Why I am a Republican

[DKSuddeth]

quoted by RWA

But the Dems are championing healthcare for all. do you think this will increase costs on THOSE WHO ACTUALLY PAY ANYTHING or lessen them? Be honest.

yes, it will increase costs, which is why I'm not for universal health care, I'm for monitoring the insurance companies to adhere to fair accounting like we are held to it.

Just because you feel your job is threatened by outsourcing you've convinced yourself that the main issue in the upcoming election will be jobs.

Its not just my job thats threatened, its any field that can be done overseas like medical, accounting, etc. Jobs will be an issue in the upcoming election-its human nature. Watch, wait, and see. I'll make sure I don't say 'I told you so' when november hits.

Owned much?

hardly

by RightyRighton

Morality is a constant. Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill etc. Ethics are subject to society, laws and opinions. Morality is not.

so whose moral code should we apply to all the world? christ? allah? buddha? stalin? putin? or chirac? you say morality applies to things like lie, cheat, steal, and kill yet we advocate capital punishment and reward white collar crimes. We have laws against murder and rape but are they morals or ethics? Morals are not a universal code, if they were we wouldn't have so much religious strife in the world.

Democrats push the insurance coverage on employers, making it expensive for people like me.

are you telling me that never in the history of our country has a republican politician voted for workers benefits or rights? I know my own congressman doesn't give a damn about his workers rights but there are many others that do, however, my own thinking is that if insurance companies could not rely on money from employers that premiums would be lower as they fought for clients.

If you don't want gun control, don't vote for dems.

yet another ridiculous blanket statement

Please understand that I am not supporting specific republicans. I am talking about general ideals held by the parties. Bush has done things I am not happy with, but I will still take him over any democrat.

so if another republican, say tom tancredo, were to decide to run for president, would you support him over bush?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
quoted by RWA



yes, it will increase costs, which is why I'm not for universal health care,

You better rethink your party affiliation in that case.

Its not just my job thats threatened, its any field that can be done overseas like medical, accounting, etc. Jobs will be an issue in the upcoming election-its human nature. Watch, wait, and see. I'll make sure I don't say 'I told you so' when november hits.

Yes, it's human nature. Yet you chastised rightyRightOn for forming political viewpoints based on his own individual experiences. I kicked your ass on this one, chum.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You better rethink your party affiliation in that case.

thats why I'm not affiliated with the dem party, I consider myself independant.

Yes, it's human nature. Yet you chastised rightyRightOn for forming political viewpoints based on his own individual experiences. I kicked your ass on this one, chum.

Not hardly, Rightys viewpoint on his lefty sap desk neighbor is part of what made him a republican(per his words) while my statement vs yours about jobs being important in the next election is based on more than just my experience. Look at the figures being reported currently, people are more worried about being able to feed, clothe, and house their families than they are about someone invading their homeland.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
[/QUOTE

Nice backpedal. Turn around and check the welts on your ass.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
[/QUOTE

Nice backpedal. Turn around and check the welts on your ass.

nope, all clear back there. looks like facts got in the way of your alleged buttkicking

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
nope, all clear back there. looks like facts got in the way of your alleged buttkicking

nope.

 

[William Joyce]

"I have no problem with an open immigration policy, just the social services that they will use. Said social services came from the democrats.


Your Isreal argument doesn't deserve comment."

Righty, it doesn't sound to me like you're a conservative. It sounds to me like you're a neocon. And neocons are practically worse than liberals.

Let's say you do favor "open immigration," leaving as the only problem "social services." Here's news for you. Crime is an involuntary social service. Either way, the bill is coming to you. Democrats want to hand you the bill for social services. Republicans want to hand you the bill for law enforcement and jails. Racially conscious whites want you to keep what you earn and spend it on your family.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
that would be YOUR moral code, its great that you have one, not everybody believes in the same morals or ethics. Its called free will. There are christians, catholics, buhddists(sp?), hindus, atheists and agnostics. Theres truly no singe right way except for the way you've chosen for yourself and to try to apply every moral standard YOU believe in as a way of life for all is a power grab over others lives.

I guess the fundamental difference between You and me and others is that you think Morality exists w/ in people, while others like myself believe it exists outside of all of us. I know we've had this coversation before, but from my perspective it sounds like you think everyone should get to decide what is right and wrong. a)Let me know if that is a right or wrong assumption. b) If correct why should people get to make that choice. i.e. "what if"(i know you hate these, but hear me out) You don't believe that the something like premeditated-murder-is-wrong is not a "moral standard YOU believe in"? Does that make it okay? I think you would agree that it doesn't. So what makes it not okay? Certainly not the person committing the murder becasue it is okay to them as it is not a moral they believe in. So something outside of the person makes the act wrong.

That brings us back to your abortion rebuttal. If morality is intrinsic then i guess abortion would be okay, but a lot of people can still rationalize their way into thinking something is okay. If morality is extrinsic then i can't think of many situations that make abortion okay. The only ones that come to mind are rape and if the mothers life is in danger. I still haven't made up my own mind about those. Can you think of any others that would be okay?

 

[DKSuddeth]

my perspective it sounds like you think everyone should get to decide what is right and wrong. a)Let me know if that is a right or wrong assumption.

a person has the right to decide whats right and wrong for themselves. When it affects others, as in crimes against others, then no, nobody has that choice which is why there are laws indicating punishments for those that still think they can.

As for the abortion thing, I can only give my opinion but I'm not a woman forced to live with something for 19 years that could be the result of rape, accident, or something worse. I personally believe in the freedom of choice because I wouldn't want my choices restricted, I would hope that choice is for life but it should ultimately be their choice.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
As for the abortion thing, I can only give my opinion but I'm not a woman forced to live with something for 19 years that could be the result of rape, accident, or something worse.

Again I haven't decided on that aspect of it, but I would be curious to know what percentage of abortions are performed where the above circumstance took place.

I personally believe in the freedom of choice because I wouldn't want my choices restricted, I would hope that choice is for life but it should ultimately be their choice.

Some would interpret that as saying I shouldn't have to live with the consequnces of my actions because unless the above occurs A CHOICE was made, which would be to have sex. If we start walking down the slipperly slope that where woman can have abortions because they made a poor choice it makes babies seem pretty expendable.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Some would interpret that as saying I shouldn't have to live with the consequnces of my actions because unless the above occurs A CHOICE was made, which would be to have sex. If we start walking down the slipperly slope that where woman can have abortions because they made a poor choice it makes babies seem pretty expendable.

I'm sure that some would interpret it that way. I'm not advocating a 'free love' environment that can use the freedom of choice to absolve yourself of responsibility, however, there are many cases where even the safest practices can result in pregnancy that would be hard on the mother to be as well as the fetus. Do we enforce a hardship on those that make every attempt at being responsible so we can punish those that act irresponsibly? I would hope not.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Do we enforce a hardship on those that make every attempt at being responsible so we can punish those that act irresponsibly? I would hope not.

You are absolutley right. Sex is not about free love. It is a choice that can have some hefty consequnces. Pregnancy is just one of them. My take on it is that if you think you're ready to have sex you better also be ready to be a parent becuase, yes it can happen even if you take every precautionary measure.

All choices have consequences, positive and negative regardless of the precautions taken to prevent them. It is simply how we learn. If start teaching people that there are no negative consequnces to their choices they are more apt to make poor ones again in the future.

 

[RightyRightOn]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
a person has the right to decide whats right and wrong for themselves. When it affects others, as in crimes against others, then no, nobody has that choice which is why there are laws indicating punishments for those that still think they can.

When it affects others? Does that include babies?

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
As for the abortion thing, I can only give my opinion but I'm not a woman forced to live with something for 19 years that could be the result of rape, accident, or something worse. I personally believe in the freedom of choice because I wouldn't want my choices restricted, I would hope that choice is for life but it should ultimately be their choice.

Is rape, accident or something worse somehow the babies fault?

It is pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience.

 

[DKSuddeth]

When it affects others? Does that include babies?

I'm not a scientist, theologist, or philosophist. Are you?
In other words, I'm not going to try to debate with you whether life begins at conception or a certain point in a pregnancy. We have a judicial standard set in place right now and thats what I go on. Would you like to claim the USSC irrelevant?

It is pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience.

In a free society it is more important to protect the rights of the minority against the intrusions and influence of the majority. I don't like the fact that abortion may be done for convenience but it is better than the alternative of forcing people to deal with a burden that they have little or no ability to deal with.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Is rape, accident or something worse somehow the babies fault?

While i can agree with this comment I have to say that in the case of rape or some thing else along those lines it is a choice a woman has to keep the baby. Look sometimes in these cases(rape) sufficent damage has been done to the Uterus and to have the baby may endager the mothers life. Or if the mother is a child and has absolutly no means by wich to support the baby a chioce should be given to the mother. Now while advocating abortion as a form of birth control, sometimes, it is in the best intrest of every one involved that the pergnacy(spelling?)be terminated. If the right to chioce is completlly taken away more childern will be hurt then helped. Some might say have an adoption. That's nice but when that happens these childern become wards of the state and that can fuck them up worse than anything else.
What's cruler to end a pregnacy or bring a baby into a life of extrem poverty and insuficnet means by wich we would call a "decent" life. Now this again is not a free pas to use birth control as a form of birth control. It is just bringing up rare circumstances where the wellfare of the mother needs to be considered along with the child.

 

[RightyRightOn]

I would claim the USSC wrong on Roe v Wade. The USSC has no claim on morality.

If you know that you can't have an abortion for convenience, wouldn't you be less likely to engage in activity that may result in a pregnancy? Or at least be willing to accept the responsibility if you do?

In cases of a true medical emergency when a mother must decide between her life and the baby's, I don't have any problem with an abortion in that situation. But that is not the norm.

As far as being raised in poverty goes, who is to say that that child can't break those bonds and become successful?

Current abortion laws require no justification for abortion. I know women who have had 4 or more abortions because they whored around in bars too much. These are women who could easily afford raising a child.

A friend of mine recently got divorced, his wife got pregnant (by him) during the settlement (go figure) and aborted the baby. My friend almost committed suicide because of that. I fear he may still. I'm sorry, DK if my personal experiences are coloring my views but that's the way it is. He shouldn't have married that stupid c*nt but hey, freedom of choice.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I would claim the USSC wrong on Roe v Wade. The USSC has no claim on morality.

not according to clarence thomas and antonin scalia. are we to follow YOUR code of morality then?

If you know that you can't have an abortion for convenience, wouldn't you be less likely to engage in activity that may result in a pregnancy? Or at least be willing to accept the responsibility if you do?

I'm sure that some would, but in the end run we would end up with more children on welfare or in poverty living off the charity of others.

As far as being raised in poverty goes, who is to say that that child can't break those bonds and become successful?

again, I'm sure that some would, but whats acceptable? 3%, 13%, 30%?

Current abortion laws require no justification for abortion. I know women who have had 4 or more abortions because they whored around in bars too much. These are women who could easily afford raising a child.

and someone out there will know just as many that don't whore around in bars but still end up pregnant. how do you plan to differentiate the two? do we re-instate the inquisition? I'm being slightly sarcastic and I apologize but I see no way to regulate the majority without extreme costs.

A friend of mine recently got divorced, his wife got pregnant (by him) during the settlement (go figure) and aborted the baby. My friend almost committed suicide because of that. I fear he may still. I'm sorry, DK if my personal experiences are coloring my views but that's the way it is. He shouldn't have married that stupid c*nt but hey, freedom of choice.

I feel bad for your friend, I've been in a similar situation but it turned out to be a lie just to try to hurt me. What your friend is going through though has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with a nasty hateful woman. Be there for your friend, hopefully you can make him see that it wouldn't matter what the law was, there would have been some other way that this spiteful bitch would have found some way to grievously hurt him. That was her intention, at least the way I see it, and it wouldn't have mattered to her how she did it.

you say freedom of choice, and in a sense it is, but this is how we learn from our mistakes. hopefully most will learn quickly but some will not. Its inevitable.

Best of luck to your friend. keep him hanging in there.

 

[RightyRightOn]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
not according to clarence thomas and antonin scalia. are we to follow YOUR code of morality then?

Yes

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'm sure that some would, but in the end run we would end up with more children on welfare or in poverty living off the charity of others.

That's no reason to kill them

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
again, I'm sure that some would, but whats acceptable? 3%, 13%, 30%?

We can't micromanage everything. Some things should just be left to chance.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and someone out there will know just as many that don't whore around in bars but still end up pregnant. how do you plan to differentiate the two? do we re-instate the inquisition? I'm being slightly sarcastic and I apologize but I see no way to regulate the majority without extreme costs.

I don't plan any differentiation. Abortion for convenience is wrong.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I feel bad for your friend, I've been in a similar situation but it turned out to be a lie just to try to hurt me. What your friend is going through though has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with a nasty hateful woman. Be there for your friend, hopefully you can make him see that it wouldn't matter what the law was, there would have been some other way that this spiteful bitch would have found some way to grievously hurt him. That was her intention, at least the way I see it, and it wouldn't have mattered to her how she did it.

He could care less about the bitch, he is suicidal because of the abortion for which he had no say.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you say freedom of choice, and in a sense it is, but this is how we learn from our mistakes. hopefully most will learn quickly but some will not. Its inevitable.

You need to live with those mistakes. You won't learn anything if you always have a scapegoat.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Best of luck to your friend. keep him hanging in there.

Thanks. I will do my best.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so we should follow your moral code, oh righteous one, now explain in great detail why yours, and only yours, is the correct and moral way to live.

We can't micromanage everything. Some things should just be left to chance.

and you should be the great chooser of chance? again, explain in great detail why YOURS is the way and the light.

I don't plan any differentiation. Abortion for convenience is wrong.

I didn't disagree with you, but you offered no solution that benefits both sides.

he is suicidal because of the abortion for which he had no say.

and he would have had a say in it otherwise? This is just another situation where a person has to realize that he/she can't control everything and that which is uncontrollable should be left behind.

 

[RightyRightOn]

It's been fun, but I'm done repeating myself. I will see you on another thread I'm sure.