War against Women

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
MyReality
Apprentice
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: AZ

War against Women

Post #1

Post by MyReality »

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html
Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.
The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.
The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html
Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.
Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all
Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.
In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.
As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.


http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/
The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/
House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/
The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.
Image


http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html
SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/
On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.
ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #41

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: Pointless and insubstantive ad hominem. My point stands.
You point was an implausible excuse.
Not at all.

You came up with a 21 year old short paragraph. You stated, without a shred of evidence, that Obama purposely wrote this bio for political purposes, and purposely left it up online.

Do you have any evidence for this? None has been provided to this point. Only your entirely unsubstantiated speculation and assumption.

Can you back up your accusation or not? So far, only speculation and ad hominem responses to challenges.

Why was it Romney's job to appoint himself hair czar for the school?
I would rather have a POTUS who forced an unwanted haircut on someone at 16 than one who today is forcing the unwanted Obamacare on 300 million people.

Red Herring. Try again.


I would agree, episodes from the distant past should not be given undue consideration. Romney did a dumb thing. It may have been motivated by anti-day feelings, but I don't think we can say that for certain.
Exactly, so why did the MSM presstitutes even bring it up? They have time for an irrelevant story but have no curiosity about the following missing parts of Obama's life:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/ ... ment-4.jpg
The press loves controversy. It makes ratings.

On your photobucket site, I think we can safely throw that source in the trash bucket.


The assertion that Obama's birth certificate is sealed is a lie. The state of Hawaii has legal restrictions on dispensing that, same for everybody. Obama did access a copy and made it publicly available. If this site is saying the record is "sealed" they are lieing and I think we can say proving they are not only biased but unreliable.




Sorry, you are the one making the false statements.

Falsehood one. Ayers never killed anyone so likening him to Bin Laden is over the top ludicrous. However, I am certainly not here to defend Ayers, only point out your association is again nothing more than over the top spin.
Nonsense, a terrorist is a terrorist.
So a guy who kills 3000 people is equivalent to a guy who throws a brick through a congressman's window? On the basis of your false equivalence, we could then say the Tea Party is all a bunch of terrorists and associates of terrorists. That's not my assertion. That is a logical conclusion from your incredibly fallacious slippery slope thinking and other illogical comparisons.

Ayers tried to kill people, perhaps he wasn't as smart at Bin Laden.


Back this up. I think this is an out and out falsehood and I think you know that it is. Ayers never killed anybody and has stated numerous times he took care to make sure he killed nobody.


Back up the claim or retract.

Where did I say his body count was as high as Bin Laden's? Speaking of terrorists, are you going to keep avoiding my question of if Romney started his political career at the house of an abortion bomber it would be OK?
You equated Ayers with Bin Laden. Not my fault you now want to dodge the implications of your own false claims but coming up with an excuse about something you didn't say. What you did not say does not negate what you did.


On your other question, it depends. If the bombing was many years in the past and the person in question has lived a law abiding life for a couple of decades and was accepted in his political circle and the organization of the event was not done by Romney himself, then I would consider it a small matter, along the lines of the hair cut incident.


Please name one association with Ayers that Obama himself initiated. Not with someone else associated with Ayers, but specifically with Ayers. Not an invitation made by a third party to both Obama and Ayers, but an association initiated by Obama.
Who knows who initiated what, but if a person of character got an invitation for anything from a terrorist, he would decline.



As far as I know, Obama never got any invitations from Ayers. Please stop making completely unfounded accusations or back them up.



Note RFK's son, I believe, when at the U of I was man enough to veto Ayers for some position. I believe Ayers had said nice things about Sirhan Sirhan. I guess that doesn't bother Obama.
Your guesses have proven to be way, way off the mark, or entirely speculative. Your "guesses" are not substantiations for your claims by any stretch of the imagination.




Palling around implies such intentionality and in fact implies repeated intentional and specific associations.
I think the person in whose house your career was launched would count as a pal. Do you think Obama didn't have Ayers' phone number?

Again with the speculation. Is that all you have? As far as having Ayers phone number, I have lots of phone numbers of people who are not my "pals."

I suppose you would consider Obama "pals" with Ayers just because they happen to be listed in the same phone book. Your case has little more going for it than that anyway.




If I am invited to a political event by person A, and person A decides to host that event at the house of person B, AND let's keep in mind that the main purpose of the event is not my political career, then no, I am not "pals" with person B. I did not initiate that association, and I did not have repeated intentional associations with that person simply by being at his house that one time.


Really. Your entire case rests on a very extreme distortion of what words usually mean, a huge amount of completely unsubstantiated speculation, and blatant disregard of a lot of facts. It qualifies as a smear.


East of Eden wrote:
I challenge you to find even one. If you can't then it is your accusation that is false. So far, I have seen nothing to support your smear association campaign.
Translation, you refuse to look at facts that make Obama look bad. We're dealing with facts, not a smear campaign.

Translation, you can't back up your claims with any actual facts that support what you say, so you accuse me of ignoring the facts in order to distract from the completely unsubstantiated and distorted nature of your claims.





Baloney. I have not refused to look at anything. I am simply pointing out that the "facts" you allude to do not support your assertions. Yes, Obama attended a political event organized by a local politician that decided to host the event at Ayers house. There is no way without completely distorting the usual meaning of the word "pal" to characterize this as "palling around." The same is true of all the other associations between Ayers and Obama. It is also completely false to suggest Obama somehow approves of Ayers or his actions because of these casual associations. Your suggestions to the contrary are clearly nothing more than ideologically driven smear tactics.




Not only that, you have once again driven the discussion off topic by bringing up the issue in the first place. Why you brought up Ayers in a discussion about the current War against Women is hard to fathom, except as a general smear tactic against those you disagree with.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #42

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: Pointless and insubstantive ad hominem. My point stands.
You point was an implausible excuse.
Not at all.

You came up with a 21 year old short paragraph. You stated, without a shred of evidence, that Obama purposely wrote this bio for political purposes, and purposely left it up online.
Wrong again, I speculated as to what reason it went uncorrected. Again, you can't take it when Obama is questioned.
On your photobucket site, I think we can safely throw that source in the trash bucket.
Ad hominem.

The assertion that Obama's birth certificate is sealed is a lie. The state of Hawaii has legal restrictions on dispensing that, same for everybody. Obama did access a copy and made it publicly available. If this site is saying the record is "sealed" they are lieing and I think we can say proving they are not only biased but unreliable.
OK, let's say you're right, what about the other unknown things on the list? I guess that would be a lie when Obama promised to be the most transparent administration in history.
So a guy who kills 3000 people is equivalent to a guy who throws a brick through a congressman's window?
You think that's all Ayers did? You might want to educate yourself. From Wikipedia:

"Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Two major decisions came out of the "War Council." The first was to immediately begin a violent, armed struggle (e.g., bombings and armed robberies) against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public."

IS THAT NOT A TERRORIST?
On the basis of your false equivalence, we could then say the Tea Party is all a bunch of terrorists and associates of terrorists.
Except the Tea Party is largely peaceable and law abiding, unlike the scum of the Occupy movement. Did you miss what they just did in Chicago?
That's not my assertion. That is a logical conclusion from your incredibly fallacious slippery slope thinking and other illogical comparisons.
OK, so Ayers was not a terrorist to you?
Back this up. I think this is an out and out falsehood and I think you know that it is. Ayers never killed anybody and has stated numerous times he took care to make sure he killed nobody.
I would expect a terrorist to lie, and someone who loves Obama so much to believe him.
Back up the claim or retract.
What are you talking about now? Still in denial that Obama's friend was a terrorist?
You equated Ayers with Bin Laden.
Yes, both were terrorists, Ayers being one of the most infamous ones of that period. Contrary to your misrepresentation, I never said Ayers killed 3,000 people. Actually, according to a former FBI agent, he wanted to kill many more:

"Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated The Weather Underground, testified before Congress that Ayers wanted to overthrow the United States government. In an interview in January 2009, Grathwohl stated that:
"The most bone chilling thing Bill Ayers said to me was that after the revolution succeeded and the government was overthrown, they believed they would have to eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order."[60] Wikipedia

What a disgrace that a POTUS saw fit to associate with a creep like this. Perhaps you think RFK's son was just overreacting by shunning Ayers.
On your other question, it depends. If the bombing was many years in the past and the person in question has lived a law abiding life for a couple of decades
Your problem is that as late as 2001 Ayers had no regrets and wished he had done more.
I would consider it a small matter, along the lines of the hair cut incident.
Absolutely incredible you would equate someone who envisioned killing 25,000,000 Americans with the Romney non-story.
As far as I know, Obama never got any invitations from Ayers. Please stop making completely unfounded accusations or back them up.
So you're saying if Ayers didn't initiate the relationship, Obama did?
Your guesses have proven to be way, way off the mark, or entirely speculative. Your "guesses" are not substantiations for your claims by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you questioning this event involving RFK's son? Because if you are I'll be happy to educate you.
Again with the speculation. Is that all you have? As far as having Ayers phone number, I have lots of phone numbers of people who are not my "pals."
I don't have one person's phone number who used to set off bombs in public places, do you?
I suppose you would consider Obama "pals" with Ayers just because they happen to be listed in the same phone book.
No, I wouldn't.

If I am invited to a political event by person A, and person A decides to host that event at the house of person B, AND let's keep in mind that the main purpose of the event is not my political career, then no, I am not "pals" with person B. I did not initiate that association, and I did not have repeated intentional associations with that person simply by being at his house that one time.
If person B was an unrepentant terrorist, I don't go. Neither would RFK's son. I know Hyde Park is full of flaming liberals but there has to be an alternate house available not owned by an unrepentant terrorist.
Really. Your entire case rests on a very extreme distortion of what words usually mean, a huge amount of completely unsubstantiated speculation, and blatant disregard of a lot of facts. It qualifies as a smear.
Wrong, your whole response qualifies as a massive ideologically driven denial.
Not only that, you have once again driven the discussion off topic by bringing up the issue in the first place. Why you brought up Ayers in a discussion about the current War against Women is hard to fathom, except as a general smear tactic against those you disagree with.


Ayers was involved in a real war (and treason) against the United States, unlike the made-up War against Women.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #43

Post by Goat »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
At the very least, Obama was incredibly stupid or he lied about this for political purposes. What do you pick?
I vote for neither, the whole birther issue which this is a part of is frankly just plain stupid. His records have been shown to the public, before he could even run for the presidency he had to go through a vetting process to prove he qualified to run for the office. Regardless of where he was born he was born by an american citizen which means he is also an american citizen. Why is it the issue of McCains birthplace never came up during the last race? He was born in Panama which if you follow the logic of your birther buddies would make him ineligible to hold the office of the president.
So why was this 'born in Kenya' thing used up to 2007, I assume with Obama's knowledge?
Yes, you, like Breitbart, are assuming and speculating with no evidence and that is why you both have come to such a silly conclusion.

One assistant makes a mistake and it gets posted on a website and you make it into some kind of calculated political ploy, without providing one shred of evidence that that might be the case.

Erroneous stuff gets posted on the interent all the time and often stays there for long periods of time. This was a bit of info intended for a very small audience, and so it should not be suprising it was not noticed.
That sounds like something the in the tank for Obama MSM would say. Thank God for real journalists like the late Breitbart. I realize to some it is some kind of offense to ask questions about Obama. Funny the MSM has time to dig up stories about the 16 year old Romney giving a haircut to a kid whose hair length violated school standards.

I realize you like to beat the Ayers dead horse without any regard for reality.

Ayers was never "friends" with Obama. Obama never "palled around" with him. Their associations were all minimial and resulted from the actions of others, not Obama and not Ayers. This is nothing more than Breitbart like smear tactics engaged in for political purposes.
That is completely false. Obama had quite a history with this domestic version of Bin Laden.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/4126/t ... onnection/

I'll ask you, if Romney's political career was launched in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would you be OK with that?

YOu are bringing up a BLOG?? Really?? You consider that 'GOOD INFORMATION'??

What makes 'larry johnson' qualified to make these remarks, other than being vocal about wishing death onto Obama?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #44

Post by East of Eden »

Goat wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
At the very least, Obama was incredibly stupid or he lied about this for political purposes. What do you pick?
I vote for neither, the whole birther issue which this is a part of is frankly just plain stupid. His records have been shown to the public, before he could even run for the presidency he had to go through a vetting process to prove he qualified to run for the office. Regardless of where he was born he was born by an american citizen which means he is also an american citizen. Why is it the issue of McCains birthplace never came up during the last race? He was born in Panama which if you follow the logic of your birther buddies would make him ineligible to hold the office of the president.
So why was this 'born in Kenya' thing used up to 2007, I assume with Obama's knowledge?
Yes, you, like Breitbart, are assuming and speculating with no evidence and that is why you both have come to such a silly conclusion.

One assistant makes a mistake and it gets posted on a website and you make it into some kind of calculated political ploy, without providing one shred of evidence that that might be the case.

Erroneous stuff gets posted on the interent all the time and often stays there for long periods of time. This was a bit of info intended for a very small audience, and so it should not be suprising it was not noticed.
That sounds like something the in the tank for Obama MSM would say. Thank God for real journalists like the late Breitbart. I realize to some it is some kind of offense to ask questions about Obama. Funny the MSM has time to dig up stories about the 16 year old Romney giving a haircut to a kid whose hair length violated school standards.

I realize you like to beat the Ayers dead horse without any regard for reality.

Ayers was never "friends" with Obama. Obama never "palled around" with him. Their associations were all minimial and resulted from the actions of others, not Obama and not Ayers. This is nothing more than Breitbart like smear tactics engaged in for political purposes.
That is completely false. Obama had quite a history with this domestic version of Bin Laden.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/4126/t ... onnection/

I'll ask you, if Romney's political career was launched in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would you be OK with that?

YOu are bringing up a BLOG?? Really?? You consider that 'GOOD INFORMATION'??

What makes 'larry johnson' qualified to make these remarks, other than being vocal about wishing death onto Obama?
I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #45

Post by Wyvern »

I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?
How about the facts which you aren't bothering to mention. Such as how Ayers not only had stopped being a terrorist over a decade prior to even the vaguest association with Obama but in fact actually turned himself in and was tried and acquitted of any personal wrongdoing. Or how about how this blogger you put so much faith in seems to think that merely being in the Ayers family automatically means you are as guilty as the person you are railing against which of course massively expands the web of guilt by association which you people are trying to construct.
Really? You're going to use a pic someone not even identified created using photobucket as evidence? If I go on photobucket and make a pic that says all of that is untrue does that make it evidence also? Ooh I know I'll make a pic that says pink unicorns exist and before you know it they'll be prancing around in your backyard.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #46

Post by East of Eden »

Wyvern wrote:
I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?
How about the facts which you aren't bothering to mention. Such as how Ayers not only had stopped being a terrorist over a decade prior to even the vaguest association with Obama but in fact actually turned himself in and was tried and acquitted of any personal wrongdoing.
As late as 2001 Ayers was unrepentant and wished he could have done more. He himself said he was guilty as hell, yet free as a bird. He wasn't acquitted, it was a botched prosecution. A few more quotes from this traitorous creep friend of Obama's:

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."
In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

His group declared war on the US and one of their stated policy was the furtherance of Soviet foreign policy. Here are some of the bombings they were involved in:

Haymarket police statue, Chicago
Chicago police cars
New York City police headquarters
Marin County Courthouse
Long Island City Courthouse
Department of Corrections, San Francisco
Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
Department of Corrections, Albany NY
103rd Precinct of New York City police
Harvard Center for International Affairs
U.S. Capitol
MIT research center
The Pentagon
Draft and recruiting centers
ROTC buildings
ITT Latin America Headquarters
National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco
Or how about how this blogger you put so much faith in seems to think that merely being in the Ayers family automatically means you are as guilty as the person you are railing against which of course massively expands the web of guilt by association which you people are trying to construct.
You're trying to say now his wife wasn't involved in terror either?
Really? You're going to use a pic someone not even identified created using photobucket as evidence? If I go on photobucket and make a pic that says all of that is untrue does that make it evidence also? Ooh I know I'll make a pic that says pink unicorns exist and before you know it they'll be prancing around in your backyard.
More of the same, ad hominem and no addressing of points presented. :whistle:
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #47

Post by Wyvern »

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?
How about the facts which you aren't bothering to mention. Such as how Ayers not only had stopped being a terrorist over a decade prior to even the vaguest association with Obama but in fact actually turned himself in and was tried and acquitted of any personal wrongdoing.
As late as 2001 Ayers was unrepentant and wished he could have done more. He himself said he was guilty as hell, yet free as a bird. He wasn't acquitted, it was a botched prosecution. A few more quotes from this traitorous creep friend of Obama's:

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."
In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

His group declared war on the US and one of their stated policy was the furtherance of Soviet foreign policy. Here are some of the bombings they were involved in:

Haymarket police statue, Chicago
Chicago police cars
New York City police headquarters
Marin County Courthouse
Long Island City Courthouse
Department of Corrections, San Francisco
Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
Department of Corrections, Albany NY
103rd Precinct of New York City police
Harvard Center for International Affairs
U.S. Capitol
MIT research center
The Pentagon
Draft and recruiting centers
ROTC buildings
ITT Latin America Headquarters
National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco
It's amazing the ease with which you can come up with the lists of his wrongdoings and even quotes from his radical past and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that he willingly turned himself in to face prosecution to which he was found not guilty. You also seem more than willing to post quotes of his demonstrating his willingness to kill but seem incapable of showing a single person he killed or even note he went to lengths to avoid killing people in his bombings. It almost seems you think that a person can't change over time and yet it is demonstrably true that the baby boomers of his generation did just that time and time again. Christianity itself is based on the idea that a person can change their ways and yet you are unwilling to consider this even a vague possibility for your political rivals.
Or how about how this blogger you put so much faith in seems to think that merely being in the Ayers family automatically means you are as guilty as the person you are railing against which of course massively expands the web of guilt by association which you people are trying to construct.
You're trying to say now his wife wasn't involved in terror either?
No, I'm trying to say his father was not involved in terror whom this blogger buddy of yours implicates.
Really? You're going to use a pic someone not even identified created using photobucket as evidence? If I go on photobucket and make a pic that says all of that is untrue does that make it evidence also? Ooh I know I'll make a pic that says pink unicorns exist and before you know it they'll be prancing around in your backyard.
More of the same, ad hominem and no addressing of points presented.
I have a photobucket account too, so if I make a sign that says Romney eats babies and you dismiss it that would be an ad hominem? Can't you find a single news source that says the same thing? Why do you think we should assume everything you find on the net is immediately valid? Considering your recent links you have been making you should be asking yourself this.

http://i1181.photobucket.com/album ... CVR.jpg
See address this photobucket pic, prove what it says is wrong. Since you think photobucket is a valid news source.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #48

Post by East of Eden »

Wyvern wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?
How about the facts which you aren't bothering to mention. Such as how Ayers not only had stopped being a terrorist over a decade prior to even the vaguest association with Obama but in fact actually turned himself in and was tried and acquitted of any personal wrongdoing.
As late as 2001 Ayers was unrepentant and wished he could have done more. He himself said he was guilty as hell, yet free as a bird. He wasn't acquitted, it was a botched prosecution. A few more quotes from this traitorous creep friend of Obama's:

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."
In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

His group declared war on the US and one of their stated policy was the furtherance of Soviet foreign policy. Here are some of the bombings they were involved in:

Haymarket police statue, Chicago
Chicago police cars
New York City police headquarters
Marin County Courthouse
Long Island City Courthouse
Department of Corrections, San Francisco
Office of California Prisons, Sacramento
Department of Corrections, Albany NY
103rd Precinct of New York City police
Harvard Center for International Affairs
U.S. Capitol
MIT research center
The Pentagon
Draft and recruiting centers
ROTC buildings
ITT Latin America Headquarters
National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.
Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco
Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco
It's amazing the ease with which you can come up with the lists of his wrongdoings and even quotes from his radical past
Why couldn't Obama come up with those facts? I suspect they don't really bother him, being the radical he is.
and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that he willingly turned himself in to face prosecution
I'm oblivious to it because it is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with one's guilt or innocence.
to which he was found not guilty.
Cite or retract. Even Ayers said he was guilty. It was a botched case, otherwise Ayers would have gone to jail for a long time and Obama would have had to find another radical's house to start his career in.

"In 1973, new information came to light about FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL.[20] Due to the illegal tactics[clarification needed] of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers.[21]" Wikipedia
You also seem more than willing to post quotes of his demonstrating his willingness to kill but seem incapable of showing a single person he killed or even note he went to lengths to avoid killing people in his bombings.
I said he was a terrorist, not a murderer. A terrorist who sets off bombs that don't happen to kill someone is still a terrorist. According to some, Ayers and his wife ARE implicated in a murder:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 16DHA4.DTL
It almost seems you think that a person can't change over time and yet it is demonstrably true that the baby boomers of his generation did just that time and time again. Christianity itself is based on the idea that a person can change their ways and yet you are unwilling to consider this even a vague possibility for your political rivals.
Where is Ayers' repentance? In Christianity, forgiveness always comes after that. Ayers said he didn't regret setting off bombs, that he didn't do enough, and when asked if he would do it again, said he didn't want to discount the possibility.
I have a photobucket account too, so if I make a sign that says Romney eats babies and you dismiss it that would be an ad hominem?
I would focus on the claim, not obsess on the medium used to convey a point. We call that a red herring.
Can't you find a single news source that says the same thing?
OK, where IS Obama's Columbia thesis?
Why do you think we should assume everything you find on the net is immediately valid?
Quit making stuff up, I never said that.
Considering your recent links you have been making you should be asking yourself this.

http://i1181.photobucket.com/album ... CVR.jpg
See address this photobucket pic, prove what it says is wrong. Since you think photobucket is a valid news source.
Is a fact posted on photobucket not a fact anymore? :confused2:

If my link claiming the missing Obama info is actually wrong, please produce his Columbia thesis and all the rest.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
nursebenjamin
Sage
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #49

Post by nursebenjamin »

East of Eden wrote:
I have a photobucket account too, so if I make a sign that says Romney eats babies and you dismiss it that would be an ad hominem?
OK, where IS Obama's Columbia thesis?
This is way off topic, but what makes you think that Columbia University requires a thesis for an undergraduate degree?

User avatar
100%atheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:27 pm

Post #50

Post by 100%atheist »

East of Eden wrote:
Is a fact posted on photobucket not a fact anymore? :confused2:
No, unless it has a legitimate available source record that actually makes it a fact.
If my link claiming the missing Obama info is actually wrong, please produce his Columbia thesis and all the rest.
Who said anything about Obama's senior thesis? Why should its copy or original exist at all?

Post Reply