For all you women that are going to vote for McSame....

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/knowmccain?qp_source=knowmccain%5fmoe

Until another case comes to the supreme court that overturns Roe v Wade stop throwing up scare tactics. If he gets elected yes he can appoint SC judges (who have to pass nomination) IF a opening comes up during this tenure but even that is no guarantee they will vote along his ideological lines. Case in point O'Connor appointed by Reagan.

So..let me get this straight...we who care about women's reproductive rights are supposed to just wait and see if McSame gets elected..and if he does....if his appointee actually stands by their lithmus test on the abortion issue? No thanks...as I become aware of information I will share it. People, especially women have torealize their reproductive rights are under attack every day.

Haven't you figured out yet that we're screwed either way?

Not on this issue...or was your comment just a play on words?

Blah blah blah... the same things were put up as scare tactics in the last two elections. Two Bush administrations and a few Supreme Court nominations later we still have Roe v Wade. It's an old set of talking points that is just boring to read. yawn.

Blah..blah...blah...spoken only as a boy can!

Again, a response that isn't an argument, just an insult. Didn't you just post a couple of days ago that you only reply with sensible debate points and don't resort to cop out responses?

You: Roe v Wade is obviously dead if McCain is elected

Me: That's what people have said for the past two elections and it is still standing, even after some very conservative Court additions

You: you are a boy

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2012 02:50AM by Alias.

Which followed your blah..blah...blah remark. Id be glad to discuss the issues with either of you..but apparently you think we shouldnt worry about reproductive freedom until it's gone. What issue would either of you like to discuss?

That isn't the premise you posted. You posted that "McSame" will work to rid us of Roe v Wade. I responded with the fact that the same arguments were made to attempt to scare people into not voting for Bush and here we are with Roe v Wade. My question is why is this any different?

Changes in the Supreme Court make-up/philosophy are not done overnight. After 8 years in office Bush and the religious right have had the oportunity to shift the court to the right. And the court has recently made a number of anti-women decisions as a result. Four more years of republikan nominations at all levels of the federal judiciary will push the court even further to the right.

Then of course a case must be brought before the court. A state must pass a law that is contrary to the Roe vs. Wade decision. And then someone must petition the courts to overturn the law. This all takes time...and there are people/organizations who look for the perfect timing...the perfect composition of the Supreme Court to bring a case to them. The best example of someone waiting for the perfect timing/composition of the court is the recent DC gun control case that was brought to the Court. A libertarian millionaire waited until he thought he had a favorable Court composition to bring the case to the judicial system. Well...there are similar people out there waiting for the "perect storm" to challenge Roe vs. Wade. And with 4 more years of republikan court appointees...that "perfect storm" comes closer and closer.

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until another case comes to the supreme court that
> overturns Roe v Wade stop throwing up scare
> tactics. If he gets elected yes he can appoint SC
> judges (who have to pass nomination) IF a opening
> comes up during this tenure but even that is no
> guarantee they will vote along his ideological
> lines. Case in point O'Connor appointed by Reagan.


pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You: Roe v Wade is obviously dead if McCain is
> elected
>
> Me: That's what people have said for the past two
> elections and it is still standing, even after
> some very conservative Court additions


pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That isn't the premise you posted. You posted
> that "McSame" will work to rid us of Roe v Wade.
> I responded with the fact that the same arguments
> were made to attempt to scare people into not
> voting for Bush and here we are with Roe v Wade.


scare tactics and ignoring that nothing has changed with bush as president.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

lol +1

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blah blah blah... the same things were put up as
> scare tactics in the last two elections. Two Bush
> administrations and a few Supreme Court
> nominations later we still have Roe v Wade. It's
> an old set of talking points that is just boring
> to read. yawn.



Um,National Organization for Women v. Scheidler,Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey?

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um,National Organization for Women v.
> Scheidler,Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health
> Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
> Pennsylvania v. Casey?

We are talking about fear tactics used during the elections leading to the two Bush II administrations, and how they may apply to the upcoming elections and the effects of voting for McCain. I have said Roe v Wade, despite fear-mongering by the OP, did not fall under either of Bush II's terms. Your examples don't support Vince(1)'s assertions that voting for McCain = Roe v Wade gone.

You are citing cases that did not happen under Bush II. Besides, two have to do with blocking access to clinics performing abortions, not rights to getting an abortion. The third did not overturn Roe v Wade and had nothing to do with attempting to overturn it... it had to do with parental consent in the case of minors and a 24-hour waiting period.

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler : 1986
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic: 1993
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: 1992



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2008 03:30PM by pgens.

Those women who want equal pay for equal work and want the right to control their reproductive/health rights have every reason to be fearful of the 3rd Bush term that McSame promises them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2008 07:01PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those women who want equal pay for equal work and
> want the right to control their
> reproductive/health rights have every reason to be
> fearful of the 3rd Bush term that McSame promises
> them.

You know Vince the more unfounded bullshit like this you spew out that is totally nonfactual the more you make we want to vote for McCain.

Kudos.

Dear Kudo...I seriously doubt that...you appear to have your head firmly planted in the ground. Nothing seems to really get your brain cells going. So, tell me...you imply that you are currently leaning toward Obama....what issue(s) has you leaning that way?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those women who want equal pay for equal work and
> want the right to control their
> reproductive/health rights have every reason to be
> fearful of the 3rd Bush term that McSame promises
> them.


And again... no reasons why. So you are good at posting talking points but have no idea of the substance behind them? You can't think for yourself or defend your positions at all? Ah well, having asked so many times and gotten nothing I think I can safely ignore this thread now... no one posting here can debate, and the one who tried posted irrelevant stuff but at least he tried and the material was slightly related.

Oh please..Ive posted in other threads examples over and over again...the recent case where for the first time in history an abortion procedure was outlawed even in the case where it might improve her health (yessss..the infamous partial birth abortion)...the case that upheld a women must file a wage discrimination lawsuit within 90 days of her first paycheck. Thats just a partial list which you can research...

As far as ignoring the thread..go right ahead..you obviously ignore reading the newspapers,,,the evening news. It would be one thing if you were honest and just said you think a women's rights are secondary to your own,,,but all you do is claim ignorance....I at last agree with you..you are ignorant and you are happy to stay that way.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Kudo...I seriously doubt that...you appear to
> have your head firmly planted in the ground.
> Nothing seems to really get your brain cells
> going. So, tell me...you imply that you are
> currently leaning toward Obama....what issue(s)
> has you leaning that way?

No, I might as well talk to a wall it might understand the basic process of government and logic more aptly.

Mofo/Kudo or whatever a coward wants to call himself today.....you are a phony and a farce. You have not contributed a single idea to this or many other threads...you just try to set traps for others. What a looser...you are afraid to enter into an intelligent discussion without setting traps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2008 08:57PM by Vince(1).

Who is Kudo in this conversation? No one has ever posted with the name Kudo or Kudos; the search feature can tell you that.

Mofo isn't a troller either, he's been here for a long time.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mofo/Kudo or whatever a coward wants to call
> himself today.....you are a phony and a farce.
> You have not contributed a single idea to this or
> many other threads...you just try to set traps for
> others. What a looser...you are afraid to enter
> into an intelligent discussion without setting
> traps.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is Kudo in this conversation? No one has ever
> posted with the name Kudo or Kudos; the search
> feature can tell you that.
>
> Mofo isn't a troller either, he's been here for a
> long time.
>
>
> Vince(1) Wrote:

Thank you, I only post under one name on this board as I have in this thread. Vince apparently is once again demonstrating his intelligence by thinking I am calling myself Kudo or Kudos?


Main Entry:
ku·dos
Pronunciation:
\ˈkü-ˌdäs, ˈkyü-, -ˌdōs\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek kydos
Date:
1831

1 : fame and renown resulting from an act or achievement : prestige
2 : praise given for achievement

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince apparently
> is once again demonstrating his intelligence by
> thinking I am calling myself Kudo or Kudos?

maybe he's been smoking crack while posting. i mean, he does want to get drugs legalized so it only figures he's on one of them.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

oh geeezz fellas..guffaw guffaw....and pass the pipe. Hey Dexter....I mean Gravis, nice to see you drop in to add an off topic comment into the thread.

Vince how do you sleep at night with all these conflicts banging around inside your head? Abortion, civil rights, discrimination, gas prices, gay rights.....

lost in space Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince how do you sleep at night with all these
> conflicts banging around inside your head?
> Abortion, civil rights, discrimination, gas
> prices, gay rights.....

like a baby.