Why are so many on the left vile and evil?

[GMDino]

Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 

But JUST men and not non-white ones...and you have to own land.

Quote:that they are endowed by their Creator

Actually by OUR Creator...not the savage's ones.

Quote:with certain unalienable Rights, 

See point one about non-white men.

Quote:that among these are Life,

Very unambiguous, eh?  You get a life!  Unless we kill you for something like a crime or whatever.

Quote:Liberty 

You are free!  (Please see point one again...)

Quote:and the pursuit of Happiness.

As long as you are not breaking an arbitrary law or going against our god.

....

So CLEARLY they were anti-abortion.  They held hard and fast to EVERY PART of that sentence!  (For white men.)

Despite the other things they wrote or were quoted in.

And despite it being legal in many states.

Clearly.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 1. Doesn't matter. You said that we can't take away a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body, but the fact remains that we already do. 

This is getting ridiculous.  You are the worst person here for claiming people said something they did not.  Here is what I said

(09-13-2018, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  You can't take away a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body when there is no other individual to consider.

If you can not address what I really said then don't waste our time.

(09-14-2018, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2. For the most part, this is true, but this just reinforces my point so thanks. 

No it does not reinforce your point at all.  We ALL agree that we can have laws that limit the rights of children.  You can not use that argument when talking about the individual rights of adults.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  You are the worst person here for claiming people said something they did not. 

(09-14-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what I said If you can not address what I really said then don't waste our time. 

There is no other "individual" ths is considered in making it illegal to damage one's body through drugs. The "rest of society" is not an individual. My point still stands.

(09-14-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it does not reinforce your point at all.  

Yes, it does.

(09-14-2018, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We ALL agree that we can have laws that limit the rights of children.  You can not use that argument when talking about the individual rights of adults. 

Doesn't change the fact that we already limit what people can do to their bodies.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 04:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: There is no other "individual" ths is considered in making it illegal to damage one's body through drugs. The "rest of society" is not an individual. My point still stands.

Drugs are not illegal to protect drug users.  Drugs are illegal to protect citizens from the actions of drug users.  It is not illegal to be a drug addict.  You can walk up to a policeman right now and tell him you are addicted to methamphetamine and he can not arrest you unless you are high or possess meth.  In fact it is not even against the law to be high as hell or drive while intoxicated on your own private property as long as you are not endangering another individual.  

And "the rest of society" is absolutely made up of individuals.

Your point fails.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 04:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Doesn't change the fact that we already limit what people can do to their bodies.

And I agree that minors should not be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion.

So what does this have to do with making abortion illegal for adults?

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I agree that minors should not be allowed to make the decision to have an abortion.

So what does this have to do with making abortion illegal for adults?

Can I quote you on that?

EDIT: Never mind I just did

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can I quote you on that?

EDIT: Never mind I just did

You can quote anything I post.


But I am not saying that a minor can not have an abortion.  I think it is okay with parental consent.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If I post it you can quote it.

Why ask my permission?

Politeness.

But I dig your answer, Does it include if they are here illegally and no parent can be found?

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/09/19/cia-veteran-turned-candidate-targeted-islamic-school-teaching-gig/1262369002/

Quote:How a lauded CIA veteran-turned-candidate got branded with terrorism claims


WASHINGTON – How did a former undercover CIA operative who spent more than eight years fighting terrorism get branded as a teacher at “Terror High?"

The strange ordeal for Abigail Spanberger, now a Democratic House candidate, began when U.S. Postal Service employees wrongly delivered her confidential personnel file to Republican operatives.

Those operatives seized on Spanberger’s stint teaching Bronte and Shakespeare as one way to sink her campaign against GOP Rep. Dave Brat in Virginia.

Both Republicans and Democrats hurl dirt in campaigns. But the involvement of the postal service gives the attack on Spanberger a particularly odd twist that’s drawing outrage from national security veterans and scrutiny from investigators.

And the willingness of a Paul Ryan-aligned super PAC to publicize at least part of Spanberger's improperly released security clearance application raises new questions about what information is fair game in today’s political climate.

“What is Abigail Spanberger hiding?” a voice asks in a GOP attack ad. “Spanberger doesn’t want us to know that she taught at an Islamic school nicknamed ‘Terror High,’ a terrorist breeding ground.” 

The ad highlights a valedictorian’s conviction in 2005 for plotting with al Qaeda, then points to a 2003 graduate’s attempt to board a plane with a butcher knife hidden in a carry-on. The message: Spanberger was happy to cash "Terror High" paychecks.

Spanberger says her job teaching two semesters at a Saudi embassy school outside Washington, D.C., isn’t a secret, and it didn’t stop the CIA from later entrusting her with two federal security clearances. It’s wrong, she said, for political opponents to exploit confidential personnel forms they shouldn’t have seen, regardless of who’s at fault for releasing them.

“It takes political gamesmanship to a whole new level that I think is beneath who we are, and frankly I think it sends out a wrong message to public servants everywhere,” Spanberger said.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General is probing the agency’s release of Spanberger’s personnel records – a botched response to a GOP firm's Freedom of Information Act request. Spanberger worked as a U.S. Postal Inspection Service law enforcement officer in 2004 before signing on with the CIA in 2006.

Particularly troubling was the release of her security clearance application, which is protected by the Privacy Act. The 100-plus-page document includes her Social Security number and full medical and work history. Mark Zaid, a national security attorney, said he "can't even fathom" an exception to the law that would allow a third party to get an unredacted copy.

“Someone needs to be disciplined,” Zaid said. “The system failed and when this happens, there’s no way to take it back ….”

More than 200 national security veterans signed an open letter in August noting it would be “peculiar” for the first victim of such an error to be Spanberger, a Democrat running in a competitive congressional race.

“The concern is that there will be a chilling effect on people who are interested in pursuing these careers in public service if they are to believe that this information, whether by simple human error or something more sinister, could see the light of day,” said Ned Price, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council spokesman under former President Barack Obama. 

Spanberger’s case isn’t isolated. A small number of requests for personnel information were “improperly processed,” said David Partenheimer, a Postal Service spokesman, in a statement first released Aug. 30.

Partenheimer blamed “human error,” and said the Postal Service will request that Spanberger's information be returned. 

“We take full responsibility for this unfortunate error, and we have taken immediate steps to ensure this will not happen again,” Partenheimer said.

The Postal Service sent Spanberger’s personnel folder in July to America Rising Corp., – a conservative firm that digs up dirt on Democrats – 21 days after the firm filed a FOIA request for her employment information. The response was unusually swift. Spanberger said she asked for her own records under FOIA in December but she still hasn’t received them.
CEO Joe Pounder said America Rising never published her personal information and offered to return it to the Postal Service. But the firm shared the information with the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC working to elect Republicans and aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Spanberger said she learned what happened from a reporter, who had an unredacted copy of her security clearance application. She threatened CLF with legal action in August, but no lawsuit has been filed.
While there may be an “ethical/moral code that applies,” it’s not against the law for CLF to have it or use it, Zaid said.

Saying the information was obtained legally, CLF in August released a document they redacted from her security clearance application, showing she worked at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia. Their television and digital ad, highlighting "Terror High," began airing Sept. 6.

The ad says the school is "so dangerous," even Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, now the Senate minority leader, in 2007 called for it to be shut down. Schumer and other senators at the time wanted the State Department to act on a federal commission's recommendation that the school be temporarily closed on the grounds that it was teaching religious intolerance. Two years earlier, Schumer called for an investigation after the valedictorian’s conviction for plotting with al Qaeda.

Schumer now says he condemns anyone using his earlier comments to "attack an upstanding patriot and former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, who had left the school years before and had absolutely nothing to do with my concerns.” 
Brat, her opponent, told radio host John Fredericks on Sept. 4 that Spanberger’s Social Security number and medical records shouldn’t have been released. But he said her work at the school is “a big deal,” and voters deserve to know more.

A Brat spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Spanberger said the substitute teaching gig was one of several short-term jobs she took while waiting to start a career in public service. She was waiting tables when a restaurant co-worker, who also worked at the school, told her she might be able to fill in for a teacher taking maternity leave.

Spanberger said she didn't teach either of the students mentioned in the attack ad. “I was teaching kids who, to my mind, were normal kids,” she said.

She checked with her CIA recruiters before taking the job in December 2002 and teaching English for two semesters. “I basically was that person who over-informed them of every decision I was making,” she said.

Spanberger went on to work narcotics and money laundering cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for two years before joining the CIA in 2006 as a case officer with the Clandestine Service. She worked in Europe, on the West Coast and in Washington, D.C., focusing on counterterrorism, nuclear issues and drug trafficking.

A retired CIA officer, in a new ad Spanberger released Sept. 11, said associating Spanberger with terrorism is “laughable.”

“She focused on protecting Americans from terrorism, not sniping  from the sidelines,” the retired officer, John Sipher, says in the ad. 

Spanberger said public scrutiny of her background doesn’t concern her as much as the “terrible example” this sets for what people are seemingly willing to accept in politics.

“It shows a whole new level of ‘win at any cost,’” she said.

Republicans should be ashamed, but they already shown they are incapable of it.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But I dig your answer, Does it include if they are here illegally and no parent can be found?

If the minor is emancipated then she can make the decision.  If not then the appointed guardian should be able to make the decision like in the recent Texas case.

[GMDino]

https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-1158372

Quote:A councilman in West Virginia has deleted a Facebook post in which he said “get you’re [sic] coathangers ready”  after Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate.

Eric Barber is a councilman for Parkersburg City and an anti-abortion activist. He posted the comment in response to the news that West Virginia’s Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, was backing Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, securing his path to the Supreme Court.

Barber wrote on a private group: “Better get you’re [sic] coat hangers ready, liberals.” He has since deleted it, though other users saved screenshots and shared them.
A screenshot from Facebook.N/A.
Barber’s reference to coat hangers appeared to be an allusion to how abortions are sometimes performed in places they aren't legalized—a legal status which some groups fear Kavanaugh, a judge with a deeply conservative record, could revoke. However, one of Barber’s fellow councilman, Bob Mercer, has denied that this is what Barber meant.

“When he was in Washington, D.C., this year the day Justice Kavanaugh was nominated a lady threw a coat hanger at him and hit him in the face for being happy about it,” Mercer told Deep South Voice. “He admitted that he should have explained it instead of letting it sit there.”

In the U.S., where abortions still have a social stigma in many states, cases of "DIY abortions" are reported frequently. In 2015, a study by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that as many as 240,000 Texas women, age 18 to 49, have attempted to end a pregnancy by themselves.

Many critics of Kavanaugh were not comforted by his hearing. On the second day of the hearing, September 5, the judge repeatedly side-stepped how he would rule if the legality of abortion returned to the Supreme Court again.

“I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade,” he said. “It has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.”

But in a memo from 2003, which was made public during the hearing, Kavanaugh wrote that the Supreme Court "can always overrule" Roe v. Wade.

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent," he wrote.

Last year, Kavanaugh also expressed his respect for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was one of the two dissenting justices to vote against Roe, describing him as his “first judicial hero.”

Hilary Clinton certainly suggested during the hearing that it is clear what Kavanaugh’s intention will be. “If Brett Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice, will he help gut or overturn Roe v Wade, which legalized abortion in America? Yes, of course he will,” she tweeted on September 5.

[*bfine32*]

Well at least the Left can be proud of how they've stood up to that rape apologist Susan Collins:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/10/08/sen-collins-reacts-to-threats-shes-faced-since-voting-for-kavanaugh-n2526483

Quote:Since voting "yes" on new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has been condemned, threatened, and harassed repeatedly. The Women's March even called her a "rape apologist" for believing Kavanaugh over his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Twitter users wanted to "punch" her in the face. One even wished death on her. The disturbing message apparently wasn't enough to be removed by Twitter, but multiple users flagged the FBI and the Secret Service.

Others suggested Collins will never have another quiet day in her life.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2018, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well at least the Left can be proud of how they've stood up to that rape apologist  Susan Collins:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/10/08/sen-collins-reacts-to-threats-shes-faced-since-voting-for-kavanaugh-n2526483

That's awful.  No one should be threatened with bodily harm no matter how politically smarmy they are.

[Benton]

(10-08-2018, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well at least the Left can be proud of how they've stood up to that rape apologist  Susan Collins:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/10/08/sen-collins-reacts-to-threats-shes-faced-since-voting-for-kavanaugh-n2526483

Thankfully, none of those people have lawnaking authority,or are president of the United States . Cause that would be super embarrassing if one of those kind of people were in office advocating violence, calling people names and trying to intimidate political opponents. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 02:00 AM)Benton Wrote: Thankfully, none of those people have lawnaking authority,or are president of the United States . Cause that would be super embarrassing if one of those kind of people were in office advocating violence, calling people names and trying to intimidate political opponents. 

Oh, no doubt "cause Trump" is always the best  excuse for the left's vile nature.

[BmorePat87]

(10-09-2018, 10:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, no doubt "cause Trump" is always the best  excuse for the left's vile nature.

He's not excusing it, he's pointing out the absurdity of trying to put an anonymous twitter user's comments on the same level as a sitting politician's. 

[BmorePat87]

I miss when this thread was somehow about abortion...

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 10:40 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He's not excusing it, he's pointing out the absurdity of trying to put an anonymous twitter user's comments on the same level as a sitting politician's. 

ex·cuse
verb
ikˈskyo͞oz/Submit
1.
attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

If you say so. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-09-2018, 10:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ex·cuse
verb
ikˈskyo͞oz/Submit
1.
attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

If you say so. 

We should really end this culture of feigning ignorance. That's why so many threads are complete shit. 

[*Nately120*]

(10-09-2018, 10:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, no doubt "cause Trump" is always the best  excuse for the left's vile nature.

That's pretty much how our society thinks, and in many ways is the basis of human nature, yes.  The fact that our political system fights tooth n' nail to keep it a choice of two evils tends to lead people towards this polarizing mindset.  We have a delightful cycle of a system that encourages ironically-narrow divergent thinking to go with a populace that loves to hearken back to the age-old desire to pick sides, declare its side to be the good one, and fight it out.

I went full-blown cynic in 2016.  It seems ridiculous for people who voted for Trump or another Clinton to wonder why people stoop to the "your side is worse than mine" game...then again, I threw my vote away on a guy who probably is a bag o' crap and we don't KNOW it because he isn't important enough for anyone to pay to assassinate his character.


tl;dr - If you want people to stop saying it's ok for their side to be bad because the other side is worse quit voting for people who have decades long histories of being awful (but it still probably won't fix anything). Donald flippin' Trump is president, asking for people to be even remotely civil and logical at a time like this is offensively stupid.