|
Post by celawson on Feb 23, 2019 15:02:09 GMT -5
Why was it not her best moment? I very much agreed with her. There was a fair amount of arrogance by those challenging her. I especially loved her “my way or the highway” comment. She’s one of the old guard Dems who can see the many problems with this new wave of ignorant hyperidealistic uncompromising socialists attempting to take over her party. I agree with Don; this is a real problem for the Dems.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 22, 2019 21:09:45 GMT -5
I imagine with so many violent offenders losing their cases, this can’t be the first time that happened. But wow, that’s scary. Poor lawyer didn’t know what hit him. He “woke up” under the table. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 21, 2019 10:56:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 13, 2019 11:40:54 GMT -5
Yes, Don, they come in a light tan color.
They also come in a metallic gold sandal and black sandal.
Have you all seen the Gucci sweater that's catching the same heat?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 20:23:20 GMT -5
I absolutely agree, Don. That is one aspect of TNGD that shows AOC is not truly trying to save the world. What she's trying to do is dupe people into going socialist by playing on fears that climate change will soon end the world. If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez truly believed in the urgency she says she does, then why spend so much time and energy and money on those aspects of the green deal that don't directly help the environment? All this stuff about tuition free education and affordable housing and living wages seems, to me, to be a moot point if earth is destroyed. So why the emphasis on those things right now, in this plan, when we are all hurtling towards the apocalypse? Those resources should be diverted to saving the world, and we all should tighten our belts and suffer until the world is safe again. Also, if she truly believed in the urgency she says she does, then why take nuclear energy off the table? That does not make sense either, with what has been going on in the world for decades, and AOC only has to see the experience of other nations like Sweden, France, Germany, and the People's Republic of California to learn this. If we're going to fully decarbonize, we need nuclear power. Wind and water are just not reliable. That's a basic fact she should know, if she's attempting to change our entire country in order to save the world. The following article is by someone who knows, and he's not a right wing climate denier but quite the opposite. www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/08/the-only-green-new-deals-that-have-ever-worked-were-done-with-nuclear-not-renewables/#301217f47f61If you're gonna destroy livelihoods and bankrupt the country in order to save the world, at the very least you shouldn't ignore what has failed over and over in the recent past, and what has worked in the recent past.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 15:55:27 GMT -5
prozyan is correct.
There are many ways to approach climate change even within the perspective that this is an urgent problem. Why are so many people looking to this ridiculous proposal as if it’s the correct way or the only way? I am very curious what actual scientists think of this proposal. Haven’t had time to look.
To also address Cassandra’s question about climate change and politics - what is this proposal if not intensely and radically political? That’s a big part of its problem.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 13:20:28 GMT -5
This proposal is unrealistic, utterly impossible financially, and downright silly in much of it, right up to phrases like "farting cows". It goes far beyond saving the environment, and I'm just amazed at how many Dems are signing right onto it. It just shows how far left a large faction of the Democratic party is willing to go. We talked earlier about how AOC would be as a congressperson. I see her as becoming increasingly arrogant with her continued praise in the media, and millions of Twitter followers, and sycophant Dems. How else can one explain a 29 year old bartender freshman rep attempting to overhaul the entire country with a plan that is so poorly thought out? Who does this? And she doesn't seem hesitant to lie to try to avoid criticism of part of this proposal and its FAQ which was originally on her website. I guess she's turning into a typical politico. www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 8, 2019 12:19:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 8, 2019 11:50:26 GMT -5
So AOC is 'looking out for her fellow man' by 1) obliterating the industries of other fuel sources and all the jobs in those sectors 2) obliterating the airlines and all the jobs in that sector 3) obliterating cattle ranching and dairy farms and all the livelihoods there 4) supporting people who are unwilling to work by taking from those who are 5) bankrupting the country OK, excellent. The best thing about the "Green Dream or Whatever They Call it" (LOL, Nancy - high five!) is that it will fracture the Democratic Party further and help Trump get re-elected in 2020. The Dem candidates seem to have no idea that a huge chunk of Democrats are moderate rather than progressive. news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspxMAGA!
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 7, 2019 18:18:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 21:34:17 GMT -5
I guess we both have feels today.
I've already stated the law as written is morally problematic, and that ONE is wrong. So the actual percentages aren't relevant.
Then tell New York and Virginia to put some stipulations on late term abortion and don't light up skyscrapers.
Wrong - I want people to be more somber AND I want abortion to not exist.
Whatever, early, late term, or during labor as Ms. Tran would like, it's all pretty horrendous if it's not done for grave medical reasons.
It always comes back to Trump. It's just amazing how far he can get in all your heads. Amazing.
May I quote you the next time we have a gun control debate here?
Perhaps. Notice I am not calling for making all abortions illegal. I'm asking for some stipulations on late term abortions, some more care from people in general about having sex if they don't want kids or aren't in a place to have a child, and no whoops and cheers and lighting buildings when the most aggressive pro-abortion legislation is passed. You'd think I was something out of A Handmaid's Tale.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 21:00:40 GMT -5
I called out your dishonesty on your "letting them die". No one "let" anyone die. The 8 year old boy? Here's PBS reporting: www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-second-migrant-child-died-in-u-s-custody-this-month-heres-what-we-knowHere's what happened with the little girl, Jakelin Caal Maquin: www.vox.com/2018/12/18/18144434/child-died-jakelin-caal-seven-border-patrolIn both of those tragic cases, the Border Patrol seems to have done quite a bit to help those kids. No one was "let to die". The cages issue started with the Obama admin, and yes they are pens. Have you called Obama out? As far as your moral high ground comments, they would make a little more sense if Trump were pro-abortion. But he's a pro-life POTUS. So that's consistent with the issue at hand. When I voted for him, I took what I saw to be the better of two bad options. And no, I didn't know all the specifics about him like Cassandra did from living in New York. I hoped for the best. Sorry, but all the "evils" of Trump the very flawed man just don't supersede the entire universe of ills. And not everything bad leads to Trump. Not in my world, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 16:57:54 GMT -5
So, essentially society will fall apart if one or two women a year have an abortion in the third trimester? The country's morality will disappear because.. yeah, I get it. It always makes me roll my eyes when I hear a conservative talk of the fall of morality because of a few isolated actions of individuals. Honestly, if putting kids in cages (and letting them die) hasn't done it, I don't think the incredibly rare (maybe non-existent?!) case of third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons will rattle the foundations of America. Put another way, and I'm sorry (kinda) if this sounds harsh, but as long as you support a racist president who's boasted of grabbing women by the pussy and lies about everything all the time, you'd do well to back away from the moral high ground. This post is BULLSHIT.
- third trimester abortions for non-medical reasons are not non-existent. And they may be a small percentage of abortions, but when you're talking several hundred thousand abortions a year, that number really isn't one or two, is it?
- if killing a viable fetus for no medical reason is wrong, then it's wrong, whether or not 1 or 5 or 1000 or 100,000 viable healthy fetuses are killed. Do you think it's ok for 1 innocent man on death row to be executed? It's only one, though. Just one. Should be fine, right? I'm sure it's rare. If we don't care about an innocent man being executed, then yeah, I get it it too, the country's morality WILL take a hit.
- are you REALLY comparing my voting for a cad (and someone who reversed his separating families policy) for POTUS, and pro-abortionists cheering for a codified policy of killing unborn children up to the point of labor, and telling me I should back away from the moral high ground? Seriously?
Do you have any cognitive dissonance for getting more upset about kids in cages (hyperbole of course) than killing 600,000 or 700,000 unborn children per year? Also what's this "letting them die" comment about Border Patrol? I guess honesty is not your strong point today.
At least Cassandra engaged me with a well-thought out challenge and her usual detailed reasoning. I do appreciate that. I think Cassandra is giving too much credit to late term abortion providers and to some women who decide late in a pregnancy that they don't want their baby. And I think she's giving too little credit to how insidious this liberalization of abortion law is to society. I think it creeps into how we view the most vulnerable in our society, how we treat our children, how we view the idea of raising children, how we view marriage, how we conduct ourselves sexually, and more.
But I can see her reasoning.
Finding solid examples of why people seek a third trimester abortion iand how many are healthy fetuses is near impossible. For obvious reasons. I don't think providers want to advertise why they do it, and I don't think women want to talk about why they do it. And the pro-abortion lobby doesn't want this sort of stuff out, either. How else did Kermit Gosnell practice for decades and snip the spinal cords of hundreds of babies born alive?
I will just stop there.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 31, 2019 14:54:12 GMT -5
You've missed the nuance in my argument. I have not called for a complete ban on late term abortions like in Erika C's situation. As public policy in a pluralistic society, I would not agree with that. What I have been saying for years, is that how a society views abortion has an effect on how a society views the lives of those who are the most vulnerable, including the disabled and the elderly. Once that morality breaks down, once we see cheers and fist pumps and high fives for abortion on demand through 39 weeks and 6 days and even during labor, society breaks down in all sorts of ways that might not be obvious at first.
It's a very different thing, from a societal perspective, to view abortion as a tragic but sometimes necessary last resort, and to cheer it as a fundamental right for every woman at any time for any reason without restriction.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 31, 2019 13:51:48 GMT -5
Absolutely, Vince. Cassandra is under the impression most or all women are like her and would never consider an abortion of a healthy, viable term infant for reasons other than to save their life or physical health.
But the Virginia law and the New York law are both written in language that leaves that option open. I can only believe that is purposely done, because there is a very vocal faction of pro-abortionists who want abortion to be available for any reason up until birth, and those are the folks who push for and celebrate these sorts of bill signings. In a world where newborns have been put in trash cans to die, don't tell me it's pearl clutching to think people would consider this option late in pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby.
Cassandra also notes that my pearl-clutching hysteria forgets that this decision should be made between a doctor and the mother. She repeated that again just now:
Well, the New York bill has removed the requirement of a doctor to perform these, and allows other licensed practitioners - midwives, nurse practitioners. Great. Another hurdle overcome for unrestricted abortion on demand. Even Roe v Wade requires a physician to perform an abortion.
The Virginia governor Northam agreed that 2 doctors should be involved in these grave decisions and some think 3, however Tran's lovely bill requires only 1 doctor.
It's becoming more and more evident that New York and Virginia are not doing this only for rare and tragic cases like Erika Christensen, but to thumb their noses at Trump and Pence and the SCOTUS and anyone who dares try or wish to limit the ability of any woman to have an abortion at any time for any reason up to and including during labor,no matter how healthy her baby.
That is damaging to a society, as I said before, in both obvious and insidious ways.
|
|