Barack Obama Speech

[doulos]

I don't think any serious minds think this issue is black and white. It is an incredibly nuanced topic. That said, I do agree most people don't take the time and effort to study it in depth, thus the hostility on the fringe of both sides.

Studies pretty much across the board show that proper education, healthcare, access to birth control and social services like planned parenthood, do much more to reduce abortion than draconian laws against it.

I don't disagree with your final sentence at all. It's just that getting someone to take the winding road to understanding that is a long process, particularly for someone who has a very deep belief in the sanctity of life. It takes a lot of work and time. I used to be one of those people and I understand how emotionally tied into the belief an individual is.

[STONE.]

You're right. But not my point. Discussions with real people, face to face, is the only way to move forward on convincing anyone of big and important issues in my experience.

Agreed, although even face-to-face it's hard when many have been indoctrinated from a VERY young age (often it's the first justice issues young, religious folks are challenged with--and I'm speaking from experience) with one angle from which to approach the issue. I'm both religious and against abortion--so I'm not critical of the desire, just frustrated with the inability to consider broader possible solutions.

Whether it's re-evaluating Police funding, military funding, environmental industry, etc., I think there are often deep-seeded beliefs that get tied to things bigger than politics or policies. And that's a shame.

[Auston'sWilly]

Care about the unborn? Vote blue.

false.JPG



I'm about as likely to use an NBC link for "research" as you are to use FOX.
And I wouldn't criticize either one of us for that approach.
Both should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, that didn't seem to happen in your nbc post, so I'm not including that link again. That theory has been soundly debunked (luckily, I was able to see the nature of the propaganda within the link itself).
Factcheck Link below.
No proof of correlation.
And Snopes is pretty liberal-leaning, so I'm comfortable that this debunking must be accurate if even they are willing to post it.

So either you intentionally excluded relevant information that you knew about or you found something that aligned with your perspective and ended your "research" there.
smh

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ab...-presidencies/

(Here's the gist of it, for those wanting to skip the snopes link provided) : Following legalization in 73, totals & rates & ratios ALL spiked "rapidly" before peaking in the 80s and "falling since then under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House).

[Axeman33]

Arent you guys tired of doing this dance yet?

[STONE.]

Glad to see you didn't click the link —the article I posted had nothing to do with the Snopes article you posted. It was a broader summary of much more research on international trends.

The Snopes article didn’t entirely debunk the idea that Dems help with abortion rates either—merely stated that there has been a consistent decline and that it’s not entirely accurate to credit one party (although the Snopes article and the graph it responds to do show the decline is more consistent during Democratic presidencies).

Thanks though.

[lucafen4]

false.JPG



I'm about as likely to use an NBC link for "research" as you are to use FOX.
And I wouldn't criticize either one of us for that approach.
Both should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, that didn't seem to happen in your nbc post, so I'm not including that link again. That theory has been soundly debunked (luckily, I was able to see the nature of the propaganda within the link itself).
Factcheck Link below.
No proof of correlation.
And Snopes is pretty liberal-leaning, so I'm comfortable that this debunking must be accurate if even they are willing to post it.

So either you intentionally excluded relevant information that you knew about or you found something that aligned with your perspective and ended your "research" there.
smh

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ab...-presidencies/

(Here's the gist of it, for those wanting to skip the snopes link provided) : Following legalization in 73, totals & rates & ratios ALL spiked "rapidly" before peaking in the 80s and "falling since then under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House).

I'll do one better, speak only of Barack (as the title suggests!), leaving out President Trump entirely (both by name and/or obvious reference), and I won't write another peep in here. Good luck folks.

Shouldn't be a problem, right?!
I MEAN, if it was truly intended to be an Obama thread. Should be a slam dunk.

Just curious is all.......

[Auston'sWilly]

^ Regardless of whatever propaganda being pushed in that nbc link, you ended it with "vote blue if you care about the unborn."

There is no evidence to support that statement.

[Auston'sWilly]

Just curious is all.......

Exactly. Had they kept POTUS out of it, I would not have returned. It's supposed to be a Barack thread.
And then they just kept going. Why are you singling me out for being off topic but nobody else ?

[lucafen4]

false.JPG



I'm about as likely to use an NBC link for "research" as you are to use FOX.
And I wouldn't criticize either one of us for that approach.
Both should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, that didn't seem to happen in your nbc post, so I'm not including that link again. That theory has been soundly debunked (luckily, I was able to see the nature of the propaganda within the link itself).
Factcheck Link below.
No proof of correlation.
And Snopes is pretty liberal-leaning, so I'm comfortable that this debunking must be accurate if even they are willing to post it.

So either you intentionally excluded relevant information that you knew about or you found something that aligned with your perspective and ended your "research" there.
smh

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ab...-presidencies/

(Here's the gist of it, for those wanting to skip the snopes link provided) : Following legalization in 73, totals & rates & ratios ALL spiked "rapidly" before peaking in the 80s and "falling since then under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House).

Exactly. Had they kept POTUS out of it, I would not have returned. It's supposed to be a Barack thread.
And then they just kept going. Why are you singling me out for being off topic but nobody else ?

Who else said they were leaving the thread? Is no one else asking questions to specific people? Believe all I said was I was curious.

[STONE.]

I suppose you’re correct. I’ll revise:

If you support the unborn, vote for the party that supports healthcare for all, improving public education access for all, and offering social services for those struggling to get themselves out of poverty.

Apologies for overstepping.

[Auston'sWilly]

I suppose you’re correct. I’ll revise:

If you support the unborn, vote for the party that supports healthcare for all, improving public education access for all, and offering social services for those struggling to get themselves out of poverty.

Apologies for overstepping.

Fair enough. Cheers.

(And just for the record, I disagree with many of my conservative brethren on abortion. I'll leave it at that).

[Rylant]

Exactly. Had they kept POTUS out of it, I would not have returned. It's supposed to be a Barack thread.
And then they just kept going. Why are you singling me out for being off topic but nobody else ?

This actually isn’t a “Barack” thread, it’s a “Barack Obama speech“ thread. And if you had listened to that speech, you would realize that speech was about the upcoming election. You know, Biden, Trump... so you can talk about Trump AND be on point with the original thread. The knee bone is connected to the dick bone, right?...

Of course, nobody believed for one second that you would stay away. We are continually blessed by your incessant garbage...

Rylant

[Auston'sWilly]

This actually isn’t a “Barack” thread, it’s a “Barack Obama speech“ thread. And if you had listened to that speech, you would realize that speech was about the upcoming election. You know, Biden, Trump... so you can talk about Trump AND be on point with the original thread. The knee bone is connected to the dick bone, right?...

Of course, nobody believed for one second that you would stay away. We are continually blessed by your incessant garbage...

Rylant

^Exhibit A of the people who really cause the threads to go off the rails^

I give a well deserved stick tap to STONE for his mature, respectful approach (or maybe he just correctly assumes it's not worth the time to antagonize me) and Rylant comes back in the very next post slinging mud.

DonaldTrumpSavesLives.JPG

I can't believe nobody wants to discuss Bobulinski and the laptop ? Perhaps the biggest media cover-up in history.
Mr. Trump exists solely to expose all that rotten corruption. That's why he ran for President, after all.
#DrainTheSWAMP!

[havanablast21]

Arent you guys tired of doing this dance yet?

I know I am. Seems to me that many trump supporters behave like Trump himself. “Oh, are these people having a discussion that fails to paint my beliefs in a positive light? Well then I better just jump in there and make it impossible for them to discuss.” “And if they won’t bow down and swallow some red pill like my buddy forces on them, then I’ll keep going until I’m successful in getting the OP’s thread closed”. Oh... “and if anyone really digs in on my behaviour, I’ll send PM’s and call their statements out as childish and make it seem like I’m saving everyone else for that persons point of view” and when they ask me not to PM them... I’ll completely ignore them and continue to talk over them”

“What was the subject of the thread again?... bah it doesn’t matter, all that matters is that people aren’t able to discuss viewpoints that aren’t inline with mine without me having an opportunity tell them that they are wrong”

[havanablast21]

My Rhetorical Question of the day.

From time to time and far more recently, I find myself thinking to myself... I thinks... “Self?...What do YOU think the qualifications are to actually become the Leader of a Nation AND do so successfully?” I mean Business Savvy and Knowledgeable Advisors aside (which are no doubt required and valuable assets) and regardless of partisanship, how do voters rank Responsibility and Accountability or a genuine sense and legitimate support of equality across sex/gender, race, socioeconomic status (I’m sure I’m missing some), an ability to confidently and respectfully speak to and for the people of which you serve as well as a sincere desire to act and make decisions in the best interest of those same people, selflessness over selfishness, environmental health along side economic strength, foreign policy united with foreign relations, confidence over arrogance, intrinsic and extrinsic empathy over narcissism and egocentrism and morality and etiquette over dishonesty and indecency? How are all these traits valued when considering ones vote for or against a Leader of a Nation?

Apparent answer?

It’s all relative and subjective based on the Audience.

Follow up rhetorical question, why are 1 or more of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, inequality, disrespect, insensitivity, selfishness, narcissism, egocentrism, dishonesty, indecency and immorality traits of a National Leader to actually get behind and publicly support with such passion... and if I relate to this, what does that say about me?

Carry on.