The Next Socialist President

Submitted by: Cajun247 4 years ago

Social Conservative Jack Hunter points out hypocrisy among conservatives in regards to the presidents.
There are 46 comments:
Male 559
I think it`s important to know the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. They aren`t the same thing (although not mutually exclusive).
0
Reply
Male 10,845
I`m surprised CrakrJak hasn`t chimed in.
0
Reply
Male 373
So this is really just a campaign ad for Ron Paul?
He`s not going to happen though is he?
0
Reply
Female 107
Busdriver - You aren`t allowed to kill or neglect a baby because you have a right to give that baby up for adoption. You can put it in someone else`s arms and walk away (if the bio dad wants to raise it, I believe that women, like men, should provide child support).

Like I said, if we can do that for fetuses in the future then we shouldn`t be allowed to kill them either. If there`s a viable space for them that isn`t inside me, then we should put them there.

Until then, my womb is my womb and the rights of a clump of cells to live inside of me, use my organs, my blood, my breath is not a right the clump of cells has. If I make the moral decision to allow it, fine. But it`s not an inherent right.

A clump of cells has the right to its own cells and I won`t be harvesting them for organ replacements for myself. It doesn`t get my body as a guarantee either.



0
Reply
Male 106
@Armauld continued

The government shouldn`t tell people what they can and can`t do with their bodies. It is their job, however, to prevent one person from taking action against another. The issue is whether or not abortion is an action taken against another moral agent (the fetus), or simply an action pertaining solely to one person. I believe that fetuses qualify as moral agents (that is, people who have full moral rights and responsibilities), because I also believe that the prerequisite for moral agenthood is potential rationality. It can`t just be rationality, otherwise babies would have no more rights than fetuses. It`s hard to draw a line for full moral rights that doesn`t involve either neglecting infants, or including animals (although some would be perfectly ok with giving them full moral rights). So my question is, if you believe fetuses don`t have a right to life, why? Or if they do, why does a woman`s right to her body supersede it?
0
Reply
Male 106
@Armauld (obviously)

Like I said, all I have is your word about the personhood amendments, and based on your word it doesn`t sound like I`d get along very weel with the people who wrote them. It`s unfortunate that their interpretation of the right to life is so skewed, but don`t mistake their beliefs for mine and result to a strawman argument.
I`ve said before that I believe women have a right to take whatever action they want with their bodies, no matter how stupid or harmful (drugs, body manipulation, watching Fox News, whatever). Just not when it infringes on someone else`s right to life. And I do believe the fetus has a right to life. There`s no point in reiterating that woman have a right to their bodies, that`s already been established.
0
Reply
Female 107
Judge James E. Wilson said the following in regards to the Nevada bill: This bill will protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman`s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the "pill". The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson`s disease, heart disease, and others.

It will not let me post the website with online court papers for some reason, but you can search ACLU or online if
0
Reply
Female 107
Busdriver - the argument of taking action vs. no action is logical arguement in theory. In reality though, we get to take action when it comes to our bodies. We own them. They belong to each person with said body. I tend towards libertarianism myself (except, in my version it applies to me too) so I also don`t feel the gov`t has a right to tell me what drugs I can take or if I have the right to sell my own kidney if I want to.

The government does not own my uterus, I do, and I should be allowed to access any tool I can to decide what goes on inside it. This means everything from access to birth control to abortion.

If technology comes along that would allow an embryo or fetus to be transferred from my uterus to another willing one, then like giving a baby up for adoption I would HAVE to comply with that, because once someone`s not using my body to keep themselves alive, I have no say in what happens to their body.
0
Reply
Female 107
BusCompany - But `right-to-lifers`are flat-out anti-choice. They say that women are not allowed to choose what happens to their bodies.

The reason `right-to-life` is a laughable title is not because of what they feel towards the fetus, but if you read those personhood amendments (and trust me, they`re that bad) they feel that women have no right-to-life, even if they aren`t taking another life (like in the case of the dead fetus).

For anyone arguing that most women took inaction and are now using abortion as birth control. It does happen, but for the most part abortions are several hundred dollars, not a fun thing to go through, can be painful and require recovery time,and are often a very tough choice so despite lies that the `right-to-life-unless-your-a-womaners tell, very few women use abortion as their go-to form of bc.
0
Reply
Male 265
"Americans don`t know what socialism, democratie, republic, liberal... means anyways. "

But... I thought... socialism is bad mkay because the nazis were socialists.

[/sarcasm]
0
Reply
Male 106
Sorry for the triple post, but it`s important to note that I believe a person is never morally obligated or permitted to force an action on another person. So that`s why you cannot force a mother to give a kidney to her child.

P.S. I don`t think that the title "right-to-lifers" is laughable, because their entire argument rests on the premise that a fetus has a right to life. The titles I do have an issue with are pro-life and pro-choice (even though I use them for convenience sake) because they imply that the opposing sides are anti-life and anti-choice, which is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 106
@Armauld
The kidney transplant argument makes for a much better rebuttal than saying a woman has a right to her body, because it actually addresses the points pro-lifers (at least the competent ones) have made. The case you described is a little different from an abortion case, though. In the case of an abortion (at least the majority of cases, which are the ones I`m concerned with), a woman- through inaction- allows the fetus to live. The woman must take action in order to prevent this from happening. In the case of a kidney transplant, the mother allows the child to die through inaction, and must take action to save their life. I believe in both cases the mother is morally obligated to save their child`s life. However, only in the case of abortion are others morally obligated (or even morally permitted) to prevent action from being taken. This is not so in kidney transplant case, because to prevent action from taking place would be to kill the child.
0
Reply
Male 106
@Armauld
I`m sorry if I mischaracterized your statements. I thought you meant to imply that the reason libertarianism only applies to men is that they`re anti-abortion, and to be anti-abortion is to deny that a woman has a right to her body. Although, from your further explanation:

"[quote] How can you argue for keeping gov`t out of private business if you allow gov`t to interfere with control of women`s bodies? [/quote]"

it seems to me that that is what you meant. My point is that claiming a woman has a right to her own body is not a valid rebuttal in an abortion argument, because no one ever made the claim that she doesn`t. The issue is whether a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life supersedes a woman`s right to her body. The fact that a woman has a right to her body was never in question. I don`t know enough about the personhood amendments to comment, except to say that I disagree with them if they really are written that way.
0
Reply
Male 273
Americans don`t know what socialism, democratie, republic, liberal... means anyways.

That`s what politic propaganda does, they change the meaning of words that can hurt them so that no debate is possible.
0
Reply
Female 107
Bus company - The laughably titled right-to-lifers have also attempted to pass multiple `personhood` amendments. Many of these amendments are so strict that a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo has zero chance of making it to term would not be allowed to be removed even though it will almost for sure kill the woman if it isn`t. These same people have had amendments (the nevada one jumps out, but others too) where the woman would not be allowed to remove an already dead fetus from her uterus. This means that the woman would have to go into labour naturally or rot to death. A legislator from Georgia (Terry England) excused this because sometimes farmers don`t call vets when this happens to their cows. Now please, tell me there`s no misogyny involved.
0
Reply
Female 107
Buscompany - I didn`t say any of that stuff,though. I simply said that according to Paul libertarianism is for men only. How can you argue for keeping gov`t out of private business if you allow gov`t to interfere with control of women`s bodies?
Also - No one else has a right to use your body to keep themselves alive. If say your child needed a kidney transplant and you were the only match. Would you owe that kidney to your child (legally speaking, not morally)? No, you don`t`. I don`t have to support another life living parasitically off of me if I don`t choose to. If you disapprove of abortion, don`t have one but you don`t get to make my moral choices for me.
0
Reply
Male 106
Sorry, I ran out of characters on my last post.

Anyways, my point is that a good pro-choice argument should provide justification for why a fetus does not have a right to life, or explain why a woman`s right to her own body supersedes a fetus`s right to life. Simply arguing that the opposing side is misogynistic is malicious and incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 626
Even I dislike him as a person, I believe Ron Paul would be a good president. Too bad he won`t win... Maybe he`ll be elected President of the moon colony Gingrich wants to build after it revolts. Because all colonies revolt eventually.
0
Reply
Male 106
[quote] Apparently libertarianism only applies to men [/quote]

All actual debate about the morality of abortion aside, this tends to be the most common pro-choice rebuttal in abortion arguments that I see. That is, the assertion that a woman has a right to her body. This is sometimes accompanied by an accusation that the offending pro-lifer hates women, or, better yet, wants to force women into reproductive slavery. This would be an excellent refutation (and a justifiable ad hominum) if, at any point, any pro-lifer had ever made the argument that the reason women shouldn`t have an abortion is because they don`t have a right to their own bodies. This is not the case. Instead, the entire debate over abortion rests on the truth condition of two premises.

1. A fetus has a right to life.

and

2. The right to life supersedes the right to one`s own body.
0
Reply
Male 934
When I saw "Social Conservative" in the description, I thought I was going to staunchly oppose him. I actually have been harping what he`s been saying for years now.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]His "Steal from the poor to give to the rich" mentality is why you guys are in the current situation you are in.[/quote]

We`re doing that already with high tax rates and an artificial rate of inflation no thanks to the Fed, all for the sake of doing it the other way.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]What I do disagree with him on is his lack of comment on how Paul`s plan would absolutely destroy America and trash the economy.[/quote]

You seriously got it backwards dude. It`s the overexpansion of government and ridiculus military and welfare spending that`s driving our economy into the hole. Paul`s plan would actually make everyone better off.

[quote]Apparently libertarianism only applies to men[/quote]

The are pro-choice libertarians (Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard et al) and pro-life libertarians (Nat Hentoff et al)
0
Reply
Female 107
I agree with pretty much everything this guy says and at least he`s trying to be fair.

What I do disagree with him on is his lack of comment on how Paul`s plan would absolutely destroy America and trash the economy.

On a personal note, Paul claims to be a libertarian but would abolish abortion except when it comes to "rare honest rapes" *eyeroll*. Apparently libertarianism only applies to men...
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]His "Steal from the poor to give to the rich" mentality is why you guys are in the current situation you are in.[/quote]
The government shouldn`t steal from ANYBODY, and shouldn`t give to ANYBODY, rich or poor.

We now have the highest corporate income tax rate in the entire world, even higher than Canada`s, and unemployment, deficits, and prices are going through the roof.

Do you seriously think you can lower the price of gas by raising the oil companies` operating expenses?

Do you seriously think investors will risk their money on new businesses and create new jobs if the government is going to confiscate half their profits?

Do you seriously think companies will hire more people if you make it much more expensive for them to do so?

Do you seriously think those "greedy rich bastards" will get up and work even harder if you let them keep less of what they earn?

If you do, you`re an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 181
Socialist -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
attention span is lacking
0
Reply
Male 4,746
If the government would get it`s head out of it`s ass, stop dumping money into frivolous wars and start taxing the corporations and greedy rich bastards, everything would be fine.

It`s folks like "oldollie" that have everything backwards. His "Steal from the poor to give to the rich" mentality is why you guys are in the current situation you are in.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"Same for Bush, mostly. It was the last 2 years with Democrat House & Senate that the spending was the highest. Again though, it IS Bush`s fault for not vetoing it."

That is pure BS. The Republicans Filibustered everything they did not like.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@OldOllie.

No it wont.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Now, we have about half the population taking more out of the government that they`re putting in -- welfare, food stamp, social security, disability, and unemployment recipients; government union employees; most college students; green energy boondoggles; etc. The govt. will no longer be able keep raising their subsidies to keep up with inflation and support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed. They`re not going to like it, and they`re not going to take it lying down. They will take to the streets just like they`re doing in Greece, only this time, there`s no one to bail us out. It will escalate into a full-blown civil war: taxpayers vs. tax takers, producers vs. non-producers, workers vs. parasites, and yes, Republicans vs. Democrats. The parasite class has already launched a few skirmishes; the producers have yet to fight back in kind. Fortunately, we have most of the guns and the military on our side. It won`t end well...for them.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] Socialism, I do not think it means what you think it means[/quote]

Be that as it may it`s statism nonetheless; just one way for the govt to micromanage everyone`s life.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
Socialism, I do not think it means what you think it means
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]...if it`s true Uncle Sam`s going to have a rebellion on his hands.[/quote]
Not a rebellion, per se, it will be a civil war. Here`s how it will go down. Eventually, inflation will catch up to us. Govt. is borrowing and printing money like there`s no tomorrow, and gas and food are already going through the roof. The only reason there`s no inflation being reported is the so-called consumer shopping basket excludes food and gas because they`re "too volatile." I think the Consumer Price Index is now based entirely on flat-screens, flash-drives, and flip phones. However, even that can`t last. we`re headed for hyper-inflation and hyper interest rates. When the govt. has to refi its short-term debt at 12-15%, they`ll have to print and borrow even more. Tax rates are already on the downhill side of the Laffer curve, so raising tax rates will only kill the economy, and tax revenues will actually drop leading to more borrowing and printing. (cont.)
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Wouldn`t this guy`s views make him a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]and at this point there`s nothing anyone can do to stop it[/quote]


That seems rather bleek, but if it`s true Uncle Sam`s going to have a rebellion on his hands.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]...and Ron Paul actually wants to SLAM the brakes, what`s your point?[/quote]
I believe you got the point quite well, Cajun. I didn`t include Paul, because unfortunately, he doesn`t have a reasonable chance of winning. However, for purposes of completeness, if Paul were driving, we would be skidding over the cliff, but don`t delude yourself -- we`re going over the damned cliff, and at this point there`s nothing anyone can do to stop it.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]The Republicans want to tap the brakes; the Democrats want to floor it.[/quote]

...and Ron Paul actually wants to SLAM the brakes, what`s your point?
0
Reply
Male 36,536
This guy may be correct, except that Gingrich cut spending, not Clinton, as @OldOllie has mentioned. Clinton gets the most credit/blame since he was the PotUS after all.
Same for Bush, mostly. It was the last 2 years with Democrat House & Senate that the spending was the highest. Again though, it IS Bush`s fault for not vetoing it.

This pales, however, to the MSM`s and Democrat`s collective hypocricy! Outrage! Over Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush. Silence over Afghanistan and Libya for Obama. The list is endless.

So yeah, the choice is between a poor President and a terrible one. Not a good position for a country to be in...
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Here`s the deal: we`re careening down a steep hill, completely out of control, and heading for a cliff. The Republicans want to tap the brakes; the Democrats want to floor it.

Either way we`re fooked.
0
Reply
Male 60
Hey look, it`s another RickRoll... er, Ronpollroll.

Ron Paul has consistency and many good ideas. However, for every two good ideas there`s one that`s absolutely batpoo.

If only there were a sane alternative to Paul.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Huh... by reading the title I thought I was going to hate this video.

*sigh*
I really don`t understand why Ron Paul is not leading... no, destroying- the other candidates in the race.
0
Reply
Male 37,897

This is news? Republitards give the money to the rich. Demotards give the money to the rich...and a little to the poor.

The question isn`t "who is good" the question is "who will screw me less"
0
Reply
Male 15,832
I agree with all of this except for the part where he gives Clinton credit for Gingrich`s spending cuts.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Muricah`s blinkered view on politics again? Sigh.

Also who is this Hitler-hairdo`d-hick?
0
Reply
Male 79
The term `socialist` does not just mean high government spending, though apparently this guy thinks it does. -_-
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Link: The Next Socialist President [Rate Link] - Social Conservative Jack Hunter points out hypocrisy among conservatives in regards to the presidents.
0
Reply