|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:40 pm
more or less, mixed in with chunks of "he good guys always win" or "the supressed always get their freedom"- well, except the indians, they pretty much got screwed.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:55 am
Well...yeah. They were pretty much genocidally exterminated. There are so few Native Americans left, it's absolutely tragic. I knew a girl on a reservation since I live in an area with quite a few. Her live was just in shreds. Nobody cares about them even now. God, I just wish people would do something for them. The government and white expansion royally ******** them over.
And no, the people on the bottom very rarely gain the upper hand. Do you honestly think that Latino and black citizens get treated the same way? No way. It's palpable sometimes. Just being around my Latino friends gets me some dirty looks on occasion, and for them it's obviously way worse. And this is Southern California, where oftentimes Hispanic immigrants and their descendants outnumber white citizens. No...it's still damned awful.
And don't get me started on all of the cultures in other nations that have been wiped out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:13 pm
divineseraph more or less, mixed in with chunks of "he good guys always win" or "the supressed always get their freedom"- well, except the indians, they pretty much got screwed. Actually, India seems to be doing quite well. ...Oh, you mean American Indians. Right. xd @Dionaea: o.O It must really depend on where you are. I live in the Dallas, TX area, and work at a mall where most of our customers and employees are either Black or Hispanic (Like, the only other place I've seen so many black people was Jamaica), and everyone gets along fine. Same with our college campus. Hugely diversified, with people coming from India, Pakistan, freaking Nigeria, (In fact, my old roommate used to call it "University of Ten Americans," since our acronym is UTA) but no one really gets "looked at different" or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:29 am
Well, anyone who knows me knows full well that I lean majorly to the right. But I have to say that the Bush presidency has without a doubt been the worst our country has ever seen. I don't feel he cares about the overall country... rather his own political gain. Furthermore, he's not an incredibly bright individual. I'm not saying he's stupid but I feel that a president should have an above average intelligence. The main thing for me is the pointless war in Iraq… from day one it was never about “weapons of mass destruction”. Oh no, it was all about the Bush family and their vendetta against Hussein.
The war in Iraq has simply been a disaster... no weapons of mass destruction and a failed launch for a new Iraqi government with U.S. soldiers continuing to die each day is just inexcusable. It's time to bring our friends and family home.
The Bush administration has also done little to protect marriage or make any tougher abortion laws. The only compliment I can pay to Bush is that he hasn’t totally messed up the economy… but I could also mention the fact that he hasn’t done a lot to stop out sourcing of jobs either…
Will our next election bring us a president we can be proud of? At this point, I’m rather doubtful. Obama’s for abortion as well as the homosexual agenda; and Juliani is also for abortion (plus he’s been known to cheat on his wife). As for Hillary Clinton… oh man, don’t even get me started on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:19 am
   If it comes to Giuliani or Obama, I'd take Giuliani. I just don't think he can win, because a lot of social conservatives won't vote for him even if he's the only candidate (we saw what happened when Bush got elected because "It's better than Kerry"), and the democrats have no reason to vote for him over Obama (considering he supports the war and is fiscally conservative).  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:25 pm
I.Am @Dionaea: o.O It must really depend on where you are. I live in the Dallas, TX area, and work at a mall where most of our customers and employees are either Black or Hispanic (Like, the only other place I've seen so many black people was Jamaica), and everyone gets along fine. Same with our college campus. Hugely diversified, with people coming from India, Pakistan, freaking Nigeria, (In fact, my old roommate used to call it "University of Ten Americans," since our acronym is UTA) but no one really gets "looked at different" or anything. It varies from city, state, neighborhood, and a whole bunch of variables. There's a lot of ingrained discrimination going around. It's certainly not the majority of people but it's enough to give pause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:28 pm
As a whole, minorities get treated worse. In some parts it's better than other parts...When you're in a community where everyone is sort of forced to get along or else they have no friends, there's one thing, but in a big city, people have the luxury to ignore people based on superficial things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:33 pm
"Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:
'… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.'"- WorldNetDailyI understand that what he was doing was saying that unborn children should not have rights. But in this case, we are talking about a child that has been born. The fact that it was not meant to survive shouldn't matter. I guess he has no problem discarding common sense (and common decency) for political purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:03 pm
  See, now I thought it wasn't about age, but about the fetus being an invader and violating her bodily integrity! RvW didn't say that a fetus is not a person (or is a person) but it said abortion laws violated the woman's privacy, right?
But Senator Obama thinks that personhood is based on age? So if my child is born, normally, and I want that child, at 8 and a half months, Senator Obama, does that mean my child is not a person and I shouldn't apply for a birth certificate? Can I then smother my child sometime in the next two weeks because it's not a person?
Does he realize the implications of what he said?
He thinks that it's meant to ban abortion because of the wording. I understand that. But...
"whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. "
What he's saying is, "If we protect these infants, then that means we need to protect all fetuses at this stage." Why? The basis for abortion being legal ISN'T the personhood of the fetus, it's about a woman's bodily integrity being violated, correct? If a fetus is no longer violating her bodily integrity, then shouldn't that mean they have no right to kill it? Or is it really about the personhood of a fetus but no one dares to say that because they know damn well that saying you need to be a certain age to have rights is discrimination? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:01 pm
'… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.'"
Um, he's not saying he doesn't support this, he's saying it wouldn't survive congressional challenge. He's saying it would by definition override RvW, which many people refuse to do.
Honestly, where are any of you getting the idea that he thinks fetuses should not be considered children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:13 pm
La Veuve Zin '… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.'"Um, he's not saying he doesn't support this, he's saying it wouldn't survive congressional challenge. He's saying it would by definition override RvW, which many people refuse to do. Honestly, where are any of you getting the idea that he thinks fetuses should not be considered children? I haven't seen the actual language of the bill (because I haven't been able to find it). If it did refer to fetuses as children, then I can see why a pro-choicer ultimately wouldn't support it. What I don't understand is that, as I understand it, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act applied only to those babies that were outside of the mother's body. At that point, they can no longer (even by most adamant pro-choicers) be considered mere fetuses; they are obviously children. But there is no doubt - Obama does not consider fetuses children (most choicers don't). If he did, he would have to consider abortion murder. He may be saying that he doesn't think any babies are people until the nine-month point (born or unborn), but that's a pretty extreme position. (I'm not sure if the determining factor for him is that it is full-term or at the point of viability. But since fetuses can be viable before nine months... I'm not sure what he's saying.) The thing is, though, that he didn't say, "I would support this legislation if it was worded differently." (Not that I'm aware of, anyway.) He basically just said, "I can't support this because it could allow for the banning of abortion." (Wow, that was a lot wordier than I meant to be... eek )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:12 pm
Quote: ‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Con- 10 gress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the 11 various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United 12 States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘in- 13 dividual’, shall include every infant member of the species 14 homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of develop- 15 ment. 16 ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, 17 with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, 18 means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or 19 her mother of that member, at any stage of development, 20 who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a 21 beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite 22 movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the 23 umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the 24 expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or 25 induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
I'd say that's pretty clear that it won't affect any fetuses who are aborted successfully.
He did say he'd support it if the definition wouldn't ban abortions.
Here's the thing...the definition DOESN'T ban abortions. It may be too late and that's why I'm not reading correctly, but I'm pretty sure that thing was pretty clear about the fetus having to be expelled.
Also, saying that he doesn't think a child born alive before 9 months should have the same rights as a child born at full term is pretty indicative of how he feels on the personhood of a fetus.
This wouldn't threaten RvW at all since RvW isn't based on personhood, but on a woman's body. Once a baby is born, it has nothing to do with the woman's body any longer. If abortionists don't want to be called baby-killers, then they shouldn't have a problem with having to take care of abortion survivors, and Senators shouldn't have a problem making them refrain from throwing living humans aside to let them die, especially not when with some of them, there's a chance of living. If they think that the constitution guarantees the right to a dead baby instead of the right to privacy, then they need to re-read it. Saying, "It won't hold up to constitutional scrutiny," is bullshit. Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Amendment XX, Article II, No woman shall be denied a dead fetus."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
