Team Rubio

[KnightofChrist]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am familiar with Margaret Sanger. There is evidence to suggest that she wanted to use contraceptive methods as a means of reducing the number of African Americans. But I don't think there is much to suggest that she was pro-abortion. She actually appears to have to opposed abortion.

Nevertheless, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Planned Parenthood originated as an organization aimed at killing off black babies, I don't see what that has to do with the state of abortion in the year 2015. More white babies are killed than black. The birth rate is lower for whites than blacks. There is not much evidence that people involved in the abortion movement today advocate for it as a secret means of killing off black people. 

Of course, abortion is terrible because every being has a right to life. But I find the whole conspiracy-to-kill-off-black-people argument to be rather unconvincing. I do not think it is a good argument.

Abortion is fundamentally wrong. Convince people of that and there is no need to engage in discussions concerning whether the application of it is racist.

And having walked the Earth for 30+ years in black skin I really don't think I need someone to tell me when something is racist against people of my own ethnic group. I don't go around trying to tell Jewish people what they should consider to be anti-Semitic.

 

 

Margaret Sanger was indeed a bigoted racist, and there is evidence to prove (not suggest) she wanted to reduce the population of 'undesirables.' However it did not begin or end with her if is far more vast and deeper than her.

Again I believe you show that you are not as educated on the roots of the movement as you should be. You are simply wrong.

[KnightofChrist]

@Peace I'm not sure if I've shared this video with you before, if I have I'm sorry to have forgotten. But there is a well done and well sourced documentary called MAAFA 21, Black Genocide in the 21st Century. It does an excellent job at explaining the long racist history of the abortion movement. It's about 2 hours long and doesn't hit on every point in detail (somethings will just have to be read) but there's only so much detail that can be put in 2 hours. It shows the connections or evolution of racism in America from slavery to the modern abortion era. Another good source of information on this topic would be Alveda King, as she speaks of it often. Another source would be the Birth Control League publications, (it became PP) and other writings of its members who are also leaders in the eugenics movement.  Also just because more whites die doesn't mean blacks aren't the main or intended targets. Anyway, if you've not seen the documentary I suggest you do so at your latest convenience.

[Peace]

Knight:

No, you are not as educated as you should be. You are simply wrong.

Those types of statements don't really get us anywhere, now do they?

I have seen the documentary, but thanks. I have also read a book on it that my parish priest recommended a few years back. I can't quite remember the name of it off of the top of my head though. Again, I find the argument unconvincing.

And many people who make the argument strike me as disingenuous. The point is to come up with another argument against abortion. The means is to attempt to portray pro-choice people as racist. Black people are then used as pawns or held out as victims to achieve that end. I am not interested in being anyone's mascot.

If you want to make an argument against abortion, as you should, there are plenty of viable means of doing that.

But as for allegations of racism, let the black people speak for themselves (as some have on that issue, like Angela Davis). I don't need you to think for me or to tell me when something is racist against my own ethnic group. It is rather condescending, even though you may not have that intention.

[DominicanHeart]

I mean I hear Rubio gives Green Cards to foreigners to come here and get jobs because he doesn't believe we have enough young talented people in this country to fill these jobs. Umm excuse me, I am a college student about to graduate in May who will be looking for a job and I think I am talented. I would like a job. Thanks.

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

I mean I hear Rubio gives Green Cards to foreigners to come here and get jobs because he doesn't believe we have enough young talented people in this country to fill these jobs. Umm excuse me, I am a college student about to graduate in May who will be looking for a job and I think I am talented. I would like a job. Thanks.

I kind of doubt that is the sort of thing he has the authority to do.

[Peace]

18 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

I mean I hear Rubio gives Green Cards to foreigners to come here and get jobs because he doesn't believe we have enough young talented people in this country to fill these jobs. Umm excuse me, I am a college student about to graduate in May who will be looking for a job and I think I am talented. I would like a job. Thanks.

I think there is a dearth in certain professions though, like engineering. I think the majority of US PhDs are given to foreign students, because there aren't enough American students. And it seems that we are falling behind many other countries in  subjects like math and the sciences.

[PhuturePriest]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I kind of doubt that is the sort of thing he has the authority to do.

This would be correct.

22 minutes ago, DominicanHeart said:

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I mean I hear Rubio gives Green Cards to foreigners to come here and get jobs because he doesn't believe we have enough young talented people in this country to fill these jobs. Umm excuse me, I am a college student about to graduate in May who will be looking for a job and I think I am talented. I would like a job. Thanks.

 

As an aside, the quote feature really needs to be fixed. The inability to delete quotes from a post has been very bothersome on more than a handful of occasions for me, but that may be just me.

[Nihil Obstat]

10 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

This would be correct.

 

As an aside, the quote feature really needs to be fixed. The inability to delete quotes from a post has been very bothersome on more than a handful of occasions for me, but that may be just me.

Totally agreed. At least re-enable the reveal formatting button so that we can manually delete everything as plain text.

[KnightofChrist]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

Knight:

No, you are not as educated as you should be. You are simply wrong.

Those types of statements don't really get us anywhere, now do they?

I suppose not. I presumed you were unaware of the history of inherit racism in the abortion industry. I suppose it gets us no where but you are wrong. You are free to believe I am wrong, as you clearly do.

Quote

I have seen the documentary, but thanks. I have also read a book on it that my parish priest recommended a few years back. I can't quite remember the name of it off of the top of my head though. Again, I find the argument unconvincing.

Unfortunate, but I do find the evidence convincing. As I find the evidence that the Nazi's in the Holocaust targeted Jews convincing, even though nearly the same amount of non-jewish persons died in the holocaust. And I would argue that fact if someone were to publicly deny the Jews were the main target, even though I am not Jewish. Do I have to be Jewish to state that the Holocaust targeted and was intended for the Jewish people. Do I have to allow only the Jews to speak out against this even though I believe it was used to exterminate them? I do not believe so.

Quote

And many people who make the argument strike me as disingenuous. The point is to come up with another argument against abortion. The means is to attempt to portray pro-choice people as racist. Black people are then used as pawns or held out as victims to achieve that end. I am not interested in being anyone's mascot.

I'm sorry you believe that way. I'm not using anyone for reason, not as pawns, nor victims. I am simply convinced by the evidence were you are not, this is our difference, no more no less. Since I am convinced by the evidence I will speak out against what I find to be mass-murder rooted in racism. There is no need to make this as personal as you are making it.

Quote

If you want to make an argument against abortion, as you should, there are plenty of viable means of doing that.

But as for allegations of racism, let the black people speak for themselves (as some have on that issue, like Angela Davis). I don't need you to think for me or to tell me when something is racist against my own ethnic group. It is rather condescending, even though you may not have that intention.

Whether or not the abortion movement is inherently racist is a matter of objectivity, data, and facts, not on the skin color of the one arguing that it is racist or arguing that it is not racist. Truth does not depend on the color of skin. We can disagree and think the other is ill-informed, misinformed or wrong without resorting to personal judgements of each other. Again I am as convinced of inherit racism in the abortion industry against minorities as I am convinced of the inherit racism in the Holocaust against the Jews. My position is based on love, charity for my fellow man and facts as I understand them. That is all man.

Edited February 3, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[DominicanHeart]

Okay I'm not sure what is true about any of the candidates, except maybe for Hillary. 

[Peace]

Knight:

I do not doubt your motive. That statement was not directed to you in particular, although I think that the argument is often made without any real concern for African Americans specifically, other than to the extent that it can be used as an argument against abortion.

I'll respond to the rest of what you wrote when I have time.

[Socrates]

On 2/2/2016, 10:55:59, PhuturePriest said:

That article is a breath of fresh air after all the recent nonsense about him. Since when has the once honored 2010 Tea Party underdog hero been an establishment lapdog?

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

 

On 2/2/2016, 10:55:59, PhuturePriest said:

 If there is a difference between his economic policy and Cruz's, I've yet to see it. Not promising to shut down the border and refraining from erroneously promising to "make the sand glow" does not make Rubio the reincarnation of Romney, and doing so does not make Cruz a "true conservative." Rubio's economic voting record is mostly solid (and I say "mostly" simply because I hold the possibility it isn't perfectly consistent,) and as a bonus, his wife isn't an employee of Goldman Sachs, unlike the "true," "grassroots," "anti-establishment" Cruz, who has received significant backing and financial support in his elections by major corporations, including (you guessed it) Goldman Sachs.

Argue if you'd like that Cruz would be a better candidate, but this idiotic claim that Cruz is somehow "purer" than Rubio is ridiculous. Having different ideas on how to tackle immigration and war do not contaminate a candidate's political purity. This is a political party, not a cult. Candidates are allowed to express different solutions to problems. Besides, if we're going by "purity," I'd figure literally being in bed with a Goldman Sachs investment manager would be considered a major contaminant to one's pureblood status.

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Socrates

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

 

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Can you give specific examples of the highlighted words? I ask out of curiosity. Clearly, I don't align much with conservatives on guns, but "most" implies more than that.

[Peace]

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

Your point is fair. He did flip on that issue and you did play yourself.

I am wondering - did you really think that he was going to advocate rounding up all of the people here illegally and shipping them out of the country on a boat?

I bet that you were angry about "Read my lips. No new taxes" too.

Quote

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

Yeah. You are right. Cruz is more conservative.

Quote

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And they despise and oppose him because he undermines the whole party for his own personal political gain.

Quote

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Hmm. I don't know about all of that. Did Cruz campaign against the undue infuence of Wall St. firms and big banks on the political process? At the same time, his wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs. And what do you know, Goldman Sachs loaned his campaign a huge amount of money. And the money was not reported to the FEC, which he was required to do. Some would call that more than a red herring.

I bet that his campaign putting out a memo that Carson dropped out before the election is something that should be igored as well?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

Rubio is stinking it up pretty good in the debate tonight. I might have to switch my support to the next Catholic in line after this fiasco ends . . .