Keira Forums - View Single Post - The First Presidential Debate
View Single Post
Old 01-10-2008, 07:18 AM   Senior Registered Member #15
Senior Member
Ashley's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by dave View Post
I try not to use weird terminology. To me the two positions are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Pro-choice would mean that you have the choice not to have an abortion, being male, that choice is denied me. I would have no say in what a woman decided. I'm old fashioned enough that I believe a woman should always have the right to have an abortion and I have the right to be sad about it.
This is not "weird terminology", it is the generally used terminology. Just because a person believes in the right to choose does not mean that he or she goes around celebrating abortion. It's absolutely absurd to even imply that, which is exactly what the term "pro-abortion" does.

Originally Posted by dave View Post
Your source spends a lot of time pussyfooting around the fact that Obama does indeed want to eliminate guns. Every single quote contains Obama's statement that it is not politically possible to do so. Not once does he say that if it were possible that he wouldn't do it. In fact he promises to make the Brady Bill permanent, to eliminate the "gun show loophole" and to eliminate "concealed carry nationwide". Incidentally, the notorious "gun show loophole" is just that you can buy a gun at a gunshow and leave with it that same day. All sales at gun shows are registered and there seems to be a plan to have every sale go through the "instant check".
First, I'm going to need sources. I'm sorry, but I just don't take people for their word when it comes to political debates.
Also, I don't think a 5 day waiting period is a bad thing at all. If they're hunters then they will know to go at least, 5 days prior to hunting season to pick up their new or used guns. And I know many hunters, they have it circled on their calendars.
Second, I'm going to assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that this "Your source spends a lot of time pussyfooting around the fact that Obama does indeed want to eliminate guns. Every single quote contains Obama's statement that it is not politically possible to do so" is in response to what Obama said in the Las Vegas Democratic debate. If I'm right, then he was not talking about eliminating guns, he was talking about licensing and registering guns and if he would do that as president. He said,

"I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

Secondly, I personally don't support conceal and carry. So, that will just run into a debate between you and I where neither will win. I'm here just to try and give and receive facts.

Originally Posted by dave View Post
You are right about debate_no_1 it was a lot of fun to read and learn what they thought. However, they totally ignored Obama's statements about bombing Pakistan AND inserting three battalions of US Soldiers into the UN Peacekeeping controlled conflict in Afghanistan. What do you think would happen if Russia decided to insert their army into Afghanistan?
First, bombing anyone, let alone Pakistan is a terrible idea. We're already in enough trouble with Iraq and people outside, and inside the US just don't think very highly of our government or their practices. So, I agree he misspoke on that. However, I believe what he meant to say, and should have said more clearly is that if the US receives actual intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Quaeda leaders, especially OBL, and Pakistan refused to take action and either kill or capture, he send in our military to do it. At least he didn't say what Tom Tancredo said. Yeesh.
Also, maybe I'm just tired, but could you clarify your question Russia inserting army into Afghanistan?

As I said before, actual quotes with links are always welcome and appreciated.
Ashley is offline   Reply With Quote