[WideRight05]

A super majority is one that is filibuster proof. He only had that for about 12 months.



I don't understand what more you want Obama to do in foreign policy. We can't afford another war right now, we are broke. You've already admitted that. He is moving a defense system to ward off that little punk from NK. We will go to war I'm sure, if we have to, but who is going to pay for it?


If, like you and others want, abortion were made illegal, 1.2 million more kids would be born. Not really, but theoretically. There almost as many abortions before it was legal, as after. Whether or not it is right, or the responsible thing to do, those babies will be put up for adoption. My question is how many pro life people will put up, or shut up, and start adopting those kids?


[Image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-20...licies.jpg]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e...aphic.html

Obama had a super majority his first two years....yes, he was "technically" one vote shy until Al Franken was sworn in, and then Robert Byrd was out due to illness but he had more than enough to get the job done. He also had the house. There are no excuses to be made on this - he had the house, senate, and presidency and the bottom line is the job did not get done. You can't expect him to get us out of that big mess in two years, but there should have at least been a positive sign or two - there was not.

There is a lot more Obama could do in terms of foreign policy. Number one, which is a huge issue with me, is that he could quit kissing ass and stand up to the leaders overseas. There is a difference in culture. Over here, if you do something to piss someone off and then apologize, in most situations it is usually accepted and the parties move on. Most of the Middle Eastern leaders see that in a different perspective. They view an apology as weak. Thus, when Obama goes around and apologizes for our country, it makes us look very weak. He has made America look weak.

Then, concerning foreign policy, hot mics catch Obama doing this...honestly, do you not see what is in the video below as a serious issue?



Now, as to the abortion issue - what point are you trying to make about adoption? I'm sure if the pro life people want to adopt the kids, they will. However, what about the people that took the time to have fun to create that baby? They shouldn't be accountable in any way?

The graphs you show, are not accurate. The CBO just projected a deficit close to 23 trillion by 2016. I work around this stuff, TRV. I often receive updates from the CBO and am well ahead of the game in that area. Not that you're not, but it's just that this is what I work in. The deficit has increased at a much higher rate under Obama, than it has under Bush.

Now that I have answered your questions again, I would like an answer to the last question I put on the previous post:

What are your thoughts on foreign policy? How do we fix the deficit? Obama is in his fifth year now and chaos is about to break loose - at what point will you start holding him accountable?

[TheRealVille]

- at what point will you start holding him accountable?

When the economy isn't improving, I'll hold him accountable.

[TheRealThing]

A super majority is one that is filibuster proof. He only had that for about 12 months.



I don't understand what more you want Obama to do in foreign policy. We can't afford another war right now, we are broke. You've already admitted that. He is moving a defense system to ward off that little punk from NK. We will go to war I'm sure, if we have to, but who is going to pay for it?



If, like you and others want, abortion were made illegal, 1.2 million more kids would be born. Not really, but theoretically. There almost as many abortions before it was legal, as after. Whether or not it is right, or the responsible thing to do, those babies will be put up for adoption. My question is how many pro life people will put up, or shut up, and start adopting those kids?


[Image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-20...licies.jpg]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e...aphic.html

As to your graphics, I would just refer you once more to Darrell Huff's book "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS".

As to your point which states there were almost as many abortions before abortion was legalized, the best info I can find states that abortion rates climbed steadily through the 70's. In fact there were 587 thousand abortions in 1972 and there were 1.2 million (estimated) for 2012.

[TheRealVille]

As to your graphics, I would just refer you once more to Darrell Huff's book "HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS".

As to your point which states there were almost as many abortions before abortion was legalized, the best info I can find states that abortion rates climbed steadily through the 70's. In fact there were 587 thousand abortions in 1972 and there were 1.2 million (estimated) for 2012.

900+ thousand.

[Hoot Gibson]

When the economy isn't improving, I'll hold him accountable.

:biglmao:

[SKINNYPIG]

When the economy isn't improving, I'll hold him accountable.

I don't care what you say, there is no way you typed that with a straight face.

[WideRight05]

When the economy isn't improving, I'll hold him accountable.

No way a sane mind typed that....

And once again, you duck and dodge my points and don't answer my other questions.

[TheRealThing]

So, seeing as how RV has attempted to highjack yet another thread, let's return to topic. Anybody who would like to see the true face of homosexuality, need only to go to the following link and read the posts of some in the gay community with regard to Pastor Rick Warren, ("THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE") and the loss of his son Friday evening.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/07/lef...epage=true

I still believe the gay community has rights and I still believe they should be allowed to choose their own lifestyle. However, this bleeding heart portrayal of their suffering due to social stigma and the desire to be 'normal' is so much window dressing.

[TheRealVille]

So, seeing as how RV has attempted to highjack yet another thread, let's return to topic. Anybody who would like to see the true face of homosexuality, need only to go to the following link and read the posts of some in the gay community with regard to Pastor Rick Warren, ("THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE") and the loss of his son Friday evening.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/07/lef...epage=true

I still believe the gay community has rights and I still believe they should be allowed to choose their own lifestyle. However, this bleeding heart portrayal of their suffering due to social stigma and the desire to be 'normal' is so much window dressing.

Where am I off topic?

[TheRealVille]

I would venture to say there isn't one who would not. That isn't the problem anyway; "In 2010, there were somewhere between one and two million couples in the United States waiting to adopt a child. Each year there are approximately 50,000 children placed for adoption in the U.S., and about 20,000 international adoptions are completed each year. As a result, most families hoping to adopt will not get a child each year."

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2092595#ixzz2PQpc4EIr

Answer your own question for us, how many would you be willing to take?

I'm not willing to take any. But, I'm for a "woman's right to choose". You all are the ones that want to outlaw it, so the adopting of the "aborted" should be on you that are for making abortion illegal.

[WideRight05]

So, seeing as how RV has attempted to highjack yet another thread, let's return to topic. Anybody who would like to see the true face of homosexuality, need only to go to the following link and read the posts of some in the gay community with regard to Pastor Rick Warren, ("THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE") and the loss of his son Friday evening.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/07/lef...epage=true

I still believe the gay community has rights and I still believe they should be allowed to choose their own lifestyle. However, this bleeding heart portrayal of their suffering due to social stigma and the desire to be 'normal' is so much window dressing.

And he is still yet to respond to my posts. nicker:

Doubt we see that happen. Hard for the little Junior to respond when you get schooled all the time.

[TheRealVille]

Now, as to the abortion issue - what point are you trying to make about adoption? I'm sure if the pro life people want to adopt the kids, they will. However, what about the people that took the time to have fun to create that baby? They shouldn't be accountable in any way?

The graphs you show, are not accurate. The CBO just projected a deficit close to 23 trillion by 2016. I work around this stuff, TRV. I often receive updates from the CBO and am well ahead of the game in that area. Not that you're not, but it's just that this is what I work in. The deficit has increased at a much higher rate under Obama, than it has under Bush.

Now that I have answered your questions again, I would like an answer to the last question I put on the previous post:

What are your thoughts on foreign policy? How do we fix the deficit? Obama is in his fifth year now and chaos is about to break loose - at what point will [B]you start holding him accountable?[/B]

By law, they are doing what is legal. By law, the fetus is not viable until about the third trimester. BY law, they are holding themselves accountable, they are doing what's responsible and legal.

I'm not a foreign policy expert. I'll leave it to the experts. If I knew how to fix the deficit, I would run for office. If you are so up on fixing the deficit, why isn't your name in the hat? The economy is moving forward, so there is nothing to hold at this point.


BTW, the "little junior" is probably close to 12 years your senior.

[WideRight05]

By law, they are doing what is legal. By law, the fetus is not viable until about the third trimester. BY law, they are holding themselves accountable, they are doing what's responsible and legal.

I'm not a foreign policy expert. I'll leave it to the experts. If I knew how to fix the deficit, I would run for office. If you are so up on fixing the deficit, why isn't your name in the hat? The economy is moving forward, so there is nothing to hold at this point.


BTW, the "little junior" is probably close to 12 years your senior.

:biglmao: :lame::biglmao: :biglmao: :hilarious: :hilarious: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[TheRealThing]

I'm not willing to take any. But, I'm for a "woman's right to choose". You all are the ones that want to outlaw it, so the adopting of the "aborted" should be on you that are for making abortion illegal.

Man! Whew, I bet your friends hated the way you kept trying to make up new rules all the time back in school didn't they? As I have repeatedly tried to get you to see, liberals are the ones who are outside the main stream. I know you can find some screwball poll somewhere that says otherwise but, I have become very familiar with the left's Islandhopping technique of declaring victory before the battle has even been waged in recent years. And, I'm not quite sold, no matter how many late night sing-ins they may stage swaying in time, with candles burning in solidarity and nicker: love.

A woman's right to choose stops when she gets pregnant while making bad choices.

[nky]

By law, they are doing what is legal. By law, the fetus is not viable until about the third trimester. BY law, they are holding themselves accountable, they are doing what's responsible and legal.

I'm not a foreign policy expert. I'll leave it to the experts. If I knew how to fix the deficit, I would run for office. If you are so up on fixing the deficit, why isn't your name in the hat? The economy is moving forward, so there is nothing to hold at this point.


BTW, the "little junior" is probably close to 12 years your senior.

just because some thing is legally right doesn't make it morally right. Guess you would have been in favor of slavery then right? or segregation right?

[WideMiddle03]

Man! Whew, I bet your friends hated the way you kept trying to make up new rules all the time back in school didn't they? As I have repeatedly tried to get you to see, liberals are the ones who are outside the main stream. I know you can find some screwball poll somewhere that says otherwise but, I have become very familiar with the left's Islandhopping technique of declaring victory before the battle has even been waged in recent years. And, I'm not quite sold, no matter how many late night sing-ins they may stage swaying in time, with candles burning in solidarity and nicker: love.

A woman's right to choose stops when she gets pregnant while making bad choices.

they probably were getting fed up
especially since he was the captain of his DODGEball team because of how he always dodges the truth

[TheRealVille]

Man! Whew, I bet your friends hated the way you kept trying to make up new rules all the time back in school didn't they? As I have repeatedly tried to get you to see, liberals are the ones who are outside the main stream. I know you can find some screwball poll somewhere that says otherwise but, I have become very familiar with the left's Islandhopping technique of declaring victory before the battle has even been waged in recent years. And, I'm not quite sold, no matter how many late night sing-ins they may stage swaying in time, with candles burning in solidarity and nicker: love.

A woman's right to choose stops when she gets pregnant while making bad choices.

No, it stops in the third trimester, which coincedently, is about the time the fetus is viable. Look at the law, it disagrees with you. Until the law changes, you are wrong.

Question: Is abortion now legal in every state?
Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) established that the right to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution, which means that states are prohibited from banning abortions performed prior to the point of viability. Roe originally established viability at 24 weeks; Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) shortened it to 22 weeks.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio..._state.htm

[WideMiddle03]

No, it stops in the third trimester, which coincedently, is about the time the fetus is viable. Look at the law, it disagrees with you. Until the law changes, you are wrong.



http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio..._state.htm

the only people who are pro choece are alive

[TheRealVille]

just because some thing is legally right doesn't make it morally right. Guess you would have been in favor of slavery then right? or segregation right?

What's "morally" right for some isn't always the case of a lot of other Americans. Whether or not you think abortion is moral, makes no difference. According to law, a woman has a constitutional right to choose. No, I'm not for slavery or segregation, but I am for a woman's right to choose. Can you say apples and oranges?

[nky]

What's "morally" right for some isn't always the case of a lot of other Americans. Whether or not you think abortion is moral, makes no difference. According to law, a woman has a constitutional right to choose. No, I'm not for slavery or segregation, but I am for a woman's right to choose. Can you say apples and oranges?

so with no external interference a fetus at any number of weeks isn't viable? If no outside forces are applied a fetus is a baby(young human being) that will be born nine months after conception. That baby should have a voice.
Apples and Oranges? Morally right is morally right.

[TheRealVille]

so with no external interference a fetus at any number of weeks isn't viable? If no outside forces are applied a fetus is a baby(young human being) that will be born nine months after conception. That baby should have a voice.
Apples and Oranges? Morally right is morally right.

Take that fetus out before 22 weeks, and it can't live, therefore not viable. A fetus isn't viable before 22 weeks, because before that, it can't live. You argument isn't with me. It's with nature, and the high court.


Morally right by whose standards?

[TheRealVille]

^After it's viable, or is born, it does have a voice, and rights.

[nky]

Take that fetus out before 22 weeks, and it can't live, therefore not viable. A fetus isn't viable before 22 weeks, because before that, it can't live. You argument isn't with me. It's with nature, and the high court.


Morally right by whose standards?

why take it out? my arguement is with you. You support the ending of a life. Does the fetus just pop out without help?

[nky]

^After it's viable, or is born, it does have a voice, and rights.

I know after the birth they have rights. I paid for my youngest son's attorney ad litem when my wife and I adopted him. If it wasn't for the birth mother I wouldn't have the joy of a little 5 year old since the birth father pushed her to get an abortion. They should have rights before as well

[TheRealVille]

why take it out? my arguement is with you. You support the ending of a life. Does the fetus just pop out without help?

No, I support a woman's right to choose, by the law, up until it is counted viable(22 weeks), and able to live outside the womb. Before 22 weeks, it can't live outside the womb.

[TheRealVille]

I know after the birth they have rights. I paid for my youngest son's attorney ad litem when my wife and I adopted him. If it wasn't for the birth mother I wouldn't have the joy of a little 5 year old since the birth father pushed her to get an abortion. They should have rights before as well

I'm glad that woman "chose" to carry the kid until it was born, and let you adopt it. Some women "choose" not to, and they are perfectly within their constitutional rights to do so. See RvW.

[nky]

State as you will and fall back to a women's right to choice but life is life and I hug him every day he's a life not a choice

[TheRealVille]

State as you will and fall back to a women's right to choice but life is life and I hug him every day he's a life not a choice

I am glad for you, and him. I'm glad that woman made that choice, for your sake and your son. A life is not a life, until it is able to live outside the womb(viable).

[Hoot Gibson]

^After it's viable, or is born, it does have a voice, and rights.

No thanks to Obama. He fought for the "right" of doctors and hospitals to let survivors of abortions die without any treatment whatsoever. He went so far as to refer to a live born, breathing survivor of a botched abortion as a "fetus" because a he or she had already been determined by a doctor to be "non-viable." Think about that for a moment and then think about the fact that you voted for such a reprehensible human being not once, but twice.

[TheRealVille]

No thanks to Obama. He fought for the "right" of doctors and hospitals to let survivors of abortions die without any treatment whatsoever. He went so far as to refer to a live born, breathing survivor of a botched abortion as a "fetus" because a he or she had already been determined by a doctor to be "non-viable." Think about that for a moment and then think about the fact that you voted for such a reprehensible human being not once, but twice.

I'd vote for him again, before I would vote for a republican, but that isn't an option. Luckily, we have a better option coming up. :Thumbs: