Teleprompter goof causes Obama to thank himself for White House party

[Pandora]

That is the allegation being made, that Republicans get different treatment, or that conservatives do. I'm really not sure which.



No, no, I never said that Bush was a conservative. What I said was that, if the "liberal" media favors liberals, which is what was being alleged, why would it treat a liberal like Bush differently from another liberal like Obama? That's what elicited the two different answers, one opining that the media doesn't like Republicans, either liberal or conservative, while the other said that the problem was that Obama was more "socialist" than Bush.



Exactly my point. Just because Bush was a Republican doesn't make him a conservative, so why should the liberal press treat him any differently that any other liberal? Maybe it is because he is a Republican, I don't know. Maybe it is because Bush was just not very popular. My hypothesis is that the liberal bias in the media is a myth.



Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think political philosophy is a lot more complex than a one dimensional continuum from right, or conservative to left, or liberal.

That's one reason I often use quotes around the terms "liberal" and "conservative". Those terms have different meanings to different people. Of course, not everyone who describes himself as a "liberal" is going to have the same philosophy, of course not. The same applies to "conservatives."

Some things I think are a deal breaker with the media...

Death penalty
Abortion

I think the media goes against any politician who is for the first and against the second.


Do you think Lou Dobbs is an independent?

 

[Pandora]

Wow...look at that.."The Great Communicator" was using a teleprompter:

You don’t see the difference in using a teleprompter for speeches and needing one just to introduce someone or needing it for every little event to the point you thank yourself?

 

[PLC1]

Some things I think are a deal breaker with the media...

Death penalty
Abortion

I think the media goes against any politician who is for the first and against the second.


Do you think Lou Dobbs is an independent?

That could be. Are conservatives in favor of the death penalty despite their mistrust of strong government? Are they against choice? Those aren't conservative values, but authoritarian values. Maybe the press is really against authoritarianism and in favor of libertarianism.

Is Lou Dobbs an independent? Maybe. I picked him as an avatar because of his stance on illegal immigration and his rants about the war on the middle class. Does that make him an independent? I don't think he is a liberal, necessarily, or a conservative either.

 

[Pandora]

That could be. Are conservatives in favor of the death penalty despite their mistrust of strong government? Are they against choice? Those aren't conservative values, but authoritarian values. Maybe the press is really against authoritarianism and in favor of libertarianism.

Is Lou Dobbs an independent? Maybe. I picked him as an avatar because of his stance on illegal immigration and his rants about the war on the middle class. Does that make him an independent? I don't think he is a liberal, necessarily, or a conservative either.

I don’t know why most republicans believe in the death penalty, I personally don’t understand being pro life and then saying some should die. But if I were given the choice of killing a baby or a baby rapist or baby killer, that dude is toast.

Republicans are not against choice. That is the silliest notion. Republicans are for the choice to be able to buy a gun as the second amendment states we have that right, they are mostly for the right to drive a car without a seat belt or a helmet when riding a bike. You know, that old saying about forcing us to do with our own body what is against our own will. But draw the line when it harms another human being. I have the right to swing my fists all I want, but that right ends at your face! I have the right to blow up my car, its my car I can set it on fire if I want to. But not in your garage!

Republicans for the most part are against the "choice" to kill another human being. They are also against the choice of raping another human being or beating them or doing anything else harmful to another human being... except for that death P. stuff and again I don’t get that part.

 

[PLC1]

I don’t know why most republicans believe in the death penalty, I personally don’t understand being pro life and then saying some should die. But if I were given the choice of killing a baby or a baby rapist or baby killer, that dude is toast.

Republicans are not against choice. That is the silliest notion. Republicans are for the choice to be able to buy a gun as the second amendment states we have that right, they are mostly for the right to drive a car without a seat belt or a helmet when riding a bike. You know, that old saying about forcing us to do with our own body what is against our own will. But draw the line when it harms another human being. I have the right to swing my fists all I want, but that right ends at your face! I have the right to blow up my car, its my car I can set it on fire if I want to. But not in your garage!

Republicans for the most part are against the "choice" to kill another human being. They are also against the choice of raping another human being or beating them or doing anything else harmful to another human being... except for that death P. stuff and again I don’t get that part.

The pro life/pro death penalty is a basic contradiction in philosophy, isn't it?

I think the philosophy that you can swing your fists all you want so long as you don't connect with someone else's face is really a libertarian value, not a Republican one.

Anyway the conservative philosophy, real conservatism as opposed to the melange of sometimes contradictory stances that seem to characterize what so many think make up conservative thought, is a philosophy of limited government and individual responsibility. Abortion doesn't really figure into that philosophy, but the death penalty and the second amendment do.

Personally, I support people's right to whiz down the freeways sans seatbelt/helmet all they want. Let natural selection work. They aren't putting me in jeopardy. I'd like to be able to swing my fists and connect with the *&&!! tailgaters and zigsaggers from lane to lane, but, then I suppose that would be taking the law into my own hands and therefore illegal.

Libertarians like the second amendment, too, but aren't so keen on the idea of the government having the power of life and death over us.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

The pro life/pro death penalty is a basic contradiction in philosophy, isn't it?

I think the philosophy that you can swing your fists all you want so long as you don't connect with someone else's face is really a libertarian value, not a Republican one.

Anyway the conservative philosophy, real conservatism as opposed to the melange of sometimes contradictory stances that seem to characterize what so many think make up conservative thought, is a philosophy of limited government and individual responsibility. Abortion doesn't really figure into that philosophy, but the death penalty and the second amendment do.

Personally, I support people's right to whiz down the freeways sans seatbelt/helmet all they want. Let natural selection work. They aren't putting me in jeopardy. I'd like to be able to swing my fists and connect with the *&&!! tailgaters and zigsaggers from lane to lane, but, then I suppose that would be taking the law into my own hands and therefore illegal.

Libertarians like the second amendment, too, but aren't so keen on the idea of the government having the power of life and death over us.

Pro life/pro death penalty is no contradiction at all. It is simple actually.....A person that is pro life is for preserving the life of the innocent. Whether it be a unborn child or an adult that is murdered in cold blood. Both victims were completely innocent, and being pro life I believe that the person that CHOSE to murder someone should receive the same. I am pro life and proud of the fact, and I am equally proud to be pro death penalty. Now, before you spin it to say that I am for a young woman that has an abortion being put on death row........let me please ask you not to make that ignorant statement.

 

[PLC1]

Pro life/pro death penalty is no contradiction at all. It is simple actually.....A person that is pro life is for preserving the life of the innocent. Whether it be a unborn child or an adult that is murdered in cold blood. Both victims were completely innocent, and being pro life I believe that the person that CHOSE to murder someone should receive the same. I am pro life and proud of the fact, and I am equally proud to be pro death penalty. Now, before you spin it to say that I am for a young woman that has an abortion being put on death row........let me please ask you not to make that ignorant statement.

OK, no ignorant statements here.

How about in the case of rape or incest? In the case of danger to the mother's life? Could an abortion be performed then? Do you agree with the Catholic church condemning the child who was pregnant by her stepfather getting an abortion? Is it wrong in the first week following conception? Where do you draw the line? Is abortion an absolute wrong, regardless of the circumstances?
If not, then who do you trust to draw the line?

Do you also support the right of the government to put an end to a person's life?

In a way, there isn't a contradiction, since both cases are trusting in the government to make life and death decisions.

But saying that abortion is always wrong, since it takes a life, but the death penalty is correct even though it takes a life, is a contradiction.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

OK, no ignorant statements here.

How about in the case of rape or incest? In the case of danger to the mother's life? Could an abortion be performed then? Do you agree with the Catholic church condemning the child who was pregnant by her stepfather getting an abortion? Is it wrong in the first week following conception? Where do you draw the line? Is abortion an absolute wrong, regardless of the circumstances?
If not, then who do you trust to draw the line?

Do you also support the right of the government to put an end to a person's life?

In a way, there isn't a contradiction, since both cases are trusting in the government to make life and death decisions.

But saying that abortion is always wrong, since it takes a life, but the death penalty is correct even though it takes a life, is a contradiction.

First off the cases that you mention are the rarest of rape cases. However, that innocent child in the womb is not responsible for wrong choices that were made in it's conception. Second, I think that each state should vote on whether or not to allow abortion in their states. I think federal government should stay out of it, and leave up to the citizens of the states to decide. Again no contradiction, but protection for the innocent. The innocent baby being protected from abortion, and punishing the murder that took an innocent life. You can't take extreme cases (the exceptions), and make them the rule.

 

[PLC1]

First off the cases that you mention are the rarest of rape cases. However, that innocent child in the womb is not responsible for wrong choices that were made in it's conception.

Given that idea, then abortion is an absolute wrong even in the rarest of cases, and never should be allowed under any circumstances, right?

Second, I think that each state should vote on whether or not to allow abortion in their states.

But, if it is an absolute, how are we to allow states or anyone else to vote on the matter?

I think federal government should stay out of it, and leave up to the citizens of the states to decide.

That would be OK, but how about going one step further and allowing the citizens to decide on their own? How does the government have the power to decide?

Again no contradiction, but protection for the innocent. The innocent baby being protected from abortion, and punishing the murder that took an innocent life. You can't take extreme cases (the exceptions), and make them the rule.

If the innocent baby being protected is the main goal, then even extreme cases must be protected, right? It is not the fault of the fetus that it was started by a rape, after all. Again, just where do you draw the line, and who decides where to draw the line? You seem to be saying let the states decide, rather than the federal government, but you're also saying that abortion is always wrong, so there is no choice to be made.

Further, should the states or the feds decide that abortion is wrong, how would that decision be enforced? It really is a choice between a safe and legal procedure, or an unsafe and illegal one. Nations that have outlawed abortion sometimes have higher rates that we do in the US.

The real question is not making it illegal, but how best to discourage people from making that decision? That is the real way to protect that innocent baby.

 

[Pandora]

Given that idea, then abortion is an absolute wrong even in the rarest of cases, and never should be allowed under any circumstances, right?



But, if it is an absolute, how are we to allow states or anyone else to vote on the matter?



That would be OK, but how about going one step further and allowing the citizens to decide on their own? How does the government have the power to decide?



If the innocent baby being protected is the main goal, then even extreme cases must be protected, right? It is not the fault of the fetus that it was started by a rape, after all. Again, just where do you draw the line, and who decides where to draw the line? You seem to be saying let the states decide, rather than the federal government, but you're also saying that abortion is always wrong, so there is no choice to be made.

Further, should the states or the feds decide that abortion is wrong, how would that decision be enforced? It really is a choice between a safe and legal procedure, or an unsafe and illegal one. Nations that have outlawed abortion sometimes have higher rates that we do in the US.

The real question is not making it illegal, but how best to discourage people from making that decision? That is the real way to protect that innocent baby.

If the pregnancy is in the fallopian tubes the baby will die and so will the mother. In that case the mother must have an abortion. If she does not they will both die for sure.

If the mothers liver or kidney or other organ is weak and giving out the mother should be able to get an abortion. Many mothers go through the pregnancy anyway because they love their child but a woman should not be forced to possibly die for another person. But if she is far enough along that you can deliver the baby rather than kill it then for Gods sake why kill the baby. That is what they do now, that is what this Tiller guy has been doing and to pro abortion people its Ak-ok to kill someone that can just as easily live.

But on the other hand a woman should not be able to kill because not killing makes things inconvenient for a few months.


how best to discourage people from making that decision? Money!

I wish people were allowed to sell their babies if you want the truth. Most women who have no respect for life have no problem killing their babies, but people like that would probably have a big enough and selfish enough love for money that they might not kill the baby if they thought they could sell it. That would save more babies. The only problem is if they sold it to a child molester… ugh there would have to be some way to make sure they only sell to good people without criminal records like DHS approved or something.

 

[Andy]

OK, no ignorant statements here.

How about in the case of rape or incest? In the case of danger to the mother's life? Could an abortion be performed then? Do you agree with the Catholic church condemning the child who was pregnant by her stepfather getting an abortion? Is it wrong in the first week following conception? Where do you draw the line? Is abortion an absolute wrong, regardless of the circumstances?
If not, then who do you trust to draw the line?

Let me ask you this...
In the case of rape incest blaw blaw blaw, what did the baby do to deserve death? Again the position of the conservative is to support the innocent, whether it be to put to death a murderer who obviously could kill again, or to stop the murdering of the unborn. So what did the child do to deserve to die? If you can come up with his crime, then I'll agree to put it to death.

If not, why are we murdering our children to crimes others committed? And btw, I have yet to hear of a case where a girl felt better about what was done to her, after murdering her child. In fact, most feel worse and are haunted by a baby they denied a life to. My views are in the best interest of the mother as well.

Do you also support the right of the government to put an end to a person's life?

Do you support the right of government to deny freedom, force labor, or confiscate private property? Of course not, unless it's to exact justice for crimes committed.

In a way, there isn't a contradiction, since both cases are trusting in the government to make life and death decisions.

But saying that abortion is always wrong, since it takes a life, but the death penalty is correct even though it takes a life, is a contradiction.

Abortion murders an innocent person. Death penalty prevents a person from murdering, and exact justice for those already murdered.

Abortion is always wrong because it's murder. Not because it simply takes a life. It's murder. As in it's the premeditated terminating of the life of an innocent human being. The death penalty is the only right punishment for someone who committed murder. It's not the same because person being terminated is not an innocent human being.

He's a person who has demonstrated the ultimate level of contempt for human life, by killing another human, and also shows he is completely capable of doing it again, and should not be given that chance.

 

[Andy]

If the pregnancy is in the fallopian tubes the baby will die and so will the mother. In that case the mother must have an abortion. If she does not they will both die for sure.

If the mothers liver or kidney or other organ is weak and giving out the mother should be able to get an abortion. Many mothers go through the pregnancy anyway because they love their child but a woman should not be forced to possibly die for another person. But if she is far enough along that you can deliver the baby rather than kill it then for Gods sake why kill the baby. That is what they do now, that is what this Tiller guy has been doing and to pro abortion people its Ak-ok to kill someone that can just as easily live.

But on the other hand a woman should not be able to kill because not killing makes things inconvenient for a few months.


how best to discourage people from making that decision? Money!

I wish people were allowed to sell their babies if you want the truth. Most women who have no respect for life have no problem killing their babies, but people like that would probably have a big enough and selfish enough love for money that they might not kill the baby if they thought they could sell it. That would save more babies. The only problem is if they sold it to a child molester… ugh there would have to be some way to make sure they only sell to good people without criminal records like DHS approved or something.

The only problem with that is, we would most certainly have to end all subsidies and government support for having children. Otherwise, you'd end up with greed sick people collecting children to get more government money and support. That's what has happened with some foster parents, who take on 10 kids in a two bedroom house, and feed them all nearly nothing, so they can pocket the rest.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Given that idea, then abortion is an absolute wrong even in the rarest of cases, and never should be allowed under any circumstances, right?



But, if it is an absolute, how are we to allow states or anyone else to vote on the matter?



That would be OK, but how about going one step further and allowing the citizens to decide on their own? How does the government have the power to decide?



If the innocent baby being protected is the main goal, then even extreme cases must be protected, right? It is not the fault of the fetus that it was started by a rape, after all. Again, just where do you draw the line, and who decides where to draw the line? You seem to be saying let the states decide, rather than the federal government, but you're also saying that abortion is always wrong, so there is no choice to be made.

Further, should the states or the feds decide that abortion is wrong, how would that decision be enforced? It really is a choice between a safe and legal procedure, or an unsafe and illegal one. Nations that have outlawed abortion sometimes have higher rates that we do in the US.

The real question is not making it illegal, but how best to discourage people from making that decision? That is the real way to protect that innocent baby.

We allow states to votes due to this thing called states rights! A right libs seem to forget about all the time. Their you go again talking about rape/incest cases......Please I beg you look up how often that happens, because once you see maybe you'll stop making that your basis. Do you think that abortions just came about in the last 100 years? Bad things have happened forever, and your not going to stop them all. However that doesn't mean you don't still call them wrong.

 

[PLC1]

We allow states to votes due to this thing called states rights! A right libs seem to forget about all the time. Their you go again talking about rape/incest cases......Please I beg you look up how often that happens, because once you see maybe you'll stop making that your basis. Do you think that abortions just came about in the last 100 years? Bad things have happened forever, and your not going to stop them all. However that doesn't mean you don't still call them wrong.

Yes, of course you call them wrong. You call them wrong, and do what?

Chelle came up with a plan to discourage abortion. There may be some problems with it, to be sure, but at least she's thinking in the right direction.

Andy says abortion is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I can respect that, of course, as it is consistent. If that's the philosophy, then harsh punishments have to be exacted for abortionists and their patients. That, of course, still wouldn't stop abortion.

But, whether it is right or wrong, whether or not the government has a right to decide when it's OK, what should be done to discourage it? Surely, no one is going to argue that making it illegal, or putting restrictions on it (allowing the government to decide, in other words) is going to put an end to abortion.

So, how best to discourage abortion?

 

[Pandora]

The only problem with that is, we would most certainly have to end all subsidies and government support for having children. Otherwise, you'd end up with greed sick people collecting children to get more government money and support. That's what has happened with some foster parents, who take on 10 kids in a two bedroom house, and feed them all nearly nothing, so they can pocket the rest.

Yes, I think we need welfare reform AGAIN, especially now that obama screwed up the one thing Clinton did worth while by reforming it. Dragged by congress but he did it.

I really believe women would be more careful not to get pregnant if they couldn’t go get an abortion each time. I know a woman who had 17 abortions and she talks about it with pride. She has two daughters, very pretty sweet lovable girls. I don’t know how this woman could kill her kids as her form of birth control but some can. And it was free for her because it was all done on public assistance.

I also think if someone keeps having abortions she should just tie her tubes. I would be happy to have us tax payers pay for her tubes to be tied.