quote:

What if you had used a different generalization? What if you said that the NBA was full of philanderers? That may be true about most of them, but certainly it wouldn't be true of all and many would find that offensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

What if you had used a different generalization? What if you said that the NBA was full of philanderers? That may be true about most of them, but certainly it wouldn't be true of all and many would find that offensive.

While there are some notable philanderers in the NBA, what evidence do we have that 'most' of them are?

And obviously philandering isn't official policy of the NBA, unlike the pro-choice position which is the stated policy position of the Democratic Party.

quote:

Are you claiming that most Democratic politicians have either gotten abortions themselves or helped in the operating room when a woman received an abortion?

quote:

Do you think such a policy would encourage or discourage philandering amongst NBA players?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Are you claiming that most Democratic politicians have either gotten abortions themselves or helped in the operating room when a woman received an abortion?

No, I am claiming that the position they have taken essentially promotes abortions.

For example, if we take their last platform statement and substitute 'philandering' in the NBA for abortion as you have, we quickly see how this is so:

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we
believe in the privacy and equality of NBA players, regardless of their ability to afford such opportunities. We stand proudly for a their right to choose, consistent with NBA policy. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support marriage and fidelity incentives. Philandering should be safe, legal, and rare.

Do you think such a policy would encourage or discourage philandering amongst NBA players?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

Ha! LOL! So, saying things like, "Just remember this, Democrats are the party of death." - is not generalizing that all democrats are the party of death...hmmmm....not! But, good sense of humor there, ljmac!

Peace and God bless,

I don't find the Democrats funny at all when it comes to their attacks on innocent human beings. They are the party of death and I find their actions repulsive. These are the people who repeatedly repelled attempts to protect babies from having their brains sucked out.

I've never said that "all" Democrats are pro-abortion. You made that up. In fact, I've pointed our precisely that there are a few renegade pro-life Democrats.

ljmac,

I never said the Democrats are funny, ljmac - I was saying you were funny to say you never said all Democrats are pro-abortion when you say things like, "Democrats are the party of death."

You have called the Democrats the party of death. The only time you acknowledge there were pro-life democrats is when I called you on it, and you quickly then dismiss them. Here is one of your posts from the '50 million dead and thirsty for more" thread, post #99:

"Democrats for Life - The party that falsely champions itself as protectors of the weak has a few pro-life leaning legislators, very few. They're people you've never heard of and won't as long as they remain in the party of death. "

These types of comments are transparent and false and only serve to make people not want to read your posts. And if you continue to deny that you have never generalized Democrats as the
'party of death', I will continue to post quotes that you have made.

Peace and God bless,

Liz, please keep quoting me as often as possible. Each one proves that I've never said that "ALL" (your caps) Democrats are pro-abortion.

I've never denied calling the Democrats the "party of death." I don't deny the obvious.

You don't understand the meaning of generalization. If one says that the NBA is a league of tall men, that is absolutely true even though 5'5" Earl Boykins plays for Charlotte. If one says that Democrats are pro-abortion, that is true even though there are a few renegade pro-lifers hiding in the closet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, Jack, you said that litmus should not be used for SCJ nominees. So, I then asked why it matters on a presidential level, whom you vote for. I understand that 'viability' for a Republican candidate overrules more pro-life candidates for you when you vote. However, I don't think the aforementioned answers why, if you think litmus tests should not be used for SCJ nominees (at all on any issue), why then, does it matter whom you vote for at the presidential level on the matter of sanctity of life. If you could be so kind as to elaborate on this.

Just because I don't think a particular litmus test is useful or practical in choosing justices doesn't mean that no criteria are useful in that regard, or that such criteria can't advance the pro-life cause. Indeed, I am cofident if we concentrated more on judicial philsophy in a wise and persistent way rather than trying to parse apart a particular belief of a particular candidate, then we would have a full contigent of bright judges who would by and large make rulings that favored the pro-life position, as well as a number of other issues. And I think John McCain is the more likely candidate to implement this criteria by his own words, and past actions, in the Senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

Ha! LOL! So, saying things like, "Just remember this, Democrats are the party of death." - is not generalizing that all democrats are the party of death...hmmmm....not! But, good sense of humor there, ljmac!

Peace and God bless,

I don't find the Democrats funny at all when it comes to their attacks on innocent human beings. They are the party of death and I find their actions repulsive. These are the people who repeatedly repelled attempts to protect babies from having their brains sucked out.

I've never said that "all" Democrats are pro-abortion. You made that up. In fact, I've pointed our precisely that there are a few renegade pro-life Democrats.

ljmac,

I never said the Democrats are funny, ljmac - I was saying you were funny to say you never said all Democrats are pro-abortion when you say things like, "Democrats are the party of death."

You have called the Democrats the party of death. The only time you acknowledge there were pro-life democrats is when I called you on it, and you quickly then dismiss them. Here is one of your posts from the '50 million dead and thirsty for more" thread, post #99:

"Democrats for Life - The party that falsely champions itself as protectors of the weak has a few pro-life leaning legislators, very few. They're people you've never heard of and won't as long as they remain in the party of death. "

These types of comments are transparent and false and only serve to make people not want to read your posts. And if you continue to deny that you have never generalized Democrats as the
'party of death', I will continue to post quotes that you have made.

Peace and God bless,

Liz, please keep quoting me as often as possible. Each one proves that I've never said that "ALL" (your caps) Democrats are pro-abortion.

I've never denied calling the Democrats the "party of death." I don't deny the obvious.

You don't understand the meaning of generalization. If one says that the NBA is a league of tall men, that is absolutely true even though 5'5" Earl Boykins plays for Charlotte. If one says that Democrats are pro-abortion, that is true even though there are a few renegade pro-lifers hiding in the closet.

1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:



1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:


Is English your second language?

quote:

1) If no litmus tests are used, how else can a president affect RVW?

2) And again, for the last 3 decades, Republican presidents have appointed the majority of SCJ, and still RVW was not overturned. In fact the one highly lauded by conservatives, SCJ Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) could have overturned RVW in 1992 with his vote and he did not. Can you say this has worked, Jack? I mean, come on, it's been 3 decades!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) If no litmus tests are used, how else can a president affect RVW?

2) And again, for the last 3 decades, Republican presidents have appointed the majority of SCJ, and still RVW was not overturned. In fact the one highly lauded by conservatives, SCJ Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) could have overturned RVW in 1992 with his vote and he did not. Can you say this has worked, Jack? I mean, come on, it's been 3 decades!

I think it took William Wilberforce 40 years to completely end slavery in England. Doing what is right is not for the timid or impatient.

quote:

2) Jack, Democrats are not forcing women to have abortions, are they? Or, what exactly are you implying here? I'm not quite following your comparison here - please elaborate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:



1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:


Is English your second language?

Nice.

ljmac,

You said that you never generalized that Democrats are pro-abortion; yet above, you generalize that Democrats never tire of the killing of babies.

Now, I don't know about your household, but I was taught to NEVER speak in such broad terms, and that, yes, this is generalizing all. I actually got the wooden spoon (not soaked, but it still hurt) to my bum when I spoke in such broad terms about a group of people. And, I was also taught that this was wrong in my grade school classes - except that I got bad marks, not a wood spoon lashing. Perhaps you were taught differently.

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:



1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:


Is English your second language?

Nice.

ljmac,

You said that you never generalized that Democrats are pro-abortion; yet above, you generalize that Democrats never tire of the killing of babies.

Now, I don't know about your household, but I was taught to NEVER speak in such broad terms, and that, yes, this is generalizing all. I actually got the wooden spoon (not soaked, but it still hurt) to my bum when I spoke in such broad terms about a group of people. And, I was also taught that this was wrong in my grade school classes - except that I got bad marks, not a wood spoon lashing. Perhaps you were taught differently.

Peace and God bless,

Liz,
I never said "ALL democrats... 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens..." I'll make a deal with you. If you can find where I said "all" or perhaps "every" Democrat was pro-abortion, then I'll apologize for denying I've said that. If you cannot, then you apologize for saying that I did.

If you have some evidence that liberals are tired of abortion (killing the unborn), then please provide it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) If no litmus tests are used, how else can a president affect RVW?

2) And again, for the last 3 decades, Republican presidents have appointed the majority of SCJ, and still RVW was not overturned. In fact the one highly lauded by conservatives, SCJ Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) could have overturned RVW in 1992 with his vote and he did not. Can you say this has worked, Jack? I mean, come on, it's been 3 decades!

I think it took William Wilberforce 40 years to completely end slavery in England. Doing what is right is not for the timid or impatient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkdjr25

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:



1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:


Is English your second language?

Nice.

ljmac,

You said that you never generalized that Democrats are pro-abortion; yet above, you generalize that Democrats never tire of the killing of babies.

Now, I don't know about your household, but I was taught to NEVER speak in such broad terms, and that, yes, this is generalizing all. I actually got the wooden spoon (not soaked, but it still hurt) to my bum when I spoke in such broad terms about a group of people. And, I was also taught that this was wrong in my grade school classes - except that I got bad marks, not a wood spoon lashing. Perhaps you were taught differently.

Peace and God bless,

Liz,
I never said "ALL democrats... 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens..." I'll make a deal with you. If you can find where I said "all" or perhaps "every" Democrat was pro-abortion, then I'll apologize for denying I've said that. If you cannot, then you apologize for saying that I did.

If you have some evidence that liberals are tired of abortion (killing the unborn), then please provide it.

I think the problem here is really one of semantics. You're using language like "liberals are" or "democrats are" and it's essentially the same as saying all of "x" are a certain way. That's just how language works. You're saying something without really coming out and saying it.

quote:

I think Wilberforce ended the slave trade. Ending slavery took even longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

2) Jack, Democrats are not forcing women to have abortions, are they? Or, what exactly are you implying here? I'm not quite following your comparison here - please elaborate.

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that I contend Democrats are frocing women to have abortions. The government (neither here, nor in England) didn't force people to own slaves; but that didn't make it right for them to do so, or for the government to allow them to do so. And it took decades to convince enough people to do the work neccesary to stop that from happening, with many fits and starts along the way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkdjr25

I think the problem here is really one of semantics. You're using language like "liberals are" or "democrats are" and it's essentially the same as saying all of "x" are a certain way. That's just how language works. You're saying something without really coming out and saying it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:



1) What do you mean by saying the Democrats are the party of death then, ljmac? Please explain.

2) More quotes from you:
post #62, 50 million dead and thirsty for more:
"How many million must die before liberals are satisfied? 50 million isn't enough. 75 million? 100 million? The truth is that they will never be satisfied. There isn't a number large enough to make them say enough is enough. There isn't an abortion so brutal to make them say it should be banned. After decades of non-stop killing, they still want more. "
#64: "Democrats do not have this problem. They are the party of death and they never tire of the killing. "
From the What does choice mean to you, post #68:
"The reason you had to rely on a web site to give you 'pro-life' Democrats is because it isn't possible to name them off the top of your head. Nobody could because they're so rare and irrelevant. "

3) The definition of generalize from www.dictionary.com: "to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to. "

Any unbiased person can plainly see that you are generalizing Democrats as, oh, how did you put it, 'never tire of the killing.' Never tire of killing whom, ljmac? - please explain to us...I'll be waiting with the popcorn...

Peace and God bless,

quote:


Is English your second language?

Nice.

ljmac,

You said that you never generalized that Democrats are pro-abortion; yet above, you generalize that Democrats never tire of the killing of babies.

Now, I don't know about your household, but I was taught to NEVER speak in such broad terms, and that, yes, this is generalizing all. I actually got the wooden spoon (not soaked, but it still hurt) to my bum when I spoke in such broad terms about a group of people. And, I was also taught that this was wrong in my grade school classes - except that I got bad marks, not a wood spoon lashing. Perhaps you were taught differently.

Peace and God bless,

Liz,
I never said "ALL democrats... 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens..." I'll make a deal with you. If you can find where I said "all" or perhaps "every" Democrat was pro-abortion, then I'll apologize for denying I've said that. If you cannot, then you apologize for saying that I did.

If you have some evidence that liberals are tired of abortion (killing the unborn), then please provide it.

quote:

You still did not answer 1) from above.