Legitimate Rape

beatnic:
kuzi16:
Vulchor:
Perhaps Kuz the point here is that if upper class white men with titles would let women decide what they want for their body and the fetus inside it we wouldnt have to talk about legitimate rape in the first place. Roe v Wade is decided folks----deal with it. Doesnt matter if you like it or not, its the way it is.
hmmm
"deal with it"
interesting.
i think that is exactly what we are all attempting to do here.

i wasnt attacking you. heck, i kinda agree with you here. it was a very dumb comment. i dont know if it was intentional or not. i dont know what is in the man's heart. only he does.

abortion is a very interesting and tricky issue for me.

as many of you know, i base all of my political theories on the rights of the individual. so the question with abortion is:
"at what point do we have to take the rights of the baby into account?"
and the thing is, roe v wade didnt exactly decide that. what it did decide is that what happens between a person and a doctor is nobodys business but the person and the doctor. and i do agree with that 100%
... but back to the question at hand. at what point do we take the baby's rights into account? another way to ask this question is "when does life start?"

i cant speak for anyone else, but personally, i do not know. Is it at conception? or at the first heart beat? or when the baby first can feel pain? or when it would be able to survive out of the womb? or is it when the head crowns? I have no clue.
i doubt that anyone here actually does 100% for sure either.

this is where Roe v. Wade comes in.
this decision is left up to the woman and the doctor. right now, with the technology and understanding of life at hand R.v.W. is the best compromise we have. it errs on the side of caution, and by that i mean: the known adult individual. if we cant pinpoint when the baby has rights/is viable/is life, we have to divert to the rights of the people that clearly have rights and are alive. and that is what Roe v. Wade does.

am i for abortion?
hell no.
i would never think that it is ever a good idea for a woman to have an abortion. however, i am not a dictator, i am not God, and i certainly do not know when life begins, therefore i cannot tell others what to do.
The key words being "conception" or "conceive". Look up the definition. That's when it begins. Period. You can't change the meaning of words.

That is the position of the Catholic Church, and of Evangelical "Christians". I am not Catholic, nor am I an Evangelical "Christian", and I will not be forced to live and think as one. If we are to have freedom of religion, that must mean that we are all free to choose our own religion, or lack thereof.

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
Vulchor:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Vulch.
Didnt say that, but thanks for the mocking tone.
You didn't use those words, but you mysteriously tied the man's comments to the Republican's vice-presidential candidate. Ergo, he must hate women also. Oh, and the mocking? Yes, I discovered that it was a tool of the left, used to cause their opponents to shut up.
Mr. Ryan has said that abortions should not be allowed in the instance of rape, and he supports a ban on all abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. Both Ryan and Akin have worked on legislation that would narrow the definition of "rape". I believe that is the heart of the "gaffe" by candidate Akin. I believe that, if given the chance, he would restrict abortions even for rape victims. Therefore, I see no difference between Akins and Ryans position on this topic.
I'm disturbed whenever someone advocates for the killing of unborn babies, for whatever reason. Limiting abortions is noble in my eyes.

I am equally disturbed when someone tries to force me, or anyone else, to behave according the THEIR religious beliefs. Personally, I believe that all those who are anti-abortion should step up to the plate and start adopting. I also belleive that as long as it is the law of the land, it should be as rare as possible, but that will not happen until more people start adopting.

Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd is a lot like the abolitionsit crowd was. Both want/wanted to abolish something other people are doing that they find/found morally reprehensible, but they will not/would not take steps that requires/required personal sacrifice on their part. The abolitionists refused to pay an increased tax in order to purchase the "property" of the slave owners, thus allowing slavery to be phased out with a lot less pain on the "property" owners. The anti-abortion crowd is only focused on stopping the proctice of abortion, but they are not taking equal efforts to increase adoptions, which would be a lot more help to women contempating abortion than trying to terrorize them.

kuzi16

JDH:
beatnic:
kuzi16:
Vulchor:
Perhaps Kuz the point here is that if upper class white men with titles would let women decide what they want for their body and the fetus inside it we wouldnt have to talk about legitimate rape in the first place. Roe v Wade is decided folks----deal with it. Doesnt matter if you like it or not, its the way it is.
hmmm
"deal with it"
interesting.
i think that is exactly what we are all attempting to do here.

i wasnt attacking you. heck, i kinda agree with you here. it was a very dumb comment. i dont know if it was intentional or not. i dont know what is in the man's heart. only he does.

abortion is a very interesting and tricky issue for me.

as many of you know, i base all of my political theories on the rights of the individual. so the question with abortion is:
"at what point do we have to take the rights of the baby into account?"
and the thing is, roe v wade didnt exactly decide that. what it did decide is that what happens between a person and a doctor is nobodys business but the person and the doctor. and i do agree with that 100%
... but back to the question at hand. at what point do we take the baby's rights into account? another way to ask this question is "when does life start?"

i cant speak for anyone else, but personally, i do not know. Is it at conception? or at the first heart beat? or when the baby first can feel pain? or when it would be able to survive out of the womb? or is it when the head crowns? I have no clue.
i doubt that anyone here actually does 100% for sure either.

this is where Roe v. Wade comes in.
this decision is left up to the woman and the doctor. right now, with the technology and understanding of life at hand R.v.W. is the best compromise we have. it errs on the side of caution, and by that i mean: the known adult individual. if we cant pinpoint when the baby has rights/is viable/is life, we have to divert to the rights of the people that clearly have rights and are alive. and that is what Roe v. Wade does.

am i for abortion?
hell no.
i would never think that it is ever a good idea for a woman to have an abortion. however, i am not a dictator, i am not God, and i certainly do not know when life begins, therefore i cannot tell others what to do.
The key words being "conception" or "conceive". Look up the definition. That's when it begins. Period. You can't change the meaning of words.
That is the position of the Catholic Church, and of Evangelical "Christians". I am not Catholic, nor am I an Evangelical "Christian", and I will not be forced to live and think as one. If we are to have freedom of religion, that must mean that we are all free to choose our own religion, or lack thereof.

agree with JDH here. Beatnic, i understand where you are coming from. in fact, on a personal level, i agree with you. I feel that life begins at conception and that no abortion should be performed after the fetus has a heart beat. however, my assessment is based off of my feeling. yours is based off of your faith. Unfortunately for the both of us, neither has any proof that is 100% concrete. you can point to words and say they have meanings, but humans put those meanings there. Conceive defines as such:
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

the only one in there that pertains is "to become pregnant"
even the word "pregnancy" does not for sure mean life nor does it define where life begins.
like i said. it is a tricky topic.
it is one where there are many definitions, understandings, concepts that we, as a species, do not fully comprehend yet.

i cannot sit here and say i know for sure. so as i said before, i have to revert to what i do know, and that is that a woman has individual rights.

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
Vulchor:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Vulch.
Didnt say that, but thanks for the mocking tone.
You didn't use those words, but you mysteriously tied the man's comments to the Republican's vice-presidential candidate. Ergo, he must hate women also. Oh, and the mocking? Yes, I discovered that it was a tool of the left, used to cause their opponents to shut up.
Mr. Ryan has said that abortions should not be allowed in the instance of rape, and he supports a ban on all abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. Both Ryan and Akin have worked on legislation that would narrow the definition of "rape". I believe that is the heart of the "gaffe" by candidate Akin. I believe that, if given the chance, he would restrict abortions even for rape victims. Therefore, I see no difference between Akins and Ryans position on this topic.
I'm disturbed whenever someone advocates for the killing of unborn babies, for whatever reason. Limiting abortions is noble in my eyes.
I am equally disturbed when someone tries to force me, or anyone else, to behave according the THEIR religious beliefs. Personally, I believe that all those who are anti-abortion should step up to the plate and start adopting. I also belleive that as long as it is the law of the land, it should be as rare as possible, but that will not happen until more people start adopting.

Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd is a lot like the abolitionsit crowd was. Both want/wanted to abolish something other people are doing that they find/found morally reprehensible, but they will not/would not take steps that requires/required personal sacrifice on their part. The abolitionists refused to pay an increased tax in order to purchase the "property" of the slave owners, thus allowing slavery to be phased out with a lot less pain on the "property" owners. The anti-abortion crowd is only focused on stopping the proctice of abortion, but they are not taking equal efforts to increase adoptions, which would be a lot more help to women contempating abortion than trying to terrorize them.

I don't want to force anything on anybody. But if a woman wants to have an abortion, I do believe that she should pay for it. Using abortion as birth control is just plain wrong. "Its' my body and I'll do what I want and you have to pay for my mistakes".

And please don't pretend to know my religious beliefs. My beliefs on abortion come not from my religious upbringing, but from MY experience and seeing the lifelong psychological problems that haunt women following an elective abortion. It ain't pretty.

beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
beatnic:
Vulchor:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Vulch.
Didnt say that, but thanks for the mocking tone.
You didn't use those words, but you mysteriously tied the man's comments to the Republican's vice-presidential candidate. Ergo, he must hate women also. Oh, and the mocking? Yes, I discovered that it was a tool of the left, used to cause their opponents to shut up.
Mr. Ryan has said that abortions should not be allowed in the instance of rape, and he supports a ban on all abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. Both Ryan and Akin have worked on legislation that would narrow the definition of "rape". I believe that is the heart of the "gaffe" by candidate Akin. I believe that, if given the chance, he would restrict abortions even for rape victims. Therefore, I see no difference between Akins and Ryans position on this topic.
I'm disturbed whenever someone advocates for the killing of unborn babies, for whatever reason. Limiting abortions is noble in my eyes.
I am equally disturbed when someone tries to force me, or anyone else, to behave according the THEIR religious beliefs. Personally, I believe that all those who are anti-abortion should step up to the plate and start adopting. I also belleive that as long as it is the law of the land, it should be as rare as possible, but that will not happen until more people start adopting.

Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd is a lot like the abolitionsit crowd was. Both want/wanted to abolish something other people are doing that they find/found morally reprehensible, but they will not/would not take steps that requires/required personal sacrifice on their part. The abolitionists refused to pay an increased tax in order to purchase the "property" of the slave owners, thus allowing slavery to be phased out with a lot less pain on the "property" owners. The anti-abortion crowd is only focused on stopping the proctice of abortion, but they are not taking equal efforts to increase adoptions, which would be a lot more help to women contempating abortion than trying to terrorize them.
I don't want to force anything on anybody. But if a woman wants to have an abortion, I do believe that she should pay for it. Using abortion as birth control is just plain wrong. "Its' my body and I'll do what I want and you have to pay for my mistakes".

And please don't pretend to know my religious beliefs. My beliefs on abortion come not from my religious upbringing, but from MY experience and seeing the lifelong psychological problems that haunt women following an elective abortion. It ain't pretty.

"...Using abortion as birth control is just plain wrong...." I believe I said that abortion should be "as rare as possible", and that adoption is a better solution.

"...and you have to pay for my mistakes". The mistake wasn't just hers, there is a guy somewhere in that picture, but he gets a pass, even if the woman is raped, according to the anti-abortion crowd.

"...And please don't pretend to know my religious beliefs...." I don't pretend to know anything. I have no clue what your religious beliefs are, but if you side with or sound like those who oppose abortion on religious grounds, don't be surprised when you are mistaken for one of them.

wwestern

Vulch turned me around on this last year. He said " You don't want to pay for their kids, yet you don't want them to be able to have an abortion?" It really made me think alot more about the topic. Indeed I don't want to pay for these kids. Not only that but the kind of folks who would have an abortion but couldn't, would you really want them forced to raise children that they would always regret? Do you think that wouldn't effect the child in the long run? Irresponsible people being forced to raise children that seems like a problem that could compound into a real fiasco. I understand contraception would be the way to go, but that only works for adults making responsible decisions.

To the original topic, who gives a ***? Romney say this, Obama says that blah blah yakity smakity. We have actual problems in our society, but we spend all our time on who says what about null topics. You don't like abortion? Stay away from the abortion clinic! All the while we're debating these "no point topics" the govenment is spending you into oblivion, gearing up for more war, more welfare, more bailouts for multi billion dollar corparation, and more boots on the ground inside our borders to keep your ass in line and make sure you pay for all this. Also NOTHING WILL CHANGE! It doesn't matter who gets in office abortion will see no changes, it's politics at it's finest. Just like Obama saying he's going to "tax the rich" well of course he really won't, why would he punish the people who have made him so successful. Just pandering to the base.

wwestern:
We have actual problems in our society, but we spend all our time on who says what about null topics. You don't like abortion? Stay away from the abortion clinic! All the while we're debating these "no point topics" ...Also NOTHING WILL CHANGE! It doesn't matter who gets in office abortion will see no changes, it's politics at it's finest. Just like Obama saying he's going to "tax the rich" well of course he really won't, why would he punish the people who have made him so successful. Just pandering to the base.

Everything I kept from your quote I agree with 100000000%

wwestern

Vulchor:
wwestern:
We have actual problems in our society, but we spend all our time on who says what about null topics. You don't like abortion? Stay away from the abortion clinic! All the while we're debating these "no point topics" ...Also NOTHING WILL CHANGE! It doesn't matter who gets in office abortion will see no changes, it's politics at it's finest. Just like Obama saying he's going to "tax the rich" well of course he really won't, why would he punish the people who have made him so successful. Just pandering to the base.
Everything I kept from your quote I agree with 100000000%

You cut out the part you inspired?!

dennisking

I'm sick of abortion being about a woman's right to choose. It isn't her right to kill her baby outside the womb so rationalize for me that it's okay to kill it in the womb. Its a bullshit excuse for people to be lazy and irresponsible. In 100 years, fetal science will be advanced enough that it will force abortion into illegality. Its silly to call it a woman's right to choose. What do you think the baby would choose.

wwestern

dennisking:
I'm sick of abortion being about a woman's right to choose. It isn't her right to kill her baby outside the womb so rationalize for me that it's okay to kill it in the womb. Its a bullshit excuse for people to be lazy and irresponsible. In 100 years, fetal science will be advanced enough that it will force abortion into illegality. Its silly to call it a woman's right to choose. What do you think the baby would choose.

How bout sperm or eggs? Should we start tossing guys in the clink for waxing their carrot? Or women for wasting a menstration cycle? Those are both forms of life... My point is this is a moral issue and it's at the descretion of the parties involved. If you don't agree don't participate. Attacking things you don't like through legislation is a great danger to our civil liberties. After all the folks vilifying cigars and liquor are just looking out for everyone's health right?

Vision

dennisking:
I'm sick of abortion being about a woman's right to choose. It isn't her right to kill her baby outside the womb so rationalize for me that it's okay to kill it in the womb. Its a bullshit excuse for people to be lazy and irresponsible. In 100 years, fetal science will be advanced enough that it will force abortion into illegality. Its silly to call it a woman's right to choose. What do you think the baby would choose.

So is the question "When does it become a baby". Is it when sperm enters the egg?

Do we base it on morals or on a book of fairy tails (The Bible). Do YOU get to choose what is right and wrong?

The book of fairy tails thing.... I am a Catholic. Baptized, Confirmed, Married in a church. I was using it from someone who is not a Catholic.
I support a womans right to choose.

webmost

Has everyone forgotten the days when girls killed themselves in the bathroom with a clothes hanger trying to abort a baby they couldn't deal with? You think all you have to do is pass a law and it will go away? It won't. Whether it's murder or not, whether it's moral or not, whether you call it "a woman's right to choose" because you don't want to face the fact or not, that's all beside the point. It will happen. Swallow the fact. People kill other people. War, suicide, execution, abortion. You cannot achieve squeamish purity. That's how it is.

Listen, unless you are a girl, it's none of your business. Keep your nose out. I don't think girls go through this stuff without anguish, nor do they come out of it without remorse. They're doing what they have to do, not what they'd rather. Geriatric old farts like me ought to have zero voice in the matter. It ain't our problem.

dennisking:
I'm sick of abortion being about a woman's right to choose. It isn't her right to kill her baby outside the womb so rationalize for me that it's okay to kill it in the womb. Its a bullshit excuse for people to be lazy and irresponsible. In 100 years, fetal science will be advanced enough that it will force abortion into illegality. Its silly to call it a woman's right to choose. What do you think the baby would choose.

If that thinking prevails, I predict that in cases of misscarriage, women will be accused in a court of law of murder.

y2pascoe

Wait! Todd Akin? F*ck, I thought we were talking about Clay Aiken!

Some closure for the ladies, lolllll

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/

wwestern:
Vulchor:
wwestern:
We have actual problems in our society, but we spend all our time on who says what about null topics. You don't like abortion? Stay away from the abortion clinic! All the while we're debating these "no point topics" ...Also NOTHING WILL CHANGE! It doesn't matter who gets in office abortion will see no changes, it's politics at it's finest. Just like Obama saying he's going to "tax the rich" well of course he really won't, why would he punish the people who have made him so successful. Just pandering to the base.
Everything I kept from your quote I agree with 100000000%
You cut out the part you inspired?!

Well of course I agree with the part I inspired d@mnit, but didnt wanna look like a fat head.

jgibv

Vulchor:
Some closure for the ladies, lolllll

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/

Did you see this one too?
Akin clarified his comments LOL

dennisking:
I'm sick of abortion being about a woman's right to choose. It isn't her right to kill her baby outside the womb so rationalize for me that it's okay to kill it in the womb. Its a bullshit excuse for people to be lazy and irresponsible. In 100 years, fetal science will be advanced enough that it will force abortion into illegality. Its silly to call it a woman's right to choose. What do you think the baby would choose.

Well since its in her body....seems logical it should be her decision. No one else gets to make a decision for her on removing a kidney stone do they? And since they are both approved medical procedures-----which is what we are talking about here when you remove the religion and feelings and break it down as our courts have------whats the problem?

We are straying away though, and as much my fault as anyones, from the fact that this man is talking about a legitimate rape vs one where the woman MUSTVE liked it somewhat because she is prgnant. This is the same pseudo science the *** used on the Jews. It also amazed me the men who get in such arms about this and I often wonder how they would handle their wife or young daughter being violently abused by a rape (which is a crime of power) and then finding they were pregant with the criminals child. The emotional torture of the abuse and then dealing with that in their body. If the woman had such an empotion time dealing with it, then you woudl presumably tell your (lets say) 12 year old daughter "sorry honey you have to deal with this, but let the unborn baby from your hate rape continue in your body until it can be born."? Keeping in mind you have no idea the emotional trauma it is putting her through and nor could you ever understand?

BTW, the "Ive known women to have abortions and it ruined them" is another example of male schovenism (sp?) and talking down to women. I know 2 girls who had abortions years ago and both feel it was the best thing they did for the circumstances so its kinda like the "I have a lot of black friends" discussion when things get wierd in a talk about color.

Not this again.... A bunch of men saying that I"M against Abortion no matter what"! WTF, have you been raped and in being raped are you going to have that fuckers baby? NO so WTF! Why on earth should it be any of yours or my biz what a woman does? Just because you feel the need to inject your moral or so called moral authority on them due to religious or personal beliefs? My wife is the same way, she's against it unless someone is raped but at least she is open to it in that case.

The comments made by the dude on the OP, is very much the way the GOP feels and conducts itself, though maybe not as far but they do and have pushed for the person hood amendment which paul ryan endorsed which is a huge F you to woman, in fact that legislation got turned down my Missouri of all places by the people. The GOP have been pushing laws that interfer with a woman's rights since the flood of morons in 2010. From the forced vaginal probe to other crazy *** like stopping birth control and what not. It's pathetic. Especially when they are (the GOP) always complain about making govt smaller and govt needs to get out of our lives and so forth. They the GOP are so pathetic, they'll whine all about welfare, SS, medicare, roads, healthcare all day but when it comes to corporate welfare, privatizing everything they are so into it.

Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.

jgibv

I agree with you, phobicsquirrel.

Your second paragraph sounds very familiar to what Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote in his April 30 article, United Against the War on Women.
Here's an excerpt.
"We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government."

laker1963

beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.

This is why I quit with the political debating. Sorry Beatnic but your post is a perfect example so I will use it, however this is NOT a personal attack against Beatnic. I am using his words for demonstration purposes only.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP. When we get too personally involved in our party polictics it can seem like anything said against your party is a personal attack. Obviously it is not. Many of us have a hard time separating politics from real life. I say that because not one of us can affect change in our country's politics. The players may change but the game always remains the same.

Many here have stated that it makes no difference who is in power, because after a while they all manage the same. The whole two party, three party system is a farce. Yet people get so personally involved in the side they support that they feel like they have to defend everything that party stands for which is rediculous. This has led to name calling and hard feelings and absolutley NO RESOLUTION!!! It is an excercise in futillity, and certainly does not help this community in any way. Just my $0.02

jlmarta

laker1963:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP.

And so, is there some distinction in your mind between republicans and the GOP? If so, what are they, please??

laker1963:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.
This is why I quit with the political debating. Sorry Beatnic but your post is a perfect example so I will use it, however this is NOT a personal attack against Beatnic. I am using his words for demonstration purposes only.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP. When we get too personally involved in our party polictics it can seem like anything said against your party is a personal attack. Obviously it is not. Many of us have a hard time separating politics from real life. I say that because not one of us can affect change in our country's politics. The players may change but the game always remains the same.

Many here have stated that it makes no difference who is in power, because after a while they all manage the same. The whole two party, three party system is a farce. Yet people get so personally involved in the side they support that they feel like they have to defend everything that party stands for which is rediculous. This has led to name calling and hard feelings and absolutley NO RESOLUTION!!! It is an excercise in futillity, and certainly does not help this community in any way. Just my $0.02

I think he made it perfectly clear, as he usually does, that he was talking about the GOP (ergo Republicans). He used it twice. As to a resolution, I would never expect anything like that from this minor discussion forum. LOL. Look, I said the exact same words when Vulchor began the thread. Was I mocking? Hell yes. And all of these guys who get into the political discussions here have thick skin. Well, most. I know I do. I've taken it as well as anyone, and so have Vulchor and Phoebic. We're not gonna change anyone's minds here. Its' a place to rant while we learn and smoke cigars. Hell, I'd probably vote for Dave if he ran for a local office. LOL

jgibv:
I agree with you, phobicsquirrel.

Your second paragraph sounds very familiar to what Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote in his April 30 article, United Against the War on Women.
Here's an excerpt.
"We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government."

I love bernie thanks for link.

beatnic:
laker1963:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.
This is why I quit with the political debating. Sorry Beatnic but your post is a perfect example so I will use it, however this is NOT a personal attack against Beatnic. I am using his words for demonstration purposes only.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP. When we get too personally involved in our party polictics it can seem like anything said against your party is a personal attack. Obviously it is not. Many of us have a hard time separating politics from real life. I say that because not one of us can affect change in our country's politics. The players may change but the game always remains the same.

Many here have stated that it makes no difference who is in power, because after a while they all manage the same. The whole two party, three party system is a farce. Yet people get so personally involved in the side they support that they feel like they have to defend everything that party stands for which is rediculous. This has led to name calling and hard feelings and absolutley NO RESOLUTION!!! It is an excercise in futillity, and certainly does not help this community in any way. Just my $0.02
I think he made it perfectly clear, as he usually does, that he was talking about the GOP (ergo Republicans). He used it twice. As to a resolution, I would never expect anything like that from this minor discussion forum. LOL. Look, I said the exact same words when Vulchor began the thread. Was I mocking? Hell yes. And all of these guys who get into the political discussions here have thick skin. Well, most. I know I do. I've taken it as well as anyone, and so have Vulchor and Phoebic. We're not gonna change anyone's minds here. Its' a place to rant while we learn and smoke cigars. Hell, I'd probably vote for Dave if he ran for a local office. LOL

Dude, the GOP has moved there. They ain't the Goldwater party of yesteryear. I didn't say all are evil your putting words in there. I'm saying the party as a whole THE PARTY is all about this, look at all the legislation they've been pushing! I thought they were about getting jobs! I mean it's not like they haven't been firing public workers left and right and stopping any movement in job growth. If a person votes for the GOP anymore they are F'ing themselves, even many of the moderate (you know the republicans that actually had a brain and worked to get things done) have left or have left and are speaking out against the current GOP.

As much as hate what the GOP are doing I'm not super happy with the Dems lately either. They are almost as bad, just on different issues. But at least the dems are shoving bills up our ass that will actually do harm as in what the GOP are doing to F woman over.

jlmarta:
laker1963:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP.

And so, is there some distinction in your mind between republicans and the GOP? If so, what are they, please??

Anyone who defines themselves as a "party" have some work to do. The GOP is a party and thus a republican or one who aligns themselves with the GOP should really look at what they are rooting for. They ain't hiding it anymore.

jgibv

Phobic, I'm gonna echo your sentiment again on this point^^^^.
Today's GOP, as a whole, is not the same as year's past.

Even though he's talking about economic arguments, and not the "war on women" - I think Paul Krugman summed up the GOP's current situation pretty well in a recent blog post:

"Several commenters have asked that I provide examples of Republicans making reasonable economic arguments; some of them seem to be saying that I’m proving my bias if I don’t provide such examples.

But it doesn’t work that way: if all Republicans are saying unreasonable things, then it’s a distortion — indeed, a form of bias — to insist that there must be reasonable Republicans.

Now, what you can quite easily find are examples of people who used to be Republicans, or even still consider themselves Republicans, saying reasonable things — say, Bruce Bartlett or David Frum. But the very fact that they’re reasonable has led to their excommunication from the movement!

It’s kind of the “treason never prospers” argument (“for if it prospers, none dare call it treason”); if someone declares that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, or that printing money when you’re in a liquidity trap isn’t deeply inflationary, or that fear of Obamacare isn’t holding the economy back, he ceases to be considered a member in good standing of the GOP. There are, therefore, no reasonable Republicans on these issues."

phobicsquirrel:
beatnic:
laker1963:
beatnic:
Ergo, all Republicans are evil. Yes, we know Phoebes.
This is why I quit with the political debating. Sorry Beatnic but your post is a perfect example so I will use it, however this is NOT a personal attack against Beatnic. I am using his words for demonstration purposes only.

Pheebs did NOT call "all REepublicans" evil. He did not say ANYTHING about all Republicans. He mentioned the GOP. When we get too personally involved in our party polictics it can seem like anything said against your party is a personal attack. Obviously it is not. Many of us have a hard time separating politics from real life. I say that because not one of us can affect change in our country's politics. The players may change but the game always remains the same.

Many here have stated that it makes no difference who is in power, because after a while they all manage the same. The whole two party, three party system is a farce. Yet people get so personally involved in the side they support that they feel like they have to defend everything that party stands for which is rediculous. This has led to name calling and hard feelings and absolutley NO RESOLUTION!!! It is an excercise in futillity, and certainly does not help this community in any way. Just my $0.02
I think he made it perfectly clear, as he usually does, that he was talking about the GOP (ergo Republicans). He used it twice. As to a resolution, I would never expect anything like that from this minor discussion forum. LOL. Look, I said the exact same words when Vulchor began the thread. Was I mocking? Hell yes. And all of these guys who get into the political discussions here have thick skin. Well, most. I know I do. I've taken it as well as anyone, and so have Vulchor and Phoebic. We're not gonna change anyone's minds here. Its' a place to rant while we learn and smoke cigars. Hell, I'd probably vote for Dave if he ran for a local office. LOL
Dude, the GOP has moved there. They ain't the Goldwater party of yesteryear. I didn't say all are evil your putting words in there. I'm saying the party as a whole THE PARTY is all about this, look at all the legislation they've been pushing! I thought they were about getting jobs! I mean it's not like they haven't been firing public workers left and right and stopping any movement in job growth. If a person votes for the GOP anymore they are F'ing themselves, even many of the moderate (you know the republicans that actually had a brain and worked to get things done) have left or have left and are speaking out against the current GOP.

As much as hate what the GOP are doing I'm not super happy with the Dems lately either. They are almost as bad, just on different issues. But at least the dems are shoving bills up our ass that will actually do harm as in what the GOP are doing to F woman over.

Phobic, I don't see how you can so easily make that jump. How does wanting to protect the unborn turn into a hatred towards women? We're trying to save the life of someone who can't stand up and speak for themselves. Do you have any children?