Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I don't have time to look it up right now, but I remember in one of the many election threads, someone posting or posting a link to a list of campaign contributions broken down by party. The discrepancy between republicans and democrats regarding the amount of money they had received from attorneys and attorney groups was more disproportionate than any other special interest. I'm not sure how I see it is stupid argument to make when Dems are always strongly in favor of bills like this or staunchly against any serious tort reform. It isn't really hard to 'research'...this is a great link. http://www.opensecrets.org/ There are no innocents when it comes to money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Anyone seen this ad by Catholicvote.com: I think it's a very powerful ad that would be fantastic for thousands to see. Unfortunatley, NBC won't allow it for the Super Bowl: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=87440 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Anyone seen this ad by Catholicvote.com: I think it's a very powerful ad that would be fantastic for thousands to see. Unfortunatley, NBC won't allow it for the Super Bowl: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=87440 Where'd they get that footage of Obama in utero? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Obama touts middle-class task force led by Biden By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Artifice Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I am having a difficult time understanding the legal basis for any of these executive orders, regardless of who wrote them, or whether or not I like them. Since when can a president solely author standing law? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I am having a difficult time understanding the legal basis for any of these executive orders, regardless of who wrote them, or whether or not I like them. Since when can a president solely author standing law? Uh, Dude....it's OBAMA, man. O-B-A-M-A! Don't you get it? He can do whatever the hell he wants. And we're gonna let 'em, 'cause he KNOWS what's best for America. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IATTBYB Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I am having a difficult time understanding the legal basis for any of these executive orders, regardless of who wrote them, or whether or not I like them. Since when can a president solely author standing law?It has been a loooong time since Con Law, but the legal basis for executive orders implicitly comes from the Constitution vesting the Executive Power with the President. Basically, Executive Orders are the directions from the Head of the Executive Branch of Government (the President) the the various Executive Branches instructing how the laws passed by Congress are to be executed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Artifice Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I have a J.D. as well. That's why it really bothers me. It's one thing to direct operations of Federal Agencies, but for the last couple of decades that I've bothered paying attention, many of these have exceeded that function and actually created law. BTW jakob, W was every bit as guilty of this. Moreso, in fact. He's the current record holder, though I'm wondering if Obama will overtake him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IATTBYB Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I guess I was "preaching to the choir" then. And I agree with you 100% that recent administrations have greatly increased the use of the executive order power. I can envision someone challenging the current administration's use of the e.o. power in court and when it finally gets up to the S. Ct., the Conservative/Strict Construcionists will grant cert and then may reign in the use of the power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Uh, Dude....it's OBAMA, man. O-B-A-M-A! Don't you get it? He can do whatever the hell he wants. And we're gonna let 'em, 'cause he KNOWS what's best for America.Says the guy who (likely) voted for W. twice. All of a sudden you have a problem with this. And as for that abortion ad, are they going to air the one cursing Hitler's mom? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 And as for that abortion ad, are they going to air the one cursing Hitler's mom? Funny. But Hitler's not our President. Or, at least, I hope not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Ads like that seem to miss the point, IMO. I saw a bumper sticker recently in the same vein. It read, "Smile! Your mother chose life!" Do pre-lifers think that pro-choicers sit around plotting more ways to kill babies? The point is that it remains a choice. As Clinton said (paraphrasing), "abortion should be legal, safe and rare." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Ads like that seem to miss the point, IMO. I saw a bumper sticker recently in the same vein. It read, "Smile! Your mother chose life!" Do pre-lifers think that pro-choicers sit around plotting more ways to kill babies? The point is that it remains a choice. As Clinton said (paraphrasing), "abortion should be legal, safe and rare." You expect me to say "yes"? You KNOW it's so much more than that. Choice is fine. But many have a problem with the Freedom of Choice Act. That bill could eliminate state restrictions on abortion. That would include parental notification. Some fear the law would prevent hospitals and doctors with bad consciences (who believe abortion is wrong) from not performing them. As a Catholic, we have parts of service each week that asks us to pray for various people. Last week, we were asked to pray for Moms and Dads who are grieving over their loss of their aborted baby. Pro-lifers know it's painful shit for everyone involved. Which is probably a big reason why many pro-lifers want to eliminate as many as possible. Obama taking away the ban on federal funding for family planning world-wide isn't gonna exactly gonna make pro-lifers happy. (I'm not replying to anything more on this topic.....this NEVER seems to lead anywhere. We're all stubborn in our beliefs.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Well again, you as a Catholic, make a choice, but your religious beliefs aren't the beliefs of all and their choices deserve to be their own. NO ONE wants an abortion, but it is up to the individuals directly involved to make the determination whether or not that is the best course of action. I respect your beliefs and realize that there are no easy answers on this issue and we're not likely to change anyone's minds on an iNternet message board, so I'll leave it at that as well. (although you raised the issue of the advertisement). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think any company willing to spend 1.5 million dollars on an anti-abortion Super Bowl ad has their priorities more than a bit out of whack. Values are likely more entrenched than whoever thought this was a good idea must believe. Couldn't they have instead put that money towards handing out condoms at schools and, you know, actually stood a chance of stopping an abortion or two? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think any company willing to spend 1.5 million dollars on an anti-abortion Super Bowl ad has their priorities more than a bit out of whack. Values are likely more entrenched than whoever thought this was a good idea must believe. Couldn't they have instead put that money towards handing out condoms at schools and, you know, actually stood a chance of stopping an abortion or two? For some reason I have a hard time picturing a Catholic organization handing out condoms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 As a Catholic, we have parts of service each week that asks us to pray for various people. Last week, we were asked to pray for Moms and Dads who are grieving over their loss of their aborted baby. Pro-lifers know it's painful shit for everyone involved. Which is probably a big reason why many pro-lifers want to eliminate as many as possible. Obama taking away the ban on federal funding for family planning world-wide isn't gonna exactly gonna make pro-lifers happy. I used to be catholic but as I grew older and learned the history of the church and how the ideology/thology evolved I had to leave. But over the past few years I would say the Catholic shurch has become as much a political organization as it is a church. But this has been by design. You think the higherarchy of the republicna party really gives a rats ass abotu ending abortion? They made totrture the law of the land, effectively suspended habeus corpus and the 4th amendment among others and yet took no action on abortion when they had majorities in both houses, the courts and the white house. None zip, nadda no action. Nope it has never been in their interest to end abortion, it is too valuable of a political tool to have it ended. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 For some reason I have a hard time picturing a Catholic organization handing out condoms.One of the front runners for the Papacy last time around (Archbishop of Milan I believe) did just that - he promoted a policy that handed out condoms to prostitutes! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think any company willing to spend 1.5 million dollars on an anti-abortion Super Bowl ad has their priorities more than a bit out of whack. Values are likely more entrenched than whoever thought this was a good idea must believe. Couldn't they have instead put that money towards handing out condoms at schools and, you know, actually stood a chance of stopping an abortion or two?The crazed logic by these guys is that not only can't you have an abortion, you also can't have a condom either, because that is another form of birth control. Heaven forbid (literally) they should want to stop anyone from having a baby except by telling them not to have sex period. I was at an alternative school yesterday that had a jar full of condoms.....I didn't take any.... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The crazed logic by these guys is that not only can't you have an abortion, you also can't have a condom either, because that is another form of birth control. Heaven forbid (literally) they should want to stop anyone from having a baby except by telling them not to have sex period. I was at an alternative school yesterday that had a jar full of condoms.....I didn't take any.... LouieBHaving been raised Catholic, I'm aware that they're not exceptionally gung-ho about any form of contraception. I was just pointing out the lunacy of the whole ordeal. Coming from the largest employer of child molesters in the world, the idea that sex is so ultra sacred that even a tiny prophylactic is taboo rings a little hollow. If we want to end abortion (and my guess is that we all do), the pro-lifers are going to have to make some concessions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I am having a difficult time understanding the legal basis for any of these executive orders, regardless of who wrote them, or whether or not I like them. Since when can a president solely author standing law?"If the president does it, it's not illegal." Nope it has never been in their interest to end abortion, it is too valuable of a political tool to have it ended.Good point - parallels my belief that drugs will never be legalized because there's too much money to be made in keeping them illegal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Oh, and when was Mitt Romney allowed back into the national dialogue? STFU, and go form a hair club with Blagojevich, ass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think the government should pay for me to go back to school, but my "lack of financial need" is kind of standing in the way. Apparently we're supposed to use our emergency savings and our retirement accounts to pay for school. Kind of an incentive to be irresponsible with our money, I'd say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 Oh, and when was Mitt Romney allowed back into the national dialogue? STFU, and go form a hair club with Blagojevich, ass. Yes, Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, etc. can talk about religion, abortion, how gay people are going to hell, so-called family values, fighting commies, etc. Meanwhile - here is what the President is doing: Union officials say the new orders by Obama will undo Bush administration policies that favored employers over workers. The orders will: _Require federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change. _Reverse a Bush administration order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their exclusive bargaining representatives. _Prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining. "We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests," Obama said during a signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House. "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution," he said. "You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Amen, Mr. President. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.