Republican Party Hypocrisies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? I�??�?�¢??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s a principal I will never compromise.
[/quote]

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue.

If enough people vote that way you end up with exactly the situation that exists now.

Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. Keep the government out of my life, except when my personal code ethics demands it.

Why do you (Pat) care about most candidate’s stance on abortion? Mayors don’t set abortion policy, congressmen don’t. The only vote you cast that really impacts it is president, because of their SC appointments. Right now, getting an abortion is a right in US, so what’s it matter what your gubernatorial candidate has to say about it?

I’m having a similar dilemma right now with my gubernatorial race.

The Dem will spend too much, and on the wrong things. She’s owned by the teachers unions. Boarder issues aren’t even on her radar. Bad.

The Republican on the other hand, I trust to actually cut the budget, she’s running hard on boarder issues. She’s pro 2nd amendment. Good.

But then I looked at their websites, and the Republican turns out to be just another “family values” type, with BS about our Christian nation, being pro-life (like I said, not that it really matters for a gov), and wanting to repeal our medical marijuana laws and “win” the war on drugs.

On the other hand, the Dem talks about and has a good record on civil liberties. While she doesn’t read from the NRA playbook, she’s not anti-gun, and she’s all about expanding the medical MJ program, and general de-criminalization.

Now which candidate to I really think will intrude on my life less?

The one who probably will send a little too much money, and drive us a little more into the red, or the “freedom loving” Republican on her moral crusade against non-Christian values and marijuana?

Real question. I’m torn. Hopefully as the election approaches a good 3rd party candidate will emerge who I can feel good about supporting.[/quote]

hallelujah :)[/quote]

Bull honkey…Governers and local legislatures do have power over local abortion laws… I prefer to elect ones that will not have an abortion free-for-all, especially with tax funding.

Congress can enact bills that limit or expand abortion services, all the president can do is sign the bill.
Education administrators, tax commissioners and people like that do not have that power, but local and federal law makers do…

62

Republicans - They support the death penalty, but not abortion.
Democrats - They support abortion, but not the death penalty.

Either vote ends up killing someone. So if you’re a true Christian Conservative, you shouldn’t vote for either.

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?

Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.

Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]

We’re not perfect, we can’t determine the moment of sentience, so like I said, we can err on the side of caution in these matters and assume human-hood before it probably actually exists, and like I said before, ban things like late-term abortions on demand. There is a gray area between a collection of cells and person-hood, and I’ll give person-hood the benefit of the doubt.

But you can’t even start arguing, on biological grounds, that a fetus in the first trimester, and even most of the second, is a human-being. They simply are not, any more than a sperm is.

Again, I’ll reiterate: Human is an adjective. It signifies conscious thought, and reasonable faculty.

66

[quote]pat wrote:

Fine I’ll bite…Technically you are still a collection of cells. At what point would you consider a collection of cells to assume the property of humanness…Do you know for sure? And are you willing to take the chance even though you may be wrong and your actions can result in the death of another human being? [/quote]

Where there’s a brain present capable of producing consciousness and self-awareness.

Do I know exactly when that happens? No. I’m not a scientist, and I’m sure there’s some variation as well. So for the third time, I’ll state that we can err on the side of caution, limit on-demand abortions to the term where we KNOW that there is no consciousness or self-awareness.

67

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically I am not republican, I consider myself independent. I will probably vote that way this up coming election. The power base it way to one sided and I feel I need to even it out.

The worst fucking thing that happened to the Republican party is “family values”. That’s where the bus turned south. I want the freedom to have family values or not, but not be bothered by the governement in either case.
Then democrats go to far in the other direction. They try to make non-“family values” every bodies business. In either way you have governement intruding in to daily lives and I want that shit to stop.[/quote]

More and more the people who vote Republican 99% of the time, don’t self-identify as Republicans. All I can think is 1) they self-identify as rugged individualists, and think they’re too cool for a party and/or are total tools who like the “independent” moniker, or 2) they’re too lazy to get out there and push for a third party in their state and local elections.

Not saying that’s you. I just can’t believe how many people I know who ALWAYS vote straight Republican party ticket, and make a big deal about how they’re actually independent.

I agree with you on the “Moral Majority” aspect of the Republicans. It completely destroyed he self-consistent philosophy of a small, hands-off government, the Republicans used be able to legitimately pretend they had. Now they are so clearly just Democrats with a different social agenda.[/quote]

You have a point in terms of independents voting republican, but you also have to examine what options we have. I can get some of what I want from the republicans or nothing I want and lots of things I am vehemently against from the democrats.
I personally, under no circumstance whatsoever, will I vote for someone who is pro-choice. This pretty much eliminate most democrats from consideration. All though I have seen an emergence of the Pro-life democrat, as in Sen Stupak, the vast majority is pro-abortion. This is unacceptable, I will not support the killing of human life, to forward some other agenda.
Third party? Iâ??d love for the libertarian party to get some movement behind it, but the fact is that these people have been shockingly incapable of gaining traction. After years, they should be much more prominent in the political arena, but it just seems like a good idea that is fizzling. I am surprised as many people share these beliefs, and as well resourced as some of these people are, they should be a factor but they are not. I am loathed to give a seat to a democrat for an ideal that is not going to happen. The Tea Party seems to be going strong and if it becomes legit ticket, with a legit shot, I will take it.
Here is what I will consider voting for: pro-life republican, pro-life democrat, pro-life libertarian who has a legit shot, pro-life independent. ← Note the consistent theme, itâ??s a principal I will never compromise.
[/quote]

How do you feel about the death penalty?

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Republicans - They support the death penalty, but not abortion.
Democrats - They support abortion, but not the death penalty.

Either vote ends up killing someone. So if you’re a true Christian Conservative, you shouldn’t vote for either.[/quote]

The distinction you failed to make above is that one party is innocent and one is guilty. How could you make a blunder like that?

[edit] You would have to try and desperately make the case that the lives of Jeffrey Dahmer and the baby in the womb in the prenatal ward in the Springfield, IL hospital right this minute have equal value and are worthy of no more or less consideration when it comes to acts they have and/or haven’t committed in their lives.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter: “Thou shalt not kill”

It’s either all or nothing, right?

69

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]

Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?

Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.

Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]

1 hr after conception the baby will literally be 4 cells. “You’re {sic] logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease”

I take a pragmatic approach to human life. I’m against murder only on the basis of the suffering it creates. For the individul murdered and for the bereaved.

But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.

I hate those fucking pricks standing in the way of the fucking morning after pill which merely prevents conception and doesn’t even cause an abortion. The dang pills should be distributed to anyone who needs them for 15 cents a pop. Pretty much prevent late term abortion wouldn’t it?

71

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]

Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?

Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.

Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]

1 hr after conception the baby will literally be 4 cells. “You’re {sic] logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease”

I take a pragmatic approach to human life. I’m against murder only on the basis of the suffering it creates. For the individul murdered and for the bereaved.

But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.

I hate those fucking pricks standing in the way of the fucking morning after pill which merely prevents conception and doesn’t even cause an abortion. The dang pills should be distributed to anyone who needs them for 15 cents a pop. Pretty much prevent late term abortion wouldn’t it?[/quote]

So if I kill a guy under anesthesia, its okay?

Let me ask you a question… does this rag smell like chloroform to you?

72

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Republicans - They support the death penalty, but not abortion.
Democrats - They support abortion, but not the death penalty.

Either vote ends up killing someone. So if you’re a true Christian Conservative, you shouldn’t vote for either.[/quote]

The distinction you failed to make above is that one party is innocent and one is guilty. How could you make a blunder like that?

[edit] You would have to try and desperately make the case that the lives of Jeffrey Dahmer and the baby in the womb in the prenatal ward in the Springfield, IL hospital right this minute have equal value and are worthy of no more or less consideration when it comes to acts they have and/or haven’t committed in their lives.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter: “Thou shalt not kill”

It’s either all or nothing, right?
[/quote]

Perhaps better translated “Thou shall not murder” as there is clear sanctioning of death penalty and war by the god described in the old testament.

74

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]

Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?

Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.

Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]

1 hr after conception the baby will literally be 4 cells. “You’re {sic] logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease”

I take a pragmatic approach to human life. I’m against murder only on the basis of the suffering it creates. For the individul murdered and for the bereaved.

But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.

I hate those fucking pricks standing in the way of the fucking morning after pill which merely prevents conception and doesn’t even cause an abortion. The dang pills should be distributed to anyone who needs them for 15 cents a pop. Pretty much prevent late term abortion wouldn’t it?[/quote]

So if I kill a guy under anesthesia, its okay?

Let me ask you a question… does this rag smell like chloroform to you?[/quote]

No, especially if he has any family, dependents, has a job, contributes to the economy, gives to charity, checks in on his elderly neighbors etc. A fetus doesnt do / have any of that shit.

75

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Republicans - They support the death penalty, but not abortion.
Democrats - They support abortion, but not the death penalty.

Either vote ends up killing someone. So if you’re a true Christian Conservative, you shouldn’t vote for either.[/quote]

The distinction you failed to make above is that one party is innocent and one is guilty. How could you make a blunder like that?

[edit] You would have to try and desperately make the case that the lives of Jeffrey Dahmer and the baby in the womb in the prenatal ward in the Springfield, IL hospital right this minute have equal value and are worthy of no more or less consideration when it comes to acts they have and/or haven’t committed in their lives.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter: “Thou shalt not kill”

It’s either all or nothing, right?
[/quote]

Read “Thou shalt not kill” in context. It means “Thou shalt not murder.”

It does matter.

Next.[/quote]

John 8:7 - “May he who is without sin cast the first stone”

From my understanding, there are Christians who support the death penalty and those who do not (following above verse).

However, isn’t murder murder?

76

[quote]Eli B wrote:

But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.
/quote]

Exactly. Ultimately arguments against this are either based a lack of understanding (assuming there’s a tiny person in there from the moment of conception), or from in a faith-based belief in something immaterial that makes a clump of cells human. Either way, neither argument stands in a 21st century secular republic.

77

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yup, you want government out of your life and are not willing to have it out of everybody elses life regarding one issue. [/quote]

Weak.

You’re just choosing whose life YOU want the government out of.[quote]

…Which is a shame in this particular case because ultimately it comes down to what human life is and when it begins and no government can answer that for anyone.

[/quote]This is just plain ol’ prima facie ridiculous. Government HAS answered this question. For instance, the Austrian government has determined that YOU are human life and worthy of protection, no?
[/quote]

There’s no biological grounds for asserting that a collection of cells is human.

It’s not the government’s job to protect all life; it protects human-beings. A collection of cells with the potential to become a human-being is not the same. If you follow that argument to it’s conclusion, you must also argue that sex-cells (which contain the same potential unfertilized) are deserving for protection under the law. Do sperm have rights?

We can disagree about when exactly the collection of cells becomes something sentient. And we can err on the side of caution, and do things like ban late-term abortion on demand (most people support such a ban).

But there no non-religious grounds for asserting the human-hood of a collection of cells. Human is an adjective, not a noun. Something is not human because it was created by other humans.
[/quote]

Hmmmmm…so a living baby that was born one hour ago is definitely a human, more than a collection of cells, but the humanness of a living baby that is one hour away from being born is questionable? Or one week? Or one month? Or three months and one day?

Nooooooo…Sparts, you’re logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease. You cannot with intellectual consistency argue FOR the state intervening on the behalf of a one hour old child but NOT for one who is one hour, or three months + one hour, from being born.

Your final paragraph is so absurd I don’t even feel the need to respond to it, by the way.[/quote]

1 hr after conception the baby will literally be 4 cells. “You’re {sic] logic is fragile and can be dismantled with ease”

I take a pragmatic approach to human life. I’m against murder only on the basis of the suffering it creates. For the individul murdered and for the bereaved.

But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely.

I hate those fucking pricks standing in the way of the fucking morning after pill which merely prevents conception and doesn’t even cause an abortion. The dang pills should be distributed to anyone who needs them for 15 cents a pop. Pretty much prevent late term abortion wouldn’t it?[/quote]

So if I kill a guy under anesthesia, its okay?

Let me ask you a question… does this rag smell like chloroform to you?[/quote]

No, especially if he has any family, dependents, has a job, contributes to the economy, gives to charity, checks in on his elderly neighbors etc. A fetus doesnt do / have any of that shit.[/quote]

Neither do 2 year old orphans.

And the loss of an unborn child can cause serious emotional harm. Further an unborn does have a family as much as you do.

79

I am the same individual organism as the one which was once an embryo. There’s no getting around it. Killing an embryo is killing a human being. Own it and defend it for what is, the taking of a human life.

80

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I am the same individual organism as the one which was once an embryo. There’s no getting around it. Killing an embryo is killing a human being. Own it and defend it for what is, the taking of a human life.[/quote]

I agree, this is why I’m pro-death penalty & pro-choice.