The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']Weren't you defending the idea of killing the innocent "child" because daddy was a rapist?[/QUOTE]


I am for the idea of making women who have been raped more aware of what may come of it. I am not going to justify forcing a woman who has been raped to deliver a baby just like I am not going to justify forcing a woman to give her life to deliver a baby.

If you have a better idea on how to deal with such situations, let's hear it. Somehow I think it will go, let everyone make their own decisions. We all know how that is working out for us.


[quote name='Clak']Zygote = baby, got it.[/quote]

Yes clak, that thing in mommy's belly is going to be a baby. Very good!

Would it be ok with you if a mother smothered her 1 month old baby because she was under a lot of pressure? I mean the whole "its not a baby yet" argument is ridiculous.

You know what I mean myke, and spaz. All I am asking is that if you are going to have sex, that you own up to the responsibilities that come of it. Aborting an unborn baby should not be a get out of jail free/I'm off the hook card.

Here's a question: Can any of you give me one valid reason to abort a baby besides rape/medical complications?

[quote name='nasum']Knoell, not all abortions are vanity abortions but good luck trying to legislate out vanity abortions while keeping medically necessary abortions and abortions of pregnancy as a result of abuse as available options.

That's the underlying problem with legislating something like abortion. It's very much have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE]

This is what my problem with these people in this debate is. I give them a hypothetical solution in which we somehow can separate the medically necessary/rape abortions from the vanity abortions would they support anti abortion legislation? and they still say no, or rather they don't answer. So I really wish the people who oppose making abortion illegal would quit using those arguments. Just tell it like it is. A baby would be too much work, end your career, would complicate your life too much, would be impoverished. So kill it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']If you have a better idea on how to deal with such situations, let's hear it. Somehow I think it will go, let everyone make their own decisions. We all know how that is working out for us.[/QUOTE]

I don't equate fetus to baby, so I have no political issue with a woman terminating the pregnancy.

I just think it's rather scary that someone who does believe that it's a baby and they're so willing to let that "baby" be killed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: You know what, fuck y'all and your awful right-wing-can't-stay-on-topic-for-shit deflections. I'm not playing that game any longer.[/QUOTE]

I cant stay on topic? You are the one that deflected with "abstinance isn't the only way" in a discussion that wasnt about the ways to not get pregnant. My statement was simply implying that a woman does not get pregnant walking down the street. Excluding rape, two people make a conscious decision to have sex, and if pregnancy results in their actions then they cannot and should not be able to kill it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't equate fetus to baby, so I have no political issue with a woman terminating the pregnancy.

I just think it's rather scary that someone who does believe that it's a baby and they're so willing to let that "baby" be killed.[/QUOTE]

There is no perfect solution to the issue. People can only do the best they can.

I find it rather scary that you all willingly play the "its only a fetus" card.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am for the idea of making women who have been raped more aware of what may come of it. I am not going to justify forcing a woman who has been raped to deliver a baby just like I am not going to justify forcing a woman to give her life to deliver a baby.

If you have a better idea on how to deal with such situations, let's hear it. Somehow I think it will go, let everyone make their own decisions. We all know how that is working out for us.




Yes clak, that thing in mommy's belly is going to be a baby. Very good!

Would it be ok with you if a mother smothered her 1 month old baby because she was under a lot of pressure? I mean the whole "its not a baby yet" argument is ridiculous.

You know what I mean myke, and spaz. All I am asking is that if you are going to have sex, that you own up to the responsibilities that come of it. Aborting an unborn baby should not be a get out of jail free/I'm off the hook card.

Here's a question: Can any of you give me one valid reason to abort a baby besides rape/medical complications?



This is what my problem with these people in this debate is. I give them a hypothetical solution in which we somehow can separate the medically necessary/rape abortions from the vanity abortions would they support anti abortion legislation? and they still say no, or rather they don't answer. So I really wish the people who oppose making abortion illegal would quit using those arguments. Just tell it like it is. A baby would be too much work, end your career, would complicate your life too much, would be impoverished. So kill it.[/QUOTE]
By your logic every male in the world is killing babies when he jacks off. But then like I said, by your logic.
 
[quote name='Knoell']There is no perfect solution to the issue. People can only do the best they can.

I find it rather scary that you all willingly play the "its only a fetus" card.[/QUOTE]

Actually, UB's solution of not initiating force against anyone who aborts is the best way forward (limited government!). If you want to change the attitude of the country on abortion, education is the way to go, not prohibition. Encourage research to find when human life begins, and if it's proven that human life begins at conception or at ____ date, abortion rates will surely plummet.

Even at that juncture, you still haven't solved the issue of consent. If the woman no longer consents to having another being in her body, by definition it becomes an intruder, and to force her to carry to term or any point after withdrawing consent would be enslavement.
 
Since we're on the discussion of abortion, I'm curious if the following would be a compromise:

*Abortion is outlawed except in the case of rape/incest/health complications.

*Sex Education in school focuses heavily on safe sex over abstinence (both are still taught, but "abstinence-only" education is not taught).

*Condoms are supplied for free, and paid for with taxpayer dollars.

~HotShotX
 
I don't think anyone has to worry. Knoell is in that batshit minority of people who think abortion should be outlawed in all cases no matter what. Majority of people think some limitations are okay but for the most part it should be legal (and rare).
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't think anyone has to worry. Knoell is in that batshit minority of people who think abortion should be outlawed in all cases no matter what. Majority of people think some limitations are okay but for the most part it should be legal (and rare).[/QUOTE]

Prove this. All of it. The part where you say what I believe, and the part where you say what everyone else believes.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Actually, UB's solution of not initiating force against anyone who aborts is the best way forward (limited government!). If you want to change the attitude of the country on abortion, education is the way to go, not prohibition. Encourage research to find when human life begins, and if it's proven that human life begins at conception or at ____ date, abortion rates will surely plummet.

Even at that juncture, you still haven't solved the issue of consent. If the woman no longer consents to having another being in her body, by definition it becomes an intruder, and to force her to carry to term or any point after withdrawing consent would be enslavement.[/QUOTE]

Finally a reasonable argument. Although I would argue why not put on hold the killing of unborn babies until the research is there that life does not begin at conception or at ____ date, and only begins at the first breath? For that matter do you guys agree with late term abortions?

The women consents to having another being in her body when she willingly takes part in the act of reproducing. The "being" inside her demands the right to live. Like I said before, a woman does not get pregnant walking down the street, she chooses to take part in the act and should live by the repercussions.

[quote name='HotShotX']Since we're on the discussion of abortion, I'm curious if the following would be a compromise:

*Abortion is outlawed except in the case of rape/incest/health complications.

*Sex Education in school focuses heavily on safe sex over abstinence (both are still taught, but "abstinence-only" education is not taught).

*Condoms are supplied for free, and paid for with taxpayer dollars.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

This would be very acceptable to me. The condom situation would be a bit tricky if you plan on handing them out at high schools. There is a balance to be had between encouraging protected sex, and encouraging sex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The questions of when life begins/is it life, or when is it a human/fetus/etc, or is it murder are completely irrelevant to me.

The only question is how much suffering is inflicted upon sentient creatures.

There are a few prerequisites that need to be met:
1) You need a spinal column for the currently understood paradigm of pain transmitting.
2) You need a developed sense of self for the suffering to be registered to.
3) You need the capacity to remember. If anything happens to you while your short term memory is interrupted, it might as well have not happened as far as that self is concerned.

You might say, but this puts you in a position where you are ok with terminating live babies well beyond the point of birth, and you would be correct.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Prove this. All of it. The part where you say what I believe, and the part where you say what everyone else believes. [/QUOTE]

What you believe is based on all the statements you have made about murdering and children and fetuses (fetii?). To be fair, it may be that you're just an old angry guy on his porch shaking his fist. That is, you hate that women have a choice in having the baby, but you don't want to get up off your stool and do something about it, i.e. criminalize most forms of abortion. That seems unlikely though; most people I know who hold your belief usually want to impose that belief on everyone else by making all abortions illegal.

What everyone else believes is based on this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The questions of when life begins/is it life, or when is it a human/fetus/etc, or is it murder are completely irrelevant to me.

The only question is how much suffering is inflicted upon sentient creatures.

There are a few prerequisites that need to be met:
1) You need a spinal column for the currently understood paradigm of pain transmitting.
2) You need a developed sense of self for the suffering to be registered to.
3) You need the capacity to remember. If anything happens to you while your short term memory is interrupted, it might as well have not happened as far as that self is concerned.

You might say, but this puts you in a position where you are ok with terminating live babies well beyond the point of birth, and you would be correct.[/QUOTE]

So you are more (or only) concerned with the pain factor of aborting the fetus? It's an interesting view, but I fail to see why pain matters, and life doesn't? Someone could drug someone to unconciousness, give them anesthesia and cut their heart out and this would be acceptable? Their short term memory has not been affected, the pain has been blocked from meeting their brain, and they don't suffer. It meets all of your conditions but it is still murder. I think that determining when life begins is a major factor in whether you can or will end it. Pain should also be a factor, but not in and of itself.

[quote name='IRHari']What you believe is based on all the statements you have made about murdering and children and fetuses (fetii?). To be fair, it may be that you're just an old angry guy on his porch shaking his fist. That is, you hate that women have a choice in having the baby, but you don't want to get up off your stool and do something about it, i.e. criminalize most forms of abortion. That seems unlikely though; most people I know who hold your belief usually want to impose that belief on everyone else by making all abortions illegal.

What everyone else believes is based on this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm [/QUOTE]

Your own proof does not justify your statements.

[quote name='IRHari']
Knoell is in that batshit minority of people who think abortion should be outlawed in all cases no matter what.
[/QUOTE]

Your proof? "You are either this.....or I really don't know, but most people I know have that view"

[quote name='IRHari']
Majority of people think some limitations are okay but for the most part it should be legal (and rare).
[/QUOTE]

"Majority of people think some limitations are ok" - Ok I can agree with that.

"BUT for the most part it should be legal (and rare)" - I disagree with this, but maybe you can expand on what you meant by "and rare". Show me where in your polls says that for the most part abortion as it is now should be legal? You may take issue with "abortion as it is now" but the only way your statement would be correct is if you added in the people who accept abortion with limitations. Limitations on abortion would be on how the baby can be aborted, and how far along you can be, and special cases such as rape, medical complications and incest. I don't think you can add such things as pro choice votes until you know what the limitations actually are that those people had in mind.

I find it interesting that 76% of people responding have used birth control. I agree with birth control. Prevent the child from being conceived if you wish, but once you create that child through your own actions, you have no right to end its life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, I guess after I made that statement you explained and you think it should be illegal except in cases of medical complications and rape/incest. Still puts you in the minority (see the Feb 2011 Pew Poll). Most people want it legal in most cases.

Considering how few abortions are situations that you want to limit (rape/incest/med comp), I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the 'illegal in most cases' would apply to someone like you. Most cases = abortion as birth control.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

Also I think it should be noted that just because someone identifies themself as 'pro-life' doesn't necessarily mean they want to restrict women's choice. I saw that stat being touted all over the place that more people identify as pro-life then pro-choice but I know plenty of people who identify as 'pro-life', probably meaning they would never have an abortion, but that doesn't mean they want to restrict other people's choice.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Okay, I guess after I made that statement you explained and you think it should be illegal except in cases of medical complications and rape/incest. Still puts you in the minority (see the Feb 2011 Pew Poll). Most people want it legal in most cases.

Considering how few abortions are situations that you want to limit (rape/incest/med comp), I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the 'illegal in most cases' would apply to someone like you. Most cases = abortion as birth control.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

Also I think it should be noted that just because someone identifies themself as 'pro-life' doesn't necessarily mean they want to restrict women's choice. I saw that stat being touted all over the place that more people identify as pro-life then pro-choice but I know plenty of people who identify as 'pro-life', probably meaning they would never have an abortion, but that doesn't mean they want to restrict other people's choice.[/QUOTE]

Most cases equal abortion as birth control? So what is the problem with pushing real birth control rather than letting a fetus develop and killing it? Real birth control is never 100% but used properly most forms come pretty damn close. If this is the reason people are having abortions, what is the problem with making it illegal? Women have rights yes, which is why they have a choice to take part in the act, knowing the consequences of their actions. Noone may think much of a little thing developing inside a woman as having rights, but I believe at least it surely does.

Given the question again how many people would change their opinion if you phrased it as you just did? "What is your opinion of women using abortion as a form of birth control?" I bet the numbers would be pretty one sided.

I also wonder if there are any stats of at what stage in the pregnancy are most women having abortions.

What limitations do you think these people are thinking of if you believe your last paragraph?
 
I'm thinking late term abortions e.g. 'Tiller the Baby Killer' type procedures. Those I believe are rare because the doctors who perform them are rare.
 
Ill take conservative opinion on abortion seriously whenever they

1. Stop acting so damn extreme over the issue and just debate the merits of carrying to term vs aborting. No showing people aborted fetuses, no calling people murderers or any of the other bat shit crazy stuff...just a simple intelligent debate. I would be very on the fence about the issue of abortion as would my wife if not for the crazy fucking people against abortion. People against abortion are so extreme and so stupid it pushes me right off that fence.

2. They handle abortion as abortion and everything else as everything else. No attacking planned parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions but have other services as well. If your argument on abortion is intelligent and just then it will win out and you will not need to kneecap these programs. Conservatives must debate the issue of abortion and separate birth control and other women's rights from the debate.

3. Increase the social safety net. Near where I live they recently cut funding for a battered womens shelter that has been there for years. A rite aid now stands in its place. Before that it was the place where young mothers went to get assistance and before that they closed several shelters for the mentally ill(who now wander the street). If you argue for abortion out one side of your mouth while arguing to cut government programs with the other then no sane person will ever take you seriously. Its disgusting how many conservatives will argue that no matter what your circumstances are that you should carry to term because there are organizations out there to help you.......while at the same time working their ass off to cut those same groups. If you want more women to carry to term then make it a better option for them, create more programs to help young mothers, create more shelters and places they can find assistance and build the lower and middle class vs just handing money to the rich.

If conservatives can do those 3 things I will be happy to take their views on abortion seriously. Till then you are all hypocrites only worried about fattening your own pockets and pushing warped dogma that no one wants to buy and thus I have no reason to listen to you ;)

/rant
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'][...]no calling people murderers [...] No attacking planned parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions but have other services as well.[/QUOTE]

*IF* (and, again, big IF) you're talking to the "fetus=baby" type, then they should call people who kill "babies" murders and should attack any organization that kills "babies".

Now, if you're talking to someone who wants to say that abortions are wrong, but not because "fetus=baby", but for whatever other reasons - that takes the debate into a different direction (I believe the one you're wanting).
 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/orange-c...ther-mystery-presidents-parents-were-monkeys/

Orange County GOP official discovers why there's no birth certificate:

Picture-139.png

Today’s installment of “heinous, unacceptable racism disguised as ‘jokes’” features a Republican official on Orange County, California, President Obama, and monkeys in photoshop. GOP official Marilyn Davenport is coming under fire for sending other Republican officials an email depicting President Obama as a chimpanzee, in the arms of chimpanzee “parents,” claiming, “Now you know why– no birth certificate! [sic].” Davenport is sticking to her guns, blaming the media for making too much of a fuss.
Click to expand...

Stay classy.
 
And white people don't have a legacy of racist subjugation as biological atavists, more evolutionarily reminiscent of apes than humans.

So, yeah, Bush vs chimp was a website. But nevertheless an apples to oranges comparison.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And white people don't have a legacy of racist subjugation as biological atavists, more evolutionarily reminiscent of apes than humans.

So, yeah, Bush vs chimp was a website. But nevertheless an apples to oranges comparison.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']
political35.gif

It's only racist if it's about a black person. Duh.[/QUOTE]

Glorious.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
political35.gif

It's only racist if it's about a black person. Duh.[/QUOTE]

1. There is no stereotype that white people look like monkeys. If we had been compared to an animal to insult is for 100s of years and someone did it then yes it would be racist.

2. George Bush actually looks like a monkey.

3. The person that put that image together probaly was not in politics like the person that did the above.

I know your a Dr so your a smart guy....your just apparently so fucking stubborn that you can never see past your own world view. Seriously man this shit should just be common sense to anyone thats not racist.
 
Whu? I'm not a doctor. Nor do I play one on TV.

And, besides, I merely stated what everyone else is saying. "It's only racist if it's about a black person." Is it my fault that the statement sounds... harsh if you don't dress it up all pretty?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Whu? I'm not a doctor. Nor do I play one on TV.

And, besides, I merely stated what everyone else is saying. "It's only racist if it's about a black person." Is it my fault that the statement sounds... harsh if you don't dress it up all pretty?[/QUOTE]

I knew there was a conservative here that was a Dr, thought that was you guess I was wrong(think its BigT or whatever his name was). Maybe I was wrong for giving you credit to be smart enough to figure out the difference between a black guy being compared to a monkey and a white guy(that looks like a monkey anyways)being compared to one too ;(
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I knew there was a conservative here that was a Dr, thought that was you guess I was wrong(think its BigT or whatever his name was). Maybe I was wrong for giving you credit to be smart enough to figure out the difference between a black guy being compared to a monkey and a white guy(that looks like a monkey anyways)being compared to one too ;([/QUOTE]

It seems to me, this is just another one of those cases where "Both sides do it, but it only has super-secret dog-whistle meaning when the other side does it."

You excuse the Bush-Monkey pictures by saying that it's okay because he looks like a monkey, but if the person behind the Obama-Monkey pictures were to say "This has nothing to do with race, Obama just looks like a monkey anyway.", you'd be okay with it then, right?

SarahPalin50pcApe.jpg

Oh where, oh where is the outrage?
 
I dunno, maybe you and they really are that stupid. Maybe we should just be feeling sorry for y'all (and those represented by the idiots).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It seems to me, this is just another one of those cases where "Both sides do it, but it only has super-secret dog-whistle meaning when the other side does it."

You excuse the Bush-Monkey pictures by saying that it's okay because he looks like a monkey, but if the person behind the Obama-Monkey pictures were to say "This has nothing to do with race, Obama just looks like a monkey anyway.", you'd be okay with it then, right?[/QUOTE]

Him looking like a monkey is like 10% of this. The biggest part of this that you just dont seem to get(and probably never will)is its specifically because there have been years upon years of joking that blacks look like monkeys. If it was a white guy and an asian guy I would not think it was racist nor would I if it was some middle eastern guy. The problem is specifically because he is black. This is more like if someone put out a picture of an asian guy crashing a car and saying "O me so sorry" in broken English. It is not an issue of looks nor is it an issue of a white guy vs a black guy, nor a liberal vs conservative thing......its a common fucking sense thing. Blacks have been compared to monkeys and now they are comparing Obama to one which is racist as fuck to anyone with a shred of decency.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Him looking like a monkey is like 10% of this. The biggest part of this that you just dont seem to get(and probably never will)is its specifically because there have been years upon years of joking that blacks look like monkeys. If it was a white guy and an asian guy I would not think it was racist nor would I if it was some middle eastern guy. The problem is specifically because he is black. This is more like if someone put out a picture of an asian guy crashing a car and saying "O me so sorry" in broken English. It is not an issue of looks nor is it an issue of a white guy vs a black guy, nor a liberal vs conservative thing......its a common fucking sense thing. Blacks have been compared to monkeys and now they are comparing Obama to one which is racist as fuck to anyone with a shred of decency.[/QUOTE]

So, because he's black -and for no other reason whatsoever- he should be excluded from the Politician-as-a-Monkey images that have been a part of American History since... geesh... as long as I can remember?

I, too, agree that we should carve out special provisions in the law and within social etiquette that provide special protections only to individuals of a certain color. I mean, that's the best way to stop racism, right?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, because he's black -and for no other reason whatsoever- he should be excluded from the Politician-as-a-Monkey images that have been a part of American History since... geesh... as long as I can remember?

I, too, agree that we should carve out special provisions in the law and within social etiquette that provide special protections only to individuals of a certain color. I mean, that's the best way to stop racism, right?[/QUOTE]

*blinks* I really did give you too much credit....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
It's only racist if it's about a black person. Duh.[/QUOTE]

THe minute I posted that story I KNEW my bro would come here and say something to this effect. I rule.
 
I think he meant you would say it sarcastically, ya know, as if it didn't make sense that something racist isn't racist toward people of every single race.
 
You know, if it was an individual in virtually any other career, I'd totally agree that it's 100% racist to make the monkey-black guy connection. But we, for years, have been making the politician-monkey connection. Hell, if there were even political cartoons back then, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen King George=Monkey line art back in the day.

But, suddenly, because this politician is black, the time honored politician-monkey tradition is off limits? For no other reason than this guy is black, he should be spared the exact same satire that politicians have been subjected to for several years? Because of his skin color - and for no other reason - he should be above and protected from the same ridicule that is 100% perfectly okay for white politicians (you know, because *they* look like monkeys...)?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, if it was an individual in virtually any other career, I'd totally agree that it's 100% racist to make the monkey-black guy connection. But we, for years, have been making the politician-monkey connection. Hell, if there were even political cartoons back then, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen King George=Monkey line art back in the day.

But, suddenly, because this politician is black, the time honored politician-monkey tradition is off limits? For no other reason than this guy is black, he should be spared the exact same satire that politicians have been subjected to for several years? Because of his skin color - and for no other reason - he should be above and protected from the same ridicule that is 100% perfectly okay for white politicians (you know, because *they* look like monkeys...)?[/QUOTE]

For years men in the work place made jokes about women and talked in disgustingly raunchy ways. Then women entered the work place environment and this slowly had to change. Men also had to stop sleep with their secretaries, stop patting them on the bum and stop calling them names like toots. Point is that things change as the work place environment evolves. Those of us that are civilized see this.....
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']For years men in the work place made jokes about women and talked in disgustingly raunchy ways. Then women entered the work place environment and this slowly had to change. Men also had to stop sleep with their secretaries, stop patting them on the bum and stop calling them names like toots. Point is that things change as the work place environment evolves. Those of us that are civilized see this.....[/QUOTE]

Sounds good. So, from here on out, no matter who the politician is, and with no regard to his color of skin, you'll show the same gusto when someone comes forth with politician-monkey comparisons?
 
Trollin' motherfucker. How many presidents prior to W experienced the comparison.

Reagan does not count, by the way. I'm sure you wouldn't understand why, because you understand zero nuance as shown that your reductionism cites nothing more than "skin color." To you, historical context of oppression, slavery, legal inequality in Jim Crow, and systemic racism have nothing to do with anything. This is a matter of melanin and melanin alone.

I thought the same as you did. When I was 13 years old.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Life is much easier when you put Bob on ignore.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what I did. If you go so far as to say its ok to compare black people in politics to monkeys just because other politicians have been compared to them your beyond hope or redemption ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top