Support NeoGAF

[polyh3dron]

Teh bish has spoken

 

[AndyIsTheMoran]

Can I ask you an honest question?

Over 20% of all minors in the United States live in poverty. In addition, our education system is in shambles and we have the worst infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Outlawing abortion would bring even more unwanted and uncared for children into the US.

Which is the greater sin, stopping some cells from multiplying or allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve in our own country every year? Why force women to bring even more children into poverty when we can't even care for the ones we've already got. To me, that is true immorality.

im not saying we should make abortion illegal. but lets call it what it is. people need to take responsibility and not pretend they are stopping a few cells from multiplying. Abortion is a result of our actions, therefore we do have control over it except in cases of rape or incest. We can try and make the greater good argument all we want, but come on this is human life we are talking about here, the exact same way everyone of us started. I hate when people, like in this picture, blasts other people for thinking all humans deserve a chance and not be subject to whether its convenient for your mother to have you or not.

 

[Gaborn]

ENTHUSIASM = BAD

When people like something a whole lot, that can't be good amirite guys

I think you just proved his point in a way. Neogaf, like most forums discussing politics, tends to become an echo chamber on these issues. Conventional wisdom reigns supreme and opposing viewpoints are piled on - whether they're more accurate in the real world or not. I think it's rather admirable for someone, especially someone who largely agrees with the conventional wisdom here, to seek opposing view points and try to find a more realistic picture of the race and how people are actually reacting to the political situation day by day.

 

[speculawyer]

Can I ask you an honest question?

Over 20% of all minors in the United States live in poverty. In addition, our education system is in shambles and we have the worst infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Outlawing abortion would bring even more unwanted and uncared for children into the US.

Which is the greater sin, stopping some cells from multiplying or allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve in our own country every year? Why force women to bring even more children into poverty when we can't even care for the ones we've already got. To me, that is true immorality.

And that is best case. The truly horrid case is in Africa where their Abstinence-only, de-emphasis on condoms, and complete banning of anything remotely near the word 'abortion' helps spread AIDs and bring additional children into the world . . . who will too often starve at the next famine.

Reduce suffering should be the goal. We shouldn't be trying to 'protect life' just so that life will suffer.

 

[AndyIsTheMoran]

And that is best case. The truly horrid case is in Africa where their Abstinence-only, de-emphasis on condoms, and complete banning of anything remotely near the word 'abortion' helps spread AIDs and bring additional children into the world . . . who will too often starve at the next famine.

Reduce suffering should be the goal. We shouldn't be trying to 'protect life' just so that life will suffer.

be careful, these same arguments could be used to euthanize people who don't fit society's standards of health. Hitler thought he was speeding along evolution by getting rid of society's burdens.

 

[Jak140]

im not saying we should make abortion illegal. but lets call it what it is. people need to take responsibility and not pretend they are stopping a few cells from multiplying. Abortion is a result of our actions, therefore we do have control over it except in cases of rape or incest. We can try and make the greater good argument all we want, but come on this is human life we are talking about here, the exact same way everyone of us started. I hate when people, like in this picture, blasts other people for thinking all humans deserve a chance and not be subject to whether its convenient for your mother to have you or not.

It's not just about the mother. It's about the children and the poverty most of them would be born into if abortion was outlawed. No women goes into an abortion clinic on a whim and it's presumptuous and incredibly smug the way pro-lifers often paint them as just a bunch of sluts who feel no remorse. Abortion is not the easy carefree choice many pro-lifers make it out to be; you think that the majority of women don't feel the weight of their choice when considering an abortion? I will agree that post-viability abortion is wrong unless the mother's life is in danger, but the legality of pre-viability abortion is an absolute necessity in the world and state we live in today. If conservatives want to protect children, why not start by investing more money into schools and child health care? Why not concentrate on reducing the US's incredible infant mortality rate? Right now we aren't even taking care of the babies that are born wanted and abortion is where conservatives concentrate all their efforts? It's shameful.

 

[avatar299]

Right now the court is split about evenly between liberal and conservative judges. The next two judges to retire within the next 4-8 years will likely be liberal. As soon as they are replaced, it is very possible that Roe v. Wade could be in danger of being overturned.

the supreme court isn't a game of jacks. For them to appeal it would mean opposing public opinion and proving that abortions aren't protected under privacy rights.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

be careful, these same arguments could be used to euthanize people who don't fit society's standards of health. Hitler thought he was speeding along evolution by getting rid of society's burdens.

And here I always thought he was trying to spread creationism.

 

[polyh3dron]

Who will Americans believe about John McCain's possibly catastrophic tax plan? Alan Greenspan or John McCain?

 

[devilhawk]

the supreme court isn't a game of jacks. For them to appeal it would mean opposing public opinion and proving that abortions aren't protected under privacy rights.

There was an interesting discussion earlier where someone thought that the Republicans would never actually deal with the abortion issue because it was more advantageous to keep the status quo. The republicans (unfortunately imo) have absorbed so many single issue voters that they can't afford to lose them. This was some gaffers opinion and a very interesting one.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

There was an interesting discussion earlier where someone thought that the Republicans would never actually deal with the abortion issue because it was more advantageous to keep the status quo. The republicans (unfortunately imo) have absorbed so many single issue voters that they can't afford to lose them. This was some gaffers opinion and a very interesting one.

I thought that was in response to the gay thing. I guess there's not much difference. Guns too!

 

[HylianTom]

There was an interesting discussion earlier where someone thought that the Republicans would never actually deal with the abortion issue because it was more advantageous to keep the status quo. The republicans (unfortunately imo) have absorbed so many single issue voters that they can't afford to lose them. This was some gaffers opinion and a very interesting one.

I don't necessarily buy that. If Roe is overturned, the abortion fight transforms from one large national debate to 50 separate state-by-state fights, where each state decides its own laws on the topic. It'd still be a great motivator for single-issue voters.

 

[polyh3dron]

ughhh She says NOOKULAR and a new one, PUNDINTS!!
He says Warshington

NO to people in the white house who can't speak English correctly

 

[Jak140]

the supreme court isn't a game of jacks. For them to appeal it would mean opposing public opinion and proving that abortions aren't protected under privacy rights.

The supreme court does not abide public opinion, and I don't doubt that they interpret the law differently considering their dissenting opinions. Regardless of how close this is to the realm of possibility, I will say that I am not comfortable with any more "strict-constitutionalists" (an euphemism if I ever heard one), being nominated into the supreme court and I will leave it at that.

 

[devilhawk]

I thought that was in response to the gay thing. I guess there's not much difference. Guns too!

I don't necessarily buy that. If Roe is overturned, the abortion fight transforms from one large national debate to 50 separate state-by-state fights, where each state decides its own laws on the topic. It'd still be a great motivator for single-issue voters.

It might have been in reference to the gay thing, but whatever, it could still apply. Though the gay thing is already in a state by state debate. I still think the national benefits for the republican party keeping roe v wade are substantial enough to warrant a weird theory like this however.

 

[Stinkles]

ughhh She says NOOKULAR and a new one, PUNDINTS!!
He says Warshington

NO to people in the white house who can't speak English correctly

wat bout foreignerz and ahnold

 

[polyh3dron]

wat bout foreignerz and ahnold

McCain and Palin aren't foreignerz or ahnold, so they have no excuse.

 

[HylianTom]

The supreme court does not abide public opinion, and I don't doubt that they interpret the law differently considering their dissenting opinions. Regardless of how close this is to the realm of possibility, I will say that I am not comfortable with any more "strict-constitutionalists" (an euphemism if I ever heard one), being nominated into the supreme court and I will leave it at that.

If McCain wins and Stevens (who is now nearing 90 years old) can't hold-on for another 4 years, we will see an ironclad 5-4 conservative lock on the high court.

Next most likely is Ginsburg, whose health is always in question, given her age and cancer history. If she follows Stevens, it's 6-3 conservative, and the court is most likely a conservative lock for a generation.

Meanwhile, aging conservative justices would feel free to retire and be replaced by younger, healthier counterparts.

Democrats from 2012 and on could then hold onto the White House and Congress for years, but if the GOP felt like erasing a new law from the books, all it would take is a court challenge and a party-line vote on the high court to make that evil, liberal law go away.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court is THE issue for this election.

 

[Jak140]

If McCain wins and Stevens (who is now nearing 90 years old) can't hold-on for another 4 years, we will see an ironclad 5-4 conservative lock on the high court.

Next most likely is Ginsburg, whose health is always in question, given her age and cancer history. If she follows Stevens, it's 6-3 conservative, and the court is most likely a conservative lock for a generation.

Meanwhile, aging conservative justices would feel free to retire and be replaced by younger, healthier counterparts.

Democrats from 2012 and on could then hold onto the White House and Congress for years, but if the GOP felt like erasing a new law from the books, all it would take is a court challenge and a party-line vote on the high court to make that evil, liberal law go away.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court is THE issue for this election.

Absolutely.

 

[Stinkles]

If McCain wins and Stevens (who is now nearing 90 years old) can't hold-on for another 4 years, we will see an ironclad 5-4 conservative lock on the high court.

Next most likely is Ginsburg, whose health is always in question, given her age and cancer history. If she follows Stevens, it's 6-3 conservative, and the court is most likely a conservative lock for a generation.

Meanwhile, aging conservative justices would feel free to retire and be replaced by younger, healthier counterparts.

Democrats from 2012 and on could then hold onto the White House and Congress for years, but if the GOP felt like erasing a new law from the books, all it would take is a court challenge and a party-line vote on the high court to make that evil, liberal law go away.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court is THE issue for this election.

Ugh. Your post makes me sad and nauseous.

 

[polyh3dron]

If McCain wins and Stevens (who is now nearing 90 years old) can't hold-on for another 4 years, we will see an ironclad 5-4 conservative lock on the high court.

Next most likely is Ginsburg, whose health is always in question, given her age and cancer history. If she follows Stevens, it's 6-3 conservative, and the court is most likely a conservative lock for a generation.

Meanwhile, aging conservative justices would feel free to retire and be replaced by younger, healthier counterparts.

Democrats from 2012 and on could then hold onto the White House and Congress for years, but if the GOP felt like erasing a new law from the books, all it would take is a court challenge and a party-line vote on the high court to make that evil, liberal law go away.

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court is THE issue for this election.

If McCain and Palin win, the US will turn into one huge Fascist Jesus Camp CONFIRMED

Yeah, Fascist Jesus Camp, how twisted is that?

 

[FLEABttn]

Absolutely.

The supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. They can rule whatever they like and its abided by because you're supposed to abide by it. If the other two branches don't care for what the court says, the court can't do anything to make sure their decision is enforced.

 

[speculawyer]

be careful, these same arguments could be used to euthanize people who don't fit society's standards of health.

Doctor-assisted suicide should be legal. But if someone does not want to die, they are not suffering.

Hitler thought he was speeding along evolution by getting rid of society's burdens.

Ben Stein? Is it you? :lol

 

[speculawyer]

the supreme court isn't a game of jacks. For them to appeal it would mean opposing public opinion and proving that abortions aren't protected under privacy rights.

It is just one vote. And go read some Scalia & Thomas dissents . . . they are eagerly looking forward to it.

 

[speculawyer]

The supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. They can rule whatever they like and its abided by because you're supposed to abide by it. If the other two branches don't care for what the court says, the court can't do anything to make sure their decision is enforced.

What is your point? Do you actually think the end of the rule of law is near?

 

[FLEABttn]

What is your point? Do you actually think the end of the rule of law is near?

No, but if a conservative court overrules roe v wade, and a Democrat takes the presidency, I don't see what's to stop a liberal leaning state that generally favors legal abortions to keep the clinics running.

 

[ToxicAdam]

As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court is THE issue for this election.

END OF TIMES, MAN. END OF TIMES IS NEAR!

Mandatory bibles in everyones nightstand and no homosexual kissing in public places!

 

[Trurl]

No, but if a conservative court overrules roe v wade, and a Democrat takes the presidency, I don't see what's to stop a liberal leaning state that generally favors legal abortions to keep the clinics running.

The point is that the red states will outlaw abortions.

And if the conditions are set to overturn Roe V. Wade then it's easy to see the federal government being very prohibitive towards abortion in general so that even blue states might be effected.

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

No, but if a conservative court overrules roe v wade, and a Democrat takes the presidency, I don't see what's to stop a liberal leaning state that generally favors legal abortions to keep the clinics running.

Damn. This just gave me a glimpse of America's future. Riots and lawlessness! And babies EVERYWHERE!

 

[HylianTom]

The point is that the red states will outlaw abortions.

And if the conditions are set to overturn Roe V. Wade then it's easy to see the federal government being very prohibitive towards abortion in general so that even blue states might be effected.

Americans will still have their abortions, regardless of how the court rules. We'll drive to Mexico, drive to the nearest blue state, or drive to the nearest Wal-Mart for some 99-cent wire coat-hangers, or to the nearest nutritional supplement store for certain herbs that'll induce early contractions/miscarriage.

 

[sprsk]

People support overturning Rowe vs Wade, no one will do it though.

 

[Aaron]

Americans will still have their abortions, regardless of how the court rules. We'll drive to Mexico, drive to the nearest blue state, or drive to the nearest Wal-Mart for some 99-cent wire coat-hangers, or to the nearest nutritional supplement store for certain herbs that'll induce early contractions/miscarriage.

Well, at least it'll work as well as abstence only education.

 

[Iksenpets]

I honestly don't think McCain would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clearly not an issue he gives a damn about, especially not enough to fight it out with the Democratic Senate. Now if he dies and Palin gets to appoint judges, that's another story, but I don't think McCain really cares about the issue at all.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I honestly don't think McCain would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clearly not an issue he gives a damn about, especially not enough to fight it out with the Democratic Senate. Now if he dies and Palin gets to appoint judges, that's another story, but I don't think McCain really cares about the issue at all.

Yeah, he only has a 100% anti-abortion voting record, there's no reason he'd appoint anti-abortion judges...

You're right that maybe the McCain of 2000 might not have pressed the issue, particularly if there was a Democratic congress, but the McCain of 2008 has gone hard-right in order to win. He wouldn't change that on such an important issue for all the radical-right people he has surrounded himself with.

Americans will still have their abortions, regardless of how the court rules. We'll drive to Mexico, drive to the nearest blue state, or drive to the nearest Wal-Mart for some 99-cent wire coat-hangers, or to the nearest nutritional supplement store for certain herbs that'll induce early contractions/miscarriage.

Yeah, and women will start to die because of said illegal, back-street abortions.

Of course the most likely thing would be not a national ban but a revocation of Roe v. Wade which would make it a state issue again which would mean that only the conservative states would ban it, but given how many of them there are, and how many people live in them, that would be a pretty horrible thing.

The Supreme Court is one of the most important issues in this election. The only thing that compares, really, is global warming, I think...

 

[devilhawk]

Yeah, he only has a 100% anti-abortion voting record, there's no reason he'd appoint anti-abortion judges...

You're right that maybe the McCain of 2000 might not have pressed the issue, particularly if there was a Democratic congress, but the McCain of 2008 has gone hard-right in order to win. He wouldn't change that on such an important issue for all the radical-right people he has surrounded himself with.



Yeah, and women will start to die because of said illegal, back-street abortions.

Of course the most likely thing would be not a national ban but a revocation of Roe v. Wade which would make it a state issue again which would mean that only the conservative states would ban it, but given how many of them there are, and how many people live in them, that would be a pretty horrible thing.

The Supreme Court is one of the most important issues in this election. The only thing that compares, really, is global warming, I think...

Maybe this is lost to me but don't the judges have to be confirmed by a Senate majority?

 

[Aaron]

I honestly don't think McCain would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clearly not an issue he gives a damn about, especially not enough to fight it out with the Democratic Senate. Now if he dies and Palin gets to appoint judges, that's another story, but I don't think McCain really cares about the issue at all.

On the View, he said he believed Roe vs Wade was a bad call, but he seemed to imply that the issue of abortion should be a state level issue and not decided by the federal government.

 

[Barrett2]

Maybe this is lost to me but don't the judges have to be confirmed by a Senate majority?

Yes, Federal judges have to be approved by the Senate, this keeps wackos from getting on the bench.

The reason Scalia is on the SC is because Reagan's first choice, Robert Bork, couldn't get nominated by the Senate because he was too conservative. He had written that women technically did not have equal rights to men, or something.

 

[mclem]

I wish political pundits had stats like all the sporting events. I swear dude bats like .210 on his "analysis" and "predictions" but they still trot him out continually as an "expert".

It'd help so much if there was an expert baseball statistician who could create such a collection of statistics, one who'd also shown an extensive interest in political statistics and methodology.

Now where oh where could we find one of those?

 

[mclem]

What? Are you trying to make people even more scared? Phil Gramm is his big economic guy!:lol

Where oh where have I seen that name before?

Hey gang, you remember that ol' Glass-Steagall Act we had after Great Depression 1? Remember how it said that institutions of deposit banking were to be kept strictly separate from institutes of speculative investment so we'd avoid the mistakes of the Roaring Twenties and not have to suffer the same hardships again? Remember how those safeguards were repealed in 1999 by Gramm-Leach-Bliley under finance industry lobbyist pressure?

Oh, *there* it is!

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

American politics is so unfair.

It's like the world cup or the olympics of politics... only happens once every year, and everyone in the world talks about it... but only Americans get to participate

No, it's way more important than 'superbowl'. No one (outside America) really cares about that shit.

 

[Loudninja]

Linwood Holton to Campaign For Obama

Linwood Holton, Virginia's first modern Republican governor, will endorse Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on Monday and start campaigning for him around the state.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/09/linwood_holton_to_campaign_for.html

Nice

Edit: this is old, but I did not see it

 

[ToxicAdam]

Have you guys talked about that Salon article about Palin yet? Where she says that JC will come back in her lifetime. :lol

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Linwood Holton to Campaign For Obama

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/09/linwood_holton_to_campaign_for.html

Nice

Edit: this is old, but I did not see it

Nice. More politicians need to this. See past party lines and realise what's good for the country.

A victory for McCain is a victory for rovian politics. It's a dirty inept politics that focuses on winning elections, not running countries. When power is achieved, they muddle through in sheer incompetence until the sheer weight of evidence forces them to make short halting steps towards correcting things.

 

[Loudninja]

New Daily kos poll

Obama 48

McCain 44

http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/16

 

[avaya]

Biden and McCain are going to be on CNBC in the next hour or two.

McCain is going to be so out of his depth.

 

[rSpooky]

Not sure if old, but I just heard on NPR that N.O.W. (National Organisation for Women) will announce their (public) support for Obama later today.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

New Daily kos poll

Obama 48

McCain 44

http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/16

ROCK! *headbangs*

 

[Branduil]

Can I ask you an honest question?

Over 20% of all minors in the United States live in poverty. In addition, our education system is in shambles and we have the worst infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Outlawing abortion would bring even more unwanted and uncared for children into the US.

Which is the greater sin, stopping some cells from multiplying or allowing hundreds of thousands of children to starve in our own country every year? Why force women to bring even more children into poverty when we can't even care for the ones we've already got? To me, that is true immorality.

The greater sin is holding children responsible for their parent's sins and rewarding the parents for it.

 

[Schlep]

John McCain is getting grilled on CNN, and just gaffed... "Most Americans are not paying taxes at all."

Edit: Biden on now, being all Biden-y.

 

[Particle Physicist]

this is probably old.. the thread moves way too fast too keep up, but cnn front page.. Top news.. is palin refusing to cooperate with investigators:

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html

"Palin won't cooperate with 'tainted' probe"

:lol