DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on February 04, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
-
The GOP should lead this movement
*****************************
Effort building to change US pot laws
Feb 4, 4:26 PM (ET)
By GENE JOHNSON
Effort building to change US pot laws
SEATTLE (AP) - An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a hefty federal pot tax.
While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.
Polis' measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it's legal to one where it isn't.
The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.
Blumenauer's bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax of 50 percent on the "first sale" of marijuana - typically, from a grower to a processor or retailer. It also would tax pot producers or importers $1,000 annually and other marijuana businesses $500.
His office said Monday it doesn't yet have an estimate of how much the taxes might bring in. But a policy paper Blumenauer and Polis are releasing this week suggests, based on admittedly vague estimates, that a federal tax of $50 per ounce could raise $20 billion a year. They call for directing the money to law enforcement, substance abuse treatment and the national debt.
Last fall's votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalize recreational marijuana should push Congress to end the 75-year federal pot prohibition, Blumenauer said.
Washington state officials have estimated that its legal marijuana market could bring in about half a billion dollars a year in state taxes.
"You folks in Washington and my friends in Colorado really upset the apple cart," Blumenauer said. "We're still arresting two-thirds of a million people for use of a substance that a majority feel should be legal. ... It's past time for us to step in and try to sort this stuff out."
Advocates who are working with the lawmakers acknowledge it could take years for any changes to get through Congress, but they're encouraged by recent developments. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week came out in support of efforts to legalize hemp in his home state of Kentucky, and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is expected to introduce legislation allowing states to set their own policy on marijuana.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has indicated he plans to hold a hearing on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws and has urged an end to federal "mandatory minimum" sentences that lead to long prison stints for drug crimes.
"We're seeing enormous political momentum to undo the drug war failings of the past 40 years," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, who has been working with lawmakers on marijuana-related bills. "For the first time, the wind is behind our back."
The Justice Department hasn't said how it plans to respond to the votes in Washington and Colorado. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so would conflict with federal drug law.
Blumenauer and Polis' paper urges a number of changes, including altering tax codes to let marijuana dispensaries deduct business expenses on federal taxes, and making it easier for marijuana-related businesses to get bank accounts. Many operate on a cash basis because federally insured banks won't work with them, they noted.
Blumenauer said he expects to introduce the tax-code legislation as well as a bill that would reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to enact medical marijuana laws without fear that federal authorities will continue raiding dispensaries or prosecuting providers. It makes no sense that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than cocaine, Blumenauer said.
The measures have little chance of passing, said Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser. Sabet recently joined former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy and former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in forming a group called Project SAM - for "smart approaches to marijuana" - to counter the growing legalization movement. Sabet noted that previous federal legalization measures have always failed.
"These are really extreme solutions to the marijuana problem we have in this country," Sabet said. "The marijuana problem we have is a problem of addiction among kids, and stigma of people who have a criminal record for marijuana crimes.
"There are a lot more people in Congress who think that marijuana should be illegal but treated as a public health problem, than think it should be legal."
Project SAM suggests people shouldn't get criminal records for small-time marijuana offenses, but instead could face probation or treatment.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130204/DA482F300.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130204/DA482F300.html)
-
The Republicans are not bright enough to see that ending the war on drugs and admitting that pot is here to stay is a solid idea whose time has come.
-
And yet i just advocated it.
-
But you do not control the GOP, now, do you?
-
No one controls the GOP.
But they are influenced by the libertarians amongst us.
-
I like the idea.
Drug policy needs a general rework.
Only drugs that have truly proven harmfull should be against any law, and the proof should be scientific.
Republicans can be persuaded, but it is important to start at the bottom with the persuasion.
-
I like the idea.
Me too Plane....but it is funny that many liberals want to legalize pot,
yet they also want to regulate soft drinks, sugar and trans fats..
Just like they pressure the Boy Scouts to admit homos,
but when will they pressure CAIR & other Muslim groups to accept homos too?
Ha Ha....dont hold your breath!
-
C_Only steers and queers come from Texas_U "Just like they pressure the Boy Scouts to admit homos"
No one is pressuring the Boy Scouts to do anything. They're just catching up with the times so they don't become as irrelevant as Sarah Palin.
BSB
-
No one is pressuring the Boy Scouts to do anything.
"President Obama has put additional pressure on the Boy Scouts of America, the day before the organization's national board meets to discuss rescinding its ban on gay scouts"
http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/02/04/obama-says-scouts-should-allow-gay-members/ (http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/02/04/obama-says-scouts-should-allow-gay-members/)
This Wednesday, the Boy Scouts of America's (BSA) Executive Board will consider removing the controversial ban on gay members and allow each individual troop to adopt its own policy on gay scouts. The board publicly reaffirmed the anti-gay policy just last summer, but recent pressure from gay rights groups, corporate sponsors, and Bay Area troops has forced the governing body to revisit the blanket prohibition on gay members.
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/04/trail-historic-gay-boy-scouts-vote-started-bay-area (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/04/trail-historic-gay-boy-scouts-vote-started-bay-area)
Under pressure, Boy Scouts may ease no-gays policy
AP National Writer, By DAVID CRARY - January 29, 2013
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Under-pressure-Boy-Scouts-may-ease-no-gays-policy-4230852.php (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Under-pressure-Boy-Scouts-may-ease-no-gays-policy-4230852.php)
-
Simply stating that the Boy Scouts should accept gays is not pressuring them, it is just stating an opinion,
For example, if I tell "Christians" to go suck an egg, is that pressuring him to suck an egg?
I think not.
As an Eagle Scout, I think that the Boy Scouts should accept gays.
Again, it would be great to end the war on pot smokers. It is not the same as limiting the amount of sweetened soft drinks to one pint containers. Those who are really all that thirsty can buy two, or buy no calorie drinks. They can take that same cup and refill it with water.
No one is going to be thrown in prison for years for buying sweetened drinks or even selling them. The comparison is bogus.
-
Simply stating that the Boy Scouts should accept gays is not pressuring them, it is just stating an opinion
Yeah the AP writer and other news outlets need to consult with you before writing that
the BSA are being "pressured" to allow homos to go on weekend camping trips with young boys.
-
It is clearly NOT being pressured unless some threat or sanction is made.
It is not a matter of my opinion, it is clearly not a case of anyone being pressured.
-
Wait a minute here. The Boy Scouts of America has Rick Perry on their side. If Rick Perry is on their side then God must be on their side. With Perry and God on their side you mean to tell me a few comments by a bunch of demented homos is pressure? They just buckle under and allow the devil to waltz right in because of a couple articles by the queer loving liberal press? Geez, I hate to see what the Boys Scouts of America does if they're ever under real pressure. It makes you wonder who's the real fag here? Those who are attracted to people of their own sex, or the Boy Scouts of America who drop their pants and bend over anytime someone hints at a contrary position?
BSB
-
I question that God is on Rick Perry's side, ever.
-
It was all tongue in check XO.
BSB
-
Yes, I know that.
-
It is clearly NOT being pressured unless some threat or sanction is made.
The BSA is clearly being PRESSURED...it is being pressured by Obama,
it is being pressured by corporate sponsors, it is being pressured by some
charitable foundations, it is being pressured by pro homo agenda groups
like GLAAD, it is being pressured by the pro-homo lame-stream-media.
(http://daily.greencine.com/archives/sfbg-logo-160.jpg)
recent pressure from gay rights groups, corporate sponsors,
and Bay Area troops has forced the governing body to revisit the blanket prohibition on gay members.
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/04/trail-historic-gay-boy-scouts-vote-started-bay-area (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/04/trail-historic-gay-boy-scouts-vote-started-bay-area)
(http://www.glaad.org/files/styles/90x90/public/120x120%20glaad%20logo_1.jpg)
"We need your help to keep the pressure on"
http://www.glaad.org/scouts/tellbsa (http://www.glaad.org/scouts/tellbsa)
(http://50.116.83.54/~taigroup/newtaisite/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Washington-Post-Logo-e1343013063101.jpg)
"sponsors have come under intense pressure to get BSA to change its policy"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/04/the-boy-scouts-no-brainer-decision-on-gays/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/04/the-boy-scouts-no-brainer-decision-on-gays/)
(http://www.edgeboston.com/images/partners/logo_bayareareporter_credit.gif)
Mark Anthony Dingbaum, senior campaign manager at Change.org, praised pressure to end the Scouts' national anti-gay policy,
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=68465 (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=68465)
Philadelphia Pressures Local BSA to Admit Gays or Lose Lease
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7746-philadelphia-pressures-local-bsa-to-admit-gays-or-lose-lease (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7746-philadelphia-pressures-local-bsa-to-admit-gays-or-lose-lease)
Anti-gay groups pressure Boy Scouts to uphold discriminatory gay ban
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/01/anti-gay-groups-pressure-boy-scouts-to-uphold-disc.html (http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/01/anti-gay-groups-pressure-boy-scouts-to-uphold-disc.html)
It is not a matter of my opinion, it is clearly not a case of anyone being pressured.
It is difficult to discuss issues with someone as intellectually dishonest as you are,
but of course I am not surprised at all by your dishonesty. If it's not "pressure"
then what the hell is it?...lol. I site article after article, source after source
where respected news organizations specifically use the word "pressure "
in describing the BSA/Homo issue. But go ahead and continue living in denial that
there is not a campaign to pressure the BSA to accept the homo agenda.
Of course you living in denial of reality is not what is important,
what is important is that we shall see how it works out for local troops
that are "out of the closet" and let it be known to parents that their
young boys will be taking weekend camping trips with homosexual men.
Yeah sure parents are gonna love sending their boys to camp with homos!
-
Your homophobia does not make it pressure.
-
Your homophobia does not make it pressure.
The homo group leading this charge even uses the word "pressure".
Your denial of reality is amusing, but only strengthens my point about the Left.
To connect KooKoo dots...I suppose sometimes reality needs to be denied.
BTW....your lying does not make sense.
I have no phobia of homosexuality.
Look up the word phobia.
I find homosexuality disgusting, unhealthy, un-natural, & especially undeserving of "special rights".
My views on homosexuality are based on facts, logic, and Judeo-Christian values.
It has nothing to do with a "phobia" because I have no fear of homos or their deviant behaviors.
-
You clearly have a phobia of homosexuality. Perhaps you fear that when some drag queen kisses you full on the lips you will be aroused and hideously shamed.
Pressure is more than just expressing an opinion.
-
You clearly have a phobia of homosexuality.
You clearly have a phobia to reality and the truth.
Pressure is more than just expressing an opinion.
Exactly!
And as stated the homo group leading this campaign even repeatedly uses the word "pressure".
But of course Mr. Reality Denial.....thinks Gladd is not doing what they in fact state they are doing.
(http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2011/07/glaad_edit/thumb.jpg)
"Unprecedented Pressure on Boy Scouts to Lift Gay Ban"
http://www.glaad.org/blog/unprecedented-pressure-boy-scouts-lift-gay-ban-continues-growing-jennifer-tyrrell-eagle-scout (http://www.glaad.org/blog/unprecedented-pressure-boy-scouts-lift-gay-ban-continues-growing-jennifer-tyrrell-eagle-scout)
(http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2011/07/glaad_edit/thumb.jpg)
"Help us keep the pressure on by calling, emailing and
tweeting the BSA and telling them to end the discrimination now"
https://www.facebook.com/GLAAD?group_id=0 (https://www.facebook.com/GLAAD?group_id=0)
(http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/glaad_logo.jpg)
"We need your help to keep the pressure on"
http://www.glaad.org/scouts/tellbsa (http://www.glaad.org/scouts/tellbsa)
-
Why would the Boy Scouts decide to change their position, if they do, or have, on homosexual members, troop leaders, and so forth?
Not because of GLAAD, which I've never heard of, or the press. They will change because this country has changed it's position on homosexuality. They will change because of internal pressure to conform to the countries new norms. They will change because they no longer want to be considered out of date, hostile to an accepted group of Americans, uninformed, etc., etc.
BSB
p.s. That's understanding politics, BT. Getting elected in your town doesn't prove you know a thing about politics.
-
The Boy Scouts can do as they wish.
Just because some bunch of guys claim they are pressuring them does not make it so.
Can GLAAD keep boys from joining the Scouts? Can GLAAD keep the Boy Scouts from getting donations?
I really, really doubt it.
-
p.s. That's understanding politics, BT. Getting elected in your town doesn't prove you know a thing about politics.
The Boy Scouts modified their position because of funding. Ergo the decision was left to the individual troops. If it were a sea change of heart the ban would have been lifted nationwide.
That is understanding politics.
-
Can GLAAD keep the Boy Scouts from getting donations? I really, really doubt it.
Yeah sure....and then reality strikes again!
(http://gsaday.org/wp-content/getups/GLAAD-logo-150x150.jpg)
"GLAAD, together with Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality Zach Wahls, have also used Change.org petitions to pressure corporate donors such as Intel and UPS to pull funding until the Boy Scouts end their policy banning gay youth and parents."
http://www.glaad.org/blog/breaking-boy-scouts-america-looks-toward-equality-considers-lifting-ban (http://www.glaad.org/blog/breaking-boy-scouts-america-looks-toward-equality-considers-lifting-ban)
(http://www.bet.com/news/national/photos/2012/02/black-stars-slammed-by-glaad/_jcr_content/leftcol/flipbook/flipbookimage_8.flipthumb.dimg/021512-national-GLAAD-logo.jpg)
Join Zach Walls In Telling UPS To Stop Funding Anti-Gay Boy Scouts
"Wahls recently called for Intel, which also gave to the BSA in 2010, to cease its donations, prompting the company to clarify that it has updated its donation policy to only fund organizations that vow not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which would exclude the BSA. In 2010, Intel reportedly gave the Boy Scouts more than $700,000. GLAAD urges everyone to sign the petition and tell UPS to follow its own nondiscrimination policy and take a stand for equality"
http://www.glaad.org/scouts/ups (http://www.glaad.org/scouts/ups)
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8PYz5eZlOVPmJsKEntIot5aqnjZq15rPHyx_vIWy4Z58WbIO0)
-
The problem is pot has too much support. Meaning any negative data on pot will be immediately attacked to the point that it's ok to smoke pot while driving. I simply can't trust this issue will be safely addressed. Ex. It's non-addictive-but many goto clinic to quit.
-
Kimba I have a high school friend that I still see every so often and he still smokes an enormous amount of weed. This dude smokes weed 365 days a year. It's sad seeing him now. He is always depressed and broke. But he's going to smoke whether it's legal or not.
(http://www.dopestdank.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/presentsday.png)
-
I'll bet alot of of us knows somebody like this. Non-addictive my a--
I remember a robins williams joke " pot is anything but performance enhancing".
Actually barrack is not a good example of a pot smoker since he only tried it but never continued it.
If he did continue then thats makes pot alot more harmless than we thought
-
Kimba....I am sure there are studies, but i would presume since weed does not have a filter it could be worse for you than cigarettes? It would seem like it would be worse for your lungs? But maybe weed does not have tar and nicotene? I wonder if they legalize it and it becomes corporate would companies selling "weed cigarettes" add filters?
-
Kimba....it will interesting to watch as time goes on how much intrusion ObamaCare will allow gvt to enter so many aspects of our lives. With gvt in control of healthcare as we move forward....will the gvt start demanding we not eat as many carbs? not eat fastfoods?, not drink sodas? not smoke at all? not eat sweets? not consume alcohol? because all those things can lead to health problems which will mean higher healthcare costs the gvt must now cover? sure it wouldn't all happen overnight, but I suspect the control freaks will slowly use ObamaCare for more control over the "peasants"!
-
Smoking pot is almost certainly not good for your lungs. But it is less a problem than tobacco because the amount smoked is far far less. No one I have ever known smoked 20 reefers a day, every day. Anyone who does is on a plane with those who eat 20 cheweseburgere or drink two liters of sweetened soda. Excess in almost everything is bad for you.
Those that worry about the effects of harmful products in pot smoke can use a variety of water pipes or use a vaporizer, which vaporizes the herb without actually burning it, which makes the smoke much less harsh.
No one has criminalized smoking tobacco, either. No one proposes imposing criminal penalties on those who grow, cure, or use tobacco.
I used to be a smoker, but the only effects of tobacco were:
(1) it gave me a slight amount of dizziness the first time I smoked every day. It was not especially pleasant, but not unpleasant, either.
(2) It made me cough a lot.
(3) It increased the probability of getting bronchitis. When I smoked tobacco, I used to get bronchitis almost ever year.
(4) It cost a lot of money, made everything smell pretty awful, and was habit forming.
I smoked cigarettes until I lived in Mexico. There I smoked Mexican cigarettes, Filtrones and Records, mostly. When I returned to the US, American cigarettes tasted funny (because in this period-1966-69- they started adding stuff to them, so I switched to smoking Cavendish tobacco in a filtered corncob pipe. In 1986 I quit, cold turkey.
-
I have a fatal pre-existing condition. everybody ,I give you the rare chance to explain to me how obamacare is bad for me. I say this because until last year all insurance would not touch me.
-
I have a fatal pre-existing condition. everybody ,I give you the rare chance to explain to me how obamacare is bad for me. I say this because until last year all insurance would not touch me.
It may not be bad for you, but because everybody is now covered for pre-existing conditions they may not have, their and your rates go up. Now at first glance that may not seem so bad, but considering that some people do not have the luxury of having discretionary funds to cover these increases, and they are bound by law to remain insured, something has to give, whether it be a mortgage payment or food allowance or new clothes for the kids. So for you not so bad, for others well they feel your pain.
The auto insurance industry has riders that cover drunk and careless drivers SR-22 in this region, but in the infinite wisdom of the Obamacare administrators, healthcare does not offer that option.
-
Not to mention the millions of workers that will lose their medical coverage (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/), thanks to Obamacare
-
Imagine being against pre-existing coverage? Ha ha. You must be nuts.
I'm happy for you Kimba.
BSB
-
I have a fatal pre-existing condition. everybody ,I give you the rare chance to explain to me how obamacare is bad for me. I say this because until last year all insurance would not touch me.
Maybe it isn't bad for you, I know a coupple of people it is definately good for.
But it is not just for you , for me there is no benefit at all and I expect the affordable healthcare act will have a negative impact on most of us.
-
Imagine being against pre-existing coverage? Ha ha. You must be nuts.
Who said that?
-
Actually i do have the funds to cover it. My condition has been educational in many ways beside medical. I also learned some positive aspect of my life. No matter how bad financially i've gotten i never was broke. My cheap ways has served me well. I'll likly pay more on healthcare thn most people still but with insurance i'm confident i can handle it.
I do find it strange how many people i knw who are dead broke,but not me
-
Imagine being against pre-existing coverage? Ha ha. You must be nuts.
Who said that?
It's the 'ol version on if you don't support more funding for schools, your "against children", if you don't support the left's version of gun control, your for the murder of children, if you don't support higher taxes on "big oil" or more EPA regulations, then you're obviously for air & water pollution. It's amazing how if you don't support the left's specific know-better-than-the-rest of us feel good legislation or regulation, then you must be against whatever its supposed to be for
-
Typically demented opinions from sirs, as always.
-
LOL...as concluded from one of those hard core liberals, the post was referring to. Not to mention his 99% wrong resume'
Here's a hint Xo. Instead of just calling me more names, demonstrate how my opinion is supposedly "demented". Are not conservative supportive of polluted air, dirty water? Are not conservatives advocating that women must have children? Are not conservative greedy bastards who care nothing of the poor? Are not conservatives spiteful of children, especially those in Public Education? Are not conservatives advocating that everyone carry a gun?
-
The ones that you think inhabit my mind surely do.
But then, these are the symptoms of your dementia.
You claim you want less government interference, but then you want the government to tell women that pregnant women must be forced to give birth,and you want the Pope's opinion about contraceptives to trump that of taxpaying American citizens.
-
Notice everyone how Xo not only started off with the name calling, then launched right into the pope strawman, and actually validating precisely my point...that he thinks conservatives, because they don't support the left's position on abortion, must want women to have children
Name calling, Hyperbole, and as usual, 100% wrong, all in 1 nice little package.
Thanks Xo
-
Right wing assholes want the government to tell women that they do not have the right to have an abortion.
Everyone knows this.
-
Right wing assholes want the government to tell women that they do not have the right to have an abortion.
Everyone knows this.
Just so you know, i wish the government would stay out of the issue completely, but more importantly that they do not fund or support abortions with taxpayer monies, any more than they would support or fund rhinoplasty.
-
BINGO!!
-
Funding abortions make sense. It limits the number of unwanted children, which is sure to lower the crime rate in the future.
It will lower the number of women being paid Aid to Dependent Children, which is a cost that goes on for as long as 18 years.
Funding rhinoplasty would have no advantages to the government, society or the taxpayers.
Funding abortions would reduce the cost of welfare and crime prevention.
And no, sirs, there is no bingo for you.
If an abortion prevented another sirs, THAT would be a big BINGO! Fewer annoying feeble thinkers
-
The insight into the mind of a toe-tag liberal. Murdering unborn children is justified, because of course they'll turn to crime, if we let them live. Not to mention those thousands upon thousands of families, who would happily adopt a newborn as their own. Actual intact husband & wives, most of them likely able to support themselves and a family. But for whatever medical or age reasons, be it a problem with the woman or man, can't have children. WOW
Best not be throwing around "feeble thinkers", Mr 99% wrong. that's a boomerang cocked and ready to return in an instant
-
Again, there is no such thing as an "unborn child".
A fetus has no rights. A fetus is not human until it is born.
If people want to adopt, let them advertise and convince pregnant women to give birth and adopt the baby once it is born. I see no serious movement to do this.
No woman should give birth that does not wish to do so.
No woman that wises to give birth should be prevented from doing so.
It isn't any of your goddamn beeswax, sirs.
-
Again, there is no such thing as an "unborn child".
Actually, there is. You can try to call it anything you want...call it a turnip, but what a living child is, being carried by their mother, is an unborn child. In fact, next time you get a chance, walk up to an expectant mother and tell them they're really not carrying a child. Then watch how fast you get slapped at the offense
-
Funding abortions make sense. It limits the number of unwanted children, which is sure to lower the crime rate in the future.
The government not paying for the abortion does not mean the abortion can not take place. I think that simple misconception lays at the root of many of the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives.
-
BINGO!, yet again
-
I might not qualify as a true conservative , or libertarian ,on this subject then.
I do not think that any person shoud be killed without sufficient reason and /or due process.
I also do not think that "person " can possibly be defined in a way that leaves a class of human beings out.
As an act of war we kill a lot , but war ought to be entered with suficent reason and /or due process.
Abortion is us killing more people at peace than we ever killed in war.
-
I might not qualify as a true conservative , or libertarian ,on this subject then.
I do not think that any person shoud be killed without sufficient reason and /or due process.
I also do not think that "person " can possibly be defined in a way that leaves a class of human beings out.
As an act of war we kill a lot , but war ought to be entered with suficent reason and /or due process.
Abortion is us killing more people at peace than we ever killed in war.
Sometimes labels don't fit . To thine own self be true.
-
Abortion is us killing more people at peace than we ever killed in war.
Truer words have never been spoken
-
Abortion is killing NO people.
Fetuses are NOT PEOPLE.
-
Already addressed this....courts across the country, DO consider them people, as in 2 counts of murder, if a Pregnant woman is killed. Now, you can bellow about how bad a decision or twisted the courts must be, but the point is legally, "fetuses" are considered people/person, across the country
And pro-abortionists advocate the killing of those PEOPLE
-
Abortion is killing NO people. Fetuses are NOT PEOPLE.
And bald eagle eggs are not bald eagles....but we still protect them!
You leftist morons place a higher value on an unborn eagle than an unborn human!
Someday this horror and lunacy will be stopped!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/abortion-eagle-egg_zps4e0d770e.jpg)
-
So go shoot an eagle, or fry a couple of eagle's eggs for breakfast.
You do not convince me.
You never will convince me.
-
I don't think that's anyone's goal here, xo. There's no cure for your toe tag brand of liberalism, only opportunities to demonstrate how wrong, unethical, irrational, and at times, how immoral it is. So, why would you claim it not possible, when it's not even being attempted? More straw? :o