this sentence about santorum sums up whats wrong with the 'conservatives' today

The argument was settled in Roe v Wade. The first trimester fetus is not a person and thus does not have constitutional protection as such. Since it is part of the woman's body, and she does have constitutional protection as a person,

her right to terminate the pregnancy is constitutionally protected as a right of privacy.

I assume that's the arguement that you would expect a person to use while they stand in Judgement before the Higher Powers, accused of the Murder of their own child. If so, you've got a lot more guts than I do, carbineer.

Roe v Wade does not prevent a person from NOT having an abortion.
 
I watched some of his speech. Compared to his nutcase competition on the rightwing of the GOP, he actually looked and sounded pretty good.

Oh is that right? I guess you support global fascist dictatorships then.

Rick Santorum believes that the government should march into your bedroom in the middle of sex and arrest you for using sex positions that he doesn't like including a husband and wife doing "anal."

C'mon, EVEN Hitler didn't go that far.


.

Usually if you read my posts carefully, you'll find exactly what I meant when I wrote it.
 
Santorum in White House race; 'In it to win' - Yahoo! News

"His opposition to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research makes him an appealing candidate for conservatives."

why can't social cons just join the democrats where they belong? they want to control every detail of someone's life.

That's the opinion of an AP reporter - a DNC propagandist, in other words. Why should any conservative give a rat's ass about that?
 
blu, please tell me you're not actually suggesting that a social Conservative like myself would even be seen with, nevermind speak to or acknowledge the existance of social Liberals like John McCain, nevermind Barrack Obama.

The need for control stems from the fact that too few American citizens are currently able or wiling to lead a decent life WITHOUT that overarching control. That decent life is necessary to maintain the foundation that this country and our government was built upon originally and which has been eroding for the last century and a half. Even more so in the last century.

I never met anyone who actually admits he is a social conservative

What an asshole
 
blu, please tell me you're not actually suggesting that a social Conservative like myself would even be seen with, nevermind speak to or acknowledge the existance of social Liberals like John McCain, nevermind Barrack Obama.

The need for control stems from the fact that too few American citizens are currently able or wiling to lead a decent life WITHOUT that overarching control. That decent life is necessary to maintain the foundation that this country and our government was built upon originally and which has been eroding for the last century and a half. Even more so in the last century.

I never met anyone who actually admits he is a social conservative

What an asshole

Because except in places like this, they KNOW that it's not acceptable behavior. Remember when it was ok to be an out bigot, to be an out racist, to be an out sexist, to be an out homophobe? They are the ones in the Closet now. And it's really great to see that.
 
The argument was settled in Roe v Wade. The first trimester fetus is not a person and thus does not have constitutional protection as such. Since it is part of the woman's body, and she does have constitutional protection as a person,

her right to terminate the pregnancy is constitutionally protected as a right of privacy.
Correct – and reaffirmed in 1992, Planned Parenthood v Casey.

I assume that's the arguement that you would expect a person to use while they stand in Judgement before the Higher Powers, accused of the Murder of their own child.

It’s not an ‘argument,’ it’s a fact of law; and in the context of the right to privacy each person decides for himself what is appropriate per his moral beliefs.

I understand that fact drives ‘moral absolutists’ nuts, but however trite it’s true: you can’t legislate morality. And with an issue impossible to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction, it’s best to err on the side of government restriction, as the Framers intended.
 
blu, please tell me you're not actually suggesting that a social Conservative like myself would even be seen with, nevermind speak to or acknowledge the existance of social Liberals like John McCain, nevermind Barrack Obama.

The need for control stems from the fact that too few American citizens are currently able or wiling to lead a decent life WITHOUT that overarching control. That decent life is necessary to maintain the foundation that this country and our government was built upon originally and which has been eroding for the last century and a half. Even more so in the last century.

I never met anyone who actually admits he is a social conservative

What an asshole
trying to be no. 61 Rw?.....
 
blu, please tell me you're not actually suggesting that a social Conservative like myself would even be seen with, nevermind speak to or acknowledge the existance of social Liberals like John McCain, nevermind Barrack Obama.

The need for control stems from the fact that too few American citizens are currently able or wiling to lead a decent life WITHOUT that overarching control. That decent life is necessary to maintain the foundation that this country and our government was built upon originally and which has been eroding for the last century and a half. Even more so in the last century.

I see. So you want to control every aspect of my life for my own good and that of the nation. Gee, where have I heard that song and dance before?
 
Santorum in White House race; 'In it to win' - Yahoo! News

"His opposition to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research makes him an appealing candidate for conservatives."

why can't social cons just join the democrats where they belong? they want to control every detail of someone's life.

That's the opinion of an AP reporter - a DNC propagandist, in other words. Why should any conservative give a rat's ass about that?

Now Pattycake, why should anyone give a rat's ass as to what the present 'Conservatives' think? The present intellectual level demonstrated in this group leaves a lot to be desired. Palin's level of understanding of American History is very typical of this group.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w]YouTube - ‪Sarah Palin: Paul Revere Warned The British‬‏[/ame]
 
It’s not an ‘argument,’ it’s a fact of law; and in the context of the right to privacy each person decides for himself what is appropriate per his moral beliefs.

You mistake me for someone who believes in either the Right to Privacy or the idea of moral relativism? I'm neither. Man's Law means nothing to The Divine; nor does what an individual believes is Right or Wrong; and there is absolutely no Right to Privacy from The Divine either. Not even in one's own heart or mind.

I understand that fact drives ‘moral absolutists’ nuts, but however trite it’s true: you can’t legislate morality. And with an issue impossible to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction, it’s best to err on the side of government restriction, as the Framers intended.

I totally disagree. The way to legislate morality is at the barrel of a gun. It's a VERY effective means to do so. The Framers were a bunch of well-meaning but utterly NAIVE individuals who made the mistake of putting their faith in the Citizenry, rather than in an unyielding and unchangeable set of rules. It's a mistake I'd like to see corrected.


I see. So you want to control every aspect of my life for my own good and that of the nation. Gee, where have I heard that song and dance before?

No I don't WANT to have to do that. However since you and the vast majority of the rest of this nation's citizens cannot do it properly themselves, who else would you suggest can actually do it other than the government? Better to be a nation of moral slaves than a nation of immoral freemen.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top