DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 11, 2012, 07:39:55 PM
-
Sen. DeMint urges Republicans to listen to Ron Paul
By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/11/12 11:10 AM ET
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.
"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."
Paul's views on foreign policy have taken plenty of heat from his rivals for the GOP nomination, who have slammed his views on the topic as outside of the mainstream of Republican thought. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called his views "dangerous" before dropping out of the race.
DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul's been talking about for years because the Republican Party "needs" the libertarian movement.
"You don't have to agree with everything he's saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he's saying about monetary policy ... that will be to our detriment," DeMint said.
DeMint, who is an influential conservative lawmaker with a key role in the Tea Party movement, said the debate within the Republican Party he's most comfortable with is between conservatives and libertarians.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul-?tmpl=component&print=1&page= (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul-?tmpl=component&print=1&page=)
-
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.
Why? The most important components of "libertarian ideas" already are part of the GOP platform, or at least in the stump speeches, of pretty much every candidate......fiscal responsibility, limited government. In fact, if Paul were to intregrate some of the the Foreign domestic components of the GOP patform, and what Reagan espoused, as it relates to foreign policy, Paul would look far more plausible as a Presidential nominee
Just my 2 cents
And, on a side note, are we now planning on using our original saloon here, vs the new model?
-
why?
because we are going to need all the support we can get
to rid ourselves of the clown currently in the oval office.
ron paul speaks the truth on many domestic issues
-
The most important components of "libertarian ideas" already are part of the GOP platform, or at least in the stump speeches, of pretty much every candidate......fiscal responsibility, limited government.
=====================================\
That is not even sort of true.
Paul advocates an end to the War on Drugs, is for decriminalization of marijuana, believes that the Patriot Act should be repealed, and opposes aid to Israel and having 900 bases all over the planet. He also should support a woman's right to an abortion.
Jim DeMint is a world class prick.
-
why?
because we are going to need all the support we can get
to rid ourselves of the clown currently in the oval office.
I don't see how trying to adopt a Libertarian's more radical ideas of just how limiting government should be, is the avenue which brings more "support". Just the other day, I was listening to 2 fellas, who had both voted for Obama, are currently now completely disgusted with him, and would vote Romney in a heartbeat. Paul, or even Gingrich would likely have them sitting out the next election, or so the inferrence was made.
ron paul speaks the truth on many domestic issues
Never claimed otherwise. His speaking on foreign issues however is a far inferior matter
-
The most important components of "libertarian ideas" already are part of the GOP platform, or at least in the stump speeches, of pretty much every candidate......fiscal responsibility, limited government.
=====================================\
That is not even sort of true.
Paul advocates an end to the War on Drugs, is for decriminalization of marijuana, believes that the Patriot Act should be repealed, and opposes aid to Israel and having 900 bases all over the planet. He also should support a woman's right to an abortion.
See, it's moments like these where I really have to question your position as some professor of language. The most important components of the Libertarian platform is already a part of the conservative republican platform, such as fiscal responsibility & limited government. Not NO Government, but limited, as the framers and our constitution had intended. The garbage you're talking about, is the stuff not being referenced as part of the GOP platform. At least not from any candidate I'm aware of.
And standing on a position of supporting the killing an unborn child at any time isn't going to gain him any brownie points either.
So yea, its really very true
Jim DeMint is a world class prick.
Just can't resist getting in some bit of 3rd grade name calling, can you
-
DeMint is a world class prick.
\
And the core of Libertarianism does not deal with taxes, either.
There has not been a semblance of a Republican balanced budget since at least Eisenhower. The GOP platform is irelevant to what these creeps actually do.
It deals with individual rights, not some demented religious nutcase ing you that the State has a right to impose itself on ones' own body. There is no such thing as an unborn child.
Until it is born it is a FETUS, not a child.
-
DeMint is a world class prick.
Yea, we got that the 1st time you used that 3rd grade slur
And the core of Libertarianism does not deal with taxes, either.
Who said it did??
There has not been a semblance of a Republican balanced budget since at least Eisenhower.
Wrong again. We had one under Gingrich. It wasn't Clinton's budget that brought the Government under balanced. It was DOA in the House, much like Reagan's were, led by Gingrich. It was the House Republicans' budget that balanced the Fed's books
Until it is born it is a FETUS, not a child.
Wrong again. Court after court, across the country applies the count of 2 individual PERSONS murdered, when a preganant women is murdered. There is no differentiaton
-
Until it is born it is a FETUS, not a child.
yeah sure
shame on you!
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fetus-482.jpg)
Demonstration of Partial Birth Abortion / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video PSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmGpNMef47w#)
-
A fetus is a fetus, an infant is an infant, and a child is a child. A new born infant is where we start considering that they are a living breathing independent individual. You wackos can pretend till the cows come home but those are the facts. Further, what this society needs is for many of these unwed mothers to have considered abortion more seriously than they apparently did. A child born into such a situation has far greater chance of winding up poorly educated, drug dependent, incarcerated, and disadvantaged in almost every category you can think of.
Who is thinking of the child? Those of us who are committed to a society that allows for access to legal, and as safe as is medically possible, abortions.
BSB
P.S. As for libertarianism? It's a fun fantasy to entertain when you're in high school.
-
I amused myself by reading Ayn Rand in HS and college.
But then I put away childish things.
-
A fetus is a fetus, an infant is an infant, and a child is a child. A new born infant is where we start considering that they are a living breathing independent individual. You wackos can pretend till the cows come home but those are the facts.
Except in most courts across the country, in which an unborn CHILD is still considered an individual. And those are the facts. Or is math different in the BsB household, where 2 murders actually only equals 1?
Further, what this society needs is for many of these unwed mothers to have considered abortion more seriously than they apparently did.
Perhaps we can get PP to stop trying to prevent mothers from being denied Ultrasounds of their unborn child
A child born into such a situation has far greater chance of winding up poorly educated, drug dependent, incarcerated, and disadvantaged in almost every category you can think of.
Who is thinking of the child? Those of us who are committed to a society that allows for access to legal, and as safe as is medically possible, abortions.
Spin it however you want, but not even in the slightest. Supporting the death of that child is in no way "thinking of the child". But at least you're referencing a CHILD, and not some nebulous mass of fetal tissue to try and clean your conscience, like some others. I'll give you high marks for speaking truth to the matter
-
There is no child. It is a delusion.
-
A delusion courts across the country apparently share. But by all means, keep deluding yourself that its merely some mass of cells that magically *poof* becomes a child.....just add air & light
-
What is going on in someone else's body cannot be my concern. A person's right to reproduce is absolute and none of your beeswax.
I have no more reason to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion than I do to tell you that you cannot remove the tonsils, adenoids or rotten tooth that God, in all his wisdom, gave you.
If a person has no control over their own body, they are not a free person.
As I have said, if men got pregnant, abortions would be a sacrament.
-
What is going on in someone else's body cannot be my concern. A person's right to reproduce is absolute and none of your beeswax.
Absolutely....no issue there. The issue becomes when a 2nd person is added into the equation. A person that the courts count as a PERSON, when we're talking about the murder of a pregnant woman, and there's a count of 2 persons murdered
I have no more reason to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion than I do to tell you that you cannot remove the tonsils, adenoids or rotten tooth that God, in all his wisdom, gave you.
Probabaly because the latter doesn't involve a seperate innocent life
If a person has no control over their own body, they are not a free person.
A person has every right to do whatever they want to their own body.........UNTIL IT INVOLVES ANOTHER PERSON. That is at the heart of rights & freedom, in this country
-
1 person + one fetus= one person.
-
And FACTS refute that in a court of law. 1 Person + 1 "fetus" = 2 persons
-
And FACTS refute that in a court of law. 1 Person + 1 "fetus" = 2 persons
No they don't.
-
Courts across the country, say otherwise, I'm afraid
-
Courts across the country, say otherwise, I'm afraid
Well you made the claim, show where the charges are exactly the same for the homicide of the mother and the homicide of the fetus.
-
Per your request (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386)
-
Sorry. That doesn't meet my request, in fact it proves my point and disputes yours. See feticide vs homicide.
Let's make it easier. Please cite court cases where the fetus is granted full and complete personhood rights. Rights that override the rights of the mother at the non viable stages of the development of the fetus.
-
Sorry. That doesn't meet my request, in fact it proves my point and disputes yours. See feticide vs homicide.
Actually it does...suffice's your request in information regarding Fetal homicides, and how courts across the country will aknowledge the death of 2 persons, in the homicide of a preganant woman.
Sorry, those are the facts, as I referenced earlier
Let's make it easier. Please cite court cases where the fetus is granted full and complete personhood rights. Rights that override the rights of the mother at the non viable stages of the development of the fetus.
I'll make it even easier.....Not the claim I made, but nice try
-
Even if it were legally so, that would not make a fetus a person anymore than a law could make a jackrabbit a person or sirs a jackalope.
-
Sorry. That doesn't meet my request, in fact it proves my point and disputes yours. See feticide vs homicide.
Actually it does...suffice's your request in information regarding Fetal homicides, and how courts across the country will aknowledge the death of 2 persons, in the homicide of a preganant woman.
Sorry, those are the facts, as I referenced earlier
Let's make it easier. Please cite court cases where the fetus is granted full and complete personhood rights. Rights that override the rights of the mother at the non viable stages of the development of the fetus.
I'll make it even easier.....Not the claim I made, but nice try
So if the fetus is not given complete personhood rights how is the homicide of the fetus and the mother treated as well as called the same crime.
1 Person + 1 "fetus" = 2 persons
Are you stepping back from that statement?
-
Even if it were legally so,
It is, in courts across the country. THAT's the fact I was refernecing.
... that would not make a fetus a person anymore than a law could make a jackrabbit a person
Hardly. But of course, you'll do what i just did and present some facts to back up where any court across the country presented a jackrabbit as a person, in some form or fashion. Good luck with that
or sirs a jackalope.
And the trademark Xo effort and 3rd grade insulting. Or perhaps we can demote that to 2nd grade, at this juncture. tsk tsk tsk
-
So if the fetus is not given complete personhood rights how is the homicide of the fetus and the mother treated as well as called the same crime.
It's called the murder of 2 persons, with a subsequent conviction, in a court of law as such, if found guilty, in courts across the country ::)
-
So if the fetus is considered a person by the courts, how is the killing of this person by abortion considered legal by these same courts?
-
You're going to have to take that up with the Judicial system, not to mention why so many folks don't support abortion. Pretty abhorent double standard, if you ask me
-
Perhaps it is because the laws against feticide:
1.) Do not grant full personhood to a fetus
2.) have an exception for abortions.
-
Regardless of the "perhaps" theory, FACTS still provide the murder of 2 persons, in the case of a murder of a pregnant woman, in courts across the country
-
Was that the verdict with the Peterson Case?
Double homicide?
or were the verdicts different for the mother and the fetus?
-
IIRC, 2 counts of murder, as in 2 persons were killed
-
If you cannot tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, you are simply defective.
You should be served some hard-boiled chicks for breakfast or have some scrambled chicks or perhaps a dish of ham and chicks, just so you can understand.
-
If you cannot tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, you are simply defective.
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fetus-482.jpg)
Sematics is a game for others who have far too much time on their hands...so much time, yet they can't even improve in their knee jerk remedial insult responses. I'll just leave you with the judicial facts to continue to fluster you with
-
I can tell that this is a picture of a FETUS.
If you cannot, you are defective.
-
Xo now moving to 1st grade level
-
IIRC, 2 counts of murder, as in 2 persons were killed
You recall incorrectly.
-
1 count of 1st degree murder
1 count of 2nd degree murder
Nope, I recalled correctly
-
Why the differentiation between the verdicts?
-
:o I hope you're not insinuating that every man, woman and child that was a victim to a 2nd degree murder convicted criminal, is less a murdered person. I sure as hell hope that's not the semantic tract you're trying to take.
A murdered person is a murdered person. The degrees have to to with intent & forthought, NOT if the victim is a person or less of one
-
So the degree has to do with intent and forethought, so your assertion is than when Scott decided to kill the mother in the first degree it was not his intent to kill the baby at the same time?
-
I think we should leave the psychoanalyzing as to what Scott's intent was or wasn't to the Psychiatrists, as we would merely be speculating. The law sees 2nd degree murder, as intentional as well, so again, not sure what semantic game you're playing.
Bottom FACTUAL line is 2, count them 2 murder convictions, per the example YOU prompted....not to mention wrong about my recollection
-
I don't recall psychiatrists prodding the jurors. And i can see that you can't explain why the need for separate and different verdicts. I suspect it had to do with the status of the victims.
-
Bottom FACTUAL line is 2, count them, 2 murder convictions, per the example YOU prompted of a pregnant woman....not to mention wrong about my recollection
-
Bottom factual line is there were two verdicts
One per victim
for the mother: Murder in the first degree with special circumstances
for the fetus: murder in the second degree with special circumstances
The verdicts were not identical.
However
You are correct that many states treat fetuses as persons for the purpose of homicide, as long as those same laws provide an exception for abortion.
So I am not sure where you are going with your personhood argument.
-
I am really tired of this abortion debate. No one is ever going to convince me that a woman does not have an absolute right to an abortion of she wishes.
-
I am really tired of this abortion debate. No one is ever going to convince me that a woman does not have an absolute right to an abortion of she wishes.
I am curious what ramifications the personhood argument would have on the right to abortion as well as the governments obligations in protecting and providing for the fetal person if they were to be considered squatters in the host persons body?
Would pregnancy be a licensed activity. Would unlicensed pregnancy be a felony?
Would we be drafting breeders and retailing surrogate births at the mall. Would eugenics come back into fashion? Would quota systems be put into place ?
-
Bottom factual line is there were two verdicts
Yes, I think I already said that....2 counts of murder ::)
One per victim
for the mother: Murder in the first degree with special circumstances
for the fetus: murder in the second degree with special circumstances
The verdicts were not identical.
Never claimed they were. I made it perfectly clear that there were 2 murders...that is 2 PERSONS murdered, as declared by a court of law. But at least I appreciate your useof the term victim, for the unborn child
So I am not sure where you are going with your personhood argument.
Merely reinforcing the fact, that courts across the country see that unborn child as a distinct seperate person, unlike those who try to hide behind the semantics of the term fetus, and that supposedly makes them a non-person, thus allowing them to support the killing of that "non-person" by way of an abortion
-
What the laws don't do is grant the full rights personhood to the fetus. And they often have a clause that allows for the abortion of said fetus.
So again i think this is just a semantics game by the pro life team because they haven't really accomplished what they set out to do with the granting of personhood to the fetus with very limited rights.
-
What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story
-
What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story
What law is it that says 2 Persons were murdered.
What you seem to be confusing is a law with a verdict.
If you would like to trot out the California Statute that Peterson was prosecuted under perhaps we can fine tune exactly what that law does and does not do.
Otherwise the story certainly isn't over, you simply abandoned your position.
-
What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story
What law is it that says 2 Persons were murdered.
The one that had 2 counts of murder. ::)
What you seem to be confusing is a law with a verdict.
No, what you're trying to do is play some semantic game, in order to placate this need to try and find me wrong in something. Murder, in a court of law is specific to people. You wish to cite us the court case where someone was guilty in the murder of something other than a person?? I have yet to see that infamous court case of the 1st degree murder of a beagle. How many murder chargers were filed against Michael Vick?
But the part that really troubles me, is your efforts minimize that murder, with this sematic game, that the unborn child's death at the hands of Perterson, is somehow less of a murder. Not sure its worse than those who try to cowardly hide behind the word, fetus, but it sure does head in that direction
You were wrong about my recollection, and you're wrong about this not being the murder of actual persons. Why?, I don't really know, but likely having to do with trying to find something wrong in what I've said, and despite even your own example, can't face the prospect that it was you, who was wrong. Perish the thought.
-
Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.
But if you can't be bothered to produce that law in California that bestows personhood on baby Peterson, so that an additional charge of homicide in the second degree with special circumstance, then i can't be bothered to explain how that same law severely limits the rights of personhood for the fetus that seems to have you all a twitter.
-
Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.
Naaaa, just logical observation, in a consistent trend of yours
But if you can't be bothered to produce that law in California that bestows personhood on baby Peterson
It's called murder, in the 2nd degree. By all means, prove me wrong and demonstrate a court case with a conviction in the murder of something else outside of a person. I'll wait patiently
-
It's all in the law used to prosecute Peterson, which you can't be bothered to produce. But that same law is what you tout as having bestowed personhood on the fetus. So if that law is the foundation of your case, please produce it for examination and further debate.
-
No, apparently the part you can't produce is ANY U.S. court case that involves the murder of something OTHER than a person
By all means, prove me wrong
-
CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16441.msg137496#msg137496 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16441.msg137496#msg137496)
Per your own link concerning the Peterson case, the law he was prosecuted under and the language of said law.
-
Which makes fetus = human being (PERSON), in the eyes of the law.......sheeesh. In particular, CA, in this case.
Thank you for helping to prove my point, yet again. If you ever do find a case where someone was convicted for the murder of something else, outside of a person, please share it with us ::)
-
Which makes fetus = human being (PERSON), in the eyes of the law.......sheeesh. In particular, CA, in this case.
Thank you for helping to prove my point, yet again. If you ever do find a case where someone was convicted for the murder of something else, outside of a person, please share it with us ::)
Actually it doesn't. If the fetus was considered a human being they wouldn't have added the additional clause. What California did was say that if you kill a fetus you will get the same penalty as if it were a human being you killed.
They didn't give a fetus personhood. They went out of their way to make sure that a fetus was a separate and distinct entity.
If you ever do find a case where someone was convicted for the murder of something else, outside of a person, please share it with us
The Peterson case serves that purpose.
-
An "entity" (I see now we're applying entity to fetus ::) ) equal to that of killing a human being. Yea, we got that the 1st time. So no examples of a murder of anything other than a person, as convicted in a U.S. court of law, (your speculation on what "special circumstances" were involved, not withstanding, which incidentially is specific to 1st degree, which was Lacy's murder.)
Glad we got that cleared up
-
The crime is murder. The objects of those murders were either a human being and a fetus or a human being or a fetus. I don't see where they valuated the separate entities. They simply defined the crime of murder to include those two entities.
Perhaps you can show where in the law they applied equality to the entities.
In the Peterson case one count was for the murder of Laci, the second count was for the murder of the fetus. I don't recall the fetus being referred to as a person in the verdict delivered by the jury. You of course are free to provide additional verifiable quotes that will give your assertion credence.
-
The crime is murder.
And murder, in a court of law, is that of a person
not a dog
not a horse
not a tree
not a virus
A human is a person, just as a fetus is......at least in the eyes of a court of law, in the state of CA. But I'm sure you'll find a murder of something other than a person. That's what's needed to proclaim how wrong I am. Good luck with that
-
A simple reading of the law shows that they do not consider a fetus as a human being. Else why add the clause including a fetus as subject to the definition of murder in the penal code. The intent of the legislature is clear. A fetus is to be considered separately from a human being. And look at the exceptions to the rule for murder.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
-
A simple reading of the law shows that they do not consider a fetus as a human being. Else why add the clause including a fetus as subject to the definition of murder in the penal code.
Because its an unborn human being, that still manages to carry the weight of a 2nd murder conviction, in the murder of its mother ::) So, until you can provide an example of a criminal court murder of something other than a person, I think we're done here
-
I provided the law in California under which Peterson was tried. I provided the law under which the jury came back with their verdict.
The law is simple.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Please observe that the law does not read: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or an unborn human being , with malice aforethought.
The fetus is a distinctly separate entity subject to the laws of your state based on the links you provided.
I have asked repeatedly for you to show any other California laws that would apply that bolster your argument and you have failed miserably to do so.
Until you can provide superceding legislation that bolsters your case, i would say that your insistence that the state of California granted personhood to the unborn Peterson fetus has been shown to be false.
-
You provided the law that supports/eqates the killing as equal. One of those persons murdered in the 1st degree, one of those persons murdered in the 2nd degree. One merely referred to as a fetus. And still no criminal examples of anything murdered, other than a person.
Yea, I think we're done
-
You provided the law that supports/eqates the killing as equal. One of those persons murdered in the 1st degree, one of those persons murdered in the 2nd degree. One merely referred to as a fetus. And still no criminal examples of anything murdered, other than a person.
Yea, I think we're done
Yes murder of fetus gets the same penalty as murder of a human being.
That does not mean that a fetus and human being are equal. And that is your claim.