The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

Golda Meir is an easy example.

Not religious in the least. Actually listed in Wikipedia under "Jewish atheists".

[lordofseas]

Not religious in the least. Actually listed in Wikipedia under "Jewish atheists".

Fine. Ignoring Wikipedia's dissonance on that, Moshe Sharett.

[Womble]

Fine. Ignoring Wikipedia's dissonance on that, Moshe Sharett.

Nope. There were no religious people among the prominent MAPAI figures really.

[lordofseas]

Nope. There were no religious people among the prominent MAPAI figures really.

You do realize that a person can be personally religious, yet politically secular, right?

[Goose]

There's so much false and bs in that picture it's hard to know where to start.

www.LiberalLogic101.com
(Yes, They're All That Stupid)

Nice to see an objective take on the subject!

[mad_gater]

I think the point the picture was trying to make is that if liberals can so readily believe that there is a baby eagle growing and developing inside that egg then why is it so hard to believe that a baby human is growing and developing inside the mother's womb? only difference is length of time of said development

[Gatefan1976]

I think the point the picture was trying to make is that if liberals can so readily believe that there is a baby eagle growing and developing inside that egg then why is it so hard to believe that a baby human is growing and developing inside the mother's womb? only difference is length of time of said development

Then it failed, miseraby.
The law is not liberal or conservative, it just is. It can be influenced by either stance this is true, but it applies to all be they Liberal or conservative. As to the cost line, you yourself said abortion was a "cash cow". Hardly a drain on the public health system then, is it?

[Womble]

You do realize that a person can be personally religious, yet politically secular, right?

Yes, but it wasn't the case.

[Rudy Pena]

An interesting and true point...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36219[/ATTACH]

Just a curve ball for the thread...

Heres another curve ball....





We all can throw pics around like this for the next 25 plus years and all we would be doing is going around in circles saying the same thing over and over.


Please use something better.

[Gatefan1976]

Heres another curve ball....





We all can throw pics around like this for the next 25 plus years and all we would be doing is going around in circles saying the same thing over and over.


Please use something better.

Whats the bet the first thing you hear is "you shouldn't of had sex in the first place then"

[Seastallion]

Then it failed, miseraby.
The law is not liberal or conservative, it just is. It can be influenced by either stance this is true, but it applies to all be they Liberal or conservative. As to the cost line, you yourself said abortion was a "cash cow". Hardly a drain on the public health system then, is it?

Mostly I just threw the picture out there to be provocative. It obviously succeeded, but not surprisingly so.

Mad Gater basically got the point. Just because the life inside hasn't been 'born' or 'hatched' (as the case may be), it is still an eagle or human, or whatever. We either value human life or we don't. You say the law isn't liberal, but it is most certainly a liberal promoted cause. It is ironic that liberals say they want to take care of everyone from cradle to the grave, but are more than willing to end lives before they even had a chance to be lived, and actually reach the cradle. I agree there are extenuating circumstances, but that is precisely why abortions should be "safe, legal, and RARE". Emphasis on the rare part, if that was missed.

Conservatives may be for the death penalty, but at least those people had their chances, and made their choices. Unborn children haven't even had that much. Even heinous criminals get a trial of their peers before being put to death. I wonder if abortions ought to go through a trial process as well, to determine the validity of the justification. Heck, a panel could be made up of strictly only women. Maybe one doctor, a judge, and 1-3 other women. That would certainly be a 'peer' group of sorts.

Okay, maybe that is over doing it somewhat, but I don't think it sounds too ridiculous. If we can give criminals that sort of consideration, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to extend the same courtesy to the unborn. I think most agree that Rape, Incest, or extraordinary risk to the mother or child are basically considered valid reasons. The others might be taken on a case by case basis.

Meh, it's just an idea. I think it sounds like an interesting notion, if nothing else.

[Seastallion]

@ Rudy Pena

You seem to be suggesting that Conservatives don't care about the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charity is a basic tenant of Conservatism (or Christians, if that is the group you're really targeting, which is sort of separate), but to a conservative, true charity is getting someone a job, or getting someone skills to get a better job. Not just a life time of food stamps, welfare, etc. which were all meant to be TEMPORARY measures to begin with. Conservatives don't have a problem with 'universal' health care either, so long as the Federal government keeps its nose out of it.

There is FAR more validity to the little picture I posted, than the ones you did. The picture I posted didn't actually state anything that was really false. The one you posted basically outright lied about how conservatives feel about the poor.

[Gatefan1976]

Mostly I just threw the picture out there to be provocative. It obviously succeeded, but not surprisingly so.

No, it failed, because it was pathetic. I was neither angered, nor enraged, I just saw a badly constructed POS picture with no validity at all.

Mad Gater basically got the point. Just because the life inside hasn't been 'born' or 'hatched' (as the case may be), it is still an eagle or human, or whatever. We either value human life or we don't.

And the response was, do you consider Quality of any said life?
Oops, guess you missed that one.

You say the law isn't liberal, but it is most certainly a liberal promoted cause.

Are you kidding me??
According to MG, the US is founded on Christian principles, and it defined law as a seperate entity to both church and state for a reason. Let me guess, it's only "good" if it supports *your* outcomes eh?
Nigh on 2000 years of control was obviously not enough for you I guess.

It is ironic that liberals say they want to take care of everyone from cradle to the grave,

They don't.
Oops.

but are more than willing to end lives before they even had a chance to be lived, and actually reach the cradle.

....................................... yeah, thats what they want..................

I agree there are extenuating circumstances, but that is precisely why abortions should be "safe, legal, and RARE". Emphasis on the rare part, if that was missed.

Not missed by me, nor anyone who values choice. Getting an abortion is not a "first defence" against unwanted, or unviable pregnancy, it is the LAST RESORT. Cases of rape, cases where both partners have tried to aviod pregnancy, but the pill failed or the condom broke.
Will people ABUSE the law, for sure, do people ABUSE any system, YES. Are you prepared to deny people a choice that they have made to be responsible, just because of a failure outside thier control?

Conservatives may be for the death penalty, but at least those people had their chances, and made their choices.

I see. I agree so it's OK, Frakking BS

Unborn children haven't even had that much. Even heinous criminals get a trial of their peers before being put to death. I wonder if abortions ought to go through a trial process as well, to determine the validity of the justification.

20 people standing outside the PP office telling you you are a murderer is not enough of a trial??

Heck, a panel could be made up of strictly only women. Maybe one doctor, a judge, and 1-3 other women. That would certainly be a 'peer' group of sorts.

Okay, maybe that is over doing it somewhat, but I don't think it sounds too ridiculous. If we can give criminals that sort of consideration, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to extend the same courtesy to the unborn. I think most agree that Rape, Incest, or extraordinary risk to the mother or child are basically considered valid reasons. The others might be taken on a case by case basis.

These are *conditions* that the majority of the "pro-choice" people would agree with.

[Gatefan1976]

@ Rudy Pena

You seem to be suggesting that Conservatives don't care about the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charity is a basic tenant of Conservatism (or Christians, if that is the group you're really targeting, which is sort of separate),

No, what annoys people is this BS notion that "only MY group cares about the poor, because we are told to"

but to a conservative, true charity is getting someone a job, or getting someone skills to get a better job.

Cause, ya know, no other mindset thinks that personal betterment and training is a good thing, do they.............

Not just a life time of food stamps, welfare, etc. which were all meant to be TEMPORARY measures to begin with. Conservatives don't have a problem with 'universal' health care either, so long as the Federal government keeps its nose out of it.

Universal healthcare without nationwide support?
You should be a Gymnast to get your head around that concept. You do know what Universal is, yes? If it is left to the states, it's hardly "universal" is it.

There is FAR more validity to the little picture I posted, than the ones you did. The picture I posted didn't actually state anything that was really false. The one you posted basically outright lied about how conservatives feel about the poor.

It lied stupidly. Sorry, see my response to MG.

[Seastallion]

No, it failed, because it was pathetic. I was neither angered, nor enraged, I just saw a badly constructed POS picture with no validity at all.

Says you. What is factually wrong about the post? The part about the penalties over the Eagle eggs, or the part about it being legal to kill unborn children (so long as the mother consents), or the part about certain groups wanting the government to pay for it? None of those are untrue.

You say your not angry, but your response has certainly had an angry tone... Hmmm...

And the response was, do you consider Quality of any said life?
Oops, guess you missed that one.

Sure I do. That was the whole point about disputing the "conservatives want people to be poor" nonsense. Or are you saying it is better to be dead than poor? Ouch. I've never had much, but I've never wanted to be dead. Granted, I was fortunate to be born in the U.S., but still...

Are you kidding me??
According to MG, the US is founded on Christian principles, and it defined law as a seperate entity to both church and state for a reason. Let me guess, it's only "good" if it supports *your* outcomes eh?
Nigh on 2000 years of control was obviously not enough for you I guess.

*sigh* I won't bother to reply to this... Moving on.

They don't.
Oops.

Oh no, Liberals aren't at all arguing for entitlements from cradle to grave. Uh-huh. Tell me another one.

....................................... yeah, thats what they want..................

If one is such a rabid abortion supporter to even support late term abortions or abortion for the purposes of gender selection (and other ridiculous reasons), then yes, that is what they want.

Not missed by me, nor anyone who values choice. Getting an abortion is not a "first defence" against unwanted, or unviable pregnancy, it is the LAST RESORT. Cases of rape, cases where both partners have tried to aviod pregnancy, but the pill failed or the condom broke.

It should be, yes. However the odds of the pill failing and a condom breaking AT THE SAME TIME, are indeed, very RARE. People shouldn't just rely on only one of those things. They should be used in combination. If people did, abortions really would be very rare.

Will people ABUSE the law, for sure, do people ABUSE any system, YES. Are you prepared to deny people a choice that they have made to be responsible, just because of a failure outside thier control?

No one is taking abortion away, so don't freak out. On the other hand, refer to my earlier post about classes on personal responsibility. I won't go over it again, unless absolutely necessary. It addresses your question.

I see. I agree so it's OK, Frakking BS

Okay...

20 people standing outside the PP office telling you you are a murderer is not enough of a trial??

How is that in any way a trial? That is just a mob.

These are *conditions* that the majority of the "pro-choice" people would agree with.

Well, it is nice that we can agree on something.