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?
..and for someone who is for limited govt, why should the govt make woman do things they don't want to do? what's next Prima Nocta? The who reason why abortion and birth control was brought into the political spectrum was because of the massive amount of woman getting hurt and dying due to going to unsafe places for them. Even in Texas woman are going to mexico for birth control pills which have no safeguards and haven't been tested, they are putting them selves at risk. I have no sympathy for them, i mean they keep voting for these morons who pass these laws, it doesn't take much to figure that out. I don't know what the hell is wrong with humans, by a mass we seem to never look at things and go, should we, until the effects are in our face and it may be too late.
As I have stated numerous times, God and religion has led to more murder and death than anything in the hisotry of this earth----and certainly more than abortion. I will make an argument, not that I agree with or disagree with but something to think about, that I did before and will do here again in short.
If someone is having an abortion, we are to assume they do not want the festus to become a person for whatever reason. If this is true, and the person is forced to birth it, we can only assume there will be either some resentment or unwillingness to care for said person. On occasion, Im sure this is not the case, but generally speaking. In turn, this child becomes an orphan and the responsibility of the state to care for. These states of coure must fund this, which of course comes from taxes and budgets---which of course no one wants to pay more for. So, if you do not want more money going to medicaid, welfare, and the like-----abortion seems like a very good alternative to eliminate a lot of future expenses on the tax payers of our nation.
WTF, keep your government-religious-point of view SH-T off a woman's right to her own body and life.
Then let her pay for it with her money and her conscience. Or perhaps you should since you so strongly feel this way.
Beatnic, I don't understand your reasoning here. There are so many things that our taxes pay for or contribute to - you can't pick and choose where your tax money goes.
As Jon Stewart said:
"Paying taxes is like going to the zoo. Admission is twenty bucks. You can’t walk in and go, “Here’s $18.50. I don’t like zebras."
WTF, keep your government-religious-point of view SH-T off a woman's right to her own body and life.
Then let her pay for it with her money and her conscience. Or perhaps you should since you so strongly feel this way.
Beatnic, I don't understand your reasoning here. There are so many things that our taxes pay for or contribute to - you can't pick and choose where your tax money goes.
As Jon Stewart said:
"Paying taxes is like going to the zoo. Admission is twenty bucks. You can’t walk in and go, “Here’s $18.50. I don’t like zebras."
Somewhere in all of this, the laws of nature and love are lost.
WTF, keep your government-religious-point of view SH-T off a woman's right to her own body and life.
Then let her pay for it with her money and her conscience. Or perhaps you should since you so strongly feel this way.
Beatnic, I don't understand your reasoning here. There are so many things that our taxes pay for or contribute to - you can't pick and choose where your tax money goes.
As Jon Stewart said:
"Paying taxes is like going to the zoo. Admission is twenty bucks. You can’t walk in and go, “Here’s $18.50. I don’t like zebras."
Somewhere in all of this, the laws of nature and love are lost.
...ok.
So maybe I missed your point then? I took your comment as "you don't want your tax dollars funding abortion."
Yes?
If so, I was trying to play devil's advocate and say what if: "I don't want my tax dollars paying for X,Y, & Z."
How would you propose this situation be handled, because I don't see a solution to it.
But we're probably getting off topic....so it doesn't really matter does it?
And if the powers that be do try to make an anti-abortion law, or heck even a pro-abortion law for that matter - it probably won't go anywhere anytime soon since This Congress could be least productive since 1947
And if the powers that be do try to make an anti-abortion law, or heck even a pro-abortion law for that matter - it probably won't go anywhere anytime soon since This Congress could be least productive since 1947
Jon Stewart’s piece on Sen. Al Franken’s first legislative amendment. Added to a defense bill passed last week, it prohibits giving defense contracts to any company that requires employees to sign a mandatory arbitration contract preventing them from taking the company to court if they’re raped by coworkers.
Who did this gang of 30 include? Both of Georgia’s senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, voted against the Franken amendment. Chambliss and Isakson had earlier voted to strip federal funding for ACORN because of hidden-camera videotapes showing ACORN staffers advising a GOP operative posing as a pimp on how he could avoid paying taxes on his business.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who confessed to patronizing a house of ill repute operated by the Washington Madam, voted against the Franken amendment. Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who has admitted having an affair with a woman who was married to one of his staff aides, also was one of the 30 senators voting against the Franken amendment.
This group of senators [link] obviously consider it a bad thing for a community organizing group to talk about evading taxes with a GOP operative pretending to be a pimp. Rape, sexual assault, extramarital sex with a prostitute, and an affair with a woman married to one of your employees, on the other hand, is evidently OK.
I have to hand it to Scott for doing this, not sure he would if it wasn't for the tight election he's in but still at least he's standing up to the GOP and their BS. So much for the Freedom of the USA, well if your a Woman...
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??
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
I think the difference is obvious. The GOP stands for the republican Party. Or the ones who really make the decisions, not every member who identifies themselves as a republican.
I don't see that as any conflict, as people who vote republican can change their vote, but have little or no influence on party policy in any real way. That is for the power brokers and that is who he meant. Same goes for the Democrats as well, that's why this is all just talk, so no reason to get personal or offended.
Should people who are NOT republican be bent out of shape when people of the right refer to them as "lefties"? Nope.
Personally, I am glad Mr. Akins is staying in the Senate race, and I hope every woman in Missouri asks themselves just how well she will be represented by him, if he's elected.
Wasn't the GOP supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs? I think not, that's just another smoke screen for their "social agenda" for getting government offen your back and into your bedroom, & makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
Personally, I am glad Mr. Akins is staying in the Senate race, and I hope every woman in Missouri asks themselves just how well she will be represented by him, if he's elected.
Wasn't the GOP supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs? I think not, that's just another smoke screen for their "social agenda" for getting government offen your back and into your bedroom, & makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
you say that like the left doesnt have an agenda that gets twisted the way you are twisting the right's.
i mean there are plenty of people (that you usually blow off) that make an interesting argument that welfare creates dependency. that dependency translates to votes for more entitlements.
your concept that the GOP wants women "at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible" is so far from the truth that i cant even begin to respond. In fact, i could see how this could be seen as downright offensive.
your ignorance of what the GOP wants is nothing shy of amazing.
JDH, i do agree with you for the most part on the abortion aspect but what you believe is the motivation i just cant even come close to agreeing with you.
And if the powers that be do try to make an anti-abortion law, or heck even a pro-abortion law for that matter - it probably won't go anywhere anytime soon since This Congress could be least productive since 1947
thing is, most of this is coming from states.
Well I guess on the state level it might have an easier time getting through than at the national level but still, if it does pass you know it will get tied up in lawsuits and take quite some time to work its way through the courts.
And if state "X" does pass an anti-abortion law - it will be interesting to see if the law works and abortions actually decline across the board, or if those folks simply travel to neighboring states and those states see a dramatic increase.
"...And if state "X" does pass an anti-abortion law ..." It will be challenged in the US Supreme Court, where it will be overturned, until Roe V Wade is chalenged and overturned.
Personally, I am glad Mr. Akins is staying in the Senate race, and I hope every woman in Missouri asks themselves just how well she will be represented by him, if he's elected.
Wasn't the GOP supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs? I think not, that's just another smoke screen for their "social agenda" for getting government offen your back and into your bedroom, & makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
you say that like the left doesnt have an agenda that gets twisted the way you are twisting the right's.
i mean there are plenty of people (that you usually blow off) that make an interesting argument that welfare creates dependency. that dependency translates to votes for more entitlements.
your concept that the GOP wants women "at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible" is so far from the truth that i cant even begin to respond. In fact, i could see how this could be seen as downright offensive.
your ignorance of what the GOP wants is nothing shy of amazing.
JDH, i do agree with you for the most part on the abortion aspect but what you believe is the motivation i just cant even come close to agreeing with you.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
"...And if state "X" does pass an anti-abortion law ..." It will be challenged in the US Supreme Court, where it will be overturned, until Roe V Wade is chalenged and overturned.
agreed. and i dont see this happening any time soon. our understanding of when a mass of cells becomes a baby needs to be brought to a finer point before that will happen. and we are still a long way away from that.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Yesterday, curiosity about legitimate rape led me to research the charges against Julian Assange. Here they are: One woman who had consensual sex with him claimed that he intentionally damaged his condom. That's rape in her eyes. The other woman had consensual sex with him, they fell asleep, and later in the night she says he started fooling around with her while she was still asleep. That's rape in her eyes.
Or so they say. Common sense tells us these trumped up allegations have all the earmarks of a plot to shut down wikileaks because corrupt governments don't want us to know what goes on behind the scenes. And it has worked. His sources are drying up. The latest is that a guy who had 30,000 B of A documents to hand over instead destroyed them. He wants no parts of this kind of revenge. Julian is holed up in an Ecuadorian embassy. The other guy doesn't want to be.
When the ordinary person, one who is not baffled enough to quibble about what your definition of "is" is, thinks of rape, they think of a hooded thug grabbing a gal by the hair and dragging her into an abandoned building where he holds her down and has his way. That is a legitimate example of rape. Yet if I were to incautiously transpose two words, so that I wrote "an example of legitimate rape", and if I were running for office on the Republican ticket, the leftists would extract those two words out of all context or meaning and have a field day portraying me as John Wayne Cacey. Any weapon will do, so long as my character gets assassinated, that's all that counts.
JDH would know better if he paused to think. He won't. The object of the Left is not to think, but to defeat the Right by any means necessary. Including lunacy.
As for abortion itself, you're not going to stop it from happening. Nature wants 16 and 17 year old girls to breed. Nature wants teenage lads to oblige. They do. Then they have to deal with the consequences in a society which postpones adulthood to an unnatural age. Many will abort. You can't stop that. You can no more hold back the hurricane nor reverse the glacial epochs nor prevent pot smoking nor ban cell phone driving.
... and unless you are a girl, abortion is none of your decision.
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.
i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic. i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
if i make a racial slur, even if it is not about a specific person on the board it is still uncivil. just saying.
the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"
thats a religious institution. if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.
I dont know if the group who wants no contraception is actually shrinking Kuz, sorry. ALOT of the "evangelical types" are strong on this...and their numbers are actually growing. I too went to a catholic high school and middle school, and absitinece was the ONLY way. Condoms were never advocated for and Father Patrick J Sheedy of Ocala, FL told my 8th grade class that using condoms was a sin.
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
if i make a racial slur, even if it is not about a specific person on the board it is still uncivil. just saying.
the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"
thats a religious institution. if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.
I made no racial slurr against anyone. Period. The implication that I did is not only dishonest, but uncivil.
My view of the Evangelical wing of the GOP is EXACTLY as I stated. I know too many who think just that way to ignore them. Until the GOP begins taking steps to distance themselves from the extremist among them, I say "you will be known by the company you keep".
If I wanted to be a Catholic, I'd join their church. I cherish the seperation of church and state that protects me from being forced to live under religious dogma that I find offensive. God Bless the USA.
I made no racial slurr against anyone. Period. The implication that I did is not only dishonest, but uncivil.
i am not saying you did. i am making a statement that someone can be uncivil without directing it to a specific person. that is all. i know you didnt make a racial slur.
i am having a difficult time understanding how you are not trying to twist my words to somehow "force" me to become uncivil. i will do my best to overlook it. i just ask that you stop looking for the worst in me.
JDH:
My view of the Evangelical wing of the GOP is EXACTLY as I stated. I know too many who think just that way to ignore them. Until the GOP begins taking steps to distance themselves from the extremist among them, I say "you will be known by the company you keep".
as soon as the Democrats begin taking steps to distance the mselves from the extremists among them, i say "you will be known by the company you keep"
JDH:
If I wanted to be a Catholic, I'd join their church. I cherish the seperation of church and state that protects me from being forced to live under religious dogma that I find offensive. God Bless the USA.
i agree with that.
i do feel that there is a (for lack of better terms) middle ground here. and by that i mean, we can all have and celebrate our religion, any religion, openly and in public without fear of others mocking or persecuting anyone or claiming they are offended by it.
just because one prays in public does not mean that they are forcing you to join their religion. just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion.
"...just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion. ..."
When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.
I dont know if the group who wants no contraception is actually shrinking Kuz, sorry. ALOT of the "evangelical types" are strong on this...and their numbers are actually growing. I too went to a catholic high school and middle school, and absitinece was the ONLY way. Condoms were never advocated for and Father Patrick J Sheedy of Ocala, FL told my 8th grade class that using condoms was a sin.
no need to apologize. if it is or isnt shrinking it is a fact that you personally have nothing to do with. you may be correct that the evangelical population is growing but there are other groups that have lightened their touch on the subject. i am aware of the old school hard core catholic attitude that condoms are a sin, but that group is not preventing it from being taught in my high school and many others. even if its isnt in high schools i see many parents teaching about condoms in spite of the religious extreme. every person has their own personal amount of buy-in for religion and society as a unit seems to understand that condoms are a good idea more so than the people that bought into religion even more. outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery. and we are talking about abortion. not contraception.
Comments
If someone is having an abortion, we are to assume they do not want the festus to become a person for whatever reason. If this is true, and the person is forced to birth it, we can only assume there will be either some resentment or unwillingness to care for said person. On occasion, Im sure this is not the case, but generally speaking. In turn, this child becomes an orphan and the responsibility of the state to care for. These states of coure must fund this, which of course comes from taxes and budgets---which of course no one wants to pay more for. So, if you do not want more money going to medicaid, welfare, and the like-----abortion seems like a very good alternative to eliminate a lot of future expenses on the tax payers of our nation.
As Jon Stewart said:
"Paying taxes is like going to the zoo. Admission is twenty bucks. You can’t walk in and go, “Here’s $18.50. I don’t like zebras."
So maybe I missed your point then? I took your comment as "you don't want your tax dollars funding abortion."
Yes?
If so, I was trying to play devil's advocate and say what if: "I don't want my tax dollars paying for X,Y, & Z."
How would you propose this situation be handled, because I don't see a solution to it.
But we're probably getting off topic....so it doesn't really matter does it?
Heck - maybe this is one thing we can agree on - any new politicians might be better than the folks we have in Washington now.
Congress Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low In Gallup Poll
And if the powers that be do try to make an anti-abortion law, or heck even a pro-abortion law for that matter - it probably won't go anywhere anytime soon since This Congress could be least productive since 1947
Jon Stewart’s piece on Sen. Al Franken’s first legislative amendment. Added to a defense bill passed last week, it prohibits giving defense contracts to any company that requires employees to sign a mandatory arbitration contract preventing them from taking the company to court if they’re raped by coworkers.
Who did this gang of 30 include? Both of Georgia’s senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, voted against the Franken amendment. Chambliss and Isakson had earlier voted to strip federal funding for ACORN because of hidden-camera videotapes showing ACORN staffers advising a GOP operative posing as a pimp on how he could avoid paying taxes on his business. Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who confessed to patronizing a house of ill repute operated by the Washington Madam, voted against the Franken amendment. Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who has admitted having an affair with a woman who was married to one of his staff aides, also was one of the 30 senators voting against the Franken amendment. This group of senators [link] obviously consider it a bad thing for a community organizing group to talk about evading taxes with a GOP operative pretending to be a pimp. Rape, sexual assault, extramarital sex with a prostitute, and an affair with a woman married to one of your employees, on the other hand, is evidently OK.
I have to hand it to Scott for doing this, not sure he would if it wasn't for the tight election he's in but still at least he's standing up to the GOP and their BS. So much for the Freedom of the USA, well if your a Woman...
I think the difference is obvious. The GOP stands for the republican Party. Or the ones who really make the decisions, not every member who identifies themselves as a republican.
I don't see that as any conflict, as people who vote republican can change their vote, but have little or no influence on party policy in any real way. That is for the power brokers and that is who he meant. Same goes for the Democrats as well, that's why this is all just talk, so no reason to get personal or offended.
Should people who are NOT republican be bent out of shape when people of the right refer to them as "lefties"? Nope.
Wasn't the GOP supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs? I think not, that's just another smoke screen for their "social agenda" for getting government offen your back and into your bedroom, & makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
i mean there are plenty of people (that you usually blow off) that make an interesting argument that welfare creates dependency. that dependency translates to votes for more entitlements.
your concept that the GOP wants women "at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible" is so far from the truth that i cant even begin to respond. In fact, i could see how this could be seen as downright offensive.
your ignorance of what the GOP wants is nothing shy of amazing.
JDH, i do agree with you for the most part on the abortion aspect but what you believe is the motivation i just cant even come close to agreeing with you.
And if state "X" does pass an anti-abortion law - it will be interesting to see if the law works and abortions actually decline across the board, or if those folks simply travel to neighboring states and those states see a dramatic increase.
i mean, heres your quote:
and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."
and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.
i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Or so they say. Common sense tells us these trumped up allegations have all the earmarks of a plot to shut down wikileaks because corrupt governments don't want us to know what goes on behind the scenes. And it has worked. His sources are drying up. The latest is that a guy who had 30,000 B of A documents to hand over instead destroyed them. He wants no parts of this kind of revenge. Julian is holed up in an Ecuadorian embassy. The other guy doesn't want to be.
When the ordinary person, one who is not baffled enough to quibble about what your definition of "is" is, thinks of rape, they think of a hooded thug grabbing a gal by the hair and dragging her into an abandoned building where he holds her down and has his way. That is a legitimate example of rape. Yet if I were to incautiously transpose two words, so that I wrote "an example of legitimate rape", and if I were running for office on the Republican ticket, the leftists would extract those two words out of all context or meaning and have a field day portraying me as John Wayne Cacey. Any weapon will do, so long as my character gets assassinated, that's all that counts.
JDH would know better if he paused to think. He won't. The object of the Left is not to think, but to defeat the Right by any means necessary. Including lunacy.
As for abortion itself, you're not going to stop it from happening. Nature wants 16 and 17 year old girls to breed. Nature wants teenage lads to oblige. They do. Then they have to deal with the consequences in a society which postpones adulthood to an unnatural age. Many will abort. You can't stop that. You can no more hold back the hurricane nor reverse the glacial epochs nor prevent pot smoking nor ban cell phone driving.
... and unless you are a girl, abortion is none of your decision.
the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"
thats a religious institution.
if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.
My view of the Evangelical wing of the GOP is EXACTLY as I stated. I know too many who think just that way to ignore them. Until the GOP begins taking steps to distance themselves from the extremist among them, I say "you will be known by the company you keep".
If I wanted to be a Catholic, I'd join their church. I cherish the seperation of church and state that protects me from being forced to live under religious dogma that I find offensive. God Bless the USA.
i am having a difficult time understanding how you are not trying to twist my words to somehow "force" me to become uncivil. i will do my best to overlook it. i just ask that you stop looking for the worst in me.
as soon as the Democrats begin taking steps to distance the mselves from the extremists among them, i say "you will be known by the company you keep"
i agree with that.
i do feel that there is a (for lack of better terms) middle ground here. and by that i mean, we can all have and celebrate our religion, any religion, openly and in public without fear of others mocking or persecuting anyone or claiming they are offended by it.
just because one prays in public does not mean that they are forcing you to join their religion. just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion.
When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.
you may be correct that the evangelical population is growing but there are other groups that have lightened their touch on the subject. i am aware of the old school hard core catholic attitude that condoms are a sin, but that group is not preventing it from being taught in my high school and many others. even if its isnt in high schools i see many parents teaching about condoms in spite of the religious extreme. every person has their own personal amount of buy-in for religion and society as a unit seems to understand that condoms are a good idea more so than the people that bought into religion even more. outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery. and we are talking about abortion. not contraception.