fetterman for the win

[searcher]

I guess my question comes down to this.

How can we ever find agreement with each other if one side will not say exactly what it is that they want?

How do we reach compromise in that case?

Viking talked about it (Roe) belonging to the states. Understand that. But there were states chomping at the bit for the supremes to overturn Roe so they could enact their draconian laws. Had the supremes simply let Roe stand the way it was we wouldn't be having this chat.

I'm going to vote against anyone who is against anyone who doesn't believe that people have every right to determine what goes on with their own bodies and healthcare. If someone thinks they should be the one who decides how another human being should deal with their body and their health they will not get a vote from me.

With me it's not a repub vs dem thing. I vote for who I think is best suited for the job. In this case it's someone who believes in personal choice vs someone who doesn't. So Fetterman's going to get my vote.

 

[Joe King]

Most of the party has been in Destroy America mode ever since the Civil War.

It sure appears that way.

The certainly do not seem to respect the Constitutional limits on governmental power.

 

[searcher]

Ok, by your lack of an actual response, I can only conclude that no-limit abortion is the goal.
Ie: right up until the day of full-term delivery.

You did say that you talk extensively about this issue with women from all walks of life, but the subject of how long is acceptable never came up?
That's kinda hard to believe, but whatever. Lol

I'm on several different sites right now. Takes me a while to respond.

 

[Joe King]

Had the supremes simply let Roe stand the way it was we wouldn't be having this chat.

Had the pro-abortion crowd not challenged the 15 week limit in Mississippi, the issue would not have been available for the Supremes to rule on to begin with.

They chose to fight for more, and lost.

Had they not done that, they would still have the "Right" to abort babies.

Taking things to court means that you may or may not win.

I wish someone on your side would just say what they think the limit should be, but apparently no one on that side can articulate exactly what it is that they want.
....and that alone prevents us from finding common ground.

 

[searcher]

Had the pro-abortion crowd not challenged the 15 week limit in Mississippi, the issue would not have been available for the Supremes to rule on to begin with.

They chose to fight for more, and lost.

Had they not done that, they would still have the "Right" to abort babies.

Taking things to court means that you may or may not win.

I wish someone on your side would just say what they think the limit should be, but apparently no one on that side can articulate exactly what it is that they want.
....and that alone prevents us from finding common ground.

Don't have a side and the peeps I talk to are just regular working class / retirees who get together for a few drinks once in a while. Not really political but we do vote. For us it's not a matter of time limits, it's simply personal choice (and privacy) vs being dictated to. Nothing more. We don't think it's anyone's business what another person does with their own body. health care, money, time, etc.

All we can do is to vote. Who ever wins...........wins. It is what it is, but I'll vote for the individual and privacy over the state every time.

 

[Joe King]

Don't have a side and the peeps I talk to are just regular working class / retirees who get together for a few drinks once in a while. Not really political but we do vote.

I just find it hard to believe that people who believe that having a Right to abortion is the absolute most important thing to them, also have no opinion on what an acceptable amount of time to have one, would be.

For us it's not a matter of time limits, it's simply personal choice (and privacy) vs being dictated to. Nothing more.

By that, it sounds as though you/they want no limit at all. Ie: abortion on demand right up until the day of birth.

If that is the case, they will never find agreement with their opponents.

Their opponents are at least willing to compromise on the issue. The pro-abortionists seem not to be.

We don't think it's anyone's business what another person does with their own body. health care, money, time, etc

I actually agree with you on this one, with the only difference being that I am in favor of limiting everything you mentioned if the actions taken damage another.

For example, you should be able to do anything you want with your money, but if you use it to hire a hitman to kill someone, that should in fact be illegal.
...and hiring an abortionist to kill ones baby is not akin to hiring a hitman?
Edited to add: in both cases, a life is unwillingly extinguished.

All we can do is to vote. Who ever wins...........wins. It is what it is,

So you are willing to accept the outcome of an election that might come down to a narrow loss of a 49%/51% split, but are unwilling to accept a 2/3rds majority decision in a court case?

That doesn't seem to be very consistent.

but I'll vote for the individual and privacy over the state every time.

What about all the other recent SC rulings of late that have gone against big government wishes?

For instance, the ruling on gun Rights, or the one where they spanked the epa. Those are rulings for the Rights of the individual that we would not have gotten without having the Justices we currently have.

 

[Goldhedge]

I just find it hard to believe that people who believe that having a Right to abortion is the absolute most important thing to them, also have no opinion on what an acceptable amount of time to have one, would be.

Destroying the family structure, telling women that having a 'career' instead of a family is more important, i.e., being 'equal' to men, the 'bother' of children so you farm them out to daycare....

No problem!

 

[searcher]

I just find it hard to believe that people who believe that having a Right to abortion is the absolute most important thing to them, also have no opinion on what an acceptable amount of time to have one, would be.

By that, it sounds as though you/they want no limit at all. Ie: abortion on demand right up until the day of birth.

Not looking at this the way you are. It isn't the "right to abortion" it's the who gets to decide. The individual and her doctor or the state.

I do agree on a time limit. I'm not some depraved psycho. As to when the cut off should be is way too far outta my pay league for me to enter into a discussion about it.

But once again................it isn't about the actual abortion. It's about someone's right to privacy and their right to decide what's best for them as to their health care and their own body. Not some state official, not some religious zealot, not some know it all political hack. But the individual involved and her doctor.

 

[Newmisty]

Joe..........most of the women I know have shoved aside the "killing babies" way of looking at this and are, instead, focusing on their rights as a human being to decide their own medical care and what goes on with their own bodies.

They feel betrayed by the supreme court and the politicians who feel they don't deserve any rights as far as their own bodies are concerned. I've talked to quite a few women who are registered repubs but who have said this was over the top and want anyone who agrees with the supremes gone. Gone as out of and in some cases gone off the planet. They are royally pissed, and I think they will be out in droves on election day.

Trouble is, that infant, fetus or baby is not "her body". Who is going to protect the unborn if not us? Premeditated murder is unacceptable.

 

[searcher]

Who is going to protect the unborn if not us? Premeditated murder is unacceptable.

Understand what you're saying. Subject matter is a major quagmire that will never have a good ending.

Maybe one day congress can take a look at how the rest of the industrialized countries deal with this. Then figure a good way to deal with it here in America where all sides can reach an amicable agreement and then pass a national law so that it's not up to individual states as to what rights an individual has or doesn't have.

 

[Joe King]

looking at this the way you are. It isn't the "right to abortion" it's the who gets to decide. The individual and her doctor or the state.

We had that, but the pro-abortionists wanted more.
They took a gamble and lost, but are unwilling to accept the results they got.

I do agree on a time limit.

I'm glad to hear that.
...but by saying there should be a time limit, who or what is to set that limit that you agree should in fact be set? If not the government.

Who/what else other than gov, has the means to enforce the limit that you say should exist?

As to when the cut off should be is way too far outta my pay league for me to enter into a discussion about it.

Why? For an issue that you obviously feel very passionately about, you have not ever thought about where an appropriate limit should be? Edited to add: ...and I'm not asking for an exact number of days. Even a ballpark number would work.


It was already acceptable up to nearly 45% of the full nine Months in the State they chose to take their fight to.

Is that too much, just right, or not enough?

But once again................it isn't about the actual abortion. It's about someone's right to privacy and their right to decide what's best for them as to their health care and their own body. Not some state official, not some religious zealot, not some know it all political hack. But the individual involved and her doctor.

Again, that sure sounds like no limit abortion.

To completely remove government restrictions on abortion would put it on par with a cancerous tumor being cut out of ones body.
....and by definition, that would mean that it could be performed at any time during the nine Month term. A tumor can be removed at any time, after all.


The issue you are ignoring is that it is a human baby that is being killed, and is the ONLY reason as to why the gov ever got involved in the issue to begin with. It is protecting the most innocent of life that is utterly incapable of defending itself.

 

[searcher]

A lot of things should be considered. Age, rape, incest, is the birth viable, money (sounds cruel but will the child be taken care of) is the woman's health in danger, etc. All of this and more need to be taken into consideration.

Having some holier than thou state governor make a proclamation that under no circumstances will abortions be allowed in his / her state is tantamount to him or her acting like they are a god and you are their dirtbag subject with no rights.

Doesn't sit well with me. I'll vote against that garbage every time. Until such time as there is a national law that takes all the above into consideration, I say let the woman and her doctor decide.

 

[Joe King]

A lot of things should be considered. Age, rape, incest, is the birth viable, money (sounds cruel but will the child be taken care of) is the woman's health in danger, etc. All of this and more need to be taken into consideration.

I could find a compromise on most of the things you mentioned.
....but what about its use as a form of birth control? Which account for the reason for an overwhelming number of abortions. Things like rape and incest resulting in the need for abortions represent a very small percentage of the abortions that have been performed.

Having some holier than thou state governor make a proclamation that under no circumstances will abortions be allowed in his / her state is tantamount to him or her acting like they are a god and you are their dirtbag subject with no rights.

You're ignoring the fact that it is a baby in there, not a cancerous tumor of some sort.

, I say let the woman and her doctor decide

Now we're back to unlimited abortions up to the day of birth.

 

[searcher]

I could find a compromise on most of the things you mentioned.
....but what about its use as a form of birth control? Which account for the reason for an overwhelming number of abortions. Things like rape and incest resulting in the need for abortions represent a very small percentage of the abortions that have been performed.



You're ignoring the fact that it is a baby in there, not a cancerous tumor of some sort.




Now we're back to unlimited abortions up to the day of birth.

 

[Joe King]

View attachment 1872

??? Was just attempting to discuss with the the subject that you chose to bring up.

 

[Viking]

Right to privacy. What about the family? Why should the state interfere with infanticide?

 

[Irons]

Really? Did you watch the disaster they called a debate? Fetterman has no business being in gov. He could have an R or an L by his name, and I'd say they same thing. It's nothing personal about him, just that his condition after his stroke has left him mentally disabled and obviously unfit for public office.

Edited to add: not to mention the fact that he doesn't pay his own taxes, but would vote to increase your taxes. Lol

No offence, but you appear to think we still have elections in this country. Which moron is being run is the least of our problems.




.

 

[searcher]

??? Was just attempting to discuss with the the subject that you chose to bring up.

You're a pro. I'm not. lol

Irons said something good about the "moron being run." Pretty close on the mark when you look at a lot of the different people running in this election. I have to vote for the moron who I feel will do the least damage to the things I believe in.

 

[Joe King]

You're a pro. I'm not. lol

Says the most prolific poster I've ever encountered in my 25 years of interwebs. Lol

 

[BigJim]

Says the most prolific poster I've ever encountered in my 25 years of interwebs. Lol

Quantity doesn't equal quality...

 

[searcher]

Says the most prolific poster I've ever encountered in my 25 years of interwebs. Lol

To be honest........I had a little help. But those days are long gone.
_________________________________________

Was reading an article in today's paper about Fetterman's stance on crime vs Oz's. Had forgotten about that. Philly is rife with crime and gun violence. That's gonna hurt Fetterman big time.

 

[Joe King]

Quantity doesn't equal quality...

True, but to be fair I found quite a bit of @searcher 's extensive GIM postings to be interesting, and on a wide variety of subjects.
....and there's nothing wrong with that.

I was just trying to explore with him, the subject he brought up in order to see if there might at least be some common ground to be found.

 

[Joe King]

Was reading an article in today's paper about Fetterman's stance on crime vs Oz's. Had forgotten about that. Philly is rife with crime and gun violence. That's gonna hurt Fetterman big time.

Should it not? Why should people suffering from high crime rates vote for a guy who wants to release a large percentage of those currently serving time, back into their community that is already rife with crime?

Add to that those who feel their taxes are already too high and are being asked to vote for a guy who wants to raise 'em even more.
....and who doesn't pay them himself.

Do you really think those people are gonna want to vote for him? I sure don't.

 

[searcher]

Do you really think those people are gonna want to vote for him? I sure don't.

No. They want something done. Especially in the city.

Add to that those who feel their taxes are already too high and are being asked to vote for a guy who wants to raise 'em even more.
....and who doesn't pay them himself.

Had me laughing with this one.

 

[Joe King]

Had me laughing with this one.

Ok, but is it not true?

 

[searcher]

Ok, but is it not true?

Yeah......it's true. But funny.

 

[Joe King]

Yeah......it's true. But funny.

What is funny about people who think their taxes are too high, not wanting to vote for a guy who wants to raise their taxes even more?
....or are you implying that him running at all, is the joke? If so, then yes it is funny.

 

[searcher]

What is funny about people who think their taxes are too high, not wanting to vote for a guy who wants to raise their taxes even more?
....or are you implying that him running at all, is the joke? If so, then yes it is funny.

It's how you worded it...................

those who feel their taxes are already too high and are being asked to vote for a guy who wants to raise 'em even more.
....and who doesn't pay them himself.

The "............and who doesn't pay them himself" was funny as hell.

There is a commercial on tv for Oz where they say Fetterman lived with his parents until he was 49. Every time I hear that I smile. I really don't take the ads for candidates seriously. Like Irons said "the morons." Oh well.

If you're interested:

John Fetterman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joe King]

The "............and who doesn't pay them himself" was funny as hell.

Ok, per your link, he apparently paid them. I'll give ya that one.

However, there is still the crime issue and him advocating releasing lots of criminals. Is he also one who supports no bail for those arrested for serious and/or violent crimes?

 

[Goldbrix]

To be honest........I had a little help. But those days are long gone.
_________________________________________

Was reading an article in today's paper about Fetterman's stance on crime vs Oz's. Had forgotten about that. Philly is rife with crime and gun violence. That's gonna hurt Fetterman big time.

Fetterman is a parasite, never worked a day in his life, Lives off Mommy, Daddy, and Sis. Sister bought him the house he lives in, and he doesn't pay his taxes, the family pays them.
He makes a great Leftist Politician.
Vladimir Lenin only got 25% of the vote when he returned to Russia, but led a coup to install his communist party.
With Bidet we may never know how many voters actually voted for him.

 

[searcher]

Ok, per your link, he apparently paid them. I'll give ya that one.

However, there is still the crime issue and him advocating releasing lots of criminals. Is he also one who supports no bail for those arrested for serious and/or violent crimes?

He wants bail reform as well as to see less people in prison for non-violent crimes. Don't want to go off a tangent here but we (the US) has more people in prison per capita than any other country in the industrialized world. Something's wrong with that.

Here's Oz............

Mehmet Oz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nickndfl]

Says the most prolific poster I've ever encountered in my 25 years of interwebs. Lol

Agree with or not, Searcher is iconic.

 

[Joe King]

Agree with or not, Searcher is iconic.

Absolutely!

 

[Bigfoot]

He wants bail reform as well as to see less people in prison for non-violent crimes. Don't want to go off a tangent here but we (the US) has more people in prison per capita than any other country in the industrialized world. Something's wrong with that.

I agree with you, 100% on that. My ideal political candidate would create a bill to completely eliminate the Controlled Substances Act
and the Drug Enforcement Administration. But...

The United States, as a country, is on the verge of destruction due to a number of agendas being pushed. The top three threats, in my opinion, are:

* Injection mandates
* Anti-fossil fuel regulations
* Digital currency /digital ID

Theses things will DESTROY the United States of America as we know it. Oz, is pro-fossil fuel, and he was correct about
hydroxychloroquine.

Fettermen has bought into the carbon demonization nonsense and he's anti-firearm. My guess is he would support forced
injections, as that is the Democratic party position.

Traditionally, I vote Libertarian from state level up to the president. But not this time. We are big trouble if the UN/WEF/BIS succeeds in impoverishing the American people under the guise of fighting "climate change", while simultaneously continuing to increase all cause mortality via coerced injections. All of it leads to death, poverty, and enslavement via cell phone token money.

 

[Goldbrix]

He wants bail reform as well as to see less people in prison for non-violent crimes. Don't want to go off a tangent here but we (the US) has more people in prison per capita than any other country in the industrialized world. Something's wrong with that.....

So what is China ?
Slave Labor don't count ?

 

[BigJim]

Imbeciles like fetterman, aoc, biden, etc are just imbeciles until libtards vote them in, then they become dangerous imbeciles.
What's worse, the sin, or the acceptance of the sin?

 

[nickndfl]

Fetterwoman For Sale would make another good thread title.

 

[BigJim]

Fetterman's Hometown Paper Endorses Republican Oz for PA Senate

Radical John Fetterman's hometown paper on Sunday endorsed Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz for Pennsylvania’s next senator.

www.breitbart.com

 

[searcher]

On 10/27:

My PA predictions:

-Josh Shapiro gov
-John Fetterman sen
-Brian Fitzpatrick cong
-K.C. Tomlinson PA house of reps

Let's see how I did:

MSN

www.msn.com

Pennsylvania election results, 2022

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[searcher]

Fetterman Celebrates Pennsylvania Senate Win​

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman thanks supporters and his family in celebration after his projected win in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
4 mins 8 secs