#136273 - 01/25/10 01:16 AM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Kecinzer]
|
Founding Member
Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 3464
Loc: MA, USA
|
...You ever notice once the kid is born they could care less what happens to it?...
Reps love their kids and grandparents less than Dems do - and Libs will rot in hell because they don't pray hard enough.....  If we just searched a bit harder for the true "God" within ourselves – we might find there is a lot less "devil" in others.
_________________________
See?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136274 - 01/25/10 09:22 AM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Jeff E]
|
Veteran Member
Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 1794
Loc: Minnesota
|
1) Abortion. I have known several people in my life that have had abortions. I know of no one that has decided to "use abortion as an easy method of birth control". I have known no one that has not agonized over the decision. I know of no one that has not made the only correct decision for THEMSELVES at the time, but doesn't still look back on it and question themselves. It is not a frivolous action and to live with that AS WELL as people telling them how they "murdered" their baby is just uncalled for. Hopefully we can all agree to write off the extremists in this movement that think killing doctors and blowing up clinics is justified. 2) While I have never taken a penny of government money, I grew up in NYC and certainly saw poverty first hand. I see the cycle, lack of hope and opportunity. I do not think that it is fair for someone really trying to be held down. Everyone has a contribution. With that said, I don't think that someone should be able to sit at home, do nothing but produce more kids, just to keep getting free government money. Any able bodied person on government assistance should be required to work. There are PLENTY of things that people could be doing. I don't even care what it is, so long as society benefits. It could be cleaning highways, working in the shelters, cleaning at the VA, helping out at a retirement home. It could be internships where they can learn hands-on skills that will get them employed. No free ride, but a free guiding hand to getting into the work force. And even though I am not currently supporting the party that has claimed God as their exclusive property, I am confident and assured of my salvation by my Lord and Savior. 
_________________________
Ahh ... some dick DID change my tag line again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136278 - 01/25/10 12:19 PM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Jeff E]
|
Veteran Member
Registered: 10/25/99
Posts: 1920
Loc: Maui, Hawaii
|
How can a liberal be into saving the whales, the environment and the dolphins and yet not care about an unborn child? Statements like this perfectly illustrate the core problem with the whole political debate in this country. Of course "liberals" care about unborn children. What are we, monsters? What we object to, is legislating away a woman's right to choose whether they can legally have termination as an option, specifically in cases of rape or incest. But by criminalizing the entire concept, forcing those unfortunate women who find themselves in the position of having no choice but to carry their attacker's baby to term is, in MY mind, morally unjust. Your objection to my opinion is based on mindless religious dogma, and my objection of your opinion is based on compassion.
_________________________
Audiophile: "A gate IS a compressor, A Fader is a MANUAL compressor." Pure comedy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136279 - 01/25/10 01:03 PM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Mark Kluth]
|
Founding Member
Registered: 04/15/99
Posts: 12161
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
The 10% on the left and the right just can't handle common sense. They both argue their points of view and are totally incapable to tolerate views of others. But that's the problem, on a couple of levels. (I'll come back and comment on Jeff's post later.) First, the Republican party isn't 10%, it's 85% right-wing freaks! The country went through a destructive rebellion with Reagan era, to the point that Obama is perceived as being liberal when he's actually center-right. You'll notice that every politician has to go on about how much he likes the free market, for example, and of course an optional socialized health insurance plan is branded as Cold War Communism - by people like you, Josef, who claim not to be ideological when in fact you're totally so! Everyone thinks they're centrist, but you're not, you're a right-wing freak even if you can live with a Democrat. (In the same way that bisexual men are probably gay men who can sleep with women?) And that's the second problem. We've gone so far to the right that someone like me is accused by you bubbas here of being closed-minded when I refuse to entertain the most blatantly idiotic, dangerous, selfish ideological points of view - the ones that define the political right in this country! Nixon would be considered center-left by today's standards!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136282 - 01/25/10 01:47 PM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Kecinzer]
|
Veteran Member
Registered: 10/25/99
Posts: 1920
Loc: Maui, Hawaii
|
That fact has been firmly established. For you to continuously deny it is disingenuous.
_________________________
Audiophile: "A gate IS a compressor, A Fader is a MANUAL compressor." Pure comedy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136283 - 01/25/10 01:51 PM
Re: OT: Yes, we can!
[Re: Mark Kluth]
|
Founding Member
Registered: 04/15/99
Posts: 12161
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
How can a liberal be into saving the whales, the environment and the dolphins and yet not care about an unborn child? Quick reply: how can a conservative be into saving the life of an unborn child and yet really like the death penalty? Quick answer to reply: because these are moral issues, meaning that reasonable people can disagree. They're very different from liberal/conservative issues, which are ones in which conservatives are unreasonable across the board.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136284 - 01/25/10 02:26 PM
Re: OT: Oh yes, we can!
[Re: Nick Batzdorf]
|
Veteran Member
Registered: 07/22/02
Posts: 1501
Loc: New York
|
Above pretty much all of the unreasonable, baseless and totally myopic crap Nick often spews on this Board, like: "They're very different from liberal/conservative issues, which are ones in which conservatives are unreasonable across the board." Yah, right! THIS, is just the most utterly fuck|ng retarded: Support the Shareholder Protection Act - write your Reps and Sens http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-actIt's Time for a Shareholder Protection Act FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010 Five members of the Supreme Court have defied logic by assuming that corporations are people. They are not. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements. They are owned by their shareholders. So what do we do now, other than wait for another Supreme Court opening, and for the President to appoint another Justice who understands this? Push Congress to enact the “Shareholder Protection Act.” For many years, anti-union lobbyists have pushed what they call “pay-check protection” laws, supposedly designed to protect union members from being forced, through their dues, to support union political activities they oppose. Under such laws — already in effect in several states — no union dues can be spent for any political purpose unless union members agree. The same principle should protect shareholders from being forced to spend their share of corporate earnings in favor of or against a particular candidate. Surely a First Amendment that protects corporate free speech protects individuals no less. Under a shareholder protection law, shareholders would not have to spend their share of corporate earnings on candidates who they personally oppose. If a company dedicates, say, $100,000 to a particular campaign in a given year — directly, or indirectly through a front organization — shareholders who don’t want their money used this way would get a special dividend or additional shares representing their pro rata share of that campaign expenditure. (Mutual funds and pension plans would have to notify their shareholders of any such political activity among the companies they’ve invested on their shareholders’ behalf, and seek their shareholders’ permission.) This way, corporate money for or against a particular candidate would be paid for only by shareholders who wanted to spend their portion of company earnings on it. The Shareholder Protection Act is something even Scott Brown should be able to get behind. As should a Supreme Court supremely sensitive to First Amendment rights. 1) Corporations DO enjoy many of the protections that natural "people" enjoy. It's one of the things that makes having corporations possible. In not understanding that (or in claiming to not understand it) Reich shows what an a-hole he can be. 2) Here's the hot tip on how corporate shareholders can protect their political voice in a particular corporation. I implore you to read this carefully now, as it is complex and requires deep thinking - the likes of which Robert Reich (and our very own Nick Batzdorf) may not even be capable of. You may have to go over it, and pay special attention to the details, in order to grasp the full gamut and subtlety of the plan:
DON'T
INVEST
IN
COMPANIES
WHO'S
POLITICS/POLICIES
YOU
DISAGREE
WITH!There's your "shareholder protection" against being aligned with a corporation who's agenda you don't agree with. Right there. Cripes. What a whiney, misguided moron Robert Reich can be.
_________________________
Obama sucked. I wish I were up there instead of Obama.
~ Nick Batzdorf
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#136292 - 01/25/10 08:02 PM
Re: OT: Oh yes, we can!
[Re: Knife]
|
Founding Member
Registered: 04/15/99
Posts: 12161
Loc: Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
