you wrote it and had to get it passed by a vast majority of the members of DPC or at the very least all the SC and Admin members, would that document not only speak to the here and now but also to the distant future? Would future generations look back and wonder about this Courtenay person and question why she didn't grant people they called "trolls" back then equal rights (i.e. their votes were allowed to get scrubbed at turnover). Perhaps in future generations people will look upon these trolls as not trolls but just regular people who just have a different opinion and should be treated equally as others. LOL. Ok I'm just throwing out an example as an attempt to make this a little less serious. :)
Message edited by author 2008-09-14 15:03:52.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2008 04:13:28 PM · #439 |
I think we can all get some humor out of the SNL sketch with Sarah and Hillary.
A non-partisan message from Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton
I think it's an instant SNL classic. Tina Fey absolutely nailed her impersonation of Sarah Palin.
Message edited by author 2008-09-14 16:13:58. |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 04:25:04 PM · #440 |
They could be twins. When I saw Palin for the first time my first thought was, "McCain picked Tina Fey?" |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 05:59:13 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also posted this on the country music thread. My question for Obama supporters is: do you find this McCain ad as a misrepresentation (lie) as well? If so, how so? |
I am not a supporter of either side in this battle for the White House but would most certainly classify this at the very least as a distortion of the comments made. Was it a mistake for the USA to go to Iraq... Yes... at the very least a mistake and perhaps worse if we consider that the reasons for going there may not have been legitimate.
The young serviceman perception is base on personal experiences and those may or may not be related to the reasons why the USA invaded Iraq.
Ray |
I don't think it's a lie. I think this soldier is misinterpreting Obama's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy as a criticism of his service and his sacrifice. |
Exactly... |
Other soldiers support Obama. So the simple fact that one of them supports McCain doesn't mean much to me as a voter.
//kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/columns/5376450.html
The best witness to whether or not Iraq is better off than it was in 2002 would be an Iraqi. The fact that the McCain campaign doesn't realize this speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 07:17:11 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Regardless, the 3/5 Compromise didn't legalize slavery, it acknowledge it's existence and dealt with the current state of affais as it pertained to state representation. |
The part in bold is exactly what I said. Additionally, it was used for taxation purposes, which is why the southern states went along. They didn't want each slave to be counted as a whole person when tax time came around. But that is neither here nor there. The Constitution acknowledged the existence of slavery, which is completely the opposite of the idea that "all men are created equal." Either that, or slaves weren't men. You can't have it both ways. And, before you state that many of them, such as Jefferson, didn't really believe in slavery, please remember most were slave owners. Additionally, Jefferson fully believed that blacks were inferior to whites intellectually and emotionally. If that is not racist, I don't know what is.
Originally posted by yanko:
This is probably where the disconnect is. The original Constitution was never intended to grant or protect personal rights. It's not until the Bill of Rights was added that certain personal rights started to be protected. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper No. 84 argued against the Bill of Rights as well as many others on the grounds that it was not only unneccessary but even dangerous. The rights that were granted could be abused and those rights not explicitly listed could mean they are not protected or granted at all. And it would seem like he was right in his fears. Just look at the issue of guns and gay marriage. Before the Bill of Rights, the Constitution couldn't be used to support or deny these rights but now it can and is used that way. Perhaps it is in those amendments, that change of Constitutional usage that you are really against? |
Yes, Hamilton believed that the Preamble gave citizens their rights:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
He felt that there existed natural rights. But, most other founding fathers felt that the Constitution formed the government but did not limit it enough with regard to individual human rights (see the fugitive slave section for example). Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, etc. all felt the Constitution had to guarantee individual rights.
Originally posted by yanko:
Yes that's sexist and racist but again the Constitution didn't deal with any of that. Is the IRS Tax Code homophobic because married but not legally recognized homosexual couples can't check off the marriage box? The IRS Tax Code has it's hands tied by other laws. The Constitution in a way was like that, in that it left those issues (i.e. voting regulations and determining free persons) up to the states to decide. |
Legally recognized Homosexual couples are not married (I wish that were not true, but it is). If we are lucky, that will change. The Constitution did deal with it when it included the fugitive slave law. Granted, it didn't say black people but the intent was there.
Originally posted by yanko:
Well then good luck finding something to rely on. At the time it was written and ratified (and lets not forget everyone had to agree on it to pass) it was the best they could do. |
I have no problem with what is written (mostly). As I stated from the beginning, I have a problem with it being interpreted the way our founding fathers envisioned. the best thing they could have done was make it as generic as possible, which they did with the exception of the slave issues. Can't blame them, but I don't have to support their vision either.
Originally posted by yanko:
Just think for a moment what would be needed to write a similar document for say DPC. If you wrote it and had to get it passed by a vast majority of the members of DPC or at the very least all the SC and Admin members, would that document not only speak to the here and now but also to the distant future? Would future generations look back and wonder about this Courtenay person and question why she didn't grant people they called "trolls" back then equal rights (i.e. their votes were allowed to get scrubbed at turnover). Perhaps in future generations people will look upon these trolls as not trolls but just regular people who just have a different opinion and should be treated equally as others. LOL. Ok I'm just throwing out an example as an attempt to make this a little less serious. :) |
I agree with you. My point is that the founding fathers were a product of their time. They were definitely forward thinking but still rooted in time and place. I prefer interpretation according to the time, as has been done over time (evidenced in the additions of various amendments). If we had not changed it and amended it to reflect current values, this country would be a far different place, one I probably would not enjoy being part of. The entire world changed as a result, directly or indirectly.
I understand Whoopie Goldberg's questioning of John McCain when he stated he wanted the Constitution interpreted the way it was envisioned. |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 08:57:33 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I agree with you. My point is that the founding fathers were a product of their time. They were definitely forward thinking but still rooted in time and place. I prefer interpretation according to the time, as has been done over time (evidenced in the additions of various amendments). If we had not changed it and amended it to reflect current values, this country would be a far different place, one I probably would not enjoy being part of. The entire world changed as a result, directly or indirectly. |
I would classify those more as additions/clarifications than outright changes. When the 13th Amendment was passed it didn't require a single passage or even a single word to be changed in the Constitution in order to free the slaves. There was no need to cross anything out because there was nothing to cross out in the Constitution that addressed slavery's legal status. What the 13th Amendment actually did was include additional statements to the Constitution which addressed the slavery issue for the first time making it illegal to practice. When that was passed it did change state laws but not the US Constitution itself. There was no need to do so as it would have easily supported a completely free society if the states actually practiced it.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2008 09:21:25 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I would classify those more as additions/clarifications than outright changes. When the 13th Amendment was passed it didn't require a single passage or even a single word to be changed in the Constitution in order to free the slaves. There was no need to cross anything out because there was nothing to cross out in the Constitution that addressed slavery's legal status. What the 13th Amendment actually did was include additional statements to the Constitution which addressed the slavery issue for the first time making it illegal to practice. When that was passed it did change state laws but not the US Constitution itself. There was no need to do so as it would have easily supported a completely free society if the states actually practiced it. |
Not wanting to quibble but Amendments are added to the Constitution; the base language of the Constitution does not change. This is how it is written (i.e. - there is no provision for removing or changing anything written other than by amendment). This is proven by the 12th Amendment which changed Article 2, and the repeal of the 18th amendment by the 21st.
BTW - interesting story on 60 minutes minutes about Justice Scalia, a literal interpreter of the Constitution. Included some footage of Justice Ginsberg, a liberal interpreter. Interesting how one letter can make such a difference in view...
Message edited by author 2008-09-14 21:23:08. |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 11:04:40 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
I'd love to see a youtube video like this, but titled "Obama supports the killing of babies!" It would start off with wonderful, happy images of smiling, laughing infants, and then proceed to show footage of abortions and chopped up fetuses. I wonder if that would cause such a stir as hunting wolves.... |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 11:16:28 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But back to Palin, this is just about the most sickening thing I've seen in a long, long time. |
I'd love to see a youtube video like this, but titled "Obama supports the killing of babies!" It would start off with wonderful, happy images of smiling, laughing infants, and then proceed to show footage of abortions and chopped up fetuses. I wonder if that would cause such a stir as hunting wolves.... |
GOOD GRIEF... is there a full moon out? At least try to keep things in context.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:33:00 AM · #447 |
| "I can see Russia from my house!" |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:46:13 AM · #448 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"I can see Russia from my house!" |
So what? On a clear night, I can see the moon :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 08:46:17 AM · #449 |
If we look at the Senate records of both Presidential Candidates (just since 2005 to give Obama a fair chance) the record shows McCain MUCH more willing to reach accross party lines to do the work of the American people while Obama will work on postage stamp issues.
If we are real - there is no evidence that Obama will take on his own party and stand his ground. He does have a good delivery though. Somewhere it is written about "wolves in sheeps clothing". Judge them by their actions - not their words.
edit ti add: This came from the comments section of my link. I have no idea if it is true - however it will cause me to [i][i]investigate it;[/i][/i]
"Before you dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander
of the Alaska National Guard consider this. Alaska is the
first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th
Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that
protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on
permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. As governor of Alaska ,
Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security,
and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even
Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's. She's also the commander in
chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized
militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the
entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may
have security clearances we don't even know about. According to the
Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever
found out. "
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 09:02:30. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 08:54:05 AM · #450 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Somewhere it is written about "wolves in sheeps clothing". Judge them by their actions - not their words. |
Wait... I thought you were *FOR* McCain...?
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 09:11:43. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:44:47 AM  |
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: 08/27/2025 07:44:47 AM EDT.
|
