Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
NARAL doesn't feel that way.nucular said:I think any humane person who is not 100% anti-abortion feels that way.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NARAL doesn't feel that way.nucular said:I think any humane person who is not 100% anti-abortion feels that way.
ScreamingEagle said:Coat hangers in dark alleys are pretty much a scare tactic from the left.
Today a girl getting pregnant does not carry the scorn that it did before. A young woman can go about her life pretty much as usual, have the baby, and then have it adopted. Hopefully she will have learned her lesson and be more careful the next time.
Libs are pro-abortion because they have no respect for life.
It really has nothing to do with poor pregnant girls.
mattskramer said:Speaking for myself, I have not carefully reviewed the Patriot Act and all of the facets of the WOT. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I think that the war in Iraq was not justified. In summary I think that we needed to go to "war" against terrorism, but I am ambivalent about the way it is being waged.
mattskramer said:Speaking for myself, I have not carefully reviewed the Patriot Act and all of the facets of the WOT. I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I think that the war in Iraq was not justified. In summary I think that we needed to go to "war" against terrorism, but I am ambivalent about the way it is being waged.
mattskramer said:The real question here is, do you support a party that attempts to enlarge government or tries to make it smaller?
Has the government grown under the Republican administration? I think that the government should be made smaller, but I doubt that the Republicans would support my ideas on how to reduce the size of government. For one example, I think the vice squad should be reduced.
Yes it has. Republicans are certainly more liberal than they let on. But at least there is some some hope among them. Can you say the same for the Democrats? I think not.
The real question here is do you support a party that attempts to lessen taxes on your paycheck or one that wants to take an ever-increasing amount from your paycheck?
I think that I am paying a my fair share in taxes. It depends on what the tax is spent on. - corporate welfare, pork, excessive amounts on national defense, personal welfare, etc. It also depends on how much the "rich" and "poor" are taxed with respect to each other. For me, many variables come into play.
But the Democrats don’t think you are really paying your fair share - they want to increase your taxes - and basically make everyone dependent upon the state including big business. The spending of our tax money is another issue altogether.
The real question here is not about the exceptions to the rule. The question should be do you support a party that is pro-abortion or anti-abortion for the majority of women?
I think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where the mother's health is at risk. I am undecided about whether or not it should be made illegal in cases of rape and incest. Where does that reply place me?
I think it places you squarely in the Republican party. There are many who agree with you about the exceptions such as the mother's health, rape and incest.
When you say you are a "moderate" that really has no meaning and it's basically a cop out because there is no "moderate" political party in our country. We have a two party system: Democrats and Republicans. Anything else is a waste of your vote.
No. It is a sensible approach to counter the extremism and mind-numbing political rhetoric that comes from the right and from the left. Didn't an independent become a state governor? Anyway, I understand that if you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican, your vote may "not count". I carefully consider the issues and vote in local, state, and federal elections. When it came to deciding on a president, Bush won my vote, but not by much. I often wonder if I made the right choice.
rtwngAvngr said:I debate this internally all the time. I feel slimy right now. I don't know. I'm torn.
There were no weapons of mass destruction - or any weapons of any great significance for that matter. There was no definitive link between Al Queso and Saddam - oh, we found the 1 guy who happened to be in Iraq, but to say that Saddam had close ties with Al Queso is a stretch. There was no immanent threat to America from Iraq. Oh. Saddam was a bad dictator. Well, North Korea and China have evil dictators too and they pose a greater threat to the USA than did Saddam's sandcastle. What Iraq did provide was a way for Bush to settle a score for his Daddy, a way for the VP to help out his old buddies at Halburton, and to get a name for himself as the "wartime president".Kathianne said:So why do you think it NOT JUSTIFIED or NOT WAGED CORRECTLY?
and then we get bin laden to call off the war and everyone goes home to thier families--damn why didnt I think of that?mattskramer said:There were no weapons of mass destruction - or any weapons of any great significance for that matter. There was no definitive link between Al Queso and Saddam - oh, we found the 1 guy who happened to be in Iraq, but to say that Saddam had close ties with Al Queso is a stretch. There was no immanent threat to America from Iraq. Oh. Saddam was a bad dictator. Well, North Korea and China have evil dictators too and they pose a greater threat to the USA than did Saddam's sandcastle. What Iraq did provide was a way for Bush to settle a score for his Daddy, a way for the VP to help out his old buddies at Halburton, and to get a name for himself as the "wartime president".
Ok. We did get rid of a bad dictator. Still, all things considered, I simply don't think it was worth the time and money spent. We should have continued our search for Bin Laden. We should have used our resources to strengthen our intelligence, gathered more "proof" that there was a link, WMD, a major threat, etc. and then presented honest and irrefutable proof before the UN. Then, with world support, we could have invaded Iraq more easily.
mattskramer said:Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?
Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?
Comments - please.
mattskramer said:Yep. I have nuts and I take a stand as a moderate.
nucular said:People,
Matt has posted an intelligent thread and followed up with a lot of thoughtful and insightful commentary. But his rep has stayed the same throughout. Where's the love?
musicman said:Mind your own business - THAT'S where.
Don't be telling veteran board members how to use their rep power, or they might just use it on YOU.
mattskramer said:I don't even know what "Rep Power" is. What is it? Hmmm. Is there a double standard here? Oh well. I don't really care.
Bonnie said:It doesn't really matter Matt but so you know.. you will continue to get good rep points for maintaining good arguments or opinions presented in a civil way as you have been doing
rtwngAvngr said:My philosophy on rep points is totally different. I give them strictly for exhibiting the correct thinking and being concise.
And as mattys thinking seems to be infected with wishy washy-ism, he gets zip. He seems to believe it wrong to have strong opinions.