|
Second Republican Presidential debate is tonight.
|
|
Topic Started: May 15 2007, 06:23:33 PM (1,134 Views)
|
|
Hammer Kirby
|
May 18 2007, 07:33:39 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 16,954
- Group:
- Commy Red
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- September 5, 2006
- Identity
- Dart
|
I think to be pro-life is to be against individual rights. Individual rights come from being an independent individual - a fetus is a part of the mother's body, not an independent individual, therefore it has no rights.
|
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 07:33:55 PM
Post #32
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government.
Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hammer Kirby
|
May 18 2007, 07:45:23 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 16,954
- Group:
- Commy Red
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- September 5, 2006
- Identity
- Dart
|
Religion is an appropriate tool for authoritarian right-wingers, pretty much. It fits right in with their strategy of fear-mongering and suppression of dissent.
|
|
|
| |
|
roarshock
|
May 18 2007, 08:44:08 PM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 11,833
- Group:
- Iron Bound Druid
- Member
- #165
- Joined:
- November 18, 2006
|
ugh this debate is older then the internet it seems...
as for me Im limited pro choice(ironic I know but for situations it should be avaliable like rape, incest or really really young mothers that could be killed because of the child, but I belive it shouldnt be a birth control method)
|
|
| |
|
GyroNinja
|
May 18 2007, 08:49:10 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 2,047
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- September 11, 2006
|
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 10:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
Sweeping generalizations make life so much simpler, don't they?
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 08:58:32 PM
Post #36
|
|
Unregistered
|
- GyroNinja
- May 18 2007, 18:49:10
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 10:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
Sweeping generalizations make life so much simpler, don't they?
The dichotomy of the major political houses exists because of the share of general ideologies.
|
|
|
| |
|
GyroNinja
|
May 18 2007, 09:07:09 PM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 2,047
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- September 11, 2006
|
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 11:58:32
- GyroNinja
- May 18 2007, 18:49:10
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 10:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
Sweeping generalizations make life so much simpler, don't they?
The dichotomy of the major political houses exists because of the share of general ideologies.
Yes, but you're comparing every single subscriber of that ideology to the most extremist version of it. In fact, not only that, you're saying that everyone who believes in one facet of that ideology (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you, I take it) must also be an extremist follower of that ideology. Do I even have to explain how retarded that is?
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 09:50:31 PM
Post #38
|
|
Unregistered
|
- GyroNinja
- May 18 2007, 19:07:09
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 11:58:32
- GyroNinja
- May 18 2007, 18:49:10
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 10:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
Sweeping generalizations make life so much simpler, don't they?
The dichotomy of the major political houses exists because of the share of general ideologies.
Yes, but you're comparing every single subscriber of that ideology to the most extremist version of it. In fact, not only that, you're saying that everyone who believes in one facet of that ideology (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you, I take it) must also be an extremist follower of that ideology. Do I even have to explain how retarded that is?
Ok, so if people who like :Big government, extreme patriotism, and the forgoing of personal interest in support of the government AREN'T fascists, what are they?
|
|
|
| |
|
reknamarken
|
May 18 2007, 09:58:38 PM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 4,933
- Group:
- Orangey Goodness
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- October 4, 2006
- Identity
- Reknamarken
|
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 00:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
i'm pro-life and I'm a moderate.
:P
|
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 10:00:32 PM
Post #40
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Exeggutor
- May 18 2007, 19:58:38
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 00:33:55
- Abysmal_Shrimp
- May 18 2007, 17:17:19
But in this instance, pro-life people are NOT considering individual interests inferior - they are simply standing up for the right to live of what they see as individuals. Meanwhile, you ignored the rest of the definition.
Most of these people are also right-wing freaks, lets not forget. All about extreme patriotism and big government. Hmm. Extreme national unity, large, authoritarian government, personal interests inferior... If that isn't Fascism, I don't know what it.
i'm pro-life and I'm a moderate.
:P
Well then you are just Authoritarian, silly.
|
|
|
| |
|
rnn2walls
|
May 18 2007, 10:15:54 PM
Post #41
|
- Posts:
- 12,672
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- September 4, 2006
- Identity
- rnn
|
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 17:43:35
I don't like Romney. All I need to know is that Romney is against abortion to know that he will not move this country forward.
Let's see, in that case, you don't like McCain, Giuliani, and your very own Ron Paul. Once again, Fen proves his own ability to be a mindless anti-Christian robot.
|
The opinions expressed in the above post are totally and completely correct. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, there's just no other way to put it.
I've seen knights in armor panic at the first hint of battle. And I've seen the lowliest, unarmed squire pull a spear from his own body, to defend a dying horse. Nobility is not a birthright. It's defined by one's actions. -Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
- Khairos,Jul 25 2006
- 19:36:54
rnn ftw!
- CO Gage,Jul 12 2008
- 01:21:34
rnn ftw!
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 10:23:08 PM
Post #42
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:15:54
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 17:43:35
I don't like Romney. All I need to know is that Romney is against abortion to know that he will not move this country forward.
Let's see, in that case, you don't like McCain, Giuliani, and your very own Ron Paul. Once again, Fen proves his own ability to be a mindless anti-Christian robot.
being an Anti-Christian robot is better than being a Christian Robot, to say the least.
From the wiki "Paul is pro-life, but supports allowing individual states to decide on the legality of abortion instead of the federal government" He won't let his personal inhibitions get in the way of free choice.
Romney? He wants a complete repeal of Roe v. Wade. He claims that he would leave it up to the states. But would he? If he gets to repeal Roe v. Wade, he is basically telling the states "Ban abortion, and gain my support".
|
|
|
| |
|
rnn2walls
|
May 18 2007, 10:27:21 PM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 12,672
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- September 4, 2006
- Identity
- rnn
|
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 22:23:08
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:15:54
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 17:43:35
I don't like Romney. All I need to know is that Romney is against abortion to know that he will not move this country forward.
Let's see, in that case, you don't like McCain, Giuliani, and your very own Ron Paul. Once again, Fen proves his own ability to be a mindless anti-Christian robot.
being an Anti-Christian robot is better than being a Christian Robot, to say the least. From the wiki "Paul is pro-life, but supports allowing individual states to decide on the legality of abortion instead of the federal government" He won't let his personal inhibitions get in the way of free choice. Romney? He wants a complete repeal of Roe v. Wade. He claims that he would leave it up to the states. But would he? If he gets to repeal Roe v. Wade, he is basically telling the states "Ban abortion, and gain my support".
No mindless robot is better than any other.
And what is there to say that Ron Paul won't repeal Roe v. Wade if he gets the chance either? Personally, I'd be willing to bet that neither one would. Doing that would be political suicide. And if it talked about Romney's position on abortion, it would say the same thing as Ron's.
And for future reference, only justices can do that. Learn about the American government before you try to talk about it.
|
The opinions expressed in the above post are totally and completely correct. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, there's just no other way to put it.
I've seen knights in armor panic at the first hint of battle. And I've seen the lowliest, unarmed squire pull a spear from his own body, to defend a dying horse. Nobility is not a birthright. It's defined by one's actions. -Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
- Khairos,Jul 25 2006
- 19:36:54
rnn ftw!
- CO Gage,Jul 12 2008
- 01:21:34
rnn ftw!
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
May 18 2007, 10:31:15 PM
Post #44
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:27:21
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 22:23:08
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:15:54
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 17:43:35
I don't like Romney. All I need to know is that Romney is against abortion to know that he will not move this country forward.
Let's see, in that case, you don't like McCain, Giuliani, and your very own Ron Paul. Once again, Fen proves his own ability to be a mindless anti-Christian robot.
being an Anti-Christian robot is better than being a Christian Robot, to say the least. From the wiki "Paul is pro-life, but supports allowing individual states to decide on the legality of abortion instead of the federal government" He won't let his personal inhibitions get in the way of free choice. Romney? He wants a complete repeal of Roe v. Wade. He claims that he would leave it up to the states. But would he? If he gets to repeal Roe v. Wade, he is basically telling the states "Ban abortion, and gain my support".
No mindless robot is better than any other. And what is there to say that Ron Paul won't repeal Roe v. Wade if he gets the chance either? Personally, I'd be willing to bet that neither one would. Doing that would be political suicide. And if it talked about Romney's position on abortion, it would say the same thing as Ron's. And for future reference, only justices can do that. Learn about the American government before you try to talk about it.
Presidential power and money can do anything.
Why would Romney be more likely than Paul, you ask? Because he says he wants to. Ron Paul says nothing about that. That is the critical difference between Romney and Paul's ideas on abortion-- Romney is more extreme.
|
|
|
| |
|
GyroNinja
|
May 18 2007, 10:36:45 PM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 2,047
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- September 11, 2006
|
- F3nr1L
- May 19 2007, 13:31:15
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:27:21
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 22:23:08
- Colonel Jade Curtis
- May 18 2007, 20:15:54
- F3nr1L
- May 18 2007, 17:43:35
I don't like Romney. All I need to know is that Romney is against abortion to know that he will not move this country forward.
Let's see, in that case, you don't like McCain, Giuliani, and your very own Ron Paul. Once again, Fen proves his own ability to be a mindless anti-Christian robot.
being an Anti-Christian robot is better than being a Christian Robot, to say the least. From the wiki "Paul is pro-life, but supports allowing individual states to decide on the legality of abortion instead of the federal government" He won't let his personal inhibitions get in the way of free choice. Romney? He wants a complete repeal of Roe v. Wade. He claims that he would leave it up to the states. But would he? If he gets to repeal Roe v. Wade, he is basically telling the states "Ban abortion, and gain my support".
No mindless robot is better than any other. And what is there to say that Ron Paul won't repeal Roe v. Wade if he gets the chance either? Personally, I'd be willing to bet that neither one would. Doing that would be political suicide. And if it talked about Romney's position on abortion, it would say the same thing as Ron's. And for future reference, only justices can do that. Learn about the American government before you try to talk about it.
Presidential power and money can do anything. Why would Romney be more likely than Paul, you ask? Because he says he wants to. Ron Paul says nothing about that. That is the critical difference between Romney and Paul's ideas on abortion-- Romney is more extreme.
Well, that or Paul is more two-faced.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|