Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me get this straight. A TP candidate clarifies his position on abortion and you get mad. But Obama can lie through his teeth on things like transparency and public review of bills and you stay quiet. Remember these numbers 19, 30, 36??? pffft
LMAO the extreme on left are running scared with their false drama. I LOVE IT!!!!!!!
This thread is about Ken Buck, not Obama. And BTW, he did call the Tea Partier birthers "dumbasses". I have posted links here on P&OC, or you can google " "dumb asses" + Ken Buck".
Here are a few links on his postitions on abortion and personhood:
Yeah, right, and when FoxNews takes and artfully edits an Obama speech they tell you "this is an Obama quote". Except it's not.
If any news quotes someone they need to substantiate it. I don't care if it's FOX, MSNBC, or uncle Bob. Usually miss quotes are used to take a statement out of context or alter the persons statement.
Quote:
Did you try to "google" the name Ken Buck along with "flip flop"?
I did Google Buck but not with flip flop. His page shows his last quotes no sooner then 2006.
Quote:
The problem with providing links to you and the rest of the right wing is this; it's only the (so-called liberal) media that will point out the hypocrisy of these lying sacks of she eyet. So, if I post a link to a huffpo piece that cites the dates of when his website had "X" on it, and when it changed to say "Y", you will come back with "oh, a liberal blogger, BFD".
I never asked you to show credibility of the source just the source. Just the source
Right now you are the only source I can find on the entire Internet
I would point out any bias and offer contradictory or substantiating debate depending on my findings. I am unable to do that because the quotes that you supplied are not anyplace on the world wide web except from you.
Quote:
My suggestion is, if you don't believe me is to go to the Denver Post dot com website and research what Buck was saying in June, July and August when he was railing against Norton in the primary race. Then check and see what he is saying today. The short version can be found in today's (Sept 19) print edition.
I will look at the DP today. However if you have the link please offer it so we can be on the same preferable page. I will read it with out forming an opinion until it's conclusion.
Quote:
BTW, are you a Colorado voter? An interested outsider who is genuinely interested in finding out if tea partiers are flip flopper's? Or just a troll trying to argue a point without knowing what you're talking about?
First I am interested in all political information so I can choose whether to support a candidate or not.
Second I was born and raised in CO, My family settled Castle Rock's Lake Gulch area in the late 1850's. I did my AF time at Peterson. Currently my voting address is in Westminster CO 80234.
Third I know Ken Buck. I was opposed him in 2004 on issues of Open Range and property taxes. I stool with Ken Salazar a Democrat on the issue,
third, Trolling is people that make comments that have no backing. I suggest you learn who you comment on before you say they don't know what they are talking about. I am also opposed to his social agenda as I have Libertarian social views
Last edited by Dewmik; 09-19-2010 at 03:18 PM..
Reason: Spelling again
Thanks to Katiana, providing the links I was able to find the articals referenced. However, the OP misquoted the statement. Cut and paste quotations and facts, type personal opinion. It’s the best way to be exact.
My assessment of Buck will probably not go well with the Christen right. However, I am a Social Libertarian and I am used to that.
He never said that he was opposed to contraception. It was taken by his statement referring to abortion and his backing of amendment 62 AKA the Personhood Amendment.
He has said that if elected to the U.S. Senate he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and backing a proposed state law that would outlaw some common forms of birth control“. Revering to the amendment, Buck said, “I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it's truly life of the mother“. However he also stated, "I'm not in favor of banning common forms of birth control." adding "This isn't how I looked at the personhood amendment," He is keeping his position on abortion but was never apposed to all forms birth control.
Buck believes life "begins at conception," so birth control methods that do not impact that are fine with him. (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill). Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, Levonorgestrel aka RU-486 aka the morning-after pill are not supported by him. Most anti abortionist believe that life begins at the exact second of conception therefore this type of contraception is considered abortion. I would be quick to point out that most scientists disagree with the fact that the pill acts before implantation if taken with in 120 hours. In fact, the purpose is when other contraception fails. You cannot just get a 30 day supply of Levonorgestrel.
At one point Buck said, he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban abortion If elected. He has now added that he would not introduce a constitutional amendment to ban abortion though he says he would still support one. He never said that he would author or introduce such a bill. What he said was he would Sponsor and support a bill. Bills can have many sponsors’ and that is support.
Buck has softened on the abortion statements because he knows that is not the priority for people and he would prefer to talk about jobs and the economy that are the priority. He maintains his Right Christen Conservative position. Buck believes social issues are important in government but reiterated that he "thinks voters would rather talk about jobs and the economy".
I would worry that his rightwing christen agenda would interfere with his fiscal conservative agenda. Any type of abortion bill Pro or Anti would continue to spend money. flip flopped.
Sorry to triple post how ever I think that it is important to stick to your word. Earlier I said that
Quote:
I would say that until the quotations can be confirmed that the OP is only making random statement in order to reach the lazy voters that will take the statement as golden with out research.
I will retract that statement when/if someone can show the origin of the quotes
While the OP did not provide the links Katiana did in post # 21. My statement in post #14 did not indicate that as a requirement the OP must provide the links.
However I will add that the quotes are not direct quotes as indicated by the OP but as statements they have a bases for the interpretation.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Sure, you're a bit of an over-the-top extremist, but I wouldn't say that you have no principles whatsoever. Just very few.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Sure, you're a bit of an over-the-top extremist, but I wouldn't say that you have no principles whatsoever. Just very few.
If it wouldn't get me a "yellow card" I'd tell you what you can do with your post. Actually I'm suprised that YOU would stoop to making a cheap comment like this, it's more in the line of what many other right wingers on here do.
It's carp like this that makes me hang out on C-D much less than I used to. That and the perception that about 90% of the threads started on here are started by (what appears to be paid) posters. No proof of that, but it sure appears that way, look at most of the links provided by posters X, Y and Z, check the "time stamp" on the press release against when they the link goes on C-D and draw your own conclusions.
Anyway, sorry to see you have sunk to such lows. Or is it that you've become as stupid as the other right wing posters on here who lack basic reading comprehension skills? I hope it's not that, you used to post good stuff.
Thanks to Katiana, providing the links I was able to find the articals referenced. However, the OP misquoted the statement. Cut and paste quotations and facts, type personal opinion. It’s the best way to be exact.
My assessment of Buck will probably not go well with the Christen right. However, I am a Social Libertarian and I am used to that.
He never said that he was opposed to contraception. It was taken by his statement referring to abortion and his backing of amendment 62 AKA the Personhood Amendment.
He has said that if elected to the U.S. Senate he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and backing a proposed state law that would outlaw some common forms of birth control“. Revering to the amendment, Buck said, “I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it's truly life of the mother“. However he also stated, "I'm not in favor of banning common forms of birth control." adding "This isn't how I looked at the personhood amendment," He is keeping his position on abortion but was never apposed to all forms birth control.
Buck believes life "begins at conception," so birth control methods that do not impact that are fine with him. (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill). Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, Levonorgestrel aka RU-486 aka the morning-after pill are not supported by him. Most anti abortionist believe that life begins at the exact second of conception therefore this type of contraception is considered abortion. I would be quick to point out that most scientists disagree with the fact that the pill acts before implantation if taken with in 120 hours. In fact, the purpose is when other contraception fails. You cannot just get a 30 day supply of Levonorgestrel.
At one point Buck said, he would sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban abortion If elected. He has now added that he would not introduce a constitutional amendment to ban abortion though he says he would still support one. He never said that he would author or introduce such a bill. What he said was he would Sponsor and support a bill. Bills can have many sponsors’ and that is support.
Buck has softened on the abortion statements because he knows that is not the priority for people and he would prefer to talk about jobs and the economy that are the priority. He maintains his Right Christen Conservative position. Buck believes social issues are important in government but reiterated that he "thinks voters would rather talk about jobs and the economy".
I would worry that his rightwing christen agenda would interfere with his fiscal conservative agenda. Any type of abortion bill Pro or Anti would continue to spend money. flip flopped.
That's mere semantics to say that "sponsor" is not the same as "author" a bill.
Too bad he didn't educate himself first on this "personhood" bill:
In an earlier interview, he said he did not understand until recently that passage of the amendment would likely outlaw some common contraceptive methods, like the IUD or birth control pills that can reduce the chances of implantation for a fertilized egg.
"This isn't how I looked at the personhood amendment," Buck said. "I'm not in favor of banning common forms of birth control."
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
Swagger wrote;
If it wouldn't get me a "yellow card" I'd tell you what you can do with your post. Actually I'm suprised that YOU would stoop to making a cheap comment like this, it's more in the line of what many other right wingers on here do.
It's carp like this that makes me hang out on C-D much less than I used to. That and the perception that about 90% of the threads started on here are started by (what appears to be paid) posters. No proof of that, but it sure appears that way, look at most of the links provided by posters X, Y and Z, check the "time stamp" on the press release against when they the link goes on C-D and draw your own conclusions.
Anyway, sorry to see you have sunk to such lows. Or is it that you've become as stupid as the other right wing posters on here who lack basic reading comprehension skills? I hope it's not that, you used to post good stuff.
That's mere semantics to say that "sponsor" is not the same as "author" a bill.
Not semantics. When ever a bill is authored he introduces it. Then there is the " I second it" cosponsors. Sometimes you see one member of a party say On behalf of several members" then all those members are listed as cosponsors. Co sponsoring is a must happen procedure.
Quote:
Too bad he didn't educate himself first on this "personhood" bill:
In an earlier interview, he said he did not understand until recently that passage of the amendment would likely outlaw some common contraceptive methods, like the IUD or birth control pills that can reduce the chances of implantation for a fertilized egg.
"This isn't how I looked at the personhood amendment," Buck said. "I'm not in favor of banning common forms of birth control."
I agree how ever I would not expect more. Like I said I had to deal with him on some open range issues back in '99 . It's a long story but it boils down to cows and fence laws. Ken Salazar was Colorado Attorney Gen, Buck US Justice Dept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
