RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:53 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:13 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381
These human life amendments, so-called, which would have states declare life begins at conception, would mandate the shutdown of every fertility clinic in the state.

That's a little discussed, but rather salient, fact, as all of those fertility clinics do dispose of unused zygotes, which these laws would declare to be human beings.

They also would set back research with embryonic stem cell tissue, as well. (Despite what some claim, still the best source of pluripotent stem cells, but not obtained from abortions, per se.)

As to when life begins, it is obviously at age 40. I kid, I kid. Or do I?


Of course you're way ahead of me perfesser...but I need to add the dramatized scenario which I have posted on this and other forums a number of times...

The pious pro-lifer couple must have their own biological offspring. So they go to the fertility clinic and generate a half dozen embryos. It's all a great success, they have their three children and god's love showers down around the beautiful little family.

One day, the fertility clinic calls and reminds Mr. & Mrs. Christian, that they missed paying the last storage charge for the three frozen gifts from god they don't need anymore. Is destruction (or delivery to a research facility) of the sacred lives authorized? You're goddamn right it is. And on Sunday morning they're down the row from you in church on their knees praying for the scourge of abortion to be ended.

Joe of course has a nice intellectually driven discussion about when life actually begins. Not the fucking point, of course. The point is...the rest of the world is being lectured day after day by "all life is sacred and begins as conception" pro-lifers, who in certain cases are the worst hypcrites of all.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
No, it's not. First, the "moral" people want to control OTHER people's lives, not their own. Pennsylvania Congressman Tim Murphy was a strong anti-abortion advocate, wanting all these "life" amendments. He was married with kids and was sooooo "pro-family". Yet he was forced to resign when his mistress revealed he had tried to get her to have an abortion.

Hypocrisy is rife within the movement, I totally agree. Now, if you're a Catholic, you have to believe that the teachings of the church come directly from God. If the Pope tells you something, he's got it straight from God. Yet you are correct, Catholics go ahead and use contraception themselves.

Yet the Catholic church bans all contraception themselves, and would ban it for every nation in the world if they could. Tell me what that has to do with a baby's life.

Doesn't mean that they don't vote against the very things they ignore themselves. Do you think, if we outlawed abortion, that Tim Murphy wouldn't try to talk his mistress into getting an abortion? He's got the money to take her to Canada or Mexico to get it done, so he's not going to follow those teachings himself. But he DOES want to use the law to force OTHER people how to live their own lives.

That's why they are trying to get these Constitutional Amendments passes proclaiming life begins at conception. If they were to pass, that would mean that a woman getting an abortion or anyone helping her would be murderers. Just think about the implications of charging someone who kills a pregnant woman with two counts of murder.

The right is very good at masking their true intentions with bullshit. They are now talking about this tax cut bill being a tax cut for the middle class, but it's obvious this is all about a tax cut for the very rich.

It's been said, rightly so, that if men had babies, there would be an abortion mill on every corner. Look back to the time before the sixties. There was strict societal control over women. A woman who had sex before marriage was a slut and a whore. If she got pregnant, that was her punishment, and she had to birth and raise that bastard (I am one myself from that era, and I found out later that's what I was called in parts of the family). Contraception was usually illegal, even for married couples. It took the Supreme Court to end that:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, implies a fundamental right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Yes, it's about sexual control of women. Of course, men were never sexually controlled, and most men had illicit sex their entire life, but they weren't looked down upon for it. Only the women. Hell, nearly the entire evangelical community supports Trump but condemned Clinton for a blowjob. Do you think the right would be bothered at all if it was revealed Trump was having sex with secretaries or models or prostitutes in the Oval Office every day, that they would mind?

Hell no.

You are welcome to be anti-abortion. Hell, I am. I have a moral quandary with late-term abortions (when the fetus is a clump of cells, I don't buy your side's bullshit), and I would never encourage a woman to get an abortion. But I've had a friend who was brutally raped and impregnated (the assertion from your side that you can't get pregnant from rape is false), and I took her to get that abortion. I stand for a woman's right to control her own body, and for the government to stay the hell out.


GoU,

I don't need to point out to you that it is 2017 and lots of things have changed since the 60's. To use a term from Obama, points of views have evolved over the years. Hell, all you have to do is watch TV and compare it to what we were allowed to watch in the 60's to get an idea of what we accept nowadays.

Growing up in a Southern Baptist home where we went to church twice on Sunday and on Wednesday night, I can tell you for a fact that nobody was turning a blind eye to sexual activity by males. You can ask any of the boys who came to my house to pick up my sister. I can tell you how it would have been received in my house if I had gotten someone pregnant outside of marriage. They preached abstinence to both males and females. May have been different in Kansas.

As to Tim Murphy, is he a hypocrite? Yep. Probably the only hypocrite in Congress. All the rest of them walk the talk I'm sure. That's why their rating are so high. Rep Murphy will have to answer to his wife and to his constituents for his hypocrisy and he should. But his actions don't mean that every other prolife person has some sinister hidden agenda anymore than Weinstein's misbehavior is a reflection on Jews or Democrats. It's just a reflection on him and those folks who knew about his behavior and choose to do nothing and I'm not talking about victims.

As far as proper behavior by the executive in the workplace, I cannot speak for other people but I can tell you that I don't look highly on anyone having sex at the workplace. As far as I am concerned there isn't much difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in that respect. But you already know that.

But to sum it up for you, in 2017 there isn't that much support among conservatives for banning contraception. Conservative women are not going to go for it. Many of them use contraception; Baptist, Catholics, etc. So when it comes to the voting booth, many Catholics part company with the church and the pope. As a Baptist, the church preached against sex outside of marriage. I can't remember a single sermon against contraception. In addition, the church preached about the traditional family, but I don't recall a single sermon about controlling women. In the modern church, there are many single parents and women have careers just like men. This isn't the 60's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:22 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381
Not anywhere near enough change to keep the cons from sticking their noses into American women's reproductive organs at every opportunity all across the fruited plain. State laws limiting access. State laws limiting health insurance coverage. State laws discriminating against poor women of all colors who find out they have to drive 11 hours to some other state where they can exercise their legal right to control over their own reproductive health, and they may have to endure a vaginal probe even there.

Things have changed? Things are changing? My ass. Not until it's nobody's fucking business but a woman and her doctor's business. No neo-confederate politician's business. No priest or minister's business. No asshole Randall Terry's business, no asshole Joseph Scheidler's business, no abusive husband's fucking business..that's when things will be changing.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:25 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

I don't need to point out to you that it is 2017 and lots of things have changed since the 60's. To use a term from Obama, points of views have evolved over the years. Hell, all you have to do is watch TV and compare it to what we were allowed to watch in the 60's to get an idea of what we accept nowadays.

Things have changed, and folks don't WANT them to change. It's far harder to get an abortion now than it was in the post-Roe era. If you think it's not, you're sadly misinformed. There is a backlash now that wasn't there in the 70's.
Quote:
Growing up in a Southern Baptist home where we went to church twice on Sunday and on Wednesday night, I can tell you for a fact that nobody was turning a blind eye to sexual activity by males. You can ask any of the boys who came to my house to pick up my sister. I can tell you how it would have been received in my house if I had gotten someone pregnant outside of marriage. They preached abstinence to both males and females. May have been different in Kansas.

I grew up in the 70's. Mores had changed a lot then, at least in Kansas. Weren't very many virgins in high school. My first real young love, at fifteen, was put on the pill by her parents, and we were welcome to use her room. And she was a "good girl". Many good memories, she was a sweetheart.

Kids had sex, even in church groups. I was going to church then, a pretty fundamentalist sect - Nazarene - they didn't even want you watching television. But the kids all paired up and fooled around. The preacher's daughter got pregnant - and they hushed it up and sent her to another state and made her get an abortion. That's why I say - they want it outlawed, but they'll have their way to get it done if they need to.

But the fifties were quite different. Boys lost their virginity long before marriage, often with prostitutes and such. Men had mistresses, and it was completely acceptable. Hell, in that church I went to, the preacher was messing with half the gals in the choir. It's interesting what you can learn if you just pay attention.

And, of course that church was at the forefront of the Operation Rescue movement, with that preacher there every day.
Quote:
As to Tim Murphy, is he a hypocrite? Yep. Probably the only hypocrite in Congress. All the rest of them walk the talk I'm sure. That's why their rating are so high. Rep Murphy will have to answer to his wife and to his constituents for his hypocrisy and he should. But his actions don't mean that every other prolife person has some sinister hidden agenda anymore than Weinstein's misbehavior is a reflection on Jews or Democrats. It's just a reflection on him and those folks who knew about his behavior and choose to do nothing and I'm not talking about victims.

It's interesting about the right. If you've got a preacher or a Congressman that is virulently anti-gay, they always seem to be the ones that turn out to be hiring gay prostitutes on the side.
Quote:
As far as proper behavior by the executive in the workplace, I cannot speak for other people but I can tell you that I don't look highly on anyone having sex at the workplace. As far as I am concerned there isn't much difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in that respect. But you already know that.

There is quite a bit of difference. Kinda like there's a difference between getting a parking ticket and robbing a bank. Trump is a completely new level of bad. There's never been a President so morally and ethically corrupt.

Or is everything black and white for you? No shades of grey? Yes or no?
Quote:
But to sum it up for you, in 2017 there isn't that much support among conservatives for banning contraception. Conservative women are not going to go for it. Many of them use contraception; Baptist, Catholics, etc. So when it comes to the voting booth, many Catholics part company with the church and the pope. As a Baptist, the church preached against sex outside of marriage. I can't remember a single sermon against contraception. In addition, the church preached about the traditional family, but I don't recall a single sermon about controlling women. In the modern church, there are many single parents and women have careers just like men. This isn't the 60's.

You've never heard a sermon against the pill? I sure have. And I take it you haven't heard about Hobby Lobby's fight to not provide contraceptives to women in their insurance? I bet you'd hear sermons on it today!

And the Trump Administration just granted Hobby Lobby their wish, and any other company that wants to refuse contraception to their employees through health care. Oh, BTW, Hobby Lobby WILL provide viagra and vasectomies to men. So, men can have a contraceptive, but women can't.

And I'm sure you don't see that as control of women.

Oh, they won't come out and say "controlling women" but they'll sure run down women who aren't stay-at-home wives and mothers, and denigrate career women. Hell, even women on Fox News are denigrated by their male co-hosts. It's only accepted to a degree, and you can find lots of writings against it.

The right, as usual, hides their true plans. But several right-to-life groups do want to ban contraception, too. Haven't you heard them call the pill an "abortifacient"? Here's an article making that argument.

And let's be clear, Joe. Even most Catholics don't want abortion to be illegal, even if they have moral issues. But the church, and the Republican Party, DO want abortion to be illegal, and even though the vast majority of Americans are against that, they don't care. They will make it into law if they can.

They don't tell you the actual consequences if they can get a "personhood amendment" passed. They don't tell you that it would make having an abortion murder, and that the mother would go to prison on murder one. They don't tell you that if you were tested pregnant, and then had a miscarriage, you would be subject to arrest and prosecution for suspected murder.

But that's the world those in charge of the church and your party wants. It really does't matter to them what YOU or anyone else wants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Things have changed, and folks don't WANT them to change. It's far harder to get an abortion now than it was in the post-Roe era. If you think it's not, you're sadly misinformed. There is a backlash now that wasn't there in the 70's.

I grew up in the 70's. Mores had changed a lot then, at least in Kansas. Weren't very many virgins in high school. My first real young love, at fifteen, was put on the pill by her parents, and we were welcome to use her room. And she was a "good girl". Many good memories, she was a sweetheart.

Kids had sex, even in church groups. I was going to church then, a pretty fundamentalist sect - Nazarene - they didn't even want you watching television. But the kids all paired up and fooled around. The preacher's daughter got pregnant - and they hushed it up and sent her to another state and made her get an abortion. That's why I say - they want it outlawed, but they'll have their way to get it done if they need to.

But the fifties were quite different. Boys lost their virginity long before marriage, often with prostitutes and such. Men had mistresses, and it was completely acceptable. Hell, in that church I went to, the preacher was messing with half the gals in the choir. It's interesting what you can learn if you just pay attention.

And, of course that church was at the forefront of the Operation Rescue movement, with that preacher there every day.

It's interesting about the right. If you've got a preacher or a Congressman that is virulently anti-gay, they always seem to be the ones that turn out to be hiring gay prostitutes on the side.

There is quite a bit of difference. Kinda like there's a difference between getting a parking ticket and robbing a bank. Trump is a completely new level of bad. There's never been a President so morally and ethically corrupt.

Or is everything black and white for you? No shades of grey? Yes or no?

You've never heard a sermon against the pill? I sure have. And I take it you haven't heard about Hobby Lobby's fight to not provide contraceptives to women in their insurance? I bet you'd hear sermons on it today!

And the Trump Administration just granted Hobby Lobby their wish, and any other company that wants to refuse contraception to their employees through health care. Oh, BTW, Hobby Lobby WILL provide viagra and vasectomies to men. So, men can have a contraceptive, but women can't.

And I'm sure you don't see that as control of women.

Oh, they won't come out and say "controlling women" but they'll sure run down women who aren't stay-at-home wives and mothers, and denigrate career women. Hell, even women on Fox News are denigrated by their male co-hosts. It's only accepted to a degree, and you can find lots of writings against it.

The right, as usual, hides their true plans. But several right-to-life groups do want to ban contraception, too. Haven't you heard them call the pill an "abortifacient"? Here's an article making that argument.

And let's be clear, Joe. Even most Catholics don't want abortion to be illegal, even if they have moral issues. But the church, and the Republican Party, DO want abortion to be illegal, and even though the vast majority of Americans are against that, they don't care. They will make it into law if they can.

They don't tell you the actual consequences if they can get a "personhood amendment" passed. They don't tell you that it would make having an abortion murder, and that the mother would go to prison on murder one. They don't tell you that if you were tested pregnant, and then had a miscarriage, you would be subject to arrest and prosecution for suspected murder.

But that's the world those in charge of the church and your party wants. It really does't matter to them what YOU or anyone else wants.


GoU,

I think we can agree that regardless of politics that sexual misconduct and sexual harassment is wrong. I doubt seriously that women who were victimized by Clinton feel as if it's just like a parking ticket offense. What amazes me is that you so easily dismiss his misconduct and yet you demonize others. You also dismiss his accusers as baseless. Bill had a reputation for this type of behavior that goes back decades and people like you just gave him a pass. Boys will be boys. Those girls were asking for it. They are just puppets of the Republican party. They are just publicity hounds. All of them. Just like the people you just criticized for passing on male misconduct and condemning the women, the same thing happened with Bill. He said all the right things to the right people in public and that is all some people care about or needed. They really didn't care about the victims as long as he told the story right. The behavior was the same. He is no different than any other predator.

Hobby Lobby I believe was willing to offer 15 out of 18 contraceptive methods. The exceptions were three abortifacients. So to say they didn't want to pay for any is not exactly true. They objected to three on religious grounds. You may not agree on the grounds but to say it is all about controlling women is disingenuous.

Finally, the right covers everybody right of center. Not everybody right of center shares the same positions just like all you folks left of center don't think and act alike. There isn't enough support for banning birth control to garner the majority from "the right" as you like to call them. Some extreme right folks may want it but the majority of people don't support such a ban. As far as a personhood amendment, as you know amending the constitution is extremely difficult. The likelihood a personhood amendment gets passed is slim to none. You can waste time worrying about it if you want but it isn't going to happen.

As far as denigrating career women, I honestly don't hear any of that from church. Didn't growing up and haven't heard it since. The church understands that these days it often takes two incomes to make ends meet. Most of what I hear from the church today is to be sure you make time for your kids. Being a good dad and a good mom. I don't find anything denigrating in that. Working women and career women have been a fact of life since I was a kid. They were in the church then and they are in the church today. At least where I grew up. Certain fundamental churches are more traditional in their beliefs but they are far from the majority of church going folks and lots of "the right" aren't regular church goers. So you can't paint all of them with your narrow point of view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:06 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

I think we can agree that regardless of politics that sexual misconduct and sexual harassment is wrong. I doubt seriously that women who were victimized by Clinton feel as if it's just like a parking ticket offense. What amazes me is that you so easily dismiss his misconduct and yet you demonize others. You also dismiss his accusers as baseless. Bill had a reputation for this type of behavior that goes back decades and people like you just gave him a pass. Boys will be boys. Those girls were asking for it. They are just puppets of the Republican party. They are just publicity hounds. All of them. Just like the people you just criticized for passing on male misconduct and condemning the women, the same thing happened with Bill. He said all the right things to the right people in public and that is all some people care about or needed. They really didn't care about the victims as long as he told the story right. The behavior was the same. He is no different than any other predator.

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said, nor insinuated, what you just claimed I said.

And Trump is far worse. Yes, there is degrees of bad, and we have TAPE of the things Trump has said and done, as opposed to accusations against Clinton. And as much as you want to believe that Bill Clinton is a monster as is his wife, they sure raised a great child. As opposed to Trump, who proudly says he didn't have anything to do with his kids, raising them was his wive's job.

And Bill Clinton never openly and publicly lusted after HIS daughter.

So, go ahead, lie about what I say, and try to say they're the same.
Quote:
Hobby Lobby I believe was willing to offer 15 out of 18 contraceptive methods. The exceptions were three abortifacients. So to say they didn't want to pay for any is not exactly true. They objected to three on religious grounds. You may not agree on the grounds but to say it is all about controlling women is disingenuous.

I think you are incorrect. Please tell me what 18 contraceptive methods the insurance covered.
Quote:
Finally, the right covers everybody right of center. Not everybody right of center shares the same positions just like all you folks left of center don't think and act alike. There isn't enough support for banning birth control to garner the majority from "the right" as you like to call them. Some extreme right folks may want it but the majority of people don't support such a ban. As far as a personhood amendment, as you know amending the constitution is extremely difficult. The likelihood a personhood amendment gets passed is slim to none. You can waste time worrying about it if you want but it isn't going to happen.

First, the Republicans vote almost entirely as a group. So don't pull that "not everybody" bullshit. Unless, of course, you contend the Republican Party has an agenda that isn't supported by their voters. If they put enough ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices in, there won't need to be a law passed. It'll be over.

Am I wrong? 5 Sam Alitos - or, one or two more Judges - and they can outlaw abortion AND contraception in one judgement.

And they've been working to pass it in state Constitutions. Although it hasn't happened yet, are you saying it's slim to none? Because the states where it did go down, the votes were close.

But go ahead, belittle their efforts by saying it can't happen. But then, Trump couldn't become President either, could he?
Quote:
As far as denigrating career women, I honestly don't hear any of that from church. Didn't growing up and haven't heard it since. The church understands that these days it often takes two incomes to make ends meet. Most of what I hear from the church today is to be sure you make time for your kids. Being a good dad and a good mom. I don't find anything denigrating in that. Working women and career women have been a fact of life since I was a kid. They were in the church then and they are in the church today. At least where I grew up. Certain fundamental churches are more traditional in their beliefs but they are far from the majority of church going folks and lots of "the right" aren't regular church goers. So you can't paint all of them with your narrow point of view.

And is your church loudly championing Donald Trump?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said, nor insinuated, what you just claimed I said.

And Trump is far worse. Yes, there is degrees of bad, and we have TAPE of the things Trump has said and done, as opposed to accusations against Clinton. And as much as you want to believe that Bill Clinton is a monster as is his wife, they sure raised a great child. As opposed to Trump, who proudly says he didn't have anything to do with his kids, raising them was his wive's job.

And Bill Clinton never openly and publicly lusted after HIS daughter.

So, go ahead, lie about what I say, and try to say they're the same.

I think you are incorrect. Please tell me what 18 contraceptive methods the insurance covered.

First, the Republicans vote almost entirely as a group. So don't pull that "not everybody" bullshit. Unless, of course, you contend the Republican Party has an agenda that isn't supported by their voters. If they put enough ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices in, there won't need to be a law passed. It'll be over.

Am I wrong? 5 Sam Alitos - or, one or two more Judges - and they can outlaw abortion AND contraception in one judgement.

And they've been working to pass it in state Constitutions. Although it hasn't happened yet, are you saying it's slim to none? Because the states where it did go down, the votes were close.

But go ahead, belittle their efforts by saying it can't happen. But then, Trump couldn't become President either, could he?

And is your church loudly championing Donald Trump?


GoU,

Your parking ticket analogy speaks for itself. Also you are on record saying that all of Clinton's accusations and accusers have been refuted. If I misstated or mischaracterized your statements in this thread or in previous threads let me know what I said that is wrong and I will retract it. But the attitude taken towards Clinton's conduct and Trump's conduct are vastly different yet both men were accused of forcing themselves on women. So if I misstated your view. I apologize. But there isn't a nickels worth of difference between these men and their attitude towards women. It's the same conduct. Being a good Dad doesn't mean you get a pass. Bill Cosby was a good dad.

As to the Hobby Lobby case, the objection was to 4 method. Here is a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v ... tores,_Inc.

As to outlawing abortion. Overturning Roe (assuming that is possible) does not outlaw abortion. It returns it to the states. Some states will outlaw it I am sure. Others won't. To be honest, I am skeptical Roe will be overturned but will admit that it is a possibility. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say. it's been the law of the land for several decades. Most of the states that would outlaw abortion already heavily restrict the procedure. The states that have more liberal laws will not see much change. Personally I don't favor repeal of Roe. I am more prolife than I am prochoice but I am not one of those who believe human life begins at conception. Life does begin at conception but the human factor happens in my belief somewhere between conception and birth. I think there are a lot of people who struggle making the determination. Who knows for sure? We have certain things we look to when deciding when human life ends (brain activity, etc) but deciding when it begins is more elusive.

As to whether my church loudly champions the Donald. No. There are plenty of conservatives that wish he would shut up, stop tweeting, and work on doing his job instead of blowing his own horn. None of them I know of are holding him out as something to emulate in life. There are liberals in the church too. Conservatives/Republicans don't corner the market on religion. There are liberals who are religious as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550

GoU,

Your parking ticket analogy speaks for itself. Also you are on record saying that all of Clinton's accusations and accusers have been refuted. If I misstated or mischaracterized your statements in this thread or in previous threads let me know what I said that is wrong and I will retract it. But the attitude taken towards Clinton's conduct and Trump's conduct are vastly different yet both men were accused of forcing themselves on women. So if I misstated your view. I apologize. But there isn't a nickels worth of difference between these men and their attitude towards women. It's the same conduct. Being a good Dad doesn't mean you get a pass. Bill Cosby was a good dad.

As to the Hobby Lobby case, the objection was to 4 method. Here is a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v ... tores,_Inc.

As to outlawing abortion. Overturning Roe (assuming that is possible) does not outlaw abortion. It returns it to the states. Some states will outlaw it I am sure. Others won't. To be honest, I am skeptical Roe will be overturned but will admit that it is a possibility. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say. it's been the law of the land for several decades. Most of the states that would outlaw abortion already heavily restrict the procedure. The states that have more liberal laws will not see much change. Personally I don't favor repeal of Roe. I am more prolife than I am prochoice but I am not one of those who believe human life begins at conception. Life does begin at conception but the human factor happens in my belief somewhere between conception and birth. I think there are a lot of people who struggle making the determination. Who knows for sure? We have certain things we look to when deciding when human life ends (brain activity, etc) but deciding when it begins is more elusive.

As to whether my church loudly champions the Donald. No. There are plenty of conservatives that wish he would shut up, stop tweeting, and work on doing his job instead of blowing his own horn. None of them I know of are holding him out as something to emulate in life. There are liberals in the church too. Conservatives/Republicans don't corner the market on religion. There are liberals who are religious as well.


81% of white Evangelicals voted in this snorting fascist hog, because they agree with him.

They still support their p-grabbing president, because they agree with it.

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:13 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439

81% of white Evangelicals voted in this snorting fascist hog, because they agree with him.

They still support their p-grabbing president, because they agree with it.

You nailed it Carmen. All those evangelicals support pussy grabbing. It's in the book of Carmen in the new testament. Hillary didn't go after their vote. Hillary didn't care about their vote and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Hillary didn't get their vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:37 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
You nailed it Carmen.


Did I?

Quote:
All those evangelicals support pussy grabbing.


Get the quote right, pls.

The stat is 81% white Evangelicals. And yes, 81% of you voted for p-grabbing, in droves, why wouldn't you?

So much for that personal responsibility you all love to preach at Planet Earth. :? :problem:

Quote:
It's in the book of Carmen in the new testament.


Ridiculous comment

Quote:
Hillary didn't go after their vote. Hillary didn't care about their vote and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Hillary didn't get their vote.


SBC conservative whites, Catholic conservative whites, Church of Christ, Mormon/LDS, Missouri Synod, and a ton more seething, livid, conservative white revanchists can't even stand the thought of a woman pastor, let alone a woman president.

The Pentecostal, Charismatic, neo-Charismatic white Evangelical too-much-botox whackodoodles aren't any better; their women pastors are running around saying donaldtrump has been authenitcally raised up by God. :roll:

Why should HRC want their vote let alone try to get their vote, when those voters clearly prefer p-grabbing filthy racist males?

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:51 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32650

GoU,

Your parking ticket analogy speaks for itself. Also you are on record saying that all of Clinton's accusations and accusers have been refuted. If I misstated or mischaracterized your statements in this thread or in previous threads let me know what I said that is wrong and I will retract it.

No, I am not on record saying that. I don't know whether the accusers are telling the truth or not. My problem with their stories is they were brought forward and paid to say what they said by a consortium of right-wing operatives like Ann Coulter. I KNOW that Clinton had extra-marital affairs. That pales next to what Trump ADMITS to doing.

Did Bill Clinton buy a beauty pageant so he could go into the dressing rooms and see naked girls as young as 14 years old?

Quote:
But the attitude taken towards Clinton's conduct and Trump's conduct are vastly different yet both men were accused of forcing themselves on women. So if I misstated your view. I apologize. But there isn't a nickels worth of difference between these men and their attitude towards women. It's the same conduct. Being a good Dad doesn't mean you get a pass. Bill Cosby was a good dad.

Donald Trump is a bad dad. Donald Trump is a corrupt businessman that ripped people off who were trying to get an education. Donald Trump colluded with the Russians. I can go on and on. There is a lot of difference.

And I WILL charge you with hypocrisy here. You brag that you're fact-based. You brag that you only take the facts and you don't extrapolate beyond them.

Except for when it comes to the Clintons, obviously.
Quote:
As to the Hobby Lobby case, the objection was to 4 method. Here is a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v ... tores,_Inc.

Please list the 14 other methods of contraception for women that Hobby Lobby would pay for.
Quote:
As to outlawing abortion. Overturning Roe (assuming that is possible) does not outlaw abortion. It returns it to the states. Some states will outlaw it I am sure. Others won't. To be honest, I am skeptical Roe will be overturned but will admit that it is a possibility. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say. it's been the law of the land for several decades.

Do you know how the Supreme Court works? You are incorrect. They can do whatever they want. If they bring a "personhood" case up, they can not only overturn Roe (and why in the WORLD would you question if it's possible? Hell yes it's possible), but they can then rule that life begins at conception, and taking that life is murder across the nation. They could even outlaw all contraception, by Judicial fiat.

And there's nothing ANYONE can do. They can also outlaw labor unions. At the beginning of the last century, they knocked down law after law on minimum wage and child labor, as quick as states would pass them. With a five to four vote, their power is unlimited.

That is completely cut and dried. Look into it, you'll find that I'm telling the complete truth.
Quote:
Most of the states that would outlaw abortion already heavily restrict the procedure. The states that have more liberal laws will not see much change. Personally I don't favor repeal of Roe. I am more prolife than I am prochoice but I am not one of those who believe human life begins at conception. Life does begin at conception but the human factor happens in my belief somewhere between conception and birth. I think there are a lot of people who struggle making the determination. Who knows for sure? We have certain things we look to when deciding when human life ends (brain activity, etc) but deciding when it begins is more elusive.

That is why I don't believe the government should be involved. I have my views, but I won't impose them on a woman. Yet you support those who will.
Quote:
As to whether my church loudly champions the Donald. No. There are plenty of conservatives that wish he would shut up, stop tweeting, and work on doing his job instead of blowing his own horn. None of them I know of are holding him out as something to emulate in life. There are liberals in the church too. Conservatives/Republicans don't corner the market on religion. There are liberals who are religious as well.

The vast majority of right-wing evangelical churches are supporting Trump. I sure haven't seen any ministers come out against him. Pat Robertson worships the ground he walks on.

Hell, you can count on one hand the Republican lawmakers who have spoken out against him. Yeah, Corker has, but only after he decided to retire. He WANTED a job in the Trump administration, and if he'd have gotten it, he would be acting completely different.

He will be a cloud over your party for decades, because your party has embraced and is enabling Trump. You won't be able to call him an anomaly, especially if the investigation shows that Trump colluded with the Russians, because lots of Republicans are involved in the coverup. Nixon's sins were within his administration, and not shared by the Republicans in Congress and the Senate. Corrupt Republicans like Robert Bork (who was quite happy in firing Archibald Cox - after two others resigned instead - in exchange for a promise of a Supreme Court seat - FACT!!!) were few. And the Republicans told Nixon to resign, that he would be impeached.

But the Republican party is involved and enabling this President. You say you don't like him - and I do believe you - but you sure fall short when you plan to vote for those Republicans who are hand-in-hand with his corruption.

But hey, he's no worse than Bill Clinton, eh? Bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:26 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381

Did I?



Get the quote right, pls.

The stat is 81% white Evangelicals. And yes, 81% of you voted for p-grabbing, in droves, why wouldn't you?

So much for that personal responsibility you all love to preach at Planet Earth. :? :problem:



Ridiculous comment



SBC conservative whites, Catholic conservative whites, Church of Christ, Mormon/LDS, Missouri Synod, and a ton more seething, livid, conservative white revanchists can't even stand the thought of a woman pastor, let alone a woman president.

The Pentecostal, Charismatic, neo-Charismatic white Evangelical too-much-botox whackodoodles aren't any better; their women pastors are running around saying donaldtrump has been authenitcally raised up by God. :roll:

Why should HRC want their vote let alone try to get their vote, when those voters clearly prefer p-grabbing filthy racist males?


Y'know he tries so hard to present himself as everybody's loyal opposition buddy, out for a beer on Friday after work. And then this shit comes creeping out sideways and it's the cold water of what he's really all about...right in the face once again. When it comes down to it...good people aren't cons. If they're not blatantly stomping on your throat, they're dismissive, excuse making, double and triple-talking neo-confederates. And this one will continue to lie his ass off about the actual nature of government involvement in Medicare. I suggest if Joe doesn't want to be a total hypocrite, when he becomes elegible for Medicare he just tells the opportunistic government who just wants to control him...to stuff their Medicare.

Nobody's forcing Joe, or any other con to take Medicare. Don't want to be manipulated by a predatory government, Joe? Just tell 'em no...and pay your family's insurance premiums out of pocket.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Last edited by Ike Bana on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439

Did I?



Get the quote right, pls.

The stat is 81% white Evangelicals. And yes, 81% of you voted for p-grabbing, in droves, why wouldn't you?

So much for that personal responsibility you all love to preach at Planet Earth. :? :problem:



Ridiculous comment



SBC conservative whites, Catholic conservative whites, Church of Christ, Mormon/LDS, Missouri Synod, and a ton more seething, livid, conservative white revanchists can't even stand the thought of a woman pastor, let alone a woman president.

The Pentecostal, Charismatic, neo-Charismatic white Evangelical too-much-botox whackodoodles aren't any better; their women pastors are running around saying donaldtrump has been authenitcally raised up by God. :roll:

Why should HRC want their vote let alone try to get their vote, when those voters clearly prefer p-grabbing filthy racist males?


Pretty much everything you post is ridiculous.

First. I am not an evangelical nor am I quite sure just who is included in that demographic. There are lots of folks who go to church that aren’t all that religious. But your statement about why these folks voted for Trump isn’t because they support or condone his conduct towards women. Why would you expect anyone to vote for a party that holds them in such high regard as you? Your attitude towards these people is so tolerant and welcoming. Trump got there vote because he made some effort to get it. He talked to them about their concerns. Hillary didn’t try for their vote. Why? It’s an election. It’s typical to ask people for their support if you want or expect it. You probably won’t get it by denigrating the people you want to vote for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439
No, I am not on record saying that. I don't know whether the accusers are telling the truth or not. My problem with their stories is they were brought forward and paid to say what they said by a consortium of right-wing operatives like Ann Coulter. I KNOW that Clinton had extra-marital affairs. That pales next to what Trump ADMITS to doing.

Did Bill Clinton buy a beauty pageant so he could go into the dressing rooms and see naked girls as young as 14 years old?


Donald Trump is a bad dad. Donald Trump is a corrupt businessman that ripped people off who were trying to get an education. Donald Trump colluded with the Russians. I can go on and on. There is a lot of difference.

And I WILL charge you with hypocrisy here. You brag that you're fact-based. You brag that you only take the facts and you don't extrapolate beyond them.

Except for when it comes to the Clintons, obviously.

Please list the 14 other methods of contraception for women that Hobby Lobby would pay for.

Do you know how the Supreme Court works? You are incorrect. They can do whatever they want. If they bring a "personhood" case up, they can not only overturn Roe (and why in the WORLD would you question if it's possible? Hell yes it's possible), but they can then rule that life begins at conception, and taking that life is murder across the nation. They could even outlaw all contraception, by Judicial fiat.

And there's nothing ANYONE can do. They can also outlaw labor unions. At the beginning of the last century, they knocked down law after law on minimum wage and child labor, as quick as states would pass them. With a five to four vote, their power is unlimited.

That is completely cut and dried. Look into it, you'll find that I'm telling the complete truth.

That is why I don't believe the government should be involved. I have my views, but I won't impose them on a woman. Yet you support those who will.

The vast majority of right-wing evangelical churches are supporting Trump. I sure haven't seen any ministers come out against him. Pat Robertson worships the ground he walks on.

Hell, you can count on one hand the Republican lawmakers who have spoken out against him. Yeah, Corker has, but only after he decided to retire. He WANTED a job in the Trump administration, and if he'd have gotten it, he would be acting completely different.

He will be a cloud over your party for decades, because your party has embraced and is enabling Trump. You won't be able to call him an anomaly, especially if the investigation shows that Trump colluded with the Russians, because lots of Republicans are involved in the coverup. Nixon's sins were within his administration, and not shared by the Republicans in Congress and the Senate. Corrupt Republicans like Robert Bork (who was quite happy in firing Archibald Cox - after two others resigned instead - in exchange for a promise of a Supreme Court seat - FACT!!!) were few. And the Republicans told Nixon to resign, that he would be impeached.

But the Republican party is involved and enabling this President. You say you don't like him - and I do believe you - but you sure fall short when you plan to vote for those Republicans who are hand-in-hand with his corruption.

But hey, he's no worse than Bill Clinton, eh? Bullshit.


GoU

My opinion of the Clintons is just that. An opinion. It is the thing that most people base their vote on. We aren’t in court. I’m not calling for anyone to go to jail. You will notice that I call for investigations to uncover facts. I don’t make the assertion that my opinions are anything but opinions. I have been familiar with the Clintons since their days in Arkansas. People form opinions about public figures over time and I am no different. So it isn’t about what was said about her during any of her election attempts. People down here knew her and Bill for years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 6944

Pretty much everything you post is ridiculous.

First. I am not an evangelical nor am I quite sure just who is included in that demographic. There are lots of folks who go to church that aren’t all that religious. But your statement about why these folks voted for Trump isn’t because they support or condone his conduct towards women. Why would you expect anyone to vote for a party that holds them in such high regard as you? Your attitude towards these people is so tolerant and welcoming. Trump got there vote because he made some effort to get it. He talked to them about their concerns. Hillary didn’t try for their vote. Why? It’s an election. It’s typical to ask people for their support if you want or expect it. You probably won’t get it by denigrating the people you want to vote for you.



People who support Trump that claim to be Christian aren't Christians, though. Their leaders aren't anyway. That's a fact. You can dress it up anyway you want, but Trump is everything Christianity isn't supposed to be. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Anyone being led by this fake faction of Christ is being utterly scammed.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:35 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 13381


People who support Trump that claim to be Christian aren't Christians, though.


Here's how I see the situation in this country Drak. The problem isn't Trump supporters. There will always be 20-30% of Americans who are bigot scum and will support a race baiters like Trump. My problem is with people like glen and Joe. They're the ones who will look the other way even though they know what Trump is all about. They'll spew the typical conservative bullshit that allows them to voice their displeasure with inhumane scum like Trump, but maintain utter fucking idiotic positions like, "There's no difference between Trump and Clinton." These are the people who are the real danger to this country. To be honest they're like the Germans who effectively allowed Hitler to assume control of Germany and then looked the other way when the disgusting truth abiut the "final solution" was staring them right in the fucking face. Why? Why would otherwise sensible and intelligent people do this? Maybe they believe there's something in it for them that they won't get with a Clinton or a Sanders. But really, I don't know why...nor do I give a shit why. It's not worth the fucking time or energy trying to figure them out.

_________________
Image
"Assholes get elected
'Cause assholes get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:03 pm
Posts: 273

81% of white Evangelicals voted in this snorting fascist hog, because they agree with him.

They still support their p-grabbing president, because they agree with it.



I would have to disagree with you that the evangelicals voted for President Trump. I would say most of them voted aganist the other major contender for president.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 5439


People who support Trump that claim to be Christian aren't Christians, though. Their leaders aren't anyway. That's a fact. You can dress it up anyway you want, but Trump is everything Christianity isn't supposed to be. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Anyone being led by this fake faction of Christ is being utterly scammed.


That's also a ridiculous statement. This isn't an election for a pastor, a priest or a rabbi. People on this board have proclaimed time and again that they would never vote for Republicans. They have their reasons. Some I understand. Some I don't. Then they are dumbfounded that people on the other side of their ideology aren't inclined to vote for Democrats. I have voted for Democrats in the past. Not often. Mostly in state and local elections and I once voted for Gore for Senate. That being said, when you vote for President you are voting for more than an individual, you are voting also for the party and it's agenda. So folks who voted for Trump were primarily voting against the establishment and against Hillary and for someone promising change. I don't think that many folks were voting for him because he was a stellar human being and a prince of a man. Clearly he isn't any of those things. They believed he could shake things up and break the logjam that is the Federal Government and Washington DC. Hillary had little to no appeal to these folks ideologically on top of the fact that she had here own set of questions about her character. Bottomline, this country is so divided and polarized I don't know that any one person could break the logjam.

As far as the Republicans are concerned. They nominated a scumbag and he managed to get himself elected. I said when he entered the race that he would do damage to the party and they will pay the price next election. How big a price remains to be seen. His poll ratings remain pretty low and he seems incapable or unwilling to change his management style. The shine is off the penny for many of the folks who voted for him. They will be looking for alternatives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550


I would have to disagree with you that the evangelicals voted for President Trump. I would say most of them voted aganist the other major contender for president.


Well no, you deliberately mashed the button for the p-grabber.

You did not sit out the vote.

You did not vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Voting for "I don't want her" was not on the ballot, and you didn't write it in.

You actively pulled the lever for one of the most carnal, vulgar, crass, philandering, known frauds in the public eye. Congratulations, now you get to take personal responsibility for your sent-by-god choice. :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2119
Location: Oregon

That's also a ridiculous statement. This isn't an election for a pastor, a priest or a rabbi. People on this board have proclaimed time and again that they would never vote for Republicans. They have their reasons. Some I understand. Some I don't. Then they are dumbfounded that people on the other side of their ideology aren't inclined to vote for Democrats. I have voted for Democrats in the past. Not often. Mostly in state and local elections and I once voted for Gore for Senate. That being said, when you vote for President you are voting for more than an individual, you are voting also for the party and it's agenda. So folks who voted for Trump were primarily voting against the establishment and against Hillary and for someone promising change. I don't think that many folks were voting for him because he was a stellar human being and a prince of a man. Clearly he isn't any of those things. They believed he could shake things up and break the logjam that is the Federal Government and Washington DC. Hillary had little to no appeal to these folks ideologically on top of the fact that she had here own set of questions about her character. Bottomline, this country is so divided and polarized I don't know that any one person could break the logjam.

As far as the Republicans are concerned. They nominated a scumbag and he managed to get himself elected. I said when he entered the race that he would do damage to the party and they will pay the price next election. How big a price remains to be seen. His poll ratings remain pretty low and he seems incapable or unwilling to change his management style. The shine is off the penny for many of the folks who voted for him. They will be looking for alternatives.


Nice jibberish-filled diversion from what Drak actually said. :)

_________________
"There are but two parties now: Republicans . . . and Americans." -Keith Olbermann


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
Why would you expect anyone to vote for a party that holds them in such high regard as you?


:lol: what are you even talking about? I don't expect white Evangelical conservative bigots to ever vote Democratic and I don't want them smelling up the Democratic party with their antigay, immigrant-hating, racebaiting, wifebeating filth.

Let them stay where they belong, in the party of confederates. And since the first days of courting South Carolina white bigots, it's the Confederate flagwavers of the Republican/now neo-fascist party. I'm good with that.

donald trump got 81% of the Evangelical white vote because he pandered to their legendary racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, nativism, and violent xenophobia.

Oh yes and they think he's going to smack around us queers for them.

Shows you just how holy these holier-than-thous really are.

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550


People who support Trump that claim to be Christian aren't Christians, though. Their leaders aren't anyway. That's a fact. You can dress it up anyway you want, but Trump is everything Christianity isn't supposed to be. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Anyone being led by this fake faction of Christ is being utterly scammed.


Oh, they're definitely Christians...the lying, conniving, cheating, backbiting, self-loathing, cutthroat, hypocrite, money-grubbing, white-racist slavedriving kind.

Something about the United States breeds them like feckless rabbits, generation after generation after generation. :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 6944

That's also a ridiculous statement. This isn't an election for a pastor, a priest or a rabbi. People on this board have proclaimed time and again that they would never vote for Republicans. They have their reasons. Some I understand. Some I don't. Then they are dumbfounded that people on the other side of their ideology aren't inclined to vote for Democrats. I have voted for Democrats in the past. Not often. Mostly in state and local elections and I once voted for Gore for Senate. That being said, when you vote for President you are voting for more than an individual, you are voting also for the party and it's agenda. So folks who voted for Trump were primarily voting against the establishment and against Hillary and for someone promising change. I don't think that many folks were voting for him because he was a stellar human being and a prince of a man. Clearly he isn't any of those things. They believed he could shake things up and break the logjam that is the Federal Government and Washington DC. Hillary had little to no appeal to these folks ideologically on top of the fact that she had here own set of questions about her character. Bottomline, this country is so divided and polarized I don't know that any one person could break the logjam.

As far as the Republicans are concerned. They nominated a scumbag and he managed to get himself elected. I said when he entered the race that he would do damage to the party and they will pay the price next election. How big a price remains to be seen. His poll ratings remain pretty low and he seems incapable or unwilling to change his management style. The shine is off the penny for many of the folks who voted for him. They will be looking for alternatives.



Except that, what I said isn't ridiculous in reference to the religious christian right/evangelicals that voted for and continue to support Donald Trump. Not sure what you are going on about in your response.

There is absolutely nothing about Trump that represents Christ. Nothing. Zip. There wasn't before the election, and there certainly isn't now. Christ is about love and selflessness. And as far as the old testament goes, he fails there too.

Here's a short list:
Married multiple times
Commits adultery
Has been accused by at least 14 women of sexual assault
Bragged about sexually assaulting women on tape
Theft (See Trump University fraud case)
Money Laundering (more theft)
Stealing from charities (more theft)
Preaches hate against minorities and women
Committed to selfishness over selflessness
Deceit and lies, every damned day

The only thing Christian about Trump is he's a very cheap version of the anti christ. And the Christians that voted for him knew about this before the election. What we have here is a brainwashed cult following a brand. A cult that calls themselves "christian" but is bent ideologically toward hatred and ignorance, not Christ.

Ad as far as being anti establishment, the only thing Trump has going on there is complete chaos, because he certainly didn't drain the swamp. He filled it with more villainous reptiles.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
Political Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 755
Tomlinson isn't quite as innovative as he thinks, even among 'religious' people. A very similar argument took place, probably 1700 years ago as the Talmud was being written.

The writers (and this would be binding Jewish law among the observant) did see a difference between those born and those not yet born. Clearly the priority would be on saving those already born (or a mother and single fetus in the case they were discussing.). But that's not to say the fetus is not important. Its just that it would have taken on, in this type of case, the role of being a "pursuer."

So while many people oppose abortion, generally, they might say that there are circumstances where it is allowed....even required.

Of course we have difficult decisions to make all the time in all types of situations. Most people ("religious" or not) would say we are not required to unreasonably risk our lives to potentially save another (i.e. enter a burning building or dive into rough seas). Most people would argue that homicide in self defense is different than random killing. (and our laws reflect this)

I'm pro-choice, but I find Tomlinson (at least this presentation of it) to be somewhat naive, self-serving and insulting. And there are some people who are 'pro-life/anti abortion' who then do care about what happens to the child and it is not always about control of women. Situations are rarely black and white. And, GoU, I have at least one friend, who claims to be anti abortion (though I'm not convinced she would really want it outlawed completely) who acted just as you did, in a similar (in fact less criminal...not rape) situation.

The most thoughtful anti abortion Catholic I knew told me that if you want to eliminate abortion, the way to do it is to convince people it is inappropriate. Implementing extreme laws is unlikely to work and unlikely to be a successful approach in a country/society like the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 13550
The shine is off the penny for many of the folks who voted for him. They will be looking for alternatives.


How mind-dead does an entire swath of people have to be, to get that there was never any shine on the penny to begin with?

What kind of people are so self-loathing they see a shine on a plug nickle, and see themselves in the reflection?

Oh wait, people who are STILL enraged that Michelle Obama was trying to make them buy new lightbulbs. :problem:

This is the sickening state wilfully ignorant American conservatives have allowed yourselves to deteriorate into.

Then you guys want to lecture everybody else about morals, values, and personal responsibility. :problem:

_________________


Please try to remember that what they believe, as well as what they do and
cause you to endure does not testify to your inferiority but to their inhumanity

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Ike Bana and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group