So, what's the problem with Sarah Palin?

It's been a long time since I've seen any new posts bitching and moaning about Sarah Palin. What happened? Did all the liberal fuckwads get tired of throwing stones at her?

Sarah who? Oh yeah... the female Glenn Beck... making money, talking shit about the hated "liberals" on TV, living a private sector life and not bothering anyone.

Why should we throw stones again? She's a has been(or truthfully a "never was") who had her 15 minutes of fame, profited heavily on it, and is just another talking head.

True. She's just another Fox employee like Huckabee, Rove, & Bill Kristol (PNAC Founder)
 
The only thing you and I have covered is drugs and the Fed.

Paul is anti-choice, perfectly in line with conservative ideology, so obviously that is not an issue where they differ.
Dr. Paul is pro-life, not anti-choice. With the wide array of available contraceptives, getting pregnant is most definitely a CHOICE. Irresponsibility is a CHOICE, too. If you insist on using the 'anti', Dr. Paul is ANTI-abortion, at least THAT description is HONEST.

False. He is anti–choice. He is not in favor of letting the mother choose what to do when it comes to her own body.

If he was truly pro choice, he would be supporting all kinds of neonatal and early development programs.

I notice you totally ignore the rest of my post so you can go on your childish little rant.

Fucking baby-killers... :cuckoo:
 
Santorum is only conservative socially. He's a Big Government Neo-Con, who supported all of Bush's failed policies, and all of Bush's unfunded spending. He is also a huge pork barrel politician, signing on to everyone else's pork in order to get his own. Like the Bridge To Nowhere.

Sounds like your kind of 'conservative'. :lol:

Did I call it, or what? :lol:
No. But you think you did.
No matter how much you stamp your feet and pout, you don't get to define reality. :lol:
 
iOHs0.png



Just remove the moose and photoshop in a speeding car. :)
 
I'm pro-choice and I agree with how Paul wants the federal gov't to handle the abortion issue.

Overturn Roe v Wade and put the power back in the states.

In my opinion the end result of that would be very few pro-life states, and anyone who wanted an abortion who lived in those states could simply travel to the nearest pro-choice state.
 
I'm pro-choice and I agree with how Paul wants the federal gov't to handle the abortion issue.

Overturn Roe v Wade and put the power back in the states.

In my opinion the end result of that would be very few pro-life states, and anyone who wanted an abortion who lived in those states could simply travel to the nearest pro-choice state.
Keep promoting that anti-liberty agenda!
 
I'm pro-choice and I agree with how Paul wants the federal gov't to handle the abortion issue.

Overturn Roe v Wade and put the power back in the states.

In my opinion the end result of that would be very few pro-life states, and anyone who wanted an abortion who lived in those states could simply travel to the nearest pro-choice state.
Keep promoting that anti-liberty agenda!

Not sure how giving more power to the states is anti liberty but since we have essentially opposite political views i can certainly see the disagreement. Pro huge federal gov't vs pro small federal gov't.
 
I'm pro-choice and I agree with how Paul wants the federal gov't to handle the abortion issue.

Overturn Roe v Wade and put the power back in the states.

In my opinion the end result of that would be very few pro-life states, and anyone who wanted an abortion who lived in those states could simply travel to the nearest pro-choice state.
Keep promoting that anti-liberty agenda!

Not sure how giving more power to the states is anti liberty but since we have essentially opposite political views i can certainly see the disagreement. Pro huge federal gov't vs pro small federal gov't.
Because it's none of the state's business, either, what a woman does with her own body.

You are just willing to substitute one group of fat, White guys' opinions for another group of fat White guys' opinion.
 
It's been a long time since I've seen any new posts bitching and moaning about Sarah Palin. What happened? Did all the liberal fuckwads get tired of throwing stones at her?

I wish you cons would make up your damn minds. You were bitching when we were talking about Palin and now you're bitching because we're not. Damn, no wonder I say cons are stupid. Ya think maybe her not running for President (for now anyway) might have something to do with it?
 
They got new marching orders. They were told to go after another conservative minority -- Cain.

Marching orders from who?? You ever think there may have been valid reasons to go after Cain? Like maybe his proposal that we increase taxes on the poor while decreasing them for the rich? Or maybe a few of these?



"[the Media] are doubly scared that a real black man might run against Barack Obama"
-Herman Cain, March 30, 2011
(Right after saying this Cain proclaimed that his being the Republican nominee would "take the race card off the table")

Obama is not a strong black man"
-Herman Cain, March 30, 2011

"A real black man is not timid about making the right decisions"
Herman Cain, June 30, 2011

"it is documented that [Obama's] mother was white and his father was from Africa."
Herman Cain, June 30, 2011”
(Right after saying this Cain sanctimoniously proclaimed "but I'm not going down this color road")

Obama has "never Been A Part Of The Black Experience In America"
Herman Cain, Oct 10 or 11, 2011

Add to the above his statement that John Stewart is racist

Add his black people are brainwashed statement

Note, all of the above were made knowing the it was on the record and in some cases being recorded. All were also made while he was running for President (this time, not in 2000)
 
Keep promoting that anti-liberty agenda!

Not sure how giving more power to the states is anti liberty but since we have essentially opposite political views i can certainly see the disagreement. Pro huge federal gov't vs pro small federal gov't.
Because it's none of the state's business, either, what a woman does with her own body.

You are just willing to substitute one group of fat, White guys' opinions for another group of fat White guys' opinion.

I don't want voting rights determined by age, weight or skin color.

I'm very much pro-choice, but can respect views other than my own.
 
They got new marching orders. They were told to go after another conservative minority -- Cain.

Marching orders from who?? You ever think there may have been valid reasons to go after Cain? Like maybe his proposal that we increase taxes on the poor while decreasing them for the rich? Or maybe a few of these?



"[the Media] are doubly scared that a real black man might run against Barack Obama"
-Herman Cain, March 30, 2011
(Right after saying this Cain proclaimed that his being the Republican nominee would "take the race card off the table")

Obama is not a strong black man"
-Herman Cain, March 30, 2011

"A real black man is not timid about making the right decisions"
Herman Cain, June 30, 2011

"it is documented that [Obama's] mother was white and his father was from Africa."
Herman Cain, June 30, 2011”
(Right after saying this Cain sanctimoniously proclaimed "but I'm not going down this color road")

Obama has "never Been A Part Of The Black Experience In America"
Herman Cain, Oct 10 or 11, 2011

Add to the above his statement that John Stewart is racist

Add his black people are brainwashed statement

Note, all of the above were made knowing the it was on the record and in some cases being recorded. All were also made while he was running for President (this time, not in 2000)


You're new here, so I'll save you a lot of time: daveman is an idiot.
 
Not sure how giving more power to the states is anti liberty but since we have essentially opposite political views i can certainly see the disagreement. Pro huge federal gov't vs pro small federal gov't.
Because it's none of the state's business, either, what a woman does with her own body.

You are just willing to substitute one group of fat, White guys' opinions for another group of fat White guys' opinion.

I don't want voting rights determined by age, weight or skin color.

I'm very much pro-choice, but can respect views other than my own.

Respecting them is one thing. Do you want to be ruled by them?
 
Because it's none of the state's business, either, what a woman does with her own body.

You are just willing to substitute one group of fat, White guys' opinions for another group of fat White guys' opinion.

I don't want voting rights determined by age, weight or skin color.

I'm very much pro-choice, but can respect views other than my own.

Respecting them is one thing. Do you want to be ruled by them?

No, but if it's the will of the people.

But to be honest there's dozens of politicial issues i care about more than the abortion issue. Most have to do with gov't spending and taxation.
 
I don't want voting rights determined by age, weight or skin color.

I'm very much pro-choice, but can respect views other than my own.

Respecting them is one thing. Do you want to be ruled by them?

No, but if it's the will of the people.

But to be honest there's dozens of politicial issues i care about more than the abortion issue. Most have to do with gov't spending and taxation.
The will of the people??? The people are idiots. The 'people' say things like "get your government hands off my Medicare".
 
Wouldn't making women get unnecessary procedures be INCREASING the footprint of government?

Yes it would. So would making women get necessary procecdures. Both are inappropriate for government at any level.

However, I have no problem with the local government saying that children will have certain innoculations before starting svchool if you are going to send your children to public school. That is a reasonable requirement. Otherwise parents can place their kids in a private or parochial school that don't require such innoculations or homeschool.

I have no problem with the local government saying to the welfare mother that she will get a permanent contraceptive implant or if she gets pregnant, she will be billed for the cost of her medical care or an abortion if she gets one and if she has a child, she will be expected to either feed, house, clothe, and educate that child or give it up for adoption.

This forces nobody to do anything, but does require them to be accountable for government services they receive and allows them the choice of whether they will follow the rules to get those services or do something else.
 
Wouldn't making women get unnecessary procedures be INCREASING the footprint of government?

Yes it would. So would making women get necessary procecdures. Both are inappropriate for government at any level.

However, I have no problem with the local government saying that children will have certain innoculations before starting svchool if you are going to send your children to public school. That is a reasonable requirement. Otherwise parents can place their kids in a private or parochial school that don't require such innoculations or homeschool.

I have no problem with the local government saying to the welfare mother that she will get a permanent contraceptive implant or if she gets pregnant, she will be billed for the cost of her medical care or an abortion if she gets one and if she has a child, she will be expected to either feed, house, clothe, and educate that child or give it up for adoption.

This forces nobody to do anything, but does require them to be accountable for government services they receive and allows them the choice of whether they will follow the rules to get those services or do something else.

Responsibility, what a concept. I like it!
icon14.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top