Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 108

Thread: Questions you would like one candidate to ask the other candidate in a debate

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who cares about Akin? Why is this even a topic? He is no threat to anyone except the members of his own party.

    People are so easily distracted. And the media LOVES to distract them.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    It was pretty clear that rape and incest are an exception and the government (at whatever level should pay). .
    For legitimate or illegitimate incest?

    I mean...what if the daughter WANTED to have sex with grandpa? Should the taxpayer pay for her abortion?

    I think not.

    Say NO! to illegitimate incest!!

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    For legitimate or illegitimate incest?

    I mean...what if the daughter WANTED to have sex with grandpa? Should the taxpayer pay for her abortion?

    I think not.

    Say NO! to illegitimate incest!!

    Daughter and grandpa. If you can't figure that out there is a problem with the drinking water in Western NY. Hey, you the plumber, maybe that's the problem. LOL.

  4. #24
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,396
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    It's actually not redundant; statutory rape is non-forcible.
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Not really. As a legal matter, statutory rape is rape. Period. When drafting a federal law, a "rape" exception" will cover statutory rape
    So then the Ryan/Akin legislation means that while "forcible" rape is an exception for abortion, statutory rape victims are legally required to give birth?

    Essentially what you're saying is, the law says they're too young to decide who to have sex with, but they must live with the consequences no matter what?

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So then the Ryan/Akin legislation means that while "forcible" rape is an exception for abortion, statutory rape victims are legally required to give birth?

    Essentially what you're saying is, the law says they're too young to decide who to have sex with, but they must live with the consequences no matter what?

    Akin is a fool. Foot in mouth disease.
    BUT, was he saying what should be PAID for by the gov? Forcible rape I believe should. Incest should. A 15 year old boffer? I do not think so. Let daddy pay. Or her parents.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Daughter and grandpa. If you can't figure that out there is a problem with the drinking water in Western NY. Hey, you the plumber, maybe that's the problem. LOL.
    You're bible endorses abortion for adultery.

    Tell your god to put THAT in his pipe and smoke it:

    Numbers 5:20 -22:

    But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
    LOLZ!!! God wouldn't be able get a nomination from the GOP

  7. #27
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    For legitimate or illegitimate incest?
    Legitimate?

    Like a pair of 28/29 year old brother/sister who want to ****?

    What, exactly, is YOUR argument against them, PK?

    I'll remind you, you hate religion, so that clearly isn't it, and in the case they chose to procreate (not a certainty by any stretch) the odds of genetic problems are higher, but by no means guaranteed or worse that some non-incestuous couplings, nor (if it's a single related pairing) is it sure to be bad at all.

    So....whats your basis of argument against that?

    Back on the topic, I (for one) think it's pretty clear the son-to-beex-politician was thinking along the lines of Duke Lacrosse when he mentioned "legitimate". In an effort to protect women, a great and noble cause, we've gone (IMO) too far at times in the other direction, where any accusation, facts nonwithstanding, is enough. If you listen to some (especially on the left) we're simply supposed to take every claim as fact, never doubt, barely investigate, and if it's he said/she said, she said always wins. The facts are, women lie for many reasons, same as men, and not every claim of rape is "legitimate", some are patently false. Just ask the Duke Lacrosse players.
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-26-2012 at 07:31 PM.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Legitimate?

    Like a pair of 28/29 year old brother/sister who want to ****?

    What, exactly, is YOUR argument against them, PK?
    Well...

    Palmetto said abortion in cases of "forced" rape AND incest were acceptable.

    Soooo...where's the "forcible" line in incest? If a brother and sister f**k and want to have an abortion, should the taxpayer pay for it? No. Because it's not "forcible" incest.



    Amirite?

  9. #29
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Legitimate?

    Like a pair of 28/29 year old brother/sister who want to ****?

    What, exactly, is YOUR argument against them, PK?

    I'll remind you, you hate religion, so that clearly isn't it, and in the case they chose to procreate (not a certainty by any stretch) the odds of genetic problems are higher, but by no means guaranteed or worse that some non-incestuous couplings, nor (if it's a single related pairing) is it sure to be bad at all.

    So....whats your basis of argument against that?

    Back on the topic, I (for one) think it's pretty clear the son-to-beex-politician was thinking along the lines of Duke Lacrosse when he mentioned "legitimate". In an effort to protect women, a great and noble cause, we've gone (IMO) too far at times in the other direction, where any accusation, facts nonwithstanding, is enough. If you listen to some (especially on the left) we're simply supposed to take every claim as fact, never doubt, barely investigate, and if it's he said/she said, she said always wins. The facts are, women lie for many reasons, same as men, and not every claim of rape is "legitimate", some are patently false. Just ask the Duke Lacrosse players.
    I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Duke Lacrosse situation he was thinking of. He was claiming that if a woman got pregnant, then it wasn't rape, because if it was, her body would shut down and not become pregnant. I other words, if she did get pregnant, she must have either agreed to or enjoyed it, since her body didn't shut down. I don't think he picked any nits about the situation - from what I understood, if you were to apply his comments to a woman being raped at gunpoint by a serial rapist who was a complete stranger, and she got pregnant, then it couldn't have been rape.

    But I'm also at a loss as to why the comments from this moron Akin is carrying so much weight in the discussion over the presidential race. Each side has their fair share of morons, we should all agree to that and move on.

  10. #30
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Duke Lacrosse situation he was thinking of. He was claiming that if a woman got pregnant, then it wasn't rape, because if it was, her body would shut down and not become pregnant. I other words, if she did get pregnant, she must have either agreed to or enjoyed it, since her body didn't shut down. I don't think he picked any nits about the situation - from what I understood, if you were to apply his comments to a woman being raped at gunpoint by a serial rapist who was a complete stranger, and she got pregnant, then it couldn't have been rape.

    But I'm also at a loss as to why the comments from this moron Akin is carrying so much weight in the discussion over the presidential race. Each side has their fair share of morons, we should all agree to that and move on.
    Read into it what you like, I'd not expect any effort at understanding whats behind a viewpoint or the "nuance" as we'd be told we have to have if it was a (D) mis-statement.

    Yes, I agree completely his comment has no scientific basis I am aware of. Forcible or not forcible, women fighting it or not fighting it, I am not aware of ANY science that would say the % chance of pregnancy is different. He's wrong, and mumble mouthed, but I would still say I think he was not trying to go where he went., that somewhere in all that mumble was the (accurate) point that abortion accounts for a tiny, all-but-insignifigant, portion fo total abortions performed, and of those rapes, not all actually happened ala Duke Lacrosse. I.e. when the topic is abortion, honesty isn't always a priority.

    With that said, there is no doubt this is being used on a far broadr scale that appropriate because it's one of those great wedge issues. As it's going, Obama 2012 is turning out to be "Abortion Rights & Free Birth Control 2012". If thats whats important to you, unlimited abortions and state-paid rubbers and pills, then this election is indeed a clear one. The only choice for those voters is Obama.
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-26-2012 at 10:25 PM.

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is the first time I have seen an OP hijack their own thread.

    "Hey, what would you like to have the candidates ask each other?"

    "ZOMG Republicans hate women!"

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    Technically, any policy that doesn't allow a woman to kill her child up until the moment of birth is a "war on women" because you're not letting her do as she chooses with her own body. Telling one woman she can kill her child because it was a result of rape is a war on every other woman who inadvertently got pregnant by any other means.

    You either believe the fetus is a living human being or you don't. If you do, it's not "taking away the rights from a class of citizens" by not condoning murder.

    People can argue whether the unborn has a legitimate claim to life, but to call it "an attack on women" is political mud-slinging at its finest . . .
    Absolute nonsense. Believing a fetus is a living human being that deserves the rights of a citizen is a fantasy position no better than the position of the most leftist women who believes a crying baby that's still attached by an umbilical cord is still her body with full rights to abortion.

    Putting the absolute position in the platform either way is absolutely worthy of debate. Until we have some compromise either party that takes an absolute position is worthy of the scrutiny they come under and that's true of all positions.

    Your complete disregard hard earned rights over decades simply won't go unchallenged.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-27-2012 at 08:30 AM.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Stony Brook
    Posts
    2,091
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll try to return this to less name calling (yes, I AM a fool...)

    R-2-O: You're touting economic plans and budget proposals and yet your
    recent budget proposals have met the following fate:

    • 2011: 0-97 against your budget in the senate.
    • 2012: 0-414 against your budget in the house and 0-99 against your budget in the senate.
    • The US, for the first time in its history has gone without a budget for
      three years in a row (running on continuing resolutions).

    Why did the members of your own party vote unanimously against
    your budget proposals and why did you not lobby for them?

    O-2-R: What specifically would you do if Iran attacks Israel or vise-versa?

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Well...

    Palmetto said abortion in cases of "forced" rape AND incest were acceptable.

    Soooo...where's the "forcible" line in incest? If a brother and sister f**k and want to have an abortion, should the taxpayer pay for it? No. Because it's not "forcible" incest.



    Amirite?

    Again, you misquote me. Hey, it's the Dem way.
    What I said was that abortion could be FUNDED by the gov in the case of forcible rape or incest. The VAST majority of M/F incest involves people under 18 and is considered a crime in the U.S., hence covered under a VCCP program which miost states have.
    I have no problem with abortion in other cases. Freedom of choice. You choose to get pregnant, choose to pay for the abortion.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Paul Ryan co-sponsored legislation, along with Akin, called the "No Taxpayer funding for Abortions Act" and in it, they used the phrase 'forcible rape', which I think is a redundant term, and therefore, want to know why.

    I think it's a fair question to ask Ryan "Why?" and Romney "Do you think there's a difference...?"
    Before formulating a question, you should probably try to inform yourself on the topic.

    The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" was a bipartisan bill introduced by Chris Smith (R- NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL). Your media sources keep ramming down your throat that "Ryan cosponsored this bill along with Akin", yet they somehow leave out the fact that 11 Democrats did also.

    The wording on "forcible rape" was taken directly word-for-word from the age-old, outdated federal definition at the time, but in reality, had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. The bill renewed criticism of the wording, and it was subsequently changed in the federal books as well as in the bill. See in your lib-rag New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us...tion.html?_r=1

    Direct quote from the DEMOCRAT who introduced the bill: "The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."

    People need to grow up, try to get past the rhetoric of candidates and the media, and do some damn research on their own for a change. Far too much public opinion is based on utter bullsh*t.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So then the Ryan/Akin legislation means that while "forcible" rape is an exception for abortion, statutory rape victims are legally required to give birth?

    Essentially what you're saying is, the law says they're too young to decide who to have sex with, but they must live with the consequences no matter what?
    Again, you clearly display you have no clue on the issue.

    The idea of the bill is not to require anyone to give birth. It isn't about preventing abortion.

    It is about preventing FEDERAL FUNDS FROM BEING USED in paying for them.

    This "War on Women" nonsense works wonders on the weak-minded.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Absolute nonsense. Believing a fetus is a living human being that deserves the rights of a citizen is a fantasy position no better than the position of the most leftist women who believes a crying baby that's still attached by an umbilical cord is still her body with full rights to abortion.
    Oh this is wonderful. Winston has conclusively determined when a human being deserves rights. Apparently, it is at some clear, definable milestone some time after conception and some time before birth.

    Care to share this knowledge with the world? We're all very interested. You could end all of this abortion debate right now.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Oh this is wonderful. Winston has conclusively determined when a human being deserves rights. Apparently, it is at some clear, definable milestone some time after conception and some time before birth.

    Care to share this knowledge with the world? We're all very interested. You could end all of this abortion debate right now.
    I live in the USA and rights are established in the USA by documents and courts granted to citizens and people who are born into the world.

    When are you going to start determing if someone is a natural born citizen by when they were concieved?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-27-2012 at 11:57 AM.

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I live in the USA and rights are established in the USA by documents and courts ...
    Great. Looking forward to some explanations on the justification of the rampant inconsistencies in those documents and decisions.

    For example, how come I can abort a fetus, but if I murder a pregnant woman, I will be charged with two counts? Murdered fetuses have rights but aborted ones don't?

    Are you married to government documents and court decisions? Are they unchangeable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    ...granted to citizens and people who are born into the world.
    So only "born" people have rights? Is that what you're saying? Didn't you just say this uber-lib stance is ridiculous? Again, please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    When are you going to start determing if someone is a natural born citizen by when they were concieved?
    Citizen? That's not the issue at all. I can only determine that someone is a human life at the point of conception. This is indisputable. Last I checked, I am not clear to kill people in this country, even if they are not citizens.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    =JetPotato;4568021]Great. Looking forward to some explanations on the justification of the rampant inconsistencies in those documents and decisions.

    For example, how come I can abort a fetus, but if I murder a pregnant woman, I will be charged with two counts? Murdered fetuses have rights but aborted ones don't?
    Charging the person who committed the crime gives no rights to the dead feteous or the murdered women.

    Are you married to government documents and court decisions? Are they unchangeable?
    I'm married to the practical notion that until someone is born they aren't a person even though they are human life.


    So only "born" people have rights? Is that what you're saying? Didn't you just say this uber-lib stance is ridiculous? Again, please explain.

    The abortion debate as I see it is about restricting the womens choice. If her choice is restricted she might produce a child with rights. If her choice isn't restricted and she choices to abort she will not produce a child with rights. In either case a child with rights doesn't exist even though a human life does. The same is true of the crime. The law doesn’t impact the murdered mother or fetus, only the murderer if convicted. This is about the women’s right to choice regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

    Today women have the right to choice. The Republican platform is about rolling back those rights. A good portion of the public understands there are competing interest when it comes to a person who actually exists in the world and human life that isn’t a person in the world, most people understand that when it comes to abortion there is a competing interest between the person with rights and the human life that hasn’t been born yet. You may not give a crap and feel one interest totally outweighs the other and the other side may very well feel the opposite but I believe both sides aren’t in touch with were the public is. The fact that Republicans want to have this both ways and by that I mean an absolute position on their platform for their base while playing it down for the center is very telling. The fact that Democrats have moved the bar from a competing interest where the first trimester to simply a “Women’s Right to choose” is also very telling.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us