# The reason repubs lost



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

Gay rights
Women's reproductive rights
Immigration

It's obvious that younger voters are very liberal on these issues and if repubs don't change w the times and focus on the economy, they'll continue to lose.

A pro choice, pro gay marriage fiscal conservative is what they need.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Gay rights
> Women's reproductive rights
> Immigration
> 
> ...



Which is what the libertarian party already is.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Which is what the libertarian party already is.



Yes they are, but a true libertarian is too extreme.  For instance, no Medicare, no soc security, no disability insurance, no foster care for orphans etc.
And we're stuck in a 2 party system.


----------



## troubador (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes they are, but a true libertarian is too extreme.  For instance, no Medicare, no soc security, no disability insurance, no foster care for orphans etc.
> And we're stuck in a 2 party system.



I'm in full agreement with why the republicans lost this election however your framing of "true libertarians" is off. 

Gary Johnson's (the libertarian nominee) views on medicare and SS:
Political positions of Gary Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

troubador said:


> I'm in full agreement with why the republicans lost this election however your framing of "true libertarians" is off.
> 
> Gary Johnson's (the libertarian nominee) views on medicare and SS:
> Political positions of Gary Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You are correct.  There is no such thing as a "true libertarian."  Some libertarians are for zero government though, but Johnson obviously is not of that mindset.


----------



## dieseljimmy (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You are correct.  There is no such thing as a "true libertarian."  Some libertarians are for zero government though, but Johnson obviously is not of that mindset.


hence why Ron Paul never ran a Liberian campaign... Even though his mindset leans that way, he knew the title alone would destroy his chances.

A fiscal conservative with liberal social policies would fit America the best. But what party is going to stand behind that... We have some evolution before that occurs.  If global warming doesn't get us first...


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 9, 2012)

the party bs only gets in the way. just give us a good man with great ideas.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Gay rights
> Women's reproductive rights
> Immigration
> 
> ...




I'll clarify:

-homosexuals want to tarnish the religious institution of marriage even though they are not religious and every major religion abhors their lifestyle
-women want taxpayers to foot the bill for their infanticide
-illegal immigrants want citizenship and taxpayer-funded food, housing, healthcare, education etc.

republicans (and reasonable people in general) were against this, so they lost. Democrats (socialists) are for this, which is why they won. Young people are mostly idiots, which is why IMO, the voting age should be raised to 40.


----------



## cshea2 (Nov 9, 2012)

That description actually fits Romney quite well. A fiscal conservative, but a Massachusetts moderate. The problem was his campaign was horrible. He just spent all of his energy talking about the economy, and was dragged to the far right to appease the social conservatives. Paul Ryan as a VP choice was not a good one, he would have been better off picking Marco Rubio. The Obama camp went out talked to people, and pulled voters in. Not only did Obama get the black vote, women vote, and young vote he got the asian vote as well. Nearly 75% of Asians voted for Obama, so it's not like the govt. dependents got Obama in the White house.

With the hispanic population rapidly increasing, the republicans will need to drastically change their approach, or they will fade away.

Romney lying about Chrysler outsourcing jobs to China at the last minute also didn't help.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

they should count your vote based on the amount of land you own...


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

He got 70% of the Jewish vote too.


----------



## cshea2 (Nov 9, 2012)

^^The good ole days


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> I'll clarify:
> 
> -homosexuals want to tarnish the religious institution of marriage even though they are not religious and every major religion abhors their lifestyle
> -women want taxpayers to foot the bill for their infanticide
> ...



Straights tarnish the religious institution of marriage far more than gays.  Apparently you aren't aware of divorce rates.  Divorce rates have dropped a little but that is only because people can't afford it.  The bible belt has the highest divorce rate in the nation.  Seems the bible thumpers are doing their best to tarnish marriage.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> I'll clarify:
> 
> -homosexuals want to tarnish the religious institution of marriage even though they are not religious and every major religion abhors their lifestyle
> -women want taxpayers to foot the bill for their infanticide
> ...



Your views are why you guys lost, and why if the repubs don't adapt will continue to lose.  Your voting block is getting old and dying off.  Fortunately for us social libs this country is a democracy and we have more votes.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

Even if they raised the voting limit, the younger generations will soon reach 40 and still be ok w gays and abortion rights, and anti religion.  It's the result of education and progression.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Looking at the election results you can't deny the cultural shift that is happening in this country.   Gay rights passed a vote in three states.   In Colorado weed got 50,000 more votes than Obama.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

Gay marriage will be national and weed will be legalized in my lifetime.  The opponents are dying off.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

I see that happening,  I agree Marj. should be legal across the board and there is to much gov't regulation on many things that it is stupid, but the biggest problem i see with the legalization is finding a way to accurately test some one to see if they are high or not. There will be many innocent people fucked because of DUI or fired at work. What I am getting at say I smoke weed for a year, most pot smokers I know that smoke for a while get that personality of being slower like they are when they are high (not every one but a majority) a cop pulled them over and they seem high, but they are not... How will the cop no if they recently smoked? When a test will indicate they have it in their system, due to the life span of it in your body.

Same goes for an employeer, they want to fire some one. So they say hey he showed up to work high... You cant show up to work high, so take this test... he fails and is fired... 

I am just curious how it is going to play out in that aspect. This actually happened to my friend, he has his card and got pulled over for a roll through on stop sign. Cop pulled him over and smelled weed (guys car reeks of weed) shows the cop the card that he is medicated and admits to having his legal limit on him. Cop asks have you smoked recently, he says no i have not. In the report the cop put he seemed slow and under the influence... My buddy got a day in jail and a DUI, also lost his cannabis card. He did not smoke at all, just has the personality of a fucking brain dead monkey.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

gays should be allowed to be married, I am a christian but I am a FIRM believer in the constitution and equal rights.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2012)

cshea2 said:


> That description actually fits Romney quite well. A fiscal conservative, but a Massachusetts moderate. The problem was his campaign was horrible. He just spent all of his energy talking about the economy, and was dragged to the far right to appease the social conservatives. Paul Ryan as a VP choice was not a good one, he would have been better off picking Marco Rubio. The Obama camp went out talked to people, and pulled voters in. Not only did Obama get the black vote, women vote, and young vote he got the asian vote as well. Nearly 75% of Asians voted for Obama, so it's not like the govt. dependents got Obama in the White house.
> 
> With the hispanic population rapidly increasing, the republicans will need to drastically change their approach, or they will fade away.
> 
> Romney lying about Chrysler outsourcing jobs to China at the last minute also didn't help.



75% of asians live here in hawaii   of course they are gonna vote for a local boy


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

im not against gay marriage.


but'

you can't deny that niggers voted for him because he's a nigger

spics voted for him for "free stuff" and citizenship

young people voted for him because young people are idiots and worried about inconsequential things like social issues during a time of ECONOMIC MELTDOWN. Raise the voting age to 40 so they'll (hopefully) have careers and families and will understand what is really important

women voted for him because... well, to be honest, women are generally pretty stupid and have only reached the level they have in society due to reverse descrimination against men (much like spics and niggers)

i rest my case


----------



## troubador (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You are correct.  There is no such thing as a "true libertarian."  Some libertarians are for zero government though, but Johnson obviously is not of that mindset.



There no precise definition(nor could there be) but libertarianism entails at least some form of government to enforce property rights and protect life. When people in this country say 'libertarian' they're referring to the common practical definition not some far away ideological definition. Either way, the libertarian party doesn't endorse what you were talking about. 

Side note: It ticks me off when people use the strawman that a libertarian society would be like Somalia just like it ticks me off when creationists argue gorillas didn't turn into humans because there are still gorillas.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> im not against gay marriage.
> 
> 
> but'
> ...



This explains why you're still a virgin.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> This explains why you're still a virgin.




lol yeah basically 

but u know im right.. probably why you came up with the virgin comment


----------



## secdrl (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> This explains why you're still a virgin.










Standard Donkey said:


> im not against gay marriage.
> 
> 
> but'
> ...



The first statement means you've won the argument. When libs fall back to name calling, you've won. Nice work.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> lol yeah basically
> 
> but u know im right.. probably why you came up with the virgin comment



I don't think women are dumb, I think they want the ability to make decisions on their health and reproductive organs.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I don't think women are dumb, I think they want the ability to make decisions on their health and reproductive organs.




what do you mean by health and reproductive organs?

and women actually are dumb cept for margaret thatcher but she was basically a man.. i have a couple pictures to illustrate this brb


----------



## cshea2 (Nov 9, 2012)

Hawaii and Cali..


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

i hope these uploaded..






shit.. well i guess you'll just have to take my word for it then, they are too big :/


but if you've lived for more than 16 years.. you would  know by now that women are generally pretty fucking stupid


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I don't think women are dumb, I think they want the ability to make decisions on their health and reproductive organs.



I was raised if your responsible enough to fuck then your responsible enough to raise a kid. Now I am not talking about rape, or health issues with pregnancies, but to me it is enabling. I have heard middle school girls talking about I want obama because if i get prego i can get an abortion. WTF is that teaching kids. granted their parents are probably fuck heads, but really...


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

also when our economy is fucked that last thing i am worrying about is if i can get a free cell phone, free education and ect. If i did not earn it then it is not owed to me.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> I was raised if your responsible enough to fuck then your responsible enough to raise a kid. Now I am not talking about rape, or health issues with pregnancies, but to me it is enabling. I have heard middle school girls talking about I want obama because if i get prego i can get an abortion. WTF is that teaching kids. granted their parents are probably fuck heads, but really...




What matters here is nobody gives a fuck what you think.


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Yes they are, but a true libertarian is too extreme.  For instance, no Medicare, no soc security, no disability insurance, no foster care for orphans etc.



far too extreme, especially when you factor in the realization that there are no "free markets" and that large firms (and especially the MNE) are the creation of government and can only become such in a big government country.  it's why there are no large MNE type firms in country's with "small government", etc.  basically the "losers" in a naturally ocurring free markets system are of much greater numbers when psudeo-capitalism is practiced such as that in the US which is more akin to exploitation capitalism.


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> What matters here is nobody gives a fuck what* I* think.



Fixed for you.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Intense said:


> Fixed for you.



Except for apparently the voters.

GICH


----------



## FUZO (Nov 9, 2012)

Black vote was the same.74% of hispanics that went up tremendously, 3 million less republicans voted Im shocked,fewer white people voted,IM SHOCKED those are all facts.Why people dont care about the future of there kids just amazes me because it will all be on them.


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Why people dont care about the future of there kids just amazes me because it will all be on them.



and why would somebody vote for a party who's economic policies are only supported by radicals and no economists anywhere in the world except those at the Heritage Foundation who hasn't published a SINGLE heavily cited paper on economics in 40 years.

zero cited papers in 40 years and zero economists with any awards in the field.  the number of noble prize winning economists in the world that support the economic policy of the right, zero....

the number of high wage red states = 1 and that would be Virginia.  which is is loaded with military, government workers and private company's that sell goods and services direct to the fed government.


----------



## FUZO (Nov 9, 2012)

LAM said:


> and why would somebody vote for a party who's economic policies are only supported by radicals and no economists anywhere in the world except those at the Heritage Foundation who hasn't published a SINGLE heavily cited paper on economics in 40 years.
> 
> zero cited papers in 40 years and zero economists with any awards in the field.  the number of noble prize winning economists in the world that support the economic policy of the right, zero....
> 
> the number of high wage red states = 1 and that would be Virginia.  which is is loaded with military, government workers and private company's that sell goods and services direct to the fed government.




Its dumbass people like yourself that dont care what will happen to are children or how high are debt will be or how many people are taking free stuff from the Gov or how high are unemployment gets.Its the liberals that dont give a shit if are country goes to shit which it is already. So while you keep sucking Barrys dick Lam 4yrs from now debt will be more then 20trillion are military will be weak there will be less jobs,less doctors taking patients more business's laying off or closing down. As of now dumbo your scumbag Barry cant use Bush anymore.And it will be a fact the middle class will be taxed as they are already even more YOU ALL WILL SEE


----------



## suprfast (Nov 9, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Its dumbass people like yourself that dont care what will happen to are children or how high are debt will be or how many people are taking free stuff from the Gov or how high are unemployment gets.Its the liberals that dont give a shit if are country goes to shit which it is already. So while you keep sucking Barrys dick Lam 4yrs from now debt will be more then 20trillion are military will be weak there will be less jobs,less doctors taking patients more business's laying off or closing down. As of now dumbo your scumbag Barry cant use Bush anymore.And it will be a fact the middle class will be taxed as they are already even more YOU ALL WILL SEE



Tell us how you really feel!!


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 9, 2012)




----------



## Zaphod (Nov 10, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Its dumbass people like yourself that dont care what will happen to are children or how high are debt will be or how many people are taking free stuff from the Gov or how high are unemployment gets.Its the liberals that dont give a shit if are country goes to shit which it is already. So while you keep sucking Barrys dick Lam 4yrs from now debt will be more then 20trillion are military will be weak there will be less jobs,less doctors taking patients more business's laying off or closing down. As of now dumbo your scumbag Barry cant use Bush anymore.And it will be a fact the middle class will be taxed as they are already even more YOU ALL WILL SEE



It is people like you that haven't a clue how our government works.  Republicans and democrats are the same, only difference is their name.


----------



## Paranoid Fitness (Nov 10, 2012)

Little Wing said:


> the party bs only gets in the way. just give us a good man with great ideas.



Good man or good woman.
I'll vote for whomever I believe is best equipped to do the job.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 10, 2012)

FUZO said:


> Its dumbass people like yourself that dont care what will happen to are children or how high are debt will be or how many people are taking free stuff from the Gov or how high are unemployment gets.Its the liberals that dont give a shit if are country goes to shit which it is already. So while you keep sucking Barrys dick Lam 4yrs from now debt will be more then 20trillion are military will be weak there will be less jobs,less doctors taking patients more business's laying off or closing down. As of now dumbo your scumbag Barry cant use Bush anymore.And it will be a fact the middle class will be taxed as they are already even more YOU ALL WILL SEE



It will be $20 trillion no matter what they do, that's just what the interest would accumulate to.  Romney had plans to cut revenues and increase military spending for a combined total of $7 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years.  Over 4 years that would be an additional $2.8 trillion dollars on top of the $20 trillion we are destined to go to anyway.  You didn't seem to have a problem with that when you pulled the lever for Romney so don't act like you really give a shit about it now.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 10, 2012)

Honestly, this economy is in meltdown mode if we can't raise revenue through more jobs. Obama will likely tank this economy in his second term. Massive spending and low revenue does not work in business or households. 

The crazy survivalists and preppers don't look so bad these days. Time to stock up on guns, ammo, fuel, food and water. Oh, and get out of debt.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

The point is, if conservatives have anything to offer on the economy, they've got to change their social views.

Gay rights, women's rights and immigration.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 10, 2012)

Women who can't afford $8 worth of birth control are not the problem. Fags who want to be approved by the Church are also not the problem. 

"It's the economy stupid".


----------



## FUZO (Nov 10, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> It will be $20 trillion no matter what they do, that's just what the interest would accumulate to.  Romney had plans to cut revenues and increase military spending for a combined total of $7 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years.  Over 4 years that would be an additional $2.8 trillion dollars on top of the $20 trillion we are destined to go to anyway.  You didn't seem to have a problem with that when you pulled the lever for Romney so don't act like you really give a shit about it now.




let me tell you something pal I have always gave a shit.did you take that from barrys remarks because its not yours


----------



## FUZO (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> honestly, this economy is in meltdown mode if we can't raise revenue through more jobs. Obama will likely tank this economy in his second term. Massive spending and low revenue does not work in business or households.
> 
> The crazy survivalists and preppers don't look so bad these days. Time to stock up on guns, ammo, fuel, food and water. Oh, and get out of debt.





you couldnt of said it better


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Women who can't afford $8 worth of birth control are not the problem. Fags who want to be approved by the Church are also not the problem.
> 
> "It's the economy stupid".



Didn't work this time.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Women who can't afford $8 worth of birth control are not the problem. Fags who want to be approved by the Church are also not the problem.
> 
> "It's the economy stupid".



You're not getting the point.  They lost the election because of their social views, not because of their economic policies.
A fiscal conservative who is a social lib will actually have a chance.  
Romney lost the woman, Latino, gay, black and liberal vote.  
If repubs want to put their head in the sand and ignore the changing social attitudes, they'll continue to lose and their followers will continue to wine on forums about it.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

You could have the perfect economic plan, but if you want to strip women of their reproductive rights and discriminate against gays, you're going to lose.  
Face the facts repubs, you are in a shrinking minority on these issues.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 10, 2012)

If the economy was more favorable, women could pay for their birth control. These issues are just a red herring to cover up the real problem.


----------



## Curt James (Nov 10, 2012)

Gregzs said:


>



Shared on Facebook!


----------



## Bowden (Nov 10, 2012)

dieseljimmy said:


> hence why Ron Paul never ran a Liberian campaign... Even though his mindset leans that way, he knew the title alone would destroy his chances.
> 
> A fiscal conservative with liberal social policies would fit America the best. But what party is going to stand behind that... We have some evolution before that occurs.  If global warming doesn't get us first...



"A fiscal conservative with liberal social policies"
You just defined Bill Clinton.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> If the economy was more favorable, women could pay for their birth control. These issues are just a red herring to cover up the real problem.



You're getting off topic.  The topic at hand is why repubs lost and why they'll continue to lose if they don't change their social views.
And women's reproductive rights isn't just birth control, it's the right to abortion too.


----------



## hagan (Nov 10, 2012)

What it comes down to is, if the GOP does not change from 1950s, tea party, so called christian ideology, they will continue to loose, not in some states, but most of the country.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Gay marriage will be national and weed will be legalized in my lifetime.  The opponents are dying off.




Maybe.  Gay marriage is one of those things you're for at the company Christmas party, when you're polled but opposed to when you vote.  If the public wanted gay marriage as bad as it supposedly polls for, we would have had it by now.

Not to mention 90% of all blacks are against it and their preachers preach against sodomites and faggotry every Sunday.  Funny how its ok for the blacks to hate and suppress other groups.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The point is, if conservatives have anything to offer on the economy, they've got to change their social views.
> 
> Gay rights, women's rights and immigration.




Almost correct.   Not conservatives but the Republican Party.   Conservatives had nothing to do with this abortion/birth control/illegal alien bullshit.

Romney and they Republican party lost because the blacks and the border hoppers turned out for Obama in big numbers, in big part because the DNC targeted them to get their asses to turnout.  

From here out in history the blacks will no longer be players, it's all about the whites pandering to the border hoppers and their anchor babies because the Hispanics are breeding like rabbits, while educated whites are either not breeding or only having one kid.  Not to mention even the white girls have finally figured out in the last 15 years that its not cool to get knocked up in HS unlike the blacks or Hispanics.  Whites are being out-bred by Hispanics.


----------



## secdrl (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The point is, if conservatives have anything to offer on the economy, they've got to change their social views.
> 
> Gay rights, women's rights and immigration.



I'll say it again, it blows my mind that social issues were the core of this election. It really shows how stupid Americans are. It should've been about jobs and the economy.


----------



## secdrl (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Women who can't afford $8 worth of birth control are not the problem. Fags who want to be approved by the Church are also not the problem.
> 
> "It's the economy stupid".



Like that bitch, Sandra Fluke. She can attend a 65,000/Year law school right down the street from me, but she wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for her birth control. Slut.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2012)

Big Pimpin said:


> From here out in history the blacks will no longer be players, it's all about the whites pandering to the border hoppers and their anchor babies because the Hispanics are breeding like rabbits, while educated whites are either not breeding or only having one kid.  Not to mention even the white girls have finally figured out in the last 15 years that its not cool to get knocked up in HS unlike the blacks or Hispanics.  Whites are being out-bred by Hispanics.



This. The shit-colored, underwear stain of North America is out-breading the whites. They're also coming here illegally by the millions. And you know that Obama is going try to legalize the beans so that they can vote Democrat. 

If the wetbacks succeed, the American, and ultimately Canada, will be third-world shit-hole just like Mexico.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I'll say it again, it blows my mind that social issues were the core of this election. It really shows how stupid Americans are. It should've been about jobs and the economy.



I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just stating the facts.  Stupid or not, it's reality for republicans, and they need to ditch the religion from their party if they want to be elected.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I'll say it again, it blows my mind that social issues were the core of this election. It really shows how stupid Americans are. It should've been about jobs and the economy.





this.. and *no one has defined "women's reproductive rights" yet*.. im still waiting


----------



## secdrl (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> this.. and *no one has defined "women's reproductive rights" yet*.. im still waiting



No democrat has ever been able to give me an answer to this question. The democrats say the republicans are waging a war on woman. If this is trulyabout woman's rights and what they do with their bodies, why is prostitution illegal? One more example of the hypocrisy of the left.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Looks like it's difficult to be in the minority for you guys.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

secdrl said:


> No democrat has ever been able to give me an answer to this question. The democrats say the republicans are waging a war on woman. If this is trulyabout woman's rights and what they do with their bodies, why is prostitution illegal? One more example of the hypocrisy of the left.



You think it's the left that outlawed prostitution?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Looks like it's difficult to be in the minority for you guys.




define "women's reproductive rights" please. I saw u used that term


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> define "women's reproductive rights" please. I saw u used that term



Their right to choose if they have to carry a baby for 9 months.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Planned parenthood is the biggest reason we don't have a ton more welfare babies because of free contraceptives, yet repubs are fighting to shut them down.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Planned parenthood is the biggest reason we don't have a ton more welfare babies because of free contraceptives, yet repubs are fighting to shut them down.




wrong again.. republicans are wanting to cut off taxpayer subsidies to planned parenthood.. because people like me dont want to pay for whores to slaughter their babies because they (the whores) were too stupid to keep their fucking legs shut.

i had a feeling that's what u meant regarding "women's reproductive rights" lol.. putting a nice reasonable name on infanticide


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> this.. and *no one has defined "women's reproductive rights" yet*.. im still waiting



If abortion is okay, then men should have a say in it. 

A man and a woman have consensual sex that results in pregnancy. They both played an equal part, but, as it currently stands, only the woman can decide if she'll keep it or not? Even though the man will end up paying for it over the next 19 years?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

I'm practical, I'd rather pay for condoms than feed and house a child.
Call it what you want, but the reality is that when women don't have access to abortions, the outcome is much worse.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> wrong again.. republicans are wanting to cut off taxpayer subsidies to planned parenthood.. because people like me dont want to pay for whores to slaughter their babies because they (the whores) were too stupid to keep their fucking legs shut.
> 
> i had a feeling that's what u meant regarding "women's reproductive rights" lol.. putting a nice reasonable name on infanticide



It's funny to hear you express concern about other babies when you have repeatedly said you don't give a shit bout anyone but your family.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I'm practical, I'd rather pay for condoms than feed and house a child.
> Call it what you want, but the reality is that when women don't have access to abortions, the outcome is much worse.



i decide to call a spade a spade and refer to it as infanticide.. because that's what it really is 

tho i agree, id rather pay for condoms etc.. because i dont have a choice thanks to our socialist government


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> wrong again.. republicans are wanting to cut off taxpayer subsidies to planned parenthood.. because people like me dont want to pay for whores to slaughter their babies because they (the whores) were too stupid to keep their fucking legs shut.
> 
> i had a feeling that's what u meant regarding "women's reproductive rights" lol.. putting a nice reasonable name on infanticide



Once again you find yourself on the losing side of this debate.  Your views are outdated.  You're in for a very angry future as the younger generation makes up more of the electorate.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Once again you find yourself on the losing side of this debate.  Your views are outdated.  You're in for a very angry future as the younger generation makes up more of the electorate.



i know that im on the losing side of the debate, but that doesnt change that fact that u are wrong lol.. the young generation views the government as santa claus that will give them presents.


If im not mistaken, mitt romney got the young white vote, which leaves the little spics and niggers voting to get whitey's stuff 


as long as we have millions of poor flooding over the border, and millions of niggers and white-niggers who refuse to work, the welfare party will always win


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i know that im on the losing side of the debate, but that doesnt change that fact that u are wrong lol.. the young generation views the government as santa claus that will give them presents.
> 
> 
> If im not mistaken, the mitt romney got the young white vote, which leaves the little spics and niggers voting to get whitey's stuff



You are mistaken.....again.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> You are mistaken.....again.




elaborate?


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> i know that im on the losing side of the debate, but that doesnt change that fact that u are wrong lol.. the young generation views the government as santa claus that will give them presents.
> 
> 
> If im not mistaken, mitt romney got the young white vote, which leaves the little spics and niggers voting to get whitey's stuff
> ...



I'm not even talking about economic issues.  I've taken 1 economics class, and making broad statements about how our economy should be ran based on my life experience would be stupid. It doesn't stop anyone else on this forum though...


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> elaborate?



Romney did not win the white youth vote.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Romney did not win the white youth vote.



Lol.  Who to blame now?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Romney did not win the white youth vote.




where did u find that information?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

18-29 favored Obama 60% to 37%.   I haven't been able to find an ethnic/sex break down, but I find it hard to believe he could win by that much without at least breaking even with whites in that age group.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> 18-29 favored Obama 60% to 37%.   I haven't been able to find an ethnic/sex break down, but I find it hard to believe he could win by that much without at least breaking even with whites in that age group.




ahh.. so you made a claim without actually knowing the truth.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Wow, 37% of young republicans are pro gay marriage and abortion.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> ahh.. so you made a claim without actually knowing the truth.



The numbers speak for themselves.   You can prove your stupidity more though.   Carry on.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 10, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> You're getting off topic.  The topic at hand is why repubs lost and why they'll continue to lose if they don't change their social views.
> And women's reproductive rights isn't just birth control, it's the right to abortion too.



Naw, I'm following your points and addressing the underlying assumptions. I think you are missing the logical next step. It's about educating the voting masses about what the real issues are. I can find free condoms every five blocks all over the city. This isn't the problem, it's the economy. Abortion isn't going to stop because a Republican is president. That's just silly.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Naw, I'm following your points and addressing the underlying assumptions. I think you are missing the logical next step. It's about educating the voting masses about what the real issues are. I can find free condoms every five blocks all over the city. This isn't the problem, it's the economy. Abortion isn't going to stop because a Republican is president. That's just silly.



I completely agree but people won't vote for someone based on their economic views when all of their social views are way out of sync w theirs.


----------



## secdrl (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Wow, 37% of young republicans are pro gay marriage and abortion.




Not me.


----------



## suprfast (Nov 10, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Not me.



You 63% you.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Wow, 37% of young republicans are pro gay marriage and abortion.



Or, like myself, are simply anti-big government and don't want one more way for the government to tell us what to do.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 10, 2012)

DOMS said:


> If abortion is okay, then men should have a say in it.
> 
> A man and a woman have consensual sex that results in pregnancy. They both played an equal part, but, as it currently stands, only the woman can decide if she'll keep it or not? Even though the man will end up paying for it over the next 19 years?



This right here is how fucked up the laws are.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 10, 2012)

I really wish Republicans would stop pushing a social agenda. Every time the far right brings up a social agenda they lose a vote in the middle. and those are the votes that matter. Those two nitwit mother fuckers who said stupid ass shit about rape, and pregnancy should be taken out back and shot by the republican party. Had Romney kept to the Romney that was governor of MA then he would have easily defeated Obama. Problem is the far right is just strong enough that a republican has to pander to them to get nominated. And by then their are too many soundbites of him saying he would like to overturn roe vs wade. Even though everyone with half a brain knows it's not going to happen.

Abortion has been the law for 40 years, and it's not going anywhere. I hate that it is a litmus test for the Supreme Court because the court isn't going to overturn it. the only way to overturn it is by amendment which we know won't happen. Abortion is absolutely killing babies. it's fucked up that people can argue that ending a child's life is somehow ok. problem is, it's the reality of the world we live in that people don't take responsibility of their actions, and make others suffer because of it.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 10, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> I really wish Republicans would stop pushing a social agenda. Every time the far right brings up a social agenda they lose a vote in the middle. and those are the votes that matter. Those two nitwit mother fuckers who said stupid ass shit about rape, and pregnancy should be taken out back and shot by the republican party. Had Romney kept to the Romney that was governor of MA then he would have easily defeated Obama. Problem is the far right is just strong enough that a republican has to pander to them to get nominated. And by then their are too many soundbites of him saying he would like to overturn roe vs wade. Even though everyone with half a brain knows it's not going to happen.
> 
> Abortion has been the law for 40 years, and it's not going anywhere. I hate that it is a litmus test for the Supreme Court because the court isn't going to overturn it. the only way to overturn it is by amendment which we know won't happen. Abortion is absolutely killing babies. it's fucked up that people can argue that ending a child's life is somehow ok. problem is, it's the reality of the world we live in that people don't take responsibility of their actions, and make others suffer because of it.



This.


----------



## Watson (Nov 11, 2012)

even god voted for obama......just saying....


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2012)

Socrates said:


> even god voted for obama......just saying....



Remember all those Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman supporters that were going on about how they are destined to win because God is on their side?  Made me laugh then, makes me laugh now.


----------



## heckler7 (Nov 11, 2012)

laws are based on morality not what is most logical. If we based laws on a practical view drugs and prostitution would be legal. I personally believe if your not hurting someone than its your choice.


----------



## troubador (Nov 11, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Or, like myself, are simply anti-big government and don't want one more way for the government to tell us what to do.



Yeah, repbulicans don't even have to be "pro" abortion, gay, MJ, whatver; they just need to keep their dumb mouths shut and drop the issue. 



heckler7 said:


> laws are based on morality not what is most logical.



It's not true that all laws are based on morality in the religious sense of morality. If you're defining morality as very general term for values then yes, but why confuse the issue. Unless of course your goal is to cloud the issue so you can slip your morality in. Not saying that's what you are trying to do though.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> Abortion is absolutely killing babies. it's fucked up that people can argue that ending a child's life is somehow ok. problem is, it's the reality of the world we live in that people don't take responsibility of their actions, and make others suffer because of it.



How many unwanted babies have you adopted?


----------



## Swiper (Nov 11, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> How many unwanted babies have you adopted?



edit........


----------



## Swiper (Nov 11, 2012)

if you kill a pregnant women you'll get charged with two murders. so It seems like govt is saying a fetus at any age is a human life, no?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2012)

Swiper said:


> if you kill a pregnant women you'll get charged with two murders. so It seems like govt is saying a fetus at any age is a human life, no?



If a murdered woman is pregnant and it comes out that she knew and was planning on keeping it, sure.  But if it is unwanted?  

If you are so pro-life how many have you adopted?


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 11, 2012)

One of the main charities I donate to is to an orphanage.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 11, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> If a murdered woman is pregnant and it comes out that she knew and was planning on keeping it, sure.  But if it is unwanted?
> 
> If you are so pro-life how many have you adopted?



I'm pro choice until there's a heart beat. I think once the heart beats its a human life.  by then there has been plenty of time for the mother to decide weather she wants it or not.

our founding documents gives the govt authorization to  protect life.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2012)

Swiper said:


> I'm pro choice until there's a heart beat. I think once the heart beats its a human life.  by then there has been plenty of time for the mother to decide weather she wants it or not.
> 
> our founding documents gives the govt authorization to  protect life.



Again, how many unwanted babies have you adopted?  Or are you pro-life until it's inconvenient?


----------



## Swiper (Nov 11, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Again, how many unwanted babies have you adopted?  Or are you pro-life until it's inconvenient?



I just told u where I stand. pro life after a heart beat, pro choice before a heart beat.  and I haven't adopted a child. 

I assume you're pro choice even at 9 months??


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 11, 2012)

Swiper said:


> I just told u where I stand. pro life after a heart beat, pro choice before a heart beat.  and I haven't adopted a child.
> 
> I assume you're pro choice even at 9 months??



I know where you stand.  How many unwanted children have you adopted and taken into your home?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> How many unwanted babies have you adopted?



care to explain to me how this is relevant of anything?


----------



## heckler7 (Nov 12, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> One of the main charities I donate to is to an orphanage.


do you donate free gear?


----------



## theCaptn' (Nov 12, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> One of the main charities I donate to is to an orphanage.






Sent from my jewPhone


----------



## Watson (Nov 12, 2012)

Abortion should be legal until the 87th trimester, then we can still abort the tossers and ugly chicks before they breed another fucken generation of street litter.....


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> care to explain to me how this is relevant of anything?



There are quite a few unwanted babies born that need to be cared for.  They were born because the mother didn't get an abortion.  If you are truly pro-life you need to step up and start adopting those unwanted babies.  Give them a home.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> There are quite a few unwanted babies born that need to be cared for.  They were born because the mother didn't get an abortion.  If you are truly pro-life you need to step up and start adopting those unwanted babies.  Give them a home.



Do you support the death penalty?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Do you support the death penalty?



Going for a straw man argument?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Going for a straw man argument?



Nope. There's a valid reason for my question. But be afraid to answer the question. That's okay.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 12, 2012)

Can't speak for zaphod, but I am for the death penalty.   I just think we use it too much sometimes.

It should be reserved for truly disgusting crimes, when there is no doubt who did it.    An innocent person should never, ever receive the death penalty.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

I am pro-life and I saw take away half the funding to the bullshit gov't funding to non profits like PETA, cut welfare in half and start taking away kids from horrible familys and use that money that became free to use it create better facilities for them. You realize they drive a spike through the baby's head if it comes out alive to kill it. 

I am also against the death penalty, I feel firmly the death is the easiest way out of any thing, If they are 100% guilty like the dipshit who killed every one in the movies, solitary confinement, with only enough nutrition to keep them alive, no lawyers will ever be provided, 1 hour of walking granted a day, no medical attention is warranted unless they contain a highly infectious disease. 

I do not condone taking away ANY life period if they are defenseless. Then there is the argument that what about the families that lost their loved ones, my answer is this. No amount of killing will ever bring your loved one back or give you relief for your loss. Have the satisfaction knowing that every day your loved ones killer is suffering a life alone in darkness where they will NEVER feel any thing of compassion again.

After my first tour to Iraq I felt that if I took the lives of terrorist I will feel better after losing my close friends. No amount of killing ever made me feel better and never will. It was not until I was able to forgive them for what they did and move on as a better man until all of my pain went away.


----------



## Aries1 (Nov 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> Once again you find yourself on the losing side of this debate.  Your views are outdated.  You're in for a very angry future as the younger generation makes up more of the electorate.


Not really true. If Obama and his administration fail(or at least perceived) in the next 4 yrs I'd almost bet the next President will be a Republican. You seem to think that Obama's re-election is indicative of a change in direction. Clinton served 2 terms. So did Bush and many others from both camps. Too much influence from either side will be detrimental to our nation. Balance is key to American perception and therefore our votes.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 12, 2012)

Aries1 said:


> Not really true. If Obama and his administration fail(or at least perceived) in the next 4 yrs I'd almost bet the next President will be a Republican. You seem to think that Obama's re-election is indicative of a change in direction. Clinton served 2 terms. So did Bush and many others from both camps. Too much influence from either side will be detrimental to our nation. Balance is key to American perception and therefore our votes.



I completely understand where you're coming from, but you don't typically see a president get a second term with this bad of an economy.    To me, the only explanation is social issues.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

I don't think republicans have a chance any more period. Until we take out the Media no one will ever have a fair shot period. There could be the next best president period, but the media will twist so much bullshit to turn them into a piece of shit that people will buy into it. If people have not realized this by now, but Obama is just as war hungry as Bush was but is just more intelligent about keeping it cool. The only way our country will ever turn back into the wrecking machine it once was is when the people change...

We are a government ruled by the people, but the problem is allot of people want the gov't to rule them. They want a stronger gov't, but what we really need are stronger people. People who are willing to work, accept failure with out making excuses, not take advantage of the system. (this goes for both rich, middle and poor) EVERY one in America period needs to step up. Not just the poor like the republicans want and not just the rich like the demo's want, but EVERY one needs to suck it the fuck up and become real Americans like our fore fathers wanted us to be.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I know where you stand.  How many unwanted children have you adopted and taken into your home?



zero, most unwanted babies are from pro lifers who don't want to kill their babies and decide to give it up for adoption.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> There are quite a few unwanted babies born that need to be cared for.  They were born because the mother didn't get an abortion.  If you are truly pro-life you need to step up and start adopting those unwanted babies.  Give them a home.



yeah, i thought that's where you were going with that line of reasoning. you really must be out of your damn mind to try and make that argument.


----------



## Aries1 (Nov 12, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> I completely understand where you're coming from, _*but you don't typically see a president get a second term with this bad of an economy*_.    To me, the only explanation is social issues.


Really? GWB? Maybe you could expand more.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> There are quite a few unwanted babies born that need to be cared for.  They were born because the mother didn't get an abortion.  If you are truly pro-life you need to step up and start adopting those unwanted babies.  Give them a home.



you support higher taxes. you need to step up and send more money to the US treasury.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 12, 2012)

Aries1 said:


> Really? GWB? Maybe you could expand more.



I don't recall the economy quite this bad.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

wait, so let me get this right.... It is ok to be mature enough to have sex, but if the result of what you are doing results in a baby it is ok to kill it if you don't want it? What does this teach our kids? Don't worry hunny if you get prego you can just have an abortion..


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 12, 2012)

Aries1 said:


> Really? GWB? Maybe you could expand more.



I wasn't referring to the presidential election alone.  The GOP lost in many ways this election.
We're seeing a change in the views of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and abortion continues to be accepted and Latinos are making up more of the electorate.  All of this is trouble for the GOP.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 12, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> I was raised if your responsible enough to fuck then your responsible enough to raise a kid. Now I am not talking about rape, or health issues with pregnancies, but to me it is enabling. I have heard middle school girls talking about I want obama because if i get prego i can get an abortion. WTF is that teaching kids. granted their parents are probably fuck heads, but really...



You are trying to put responsibility onto adults for their actions, but your completely ignore the fact that it is the children that will suffer, not the parents. A person who is realistic enough to know that they would be a shitty parent is exactly the kind of person you want to give the ability to opt out. Punishing a would be child just so you can enforce some sense of obligation or responsibility onto the parents is an extremely ignorant perspective. Unless pro-life people want to adopt those children and provide them a strong loving family, I would suggest shutting the fuck up.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Nope. There's a valid reason for my question. But be afraid to answer the question. That's okay.



Sure, I'm for the death penalty.  FYI, the "be afraid to answer" schtick is gay.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> yeah, i thought that's where you were going with that line of reasoning. you really must be out of your damn mind to try and make that argument.



Why?  Because it makes sense?  You want to save unwanted babies but once they are born fuck 'em?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

Swiper said:


> you support higher taxes. you need to step up and send more money to the US treasury.



I do support higher taxes?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

Swiper said:


> zero, most unwanted babies are from pro lifers who don't want to kill their babies and decide to give it up for adoption.



So you are fine with having a ton of children milling around in orphanages until their are of legal age?  So long as they aren't in your backyard at the end of the day?


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

KelJu said:


> You are trying to put responsibility onto adults for their actions, but your completely ignore the fact that it is the children that will suffer, not the parents. A person who is realistic enough to know that they would be a shitty parent is exactly the kind of person you want to give the ability to opt out. Punishing a would be child just so you can enforce some sense of obligation or responsibility onto the parents is an extremely ignorant perspective. Unless pro-life people want to adopt those children and provide them a strong loving family, I would suggest shutting the fuck up.



Well I guess I can keep talking because my girl and all ready discussed having one child and adopting another. I also give time and donate to our boys and girls club that brings in children to help give them a better life. Like I said before cut out half the welfare and big business gov't funding and create better lives for them if they are not adopted. I also volunteer for the free wheel project that focuses on under privileged children to teach them life lessons and give them means to race BMX with no cost to them with the chance to earn a free BMX bike and gear based on their attendance and grades. 

You are right a living being should never suffer for their parents mistakes and irresponsibility so why end their life. I believe every one period deserves a fighting chance at life PERIOD. Kind of goes to the innocent until proven guilty. Many great people have risen from ashes to do great things. 

Just as I do not believe pitbulls should be put down because of their breed, I have fostered so many pits I lost track of and some VERY aggressive which I was worried about my self, but I guess that is my moral code. I do not believe any thing should be just put down because some one else is irresponsible.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Sure, I'm for the death penalty.  FYI, the "be afraid to answer" schtick is gay.



What us would it be? I asked a very simple, straight-forward question, and you pussed out with a straw-man accusation. Seems pretty timid.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> So you are fine with having a ton of children milling around in orphanages until their are of legal age?  So long as they aren't in your backyard at the end of the day?



sure instead of paying these parents a shit ton of money every month because they have a shit ton of kids, invest it into better facilities, schools, and ect for them. I would rather my taxes be raised for that then go to free cell phones, welfare, ebt, peta, boyscouts, and WWF.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

DOMS said:


> What us would it be? I asked a very simple, straight-forward question, and you pussed out with a straw-man accusation. Seems pretty timid.



When all else fails call someone a puss?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> sure instead of paying these parents a shit ton of money every month because they have a shit ton of kids, invest it into better facilities, schools, and ect for them. I would rather my taxes be raised for that then go to free cell phones, welfare, ebt, peta, boyscouts, and WWF.



Kids need more than just better facilities and schools.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

^^^ yup and they need a shot at life...


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I do support higher taxes?



I think he has us confused.   I'm ok with an increase in certain taxes.   Yes, it would do us good.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> When all else fails call someone a puss?



All else fails? I asked you a simple question, which you didn't answer. It is was it is.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

I did answer.  You even quoted me.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I did answer.  You even quoted me.



Are you serious? Really? You only answered after I pointed out that you didn't.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> So you are fine with having a ton of children milling around in orphanages until their are of legal age?  So long as they aren't in your backyard at the end of the day?



i don't care,  its not my problem.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I do support higher taxes?



yes. so you need to send more money to the treasury.


----------



## Aries1 (Nov 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I wasn't referring to the presidential election alone.  The GOP lost in many ways this election.
> We're seeing a change in the views of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and abortion continues to be accepted and Latinos are making up more of the electorate.  All of this is trouble for the GOP.


For now, yes. I think it would be terribly arrogant to believe things will stay the same though. Too much of anything will bring light to opposing views. Democrats will fuck up this country just as bad as Republicans if left to their own devices. A healthy balance of both sides is beneficial to us all.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

im going to laugh if Jeb becomes president in 2016


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 12, 2012)

Aries1 said:


> For now, yes. I think it would be terribly arrogant to believe things will stay the same though. Too much of anything will bring light to opposing views. Democrats will fuck up this country just as bad as Republicans if left to their own devices. A healthy balance of both sides is beneficial to us all.



I couldn't agree more.  I believe humans are inherently lazy and greedy and that's why I support a healthy balance as you mentioned.

My point in this thread was to point out that as the younger and Latino voters make up more of the electorate, the pro life, anti gay marriage repubs that are not for amnesty for  illegals have no chance of being elected.  I wasn't intending to take a stance on the issues, just stating the reality that repubs face.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

Swiper said:


> yes. so you need to send more money to the treasury.



How do I support higher taxes?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

Swiper said:


> i don't care,  its not my problem.



Then why make abortion your problem?  It has nothing to do with you.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 12, 2012)

DOMS said:


> Are you serious? Really? You only answered after I pointed out that you didn't.



I didn't edit the post after said anything.  You just missed it.  

Did you have a point you were going to make?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Why?  Because it makes sense?  You want to save unwanted babies but once they are born fuck 'em?



So because i'm not out there personally adopting babies you believe i've turned my back on them and believe I don't give a shit about the child anymore? That's quite the stupid assumption.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 12, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Then why make abortion your problem?  It has nothing to do with you.



because our founding documents protects life.  i believe life begins when there's a heart beat.  As i said before there's plenty of time to get and abortion before a heart beat which i'm ok with. 

You never answered my question about a 9 month abortion, you're ok with that?


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

I would like every one to find some one that survived an abortion, that is missing arms, physical limitations, mental capacities and ect. That because her mom had sex and she became inconvinced with her pregnancy and decided it was best for you to terminate you and not give you the fighting chance of life.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 12, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> Well I guess I can keep talking because my girl and all ready discussed having one child and adopting another. I also give time and donate to our boys and girls club that brings in children to help give them a better life. Like I said before cut out half the welfare and big business gov't funding and create better lives for them if they are not adopted. I also volunteer for the free wheel project that focuses on under privileged children to teach them life lessons and give them means to race BMX with no cost to them with the chance to earn a free BMX bike and gear based on their attendance and grades.
> 
> You are right a living being should never suffer for their parents mistakes and irresponsibility so why end their life. I believe every one period deserves a fighting chance at life PERIOD. Kind of goes to the innocent until proven guilty. Many great people have risen from ashes to do great things.
> 
> Just as I do not believe pitbulls should be put down because of their breed, I have fostered so many pits I lost track of and some VERY aggressive which I was worried about my self, but I guess that is my moral code. I do not believe any thing should be just put down because some one else is irresponsible.



Props to you for taking care of pits. They are incredible animals that do not deserve what has been done to them. However, as a responsible pit owner, I would expect you most of all to understand the concept that preventing irresponsible people from owning a pit is the exact same as preventing irresponsible people from having children. It is even more so true when considering that a lot of people have children that they never wanted in the first place. Bad pit owners at least somewhat wanted the dog to begin with. 

Let's take the analogy a little farther. What if everybody that fucked had a pit bull puppy delivered to their house? Imagine the complete and total chaos it would cause. Imagine how many pits would be abused and neglected. How many pits would live an entire existence within a 8 foot radius, because that is all the chain some scumbag motherfucker would give it. No yard, no fence, not even allowed to exist with the family or it's own kind, just a prisoner. That is if the dog is marginally lucky, others would be trained to fight until they are killed by the trainers for not fighting or killed by other pits in the ring.    

I would rather kill a one day old puppy with my bare hands than to allow that to happen. I would cry like a little girl, but I would do it, because it is the right thing to do. In a perfect would, all abused and neglected animals would be adopted by loving responsible people, just as all unwanted and unloved children would be adopted by loving responsible people. That perfect would doesn't exist. 

The people who demand that it be law that a person be forced to have a child tend to be the same people who bitch about welfare, food stamps, pre and postnatal healthcare programs for low income single mothers, medicaid, ect, ect, ect. If people are seriously pro-life, then truly support the needs of a child. Those needs don't stop the second a baby pops out of the womb. The whole fucking thing is so fucking selfish that we should all be ashamed.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 12, 2012)

KelJu said:


> Props to you for taking care of pits. They are incredible animals that do not deserve what has been done to them. However, as a responsible pit owner, I would expect you most of all to understand the concept that preventing irresponsible people from owning a pit is the exact same as preventing irresponsible people from having children. It is even more so true when considering that a lot of people have children that they never wanted in the first place. Bad pit owners at least somewhat wanted the dog to begin with.
> 
> Let's take the analogy a little farther. What if everybody that fucked had a pit bull puppy delivered to their house? Imagine the complete and total chaos it would cause. Imagine how many pits would be abused and neglected. How many pits would live an entire existence within a 8 foot radius, because that is all the chain some scumbag motherfucker would give it. No yard, no fence, not even allowed to exist with the family or it's own kind, just a prisoner. That is if the dog is marginally lucky, others would be trained to fight until they are killed by the trainers for not fighting or killed by other pits in the ring.
> 
> ...



You absolutely nailed it!  It comes down to being realistic, logical and practical and not fundamental or dogmatic.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 12, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> ^^^ yup and they need a shot at life...



How are you providing that? Being born, doesn't equal "a shot at life". You want to see that first, go visit with children in foster care systems where the majority of those children are fucked up and grow up to be fucked up adults.  You say you have discussed adoption with your wife, but how has that discussion helped any of the over 100,000 abandoned children in this country? I am sure you felt like a wonderful person while you had that discussion, but while you are patting yourself on the back for being such a swell guy, you haven't actually done a god damn thing. I am willing to bet that a lot of people talk about it, but when it comes time to put money where the mouths are, those people do not do a god damn thing. 

The reality of the situation is that all pro-lifers who haven't adopted a child are hypocrites. They talk a big game, but that they rarely ever do anything to help the situation.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 12, 2012)

see that is where both you and have different opinions. I do not believe I am a hypocrite at all, the foundation I help organize and actively participate with cater to under privileged children. My best friend who is was in prison, who is now a professional olympic level BMX racer is the founder. He knows what its like personally to be at the lowest of low period. I have seen the horror story's of social service and ect which is why i feel that we need to focus more on creating a better lives for them. Funding more money to provide the transportation to youth sports, education, and mentorship. I took what I learned as a leader in the Navy and use that the mentor kids today. We currently have over 230 kids we are mentoring. 

A shot at life is any possible chance period. Not even allowing them a second to breath is not a chance. There are many cases of great success and kids from the foster system make it to professional sports, big business, and become very successful who at one point would have been considered a inconveniencedfor their mom. We need more jobs here is the answer, create a better foster system that provides dorms for kids, where they can attend school public or private, participate in sports, and be held accountable for actions. 

Every year there are 16,000 cases where the miscarriage does not work and the infant is either raised with disabilities or they drive a spike through the head of the infant to finish the abortion. How is this even ethical? The fact is birth control is all ready free and education is all ready free as well for sex. There is no excuse other then the fact that they do not care. I have many friends who were adopted and I plan to adopt a child because we only want two kids period but want a boy and a girl. 

Life it self is about being responsible for your actions, getting an abortion because you don't want to be inconvenienced is just not responsible. Sucking it up and realizing your going to be a parents and now its time to grow up is being responsible. I firmly believe it is because we allow people to fail and accept failure in life is why our country is going down. We baby our children and teach them to run and hide instead of not fighting back. So now they run until they commit suicide. We are a weak country... We need to start teaching our people to suck it up and grow up. Life is about making scarifies and doing what is good for your family at times and not just whats good for your self. I am sorry if I am not willing to accept any thing but perfect in our country. It just seems like well things are sooo fucked up lets just start allowing it, because its to hard to stop it. Well people are abusing the system on drugs and ect but its to hard so lets not even bother.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 12, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> The fact is birth control is all ready free and education is all ready free as well for sex. There is no excuse other then the fact that they do not care. I have many friends who were adopted and I plan to adopt a child because we only want two kids period but want a boy and a girl.
> 
> Life it self is about being responsible for your actions, getting an abortion because you don't want to be inconvenienced is just not responsible. Sucking it up and realizing your going to be a parents and now its time to grow up is being responsible. I firmly believe it is because we allow people to fail and accept failure in life is why our country is going down. We baby our children and teach them to run and hide instead of not fighting back. So now they run until they commit suicide. We are a weak country... We need to start teaching our people to suck it up and grow up. Life is about making scarifies and doing what is good for your family at times and not just whats good for your self.



What you said in this part of your post is all true. Birth control is available, there is no excuse for unplanned pregnancy in the US, and people should be responsible. However, you are forgetting to acknowledge the most important part which is "should" and "is" exist in two completely different universes. Making a decision decisions based on how things should be is dangerous. You have to face facts and make decisions based on how things are. The type of people who repeatedly show a complete lack discipline to practice sex sex and birth control are often the same type of people who are too irresponsible to take care of their children. 

Once again, the children are the ones who will suffer for it. You want people to be responsible, but you can want in one hand, and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.


----------



## Chestnut (Nov 12, 2012)

100% Agree




Standard Donkey said:


> I'll clarify:
> 
> -homosexuals want to tarnish the religious institution of marriage even though they are not religious and every major religion abhors their lifestyle
> -women want taxpayers to foot the bill for their infanticide
> ...


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 12, 2012)

Chestnut said:


> 100% Agree



Get used to being in the minority and your guy losing elections.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 12, 2012)

If this economy tanks we are all losers...

Hope this helps...


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 12, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> If this economy tanks we are all losers...
> 
> Hope this helps...



It did tank... in 08.  And, yes you're right, we all lost.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 12, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It did tank... in 08.  And, yes you're right, we all lost.



I define "tank" a lot worse than that and its where we may be this term. Hopefully not but we shall see.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 13, 2012)

Swiper said:


> because our founding documents protects life.  i believe life begins when there's a heart beat.  As i said before there's plenty of time to get and abortion before a heart beat which i'm ok with.
> 
> You never answered my question about a 9 month abortion, you're ok with that?



At nine months the baby does not need to be in utero to survive.  So, no, I'm not okay with that.  I have three of my own kids which I didn't bring into the world just to say to them "there you go!  You're on your own now!"  

That's what pro-life people do.  They want all the babies but once born then fuck 'em.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 13, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> So because i'm not out there personally adopting babies you believe i've turned my back on them and believe I don't give a shit about the child anymore? That's quite the stupid assumption.



It's not a stupid assumption.  You would have all these babies born that society now needs to care for but you don't want to foot the bill or do the actual work and raise one or two.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 13, 2012)

^^^ i would much rather have my tax dollars spent increasing the foster and orphanage system then pay for crack heads on welfare. there are over 16,000 babys born fully disabled that survive abortions. Why dont every one ask or read articles of how happy these people are just to be able to live even with a disability that there fucked up parents gave them. I will never buy into it and I will continue to do my part to give back to my local community to help enrich kids lives. Because unlike most people, when I bitch about things I try my best to also make an action to support my bitching.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 13, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> At nine months the baby does not need to be in utero to survive.  So, no, I'm not okay with that.  I have three of my own kids which I didn't bring into the world just to say to them "there you go!  You're on your own now!"
> 
> That's what pro-life people do.  They want all the babies but once born then fuck 'em.


that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my life. Pro-Life couples are the ones adopting dip shit. Just because in your narrow minded opinion pro-life couples don't want their tax dollars going to a welfare state, doesn't mean that they aren't the ones donating their time, and money to other causes to help out the underprivileged. Matter of fact it's the conservatives who are much more likely to donate to charities than their liberal counterparts. so stop with the assumptions that don't prove anything


----------



## KelJu (Nov 13, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my life. Pro-Life couples are the ones adopting dip shit. Just because in your narrow minded opinion pro-life couples don't want their tax dollars going to a welfare state, doesn't mean that they aren't the ones donating their time, and money to other causes to help out the underprivileged.



I would really love to see a piece of information that says pro-choice families do not adopt children. I will pay-pal you $1000 if you can come up with a creditable study that shows this. It would be a miracle considering that infertility is the main reason families adopt, and I have a funny feeling that infertility can't be predicted based on a person's political and social beliefs. 

Care to make up any more random ass shit while you are at it?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 14, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard in my life. Pro-Life couples are the ones adopting dip shit. Just because in your narrow minded opinion pro-life couples don't want their tax dollars going to a welfare state, doesn't mean that they aren't the ones donating their time, and money to other causes to help out the underprivileged. Matter of fact it's the conservatives who are much more likely to donate to charities than their liberal counterparts. so stop with the assumptions that don't prove anything



First off, how does one go about adopting dip shit?  

Second, pro-life people want all the babies born but don't want anything to do with them afterward.  Then they prove their pro-life stance by wanting to bomb anyone and anything that isn't the same color and religion they are.  

Pro-life couples don't adopt any more than anyone else.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if they adopted less.  

As pro-life as you are you should step up and adopt a crack baby.  You'd both be on the same intelligence level until the kid hits third grade.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> First off, how does one go about adopting dip shit?
> 
> Second, pro-life people want all the babies born but don't want anything to do with them afterward.  Then they prove their pro-life stance by wanting to bomb anyone and anything that isn't the same color and religion they are.
> 
> ...



It's ok to drop bombs in the middle of cities full of women and children but abortion is bad...


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's ok to drop bombs in the middle of cities full of women and children but abortion is bad...



Unborn healthy babies=innocent and defenseless so murdering them is cowardly and unjust.

Criminals and terrorist=guilty so punishment is just.

War sucks because there's almost always innocents killed but until we can perfect surgical strikes its an unfortunate reality.

I find it odd that the rapist gets a few years behind bars where he is fed, clothed, educated and taken care of but we as a society dismember a living child. In other words we punish/murder the little innocent one for what the dad did.

I don't know about you guys but my natural instinct is to protect the weak and helpless. If I saw a guy in the street kicking a pregnant woman while she was on the ground I would defend her and her little one to my death. I just have something inside me that makes me want to help those who cannot help themselves. When I had an opportunity to help orphans 10-12 years ago I immediatelly started helping and I have never stopped. I hate to see these little ones suffer in any way. They can have my money, I'll skip Starbucks and a dinner out at a restaurant. I have never stopped helping these children. I write a check or two every month. Maybe its time that we as a society give even more to those who need it more than us and protect those who are helpless. Cutting the throats of these little ones is not the best we can do. We can do much better as a society.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

I've never heard of a 1 year old terrorist.  Surely there were plenty of babies in Iraq that were not terrorists when we dropped bombs on their city.  In fact, I don't think Iraq had any al queda in their country, yet most pro lifers supported the war.
I think abortion, like war is an unfortunate reality.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I've never heard of a 1 year old terrorist.  Surely there were plenty of babies in Iraq that were not terrorists when we dropped bombs on their city.  In fact, I don't think Iraq had any al queda in their country, yet most pro lifers supported the war.
> I think abortion, like war is an unfortunate reality.


like I just posted above, War sucks because there's almost always innocents killed but until we can perfect surgical strikes its an unfortunate reality.

Anyway, I can't support dismembering little innocent ones so I will continue to help the moms and the kids.

Do you do anything to help those in need in Iraq? Seems like you have a lot of passion for this.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> like I just posted above, War sucks because there's almost always innocents killed but until we can perfect surgical strikes its an unfortunate reality.
> 
> Anyway, I can't support dismembering little innocent ones so I will continue to help the moms and the kids.
> 
> Do you do anything to help those in need in Iraq? Seems like you have a lot of passion for this.



I understand your position, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being pro-life and pro-war.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I understand your position, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being pro-life and pro-war.



I think you missed the point. I think many pro-lifers see the healthy little child as innocent so there is no justification for the punishment of death, in contrast the criminal that deserves death is guilty of a capital crime.

Moral societies punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

Do you give to charities? You seem passionate about helping war victims.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

I consider my self a real pro-lifer..

I do not believe in the death penalty (I believe God is the only one that can judge who lives or dies, my belief and i know most of you are atheist, but this is my opinion), I feel that death is the cowards way out and would rather some one who deserves death be punished for a life time of darkness and being alone.

I believe just like heavyiron does they children are defenseless. Find any child that was a failed abortion and ask them if they wish they had no life. The ones so mentally fucked and physically dismembered have a true meaning of life more then any of us will ever understand.

Who are we to dictate how their life is. All I hear is our orphanage suck, foster care sucks, so lets allow people to kill baby's.. How about FIX THE FUCKING SYSTEM... Stop sending money to drug addicts and huge greedy corporations and send money to the children. We have the power to make their lives better, but we would rather take the cowards way out. YES killing your child is the cowards way out.

It is like we are making a decision for some ones life with out them even having a chance.

As for war I do not support this war and the fighting that is taking place. I went because I joined the military and still serving, but I fight to keep my brothers in arms protected. I fought because some one in the service their was a father that should not have been deployed and I could have taken his spot in the war and allowed him to be at home. I originally joined because I had a 1 year old sister who I was willing to give my life to ensure she had a fighting chance at a free country. 

We live in a country that is ran by emotion. Many decisions are based off of emotion. The is enough proof for me that no one should decide who lives or dies. Because years later when you are clear headed you might have to live with the fact you made the wrong decision. I do not believe in vengeance, I did for many years and all most got my self killed in theater for fighting with my emotions, after 4 years of combat and 100's of counselling I knew no matter how many lives i saw taken non would make me feel better. I went into Iraq gun blazing in 2003 thinking it was the best thing to do, but in reality it did nothing but fuck me up more in the head.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I understand your position, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being pro-life and pro-war.




lol.. two completely unrelated things..


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> lol.. two completely unrelated things..



It's ok to blow children up but not kill a fetus?  Why do those children deserve to die.

Btw, I'm not anti war, I understand the need to defend yourself, I just think if you're so adamant about protecting innocent life, how could you support any war.  Especially a war that was started w no provocation on a nation that posed no threat.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's ok to blow children up but not kill a fetus?  Why do those children deserve to die.
> 
> Btw, I'm not anti war, I understand the need to defend yourself, I just think if you're so adamant about protecting innocent life, how could you support any war.  Especially a war that was started w no provocation on a nation that posed no threat.



Iraq was behind 9-11


/end sarcasm


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> *It's ok to blow children up but not kill a fetus?*  Why do those children deserve to die.
> 
> Btw, I'm not anti war, I understand the need to defend yourself, I just think if you're so adamant about protecting innocent life, how could you support any war.  Especially a war that was started w no provocation on a nation that posed no threat.





straw man 


back to the AZ i guess.. not a whole lot going on in here


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> It's ok to blow children up but not kill a fetus?  Why do those children deserve to die.
> 
> Btw, I'm not anti war, I understand the need to defend yourself, I just think if you're so adamant about protecting innocent life, how could you support any war.  Especially a war that was started w no provocation on a nation that posed no threat.



We live in a fucked up world period, as a some one who has gone to war over 5 time on ship and on ground I would have given my life to protect ANY child I saw in danger. I know many vets who have to become permanently disabled because they put them selves at harm to protect a child. I believe in giving EVERY one a fighting chance at life. War happens and unfortunitly it is completely out of our control, but the one thing we can control is the killing of defenseless babies.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 14, 2012)

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/pop...denied-a-termination-dies-in-galway-hospital/


----------



## Z499 (Nov 14, 2012)

repubs lost cause of these idiots


Why our Country is Going Down The Drain - YouTube


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

Z499 said:


> repubs lost cause of these idiots



If that was Romney's campaign manager, then I agree. Seriously, the GOP failed and is responsible.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I understand your position, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of being pro-life and pro-war.



If your argument hinges on the hypocrisy of the opposition you don't really have an argument. If your argument requires the opposition to have any characteristics at all you're not making an argument.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> If your argument hinges on the hypocrisy of the opposition you don't really have an argument. If your argument requires the opposition to have any characteristics at all you're not making an argument.



I don't have an argument, I'm just calling them hypocrites.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 14, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> lol.. two completely unrelated things..



How fucking dumb are you? The relation of the two "unrelated things" is the topic of the discussion: death of innocent babies and fetuses. How many pregnant mothers and babies have died at the hands of the US because we were attacking enemies and innocent civilians were killed in the process? What learning disability do you have that prevents you from making that connection? I mean, for fucks sake, I could explain it once to a elementary student, and they would get it.

You can't be pro-life, if you are pro-war. To do so means you are actually pro-life, sort of.

Pro-life, for American babies only. 
Pro-life, unless you do not like the parents of the fetus. 
Pro-life, unless the baby or fetus geographically located near an enemy target. 

So you can't be pro-life if you are pro-war. You can't fucking be.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 14, 2012)

KelJu said:


> How fucking dumb are you? The relation of the two "unrelated things" is the topic of the discussion: death of innocent babies and fetuses. How many pregnant mothers and babies have died at the hands of the US because we were attacking enemies and innocent civilians were killed in the process? What learning disability do you have that prevents you from making that connection? I mean, for fucks sake, I could explain it once to a elementary student, and they would get it.
> 
> You can't be pro-life, if you are pro-war. To do so means you are actually pro-life, sort of.
> 
> ...





Pro-death, if you dont like someone.
Pro-death, if you are afraid of someone.
Pro-death, if you believe someone attacked you. 
Pro-death, if someone is located near someone who you believe to have attacked you. 

I could do this all day. There are so many fucking loop-holes and exceptions in the pro-life agenda that it ceases to even be pro-life. The pro-life agenda is more complicated than tax laws. It quickly becomes pro-"force women to have children they don't want" while reserving the right to kill everyone else for any fucking reason you care to pull out of your ass.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

I think any one that is actually pro-war is sick in the head, but it is the brave people that are willing to run into battle to protect this country and people. I serve not because I want to go to war or I support war, but I serve because I am capable of serving and willing to give my life to protect this country, so others do not have to fear unwillfully serving. I do not support the war, but I will not run from it.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

KelJu said:


> You can't be pro-life, if you are pro-war. To do so means you are actually pro-life, sort of.
> 
> Pro-life, for American babies only.
> Pro-life, unless you do not like the parents of the fetus.
> ...



I don't know or care what "pro-life" means but you can be anti-abortion and it have nothing to with your stance on war.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I don't know or care what "pro-life" means but you can be anti-abortion and it have nothing to with your stance on war.



the problem is they are saying they are against killing babies and actually call it infanticide.  that means they are against killing babies except for all of the things kel ju mentioned above.  You're just playing with words.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> the problem is they are saying they are against killing babies and actually call it infanticide.



Who cares what they call it. I'm not remotely interested in playing with words. One can be against the act of abortion (doesn't matter what word you use) and it not entail a certain stance on war. Pro-life usually means they have an anti-abortion stance, any characteristics about the people who hold that stance or the language they use is just white noise to me. Now if someone defines abortion as infanticide you can go argue with them about the words they use and how if they're right then they're hypocrites or whatever.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

this argument is getting pretty outlandish, babies die at war so lets allow babies to die in abortion... The issue is the intent, NO SOLDIER says I am going to go kill babies (wait for it.. LW going to post some vietnam shit) No general says lets kill there babies to stop their species... Lets kill their babies because their lives will be fucked up.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> Who cares what they call it. I'm not remotely interested in playing with words. One can be against the act of abortion (doesn't matter what word you use) and it not entail a certain stance on war. Pro-life usually means they have an anti-abortion stance, any characteristics about the people who hold that stance or the language they use is just white noise to me. Now if someone defines abortion as infanticide you can go argue with them about the words they use and how if they're right then they're hypocrites or whatever.



I've heard the word infanticide used by many pro-lifers, and I bet most would call it that.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> this argument is getting pretty outlandish, babies die at war so lets allow babies to die in abortion... The issue is the intent, NO SOLDIER says I am going to go kill babies (wait for it.. LW going to post some vietnam shit) No general says lets kill there babies to stop their species... Lets kill their babies because their lives will be fucked up.



or you can say it's outlandish to say that we'll allow the killing of babies but only in certain circumstances.  and there is much difference between killing 3 year old babies with bombs than a bunch of cells the size of a bean.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> this argument is getting pretty outlandish, babies die at war so lets allow babies to die in abortion... The issue is the intent, NO SOLDIER says I am going to go kill babies (wait for it.. LW going to post some vietnam shit) No general says lets kill there babies to stop their species... Lets kill their babies because their lives will be fucked up.



You're right, only god would deliberately order the killing of babies and men and take the women as sex slaves...


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 14, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> I think you missed the point. I think many pro-lifers see the healthy little child as innocent so there is no justification for the punishment of death, in contrast the criminal that deserves death is guilty of a capital crime.
> 
> Moral societies punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
> 
> Do you give to charities? You seem passionate about helping war victims.



There are a lot of unhealthy unborn babies that would be born all of a sudden were it not for abortion.  What would you do with them?


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> I consider my self a real pro-lifer..
> 
> I do not believe in the death penalty (I believe God is the only one that can judge who lives or dies, my belief and i know most of you are atheist, but this is my opinion), I feel that death is the cowards way out and would rather some one who deserves death be punished for a life time of darkness and being alone.
> 
> ...



Are you married and/or have children?  If your wife or daughter was raped and became pregnant from it would you force your wife or daughter to carry it to term?  A constant living reminder of what happened?


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> or you can say it's outlandish to say that we'll allow the killing of babies but only in certain circumstances.  and there is much difference between killing 3 year old babies with bombs than a bunch of cells the size of a bean.



when did i ever say that is ok, I think I perfectly stated I am against war and would give my life to save a child during war.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Are you married and/or have children?  If your wife or daughter was raped and became pregnant from it would you force your wife or daughter to carry it to term?  A constant living reminder of what happened?



If my wife or if I had a child that was under that circumstance it would be a choice that my wife and I would make together and it would be my daughters choice. Under rape, incest, or the health of the mother then it would be acceptable. I have also stated that in many threads the same belief. I believe if your mature enough to have sex your mature enough to provide for a child. If your willing to run the risk of having sex with out birth control or willing to take the chance of it failing then you should be prepared to be a parent. No where have I EVER stated if your forcefully impregnated you should be forced to carry that child. Also if my wife was ever raped she would get immediant medical attention and would take the morning after pill which I do not consider killing the child. During an abortion they poor acid over the infants body and if the infant survives they force a spike through its brain.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> There are a lot of unhealthy unborn babies that would be born all of a sudden were it not for abortion.  What would you do with them?



There is a huge difference between a child with no chance for survival and a child that has a chance... I could NEVER kill my son or daughter knowing there is still a chance. I have seen miracles happen and guys come back from war that wished they died that now value life it self more then any thing. I have faith that my child would be a fighter and would fight death to the end, I would give him or her that chance to fight for every chance of breath until the doctor says it is inhuman and unethical to keep this child alive. A doctor... Not an abortion clinic.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 14, 2012)

KelJu said:


> How fucking dumb are you? The relation of the two "unrelated things" is the topic of the discussion: death of innocent babies and fetuses. How many pregnant mothers and babies have died at the hands of the US because we were attacking enemies and innocent civilians were killed in the process? What learning disability do you have that prevents you from making that connection? I mean, for fucks sake, I could explain it once to a elementary student, and they would get it.
> 
> You can't be pro-life, if you are pro-war. To do so means you are actually pro-life, sort of.
> 
> ...




lul... puhlease..

abortion and infants killed in war are two totally different things. 

One is intentional, the other is a sad reality that we have to accept. "pro-life" is a term that basically only relates to those who are against abortion, it has nothing to do with war, it does not extend to all life.. 

id recommend that you stick to ad hominems and muddying the war because you really aren't much more than a vapid sophist


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

So with this logic it would be ethical for me to have my wife get an abortion every time we find out its a girl because I want to raise a boy.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> So with this logic it would be ethical for me to have my wife get an abortion every time we find out its a girl because I want to raise a boy.



Ethical and legal shouldn't always be the same thing.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> There are a lot of unhealthy unborn babies that would be born all of a sudden were it not for abortion.  What would you do with them?



Love and care for them. I have an automatic response inside me to care for those that cannot care for themselves. If we all joined together we could take on this expense but our world typically is selfish unfortunately.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

^^ ethical is what is lawful and moral is what one thinks is right and wrong. 

but besides that is it ok for me and my wife to have an abortion or any one else because they only want a particular gender. I feel its going to be an inconvience for me to have a girl and I dont want a daughter, so in that mind set its ok for us to have 6 abortions until we have our boy. I mean i want a baby, but i just don't want a daughter.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> when did i ever say that is ok, I think I perfectly stated I am against war and would give my life to save a child during war.



I don't think any member in this thread is saying killing innocent people in war is a good thing. In fact I think we are all saying its a tragic thing. I'm against killing any innocent person period. 

btw, thank you for your service.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Love and care for them. I have an automatic response inside me to care for those that cannot care for themselves. If we all joined together we could take on this expense but our world typically is selfish unfortunately.



probably the best response here. but most people would rather love and care for people on drugs, abusing the system and ect. I would gladly pay more taxes to make sure a child as a fighting chance then pay taxes to have people get abortions.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> ^^ ethical is what is lawful and moral is what one thinks is right and wrong.



That's not the common definition. I've never heard ethical defined that way.



> *Definition of ETHICAL*
> 
> *1*
> *:* of or relating to ethics <_ethical_ theories>
> ...



But with your definition of ethical, yes, having your wife get an abortion every time you find out its a girl because you want to raise a boy is lawful as far as I know.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

*3
: conforming to accepted standards of conduct

Standards are laws and conduct is how you react to those laws. 

Ethical Theories are theories based on what ethics are such as: Utilitarianism which is making an ethical decision based on the greater good, but the decision still has to be lawful. Dermatological theory which is using ethics based on your duty, A police officer will turn some one in that is commiting a crime even if he thinks the crime is not serious because its his duty to, and another is virtuous theory which is basically using ethics to do what any virtuous person would do, all ways doing the right thing.

If you have to break the law to accomplish some thing it is considered unethical. Such as speeding to save a life, it may be moral, but not ethical because it puts other lives at risk based on what you feel in important.

Ethical Judgement is ones decision to choice if they are going to make an ethical decision which is based on their morals. Morals are beliefs that one develops while growing up from their friends, families and ect. Such as my morals are for pro-life. It is ethical right now to get an abortion because it does not go against the standard or conduct.

Sorry for the bold letters didnt feel like changing it.*


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

^^^ my statement was incorrect as well because i said its ethical for me to tell me wife.....

Which it is ethical because its lawful, but its it morally right to have us get multiple abortions because we do not want a girl.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> *3
> : conforming to accepted standards of conduct
> 
> Standards are laws and conduct is how you react to those laws.
> ...



No, that doesn't make sense. I have more faith in the people who write for Webster's than that. If standards are laws, they would have said "conforming to laws", instead of making it so ambiguous. Also, conduct isn't how you react to those laws because "conduct" in that definition is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjective for "standards"(ie it tells you what type of standards). You could conduct yourself in accordance to those standards but that's not how conduct is used in that definition. It's also possible that ethical standards match up with what is legal but ethical is not defined as "what is legal."


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> Love and care for them. I have an automatic response inside me to care for those that cannot care for themselves. If we all joined together we could take on this expense but our world typically is selfish unfortunately.



I completely agree.  I just don't think it's a smart or practical thing to make a woman carry a baby for 9 months, especially when that baby doesn't have much chance at a good life.  

Additionally, killing a few hundred thousand cells just doesn't bother me that much, but I understand that you have to make an arbitrary decision as to when it's not acceptable to kill a fetus.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> No, that doesn't make sense. I have more faith in the people who write for Webster's than that. If standards are laws, they would have said "conforming to laws", instead of making it so ambiguous. Also, conduct isn't how you react to those laws because "conduct" in that definition is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjective for "standards"(ie it tells you what type of standards). You could conduct yourself in accordance to those standards but that's not how conduct is used in that definition. It's also possible that ethical standards match up with what is legal but ethical is not defined as "what is legal."



This is actually a horrible and vague definition of ethics...

Ethics derive from Latin and Greece-which in philosophy there are a few different conceptions which are the theories...

*Ethics*

You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally imposed on other people.
If you accuse someone of being unethical, it is equivalent of calling them unprofessional and may well be taken as a significant insult and perceived more personally than if you called them immoral (which of course they may also not like).

 I used that response (from the dictionary) in my last ethics class in our first paper and my teach about ripped it up and threw it out. The definition of ethics is a latin word basically for human behavior. The reason why they put standards of conduct is because some countries or places do not have laws, but that does not mean they do not have standards of conduct. 

In order to be ethical it has to benefit every one your decisions impacts including your self, which is why self sacrifice is not considered ethical. So speeding to save a some one would be unethical because it puts others at risk. 

Break down the word standards of conduct... What does that mean standards of conduct? conduct is the way we act and what is the standard in which we act... How are those defined? ... Laws... So to be ethical you have to conform to the accepting standards of conduct... I do not know how much clearer that actually is...


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> I completely agree.  I just don't think it's a smart or practical thing to make a woman carry a baby for 9 months, especially when that baby doesn't have much chance at a good life.
> 
> Additionally, killing a few hundred thousand cells just doesn't bother me that much, but I understand that you have to make an arbitrary decision as to when it's not acceptable to kill a fetus.




you call it a few hundred thousand cells, I call it a human life...These pictures should bother you guys since you agree with it.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> you call it a few hundred thousand cells, I call it a human life...These pictures should bother you guys since you agree with it.



I agree it's fucked up and couldn't imagine performing abortions. As far as legislation goes, I'm not totally committed to either side but we should always err on the side of liberty. My unsolidified opinion is that until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother it _is_ part of the mother and legally shouldn't have rights as an individual. I can understand why people are pro-life but I don't see enough of a logical argument to legally and forcefully deny a woman her right to decide.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree it's fucked up and couldn't imagine performing abortions. As far as legislation goes, I'm not totally committed to either side but we should always err on the side of liberty. My unsolidified opinion is that until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother it _is_ part of the mother and legally shouldn't have rights as an individual. I can understand why people are pro-life but I don't see enough of a logical argument to legally and forcefully deny a woman her right to decide.



Hard to find a fault in this post.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

i see your point on that, but i am a firm believer in holding people accountable. We provide so many ways for birth control and free at that... It is just an easy way out, abortions should be for emergency's only and done by the recommendation of a licensed physician not a abortion clinic. The second you conceive it is your responsibility to provide... If your raped that is why you go seek medical attention immediately which will stop abortions, because the morning after pill is not an abortion, some extremists say it is but i do not believe birth control or the MA pill is considered abortion. 

I just feel our priorities are twisted. People complain about tax dollars and care for these kids if they are given up for adoption, but they don't flinch for gov't assistance, welfare, and ect. I say start drug testing welfare, which will cut allot of them out take that funds to a no child unwanted foundation (create one) gut big business gov't funding (ones raping out country of money) and put that money to the kids. Create better schools, athletics, programs, and ect. 

There is no way I can adopt 1000's of kids but this just inspired me... After I raise my 1,000 $ for the wounded warriors I am going to raise money for orphans... I will think of a lift to do and raise money...

If you guys did not know I am doing a dead lift marathon all day 225lbs. Charging 1$ to make 1 pull. I am going to donate 1$ for every pull I day until I can physically not walk, but will be asking other people to make pulls to help me reach my goal of 1000 reps and donate a 1$ for each rep. So if you have 5$ you get 5 pulls. I will also be meeting with our local Gym to match my reps $ for $... If mods allow it I want to get people on here involved by you taping your reps as well and you can go online and donate, the video is going to be sent to wounded warriors for them to post on their site. 

I will do some thing like that for orphans, so I thank every one here for further inspiration.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 14, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Hard to find a fault in this post.



so it would be ok for a family to abort until they have the child they desire ie a male...


----------



## KelJu (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I don't know or care what "pro-life" means but you can be anti-abortion and it have nothing to with your stance on war.




You are right, it can. But, people twist meanings and incorrectly apply words to their label to make their argument sound better so they do not have to accept responsibility for the repercussions of their beliefs. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this. Serious problems start once people start making arguments based on their label mixed with rhetoric in an attempt to claim moral superiority because they do not want to think out their stance.  

"I think all fetuses deserve a chance at life." This is a logical impossibility if that person also believes that military action against an enemy located within a civilian population is right. Innocent pregnant mothers, fetuses, children, cats, dogs, and the family goldfish are all going to die in the process. People start making exceptions and cherry picking the best part of a stance to allow for the support of conflicting ideas while discarding everything else that doesn't support their arguments. Cognitive dissonance will keep people dumb forever. Other times people know they are being intellectually dishonest, but say stupid shit just to avoid admitting they haven't thought out their beliefs well enough. They will never be be critical thinkers if they never leave their comfort zone and challenge their own ideas. 

What you said later in the thread was impressive. 



troubador said:


> I agree it's fucked up and couldn't imagine performing abortions. As far as legislation goes, I'm not totally committed to either side but we should always err on the side of liberty. My unsolidified opinion is that until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother it _is_ part of the mother and legally shouldn't have rights as an individual. I can understand why people are pro-life but I don't see enough of a logical argument to legally and forcefully deny a woman her right to decide.



I know I butt heads with you a lot, but this is an awesome post for a lot of reasons that most of the people posting in this thread will never understand.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree it's fucked up and couldn't imagine performing abortions. As far as legislation goes, I'm not totally committed to either side but we should always err on the side of liberty. My unsolidified opinion is that until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother it _is_ part of the mother and legally shouldn't have rights as an individual. I can understand why people are pro-life but I don't see enough of a logical argument to legally and forcefully deny a woman her right to decide.



Yes, this is a great post.


----------



## njc (Nov 14, 2012)

heavyiron said:


> If the economy was more favorable, women could pay for their birth control. These issues are just a red herring to cover up the real problem.



When people say that they voted liberal because of gay rights, reproductive rights, and immigration, what they mean is that they voted liberal because of gay rights, reproductive rights, and immagration.   Its not the poor people who want pro-choice, it is not the poor people who want gay rights, it is not the poor who want immigration rights.  These points are far more important to a man's philosophy of ethics than they are of his philosophy concerning economics.


----------



## heavyiron (Nov 14, 2012)

njc said:


> When people say that they voted liberal because of gay rights, reproductive rights, and immigration, what they mean is that they voted liberal because of gay rights, reproductive rights, and immagration.   Its not the poor people who want pro-choice, it is not the poor people who want gay rights, it is not the poor who want immigration rights.  These points are far more important to a man's philosophy of ethics than they are of his philosophy concerning economics.



That obviously went way over your head. LOL!


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 14, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> you call it a few hundred thousand cells, I call it a human life...These pictures should bother you guys since you agree with it.





they'll be fine


----------



## secdrl (Nov 14, 2012)

troubador said:


> I agree it's fucked up and couldn't imagine performing abortions. As far as legislation goes, I'm not totally committed to either side but we should always err on the side of liberty. My unsolidified opinion is that until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother it _is_ part of the mother and legally shouldn't have rights as an individual. I can understand why people are pro-life but I don't see enough of a logical argument to legally and forcefully deny a woman her right to decide.



What about animal rights groups? Those people will fight tooth and nail to "save the animals," yet a little baby isn't worth it? I don't agree with the whole "being able to fend for themselves" remark. Again, animals can't fend for themselves, but we give them a voice amd funding. Why cant we do that for babies? 

It's all about giving a voice to the voiceless.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't agree with animal rights groups, either.  I don't condone abusing animals, but to give them "rights" is simply silly.  Most animals do fend for themselves.  More live in the wild than are domesticated and even most of the domesticated ones can be expected to do halfway decent in the wild.

If a woman wants an abortion it should be available, no hassle.  Not even from silly pro-life people.  Especially those who call themselves "conservatives".  If you don't believe in abortion don't get one.  Just like the saying to liberals about guns.  You don't believe in guns then don't buy any.


----------



## troubador (Nov 15, 2012)

secdrl said:


> What about animal rights groups?



I don't support animal rights except for unnecessary abuse. You're muddying my argument a bit. It's not that things that can't fend for themselves should have no rights, it's that a living thing that cannot survive except as physically part of another being shouldn't have rights as an individual that trump the rights of the host/parent organism.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 15, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> I don't agree with animal rights groups, either.  I don't condone abusing animals, but to give them "rights" is simply silly.  Most animals do fend for themselves.  More live in the wild than are domesticated and even most of the domesticated ones can be expected to do halfway decent in the wild.
> 
> If a woman wants an abortion it should be available, no hassle.  Not even from silly pro-life people.  Especially those who call themselves "conservatives".  If you don't believe in abortion don't get one.  Just like the saying to liberals about guns.  You don't believe in guns then don't buy any.



I believe in animal rights, just not the way the big org's operate with lies. PETA is trash.... But I do help a community organization called Fresno Bully Rescue fight for pitbull rights and adoption.


----------



## Intense (Nov 15, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> The point is, if conservatives have anything to offer on the economy, they've got to change their social views.
> 
> Gay rights, women's rights and immigration.




nah not really. lol


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 15, 2012)

Intense said:


> nah not really. lol



I'm ok if they don't, my guys will continue to win elections then...


----------

