Above my Pay Grade or any Tangent You Can Think Of

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/17/1270952.aspx

You guys call that an answer? This guy must've been an all-star at dodgeball because he really knows how to dodge an answer.

LTRT wrote:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/17/1270952.aspx

You guys call that an answer? This guy must've been an all-star at dodgeball because he really knows how to dodge an answer.

So you subscribe to the theory that before Joe or Maxine can light a smoke, or before one of the rolls over and ask the other one "was that as good for you as it was me?" there is a third life in the room. I think Obama was being honest, NO ONE know for sure when life begins and at this time that point differs for most all americans. I salute honest answers, unlike pandering like the other candidate in this Saddleback discussion.

That's the game of politics, they have to present themselves in a way to be convincing to the masses.
The true colours come out when they get into office.

LTRT wrote:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/17/1270952.aspx

You guys call that an answer? This guy must've been an all-star at dodgeball because he really knows how to dodge an answer.

He is a joke all the way around, double talk (well my personal belief is, but), not steadfast, lots of studering (sp
).

LTRT wrote:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/17/1270952.aspx

You guys call that an answer? This guy must've been an all-star at dodgeball because he really knows how to dodge an answer.

I'm not sure why anyone would look to a politician for this answer. IMO, this indicates he's not posturing himself, or the office of President to be a pedistal for establishing moral and ethical boundaries. If you read this (MSNBC) article, he presents a fresh approach to reiterating the separation of personal faith from politics. I refer to Bman's Hannity and Colms post earlier this morning as a more appropriate indicator. I draw a line between Obama's comments on unwanted pregnancies fueling Abortion and the issue of personal infidelity between Roberts and McCain. These are essentially tangential and unimportant indicators for 'fitness to lead' and tend to obfuscate the public's view of the core issues themselves. When you have a candidate for president with a history of betraying personal values for partisan cooperation compared with one who can see separate between personal conviction and the real source of the problem.

How is a perspective on unwanted pregnancies being the fuel for the Abortion debate any more or less an indicator of a person's fitness to lead than a history of betraying those values in politics? This is an abstract peripheral consideration being leveraged as an indicator for people who would like the Abortion issue to be handled by the President, and not by Congress or the Judiciary.

moondrop wrote:
He is a joke all the way around, double talk (well my personal belief is, but), not steadfast, lots of studering (sp
).

Moon please give specific examples where Obama 'double speaks' or *studders*

If you want to play with the big kids you better be tight on the facts.

Otherwise please keep to the shallow end of the gene pool with the loud retarded kids.


Apologies to all the loud retarded kids who may have read this.

Oliver's Army wrote:

moondrop wrote:
He is a joke all the way around, double talk (well my personal belief is, but), not steadfast, lots of studering (sp
).

Moon please give specific examples where Obama 'double speaks' or *studders*

If you want to play with the big kids you better be tight on the facts.

Otherwise please keep to the shallow end of the gene pool with the loud retarded kids.


Apologies to all the loud retarded kids who may have read this.

Thanks man, I agree. MD isn't even on the radar for a Y.S.I.W. from me. I am taking of the 'kid gloves' now. She wears big girl panties... Not sure there's anything I can say anymore to get my point across... I say we just ban her and save the thread space for someone else's forwarded email canned responses and chain letters.

meta4 wrote:How is a perspective on unwanted pregnancies being the fuel for the Abortion debate any more or less an indicator of a person's fitness to lead than a history of betraying those values in politics? This is an abstract peripheral consideration being leveraged as an indicator for people who would like the Abortion issue to be handled by the President, and not by Congress or the Judiciary.

So the President's "abstract peripheral considerations" has nothing to do with Supreme Court appointees huh?

TSIW

meta4 wrote:Y.S.I.W.

Explain? Maybe it's a full weekend of malted hops, but I forget what this means.

Plus, everything I apply to these letters is stupid.


or dirty.

From the article, the democratic candidate said this:

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"


Please let me be the first to let him know that the ways he's wondering about is to tell the prospective unwanted pregnancy couple "Don't do it!" If you don't want to get pregnant, don't take the chance to do the wild and nasty dance. Pretty simple. Kind of like if I don't want to get burned, I don't touch fire. If I don't want to drown, I don't open up my mouth under water. If I don't want to get an electrical shock, I don't stick a penny in the socket. If I don't want to fall off a building, I don't go near the roof. If I don't want a speeding ticket, I don't speed.

Or maybe we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by raising everybody's taxes to pay for the "unwanted" kids so that everybody will want to just have a kid since they won't have to really pay for raising it anymore. Yeah, maybe this idea is best so that no politician can tell me when I can and can't have s-e-x. And it takes all responsibility off of me, except for what I have to pay into this plan.

Oliver's Army wrote:

meta4 wrote:Y.S.I.W.

Explain? Maybe it's a full weekend of malted hops, but I forget what this means.

Plus, everything I apply to these letters is stupid.


or dirty.

Y your
S shit
I is
W weak

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:From the article, the democratic candidate said this:

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"


Please let me be the first to let him know that the ways he's wondering about is to tell the prospective unwanted pregnancy couple "Don't do it!" If you don't want to get pregnant, don't take the chance to do the wild and nasty dance. Pretty simple. Kind of like if I don't want to get burned, I don't touch fire. If I don't want to drown, I don't open up my mouth under water. If I don't want to get an electrical shock, I don't stick a penny in the socket. If I don't want to fall off a building, I don't go near the roof. If I don't want a speeding ticket, I don't speed.

Or maybe we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by raising everybody's taxes to pay for the "unwanted" kids so that everybody will want to just have a kid since they won't have to really pay for raising it anymore. Yeah, maybe this idea is best so that no politician can tell me when I can and can't have s-e-x. And it takes all responsibility off of me, except for what I have to pay into this plan.

Ummm ... save your catholic banter for a religious thread Doe Jr. LOL ... what he is saying we need to spend some time and money on educating people on safe sex and the virtues of waiting. Too many kids grow up in homes where the parents don't give a shit, for the relgious right to suggest that sex education should be kept out of the school is ridiculous.

Bman wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:From the article, the democratic candidate said this:

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"


Please let me be the first to let him know that the ways he's wondering about is to tell the prospective unwanted pregnancy couple "Don't do it!" If you don't want to get pregnant, don't take the chance to do the wild and nasty dance. Pretty simple. Kind of like if I don't want to get burned, I don't touch fire. If I don't want to drown, I don't open up my mouth under water. If I don't want to get an electrical shock, I don't stick a penny in the socket. If I don't want to fall off a building, I don't go near the roof. If I don't want a speeding ticket, I don't speed.

Or maybe we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by raising everybody's taxes to pay for the "unwanted" kids so that everybody will want to just have a kid since they won't have to really pay for raising it anymore. Yeah, maybe this idea is best so that no politician can tell me when I can and can't have s-e-x. And it takes all responsibility off of me, except for what I have to pay into this plan.

Ummm ... save your catholic banter for a religious thread Doe Jr. LOL ... what he is saying we need to spend some time and money on educating people on safe sex and the virtues of waiting. Too many kids grow up in homes where the parents don't give a shit, for the relgious right to suggest that sex education should be kept out of the school is ridiculous.

How much time? How much money? Just go with my second option, tax everybody for everybody else's kids and stop wasting time then. At least then we're eliminating wasting one thing.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:From the article, the democratic candidate said this:

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"


Please let me be the first to let him know that the ways he's wondering about is to tell the prospective unwanted pregnancy couple "Don't do it!" If you don't want to get pregnant, don't take the chance to do the wild and nasty dance. Pretty simple. Kind of like if I don't want to get burned, I don't touch fire. If I don't want to drown, I don't open up my mouth under water. If I don't want to get an electrical shock, I don't stick a penny in the socket. If I don't want to fall off a building, I don't go near the roof. If I don't want a speeding ticket, I don't speed.

Or maybe we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by raising everybody's taxes to pay for the "unwanted" kids so that everybody will want to just have a kid since they won't have to really pay for raising it anymore. Yeah, maybe this idea is best so that no politician can tell me when I can and can't have s-e-x. And it takes all responsibility off of me, except for what I have to pay into this plan.

Agree. A very practical simple message. I think parties can work together to send this message without writing it into law.

Bman wrote:Ummm ... save your catholic banter for a religious thread Doe Jr. LOL ...

At first I thought you called me "Dr. Joe." But hey, if that's all you got as far as a comeback, so be it.

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:How is a perspective on unwanted pregnancies being the fuel for the Abortion debate any more or less an indicator of a person's fitness to lead than a history of betraying those values in politics? This is an abstract peripheral consideration being leveraged as an indicator for people who would like the Abortion issue to be handled by the President, and not by Congress or the Judiciary.

So the President's "abstract peripheral considerations" has nothing to do with Supreme Court appointees huh?

TSIW

I know what the President's responsibilities are, and correct me if I'm wrong, there is a rather lengthy selection process for Justices that is as thorough as a candidate for president. The nominees are submitted to congress for testimony, interview, etc. before they are approved by Congress, no?

If that was a valid concern, perhaps Pastor Warren would have included this direct application of moral values in his dialog with the candidates. Leave that tactic to the talking heads of partisanship, preaching to the headphoned huddles tuned in to Rush, Hannity, & Beck.

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:From the article, the democratic candidate said this:

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"


Please let me be the first to let him know that the ways he's wondering about is to tell the prospective unwanted pregnancy couple "Don't do it!" If you don't want to get pregnant, don't take the chance to do the wild and nasty dance. Pretty simple. Kind of like if I don't want to get burned, I don't touch fire. If I don't want to drown, I don't open up my mouth under water. If I don't want to get an electrical shock, I don't stick a penny in the socket. If I don't want to fall off a building, I don't go near the roof. If I don't want a speeding ticket, I don't speed.

Or maybe we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by raising everybody's taxes to pay for the "unwanted" kids so that everybody will want to just have a kid since they won't have to really pay for raising it anymore. Yeah, maybe this idea is best so that no politician can tell me when I can and can't have s-e-x. And it takes all responsibility off of me, except for what I have to pay into this plan.

Agree. A very practical simple message. I think parties can work together to send this message without writing it into law.

The simplicity of that message is probably still too complex for some to understand. That's why they need a law in place to tell people what to do.
If people are such staunch believers in their religious scriptures, why is unwanted pregnancies even an issue? Shouldn't they be living according to the teachings of their religious scriptures? (That goes for any religion).
Maybe it is time to start selling chastity belts again? LOL
Really, if you don't want to get pregnant, the most guaranteed form of contraception is abstinence.
Condoms and pills are not 100% guaranteed. That's the kind of education teens and adults needs. They should know the potential consequences of their actions if they choose to indulge in sexual intercourse.

Canuck wrote:

meta4 wrote:Agree. A very practical simple message. I think parties can work together to send this message without writing it into law.

The simplicity of that message is probably still too complex for some to understand. That's why they need a law in place to tell people what to do.
If people are such staunch believers in their religious scriptures, why is unwanted pregnancies even an issue? Shouldn't they be living according to the teachings of their religious scriptures? (That goes for any religion).
Maybe it is time to start selling chastity belts again? LOL
Really, if you don't want to get pregnant, the most guaranteed form of contraception is abstinence.
Condoms and pills are not 100% guaranteed. That's the kind of education teens and adults needs. They should know the potential consequences of their actions if they choose to indulge in sexual intercourse.

Thanks Meta & Canuck.

As for answering Canuck's question about why are there still unwanted pregnancies even if people are staunch believers...I guess IMHO it's because we're not all perfect and we don't always do what we should. I should eat more vegetables, but I don't. I should give more to charity, but I don't. I should have learned to throw a better curveball so that I could be making millions in MLB, but I didn't. The difference is I just don't think we need laws saying we need to take care of every person that's ever had an unwanted pregnancy. We already know what prevents unwanted pregnancies. If you're going to throw money and time into something, then promote that.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote: If you're going to throw money and time into something, then promote that.

I see where you're going, but at the end of the day this would NOT amount to one more program that has failures? It really doesn't address the root problem, that is the need that Welfare meets. Kids cost money. That is a financial inevitability. If you reduce spending money on Welfare, problems will increase in other area's as a result.

For me, it's better to fund food stamps and something like free public transportation for those in poverty than give vehicle tax deductions for SUVs and subsidies to oil company explorations while they make record breaking profits. Shutter frivolous court cases and direct that money into food banks. We don't seem to have a problem getting raped in our gas tanks, but we'll raise "holy hell" over someone getting some free hot dogs and government cheese.

I think it is great for parents who are actively involved in their childrens lives and teach them the values and morals important to their family and to society, BUT not all children come from homes like that these days. This is why I think we need to be educating kids in school that 1) Abstinence is the only absolute way to avoid pregnancy, an std or death. 2) that if you choose to participate in risky behavior here are the ramifications 3) to reduce the chances of these ramifications you can do the following and finally 4) the odds of these ramifications not helping you are this. I think with this approach the number of abortions will decline, the rate of STDs will decline etc ... JUST MY OPINION HERE BUT SPENDING MONEY ON OUR KIDS IS NEVER A WASTE.

Just because you were raised in a home that HAMMERED their children over the head with strong rules and tough love does that mean they still won't screw up. For example, I have a great friend whose sister in law hid an unwanted pregnancy from her family (while living in that house) for 9 months until the baby popped out on the bathroom floor at their house. This family is a fundementalist baptist family that had rigid rules (no card, no rock music, no drinking, curfews, control over their entire lives) and some how this girl got pregnant ... wow ... She was so scared of what her mom and dad would say that she concealed her pregnancy for 9 months. She only attended private christian school, never was taught about contraception and was told by her family that ABSTINENCE ONLY was the only option and it got her a kid who is 10 now. I guess my point is that I think EVERYONE benefits from sex ed being taught in the schools.

Finally I guess I get confused by the fundementalist right wing, they don't want to teach sex ed, they don't want to allow abortion and they don't want to pay welfare for the mistake that they won't let the woman abort. Seem pretty contradictory to me. I think the answer is to reduce the number of abortion and to change the heart of americans, not change the law.

Bman wrote:...change the heart of americans...

Now that's something I agree with.

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:...change the heart of americans...

Now that's something I agree with.

Second that!

Bman wrote:Just because you were raised in a home that HAMMERED their children over the head with strong rules and tough love does that mean they still won't screw up. For example, I have a great friend whose sister in law hid an unwanted pregnancy from her family (while living in that house) for 9 months until the baby popped out on the bathroom floor at their house. This family is a fundementalist baptist family that had rigid rules (no card, no rock music, no drinking, curfews, control over their entire lives) and some how this girl got pregnant ... wow ... She was so scared of what her mom and dad would say that she concealed her pregnancy for 9 months. She only attended private christian school, never was taught about contraception and was told by her family that ABSTINENCE ONLY was the only option and it got her a kid who is 10 now. I guess my point is that I think EVERYONE benefits from sex ed being taught in the schools.

This may sound harsh, but to that I say shame on your friend's sister in-law's family (I think I got the lineage right) for having a situation where the daughter felt like she couldn't confide in her parents about that. That's not what a family should be about.

Bman wrote:Finally I guess I get confused by the fundementalist right wing, they don't want to teach sex ed, they don't want to allow abortion and they don't want to pay welfare for the mistake that they won't let the woman abort. Seem pretty contradictory to me. I think the answer is to reduce the number of abortion and to change the heart of americans, not change the law.

Let's see, going down your list...I do think sex ed should be taught in schools (as well as at home)...yeah, no secret I wish murdering the unborn would go away...yeah, I don't want to pay welfare for unaborted kids. I'd rather my money go to reducing costs of adoption. Changing hearts sounds all well and good. I guess it's better than adding more government to our lives.

How is reducing the cost of adoption going to get more women to give their unwanted children up? Right now the Demand for children far exceeds the supply, lowering the cost of adoption will not do anything to promote more people to give their children up ... are you suggesting we pay women to NOT have an abortion, carry the child and then give it away ... have a baby to make $10,000?

Ok ... your comment of murdering lumps you in with Doeleaping now. You going to call us all baby killers too ... come on Cincy, you are better than that.

Bman wrote:How is reducing the cost of adoption going to get more women to give their unwanted children up? Right now the Demand for children far exceeds the supply, lowering the cost of adoption will not do anything to promote more people to give their children up ... are you suggesting we pay women to NOT have an abortion, carry the child and then give it away ... have a baby to make $10,000?

Ok ... your comment of murdering lumps you in with Doeleaping now. You going to call us all baby killers too ... come on Cincy, you are better than that.

I don't know Bman, I don't have stats on how many kids are waiting to be adopted, maybe you can google that. But what's the lesser of two evils...Giving up your unwanted baby that you conceived from a night of lust, or ending the life of the human being growing inside the woman (is that better for you?)???

And no, don't pay women to "turn in" their unwanted kids to be adopted. That would be stupid. If you don't want the financial responsibility of raising a kid, leave it with an adoption center that will find a loving family that will take on that responsibility, thereby increasing your supply and lowering the price of the Demand. Isn't there a "no questions asked" organization where you can leave your baby "at the doorsteps"???

I don't know. There's never an easy answer that fits all whenever this subject comes up. Inevitably, I get riled up at the mere mention that abortion is okay. To me, it's murder, plain and simple. It's something I'm passionate about and am not wishy-washy about. There's no gray area for me. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.