PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Ace on January 25, 2005, 09:52:23 AM
-
From Drudge:
HILLARY MODIFIES ABORTION LANGUAGE
Mon Jan 24 2005 20:54:55 ET
Proposing new political language about abortion rights for an increasingly skittish Democratic Party, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade.
But then she offered warm words to opponents of abortion and said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations.
The NEW YORK TIMES is set to splash the Hillary speech.
Developing...
This not an abortion thread in the sense of who here is for it or against it.
It\'s a look into the left trying to move to the right and the queen of all that is left doing it.
Anyway, looks like Hill is working overtime for 2008.
-
What\'s ur point? Legal abortions and abstinence are not mutually exclusive.
-
My point is that the left (Hillary is the left) is moving to the right we thought she would. It will be interesting to see the left\'s reaction to this move.
-
At least liberals make an attempt to acknowledge and understand the range of political and social beliefs in this country. Conservatives on the other hand react by saying "F*** you. We don\'t need you to win. Why don\'t you leave the country?"
-
I guess. I would say they do it mostly for votes. Then again, I believe most politicians do that either right or left.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
At least liberals make an attempt to acknowledge and understand the range of political and social beliefs in this country.
:laughing:
Sorry, but if you are a Christian and have certain social and moral values you don\'t fit in to the "progressive" picture of America.
Also if what your are stating were true, wouldn\'t the "liberals" have won on November 2? Liberals are out of touch with mainstream America.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
:laughing:
Sorry, but if you are a Christian and have certain social and moral values you don\'t fit in to the "progressive" picture of America.
Also if what your are stating were true, wouldn\'t the "liberals" have won on November 2? Liberals are out of touch with mainstream America.
Nice how you didn\'t quote the other portion of my post. Because you are a perfect example of a conservative who says "Fuck you, we don\'t need you to win, why don\'t you just leave the country."
Liberals are out of touch with the middle american red states, and conservatives are out of touch with the blue states. What else is new? The difference is that liberals are trying to reach out to the red states, and conservatives are blowing off the blue states.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
The difference is that liberals are trying to reach out to the red states, and conservatives are blowing off the blue states.
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
You really don\'t get it do you? A majority of American\'s don\'t want or share liberal ideals. You are right, it is getting to point where conservative America is getting tired of liberal whining and spectacles in Congress. Take todays anti war speeches by Barbara Boxer in the midst of Rice\'s confirmation as an example.
-
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
I can laugh at you as much as you laugh at me.
I\'ve said this before: GW Bush won the popular vote in the last election by 2.46% over the Democrats. If it hadn\'t been raining in Ohio that day, or if any number of other tiny details had gone differently, the Democrats could have won a razor thin victory instead.
Don\'t get cocky just because you barely won. It could have gone the other way, and you would do well to prepare for that possibility next time. Reaching out and understanding the opposing views of the blue states, which made up 48.27% of the popular vote would help the GOP assure a larger margin of victory next time.
However, the republicans don\'t seem to give a shit about our views, and they may regret that choice in the future.
-
And how is the left seriously trying to understand the red states?
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
:
I\'ve said this before: GW Bush won the popular vote in the last election by 2.46% over the Democrats. If it hadn\'t been raining in Ohio that day, or if any number of other tiny details had gone differently, the Democrats could have won a razor thin victory instead.
Hadn\'t been raining in Ohio?? :laughing: Bush won by a larger margin than Clinton ever did. Clinton never even got a majority! Also conservatives gained more seats in Congress. If that isn\'t a rejection of liberal ideals I don\'t know what is?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Hadn\'t been raining in Ohio?? :laughing: Bush won by a larger margin than Clinton ever did. Clinton never even got a majority! Also conservatives gained more seats in Congress. If that isn\'t a rejection of liberal ideals I don\'t know what is?
What are you smoking? Clinton beat Dole in 1996 with an 8.51% margin in the popular vote, and a virtual landslide in the electoral vote.
He beat GHW Bush in 1992 with a 5.56% margin in the popular vote and a slightly smaller landslide in the electoral college.
A tiny majority means nothing if almost everyone else who voted voted against you. All GW Bush could muster was a 2.46% edge over his closest competitor.
Conservatives gained a few seats in congress because southerners thought they were voting against gays. When that issue is nullified in the next election, you\'ll be back to square one. It\'s really not a good idea kick back and assume the nation is coming to agree with you.
On second thought, keep thinking that. It\'ll be funny as hell when everything is reversed in the next election. Gigashadow will be saying "Wha Happened?" :laughing:
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
What are you smoking? Clinton beat Dole in 1996 with an 8.51% margin in the popular vote, and a virtual landslide in the electoral vote.
He beat GHW Bush in 1992 with a 5.56% margin in the popular vote and a slightly smaller landslide in the electoral college.
A tiny majority means nothing if almost everyone else who voted voted against you. All GW Bush could muster was a 2.46% edge over his closest competitor.
Conservatives gained a few seats in congress because southerners thought they were voting against gays. When that issue is nullified in the next election, you\'ll be back to square one. It\'s really not a good idea kick back and assume the nation is coming to agree with you.
On second thought, keep thinking that. It\'ll be funny as hell when everything is reversed in the next election. Gigashadow will be saying "Wha Happened?" :laughing:
Clinton never won a majority. You are also talking percents which does not portray actual numbers as Bush won by more votes than Clinton ever did.
1992 Clinton had 43.3 percent
1996 Clinton had right at 50 percent which is still not a majority.
Bush had 4.5 million more votes then Kerry and won by roughly four percentage points. He still did this with terrible approval rating... like I said you still don\'t get it.
In two years when the Dems lose more seats you will still be denying the inevitable.
-
I want Cored to carry my baby. :)
-
And how is the left seriously trying to understand the red states?
They are not.
They already understand the red states. And are trying to look as red as possible. But they are still pretty damn blue!
-
Bush had 4.5 million more votes then Kerry and won by roughly four percentage points. He still did this with terrible approval rating... like I said you still don\'t get it.
In two years when the Dems lose more seats you will still be denying the inevitable.
Right, I get it.
People don\'t agree withg the government. Yet they vote for it anyway, because it is oh so much easier to just agree.
-
You don\'t get it either.
-
I got the point you were trying to make, I just thought the point you weren\'t trying to make (but it was there in your argument anyway) was much more fun for me to point out.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Clinton never won a majority. You are also talking percents which does not portray actual numbers as Bush won by more votes than Clinton ever did.
1992 Clinton had 43.3 percent
1996 Clinton had right at 50 percent which is still not a majority.
Bush had 4.5 million more votes then Kerry and won by roughly four percentage points. He still did this with terrible approval rating... like I said you still don\'t get it.
In two years when the Dems lose more seats you will still be denying the inevitable.
What are you talking about? Clinton won in 1996 more decisively than Bush won in 2004 - NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. Percentages, votes cast, popular vote, electoral vote, all of them. Bush had about 3 million more votes than Kerry in 2004. Clinton had about 8 million more votes than Dole in 1996.
Where did you get this 4.5 million more votes number for Bush? Check this website: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ It was about 3 million.
This stuff about not getting a majority is meaningless. That only indicates that the electorate viewed 2004 as an especially critical election, and were not as willing to squander their vote on a third party candidate. Clinton still won by 8 million votes over his next closest competitor in 1996.
Are we done discussing this yet? :rolleyes:
-
He didn\'t win a majority.
Majority = 51 percent or more.
-
I didn\'t say he did. See above.
This stuff about not getting a majority is meaningless.
-
Instead of you two going back and forth why dont one of you just get some damn proof! Jesus.........
I dont understand........every single thread in this section seems to turn into some argument somhow involving Bush........poor guy :(
-
I did prove it - Core is just unwilling to see the truth. I posted two links stating he wanted an Oscar for Best Picture.
-
...and that post right there might just be the best "look at me, I\'m a 2 year old" impression I\'ve seen on these boards in some time. Good work, Giga.
See Yuz.
-
Originally posted by ROL Jamas
...and that post right there might just be the best "look at me, I\'m a 2 year old" impression I\'ve seen on these boards in some time. Good work, Giga.
See Yuz.
Obviously you can\'t read. If you look I posted two links and was responding to cloud\'s post saying that both of us need to provide proof.
Yeah that is an "I\'m a 2 year old" impression. :rolleyes:
-
I considered this thread dead until cloud345 revived it to boost his post count.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I considered this thread dead until cloud345 revived it to boost his post count.
:laughing:
Good one.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Obviously you can\'t read. If you look I posted two links and was responding to cloud\'s post saying that both of us need to provide proof.
Yeah that is an "I\'m a 2 year old" impression. :rolleyes:
To me it sounded like a "nu uh, I didn\'t do it, he did it" remark. I like the insult about me not being able to read though, very original. I might just have to put that one in my back pocket to save for later, and remember it for something to work on..."learn to read". Oh snap, I actually read what you said! Maybe I don\'t have to take your stunning, well-thought out advice after all!
Oh yeah, one more thing -- how\'s that three-way going with the Rolleyes and Laughing Smiley going? I\'d like some more information on that, thanks.
See Yuz.
-
Still failed to address the topic.
Thread closed.
See Yuz :rolleyes: :laughing: :rolleyes: