America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by Brewha. 101 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Imagine if you will
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Let's say Cruz becomes POTUS.
And a few years in he decides to make "Common Sense" restrictions in regards to abortion.
A bipartisan congress deny's him, so he creates a series of executive orders to make it happen.

To all those applauding Obama on his gun plan, be careful what you wish for.


gummy jones Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
although i dont wish for any of those things that was my point exactly

dangerous precedents are great when you agree with them but when the pendulum swings...
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
Then the mere consciousness of existence, without thought – a condition which lasted long. Then, very suddenly, thought, and shuddering terror, and earnest endeavor to comprehend my true state... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
That already did happen (sans the cruz part) and then the orders were repealed. It happens every change in administration. Business as usual.

I agree though. I always got a kick out of the line item veto push when republicans are in office (Big during Reagan) and crickets when dems are in. Why not have a bipartisan effort to give Obammy the line item veto?

It's fun to see proponents of the line item veto (extending executive power) go ape**** over EOs. Watch what you wish for because next time you may not be the folks in power.

This is nothing new. On the bright side there isn't much time left in office and every EO can be rolled back on day 1. Clinton crammed a bunch of EOs and Regs through 11th hour and Bush rolled them back immediately. I always questioned the legality of what he did with managed care regs but he did it and it was done LOL. The reality is it worked.
teedubbya Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Here is one example

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. Bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."

Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion." E-mail to a friend
tonygraz Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
tailgater wrote:
Let's say Cruz becomes POTUS.
And a few years in he decides to make "Common Sense" restrictions in regards to abortion.
A bipartisan congress deny's him, so he creates a series of executive orders to make it happen.

To all those applauding Obama on his gun plan, be careful what you wish for.




So, do you have many doomsday thoughts ?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,556
tailgater wrote:
Let's say Cruz becomes POTUS.




That's as far as I could handle. Sorry.
tailgater Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
So, do you have many doomsday thoughts ?


Restrictions on abortions = doomsday?

If you're going to sit at the adult table, please at least act like you belong.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Let's say Cruz becomes POTUS.
And a few years in he decides to make "Common Sense" restrictions in regards to abortion.
A bipartisan congress deny's him, so he creates a series of executive orders to make it happen.

To all those applauding Obama on his gun plan, be careful what you wish for.



You mean like recently when Texas governor Greg Abbott shut down most all of the abortion clinics?
Speyside Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Thought this would be about John Lennon.
Brewha Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Speyside wrote:
Thought this would be about John Lennon.

He did a great job as Felix in the Odd Couple.
Speyside Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
If you say so Emily.
tailgater Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
If you say so Emily.


I saw her play.
tailgater Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
You mean like recently when Texas governor Greg Abbott shut down most all of the abortion clinics?


OK.
For those who are challenged with an inability to comprehend reasoning:
The point is we can't embrace an executive order simply because we agree with it.


Now, if you'd like to talk specifics, I find it odd that the same group who supports the killing of millions as a "choice" are somehow against the "choice" to own a weapon regardless of the intent.

Here's a stat:
100% of aborted babies are dead.
I don't think most guns have that kind of statistic. You should snopes it.



DrafterX Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
does that include shotguns..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I was just thinking about how much more damage a 12 gauge shotgun slug would do compared to a 223 rd.... Think


but it's OK to own a shotgun... Mellow

Ever see what even bird shot will do to a watermelon..?? Huh
tonygraz Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
tailgater wrote:
Restrictions on abortions = doomsday?

If you're going to sit at the adult table, please at least act like you belong.


I don't want to deflate you, but I didn't think you were actually sitting at an adult table. You should try putting first things first- like president Cruz = doomsday.

tonygraz Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
DrafterX wrote:
I was just thinking about how much more damage a 12 gauge shotgun slug would do compared to a 223 rd.... Think


but it's OK to own a shotgun... Mellow

Ever see what even bird shot will do to a watermelon..?? Huh



I saw what a test .223 round did to put a hole through 8" of steel.
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
Mellow
tailgater Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
I don't want to deflate you, but I didn't think you were actually sitting at an adult table. You should try putting first things first- like president Cruz = doomsday.



Further proof that you miss the point.
Substitute President Rubio. Or Bush III.

And I wasn't sitting at the adult table. I was being served on the couch while watching football.
Try to keep up.


tailgater Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
DrafterX wrote:
I was just thinking about how much more damage a 12 gauge shotgun slug would do compared to a 223 rd.... Think


but it's OK to own a shotgun... Mellow

Ever see what even bird shot will do to a watermelon..?? Huh


Is it watermelon season?

DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
Prolly somewhere.... Mellow



I'm still trying to find the .223 going thru 8" of steel.... Think
Brewha Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
OK.
For those who are challenged with an inability to comprehend reasoning:
The point is we can't embrace an executive order simply because we agree with it.


Now, if you'd like to talk specifics, I find it odd that the same group who supports the killing of millions as a "choice" are somehow against the "choice" to own a weapon regardless of the intent.

Here's a stat:
100% of aborted babies are dead.
I don't think most guns have that kind of statistic. You should snopes it.


Executive orders are how our government works. Like it or not.

And as far as abortions go - Oh, no you don't!
The view that legal abortion is murder is a religious view. It is not a fact of science or law. Some feel that birth control is and act murder or against God’s will and some feel that the morning after pill is murder – this is their choice. But these are spiritual views – again not science or law. We have a separation of church and state in this country. Thank God!
teddyballgame Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
Yes, but executive orders were supposed to be more for administrative things, not for bypassing congress and making laws. Laws are to be made by congress, but Obama doesn't like that arrangement.
We also have laws being made by faceless nameless bureaucrats that have no accountability to the citizenry.

Are you saying that you like that arrangement?

"And as far as abortions go" killing a baby is killing a baby, it is a fact of science.

Why do the libs always rail about "free choice' when it comes to this issue, but every other issue, free choice be damned?

(school "choice" for instance)
teddyballgame Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
When you vote democrat, you are voting for "the man"

The big obtrusive government "Man"
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Executive orders are how our government works. Like it or not.

And as far as abortions go - Oh, no you don't!
The view that legal abortion is murder is a religious view. It is not a fact of science or law. Some feel that birth control is and act murder or against God’s will and some feel that the morning after pill is murder – this is their choice. But these are spiritual views – again not science or law. We have a separation of church and state in this country. Thank God!


Abortion kills an unborn baby.
There might be some grey area between fetus/unborn, but nobody harvests fetus parts. They do, however, harvest aborted babies for body parts. Or at least they try to.
How is that? If it's not a baby (a human), then how can we use their parts? How and why is it big money? This is just a for-instance.

Brew, I'm not an anti-abortion zealot.
I understand why it needs to remain a legal option.
But your insistence that it's strictly a religious viewpoint is dead wrong. a reasonable person without religion can agree that at some point the baby in the womb is a person, and how dare you tell it that it's not.



Brewha Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
teddyballgame wrote:
Yes, but executive orders were supposed to be more for administrative things, not for bypassing congress and making laws. Laws are to be made by congress, but Obama doesn't like that arrangement.
We also have laws being made by faceless nameless bureaucrats that have no accountability to the citizenry.

Are you saying that you like that arrangement?

"And as far as abortions go" killing a baby is killing a baby, it is a fact of science.

Why do the libs always rail about "free choice' when it comes to this issue, but every other issue, free choice be damned?

(school "choice" for instance)

No. In fact there are a great many things about our governments’ workings that I do not like. Congressional blockades, super packs, graft…..

But no one has sited that Obama did anything egregious that has not been done by other presidents. I get the indignation – but his actions are par for the course.




What “free choice”? They say keep your nose and religion out of other people’s wombs.
And you should.
Speyside Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
By definition a fetus is not a baby. Looking at state laws a fetus becomes a baby once it has drawn it's first breath. If you want to debate the issue of when a fetus becomes viable please do so, but let's be clear about the facts. Killing a baby is murder, but your religious belief that a fetus is a baby has no legal basis unless there is a law that I am unaware of.
dstieger Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I thought this was about executive orders?
Brewha Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Abortion kills an unborn baby.
There might be some grey area between fetus/unborn, but nobody harvests fetus parts. They do, however, harvest aborted babies for body parts. Or at least they try to.
How is that? If it's not a baby (a human), then how can we use their parts? How and why is it big money? This is just a for-instance.

Brew, I'm not an anti-abortion zealot.
I understand why it needs to remain a legal option.
But your insistence that it's strictly a religious viewpoint is dead wrong. a reasonable person without religion can agree that at some point the baby in the womb is a person, and how dare you tell it that it's not.

Abortion prevents a zygote, embryo or fetus from becoming a baby. And like killing a plant, it is not murder.

Admittedly there is a gray area between fertilized egg and the moment of birth where the to-be person is sufficiently a person for it to be murder. But in the first trimester there is no self-supporting or conscious life. Third trimester is highly questionable and not really an option. As a point of science, the battle ground is the second trimester.

People harvest stimcells to great advantage – but I see no argument for murder here. Reuse of a heart or kidneys is only an issue if the person was killed for harvest. I would ask you to clarify what you mean by “using their parts”.

Now for people to assert that “all abortion is murder” is an opinion that is not supported by the scientific definition of a person or as a point of law. And while this opinion does not require religion (to your point) it most often comes from religious ideas.
Brewha Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dstieger wrote:
I thought this was about executive orders?

That's what I heard....
DrafterX Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I think if you off a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 murders... just sayin... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Can we get back to John Lennon?
tailgater Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Abortion prevents a zygote, embryo or fetus from becoming a baby. And like killing a plant, it is not murder.

Admittedly there is a gray area between fertilized egg and the moment of birth where the to-be person is sufficiently a person for it to be murder. But in the first trimester there is no self-supporting or conscious life. Third trimester is highly questionable and not really an option. As a point of science, the battle ground is the second trimester.

People harvest stimcells to great advantage – but I see no argument for murder here. Reuse of a heart or kidneys is only an issue if the person was killed for harvest. I would ask you to clarify what you mean by “using their parts”.

Now for people to assert that “all abortion is murder” is an opinion that is not supported by the scientific definition of a person or as a point of law. And while this opinion does not require religion (to your point) it most often comes from religious ideas.


I'm not talking stem cells. Nice attempt at misdirection.
If you can harvest a heart or kidney from an aborted "fetus" then the fetus was in reality a human being.
that's not religion. It's also not the law. It's just the reality of it.






tailgater Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
By definition a fetus is not a baby. Looking at state laws a fetus becomes a baby once it has drawn it's first breath. If you want to debate the issue of when a fetus becomes viable please do so, but let's be clear about the facts. Killing a baby is murder, but your religious belief that a fetus is a baby has no legal basis unless there is a law that I am unaware of.


Yup.
And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations, depending what the definition of "is" is.

This is a discussion, not a legal proceeding.
Until it draws its first breath??
Are you serious?
So the day before your wife gives birth the baby isn't a baby?
I don't need to know the legal definitions, but for the record I think you might be wrong on that whole "breath" definition.






tailgater Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Can we get back to John Lennon?


Start digging.
tonygraz Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
DrafterX wrote:
Prolly somewhere.... Mellow



I'm still trying to find the .223 going thru 8" of steel.... Think



All I saw was the steel, don't know if the bullet came out pristine tho. I still remember the AR15 that some clown used a hand reload in, despite the warnings not to.
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I think you saw a 1/8" piece of steel... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
I'm not talking stem cells. Nice attempt at misdirection.
If you can harvest a heart or kidney from an aborted "fetus" then the fetus was in reality a human being.
that's not religion. It's also not the law. It's just the reality of it.

Look, you may believe that and egg is a human life even if it is unfertilized - more power to you.

Me - I've already spoke my piece.
Speyside Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
That was what I found with a quick read. I do not by any means think the issue is that simple. But I did want to clearly differentiate between fetus and baby. This is where legal rights change greatly under present laws if I understood what I read.

From a moral viewpoint it becomes much simpler for me. Once the fetus is viable it should be protected.
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
What is funnier than a dead baby..??
A dead baby in a clown costume... Laugh
dstieger Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
What? Clowns suck.

What do you give a dead baby for its birthday?
A dead puppy.

Now, how does it feel?
Brewha Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
So the first cannibal says to the second cannibal;
“Does this clown taste funny?”
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
dstieger wrote:
What? Clowns suck.

What do you give a dead baby for its birthday?
A dead puppy.

Now, how does it feel?




Mad
tailgater Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Brewha wrote:
Look, you may believe that and egg is a human life even if it is unfertilized - more power to you.

Me - I've already spoke my piece.


Who said an egg was a human life?
The fact that you have to lie in order to make you point speaks volumes.

Brewha Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
tailgater wrote:
Who said an egg was a human life?
The fact that you have to lie in order to make you point speaks volumes.


Lie? No sir. I meant you may believe whatever you like. It matters not to me. Mice nuts.

And in person I am rather soft spoke – that is I speak with little volume….
tailgater Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
That was what I found with a quick read. I do not by any means think the issue is that simple. But I did want to clearly differentiate between fetus and baby. This is where legal rights change greatly under present laws if I understood what I read.

From a moral viewpoint it becomes much simpler for me. Once the fetus is viable it should be protected.


Thread jacking my own thread here, but the term "viable" is the key.
Viable how?
If keeping it alive with a machine counts, then today's fetus becomes tomorrows "viable baby" since we can assume our equipment will get better over time.

And is it "morality" that we're trying to define?
At some point, it's just common sense.
example:
If a woman wants to abort after 8 months, she would have to have a medical procedure to kill "it".
In other words, she would have to do "something" to prevent it from living.
If the same woman gave birth and decided she didn't want a baby after 1 month, she could technically do nothing and it would die.
Is this her "choice"?
Rhetorical, yes. But people get so caught up in the word "choice" that they forget what their choosing.
Religious freaks frown on contraception.
But there's a middle ground between the RU486 pill and a third term abortion a week before delivery. Since nobody here can tell us that precise moment when a fetus becomes a baby my gut (not my religion) says to err on the side of life.
But saying this out loud makes people like Brewha falsify what I'm saying in order to give legs to his narrow minded viewpoint.
The subject wasn't even ABOUT abortion, but because it was used in the example I provided to start the thread we get the Brewha's of the world wetting themselves in a fury over religion.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad.

DrafterX Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4mGrNGuJTM

Anxious
teddyballgame Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tailgater wrote:
Thread jacking my own thread here, but the term "viable" is the key.
Viable how?
If keeping it alive with a machine counts, then today's fetus becomes tomorrows "viable baby" since we can assume our equipment will get better over time.

And is it "morality" that we're trying to define?
At some point, it's just common sense.
example:
If a woman wants to abort after 8 months, she would have to have a medical procedure to kill "it".
In other words, she would have to do "something" to prevent it from living.
If the same woman gave birth and decided she didn't want a baby after 1 month, she could technically do nothing and it would die.
Is this her "choice"?
Rhetorical, yes. But people get so caught up in the word "choice" that they forget what their choosing.
Religious freaks frown on contraception.
But there's a middle ground between the RU486 pill and a third term abortion a week before delivery. Since nobody here can tell us that precise moment when a fetus becomes a baby my gut (not my religion) says to err on the side of life.
But saying this out loud makes people like Brewha falsify what I'm saying in order to give legs to his narrow minded viewpoint.
The subject wasn't even ABOUT abortion, but because it was used in the example I provided to start the thread we get the Brewha's of the world wetting themselves in a fury over religion.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad.





+1
tonygraz Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,320
DrafterX wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4mGrNGuJTM

Anxious


R U sure it was Guberment cheese you liked ?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>