Biden reverses position on federal funding for abortion

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So did you check on how many more Republicans voted for it than Democrats?

That was back before the parties magically changed sides...

 

Once again, here's what you contended

 "that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws. "

How does an overwhelming Democratic vote in favor of the bill support this contention?

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Wow! One conservative congressman's help proves that 

 

In 1964 elections democrats held governorships in 34 states. The Republicans in 16.  It took me about 1 minute to dig up this fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_gubernatorial_elections

Why do you insist on just posting based on your beliefs when evidence is so easily availabl?

 

Why do you keep posting stuff that is not germain to the vote? It's what the military would call chaff.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Stop digging man. It's historical fact now. But as I said, the World and American politics has changed since then.

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Quote

 

2. A fiscal conservative became an unsung hero in helping the Act pass

Ohio's Republican Rep. William McCulloch had a conservative track record -- he opposed foreign and federal education aid and supported gun rights and school prayer. His district (the same one now represented by House Speaker John Boehner) had a small African-American population. So he had little to gain politically by supporting the Civil Rights Act.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html

 

How does one outlier prove anything significant about the nature support for the bill.

And I noticed in that CNN article that outside of states that supported the confederacy, there was about 90 percent support for that bill. Given the monolithic opposition of the Southern democrats, you want to but that elsewhere Democratic support for the civil rights bill was stronger than that of Republicans?

 

 

 

[mogandave]

Once again, here's what you contended
 "that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws. "
How does an overwhelming Democratic vote in favor of the bill support this contention?

Just because there were not enough racist dems to defeat it. Far and away, most people in our “racist” country supported it.

Over three times as many dems voted against it as did reps...,

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Just because there were not enough racist dems to defeat it. Far and away, most people in our “racist” country supported it.

Over three times as many dems voted against it as did reps...,
 

 

"Far and away, most people in our “racist” country supported it."

I have no idea who you're quoting here.

And you're still avoiding the fact that your statement that 

 "that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws. "

is overwhelmingly false.

[mogandave]

"Far and away, most people in our “racist” country supported it."
I have no idea who you're quoting here.
And you're still avoiding the fact that your statement that 
 "that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws. "
is overwhelmingly false.

I wasn’t quoting anyone.

I think you are overwhelmingly wrong.

Can we get back to Biden reversing his position four times in two days?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Why do you keep posting stuff that is not germain to the vote? It's what the military would call chaff.

That's because  you dropped the chaff in the first place.. Remember this?

"The fact that Republicans tended to govern in states where there were no Jim Crow laws and Democrats tended to govern in states where there still were those laws should be example enough."

You know what it's called when someone raises an issue, gets proved wrong, and then claims it's irrelevant? It's called trolling.

And you know what it's called when you claim that a vote by democrats in the house of 153 to 91 and in the Senate a vote of 46 to 21 in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 means that the Democrats supported Jim Crow laws? That's called lying.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I wasn’t quoting anyone.

I think you are overwhelmingly wrong.

Can we get back to Biden reversing his position four times in two days?

 

"I wasn’t quoting anyone."

So why "racist"?

"I think you are overwhelmingly wrong."

You told falsehoods and got proved wrong. Hard historical fact wrong. And instead of evidence all you offer now is this.

"Can we get back to Biden reversing his position four times in two days?"

Stop pretending you're the voice of reason. You raised the issue in the first place.

 

[Curt1591]

Any way the wind blows ...

[mogandave]

"I wasn’t quoting anyone."
So why "racist"?
"I think you are overwhelmingly wrong."
You told falsehoods and got proved wrong. Hard historical fact wrong. And instead of evidence all you offer now is this.
"Can we get back to Biden reversing his position four times in two days?"
Stop pretending you're the voice of reason. You raised the issue in the first place.
 

You’ve proven nothing.

Now you’re telling a “falsehood” by claiming I raised the issue when clearly you did when you stated: “If a large group of people are offended by it, then it’s wrong. Like the laws outlawing segregation.”

I put “racist” in quotes because of the constant claims of racism, when 70 years ago, most Americans supported desegregation, the only real exception being the Democrat stronghold in the south.

Why do you refuse to talk about Biden? How about all the praise he heaped on Senators that supported segregation and opposed civil rights legislation, going as far as referring to one as a “mentor”? Fortunately he flipped on on that a long time ago.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You’ve proven nothing.

Now you’re telling a “falsehood” by claiming I raised the issue when clearly you did when you stated: “If a large group of people are offended by it, then it’s wrong. Like the laws outlawing segregation.”

I put “racist” in quotes because of the constant claims of racism, when 70 years ago, most Americans supported desegregation, the only real exception being the Democrat stronghold in the south.

Why do you refuse to talk about Biden? How about all the praise he heaped on Senators that supported segregation and opposed civil rights legislation, going as far as referring to one as a “mentor”? Fortunately he flipped on on that a long time ago.

 

That was simply an analogy to show the weakness of saying that because a law offends a lot of people, therefore it shouldn't be passed. That is clearly relevant. What was not relevant was discussing who supported it and who didn't. But since you made a false claim, I proved it to be historically wrong. And then you made another false claim,for some reason, and I proved that to be historically wrong, too.

And your bit about "racist" America was just another deflection.

I haven't refused to talk about Biden. I just refused to let you get away with your falsehoods. As for Biden, as you pointed out, all that happened a long time ago. His stance on civil rights has been consistent for quite a while, now.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Well, why not, if that make people happy. Life is a gamble during these days of longevity and STD's.

 

For the rest of us, accidents do happen. 

 

I find it rather funny that some, actually a lot of people, think that having sex is somehow dirty or sinful. It's not, even with arbitrary partners. 

 

The same people who think sex is dirty often think killing people in wars is perfectly ok, if not heroic thing to do. 

 

Funny that. 

And the obvious problem with that censorious attitude is that it takes no account of the public health dimension. 

[pornprong]

17 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Here comes the circular firing squad. Ready to pounce upon and kill the candidate that is most likely to beat Trump. 

Very hard to see Biden beating Trump.

Biden represents the establishment.

He's a 40+ year Washington insider.

Trump won because he came from outside the system.

Biden is the wrong candidate for Dems in 2020.

"Sleepy Joe" won't cut the mustard with the struggling white voters.

 

Let us all hope the Dems don't repeat the Hillary mistake and the world can be rid of Trump sooner rather than later.

[mogandave]

Very hard to see Biden beating Trump.
Biden represents the establishment.
He's a 40+ year Washington insider.
Trump won because he came from outside the system.
Biden is the wrong candidate for Dems in 2020.
"Sleepy Joe" won't cut the mustard with the struggling white voters.
 
Let us all hope the Dems don't repeat the Hillary mistake and the world can be rid of Trump sooner rather than later.

I think he’s the perfect candidate

[mogandave]

Well, why not, if that make people happy. Life is a gamble during these days of longevity and STD's.
 
For the rest of us, accidents do happen. 
 
I find it rather funny that some, actually a lot of people, think that having sex is somehow dirty or sinful. It's not, even with arbitrary partners. 
 
The same people who think sex is dirty often think killing people in wars is perfectly ok, if not heroic thing to do. 
 
Funny that. 

There you go, lying about what I said.

I love sex, and I generally don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, but I don’t I should have to subsidize the results of their irresponsibilities.

The same people that think murderers should live their lives out with the best available healthcare, think it’s okay to cut the spinal cord of a baby (tissue?) flopping around on a table if the mother changes her mind.

Not so funny that.

[mogandave]

That was simply an analogy to show the weakness of saying that because a law offends a lot of people, therefore it shouldn't be passed. That is clearly relevant. What was not relevant was discussing who supported it and who didn't. But since you made a false claim, I proved it to be historically wrong. And then you made another false claim,for some reason, and I proved that to be historically wrong, too.
And your bit about "racist" America was just another deflection.
I haven't refused to talk about Biden. I just refused to let you get away with your falsehoods. As for Biden, as you pointed out, all that happened a long time ago. His stance on civil rights has been consistent for quite a while, now.

You proved...hilarious

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

Can we get back to Biden reversing his position four times in two days?

 

Yes let's get back to this, since I saw nothing about it in the OP.  No one prior to you has mentioned this.  Tell me more.

[mogandave]

 
Yes let's get back to this, since I saw nothing about it in the OP.  No one prior to you has mentioned this.  Tell me more.

More about what? Guys like already know everything you ever will.

[MickeyDelux]

killing babies is a constitutional right? Next the dems will be claiming infanticide is a God given right. They are insane devils.

[OtinPattaya]

I am pro-choice but why the tax-payer should have to front the bill for someone's abortion is beyond me. And of course Biden is going to reverse his position, just like every other democratic candidate is going to have to drift more and more left from center in order to get elected in 2020. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

I am pro-choice but why the tax-payer should have to front the bill for someone's abortion is beyond me. And of course Biden is going to reverse his position, just like every other democratic candidate is going to have to drift more and more left from center in order to get elected in 2020. 

If it's legal if you're very poor then it may as well be illegal. Opposition to the Hyde Amendment is no drift. It was in the democratic party platform of 2016. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 11:33 PM, connda said:

I love it.  The same people who advocate your position just about crap themselves in order to outlaw allowing those who wish to check out via euthanasia.  Yeah - kill infants, but don't allow terminally ill granddad to have the drugs to check out with dignity and without pain.  But kill the kids.

I hope that is not referring to me. I totally support euthanasia on demand, no questions asked. Just see the Dr and get some pills.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 11:35 PM, connda said:

What planet do you live on?  Not Earth.

Did you not see "should" in his post?

Up to me every man gets reversible vasectomy at puberty and only turned on again if two parents, enough money for one to stay home for the child, and both parents can pass an extensive psychological examination.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 5:59 AM, Trouble said:

I generally have never had a problem with the Roe vs. Wade decision and I am sorry to see that the right and left have gone bonkers over abortion this election season.  Notice how it never seems to have been much of an issue except during election season.  Now it's a constant barrage of news on the issue. I don't like the fact that Biden and other politicians flip flop so easily depending on where they can get votes. It seems like most have no moral or ethical compass of their own.  It's all about the votes and where they think they can appeal to some base.  The big problem I have with the abortion issue is why anyone thinks is a right to have an abortion and that the taxpayers should fund it.  Seems like the taxpayers are always paying for mistakes that low IQ people make.  They have a morning after pill these days, contraceptives, pills and still people are having sex without any protection and subsequently pregnancies.  The woman then can't make up her mind and we now have to enter into another controversy over late term abortions and the left wants free abortions.  Should it be that taxpayers problem at all?  

Given that unwanted children are rarely raised in loving families and can turn out to be bad people, is it not wise to enable abortion for women in bad living situations and that have no money to raise a child properly? The very people that should have abortions are possibly the ones least able to pay for an abortion.

[OtinPattaya]

A few people here have brought up the topic of the elderly and terminally sick in the West. And how wonderfully unconcerned we are about their personal dignity. I won't speak for other western countries but in America nobody cares about how old people die. I believe that women should have the ultimate choice where their own bodies are concerned. What's the alternative? That the government makes this decision? It's not a choice between a good and an evil; it's the choice between the lesser of two evils. To me it's simply not in the proper purview of a government to legislate such biological choices. It doesn't mean I dance on the freaking graves of the aborted the way the radical left in American seems to do. We really should learn something from the Thai and as Westerners develop some sort of respect for the elderly who have built our respective countries--and then whose reward is complete indifference.  

[OtinPattaya]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't New Jersey to some extent legalized assisted suicide amongst the terminally ill? We have all these concerns about the rights of women, all these concerns about the rights of the unborn. Where's the sympathy and mercy for those who have lived, suffered, and sacrificed since time immemorial? Where's the democratic and republican parties on the rights of the elderly? Somehow I don't think the ability of an old person in America to die with dignity is going to be an issue in the 2020 election. 

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you not see "should" in his post?

Up to me every man gets reversible vasectomy at puberty and only turned on again if two parents, enough money for one to stay home for the child, and both parents can pass an extensive psychological examination.

That's some forward thinking.Ofcourse most of us never would have been been born under that criteria, let alone abrtion on demand.

 

In my family's case, my little sister came along when I was 12 and my brother was 13. Being the precocious child that I was I asked my mom if my sister was an "accident". She said no, that in fact she was the only child that they had planned for.

[Mac98]

Do they allow the father to have a say in this decision? No, not on your life! Why? Because it's the woman's decision and only her decision. End of argument!

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

A few people here have brought up the topic of the elderly and terminally sick in the West. And how wonderfully unconcerned we are about their personal dignity. I won't speak for other western countries but in America nobody cares about how old people die. I believe that women should have the ultimate choice where their own bodies are concerned. What's the alternative? That the government makes this decision? It's not a choice between a good and an evil; it's the choice between the lesser of two evils. To me it's simply not in the proper purview of a government to legislate such biological choices. It doesn't mean I dance on the freaking graves of the aborted the way the radical left in American seems to do. We really should learn something from the Thai and as Westerners develop some sort of respect for the elderly who have built our respective countries--and then whose reward is complete indifference.  

 

What exactly have the elderly left for the young, other than a mountain of debt, a polluted planet anda zero sustainability economy?

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't New Jersey to some extent legalized assisted suicide amongst the terminally ill?

It's basically legal everywhere hospice care exists. I gave my father his fatal dose though neither of us knew it would be. It was basically palliative care for a rapidly deteriorating terminal condition. It could have happened the week before or the day after but it was about to happen.