http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 7fTsF5BiSM
Argh I hate stupid.
Well, Jaxson, nice plug, but you must be getting nervous because the Convention is resonating among so many and the message that Obama has been trying to get through rightwing static is coming thru all the same.. We have our stars such as Liz Warren and Bill Clinton, putting the issues and choices before the American people in plain english. The right wing is terrofied and all that you can offer is a buffoon video?
Hi buddy how have you been? I haven't seen you in a while I hope all is well.
While I agree with you that was a buffoon video, did you take a close look at it? Three of the people who answered questions were Democrats who are currently serving in the house of representatives.
I particularly like the one made the comment that it's too late you can't change the platform, and yet today the Democrats changed platform.
Hi, AV, missed you, I have had to draw back a bit over the last few weeks and glad you are going strong, and regardless of the outcome of this contest, may the best man win!
I missed the particular point you speak of, but I did hear the question about corporate profits. Of course we all have a right to profit as long as it is honest and not unfairly acquired at anyones expense. I have spent more time on these forums and will keep my eye out for you when you start one. Even as I may be adversarial relative to your or your audience, it is all good, believe me....
I'm not all that worried, I still have faith in America.
I saw the video, so I posted it. You make too much out of it.
I am worried about Obama being re-elected... he doesn't know how to fix our economy... hasn't the slightest idea really. He's hypocritical at best, naive at worst.
The international banking cartel, controls THE FED. The Fed is not part of the government. The Fed is not a United States Agency. The Fed is a private internatonal corporation whose shares are owned by ten internatonal banks including Bank of America, JP Morgan, and others.
These banks control our congressmen and women with "favors".
Without going into detail about The Fed, let's just say the banking cartel cares not whether you vote for Obama or Romney. They are both funded and controlled by the banks who want to bankdrupt this country and get it into the new world order.
There is one candidate you ddn't hear a lot of as the banks own stock in the media and prevented you knowing about his agenda.
it is not important you understand who the candidate was; what is important that you understand the public is being "duped" into thinking we hae a choice.
The banks have the votiing machines rigged. All the banks want to make sure is you don't vote for a third party who is not "owned" by the banks.
Take that one to the bank. Sad, but true.
Peter Schiff is an idiot. And his father is a "nutberger" in jail because he refused to pay income tax.
But then they want the government to make abortion illegal, which is about as invasive as a government can get--regulating what happens inside a citizen's body.
You've disappointed me with this one, Jaxson. This is really beneath your abilities and otherwise good judgement.
There is no real, honest discussion to be had on these forums.
I hear ya, brother. But I do believe you have a gift you can use to help raise the standards. Chin up, chip up!
Lol... I just need a sign that says
"If you are interested in serious discussion about real issues, rather than partisan fan-boy-isms, I'll be happy to oblige."
Wow! Everybody attending the DNC Convention was in favor of limiting corporate profits?
Arggh! I hate propoganda.
I think the people being interviewed were just being polite. I don't think they were of the same mindset as the conniver with the microphone.
I don't like it when smarmy professionals take advantage of good, everyday people.
Methinks a little editing towards the right was afoot as they say.
No one can limit the profits of these multi national corporations, It just is not in the constitution. We can however limit their access to political influence by taking the money out of the campaigns and votes on the floor.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only hope we have. The only problem with acheiving this is that the people that represent us and in charge of making it happen are hard set against it.
Jaxson, I saw the asininity of these people. Anyone who studied economics or have the least amount of business sense, knows that businesses must make a profit in order for them to stay in business, jeez. These people are totally -------------------(you put the appropriate word in). Socialism and communism at its finest here, folks. Why the stupid prejudice against the wealthy. It is the wealthy people who have businesses thus creating jobs for peple thus stimulating the economy. K.I.S.S. Well, I guess that these people want a socialistic and communistic "utopia". Hmmmmmmmm, inverse logic at its very, very, very best!
Aw, gm, why are you getting all paranoid on us? Socialism?
Could we not give these folks (all except the very rabid!) a little slack and assume that "profit" to them is net profit... after expenses? And could we further assume that they are thinking of profits of the kind that characterized corporations like Enron? Just for the fun of it, give it a try.
Niteriter, I agree. But when a forum thread begins with a declared intolerance for others' opinions ('Get out of my country') there is hardly much scope for a hypothetical discussion.
Economic systems gradually evolve- as do societies. A society where business need not be conducted for excessive profits may soon become the mode of commerce, across the globe. It may be sci-fi at present, but sci-fi have turned true many times.
Those meager and man-made concepts, which are actually perceptions, of any form of 'nationalism' (as been said in this forum, 'Get out of 'America') also may soon become quite redundant- it is actually becoming so - if you are careful enough to notice, though racism is raging in the news!
However, I guess some people are really not ready and will feel threatened. Unfortunately, they feel threatened by a better form of society, but not really by things like Global Warming or Nuclear War-heads etc. etc.
Did I go rambling away from the discussion? I hope the forum members will forgive me- anyway, I probably don't qualify to speak. I am not an American.
I just replied to you but it disappeared somehow. Essentially what I said was, Jaxson is really good at presenting an argument and I almost always find his arguments to be reasonable. I think he just got a little carried away with his heading this time.
I believe free enterprise is good but that it needs to be regulated for the benefit of the societal whole. Business people can act like big boys on a playground if left unsupervised!
...liked the part about 'big boys on a playground.. left unsupervised'..so aptly stated..
Nah, not carried away.
I just gave up on real discussion here a while ago(ask MM, she was there when I broke, lol).
Just trying to establish balance, when someone posts about something stupid Akin says, the force becomes unbalanced
I am a witness, yes.
Not the cause of the break, I hope!
Probably not the best example, Jaxson.
When someone posts about something stupid Akin says, of COURSE the force becomes unbalanced!! How can even the most resolute maintain any semblance of balance in the face of such unbalancedness?
Maybe we can shoot for balance at the Veep level and above and their policy pros and cons.*
*Oops. I think that was a monkey that just escaped from my derriere!
That is not true. Not all businesses have to make a profit to stay in business.
There are many -- and many types of -- thriving, lonstanding nonprofit businesses out there.
Now granted, if you are not intentionally established as a nonprofit, your goal IS to have money left over after paying your expenses.
America... land of the free. Not land of the 'we will say what you can do'
As in, we will decide whether you were raped or not, and whether you will give birth to that child.
Yeah, who wants to stand up for the child...
Not the same thing.
It wouldn't be would it. Who wants to stand up for the woman that is raped? In fact, who wants to stand up for the child of rape that is born to a woman that cannot bear to even look at him? Will you stand up for him when he's so messed up that he engages in drink and drugs, ends up in prison, on welfare? Or will he become just another welfare parasite that your tax dollars support?
It's not a dichotomy though.
You can stand up for the woman, and the child. Life is too sacred to allow for as many abortions as we do.
How about, if anyone wants to support abortion, they show their support for volunteering to be belated-aborted? I mean, if it's not that big of a deal...
Having an abortion is a massive deal, and so is having a child. I honestly do not believe that abortion should be in any way an easy option. I have two kids of my own. My daughter is fifteen, doing really well at school (brags) three Grade A Gcses all ready, one year before she's due, and will take the other 12 next year. Her friend, on the other hand, is four months pregnant. HER mother thinks that it will all be OK, after all, she was only fifteen when she gave birth to Ciara. What is she thinking, why has she not tried to educate her daughter?
But she is pregnant and it's a life. That's completely different from her being raped, though. Surely you see the difference here?
Let's play the line game Ralph.
Is a 1-minute old baby a human?
What about 1 minute before birth?
Not my opinion. Standard, correct usage of the English language. A fetus is not a child. You should try to be more careful expressing yourself. Calling a zygote or a fetus a "child" is inflammatory, and it incites psycho murderers like Scott Roeder.
So is it a child when it is born alive during a late term abortion and must be murdered so that its mother doesn't have to deal with it? Or is that living thing still a fetus? Just curious.
St. Thomas Aquinas defined the beginning of a human life (a baby, not a child) as when it is sufficiently mature to survive outside the womb. That works for me.
So, whether or not a baby is human or not depends on technology. Great.
Are you a Scott Roeder fan? If not, why not use standard English terminology.
How about, instead of nit-picking terminology, you discuss the issue?
I'll say baby, or child, or human, because I consider it life. Get over it.
So, if a newborn that couldn't survive 20 years ago could survive today, then it is more of a human being today?
"discuss the issue?"
I support Roe v. Wade and court interpretations of it.
See, that's a way of dodging the issue.
You said you think human life starts when it is viable outside the womb.
'viable' depends on technology. A newborn that wouldn't survive 20 years ago could survive today.
So, do you agree with allowing our current level of technology to decide who is human and who isn't?
How do you justify saying that being human isn't an inherent trait?
A zygote or an unviable fetus is not a person or a human being or a child or a baby in accordance with English or medical or legal usage.
That's not what I asked.
How do you justify being human as not being an inherent trait.
If you were to say that at 20 weeks a fetus becomes a human being, no matter what, then that would be considered an inherent trait... all 20 week-olds are humans.
But, to have a shifting measure means that it's not US that defines us as human, it is something else. How do you justify that?
It can't be scientifically proven, so they use the opinion of scientists. How can we prove when a child's first thought is formed? We can't, so the liberals just decide to use the opinion of someone who backs up their position. It makes it easier for them to exterminate (I didn't say mu---er!!) those unwanted children.
I think the real question here is at what point do they become "unwanted"?
For conservatives, they are sacrosanct while inside the mother.
Once she gives birth and can't care for the kid, it becomes society's unwanted.
Except there are huge waiting lists in this country for adoption; it's almost impossible for many decent couples to even find a child available to adopt, no matter what the race of the child. Many minority families refuse to allow their children to be adopted, so they live in poverty instead. Maybe instead of promoting abortion the liberals could get out there in the ghettos and promote adoption. It's what's best for lots of children but it's not even a consideration for many young pregnant girls.
A - Inconvenience = Life
B - Inconvenience > Life
C - Inconvenience < Life
I assume by that you mean non-gay, right?
Actually, becoming a human is a gradual, lifelong process. Some never quite make it. Others become Abraham Lincolns, FDR, Nelson Mandelas and Barack Obamas.
I will agree that it would have been better for the good doctor to have dropped dead of a heart attack, but why keep asking about his killer? Is anyone who wants innocent children (fetuses is your mind) protected from murdering, money-grubbing doctors a radical who is destined to commit a heinous crime? I didn't think so.
Scott Roeder was a murderer or assassin if you prefer, under the law. The man he murdered was acting in accordance with the law, and not committing murder. You are entitled to your beliefs. However, you should be more careful about how you express yourself.
It also a land where every citizen has the right to be there and have their own opinion. Where every person counts as one person, not more and not less.
You are contradicting yourself, my friend!
*sigh* I tried not to respond. I even turned over the keyboard.... but.... that's scary stuff.
It would be bad enough it it were just "man in the street" blurbs, (the old "surrounded by idiots" phrase comes to mind), but these are people that are obviously heavily into politics. After all they are at the convention. And as such they probably wield a little more voter influence than Joe Coach Potato, even if it is only one or two friends they are able to manipulate. Or legislature they affect (if they are Reps.)
It shows a very dangerous mentality.
But, what's even scarier is that the same video could probably had been done at the RNC using Repub talking points as bait. The Dems got nabbed this time - but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a Repub counterpart out there somewhere.
All in favor of a voter intelligence test say aye. Wait, let's get a recount. Alright then, one more time, this time raise your right hand if you agree. No, your other right hand.
ps. to Cred.
I thought E. Warren was a little loose with some of her points - but Bill Clinton was damn impressive. He almost had me saying amen brother. It's a crying shame he couldn't keep it in his pants. I think I could even vote for him if that weren't an issue.
Honestly, I think I watched 30 seconds of it... I really have no idea how it ends
Well, GA, you have to admit, that Clinton was in great form, as the President's secret weapon he was quite effective. As for keeping it in his pants, much of his libido may explain why his tenure as president was so successful. I wish that I could transfer that libido to everyman seeking higher office, you know much like Mary Lincoln's assessment of US Grant as a drunkard and butcher, what was it that Abe said.....
As for Liz, I think that she assessed the current situation with more points toward accuracy rather than less.
When I saw this thread come through in my inbox, I wondered if it had something to do with First Americans (aka Native Americans).
This could have been funny in the hands of Letterman, Leno, Colbert, Fallon or Stewart.
More of a "meh."
Waiting for the rebuttal from the corporations who are people.
A child is generally a person between birth and reaching their majority, It's arbitrary because legal life stages are arbitrary.
Unless you think Aquinas was a radical pro-choicer with a (very well) hidden agenda, that is.
Liberals promote responsible sex through widespread access to birth control.
Not for anything, but how many nuns spoke at the RNC again?
http://crevecoeur.patch.com/articles/nu … udget-plan
This fun's for you!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-s … -inclusion
If you mean by human: one who has human rights--those rights attach only to those in a class of beings able to fulfill the associated duties. Because lets face it, this is not about a word. It's about which classes we feel have which rights and why. Semantics is just a distraction.
As a person going through the green car system right now, 'get out of my country' is a phrase that really slaps me in the face.
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … -Bill-2969
by Susan Reid5 years ago
These "Stop the Mandate" protesters were at the Capitol (Sacramento) today. I was at a meeting inside and the building had to be evacuated (I heard it was because of them but who knows).Do you agree that this...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
Vanity Fair ( that paradigm of liberalist-leftist publication) in its most recent issue, spread out quite a bit of pictorial essay on what they term as Barack Obama's " laid-back style of presidential...
by My Esoteric4 months ago
Donald Trump has been President for 14 days now. In that time he has issued around 14 executive orders, most of which impact the world.The American polls show over 50% of America think Trump is doing a poor...
by Paul Swendson6 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by ahorseback3 months ago
Ultra-libs are actually not only calling for but, actively bringing " Blood into the Streets " politics to America's main streets , It has arrived ! Loretta...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.