Talk:Stephanie Tubbs Jones

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There's no reason to be rude--Jareddr 14:48, 21 August 2008 (EDT) about it. If you disagree, just explain why. I'll be happy to discuss this issue with you. LarryHapp 12:27, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr is a apologist for corrupt liberals. Well known for deletions without discussion first.-- 50 star flag.png jp 12:29, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Explain to me how a politician taking contributions is noteworthy. Was she supposed to forgo any contributions during a housing crisis? Have any GOP politicians forgone contributions during the housing crisis? --Jareddr 12:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you missed the point. If you look at the ref, she took more from them than anyone else at a time when the industry likely needed all the favors it could get. You are denying the reality of the situation. LarryHapp 12:39, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you are missing some critical information. It's not just the "Real Estate" sector, but "Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector". If you follow your link just one step further, you get a better breakdown of how much she took from the Real Estate sector: $14,000. This compares to, in that sector only, $26,158 from Commercial Banks, $27,000 from Securities and Investments, and $71,875 from Insurance. So really, the Real Estate sector accounted for only 2.7% of the PAC money she took that year. Interesting what you find when you actually research a topic. --Jareddr 12:47, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I think you are the one missing the point. This is a person who took money from a sector in crisis at a time when it was politically convenient to do so. Her doing so is suspect, no matter how much of a hero she was to far-left politicos. I'm sorry she passed away, but it changes nothing about her troubling record. Affirmative action doesn't excuse questionable conduct. LarryHapp 14:03, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The housing industry isn't the only one in crisis. Heck, the auto industry is taking a bath right now. Any complaints because Robert Latta of OH took $20,000 from NADA or Lindsey Graham took $15,000? Oh, and can't forget the banking industry is getting killed as well with the credit crunch. You want to edit Rob Wittman's entry here to include him taking $12,500 or Roger Wicker taking $15,000 from the American Bankers Association? --Jareddr 14:16, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I think you'll find in many of those circumstances, it was with the hope that conservatives would be elected to office to stop such abuses. You really think they gave her money because they thought she'd protect them from...who? Conservatives? No, she was given those contributions to make sure she knew whose pocket she was in. To think otherwise is naive. LarryHapp 14:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
So industries give to conservatives "to stop such abuses", but give to Democrats for favors? Careful you don't pull a muscle with your contortionist logic! --Jareddr 14:48, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It is not contortion when telling the truth. I'll move on now and let you feel superior by getting the last word. LarryHapp 15:17, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Voting Record

I didn't think most mainstream conservatives would have a problem with "Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. " Preventing a pregnancy by a rapist is not the same as aborting one. --DinsdaleP 14:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Common mistake, but in this case it is. 'Emergency contraception' is a deliberatly misleading name, a propaganda term created by liberals to hide the true nature of the pill in question: It prevents implantation. That is, it allows a human being to starve to death, and that makes it clearly wrong. While I am sure we all feel for the rape victims, two rights do not make a wrong - once egg meets sperm, we cannot kill the result. They will just have to carry the baby all the way to term. They can keep it or put it up for adoption after that, their choice. NewCrusader 19:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, just for convenient reference,

  • Embryo-killers: IUDs, Emergency contraception, and extremally rarely the Pill if it's not used consistantly.
  • Non-murdering contraceptives: Condoms, all forms of barrier, all surgical methods, implantable hormonal.

It is worth noting though that many conservatives are opposed to contraception on moral grounds (It enables fornication and thus sin), while liberals consider contraception the solution to almost everything. NewCrusader 14:19, 25 August 2008 (EDT)