Will Republican party survive?

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by million7

I'm Pro abortion rights.
But..
Pro-Choice doesn't accurately describe the position of most on the Left.
Pro-Abortion is more fitting, since the term Pro-Choice is too vague.

Wrong. "Pro-choice" is the correct term. Many people are for keeping abortion legal but would not choose that option themselves.

Originally Posted by million7

They're anti choice on what you put into your body, they're anti choice on Gun ownership and they're anti choice on what other people purchase and on others areas.

Really? You're painting with a very broad brush. Examples please.

Originally Posted by million7

I agree with you there, I wish some voters didn't see the State or Politicians as the answer to all their problems.

They don't. They see government as the answer to SOME problems. The world is not black and white.

Originally Posted by million7

Those are good points, It does hurt them. Mostly due to the Social conservatives in the party. What Congressman/Senator wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act?[COLOR="#808080"]

Ron and Rand Paul for starters.

[million7]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Wrong. "Pro-choice" is the correct term. Many people are for keeping abortion legal but would not choose that option themselves.

I didn't say it's not the Correct term, I'm just arguing that fact that people can't seriously call themselves pro- "choice" if they only let people make their own choices on one issue, and not others. Some would say that's anti choice, and pro what ever the Majority decides is acceptable is what's acceptable.

Only letting people have abortions, is hardly being pro -"choice", they may be pro abortion rights, but pro choice isn't a word I would choose to describe the Left.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Really? You're painting with a very broad brush. Examples please.

The video I linked has examples.

Originally Posted by leekohler

They don't. They see government as the answer to SOME problems. The world is not black and white.

Name 3 problems in the United States, that The Democrats would solve without Government Intervention.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Ron and Rand Paul for starters.

Rand Paul Would Disagree
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBDWU7qES8

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by skunk

Holding views which oppose yours is not necessarily a sign of mental illness or unwarranted religious conviction. Nor are these things necessarily a bar to intelligent discussion.

Religious conviction is a sign of mental illness..

I enjoy people who disagree with me but if your disagreement lies in religious faith then I'll condescend and insure you don't need institutionalized.

I have no patience, tolerance or mutual respect for religious types.

The last time I followed the this rant I got a time out so I'll leave it at that.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I have no patience, tolerance or mutual respect for religious types.

The last time I followed the this rant I got a time out so I'll leave it at that.

Can't say I'm surprised.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by million7

I didn't say it's not the Correct term, I'm just arguing that fact that people can't seriously call themselves pro- "choice" if they only let people make their own choices on one issue, and not others. Some would say that's anti choice, and pro what ever the Majority decides is acceptable is what's acceptable.

Only letting people have abortions, is hardly being pro -"choice", they may be pro abortion rights, but pro choice isn't a word I would choose to describe the Left.

This is a horrible explanation. And frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Pro-Choice means that we advocate the right to choose. Not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. And it's normally a term used when speaking about abortion. Just like Pro-Life would be the other side of the coin. Now if you'd like to have a discussion about a term that is incorrect...

And are you trying to say that "liberals" don't believe (thankfully YouTube is blocked at work) in giving others a choice on anything other than abortion? I hate those mean liberals who won't let me choose who I can marry!!! Oh wait....

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by million7

I didn't say it's not the Correct term, I'm just arguing that fact that people can't seriously call themselves pro- "choice" if they only let people make their own choices on one issue, and not others. Some would say that's anti choice, and pro what ever the Majority decides is acceptable is what's acceptable.

Only letting people have abortions, is hardly being pro -"choice", they may be pro abortion rights, but pro choice isn't a word I would choose to describe the Left.

This makes no sense at all. The term "pro-choice" is use with regard to abortion.

Originally Posted by million7

The video I linked has examples.

Which you yourself admitted was not proof or a source. I can't watch videos at work. I know, liberals aren't supposed to have jobs, we rely on the government to live.

Originally Posted by million7

Name 3 problems in the United States, that The Democrats would solve without Government Intervention.

You made the claim, you prove it. BTW, Democratic politicians are already in government, as well as Republicans, so anything they do would be considered government intervention.

Originally Posted by million7

Rand Paul Would Disagree
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBDWU7qES8

Can't watch videos at work.

[million7]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

This is a horrible explanation. And frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Pro-Choice means that we advocate the right to choose. Not everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. And it's normally a term used when speaking about abortion. Just like Pro-Life would be the other side of the coin. Now if you'd like to have a discussion about a term that is incorrect...

And are you trying to say that "liberals" don't believe (thankfully YouTube is blocked at work) in giving others a choice on anything other than abortion? I hate those mean liberals who won't let me choose who I can marry!!! Oh wait....

You're not pro-choice since you're using "WE".
You're pro-choice on certain issues, but no-choice on many others.

You obviously do understand what I'm talking about, since you use "choose" when talking about marriage. But choice stops at the bedroom for some Liberals.

You want to let people choose who they marry, you want people to choose if they want to have an abortion.

But guns people can't choose, what they put in their body people can't choose(Depending on which Democrat you talk to), there's many more.

And It's "Pro Abortion Rights" not "Pro Abortion"

Also don't argue with me as if I'm a Republican, You talk about right to marry, well that's not my fault that the Republican's believe they can't get married. While I do. I can't defend the Republican's positions for them.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

You're pro-choice on certain issues, but no-choice on many others.

So is everybody, including you. What an empty assessment!

[million7]

Originally Posted by leekohler

This makes no sense at all. The term "pro-choice" is use with regard to abortion.

Exactly liberals are only pro-choice on abortion, but when it comes to other issues they're not pro-choice.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Which you yourself admitted was not proof or a source. I can't watch videos at work. I know, liberals aren't supposed to have jobs, we rely on the government to live.

It's not exactly proof('cause liberals have different views depending on who you talk to) it's just a short video of libs at a democratic convention being interviewed on pro-choice.

Originally Posted by leekohler

You made the claim, you prove it. BTW, Democratic politicians are already in government, as well as Republicans, so anything they do would be considered government intervention.

You claimed they only want government on "some" issues, so I just asked what are examples of the issues they don't want government in.

EDIT: I can't argue with that, they both engage in government intervention somehow. But a few Republicans do want to abolish some government agencies, and want more Lax regulations. I would call that getting the State out of the way.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Can't watch videos at work.

ok..

----------

Originally Posted by skunk

So is everybody, including you. What an empty assessment!

why did you make that assumption, you don't know my stances on issues.

EDITr at least very few of them.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

why did you make that assumption, you don't know my stances on issues.

I don't need to. I am only assuming you are a fellow member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Am I wrong?

[million7]

Originally Posted by skunk

I don't need to. I am only assuming you are a fellow member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Am I wrong?

haven't you seen my posts on the gun thread? I've been telling people I'm pro leaving people alone.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

haven't you seen my posts on the gun thread? I've been telling people I'm pro leaving people alone.

Nonetheless, I expect you have some boundaries.

[million7]

Originally Posted by skunk

Nonetheless, I expect you have some boundaries.

The only boundary I have is no one has the right to initiate force onto an other human being. Whether a human being consents to force then that's their choice.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

The only boundary I have is no one has the right to initiate force onto an other human being. Whether a human being consents to force then that's their choice.

Presumably, if somebody chooses to propose boundaries of their own, you become anti-choice.

[million7]

Originally Posted by skunk

Presumably, if somebody chooses to propose boundaries of their own, you become anti-choice.

actually no, aslong as those boundaries don't force anyone to do anything without their consent.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

actually no, aslong as those boundaries don't force anyone to do anything without their consent.

But say, for argument's sake, that person's candidate lost the election, would you then consent to the will of the people?

[million7]

Originally Posted by skunk

But say, for argument's sake, that person's candidate lost the election, would you then consent to the will of the people?

I mean now we're getting into democracy, democracy as we see it today wouldn't be compatible in a society where the initiation of force is looked down upon.

If me and some people want to vote on an issue, everyone would consent to the results, and the issue being voted on wouldn't impact those who chose not to participate in the voting process.

Like if me and a group of 100 said we want to vote on 2% of our monthly income going to a health fund, to pay for health emergencies, for us and our families.

And we voted yes on this, the people who didn't participate aren't forced to pay 2% of their income, the only people who pay are the one's who participated in the vote.
Also only the participants can vote to abolish the 2% donation, people outside the vote can't stop it, because they're not forced to donate.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by million7

I mean now we're getting into democracy, democracy as we see it today wouldn't be compatible in a society where the initiation of force is looked down upon.

I know this will sound nitpicky, but I think the word democracy is overused in the US. It is technically set up as a Republic, so it becomes easy to point out elements of society that aren't fully democratic.

[million7]

Originally Posted by thekev

I know this will sound nitpicky, but I think the word democracy is overused in the US. It is technically set up as a Republic, so it becomes easy to point out elements of society that aren't fully democratic.

I am aware of this.

But despite being a Republic we still participate in the democratic process. We vote for leaders and what not.

And those leaders and representatives put in place laws that in some cases, don't protect the individual or minority.

Like the Jim Crow Laws that were in place for about 90 years.
Or taxes or regulations that crush businesses big and small.

EDIT: when I say "minority" it refers to all minorites, racial, gender etc. minorities, and also business owners can be referred to as a minority. But the Largest minority in the world is the Individual.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by million7

Exactly liberals are only pro-choice on abortion, but when it comes to other issues they're not pro-choice.

Please list these issues.

Originally Posted by million7

It's not exactly proof('cause liberals have different views depending on who you talk to) it's just a short video of libs at a democratic convention being interviewed on pro-choice.

It's either proof or it's not. Which is it?

Originally Posted by million7

You claimed they only want government on "some" issues, so I just asked what are examples of the issues they don't want government in.

Oh, I don't know- our bedrooms for one. The GOP certainly wants the government involved there. Oh, and there's forcing women who seek abortions to undergo useless ultrasounds too. Dems aren't for that either.

Originally Posted by million7

EDIT: I can't argue with that, they both engage in government intervention somehow. But a few Republicans do want to abolish some government agencies, and want more Lax regulations. I would call that getting the State out of the way.

Yes, such as regulations that protect the public, the environment and the consumer. Sounds like a fantastic idea.

[million7]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Please list these issues.

I already did you're not reading, gun owner ship, and what people put in their bodies(drugs, etc.).

EDIT: From post #64
"They're anti choice on what you put into your body, they're anti choice on Gun ownership and they're anti choice on what other people purchase and on others areas." From post #64

Originally Posted by leekohler

It's either proof or it's not. Which is it?

Just watch the video.....

EDIT: It's proof liberals feel it's okay to control other's habits.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Oh, I don't know- our bedrooms for one. The GOP certainly wants the government involved there. Oh, and there's forcing women who seek abortions to undergo useless ultrasounds too. Dems aren't for that either.

Argue with me, not the GOP. You sprinkle the GOP's positions in your arguments like im supposed to defend everything they do.

EDIT: I think most in this forum believe that a disagreement with Liberals/Left automatically labels you as a card carrying member of the GOP.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by million7

I already did you're not reading, gun owner ship, and what people put in their bodies(drugs, etc.).



Just watch the video.....

EDIT: It's proof liberals feel it's okay to control other's habits.



Argue with me, not the GOP. You sprinkle the GOP's positions in your arguments like im supposed to defend everything they do.

EDIT: I think most in this forum believe that a disagreement with Liberals/Left automatically labels you as a card carrying member of the GOP.

Pretend some of us can't watch you tube at work and please list what "habits" liberals would like to control. And how they would like to control what we put in our bodies. And let's try not to assume that because many are for gun control they are in favor of banning all guns. That's not the case.

If you aren't going to back up your statements you shouldn't be part of this discussion.

[million7]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Pretend some of us can't watch you tube at work and please list what "habits" liberals would like to control. And how they would like to control what we put in our bodies. And let's try not to assume that because many are for gun control they are in favor of banning all guns. That's not the case.

In the video They weren't pro choice on..

Trans Fats
Drinks that are caffeinated/Alcoholic (Four Loko)
Light Bulbs
Anti choice on whether or not to join a union (anti right to work)
*School Choice (they were not exactly clear where they stood on the issue, but favored some school choice)

EDIT: One Woman in the beginning of the video called herself prochoice(woman's right to choose), but at the end was asked again if she was pro choice, she replied by saying she's pro-intervention.

Gun control doesn't eliminate necessarily the choice to own a gun, but it does remove the choice of what firearms can be purchased. Technically speaking.

EDIT: Video Link How 'Pro-Choice' are Democrats?

Originally Posted by Moyank24

If you aren't going to back up your statements you shouldn't be part of this discussion.

This statement wasn't necessary. Since, I have backed up my statements and listed examples a long time ago. Not being able to watch a video isn't an excuse for others to use to say my statements aren't backed up. Just wait until you're out of work to watch the video. But since I listed the examples above that isn't necessary.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by million7

I already did you're not reading, gun owner ship, and what people put in their bodies(drugs, etc.).

EDIT: From post #64
"They're anti choice on what you put into your body, they're anti choice on Gun ownership and they're anti choice on what other people purchase and on others areas." From post #64

BS. Liberals are for the legalization of marijuana, and a whole lot of us are pro 2nd amendment.

Originally Posted by million7

Just watch the video.....

EDIT: It's proof liberals feel it's okay to control other's habits.

Not at all. It only proves that about the people in the video, not all liberals.

Originally Posted by million7

Argue with me, not the GOP. You sprinkle the GOP's positions in your arguments like im supposed to defend everything they do.

Hi kettle, you're black. That's precisely the same thing you're doing to liberals in this thread. I just gave you something that liberals want the government out of, and this is the reply I get?

[Happybunny]

Just reading this thread makes me so very happy that I live in a country which even at our worst point, is far more tolerant than the USA is on a good day.

I truly feel sorry, that so many people are experiencing an attack on their dignity and basic human rights, in a country that pushes the idea of freedom and democracy around the world.