I just don't like mitt Romney

[Cutlass]

First of all, you are proving that abortion IS an important issue to you, if it were not you would be wishing that the Democrats would just compromise on it and focus on something more important. That's honestly how I feel with a lot of Republican politicians and gay marriage. I'll admit I don't like it, but seriously, our country is NOT going to meet its Apocolypse and collapse if we legalize gay marriage, and if that were going to happen, it would have already happened since some states have legalized gay marriage. Find something more important to rant about

Aside from this, you are making massive, broad assumptions about the pro-life movement. You have yet to explain WHY they are being unethical.

Either you think they are just lying, which requires some proof, or they are simply in error and thus you would have to admit that them being the "Most immoral people in politics" is incorrect.

You aren't really making any sense. Explain why they are lying.

Compromise means that both sides move and find an acceptable common ground. You are not willing to do that. Therefor it is your choice that we do not do that either.

You don't earn the right to ask others to move if you will not.

 

[choxorn]

If we assume an indvidiual is pro-capital punishment and is pro-life that is not contradictory. Just take a brief moment, to ASSUME (i know it's hard) that a feotus is a LIVING HUMAN, ok i'm not trying to brainwash you just believe it's true for this post . Now what has the feotus done to deserve to be aborted? The answer?: Nothing. It hasn't done anything.
Now, with a murderer - he is guilty of a crime. He has taken away somebody elses life - he deserves death for his actions.

Now you see the difference between the feotus and the prisoner? One is guilty of a serious crime, the other is guilty of nothing. I'm happy for someone to disprove me on this.

Well, good work on completely missing the point there. You see, we think that pro-capital punishment and pro-life are contradictory, and we don't think that the guiltiness of the executed criminal has anything to do with it. We just think that, if your entire argument for being pro-life is that life is sacred and should be protected no matter what, then you don't get to selectively decide "Oh wait, some life isn't sacred." It applies to more things than just the death penalty, but why exactly is the life of the criminal you're executing no longer "sacred" enough to be worth protecting?

 

[JollyRoger]

Seems that some are pro-choice in regards to killing those that may or may not have been falsely convicted of a crime.

 

[classical_hero]

The US constitution says that person can be deprived of life, liberty , or the pursuit of happiness, without due process. So one group has gone through due process and has been found guilty, one hasn't gone through due process and shares the same fate, but far more readily than any time tyhe death penalty has bee dished out.

 

[Crezth]

Reality is consensus.

 

[choxorn]

The US constitution says that person can be deprived of life, liberty , or the pursuit of happiness, without due process. So one group has gone through due process and has been found guilty, one hasn't gone through due process and shares the same fate, but far more readily than any time tyhe death penalty has bee dished out.

And I'm still not seeing how that addresses the point of why the life of a bunch of embryonic cells is more sacred than that of an undebately living human, even if said human is a criminal.

 

[MobBoss]

Compromise means that both sides move and find an acceptable common ground. You are not willing to do that. Therefor it is your choice that we do not do that either.

You don't earn the right to ask others to move if you will not.

Interpretation: Democrats wont compromise either.

 

[Leoreth]

Open thread. Missed four pages. Oh, abortion debate! Moving on ...

Interpretation: Democrats wont compromise either.

Sorry, but since the 2011 budget obstructionism, this argument just doesn't work anymore.

 

[Quackers]

Well, good work on completely missing the point there. You see, we think that pro-capital punishment and pro-life are contradictory, and we don't think that the guiltiness of the executed criminal has anything to do with it. We just think that, if your entire argument for being pro-life is that life is sacred and should be protected no matter what, then you don't get to selectively decide "Oh wait, some life isn't sacred."

Where did I miss the point dude? I actually adressed it. All you've done is added the word sacred to pro-life arguments and thinks it makes a difference.Just because you don't consider life is sacred doesn't mean you don't wish to save innocent lives.

It applies to more things than just the death penalty, but why exactly is the life of the criminal you're executing no longer "sacred" enough to be worth protecting?

I reject your use of the word sacred but if i assume your premise is correct then they have commited an act of absolute pure evil and deserve to be soundly punished?

 

[Cutlass]

Interpretation: Democrats wont compromise either.

Democrats have done nothing but compromise. It's time they stopped until Republicans start.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

During the health care debate, the only side compromising at all was the Democrats, and they did it so much, the bill ended up being a bunch of Republican ideas.

I'm not exaggerating. Obamacare is the same plan the Republicans put forth as an alternative to Hillarycare.

Same plan. Same ideas. Re-pub-li-can.

I honestly wish there was a sane Republican out there that would acknowledge the fact that the Democrats have moved so far to the right to compromise with Republicans, that they are the new Republican party, and the Republicans have moved so far to the right that they resemble a Monty Python sketch in terms of sheer nonsense, randomness, and lunacy.

I'd call it idiocy as well, but they've gotten their opponents to adopt their ideas, so they're actually intellectual ninjas. If only their ideas were worth having.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I also love how awful "Obama's" health care plan is now that the Republicans are no longer touting it as their own alternative to universal care.

Republicans are notorious for abandoning their own ideas as horrible plots to destroy America. I bet most of Reagan's ideas are now socialist anti-American plots at this point.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Like this great Reagan idea: raising taxes.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

After dramatically lowering them. But yeah.

It goes along with the common sense notion that sometimes low taxes are good, sometimes spending cuts are good, but sometimes you need to raise taxes to help stop the budget bleeding you caused by lowering taxes that much.

Deficit hawks these Republicans are not, but boy they sure put on an epic whinefest about it when their guy isn't in charge.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, good work on completely missing the point there. You see, we think that pro-capital punishment and pro-life are contradictory, and we don't think that the guiltiness of the executed criminal has anything to do with it. We just think that, if your entire argument for being pro-life is that life is sacred and should be protected no matter what, then you don't get to selectively decide "Oh wait, some life isn't sacred." It applies to more things than just the death penalty, but why exactly is the life of the criminal you're executing no longer "sacred" enough to be worth protecting?

The thing is, I'm not arguing that nobody should be killed, ever. I'm arguing against taking life arbitrarily, as a form of murder. I am OK with abortion being legal, by the same logic, if it involves saving the mother's life.

During the health care debate, the only side compromising at all was the Democrats, and they did it so much, the bill ended up being a bunch of Republican ideas.

I'm not exaggerating. Obamacare is the same plan the Republicans put forth as an alternative to Hillarycare.

Same plan. Same ideas. Re-pub-li-can.

I honestly wish there was a sane Republican out there that would acknowledge the fact that the Democrats have moved so far to the right to compromise with Republicans, that they are the new Republican party, and the Republicans have moved so far to the right that they resemble a Monty Python sketch in terms of sheer nonsense, randomness, and lunacy.

I'd call it idiocy as well, but they've gotten their opponents to adopt their ideas, so they're actually intellectual ninjas. If only their ideas were worth having.

Maybe they're just being smart then?

In all seriousness, I don't like the new Obama law, in spite of the fact that I do acknowledge that it was a GOP idea, simply because I do not believe the government should be involved in world power. I'll give credit where its due on compromise, however, and I will say that I believe Obamacare is better than the *Other* alternative.

After dramatically lowering them. But yeah.

It goes along with the common sense notion that sometimes low taxes are good, sometimes spending cuts are good, but sometimes you need to raise taxes to help stop the budget bleeding you caused by lowering taxes that much.

I don't know exactly what Reagan was trying to do by lowering taxes by like 50% in the highest brackets and then increasing taxes dramatically (Although not nearly as much as they were before he got into office) soon after, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that an economy that has been taxing 70+ percent in the highest brackets CANNOT simply drop into the 20's until spending cuts are made. Otherwise, debt. I support the flat tax, but I agree its completely unattainable until we actually cut spending.

So I'll agree there are some ideas worth discussing here. If you are going to spend a lot of money you've got to raise taxes somewhere to pay for it. Now, I personally more of a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson level type of government (Small) and taxes lowered accordingly, but we've got to make choices.

I don't support the Republicans this year out of principle anyway. I wish I could vote this year so I could vote Democrat or Libertarian in every single race this year. I wouldn't vote for any Republican that isn't one of the Pauls this year simply out of principle that a fascistic party that commits election fraud at their national convention is not worthy of any votes, however conservative I may be (Granted, the Democrats also committed election fraud by adding something into their platform without 2/3rds vote, but I'd honestly consider that less serious than what the Republicans did by completely manipulating the primary process.)

 

[Zack]

I wish I could vote this year so I could vote Democrat

I am quoting this out of context and putting it in my signature.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am quoting this out of context and putting it in my signature.

I'm going to put this in my signature just so nobody falls for it

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If the alternative is nothing, then Republicancare/Obamacare is better than nothing.

Universal health care is affordable by countries with a lot less money than ours, and it is better than nothing and better than Obamacare, because it does ensure that everyone has access to healthcare and it ends up costing the nation the same amount of money, because it reduces waste.

The compromise plan Obama and the Democrats signed off on with essentially zero Republican support, does help fight cost waste, such as half your premium going toward bonuses and advertisement instead of, you know, healthcare.

Universal care would cut such waste down to nothing, because there wouldn't be either bonuses or advertisement, and instead of covering some people, everyone would be covered, and private insurance wouldn't be a necessity. It could be purchased, however, by rich folks who want to have gold-plated care by rich people doctors. The kind of care that poor folks can't get under any plan, whether it be pure capitalist, Obamacare, or universal care anyway.

Sort of like how poor people have social security, and rich people have IRAs and 401ks and stocks and bonds. But the poor people are covered under "universal" social security, aren't they?

Social Security, medicare, medicaid, etc... these are universal systems that are "socialist" that you don't touch because they're immensely popular and necessary. Universal healthcare would be the exact same way, as it is in countries that have it, but American politicians are too conservative or chicken [----] to try it. They know once it goes into effect it would be politically unassailable.

Even Obamacare would be unassailable by anything except universal care in a couple years, once a lot of its programs go into full effect.

The Democrats have the better ideas that will work and have proven to work, but they keep compromising with corrupt jerkwads on the republican side and getting nothing but nonstop foaming at the mouth hatred and truly outrageous lies for their trouble.

Centrism doesn't work when the other side keeps moving to the right.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Truth be told I don't like social security either. It was never, EVER paid for by the taxpayers that received it. It has ALWAYS been a ponzi scheme to take from the labor of the young to give to those who were already retired when it was passed. Nobody has EVER paid for their own social security. It has always been the younger generation paying for an older generation.

I recognize that now that we have it there are generations who HAVE been paying for former generations thinking they were paying for themselves, so I hardly want to deprive them of the money that they knew was coming, but ultimately, gradually, I'd really like to see people save for their own retirement without government interference. I would accept as passable a system where people were mandated to pay into their own, personal retirement accounts if the conclusion that those who aren't smart enough to save for their own retirement don't get to retire is considered unacceptable (Which I do understand.)

The reality is, however, a retirement fund built on the backs of the generation after those who collect, and that the government can "Borrow from" whenever they needed money for their latest NOT PAID FOR platform is untenable in the long run. As a 17 year old, I'm almost certainly going to end up paying into my social security without ever being allowed to collect.

Political question, if the Dems were able to get UHC WITHOUT government support, why didn't they? Why settle for a "Compromise" that won them zero votes?

 

[Traitorfish]

The US constitution says that person can be deprived of life, liberty , or the pursuit of happiness, without due process. So one group has gone through due process and has been found guilty, one hasn't gone through due process and shares the same fate, but far more readily than any time tyhe death penalty has bee dished out.

If you're appealing to the law, then foetuses aren't people and the comparison holds no water.