LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I never supported going into Iraq based on WMDs. I supported it for other reasons. And as for "after the fact rationalization" for going into Rwanda -- I'd have gladly lit a fire under my government's ass

2. Actually at the time I thought we should go in.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I came from below the midlevel.

This may have been while you were gone, but we found out all the libs who post here were basically born rich and the rest of us worked our way up. I think its a touchy subject with them so you may want to avoid it.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
You surmise correctly -- I have never kayaked in bilmore's amniotic fluid.

Well, we limit what people can do with their bodies, but -- by and large -- we don't force them affirmatively to do something risky with their bodies against their will.

It's a very difficult issue. I don't know what the answer is, other than to note that there would probably be a lot fewer abortions if there was more to most sex ed classes than "abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."

Unless its rape, its not against their will. When will the liberals take some responsibility for their actions. Unprotected sex=potential for children. Roll the dice at your own risk. I'm not against sex or even unprotected sex, but I am willing to accept the consequences without killing someone else. (unless cuckold's friend Bill had sex with with one of my lovers, then I might want to reserve the exercise of my second amendment rights against him)

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This may have been while you were gone, but we found out all the libs who post here were basically born rich and the rest of us worked our way up. I think its a touchy subject with them so you may want to avoid it.

most of the faux-intellectuals elitists who run the demo party are limousine liberals of the variety you note Hank, it is no secret to me. One appreciates the benefits of the ownership society when one earns their ownership rights first hand.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Why is that a punt? It's a direct response to what you posited, correctly, as the central dividing line in this mess. Slaveowners were able to defend their position only because they also considered this statement to be a punt, I suspect.

Are you asking, would this be constitutional? Kelo seems to say, yes. (Okay, just kidding.) I think there is a qualitative difference between, {you have to do this or someone else will die}, and, {if you do this, you will kill someone else}. There's no legal or social mandate that a fetus start growing in some specific womb - but, once it's there, I think that we need to engage in a balancing of constitutionally-protected rights in order to determine if the womb-person has the right to simply kill the invading fetus.

I can refuse to feed you, and watch you die. I can't accomplish the same goal with a shotgun. We recognize that difference, at least.

Slavery doesn't work for exactly the reason I cited (and you still can't refute) 20 posts ago. You think that because my point is back a few pages, its forgotten, and now you can rehash an argument previously eviscerated. You get cheaper and less creative by the moment. Face it. Not Bob is making you look like I looked the other day when I argued pensions with Ltl. Sometimes, asshat, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and your analogy is a piece of shit, logically, morally, ethically and common sensically. This. is. One. Of. Those. Times.

You believe a woman's rights are subordinated to a fetus the moment she's impregnanted. Stop trying to nance around that position with the slavery dodge. It only further exposes you as the disingenuous cur you are on this issue. Just say it. Breathe, now repeat - "I, Bilmore, believe a woman's right to control her body is subordinate to the rights of the fetus she's carrying."

How many times do I have to make that honest argument for you? Why won't you just write it?

I know why... Its pretty noxious and sexist, ain't it. Yeh, when you can't hide behind those semantic dodges and shitty analogies, your policies look pretty regressive and disturbing, don't they?

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Slavery doesn't work for exactly the reason I cited (and you still can't refute) 20 posts ago. You think that because my point is back a few pages, its forgotten, and now you can rehash an argument previously eviscerated. You get cheaper and less creative by the moment. Face it. Not Bob is making you look like I looked the other day when I argued pensions with Ltl. Sometimes, asshot, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and your analogy is a piece of shit, logically, morally, ethically and common sensically. This. is. One. Of. Those. Times.

You believe a woman's rights are subordinated to a fetus the moment she's impregnanted. Stop trying to nance around that position with the slavery dodge. It only further exposes you as the disingenuous cur you are on this issue. Just say it. Breathe, now repeat - "I, Bilmore, believe a woman's right to control her body is subordinate to the rights of the fetus she's carrying."

How many times do I have to make that honest argument for you? Why won't you just write it?

I know why... Its pretty noxious and sexist, ain't it. Yeh, when you can't hide behind those semantic dodges and shitty analogies, your policies look pretty regressive and disturbing, don't they?

It's not a question of subordinate, what if they are equivalent?

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

No, actually I stopped responding to you because you're turning into stark, foaming-mouthed, abusive asshole who has yet to make a logical point that goes beyond "you're all soooo fucking stooopid!!!!!!!!".

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

I wish. You think anyone rich would become a fucking lawyer?

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
No, actually I stopped responding to you because you're turning into stark, foaming-mouthed, abusive asshole who has yet to make a logical point that goes beyond "you're all soooo fucking stooopid!!!!!!!!".

Classic ad hominem. Ann and Rush have taught you well.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's not a question of subordinate, what if they are equivalent?

FTR, my position is on this issue is evolving. towards the right(eous), but to date I am not anti-any abortion because I am not coming at the concept of a distinctly separately life coming into being and a "soul" taking at conception. I would say the line is at some point near the end of the first trimester or if the pregnancy objectively materially jeopardizes the health of the woman at any time following that. If its an either/or and the baby is not viable then I think it is in society's interest to let the mother choose (intentionally ignoring the issue of whether or not there should be any paternal rights at that point).

Fractional Interests

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Slaves weren't people, either, were they?

Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Before that they were only 3/5ths of a person.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

What sex ed clas did you have?? Mine, as far as I can recall, didn't mention abstinence at all. Pure mechanics!

Quote:

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
2.

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Not Bob, do I get a roughing the kicker on this one?