WAS is the key word. After getting exposed for being a steroid cheat, he shrunk, along with his home runs, to an average Hispanic dude.
Marco Rubio steps in it.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
Social issues determine whom the GOP will nominate only because the far right fringe has inordinate power within that closed group. Once nominated, maintaining such far right views guarantees a Democratic victory. .
Conservatives cannot "get the society right", because the society has its' own ideas and beliefs, which change and evolve over time. People are seriously considering electing a woman as POTUS - [the wrong one, but still] that's a far cry from where we were a few decades ago. In terms of history, it hasn't been that long since women weren't allowed to vote!
Conservatives cannot stop the changes they don't like.
Windsor
Veteran Expediter
Oh but they'll sure try like hell won't they!
The right and the far right aka tea party think they reserve the right to decide how and what America should be. Then they throw the constitution (only when it's convenient for them) in your face and tell us what our founders wanted. That's the exact type of thinking that lead to this country to be formed in the first place. The right think it's only there country and the left just happens to be living here for some reason. And while I'm at it I'm sick of the right thinking they have the moral high ground because they have "Jesus on there side" pretty sure if Jesus were real he would be an extreme far left hippie pot smoking (because it's natural and his dad made it) socialist, without question!
Last edited:
paullud
Veteran Expediter
What is your obsession with bringing up Bush? Are you a closeted Bush fan?
None of the current foreign money scandals surrounding the Clintons are new. Remember all the illegal Chinese money that was given to the Clintons and the subsequent revelations of missile technology showing up in Chinese hands, putting them years if not decades ahead of their existing missile launching capabilities?
If one asks questions about Hillary's accomplishments as SECSTATE, the answer would be that she was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her impending presidential campaign from multiple foreign countries.
Yes, the awful right (the opposite of both left and wrong), trying to force their way on everyone. It's a daily occurrence for them to demand everyone be armed just because they are intelligent enough to support the second amendment. Imagine, demanding everyone follow their belief. Oh. Wait. No. Sorry, it's the other way around. It's the left that always demands everyone adhere to their beliefs and demands rather than choosing for themselves.
No it doesn't. The right to choose is the right to choose. Anti-abortion conservatives "always demands everyone adhere to their beliefs and demands rather than choosing for themselves." Claiming it's different because it's a third party is nothing more than a rationalization for getting an exception to tell other people what they can and cannot do. Conservatives don't get to be the sole spokesperson for this third party.
Well, you're reformulated your statement into a different context now. But now that you have put it in the context of rights, it's exactly the same thing. If you look at the history of abortion you'll notice that it was an uncontested natural right for thousands of years and it has only been relatively recently where conservatives decided to take that right, along with the right to privacy away. Row v Wade restored both the right to privacy and the right to choose.
Women around the world have used abortion to control their reproduction at every point in history, and in every known society. In the US abortion was widely and freely commonplace until about 1880 when states started banning it. Anti-abortion legislation was part of a backlash championed by religious conservatives against the growing movements for suffrage and birth control in a blatant effort to control women and confine them to a traditional childbearing role. These laws were also a convenient way for the medical profession to tighten its control over women’s health care, as midwives who performed abortions were a threat to the male medical establishment. In addition, the late 1800s saw a declining birthrate among whites, the U.S. government and the eugenics movement were concerned about “race suicide” and wanted white U.S.-born women to reproduce.
So while you want to rationalize a plea for this third party, the entire history of anti-abortion legislation is all about power, control, and telling other people what they can and cannot do.
Conservatives aren't even pro-life, they're anti-abortion. They invented the pro-life nomenclature to demonize the opposition, because the opposite of pro-live is pro-death, and isn't that awesome. But they're really anti-abortion, and there's a difference. Pro-life means encouraging and celebrating life, but that's not what pro-lifers do. They're anti-abortion, which is power and control and telling other people what they can and cannot do (authoritarian). And once you realize that pro-lifers are simply anti-abortion, that they're pro-telling other people what to do, then there's no incongruity between "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" because it's the same thing, power, control, and authoritarian arrogance. And it's why after failing to convince women they shouldn't have an abortion, that conservatives are trying to force others to live by their views by re-legislating authoritarian anti-abortion laws.
Yes, both the right and the left are in a never ending tug-of-war in trying to force their way on everyone. Neither side has a monopoly on it, and both sides are nearly always wrong. They only time either side is right is when you get about an 80% agreement all around.
The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today which may settle the homosexual marriage façade. At the very least, let's hope SCOTUS acknowledges marriage law is delegated to the States. Failing that, the States can propose an amendment to the US Constitution to reaffirm marriage as only a union between one man and one woman. The Leftists are attempting to destroy Western civilization at the cellular level by corrupting the established model of marriage which has stood 2000 years.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
Two entirely different subjects. No connections what so ever.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
That's your opinion and I respect it. I believe however they have a moral connection. A confusing moral connection. Too kill or not to kill! Pick one for convenience and the other because it's not right. There in lies the dilemma. When is it ok morally to take a life. I have a hard time understanding how someone could be pro life and for the death penalty or vise versa, pro abortion and against the death penalty.
Last edited:
Read what I wrote in Post #190 - pro-life really isn't pro-life - it's anti-abortion and pro-telling other people what to do. Once you realize that pro-life is actually pro-telling other people what to do, then you'll see that pro-death penalty is along those same lines and isn't morally confusing at all.
Last edited:
l am pro-choice and anti-abortion. You can choose to have one because it's not my business. Personally l am against it under most circumstances, but it isn't my job to judge or control you. Death penalty vs life in prison. l am for whatever is cheapest for the state; in certain instances cruel and unusual would be fine with me.
Last edited: