See? WTF people?! No one told me this shit was happening. I see a gun thread and I don't go in. And since I started here on page 9, I now have to go back to page 1 to see WTF happened in here.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Honestly, unless you are also worried about police that walk around with a gun (not concealed), then I don't get it with a handgun as I feel a cop is just as likely to do something crazy as someone walking around with a permitted weapon. I don't get the tiny penis thing, either. Is that true of police?
Um. No?
......or so I've heard.
Yeah, I'm way late to this, so what? I only had to read half of the first page to see WTF happened in here and am reminded why I don't hang out in the gun threads.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Honestly, unless you are also worried about police that walk around with a gun (not concealed), then I don't get it with a handgun as I feel a cop is just as likely to do something crazy as someone walking around with a permitted weapon. I don't get the tiny penis thing, either. Is that true of police?
Um. No?
......or so I've heard.
Yeah, I'm way late to this, so what? I only had to read half of the first page to see WTF happened in here and am reminded why I don't hang out in the gun threads.
Huh? The tiny penises thing was not my point (I hope you didn't read it that way). My point was do people feel worried when they see a LEO with a holstered weapon out in the open, or is it just John Q Public?
Yeah, I'm way late to this, so what? I only had to read half of the first page to see WTF happened in here and am reminded why I don't hang out in the gun threads.
Huh? The tiny penises thing was not my point (I hope you didn't read it that way). My point was do people feel worried when they see a LEO with a holstered weapon out in the open, or is it just John Q Public?
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Huh? The tiny penises thing was not my point (I hope you didn't read it that way). My point was do people feel worried when they see a LEO with a holstered weapon out in the open, or is it just John Q Public?
I got it....and then I twisted it.
Oh phew. I was all "I have no idea of penis size!!"
you just posted some mother jones links and told me this IS the GOP. :S They are not the GOP or a majority of the GOP because data. The party doesn't control who throws their hat in the ring. It is ludicrous to act like those examples mean those candidates don't support any exceptions, or that most of them are even viable candidates, or that they represent the entire party. do obama's opinions represent the entire Dem party? ETA: I mean opinions he actually has, not ones Free Republic decided he had. He actually won his election, which is more than Huckabee will ever get, but I did not believe he spoke for Ds when he said marriage was between a man and a woman, for example. Does Bernie Sanders speak for all D candidates or all Ds in general? Does O'Malley? As much as libs here wish they did we all know they don't and because of that have no chance of winning the nomination. (I'm close to convincing myself that their sole purpose in running is to make HRC look better/more moderate than she otherwise would.) Ds make a living out of making Rs seem more extreme than they actually are. Thats basically mother jones' raison d'être. That's politics. Rs do the same thing to Ds. We should be able to see past that.
OK, the one link is from Mother Jones (I accidentally pasted it twice), but are the facts wrong? They can be verified elsewhere. You can see a video of him saying he supports the amendment directly:
I'm not making it up that they don't support any exceptions. These candidates are saying it themselves!
Here is the official GOP platform, straight from the horse's mouth. It is strongly anti-abortion but is silent on any exceptions for rape or incest or the mother's life:
Paul Ryan, who was the official GOP candidate for VP - not some fringe guy with no chance - sponsored legislation that would ban abortion and allow no exceptions, and the Romney-Ryan campaign confirmed that yes, Ryan believes there should be no rape exception.
I just had a decent response with links and my stupid phone ate it.
Quickly because I have to get going... Re: Huckabee. I didn't say he supported exceptions. I said as a presidential candidate his position was more nuanced. My point was even this guy who is WAY to the right on social issues was capable of moderating himself in order to have the remotest chance of getting the nomination. Re: Jeb. He did want a guardian appointed for the disabled rape victim. He was quoted as saying both should have a guardian because of the uniqueness of the case. From what I read he didn't need to appoint one for her because the woman got a guardian as part of the regular process. The other example is not convincing because Bush reversed himself on that and stopped fighting it. Ontheissues for Jeb says, "Supports the following principles concerning abortion:Abortions should be legal only when pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered." And that's not revised by later statements to the contrary. Re: Paul Ryan. Are we just going to keep naming names until we've conducted our own survey of R candidates? Romney. Newt. Ron Paul all were quoted as supporting exceptions. I don't remember who else ran and it doesn't really matter because they all lost to Romney who was obv the most moderate candidate. It is clear what the majority think and politicians being what they are will mostly fall in line, or lose.
So the data don't matter, but a few candidates who have no chance of winning do matter and represent R politicians in general?
That list is also missing some likely candidates, but it's too early to have a full list. Mike pence, Mitch Daniels, jeb bush, john kasich all support exceptions. Even Scott Walker, for all his comments on the 20-wk ban, supports an exception before 20w. I have no idea who else will run. I'm sure whoever ends up with the nomination will fall in line with the majority. Even those who say they oppose exceptions are more nuanced than they are painted. Huckabee for example said in his last election that he'd seek to change people's hearts on abortion, not impose legislation on everyone. They're all politicians, not crusaders, even though Ds love to think otherwise.
Mike Huckabee also then bragged about all the restrictions on abortion he has passed.
In a post previous to this one, you said that these candidates are not extreme.
Extremism operates on fear. See the way they talk about Christianity under attack. Huckabee has said that gays will outlaw religion and criminalize Christianity. Ted Cruz said that Senate Democrats were voting to repeal the First Amendment.
Extremism operates on dominance. Various candidates on the list have strongly Christian theocratic notions. Huckabee saying that not teaching Christianity in schools caused Sandy Hook. Jeb Bush's Amendment 7 problem. Cruz's dabbling in Dominionism. Did you know that Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal are going to Israel with the Family Research Council this fall? The FRC is the organization classified as a hate group which is up to its ass in the Uganda execution of gays bill.
Extremism operates on falsehood. See Bobby Jindal* publicly telling lies about Muslim no-go zones that apparently exist in England. While he was in England, to an English audience, no less. (Yes, I know Jindal hasn't officially declared for 2016 yet. So if you're uncomfortable with the Jindal example, revisit the fear ones above as examples of falsehood).
In fact, the 20 week abortion ban, which you brought up, and which is endorsed by all candidates, is an excellent example of extremism. It is founded on fetal pain, which denies the mainstream medical community's professional assessment and research that fetal pain is not physiologically possible before 29-30 weeks. It ignores the method used for late term terminations, which consists of stopping the fetal heart. The 20 week ban's medical premise is the abortion equivalent of anti-vax sentiment. It thus is based on falsehood and seeks to perpetuate untruths to establish its claim.
It also demonstrates extremism because it is deliberately meant to be unConstitutional and violate the holdings of Roe-- and all other holdings SINCE Roe. Danforth: "viability was a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability." Franklin: "neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability-- be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor-- as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest." Webster said the exact same thing 10 years alter, word for word. Casey reaffirmed Roe's viability standard. And yet, here we have a slew of politicians violating at least 5 holdings.
Back to the rape exception... Huckabee defended Todd Legitimate Rape Akin. He said that Republicans should have been supporting him, not distancing themselves from him. He then said that Akin didn't mean legitimate rape; he meant forcible rape. Because that term apparently something different? They don't even really seem to believe that rape exists, so I'm unconvinced by any of them who will allow for an exception.
So we are supposed to accept that they're not crusaders because they might believe in a rape exception, despite all their rhetoric and antics of extremism?
This is the same kind of mental acrobatics in 2012 when people were like "oh, Paul Ryan isn't really trying to restrict abortion. He's running as a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative. His voting record doesn't matter compared to the lack of times he talked about [social issue of choice].
You provided numbers on R's might support choice to some extent. Thanks for that. I can add to those, not specifically R related, that support for choice seems to be at a record high (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx) and that even more people identify as supporting termination when the questions are more specific (chart vomit: themonkeycage.org/2009/05/16/has_the_public_become_more_opp/)
But what I am saying is that it doesn't matter because the R candidates haven't been listening and continue to up the ante on this topic and religious ones at large. The GOP as a whole did when it modified its position on abortion, which ttt and I both pointed out
IMO, with all the talk of cleaning up the board discourse, it would go some distance toward that goal if right-leaning people would stop telling me that I am imagining things and that extreme positions are not extreme.