Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 108

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

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Was thinking about this before, if you could ask pointed questions, allowing for reasonable answers, (not "hey, Romney, why do hate the poor?" or "hey, Obama, why do you hate America so much?") of each of the candidates, what would you ask?

    Here goes, for me:

    Obama/Biden to Romney/Paul "Do you think there is a difference between rape and "forcible rape"?"

    Romney to Obama "Why is Guantanamo Bay still open?"

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post

    Here goes, for me:

    Obama/Biden to Romney/Paul "Do you think there is a difference between rape and "forcible rape"?"
    The fact that you think this is a pertinent issue saddens me.


    The economy is in the tank.

    Unemployment is still massively high.

    The war in Afghanistan rages on.

    And you've bought the "war on women" talking points from the DNC hook, line, and sinker.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    The fact that you think this is a pertinent issue saddens me.


    The economy is in the tank.

    Unemployment is still massively high.

    The war in Afghanistan rages on.

    And you've bought the "war on women" talking points from the DNC hook, line, and sinker.
    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...?"

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    To Mitt:

    Why aren't Mormon missionaries allowed to swim?

    Why does your church partner with and provide funding to the Boy Scouts but NOT the Girl Scouts?

    Do you believe that the Earth is made up of other recycled worlds and that's where Dinosaur bones actually came from?

    Do you believe that the Earth used to orbit another star and then was relocated after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden that was in Missouri?

    Do you believe that the Holy Spirit goes to bed at midnight?







  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,460
    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...?"
    And that's the one question you'd ask

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    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...?"


    Redundant? Wow, our education levels are sinking badly.
    You have heard of the concept of statutory rape? A big difference from forcible rape.
    I do not think taxpayer money should be used for abortions except in the case of incest or forcible rape. Not morality, strictly financial decision.
    Go to a doctor for pro bono treatment if they want to help people.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    The fact that you think this is a pertinent issue saddens me.


    The economy is in the tank.

    Unemployment is still massively high.

    The war in Afghanistan rages on.

    And you've bought the "war on women" talking points from the DNC hook, line, and sinker.
    Yup, this.

    +1

    It's telling how little (D) has to run on in this cycle. There is almost no actual policy or hard success being run on......at best we get vague, meaningless, flexable cliches like "pay their fair share" or "the War on Women" or the always popular "the (R) won't compromise", which most can translate to "higher taxes" and "abortion, abortion, abortion!!!" and "why won't (R) just give in 100% instead of 95%, those bastards".

    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    I think it's a fair question to ask Ryan "Why?" and Romney "Do you think there's a difference...?"
    The answer would be simple and straitforward if (R) had any balls.

    "Because a Fetus is a seperate life from the mother, and taking life is wrong. It's horrible a women was raped, it's equally horrible for that victim to create another victim and to kill her fetus".

    In anutshell, that IS what the Pro-Life (R) crowd believes. It's worth honest debate. The shame is the (R) lacks the sack to actually be simple and straitforward about it, and instead does what it usually does, and mumbles the same old talking points that do not tackle the issue, abortion and the rights view of life, head on.

    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    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...?"
    When I was 17, I had sex, often, with my willing 16 year old girlfriend. We'd been together since I was 16, and she 15.

    Did I rape her? Was it forcible?

    Are they one and the same?

    Is it possible the party that always claims things are not black and white is suddenly making a black/white only argument for political gain?

    Is it also possible that same party used rape/incest abortions (a tiny tiny fraction of those performed) in order to defend the vastly more common abortion-for-convenience/family planning that do occur?

    Also, I assume if you are a crusader against redundency, we have you support in cutting ALL redundant and/or dumplicative Govt. Programs currently in place, right?
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-25-2012 at 11:26 AM.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yea, see the whole statutory rape argument doesn't fly for defending the term "forcible rape".

    Rape, by definition, is forcible. When you put statutory in front of it, the meaning is changed, when you put forcible in front of it, the meaning is not.

    And speaking of "running on nothing", you can go ahead and tell us exactly what Mitt Romney will do... Oh yea, he hasn't said sh*t, vaguest platform since Bush in 2000.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    And that's the one question you'd ask
    I never said you only get one question... I mean, really, do you not also want to hear him answer that?

    You don't? You'd rather ask a question about the war and hear him (either candidate) wax poetic about our soldiers bravery while saying he'll listen to our generals on when to pull out of Afghanistan, even though he's the Commander in Chief.

    Or would you rather ask him about the economy, which he has been asked for several years now and hasn't said sh*t. "Get government out of the way" - great Mitt, we've heard that one before - What exactly will you do? "I'll lower taxes and cut spending", "Which taxes and which spending?", "You'll just have to see motherfu**er!"

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Yup, this.

    +1

    It's telling how little (D) has to run on in this cycle. There is almost no actual policy or hard success being run on......at best we get vague, meaningless, flexable cliches like "pay their fair share" or "the War on Women" or the always popular "the (R) won't compromise", which most can translate to "higher taxes" and "abortion, abortion, abortion!!!" and "why won't (R) just give in 100% instead of 95%, those bastards".
    Little to run on? This election is the GOP's to lose and they're losing it hard. Romney was the best you could do and now you and Bonhomme are defending making a distinction between rape and "forcible rape".



    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    The answer would be simple and straitforward if (R) had any balls.

    "Because a Fetus is a seperate life from the mother, and taking life is wrong. It's horrible a women was raped, it's equally horrible for that victim to create another victim and to kill her fetus".

    In anutshell, that IS what the Pro-Life (R) crowd believes. It's worth honest debate. The shame is the (R) lacks the sack to actually be simple and straitforward about it, and instead does what it usually does, and mumbles the same old talking points that do not tackle the issue, abortion and the rights view of life, head on.
    Good luck with that "honest debate". No woman should ever be forced to give birth to a child she conceived through rape. Simple. If you believe differently, sure, say it openly - my guess is you'll lose the election because 9 out of every 10 women will say "F*** you".



    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    When I was 17, I had sex, often, with my willing 16 year old girlfriend. We'd been together since I was 16, and she 15.

    Did I rape her? Was it forcible?

    Are they one and the same?

    Is it possible the party that always claims things are not black and white is suddenly making a black/white only argument for political gain?

    Is it also possible that same party used rape/incest abortions (a tiny tiny fraction of those performed) in order to defend the vastly more common abortion-for-convenience/family planning that do occur?

    Also, I assume if you are a crusader against redundency, we have you support in cutting ALL redundant and/or dumplicative Govt. Programs currently in place, right?
    See, we already have language for that situation - statutory rape. When you put statutory in front of rape, it means something else, when you put forcible in front of rape, it does not change the meaning as rape alone explicitly means forced by definition.

    And yea, I wasn't really crusading for anything Warfish, that seems to be you in this thread. I just want to ask Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if they see a difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"... but ugh, yea I'm down to cut redundancies in government.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    You have heard of the concept of statutory rape? A big difference from forcible rape.
    Hmmm.

    The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states.
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmetto
    Not morality, strictly financial decision.
    Go to a doctor for pro bono treatment if they want to help people.
    There you have it. Palmetto. Wanting children to have their rapists babies. For morality.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Little to run on? This election is the GOP's to lose and they're losing it hard.
    1. Yes, nothing to run on. If they had something to run on, we'd hear more about that from them, and less about why Romney is a General in a War on Women.

    And the polls I've heard reported would imply he is not, as yet, "losing it hard".

    Romney was the best you....
    I'm a Libertarian, who will be voting Libertarian.

    There is no "you" in regards to myself and Romeny/Ryan.

    Good luck with that "honest debate". No woman should ever be forced to give birth to a child she conceived through rape. Simple.
    Simple, as in simply your opinion and your position on the life of a fetus.

    That opinion is not shared by all.

    Hence why an honest debate, not the current ongoing dishonest code-word-filled debates we currently have.

    For example, you don't actullay think the issue is the abillity to make choices, do you? or "womens Health", do you?

    The issue is, and always has been, the right to terminate fetuses for any reason someone may choose, and those who stand against that position. Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion.

    See, we already have language for that situation - statutory rape.
    All "statutory" means is by statute. Nothing more or less, and isn't generally used in actual Law.

    Also:

    In statutory rape, overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
    So I'll ask again, am I a rapist?

    I just want to ask Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if they see a difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"... but ugh, yea I'm down to cut redundancies in government.
    And in a week, when a different issue unrelated to any major policy or current event hits the news, THAT will be what you want to ask.

    I assure you, the intentions here are as transparant as the air itself.

    The only way to win for Obama is to convince women, minorities and the so-called poor that Romney will take away their abortions (he won't and can't), their special treatement (he won't) and their endless benefits and special programs and abillity to abuse same (he might, but not much).

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,163
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    This election is the GOP's to lose and they're losing it hard.
    Thanks for the laugh.

    I guess there was no getting up once the Obama/Biden freight train ran you over.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    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...?"
    It's actually not redundant; statutory rape is non-forcible.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Yea, see the whole statutory rape argument doesn't fly for defending the term "forcible rape".

    Rape, by definition, is forcible. When you put statutory in front of it, the meaning is changed, when you put forcible in front of it, the meaning is not.
    Not really. As a legal matter, statutory rape is rape. Period. When drafting a federal law, a "rape" exception" will cover statutory rape

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    For starters: Wait until Obama starts talking about his budget proposal. Then I'd ask: "Are you referring to the budget you proposed that couldn't get a single vote in the House or Senate or is this a new one?

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    The fact that you think this is a pertinent issue saddens me.


    The economy is in the tank.

    Unemployment is still massively high.

    The war in Afghanistan rages on.

    And you've bought the "war on women" talking points from the DNC hook, line, and sinker.
    Then why is the Republican Party putting it in it's platform if it's not pertinent? When one political party is trying to take away rights from a class of citizens it most certainly is pertinent and worthy of debate.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Then why is the Republican Party putting it in it's platform if it's not pertinent? When one political party is trying to take away rights from a class of citizens it most certainly is pertinent and worthy of debate.
    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 . . .

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Then why is the Republican Party putting it in it's platform if it's not pertinent? When one political party is trying to take away rights from a class of citizens it most certainly is pertinent and worthy of debate.
    Their platform has included that language for 20+ years. I think some of the new additions to the platform are more relevant for discussion. For example they added language about supporting an audit of the Fed in the new draft. They also added language supporting revenue neutral tax reform.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Hmmm.





    There you have it. Palmetto. Wanting children to have their rapists babies. For morality.
    And there you have a clear indicator of what it means to lack reading comprehension. Why am I not surprised at your twisting comments.
    Not for morality means I don't not care about the moral implications of abortion. Want an abortion? Then pay for it. It was pretty clear that rape and incest are an exception and the government (at whatever level should pay). There is something called the VCCB (every court fine has this added on) the Victim's Crime Compensation, yes, but Warfish's example is common - lots of teens a year apart (underage) engaging. Someone could be charged if an irate parent complains.

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