GOP Platform 2010: Um, Tax Cuts and...Stuff

[quote name='BigT']I don't think that it is possible to prove that an embryo is a human being.[/QUOTE]

This is true as well.
 
[quote name='BigT']Great pickup!

The hypocrisy is quite comical... God forbid that we hate when big government tells us what to do with our money, but hey let's just have government force women who are raped or victims of incest carry out the pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

Fixed for more accuracy.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Fixed for more accuracy.[/QUOTE]

You never answered my question on whether you would support a ban on all abortions if it created exceptions to those two things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct, and you never answered why people would protest non-GZ mosques if they're not islamophobic. You answer mine I'll answer yours.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Correct, and you never answered why people would protest non-GZ mosques if they're not islamophobic. You answer mine I'll answer yours.[/QUOTE]

im asking your personal opinion. you are asking me why someone else (not me) would do something. I already said that I dont know their reasoning and you dont seem to either.
 
You know.. if people paid the same attention to a politician's stance on domestic, foreign, and fiscal policy as they do on their stance on abortion, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

Our money wouldn't be on fire, we might have single payer health care, congress wouldn't be such a fucking joke, and the executive branch wouldn't have dictator-esque level of power.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The same reason people can get upset about anything they damn well choose. When it comes to arson, whoever did it went too far, but what are we going to start censoring what people can and cannot be upset about now? I know people were upset, and started campaigning about a wal-mart being in my old hometown, even though wal-mart has every right to build where they wanted does this mean that their being upset is any less legitimate?[/QUOTE]

Explain this, and what legitimate reason people would have to protest a mosque that isn't near GZ.

Don't fucking deflect with your 'oh I derp dunno what other people think'. You had the fucking audacity to presume what all Democrats thought with regards to personal responsibility.

Democrat views on personal responsibility.

"What you got pregnant? Meh shit happens, Just step over here and murder your baby cough fetus"
"What you murdered someone? Don't worry we won't let them execute you, killing people is bad, but only if they are already people"
"What you got pregnant? Just step over here, you require free school!"
"What you got fat from eating too much mcdonalds? Well just step over here, once this law is passed they won't ever force you to eat another cheeseburger."
"What you aren't rich? Just step over here and we will allocate someones elses money to you"
"What you broke the law and are here illegally? Well just step over here! Welcome to San Francisco!"
"What you made alot of mistakes, and don't want to spend your ENTIRE life fixing them? I know what you mean, just step over here, and we will help you bypass all that icky responsibility stuff those evil people always spout off."

So go ahead and try to guess what people's reasons would be to protest non-GZ mosques. Pretend they're democrats or something, that way you can generalize some more.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Explain this, and what legitimate reason people would have to protest a mosque that isn't near GZ.

Don't fucking deflect with your 'oh I derp dunno what other people think'. You had the fucking audacity to presume what all Democrats thought with regards to personal responsibility.

Democrat views on personal responsibility.

"What you got pregnant? Meh shit happens, Just step over here and murder your baby cough fetus"
"What you murdered someone? Don't worry we won't let them execute you, killing people is bad, but only if they are already people"
"What you got pregnant? Just step over here, you require free school!"
"What you got fat from eating too much mcdonalds? Well just step over here, once this law is passed they won't ever force you to eat another cheeseburger."
"What you aren't rich? Just step over here and we will allocate someones elses money to you"
"What you broke the law and are here illegally? Well just step over here! Welcome to San Francisco!"
"What you made alot of mistakes, and don't want to spend your ENTIRE life fixing them? I know what you mean, just step over here, and we will help you bypass all that icky responsibility stuff those evil people always spout off."

So go ahead and try to guess what people's reasons would be to protest non-GZ mosques. Pretend they're democrats or something, that way you can generalize some more.[/QUOTE]

I'm fairly certain that post was in response to the ground zero mosque. Why are we talking about mosques in this thread again?

I wasn't predicting what democrats thought, their actions prove that. Name one of those outs of which democrats don't consistantly defend.
 
We have off-topic discussions all the time. There's no reason why this thread should be an exception, as this is a chance for you to address something you've been consistently deflecting.

Their actions prove that people who protest non-GZ mosques are bigots, and there is no other reason why they protest the non-GZ mosques. You agree with this, yes?
 
I think the GOP can get by just by saying "We're not the Democrats," much like the Democrats got by saying "We're not Bush" when Bush was office w/his unpopularity - largely due to the Democrats continued fumbling of the economy and unpopular partisan legislation passed.
 
[quote name='BigT']The hypocrisy is quite comical... God forbid that we kill someone who we are 99.9% sure committed heinous crimes (violent rapes and murders), but hey let's just discard a helpless embryo.[/QUOTE]

99.9% is laughable. People are convicted on bad eyewitness testimony and "teeth mark" identification.

Serial killers and heinous murderers need to be executed but we need a better standard of evidence to levy the death penalty.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I think the GOP can get by just by saying "We're not the Democrats," much like the Democrats got by saying "We're not Bush" when Bush was office w/his unpopularity - largely due to the Democrats continued fumbling of the economy and unpopular partisan legislation passed.[/QUOTE]

Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all — the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies — will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit.

...

Now Treasury reckons that taxpayers will lose less than $50 billion at worst, but at best could break even or even make money. Its best-case assumptions, however, assume that A.I.G. and the auto companies will remain profitable and that Treasury will get a good price as it sells its corporate shares in coming years.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=TARP&st=cse

What's this have to do with anything? The right would rather win politically than do what's best for the country or support what's best for the country.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=TARP&st=cse

What's this have to do with anything? The right would rather win politically than do what's best for the country or support what's best for the country.[/QUOTE]

Its hilarious how everyone is talking about how everyone got so upset and they didn't even use all the tarp money. So what? If they allocated 770 billion dollars to it, then people have a reasonable suspicion that they will use all $770 billion,

was a massive $770 billion dollar bill even necessary? Nope.
Is that what people were arguing back when it was passed? Yep
Did some of the banks not even want to take the money but were forced to? Yep
Would that lead to more of the money being paid back? Yep
 
[quote name='IRHari']We have off-topic discussions all the time. There's no reason why this thread should be an exception, as this is a chance for you to address something you've been consistently deflecting.

Their actions prove that people who protest non-GZ mosques are bigots, and there is no other reason why they protest the non-GZ mosques. You agree with this, yes?[/QUOTE]

I think we already know the answer to my question. Stop using the consequences of rape, and medical harm as your excuse for abortion, when you wouldn't support anti-abortion laws with those exceptions in mind.


http://www.ksdk.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=207447&catid=28

While the crowd from both protesters and counter protesters appeared to number 500 to 600 at its peak - police estimated the crowd at 1,000, protest march organizer Kevin Fisher estimated that several hundred marched in his group alone from Central Magnet School to the County Courthouse.
Click to expand...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/31/local/la-me-0731-mosque-protest-20100731

"This is America. This is a Christian country, this is not a Muslim country," said Zorina Bennett, 50, of Temecula, one of about 20 who attended the anti-mosque rally. "They are known terrorists. Read the Koran. They are trained to kill people from the time they're in their youth."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html
In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better to label those 323 bigots then sure we can go ahead and label them bigots. But my point before was that it isn't the rabid majority that you claim it is, and more people protest against the people protesting in each case. So no I do not think that America is heading towards the intolerance of muslims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That report will not silence criticism of it though, conservatives will continue blowing it up into some great socialist takeover of the country.
 
[quote name='Knoell']was a massive $770 billion dollar bill even necessary? Nope.
Is that what people were arguing back when it was passed? Yep
Did some of the banks not even want to take the money but were forced to? Yep
Would that lead to more of the money being paid back? Yep[/QUOTE]

prove it * 4.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']prove it * 4.[/QUOTE]

the link you yourself submitted proves it itself.

Are you honestly trying to tell me $700 billion was necessary when they only used $387 billion? Edit: You may claim hind sight is 20/20, but how can you criticize the people who said its too much after it proves to be too much?

The Treasury never tapped the full $700 billion. It committed $470 billion and has disbursed $387 billion, mostly to hundreds of banks and later to A.I.G., the car industry — Chrysler, General Motors, the G.M. financing company and suppliers — and to what is, so far, a failed effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosures.
Click to expand...
 
there's no 'it', there's 'they.' the multiple assertions you make.

was it necessary? you say no, yet it clearly was; can you imagine what our economy would be like if the banks collapsed? now, don't get me wrong, arguing whether or not they should have been allowed to fall is a different and reasonable question (and one that exists independent of either political party - you wouldn't dare say that Republicans would let the banks fail, would you?) but if the terms of "necessary" are some stability in the economy, it clearly helped stave off some of the economic hemhorraging due to deregulation and banks betting so much on CDOs.

is this what people were arguing back when it was passed? oh, p'shaw. that's some good old texas sharpshooter fallacy right there. circumstantially being correct in hindsight doesn't mean the underlying ideas and thoughts were well developed. If I predict that the sun will die out every day until it does, I'm not suddenly a prophetic person, I just happen to have good timing once out of a billion times.

The latter two were not demonstrated by the article as you claim they do.
 
Basically they criticized it because it wasn't a republican idea, then they just happened to be right, then there is one big back patting session, as if they had any real evidence that it would ultimately be too much money.

It would be like if years from now it turns out Obama was a Muslim, everyone who says that now, in the future would suddenly feel like can say "told you so!" as if they ever had any real evidence.
 
The fact that all the money wasn't all disbursed isn't an argument the stimulus should have been smaller nor does it prove that the more stimulus isn't needed right now.
 
Now running for U.S. Senate, Angle spent an appreciable amount of time whipping Harry Reid, blaming him for the state's high unemployment and foreclosure rates.

She then called Reid a "co-conspirator" with president Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Harry Reid has promoted and pushed through and made the deals for policies that have crushed our economy," Angle said. "We can't afford Harry Reid."

She then outlined her three-pronged approach to government, including "Cut back, pay back, and take back."

Her plan is to cut back and prioritize federal spending, to pay back the $2.5 trillion borrowed from Social Security funds, and to take back the government from what she referred to as "unconstitutional czars."

One of the things she said she wants to cut is the Department of Education, and end what she called the "one-size-fits-all policies that fit no one," including the No Child Left Behind programs originally promoted by former Republican president George W. Bush.

Avoiding a call for the elimination of Social Security, Angle instead suggested that people be allowed to take care of their own pensions with personalized retirement funds.

In addition to paying back the borrowed Social Security funds, she stated she also wants to "pay back the deficit."

Among the items she wanted to "take back" is a complete repeal of the healthcare reform laws passed earlier this year which she repeatedly referred to as "Obamacare."

"I want to repeal Obamacare," Angle said, a statement which garnered the largest applause of the afternoon.

As part of the "take back" phase, Angle also suggested eliminating regulation.

"Regulation is hurting businesses," Angle said.

She then called for "true transparency."

"We need a true audit of the Federal Reserve," Angle said.

One of the more innovative ideas Angle introduced at the rally was something dubbed the "Single Subject Rule," which would bar federal legislators from adding unrelated endorsements to bills working their way through the House and Senate.

"You can't attach pork to it," Angle explained.

She also supported making the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans a permanent cut instead of allowing the reductions to expire at the end of the year as is currently planned.

Angle also wanted more tax breaks for big business.

"We need to lower the corporate tax rate to 20% instead of 35%," Angle said.

After offering remarks on her plans for the first 40 minutes of her one-hour appearance, Angle made the bold move of taking questions from the audience.

Several of them were softball questions, and Angle proceeded to knock them out of the park with the supportive crowd.

The first questioner asked what would be Angle's "number one thing to do" once she got to Washington, D.C.

Angle answered without hesitation.

"Repeal Obamacare," she answered.

As part of the next question, an Angle supporter thanked her for "talking without a TelePrompter," an obvious dig at President Obama's use of the video device during speeches.

Angle laughed.

"No notes on my hand, either," Angle joked while holding up her open palms, a humorous reference to the brouhaha raised earlier this year when Republican Sarah Palin was caught using notes written on her hand during a speech.

When asked how she could repeal Obamacare while Obama holds the veto pen, Angle said the first step was to defeat Harry Reid and stop his policies. She went on to say that the shockwaves that would come with a dramatic swing from a Democratic majority in the House and Senate to a Republican majority in both houses would convince people that it was the right thing to do.

"They can either get on board the train or get run over by it," Angle said.

When asked which Senate committee she wanted to serve on, Angle admitted that her clout as a newcomer would be extremely limited.

"As a junior senator, I won't get to pick," Angle said.

Another questioner told a chilling story in which she had called the IRS customer service line, and wound up being connected to a help desk in India.

"Would you let the government send jobs to other countries like that?" the woman asked.

Without specifically answering the question, taking another shot at Reid by saying "Harry Reid thinks income tax is voluntary," Angle took the opportunity to talk about her stance on taxation.

"We need a fairer, simpler, flatter tax code," Angle said. "We should be able to fill out our returns on the back of a post card."

One of the last questioners asked about "Muslims taking over the U.S.," including a question about Angle's stance on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

"We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it," Angle said.

"Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States. It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

She went on to offer her position on the Ground Zero mosque.

"I'm a personal property rights defender," Angle said. "Owners of the property have every right to build whatever they want there. But, they also have a responsibility. That's what freedom is. We have rights, but we also have a responsibility with those rights."

Another questioner asked about Angle's stance on gay marriage.

"I think that our state has already told me what your stand is, and as your representative, I'm going to stand where you stand," Angle said, citing the Nevada constitutional amendment which was passed in 2000 and 2002. "We have a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between a man and a woman. We passed that by 70%, and so I'm standing with you."

The final question was about education, with the woman asking the question pointing out that "Nevada education is raunchy."

Angle answered that education needed to be taken from the federal purview and given to the states.

"Dollars need to be spent at the classroom level, not in layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. And the first layer of bureaucracy we should deal with is at the federal level. Certainly, someone in Washington, D.C. doesn't know what is best for my child in Nevada."
Click to expand...

http://www.mesquitelocalnews.com/viewnews.php?newsid=6323&id=2

lol
 
One of the last questioners asked about "Muslims taking over the U.S.," including a question about Angle's stance on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

"We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it," Angle said.
Click to expand...
Way to sidestep the question. Answer the lady Angle, answer her question about them moslums taking over the U.S. of A.
"I'm a personal property rights defender," Angle said. "Owners of the property have every right to build whatever they want there. But, they also have a responsibility. That's what freedom is. We have rights, but we also have a responsibility with those rights."
Click to expand...
Right, we have the responsibility to exercise our rights, meaning to build the damn Mosque.
 
Msut, I don't think they're talking about the stimulus I think they're talking about the bank bailout.

[quote name='Knoell']I think we already know the answer to my question. Stop using the consequences of rape, and medical harm as your excuse for abortion, when you wouldn't support anti-abortion laws with those exceptions in mind.[/QUOTE]

A choice is a choice. Thank you for admitting what a giant hypocrite you are. Government shouldn't tell us what to do with our money but they should definitely force women to carry out all pregnancies, right?

It's the woman's choice, and I don't think it's appropriate for the government to be involved with a woman's womb.

Let me ask you something. You're clearly anti-choice. Would you make exceptions to the law for rape/incest?
[quote name='Knoell']
Ok, let's pretend to give you the abortion point. How many women wouldn't of gotten an abortion in a back alley though? Its OK to allow women to kill their unborn children, they just wanted to enjoy sex, without the strings, right? (pssst this is where they arent taking responsibility for their actions. Any guy who abandons the responsibility of what he did is just as guilty) The typical result of unprotected sex is pregnancy, to not take responsibility for the human being you created is GASP irresponsible.[/QUOTE]

Okay, and? The guy is 'guilty', the people involved in unprotected sex are being 'irresponsible'. You've banged your moral gavel, what do you hope to accomplish at this point? Ban abortion, and...?
 
[quote name='IRHari']
A choice is a choice. Thank you for admitting what a giant hypocrite you are. Government shouldn't tell us what to do with our money but they should definitely force women to carry out all pregnancies, right?

It's the woman's choice, and I don't think it's appropriate for the government to be involved with a woman's womb.

Let me ask you something. You're clearly anti-choice. Would you make exceptions to the law for rape/incest?


Okay, and? The guy is 'guilty', the people involved in unprotected sex are being 'irresponsible'. You've banged your moral gavel, what do you hope to accomplish at this point? Ban abortion, and...?[/QUOTE]

What a giant hypocrite I am? Women who CHOOSE to participate in sexual activity should have to take responsibility for their actions. If their action results in another human being, your suggestion is to let the women decide to kill it or not? Would you allow a woman to kill a premature birth? Is the limit 9 months or once it is out of the womb? So in your world a woman could kill her baby at 8 and a half months as long as its in the womb? Why is there a law against that again? Enough of this "we can't prove an embryo is a human being crap", there is reasonable suspicion that this is and will be brought into this world one day, to kill a human being because it will became a burden and hardship is wrong under any justification. There are justifications in which moderates would compromise in cases of rape and medical illness. I am not saying everyone will support it that way but at least we won't be murdering children-to-be in the name of convienence.

Once that woman becomes pregnant we are dealing with another individual not just the woman, the government has an obligation to defend the rights of individuals that cannot defend themselves.

What happened to your mosque talk? Those masses of people protesting mosques all over the country not too interesting anymore?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Msut, I don't think they're talking about the stimulus I think they're talking about the bank bailout.[/quote]

Whoops.

Anyhoo...

"Repeal Obamacare," she answered.
Click to expand...

Does this bint (or her supporters) know or care that even if you win you aren't granted magical powers to do the above?

It is one thing for conservatives and the tea tantrum crowd to be hateful, ignorant or outright stupid and it is quite another thing for them just to be completely out of touch with reality and high on the magic dust that is their so called policies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I support the rights of blastocyst Americans.

Msut, when was the last time you can remember an honest to god reasonably thought out Republican piece of legislation? Nothing since Obama. Bush... nothing in the last term at all. Medicare prescription drug benefit is a laughably awful disaster. No Child Left Behind wasn't really a Republican piece of legislation since Kennedy was in on it.

Shit, that's already a decade of nothing.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Does this bint (or her supporters) know or care that even if you win you aren't granted magical powers to do the above?

It is one thing for conservatives and the tea tantrum crowd to be hateful, ignorant or outright stupid and it is quite another thing for them just to be completely out of touch with reality and high on the magic dust that is their so called policies.[/QUOTE]

No, this is clearly possible. What's next? Are you going to say that it's impossible to cut the national debt and taxes for everybody while also repaying the 2.5 trillion we took out Social Security and raging two wars overseas?

She wouldn't say it if it wasn't true :drool:

[quote name='IRHari']Okay, and? The guy is 'guilty', the people involved in unprotected sex are being 'irresponsible'. You've banged your moral gavel, what do you hope to accomplish at this point? Ban abortion, and...?[/QUOTE]

Even funnier is that he seems to think that the women who get an abortion do it so they can have unprotected sex without any strings. Like they go "hey, no, what are you doing? you don't have to use a condom. let's just fuck and if i get pregnant, i'll abort it. no, no, no i won't hear of using protection, just jam that cock in me. abortion is my birth control!"

In his world, there is no such thing as a condom breaking or birth control failing. Rape or incest? Never heard of it.
 
How long is it going to take you guys to figure out that babies are punishments from the lord jesus christ?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']


Even funnier is that he seems to think that the women who get an abortion do it so they can have unprotected sex without any strings. Like they go "hey, no, what are you doing? you don't have to use a condom. let's just fuck and if i get pregnant, i'll abort it. no, no, no i won't hear of using protection, just jam that cock in me. abortion is my birth control!"

In his world, there is no such thing as a condom breaking or birth control failing. Rape or incest? Never heard of it.[/QUOTE]

Yep so just kill it if the condom breaks, it wouldnt be a human being anyway right?

I am drunk off my ass right now and i know that is retarded.
 
So we're discussing whether or not abortion should be legal or not?

What a classic case of deflection - even inebriated, Knoell knows that he's got nothing but that to argue. meh, sez intoxicated me.
 
[quote name='BigT']Great pickup!

The hypocrisy is quite comical... God forbid that we kill someone who we are 99.9% sure committed heinous crimes (violent rapes and murders), but hey let's just discard a helpless embryo.

On average, people currently on death row are probably bad people... heck, I've never even had as much as a parking ticket to my name... so it would seem to me that it would take some effort to get there... I do, however, have some reservations about giving the government a right to carry our capital punishment since I have very little faith in them and fear that it can be used at some point in time to punish/eliminate political enemies...

I admit, the embryo/fetus issue is tough. I don't think that it is possible to prove that an embryo is not a human being. The basic genetic structure is there. The criterion of "consciousness" proposed later in this thread is quite vague and also unprovable. Thus, it is my belief that it us impossible to assert that abortion is not a murderous act. I just have to err on the side of caution on this issue. And, hey, why do we draw the line at 24 or so weeks? Is it because it is more disturbing to kill something that more clearly resembles a human being? Does that really matter? Little babies can't really fend for themselves, nor is their nervous system, and arguably, their consciousness fully developed... so why don't we draw the line for "abortion" at 3 months after birth or perhaps 6 months... should we base it on developmental milestones?

In case you guys don't notice, I'm using a bit of hyperbole above to make a point... it's not necessarily an argument meant to be taken literally...[/QUOTE]

Hypocrisy nothing, I don't consider embryos to be individuals, of which my definition is brain wave activity. Which is all I really have to say on this issue.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Anyone taking bets on whether or not the GOP will try to impeach Obama at some point?[/QUOTE]

If they get control of the house it isn't even a question, they don't even pretend otherwise.
 
For what cause?

They got Clinton for lying to a grand jury.. albeit about a blow job, but what cause would they have to go after Obama at this time?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Hypocrisy nothing, I don't consider embryos to be individuals, of which my definition is brain wave activity. Which is all I really have to say on this issue.[/QUOTE]


Yep because if they let that embryo be, it wouldn't develop into a child or anything. Look at it however it makes you feel better, it is still taking a life that would have been there had they not killed it. Now if there was a significant chance that an embryo would not develop into a child then sure your "its not a real person yet" argument might hold water because it may not be a child, but that isn't the case though.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yep because if they let that embryo be, it wouldn't develop into a child or anything. Look at it however it makes you feel better, it is still taking a life that would have been there had they not killed it. Now if there was a significant chance that an embryo would not develop into a child then sure your "its not a real person yet" argument might hold water because it may not be a child, but that isn't the case though.[/QUOTE]

Let me use your logic then. Your against public health care, in this case I will focus upon children. If a child is in a womb, your against letting it die. However as soon as it leaves the womb, you (judging from you earlier comments) would be okay to let it die if it developed an ailment of some sort. Through inaction or action, direct or indirect, your (and like minded people) allow more children to die every year than women who get abortions do (although I don't consider brain wave less cells to be children in any form). What's worse is that your position allows real children to fall to treatable ailments. But whatever, continue to focus upon the unborn than focus on the born and feel good about it.

Seriously though, I am done with this side track now.
 
That's what kills me the most, they'll fight tooth and nail to stop a woman from aborting a baby, yet after it's born it's just a welfare baby that is a drain on the economy.

Make up your fucking minds already.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's what kills me the most, they'll fight tooth and nail to stop a woman from aborting a baby, yet after it's born it's just a welfare baby that is a drain on the economy.

Make up your fucking minds already.[/QUOTE]

It's all apart of God's plan. God wants that baby born and if his parents are poor, he wants that baby to suffer. No abortions, no help. That little guy needs to learn how to use his bootstraps just the way Jesus wanted it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What a giant hypocrite I am? Women who CHOOSE to participate in sexual activity should have to take responsibility for their actions. If their action results in another human being, your suggestion is to let the women decide to kill it or not? Would you allow a woman to kill a premature birth? Is the limit 9 months or once it is out of the womb? So in your world a woman could kill her baby at 8 and a half months as long as its in the womb? Why is there a law against that again? Enough of this "we can't prove an embryo is a human being crap", there is reasonable suspicion that this is and will be brought into this world one day, to kill a human being because it will became a burden and hardship is wrong under any justification. There are justifications in which moderates would compromise in cases of rape and medical illness. I am not saying everyone will support it that way but at least we won't be murdering children-to-be in the name of convienence.[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on. You can't "compromise" on the issue of abortion in cases of rape or incest when your main (and, it seems, only) complaint about abortion is that it results in the death of a human being. The right of that potential being to live can't possibly hinge on whether it was born from rape or incest. That would be fucking absurd. Or to put it another way, babies don't choose to be the product of rape. Thus, the basis for abortion restriction is purely the child's right to life, any "permissible abortion" line is inherently arbitrary and cruel. Moreover, advocating for one is at best hypocritical or, far more likely, a sham.

So, please, don't act like being stridently anti-abortion yet somehow "moderate" in the cases where your moral indignation rings hollow is logically consistent, or that crafting a "compromise" on that basis is anything but disingenuous and destined for failure until you can articulate some other reason why "abortion rights" need to be curtailed.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Let me use your logic then. Your against public health care, in this case I will focus upon children. If a child is in a womb, your against letting it die. However as soon as it leaves the womb, you (judging from you earlier comments) would be okay to let it die if it developed an ailment of some sort. Through inaction or action, direct or indirect, your (and like minded people) allow more children to die every year than women who get abortions do (although I don't consider brain wave less cells to be children in any form). What's worse is that your position allows real children to fall to treatable ailments. But whatever, continue to focus upon the unborn than focus on the born and feel good about it.

Seriously though, I am done with this side track now.[/QUOTE]

Did the mother give it that disease to make it die on purpose?

One case you are defending someone's right to live because someone else wants to kill it.

The other case you are providing funding for health care for children.

They are not one and the same.

Nice strawman, taking up a position that I don't hold, and using it as a argument to disprove my other position. I would love to see the comment where I am pro letting children die. I dont advocate for children to not get particular health care. Again, you are welcome to find where I do.
You won't.
If you are talking about my opposition to that giant piece of legislation, if it simply provided money to children for health care, I would be for it. (Doesn't the government do that already?)

[quote name='Magus8472']Oh, come on. You can't "compromise" on the issue of abortion in cases of rape or incest when your main (and, it seems, only) complaint about abortion is that it results in the death of a human being. The right of that potential being to live can't possibly hinge on whether it was born from rape or incest. That would be fucking absurd. Or to put it another way, babies don't choose to be the product of rape. Thus, the basis for abortion restriction is purely the child's right to life, any "permissible abortion" line is inherently arbitrary and cruel. Moreover, advocating for one is at best hypocritical or, far more likely, a sham.

So, please, don't act like being stridently anti-abortion yet somehow "moderate" in the cases where your moral indignation rings hollow is logically consistent, or that crafting a "compromise" on that basis is anything but disingenuous and destined for failure until you can articulate some other reason why "abortion rights" need to be curtailed.[/QUOTE]

Another strawman argument featuring me taking up a position that I don't hold.

I agree you can't compromise on the baby being a life in every situation but in the case medical illness, you are trading one life for another, and you cannot make that decision for someone. You cannot force a woman to die for their unborn child, that would be nearly as bad as aborting the child itself, which is why it should be legal for a woman to make that decision on her own. I personally don't believe cases of rape should be exceptions, you are right it is still killing an innocent, however people do, and legislation that included this as an exception would go through much more smoothly.

It is the lesser of two evils since we live in a society where we deem it "ok" to kill unborn children in the name of convienence and timing.
Law A: people can go and have the child killed whenever they feel like it for whatever reason.
Law B: people can go and have the child killed for two specific reasons.

Both are terrible options but at least with one option we aren't allowing the murder of future generations because "we just can't deal with a kid right now". It isn't hypocritical to compromise, because they still don't have to agree with killing at all, but they can at least stop most of the killing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']That's what kills me the most, they'll fight tooth and nail to stop a woman from aborting a baby, yet after it's born it's just a welfare baby that is a drain on the economy.

Make up your fucking minds already.[/QUOTE]

they'll fight tooth and nail to allow the murder of quite a few children, but then want to take care of the ones that are left.

Make up your fucking minds already.
 
What does any of this have to do with the OP anyway? The crux of the post is that the GOP has no ideas, and no tangible platform.

Abortion is a wedge issue that is primarily used to manipulate the religious right into voting for the right, and the "arguments", both pro and con, in this thread are proving that its very effective at redirecting the energies of the constituents away from the stuff they don't want you to pay attention to.. like war, and deficit spending, and the erosion of civil rights.

Abortion isn't ever going to go away - it has existed since pre-biblical times.. yapping on a forum isn't going to change that.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']What does any of this have to do with the OP anyway? The crux of the post is that the GOP has no ideas, and no tangible platform.

Abortion is a wedge issue that is primarily used to manipulate the religious right into voting for the right, and the "arguments", both pro and con, in this thread are proving that its very effective at redirecting the energies of the constituents away from the stuff they don't want you to pay attention to.. like war, and deficit spending, and the erosion of civil rights.

Abortion isn't ever going to go away - it has existed since pre-biblical times.. yapping on a forum isn't going to change that.[/QUOTE]

Debating abortion is far better than listing what depascals opinion of republicans are. Which is what started the whole abortion situation. This thread wasn't created to discuss ideas, it was created for a bunch of like minded lefties to discuss how much they hate republicans.

[quote name='depascal22']You don't have to attribute that saying to all the progressives on this thread. I said it and I stand by it.

Republicans have never and will never ever give a fuck about anyone but whites. Please don't trot out one or two black guys like that boot licking Uncle Tom Michael Steele and tell me the right gives two shits about us "colored folk".

Republicans will always run on platforms that emphasize the free market at the expense of the environment, minorities, the poor, and anyone else that didn't grow up in lilly white suburbs.

Republicans will continue to jam their Christian beliefs down our throats even though the country wants the freedom to choose and believes in evolution. It doesn't matter. Jebus rules all and they won't stop until we all pray at school, before meetings, at red lights, and before we open a ginormous medical bill.

Republicans will continue to drag us into unnecessary wars in the name of "national security" even though those wars force us to borrow more and more money from China.

Republicans will continue to run on platforms of personal responsibility while banging their advisors, mistresses, boytoys, and anybody else that makes them feel powerful.

Republicans will continue to rail against abortion AND the mothers that don't get abortions. Life is precious until the babies come out and become a drain on our society.

Republicans will continue to rail against illegal immigration while allowing their corporate cronies to hire them en masse.

Republicans will allow the prison industry to get so bloated, that it becomes "too big to fail." We'll continue to jam non-violent drug offenders in there to boost numbers and revenue.

That's the Republican Party platform in a nutshell and I will NEVER vote for anyone that puts an R by their name even if they're just a RINO.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']Another strawman argument featuring me taking up a position that I don't hold.

I agree you can't compromise on the baby being a life in every situation but in the case medical illness, you are trading one life for another, and you cannot make that decision for someone. You cannot force a woman to die for their unborn child, that would be nearly as bad as aborting the child itself, which is why it should be legal for a woman to make that decision on her own. I personally don't believe cases of rape should be exceptions, you are right it is still killing an innocent, however people do, and legislation that included this as an exception would go through much more smoothly.

It is the lesser of two evils since we live in a society where we deem it "ok" to kill unborn children in the name of convienence and timing.
Law A: people can go and have the child killed whenever they feel like it for whatever reason.
Law B: people can go and have the child killed for two specific reasons.

Both are terrible options but at least with one option we aren't allowing the murder of future generations because "we just can't deal with a kid right now". It isn't hypocritical to compromise, because they still don't have to agree with killing at all, but they can at least stop most of the killing.[/QUOTE]

Since the topic is pretty thoroughly derailed...

Perhaps I should rephrase; I understand that you're attempting to argue from a moral absolutist position. I'm just clarifying that anyone willing to accept the "compromise" you're proffering is being logically inconsistent and morally disingenuous. There's just no way to reason from "unborn babies have a right to life, therefore abortion is murder" to something that would allow you to sanction abortion "for two specific reasons." Put bluntly, it IS hypocritical to disagree with "[abortion] at all" and then suddenly be okay with it when you can't bring the hammer down on the mother's promiscuity to justify your indignation (i.e. in a rape case). I don't understand you to do that, and insofar as that's the case, fair enough. But since your compromise essentially hinges on people accepting positions that shouldn't make any logical sense to them, it's not going to work.

[quote name='Knoell']Once that woman becomes pregnant we are dealing with another individual not just the woman, the government has an obligation to defend the rights of individuals that cannot defend themselves.[/QUOTE]

If this were ever accepted as a Constitutional principle abortions (except maybe in the case of extreme medical necessity) would be inherently criminal and any law allowing them to occur would be hilariously unconstitutional.

As such, quit with the whole "women who choose to get pregnant need to bear the responsibility" crap. Choice has nothing to do with it; it's a smokescreen, and a crass one at that. If you really believe that life begins at conception, you shouldn't give a flying fuck about which choices a woman makes that result in her pregnancy, since an unborn baby is still a life regardless of how it's conceived.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Debating abortion is far better than listing what depascals opinion of republicans are. Which is what started the whole abortion situation. This thread wasn't created to discuss ideas, it was created for a bunch of like minded lefties to discuss how much they hate republicans.[/QUOTE]

Boo fucking hoo. Please tell me how these "personal responsibility" Repubs are going to swoop in like Cap'n Save Em Ho and take all of you to RepublicanTown.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Debating abortion is far better than listing what depascals opinion of republicans are. Which is what started the whole abortion situation. This thread wasn't created to discuss ideas, it was created for a bunch of like minded lefties to discuss how much they hate republicans.[/QUOTE]
How can we hate Repulicans when Martin Luther King was one...LOLOLOLZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top