Members lug Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Giuliani won't get my vote, and McCain is a stretch, too. Looking in the mirror and having some self respect is a lot more worth it, than putting a ticket together just because you think it's electable. To say abortion isn't an important issue ignores the opportunity cost of the positive financial impact all those unborn babies would have had on our economy, should they have been able to gestate fully and arrive in our economy as a living human being. It's not just a right-wing religious nutjob issue. Giuliani is strong on law enforcement. That would be a real plus, and he could possibly be a nice veep. OTOH, McCain could win the primaries, but he is unelectable. Appears to be squatty and short on TV, and is not a handsome man by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, looks matter in the TV age. But his looks deficit can be countered by a media blitz of this pic of Hillary looking down:thus making the "looks" gap irelevant. Then they would have to move on to their secondary attack...issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by lug But his looks deficit can be countered by a media blitz of this pic of Hillary looking down: thus making the "looks" gap irelevant. Then they would have to move on to their secondary attack...issues. Not only for her "we are the president" comments, but also the private health care meetings she had as first lady, she is unelectable. Even if she's able to get over that hump, I have maintained that she's the sight that causes sore eyes, so she's unelectable, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Not only for her "we are the president" comments, but also the private health care meetings she had as first lady, she is unelectable. Even if she's able to get over that hump, I have maintained that she's the sight that causes sore eyes, so she's unelectable, too. As long as medical practitioner's insurance stays where it is, or even somewhat close, you can forget about "affordable" health care, I don't care who's president. Too many tort suits from people who beg for help, get it, overnight have some sort of "pain" all of a sudden, and sue for $100M... Not saying there aren't certain cases of malpractice, or whatever, but after having surgery and you don't feel like working again, it's a helluva lot easier to sue for "suffering" than it is to go back to the 9-5'er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by RockStarBassist As long as medical practitioner's insurance stays where it is, or even somewhat close, you can forget about "affordable" health care, I don't care who's president. Yep. Thank you John Edwards. . . . .lots of lawyers in congress. Too bad. That's part of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Not only for her "we are the president" comments, but also the private health care meetings she had as first lady, she is unelectable. Even if she's able to get over that hump, I have maintained that she's the sight that causes sore eyes, so she's unelectable, too. The Clinton political machine has rolled over every "can't win" prediction so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by lug The Clinton political machine has rolled over every "can't win" prediction so far. Yeah, but she's definitely no eye candy. No amount of plastic surgery or collagen is gonna hide that. I'm not sure Carville is that much of a magician either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker To say abortion isn't an important issue ignores the opportunity cost of the positive financial impact all those unborn babies would have had on our economy, should they have been able to gestate fully and arrive in our economy as a living human being. Let me get this straight, are you saying that if all of the babies that have been aborted in the past 30 years had been allowed to live that there would have been a positive financial impact on this country as a result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by RockStarBassist To the majority of the conservative base?? Gay marriage? Abortion?? Gun control? Are you kidding or just being a smart ass? No, I'm not kidding. Since you appear to be on board with the conservative base, I'd like for you to explain why these are important issues. Especially since a republican controlled House, Senate and White House did NOTHING to further those agendas in their six years at the helm. Well, they did let that one gun magazine law expire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos Let me get this straight, are you saying that if all of the babies that have been aborted in the past 30 years had been allowed to live that there would have been a positive financial impact on this country as a result? I believe the statement is quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker I believe the statement is quite clear. Could you provide a source to back that claim up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos Could you provide a source to back that claim up? Have you heard the term sustainable birth rate? Why don't you do the math of 35 - 40 million abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade, and figure that a lot of those are 30 somethings who would be paying taxes, buying cars, homes, helping us contribute to the social security fund that grows more dry every day because the boomers greatly outnumber GenX, etc. Now take the "Reproductive Rights" industry and what dollars they put in the economy. All day, all night, by shear volume mathematically the "could have beens" impact > than the RR industry. It's not fact. How could it be? They are not here to provide concrete evidence for my economic stance, no matter what source is cited. That's enough of that. This thread is about Giuliani. East Coast Liberal Republicans aren't any different than the Republican running this time for governor in Illinois. Guess what? Topinka lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 The news just put a rumor that former mayor of NY Rudi Giuliani may be running for President. Can anybody confirm this as true of false? I am pretty sure he would be a candidate worth voting for.Here is all i could find on googlehttp://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/04/rudy_giuliani_running_for_president_in_2008/ Who cares? It is two year away. A lot can happen in that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Have you heard the term sustainable birth rate? Why don't you do the math of 35 - 40 million abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade, and figure that a lot of those are 30 somethings who would be paying taxes, buying cars, homes, helping us contribute to the social security fund that grows more dry every day because the boomers greatly outnumber GenX, etc. Now take the "Reproductive Rights" industry and what dollars they put in the economy. All day, all night, by shear volume mathematically the "could have beens" impact > than the RR industry. It's not fact. How could it be? They are not here to provide concrete evidence for my economic stance, no matter what source is cited.That's enough of that. This thread is about Giuliani. East Coast Liberal Republicans aren't any different than the Republican running this time for governor in Illinois. Guess what? Topinka lost. How about looking at the socioeconomic statistics about the women who receive abortions and then try to make a statement so bold. Most of those thirty somethings would not be paying taxes, they would eiterh be on the public dole or in an income bracket that didn't contribute very much. Most women who have abortions are poor and single. More often than not, the children of poor unwed mothers grow up to be poor. Then there's the impact of legalized abortion on crime. But yeah, that's enough of that. We should simply accept your opinion as fact and get back to discussing what's wrong with Giuliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted November 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 burdizzos are you also aware that many of the women who have abortions also end up having mental and psychological issues after the procedure. kinda like post partem dipression mixed with the guilty feeling of killing an innocent person for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 I'm going to "throw away my vote" (see quotes for snarkiness) and probably vote for an independent again. In the land of democracy, if everyone realized we didn't have to choose from two parties, we'd be much better off. I will not vote republican. I refuse to. And Hillary is looking possible for Dems. I might vote Barrak Obama if he runs, but honestly.. I'll most likely go with an indie. Vote thrown away? To some, but to me it's voicing my lonely little opinion. *chanting* Third option. Third option. Third option. Third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos A McCain/Giuliani ticket would win by no less than 20%, but they will not get the nomination from the party's core. We'll see. The primaries may have some serious shakeups this time around. I would vote for that ticket. Just because Rudi doesn't like guns doesn't mean congress would change the gun control laws. He can't do it by executive order.I can disagree with a candidate on a few issues and still support them over the competition. This is one of those cases. Plus, it's not like they would be able to find al my guns anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 burdizzos are you also aware that many of the women who have abortions also end up having mental and psychological issues after the procedure. kinda like post partem dipression mixed with the guilty feeling of killing an innocent person for no reason. Null argument, postpartum depression can affect any woman who's had the abortion OR the child. For example: Susan Smith and Andrea Yates In fact, it's more common in women who's had their child to full term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos Burdizzos BS and quotation of liberal educatorDoy diddly doy. Most of them are in high school and college. It doesn't mean mom and dad aren't rich. But find info that only suits what you want it to do. I never suggested that you accept what I said as fact, but if you want to act like an immature douche, that's your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by bholder I hope he does run. So I can watch him lose. The man's position on the arts borders on fascism. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonathan_matos5 Posted November 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 no joke. it has to go through congress and any bill with the issues like abortion, gun controll, and gay mariage have been modified so much that the party that wrote the bill does not like what it became by the time it makes it to be voted apon. even then the president gets veto power and in all of that if he writes a bill and it gets back to him and its not what he wanted he can just veto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by ThudMaker Doy diddly doy. Most of them are in high school and college. It doesn't mean mom and dad aren't rich. But find info that only suits what you want it to do. I never suggested that you accept what I said as fact, but if you want to act like an immature douche, that's your business. So I'm acting like an immature douche and you are making zero effort to back up your claim. You presented it as fact. I'd like to see a paper that provides data to lend credibility to such a claim. The line about all of those abortions resulting in gainfully employed tax payers is an attempt to justify the criminalization of abortion without using religious means to accomplish the same goal. The trouble is that the religious rationale holds more water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by Jugghaid How so? Damn Juggs, read the trhead. Rudy threatened to pull public funding for a museum that showed some art that was considered offensive to some in the religious community. bholder's definition of fascism differs vastly from yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 burdizzos are you also aware that many of the women who have abortions also end up having mental and psychological issues after the procedure. kinda like post partem dipression mixed with the guilty feeling of killing an innocent person for no reason. I really don't see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Abortion is not a party for women who have them, I'm well aware of that. I'm not sure how forcing women to have children that they would have otherwise aborted ensures that those women will not have issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 14, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos So I'm acting like an immature douche and you are making zero effort to back up your claim. You presented it as fact. I'd like to see a paper that provides data to lend credibility to such a claim. The line about all of those abortions resulting in gainfully employed tax payers is an attempt to justify the criminalization of abortion without using religious means to accomplish the same goal. The trouble is that the religious rationale holds more water. I gave you plenty. 35-40 million. Add 35-40 million into the economy. Do the math, man! Where did I suggest criminalizing abortion? I merely suggested it's not good for the economy. What ever happened to changing peoples minds instead of changing the law? More people should keep them by giving for adoption either to agencies or relatives etc. If you want to get an abortion, I can't stop you. Golly Gee Willakers, how libertarian of me. I will, however, call you out for misrepresenting what I have posted.In 1998 alone, the victims of Roe v. Wade would have contributed approximately $1.7 billion to Medicare and $7.4 billion to Social Security. These contributions could provide the average monthly benefit to over 785,000 retired workers for the entire year.Note that these numbers are calculated for workers aged 16-24, who are less likely to be employed and who work fewer hours and earn less money than they would in a matter of time. The economic effects of abortion will be magnified in the coming years as those children and millions more killed by abortion would have completed their education, found full-time employment, become established in their careers, and started their own families. 2001 Article. By now the number is at 45 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted November 14, 2006 Members Share Posted November 14, 2006 Originally posted by burdizzos bholder's definition of fascism differs vastly from yours. Now there's a safe bet... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.