How `Pro-Choice` are Democrats?

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago in

Ya can"t have it both ways, Democrats.
There are 115 comments:
Male 1,421
Started well, the first examples were great but then it got a bit muddier, take the lightbulbs for ex. Old inefficient technology using more energy than it should. That energy is away from the rest of us, it affects all around you and has even global effects, albeit minute.. Make the incandescent bulb as efficient as CFLs, then you can have the choice back.. If corporations would have their free choice, we would be knee deep in trouble, waste and useless products (hmm, sounds familiar...). Soon we are switching from oil to some other energy form, are you saying that individual person needs to be presented a choice of sticking to oil, full infrastructure kept in place just for the sake of choice...

Those big gulps sodas are just stupid anyway but there`s no reason to take them away, if someone wants diabetes so badly, let them have it.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]You are a great symbol ^^ im sure its easy to just wave everything away and point at others.[/quote]

LOL that`s ironic cause that`s what you do to firearms!!
0
Reply
Male 8,556
patchgrabber-"It`s like saying a paraplegic can feel pain "

The problem with that argument is that many paraplegics DO feel pain.

So add `paraplegics` to the LONG list of topics you know nothing about.
0
Reply
Male 275
@McGovern

I think 5cat said it pretty well..


You are a great symbol ^^ im sure its easy to just wave everything away and point at others.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]We dont have many of your kind around here.. which is why its perfect land i guess.[/quote]

ROFL!! I`m going to say the UK ya things seem real stable in Northern Ireland right now....
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]A 90-lb woman can not `overcome` a 250lb rapist.[/quote]

Actually with proper training she can. That being said though, that in of itself is not a justification for tighter gun control.
0
Reply
Male 275
@McGovern
Name calling, great.

There was a nice conversation about the different opinions on gun legislation. I guess you and MeGrendel arent really interested in sharing thoughts.
But you are right, here in perfect land it is pretty nice. We dont have many of your kind around here.. which is why its perfect land i guess.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Crakr: That snippet of the article you just quoted is out of context. Those nerve endings and spinal projections allow for reflex, not pain. It`s like saying a paraplegic can feel pain because his legs show reflex responses. This article confirms that pain sensing is unlikely before the third trimester. I found it in less than a minute of searching. I can find many more if you`d like. I`m not as good at putting my foot in my mouth as you, yours must be big because I can`t count the number of times you`ve fit both of yours in there. If you want to try and debate science with me cupcake I suggest you find a scientific study that concludes that a foetus can feel pain before 20 weeks before you start rambling. And I`m not talking about your uninformed opinion of the results, I`m talking about the actual scientists` conclusions.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Essersmith

I suppose you treat the criminal beter than the victim where you`re from in ther land of perfection! There`s a word for that it`s called a pussy.

Here`s a man who helped save your homeland and probably plowed your great grandma in the process with defending himself.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
MeGrendel: Unless you look white, shoot a black teenager pounding your head into the sidewalk after he bought some skittles. Then they`ll call you a murderer and a racist skinhead.

Am I right?

Never mind that Chicago alone, Obama`s hometown, has nearly 500 murders this year, most of them unsolved, most of them black and hispanic victims, almost all committed by blacks and hispanics. Then it barely rates mentioning in the press.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
patchgrabber: Once again you just put your foot in your mouth. Being a clueless cheerleader is no way to go through life.
0
Reply
Male 275
@Keith2
So true
0
Reply
Male 275
@MeGrendel
If the legal conditions in the US are as you claim; I stand corrected. Horrified but corrected.

What you are describing (while name calling, very mature) is, to me, an absurd system that I can hardly recognize as being a modern western society. I wouldnt be surprised to hear similar socially accepted approaches from north Korea or African countries plunged deep into civil war.

0
Reply
Male 17,511
Lillian: From your own source, "Free nerve endings, the “alarm buttons,” begin to develop at about seven weeks` gestation; projections from the spinal cord, the major “cable” to the brain, can reach the thalamus (the lower alarm) at seven weeks` gestation."

That pretty much disproves what you said, perhaps you should`ve taken the time to read it.
0
Reply
Male 787
What`s with all this democrat bashing stuff on here lately? A bipartisan view of the world is a narrow view of the world.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
All I see is everyone on both sides are idiots.
0
Reply
Male 676
Keep being hypocritical and ironic, dems. Makes you look smart.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Essersmith:

0
Reply
Male 8,556
Essersmith-"as by countering blows or or overcoming an assailant"

A 90-lb woman can not `overcome` a 250lb rapist. A 90-lb woman with a .45 CAN.

Essersmith-"shooting the guy robbing (attacking) you is not self defense, its murder."

Only in your sheepified little mind. `Murder` has a specific, legal definition. Shooting a mugger does not fall under that definition.

BAAAAAAAAAAA!
0
Reply
Male 8,556
Essersmith-"Self defense with death as consequence, is murder."

Not under any law in the United States.

Down here, Self-defense with death as consequence is labeled as `suicide through stupidity`.

Essersmith-"saying a .45 was easyer wont help you in the trial that would follow."

In the US, in cases of Self Defense, a trial does not follow.

Essersmith-"if you "accidentally" kill the mugger you will most likely be charged with murder."

Again, maybe in your wussified country. In this country, if a mugger is killed, the self-defender is given a `Have a nice day, sir.`

And if I kill a mugger, it will not be an accident.
0
Reply
Male 275
@MeGrendel
self-de·fense   [self-di-fens, self-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of defending one`s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
2.
a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one`s own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3.
an act or instance of defending or protecting one`s own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

Note 2. shooting the guy robbing (attacking) you is not self defense, its murder.
0
Reply
Male 275
@MeGrendel
"No, the essence of self defense is to protect one`s self and family. I don`t care to `immobilize` someone who is attacking me. I care to STOP him from harming me. Now, if I can do that with my Handy-Dandy Net-throwing Device, fine...but I find a .45 much easier to carry. "

Self defense with death as consequence, is murder. That leaves you with the evidence burden of proving the intent of murder from the attacking part. Also saying a .45 was easyer wont help you in the trial that would follow.
The same goes for knowing marshal arts, if you "accidentally" kill the mugger you will most likely be charged with murder.
What you are talking about is counter attacking witch is not self defense.

It`s a grotesque thought for me to think that murdering someone is an acceptable outcome of almost any conflict. I was not raised to have such a wastefull disregard to human life, no matter how disagreeing i might be with someone.
0
Reply
Male 8,556
HolyGod-"Guns only serve to kill."

Guns also serve to protect life and liberty.

In reality: Guns only serve to throw a tapered cylinder of metal down-range as fast, far and accurately as possible.

It`s the individual who decides where they want the slug.

patchgrabber-"but there are reasons why there are regulations."

Yeah, there`s regulations about banning guns in schools, but not in shooting ranges. Thus there are MORE guns a shooting ranges.

When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a shooting range?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

There alread are and were restrictions and they didn`t do anything. You`d know that if you lived here. What`s this coat?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: Post your pics all you want, but there are reasons why there are regulations. You`re the type of person Jefferson was talking about in that quote I posted. If you can`t see the value in changing legislation and amending the constitution then you should probably go looking for that coat you wore as a kid.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patch

Mr. Bear supports "restrictions"...
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@HolyGod

I notice you left alcohol conveniently now what purpose does that serve. It kill far more than firearms BTW and not just those using it. If you ban "bad guns" like my AR-15 that looks like an M4 guess who`ll still have them??
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"If you banned booze you`d save even more lives! Hey the number one killer in first world countries is heart disease ban fat people! Also tobacco which kills more BAN IT!!"

I have no problem with people killing themselves. That is personal choice. I have a problem with people killing other people.

If you banned cars less people would die, but cars serve other purposes. Guns only serve to kill.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: Thank you for illustrating my point. The founders were a mixed lot, and you can find quotes from them pro- or anti- whatever. They didn`t have some harmonious, unanimous vision of America.

Now one thing they did agree on in general is that people should have guns. I can live with that. But restrictions doesn`t necessarily equate with being debarred the use of guns. Jefferson himself knew that laws and policies need to change with the times. I`m not saying get rid of guns, because you can`t. But regulation is not deprivation.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

""No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson"

Nor should they. However I see no reason for anyone to own anything other than a hand gun, a shot gun, or a hunting rifle.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patch

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@HolyGod

If you banned booze you`d save even more lives! Hey the number one killer in first world countries is heart disease ban fat people! Also tobacco which kills more BAN IT!! Watch how that works out.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]1. Seriously? How many times do you need to post those pictures. Yes, we`re all very very proud of you. [/quote]

As many time as I please to get the anti gunner panties in a wad.

[quote]You really think the founding fathers would approve of any one person having the ability to fire hundreds of rounds in that same two minutes?[/quote]

Yes I do it`s called trying to keep government power in check. While it`s not perfect it something and has worked before.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HG: [quote]Times change. Laws should to.[/quote]
I think Jefferson said it best:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Palfas

"Abortion; I don`t care if you terminate your pregnancy, it doesn`t affect me in the slightest"

So by that rationale you would support me killing my 6 yr old son? After all, it wouldn`t affect you in the slightest.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

1. Seriously? How many times do you need to post those pictures. Yes, we`re all very very proud of you.

2. That picture is retarded. Gun laws would not PREVENT shooting sprees but they sure as s.hit would lessen them. How can you not think that? It isn`t that the criminal would follow the law, but if it wasn`t for legal internet and trade show gun sales the criminal or potential criminal would have an infinitely harder time getting their hand on one.

3. The second amendment was written over 200 years ago when "arms" was a rifle that took 2 minutes to load and shoot once. Times have changed. You really think the founding fathers would approve of any one person having the ability to fire hundreds of rounds in that same two minutes? If there was a horse based amendment that said no person should ride through town faster than 5 miles per hour do you think we`d still be driving our cars at 5 miles per hour? Times change. Laws should to.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern & MeGrendel: At no point did I say anything about taking guns away, my intention was to convey the outdated stupidity of using "defense from the government" as a good argument to have a gun.
0
Reply
Male 411
You`re free to make your own choices, as long as they don`t negatively impact me or others around you.

Seat belt and helmet laws for instance; I don`t care if you die in a crash, one less vehicle on the road. Abortion; I don`t care if you terminate your pregnancy, it doesn`t affect me in the slightest. These are personal choices you made that don`t affect me.

Smoking; second hand smoke kills. Lightbulbs; the old ones use more energy that we all need to share. Alcohol; drunk driving kills other people more often then the drunk.

Tansfats; ehh, people are going to get fat anyways, that`s dumb. Large soda ban; buy two mediums.
0
Reply
Male 8,556
patchgrabber-"And when was the last time you had to do that?"

The point is, we have a better chance than an unarmed populace. Which was one of the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment. In fact, they considered it so important they put it second only to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patch

So because we`ve never had to we should just give them up riiightt....
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@sharpydufc

LOL!!! It`s not automatic. It`s semi kinda funny how little anti gun folk know about the things they`d like to ban outright.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]or to stave off maniacal governments[/quote]
And when was the last time you had to do that? Oh right you haven`t been a colony for a while now. And if you think your current government would pull a Libya or Tunisia then the only maniacal one is you.
0
Reply
Male 8,556
sharpydufc-"what confuses me is how "freedom" in the constitution is ok to have a gun (to kill people with)"

or to protect yourself, or to hunt food, or to stave off maniacal governments.

sharpydufc-"weapons that only have one use (to kill)"

The ignorance is deep today.

Essersmith-"the essence of carrying a self defense item is to immobilize the attacker"

No, the essence of self defense is to protect one`s self and family. I don`t care to `immobilize` someone who is attacking me. I care to STOP him from harming me. Now, if I can do that with my Handy-Dandy Net-throwing Device, fine...but I find a .45 much easier to carry.

sharpydufc-"hey 5cats what were you saying"

What makes you thing that is an autmatic weapon? Just because you `think` it looks like one?
0
Reply
Male 8,556
thatjimguy-"I wonder how many people this guy went through to find these guys."

To find these five? At the Democratic Convention? Probably about 5.

Finding hypocritcal, clueless idiots at a Democratic Convention is like trying to find a snowflake in a blizzard...that`s all there is available.

RobSwindol-"Right now, it`s just a parasite."

Such a statement demonstrates your ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sharpydufc: Well, the murder one I agree with; I believe that lax gun laws positively correlates with homicide rates. I also think that I`m about the only pro-gun person who will admit that...

As for rape, per capita, Sweden fars exceeds the US. In addition, the UK, New Zealand, Belgium, Iceland, etc, are comparable to the US rates. I think you`ll find below that this is consistent with what I`ve stated thus far.

However, take a look at some studies and you`ll see that many European countries are much worse
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Dinven: Well it`s almost time for an American election, so there`s your answer.
0
Reply
Male 89
@humanaction - so what facts would add more "scope". Here are some stats on Intentional homicide (so maybe they murder with other things when guns arent available?) - Except USA is still higher than EVERY country that bans guns. to be fair apart from greenland... but its dark for 9 months at a time there, so they are excused.

Or what about the rape statistics. Surely guns discourage that.. or maybe they dont. you could say that african countries etc maybe misreport but again the US is still far higher than western europe.

Is there something im missing?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote] So killing a baby is OK, but owning a lump of metal is not? Got it. NO choice for those who disagree with the Elite![/quote]
Wow, so you deride liberals for getting angry when you "disagree with the Elite" but you insist that it is "killing a baby" and get mad when I disagree with you. Hypocrisy much?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sharpydufc: The problem with your statistics is the scope. By looking only at firearm crime, you bias the statistics.

For example, imagine that driving is legal is Germany and illegal in Spain. It seems to be reasonable to then expect Germany to have a higher incidence of car-related crime, yes? As the saturation of any item increases, so does the incidence of that items misuse.

Would it then be fine to use a comparison or car-related crime stats between Spain and Germany as evidence that cars should not be allowed in Germany?

The answer is no, because the statistics are biased.

[quote]Calling people out who dont like guns as "communist" is just mccarthyism.[/quote]
The general consensus is that McCarthy has been, at very least, partially vindicated. Look it up.
0
Reply
Male 390
What is up with all the political content here lately? Terribly off putting. We get rammed with politics on just about any site these days..
0
Reply
Male 275
The fascists in spain are concideret politically far right extremists.
Also there is little left and right about the political views of your world, they are all far right on the overall scale anyway.
0
Reply
Male 89
haha... hey 5cats what were you saying
"NOBODY in the USA can own an automatic weapon without TONS of paperwork, it`s just a fact"

I
I
\/
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 14,331



0
Reply
Male 89

0
Reply
Male 14,331



0
Reply
Male 89
@5cats you can empty the magazine of a semi-automatic glock in 2.5 seconds (The Glock 17 has a cyclic rate of about 800 spm. So theoretically, with a standard 17 shot magazine, that works out to right around 2.5 seconds to empty out at optimum speed.) is that reasonable self defence? Do you really need a gun this designed for multiple kills. how many people are there on a break in?

Calling people out who dont like guns as "communist" is just mccarthyism. Go look it up.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
I show you guys my gun collection?????
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Ah, Americans. You`re generally good people, but you have to know that the rest of the world looks at you as fundy Christian pistol packers. Problem is, millions of you really do fit that label.
0
Reply
Male 89
Heres a little test. Which country do you think guns are legal.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population:

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia 0.24 1.34 0.10
France 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
0
Reply
Male 275
@HumanAction
My knowledge on firearm legislation is a bit nonexistant, so if owning automatic rifles are not permitted so much the better.
I agree with many of your points. And i agree completely to the right to defend yourself against aggressors.

"However, to me, the ability to protect oneself and ones family outweighs the correlated loss of life."
I think this is the essence of the answer i was looking for.
If we`re talking in absolutes the killing or be killed question would likely cause agreement by most opposing people.

But the essence of carrying a self defense item is to immobilize the attacker. A gun either deters or kills the attacker.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]but why would you own say a automatic rifle[/quote]
@Essersmith: NOBODY in the USA can own an automatic weapon without TONS of paperwork, it`s just a fact. You`re confusing "semi-" with full-auto perhaps? A world of difference!
What about the Sikh community? Their men are REQUIRED to carry a weapon (knife) at ALL times!

@sharpydufc: So killing a baby is OK, but owning a lump of metal is not? Got it. NO choice for those who disagree with the Elite!

[quote]That kind of condescending elitism becomes fascism over time.[/quote]
@CrakrJak is bang-on correct! Substitute "Stalinism" or "Maoism" if you don`t like the F-word...
0
Reply
Male 89
@humanaction.

"However, to me, the ability to protect oneself and ones family outweighs the correlated loss of life."

My issue with that statement is that i think MORE deaths are caused by keeping weapons in a family home than are saved by. While most gun owners may have noble intentions or know "many" people who are reasonable it does not preculde the fact that most firearm homicides in the US are done within a family environment. Here are some super fun gun facts for you to chew over;

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. (SOURCE: FBI. Uniform Crime Reports
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Haha, way to get owned CJ. Anything else you`d like to add to your ignorance of biology?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Essersmith: The point I`m making is that, it is impossible to remove the guns from 100% of criminal hands. I consider it best then to allow law-abiding citizens to have a means to "equalize" themselves to this potential threat.

It`s fine to disagree with me as there are pros and cons both ways. However, to me, the ability to protect oneself and ones family outweighs the correlated loss of life.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Essersmith: I agree that allowing people to carry firearms is correlated to an increase in homicide rates. However, from the studies I`ve read, per capita, it either has no effect or a decreased effect on violent crime.

As for automatic rifles, we cannot own them; anyone who tells you that the general population here can purchase and own automatic weapons is lying.

As for the purpose of carrying a handgun, the function is ownly protection (I guess some people think they`re being cool too). A firearm is an instant equalizer. Consider a 5`3", 110 lb woman being attacked by a 6`2" 220 lb man; without a firearm, she is helpless. The man could kill her with his bare hands.

Now, is she had a firearm, she is equal to him (if not greater than). Simply brandishing the weapon would likely persuade the attacker to stop.

0
Reply
Male 275
@CrakrJak
"Because liberals, like you, want to tell everyone else what to do (thinking you know better), just so long as the rules don`t apply to you when it comes your turn to have to sacrifice something.

That kind of condescending elitism becomes fascism over time. The founding fathers warned us of this type of governmental tyranny and suggested that we revolt against it."

The same argument can be used against the republicans.
And its because of extremists like the both of you that you both keep arguing instead of progressing.

Your founding fathers lived in a much different time and wanted a better world for everyone. And they created a country that ended up being the bully in the playground. Good job raising a kid with morals guys.
0
Reply
Male 275
@Sharpydufc
It`s a harsh comparison to make. The two have nothing directly to do with each other. One, killing people with guns, is directly illegal in most countries by law. The other is a moral dilemma that only half the population on the globe (women) should have the right to make.
The grey in the middle is what makes up 95% of everything, thinking that you can`t have cake without buying a bakery is what leads to extremism.
0
Reply
Male 275
@HumanAction
It does seem that allowing the general population to wear firearms, knifes or weaponry leads to a much higher chance of violent crimes/incidents to occur.
That said, I was brought up with different life views, morals and ethics (Scandinavia) so who am I to tell you (the US.) what you should or should not do. So when you say its OK to own a gun and you say its not to kill people with, I ask; then what for? Hunting rifles and general hunting equipment is one thing but why would you own say a automatic rifle or a given handgun?

Note i`m not saying you are wrong, we just disagree. I`m asking you why do you think it`s OK to own weapons that serve little other purpose than hurting/killing other people.
0
Reply
Male 89
my point was really more about the dichotomy of a political party that can vociferously protect the right to arm ones self with weapons that only have one use (to kill), but remove the protection for one persons right to abort an unborn fetus as some sort of enshrined act to protect us from ourselves.

You either give people the right to choose.. or you tell them what to do. The grey in between is hypocritical which ever side of the fence you fall on.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
LOL moment: "I`m ABD, All But Dissertation." = I failed out of graduate school, so that makes me really smart!

Kind of like how Al Gore "chose" to flunk out of Vanderbilt? He, he!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sharpydufc: [quote]what confuses me is how "freedom" in the constitution is ok to have a gun (to kill people with)[/quote]
Whoa there, we do NOT have the right to kill people; that is not true.

I think the misunderstanding is that our forefathers insisted that restrictive laws only be passed if the described actions directly limit the liberties of other citizens. For instance, it is fine for the government to tell us not to shoot other citizens; that action limits their rights.

However, my simply owning a firearm does nothing to my fellow citizens. It does not break their arms nor does it pick their pockets. Therefore, they have no right to limit me.

I know you will say that this is backwards and that your method is proactive. Well, I think your method is backwards and that your method is tyrannical. Either way, that`s OK; we don`t have to agree.
0
Reply
Male 1,871
I am pro-choice..... as long as you choose what I have chosen for you.

Move along sheople, nothing to see here!
0
Reply
Male 89
what confuses me is how "freedom" in the constitution is ok to have a gun (to kill people with) but if you use an injection to kill a 10 week old baby that is arguably not alive and can not feel or comprehend THAT is awful.

Maybe you only shoot people that deserve it (except most shootings are of family members and a whole load of those are pretty innocent) which results in 13000 deaths a year in the US.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
[quote]I believe 5Cats posted a pic showing that the extreme left and the extreme right are just two different paths to the same goal[/quote]
I did indeed @DuckBoy87, I`m glad someone notices these things! :-)

[quote]Try removing it from the host and see if it still lives.[/quote]
@RobSwindol: The same can be said for a 2 year old, a quadripalegic, the severely retarded, those with a really bad flu... hey I know! Lets ABORT THEM TOO! Right? I mean Left?

0
Reply
Male 40,764
Hahaha! Highlighting the hypocricy!
Take away the "buzzwords" and they have NOTHING!
0
Reply
Male 1,949
Irrelevant argument. Suicide is a choice, too. You can`t correlate fat intake to abortion.
0
Reply
Male 2,528
"My neighbors just go the sonogram on their 10 week pregnancy. He {she} is kicking, fist pumping, & has a heartbeat but legally this thing isn`t alive? isn`t a baby?"

Right now, it`s just a parasite. Don`t believe me? Try removing it from the host and see if it still lives. Oops! You just aborted a baby.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
CJ, I`d do the googling for you but I have to leave for class in 5 minutes (this one might be good but I haven`t read it over completely). However, scientists aren`t sure EXACTLY when they can start feeling pain, but it`s between 18-24 weeks. Although you can`t ask a fetus, you can study their brain waves and reactions and such. The arms and legs moving isn`t the same as feeling pain. Brain dead people can have automatic reactions too, but they can`t feel pain.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
LillianDulci: How do you know if a 10 week old fetus can feel pain or not? Please show me the science studies that prove that, I`d like to see them. I`m betting you can`t.

You suppose they can`t feel pain, you can`t prove that to be a fact. Those same nerves moving leg and arm muscles are the same ones that sense pain.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Gerry, you missed the important detail, that the 10 week old "kicking(which I highly doubt she`s able to actually feel because a 10 week old fetus is very tiny) and fist pumping" fetus "with a heartbeat" is just doing involuntary motions. Its brain waves, if there are any, are primitive; it`s not able to feel pain or think or process anything that`s going on.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davy: [quote]How does a left-wing ideal like Liberalism... equate to Fascism[/quote]

Because liberals, like you, want to tell everyone else what to do (thinking you know better), just so long as the rules don`t apply to you when it comes your turn to have to sacrifice something.

That kind of condescending elitism becomes fascism over time. The founding fathers warned us of this type of governmental tyranny and suggested that we revolt against it.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Democrats, Completely comfortable with and proud of their hypocrisies.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

What people think depends on how you phrase the question.
"Choice to choose about their body" everyone says yes,
but "Choose to kill a baby" and people haver.

My neighbors just go the sonogram on their 10 week pregnancy. He {she} is kicking, fist pumping, & has a heartbeat but legally this thing isn`t alive? isn`t a baby?

What kind of world have we made where corporations are people but babies are not?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
DrProfessor

"If you`d bothered to continue reading, you`d have noticed:
"(I know, I know, dead `babies`.)" "

Sorry man. Didn`t mean to come off as confrontational or argumentative. I did read your comment all the way through. I make a habit of reading every single comment made on a post in its entirety before I make a comment. That way I avoid making a point already made or sticking my foot in my mouth.

I just was trying to point out that when admonishing the hypocrisy of the Republican "less government interference" myth that issues like drugs and gay marriages are much more appropriate, in my opinion, than abortion.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Zeegrr60

"Simple morality tax. If you are against abortion you have to pay 15% of your income before taxes to raise the little buggers."

I`m against abortion. But that doesn`t mean I would ever force someone to "raise the little buggers". Adoption. Adoption. Adoption. There are hundreds of thousands of people lining up to be loving parents. Nobody is forcing anyone to raise a child they don`t want. You are raising a point that doesn`t actually exist. Stop trying to make it.
0
Reply
Male 183
Great, MrAtari, I`m moving there today! Oh, by the way, how`s the cost of living?
0
Reply
Male 1,569
The American system sucks with only 2 political parties to choose from. Is that democracy? Here in the Netherlands we can choose from many parties, more choice and more diversity.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@HolyGod-If you`d bothered to continue reading, you`d have noticed:
"(I know, I know, dead `babies`.)"

Though you would think that further following their individual choice shtick, they wouldn`t ascribe to one (religiously influenced) ideal. Their espousal of the Christian moral backbone goes against many of their beliefs in small government with little say on your decisions.

That`s what I was pointing to. The implications behind the obvious answer.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
Dear HolyGod,
I think i have a similar political stance as you.
I do not like the current republican party but I really don`t like the democrat party. I am also not an anarchist.
You are not the only person on this website who isn`t a super liberal
0
Reply
Male 3,649
Very well said, jameson37.
Welcome to IAB.

I believe 5Cats posted a pic showing that the extreme left and the extreme right are just two different paths to the same goal, e.g. an all powerful government that regulates everything in one`s life.

Both extremes are dangerous and should be avoided at all possibilities.
0
Reply
Male 1
davymid: Many liberals I know hold political principles where they have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of.
Where everything is political. It would probably surprise you to know that the Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods and animal rights, fought against large department stores, and promoted anti-smoking and held public health drives.

I am not saying Liberals are fascists however. Orwell noted that Communism and Fascism are aiming at approximately the same thing and are to some extent the same people. He then went on to recognize that you can call conservatives, nationalists, socialists, war supporters, war resisters, etc all fascists. You can call just about anyone a fascist and that all in all the word has lost its meaning. In fact in the present day the word "Fascist" is more akin to the word "bully", which some would argue you proved yourself to be with you
0
Reply
Female 231
HolyGod: Liberals want to regulate health and the environment.
Conservatives want to regulate sex and morality.

100% agree with this. But, here is the thing, would you rather laws focusing on keeping you out of hell, or laws focusing on issues that affect the entire population.

I`m for regulating what we do the the environment, and I`m also for a generally healthy populace. I am against people telling me who I can and can`t love, and what I should and shouldn`t believe in.

I heard a quote that made me feel sick to the stomach. "Our constitution says we have freedom of religion, but the founding fathers intended that religion to be christianity." It`s this sort of thing that both parties do that just freaks me out.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
I think most of the users here on IAB are Libertarians, whether they know it (yet) or not.

0
Reply
Male 2,221
Simple morality tax. If you are against abortion you have to pay 15% of your income before taxes to raise the little buggers.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
OldOllie said: [quote]Liberal = fascism.[/quote]
Oh, f*ck up, you old twat. How does a left-wing ideal like Liberalism, which I ascribe to (thanks for calling me a Nazi by the way), equate to Fascism, an extreme right-wing political position? At least equate all us "Libtards" to an extreme left-wing political position and call us all Communists, akin to Pol Pot or Stalin, that would be honest. Still loaded with hatred and vitriol, but at least it would be honest.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
OldOllie:
"Liberal = fascism."
---------
OldOllie = Troll.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Andrew155

I`m with you. I think we have talked several times on the subject, but I fall in line with Libertarians much more than either Democrats or Republicans. However I think some Libertarian ideals are dangerous.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
DrProfessor

"Okay, so turn this around. If Republicans are so outraged by the "nanny-state", then why are they against choice in this case?"

No. They believe a fetus is a life and abortion is murder. They believe you shouldn`t have a right to that choice anymore than you should have the right to choose to kill your 6 yr old. To me that is a valid opinion.

The real question is, if they are so against the nanny state, why do they want to regulate what drugs people use recreationally? Why do they want to regulate if I can wager my own money? Or pay for sex? Or marry someone of the same sex? Republicans absolutely get in people`s business just as much. They just get in their business about other things.

Liberals want to regulate health and the environment.
Conservatives want to regulate sex and morality.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Holy God, I don`t believe mainstream liberalism is fascism, but read this below if you want to know more about different fascisms. Liberalism does have certain elements of fascism that are worth noting. (Conservatism does as well, don`t worry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Franklin_D._Roosevelt
0
Reply
Male 9,769
How can you read that and think it applies to liberals more than conservatives?

When I read that I think of the Republican party`s desire to make a Christian nation and remove the separation of church and state.

I think of morality laws like the war on drugs and the abolition on prostitution and gambling, and the opposition to gay rights.

It makes me think of the rampant xenophobia in the Republican party that thinks wityhout question that America is the greatest country on Earth and everyone should have a flag lapel pin on them at all times. It makes me think of the Republican party`s stance on immigration and how conservatives feel about foreigners, muslims, and anyone that doesn`t speak english as a first language "destroying" this country.
0
Reply
Male 469
I wonder how many people this guy went through to find these guys.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Libertarians can be either pro-choice or pro-life, it goes back to what you consider life to be. For those that consider life to begin at conception, they believe that the government interfering with abortion is like them interfering with any other murder. To them, government has to protect life.

However, many Libertarians are also pro-life, but don`t think the government can mandate a pro-life agenda. I find that many Libertarians are wholly disinterested with the trumped up abortion debate, though. Myself included. I don`t care about it, but for some reason it seems like every political debate has to come down to it.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
OldOllie

"Liberal = fascism"

Ughhhh.

Wikipedia`s definition of fascism: Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. They are united by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.

0
Reply
Male 79
Comparing light bulbs to abortion isn`t really a fair comparison
0
Reply
Male 3,310
There`s no doubt that BOTH major political parties want to make certain decisions by the citizenry be optional and other "choices" be mandated. They are BOTH for bigger government in the noun and verb form of the word. Saying "Ya can`t have it BOTH ways, Democrats" is walking through life with blinders on.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Liberal = fascism.
0
Reply
Male 373
mykunter, of course that wouldn`t get posted, it`s retarded.
Even on the internet, a sea of retarded political jabs, a post from Craigslist that makes veiled threats against Palestine, believes healthcare is a luxury, and assumes right-wingers have automatic ownership of the police, military,pharmaceuticals, Wall Street, the US flag, national anthem, history, the concept of Capitalism, Christianity, greedy CEO`s (not the good ones?),rednecks and Alaskan soccer moms,
is actually going to stand out as the special needs kid in the class.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
@Andrew155: Uh, Ron Paul is Pro-life. Which, to me, contradicts Libertarianism. I still like him though...
0
Reply
Male 2,436
I`m pro-choice and not religious, yet I lean conservative... ? I`m an anomoly. Libertarian really. Any way, I submitted this but I doubt it will get posted: I want a divorce
0
Reply
Male 2,578
"Pro-intervention" LOL. This makes them look bad, you could just as easily troll mindless Republicans too, though. Something like linking Pro-life and Pro-death penalty stuff.

Everyone is full of contradictions. It`s almost cliche to say, but Ron Paul is one of the only political factions that doesn`t appear to have many contradictions.

Politics is interesting, but dumb.
0
Reply
Male 546
and who`s surprised? I think both sides are guilty of this in one form or another.

We need more Libertarians.
0
Reply
Female 267
For the record, I`m pro-choice, pro-transfats, pro-soda, pro-whatever kind of light bulb you want to use and a democrat.
We`re not all hippies.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Okay, so turn this around. If Republicans are so outraged by the "nanny-state", then why are they against choice in this case? (I know, I know, dead `babies`.)

Though to be fair I hate nanny regulation, if it`s not demonstrably reducing danger to other people than those engaging in the activity.
0
Reply
Male 20,917
Link: How `Pro-Choice` are Democrats? [Rate Link] - Ya can`t have it both ways, Democrats.
0
Reply