stebo0728 wrote:Obama won because 3 million republicans stayed home rather than accept the moderate that was being crammed down their throats. The right ticket got 10% of the black vote this time, and 25% of the hispanic vote. Thats UP from last time around. Many are trying to crucify pro-lifers for the loss. Mourdock lost to PRO-LIFER. The difference? The right has to morph their position to allow for rape/incest/health. But they don't have to drop the pro-life banner altogether. When Roe-v-Wade was handed down, the court was giving women a safe avenue for the procedure, but it was supposed to be in exchange for a "rare occurance rate". Safe but rare, that was the mantra. Anyone heartless enough to actually position themselves with an idea that widespread infanticide in answer to irresponsible behavior, in my opinion now, has some problems. But extreme pro choicers recognize this, that's why they try to start discussions about when life begins. There's no discussion to be had there, not for anyone with any a rational bone in them. But then their next answer is "well what about the sperm?" Equally absurd argument. Life begins at conception, deal with it. If you still want ultimate freedom of choice at the cost of that life, have the balls to admit that you consider the termination of a life in that case to be acceptable. We kill criminals, and we consider that to be acceptable. The only difference here, the unborn child is no criminal. I'm all for freedom of choice, in down with LGBT freedom, I'm down with legalized pot, I'm down with widespread overall reduction in prohibitive law where applicable, but this issue transcends a simple right to a choice. Exercise your choice of responsibility when a life is NOT in the balance. Realize I'm speaking to the practice of abortion purely as birth control, and not to the practice involving the exceptions for rape/incest/health. If giving out free birth control would help stop the need for widespread frivalous abortions, sign me up. I'd rather pay taxes for preventative measures any day. I don't think it should be free, but we gotta make some concession somewhere. Republicans can be successful with pro-life if they A) shut the hell up about it until its actually pertinent and B) Realize that just because they believe their God would have them trust him when you're raped or projected to die in childbirth, it doesn't mean the rest of the world should have to. That's really the only religious part of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.

themadscientist wrote:Wait, Romney a moderate? People need to learn the differerence between standing for something in the center and driving around in the center chasing polls. Romney was a weak flake that just wanted to be president and the bouncing from position to position throughout his career is indicative for that. I give obama credit. For the most part, he is pretty consistent in what he wants. Unfortunately, what he wants is the wrong answer. I do thank him for being straight up about his wacky ideas, though.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Party is toast as the white male base diluted/eroded.

stebo0728 wrote:Obama won because 3 million republicans stayed home rather than accept the moderate that was being crammed down their throats. The right ticket got 10% of the black vote this time, and 25% of the hispanic vote. Thats UP from last time around. Many are trying to crucify pro-lifers for the loss. Mourdock lost to PRO-LIFER. The difference? The right has to morph their position to allow for rape/incest/health. But they don't have to drop the pro-life banner altogether. When Roe-v-Wade was handed down, the court was giving women a safe avenue for the procedure, but it was supposed to be in exchange for a "rare occurance rate". Safe but rare, that was the mantra. Anyone heartless enough to actually position themselves with an idea that widespread infanticide in answer to irresponsible behavior, in my opinion now, has some problems. But extreme pro choicers recognize this, that's why they try to start discussions about when life begins. There's no discussion to be had there, not for anyone with any a rational bone in them. But then their next answer is "well what about the sperm?" Equally absurd argument. Life begins at conception, deal with it. If you still want ultimate freedom of choice at the cost of that life, have the balls to admit that you consider the termination of a life in that case to be acceptable. We kill criminals, and we consider that to be acceptable. The only difference here, the unborn child is no criminal. I'm all for freedom of choice, in down with LGBT freedom, I'm down with legalized pot, I'm down with widespread overall reduction in prohibitive law where applicable, but this issue transcends a simple right to a choice. Exercise your choice of responsibility when a life is NOT in the balance. Realize I'm speaking to the practice of abortion purely as birth control, and not to the practice involving the exceptions for rape/incest/health. If giving out free birth control would help stop the need for widespread frivalous abortions, sign me up. I'd rather pay taxes for preventative measures any day. I don't think it should be free, but we gotta make some concession somewhere. Republicans can be successful with pro-life if they A) shut the hell up about it until its actually pertinent and B) Realize that just because they believe their God would have them trust him when you're raped or projected to die in childbirth, it doesn't mean the rest of the world should have to. That's really the only religious part of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Party is toast as the white male base diluted/eroded.

themadscientist wrote:Since I am now an oppressed minority I will be using this a lot rather than argue my points fairly and logically.

stebo0728 wrote:Obama won because 3 million republicans stayed home rather than accept the moderate that was being crammed down their throats.

stebo0728 wrote: The right ticket got 10% of the black vote this time, and 25% of the hispanic vote. Thats UP from last time around. Many are trying to crucify pro-lifers for the loss. Mourdock lost to PRO-LIFER. The difference? The right has to morph their position to allow for rape/incest/health. But they don't have to drop the pro-life banner altogether. When Roe-v-Wade was handed down, the court was giving women a safe avenue for the procedure, but it was supposed to be in exchange for a "rare occurance rate". Safe but rare, that was the mantra. Anyone heartless enough to actually position themselves with an idea that widespread infanticide in answer to irresponsible behavior, in my opinion now, has some problems. But extreme pro choicers recognize this, that's why they try to start discussions about when life begins. There's no discussion to be had there, not for anyone with any a rational bone in them. But then their next answer is "well what about the sperm?" Equally absurd argument. Life begins at conception, deal with it. If you still want ultimate freedom of choice at the cost of that life, have the balls to admit that you consider the termination of a life in that case to be acceptable. We kill criminals, and we consider that to be acceptable. The only difference here, the unborn child is no criminal. I'm all for freedom of choice, in down with LGBT freedom, I'm down with legalized pot, I'm down with widespread overall reduction in prohibitive law where applicable, but this issue transcends a simple right to a choice. Exercise your choice of responsibility when a life is NOT in the balance. Realize I'm speaking to the practice of abortion purely as birth control, and not to the practice involving the exceptions for rape/incest/health. If giving out free birth control would help stop the need for widespread frivalous abortions, sign me up. I'd rather pay taxes for preventative measures any day. I don't think it should be free, but we gotta make some concession somewhere. Republicans can be successful with pro-life if they A) shut the hell up about it until its actually pertinent and B) Realize that just because they believe their God would have them trust him when you're raped or projected to die in childbirth, it doesn't mean the rest of the world should have to. That's really the only religious part of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.

hannibal wrote: I'm just curious how deficits went from being a non-issue to people crying about their children's doomed future. Media? Bandwagon jumpers? Or did we fall for someone's agenda?

WDRacing wrote:

hannibal wrote:I'm just curious how deficits went from being a non-issue to people crying about their children's doomed future. Media? Bandwagon jumpers? Or did we fall for someone's agenda?

The debt has been an issue for anyone with half a brain for more then 20 years now.

WDRacing wrote:In your case Z, you've had wicked long time to worry about the debt...

hannibal wrote:What I dont get is why all those politicians with at least half a brain who knew of this problem for years waited til now to approach the subject??

hannibal wrote:But when the economy is struggling and people are struggling, why should now be the time to reduce the size and scope of our safety nets? The whole purpose of these programs are to help in tough times. We are in the midst (or hopefully coming out) of the toughest period in our lifetimes, so why cut the safety line now?

hannibal wrote:Last summer, Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. This led to a downgrade in America's credit rating. Why pour salt on the open wounds of a battered economy? We made through two decades without addressing the issue of debt. And in two years it's become "the biggest threat to our national security". You may argue that its because the debt problem is currently at its worst and you'd be right. We knew the problem was getting worse back then just as we realize it will continue to worsen if we dont take action now. Yet nothing was done. Why is now, during an economic crisis, the time to act?

WDRacing wrote:Last summer Congress was correct in not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts. It's the spending that got us into this problem. Taking out more loans to continue the spending is not going to fix the problem nor improve our credit rating.

Marenta wrote:I'm curious.. out of everybody that is active in this forum, is there anybody that's against secularism? I don't want to go down the whole religion road, I'm just wondering if perhaps clutching to those fanatical religious ideals are what is turning people off from the Republicans...

hannibal wrote:We've raised the debt ceiling dozens of times. Why was this last one THE ceiling increase that HAD to be accompanied by spending cuts? When Obama raised the debt ceiling in 2010, how was he able to do it without spending cuts? When Bush raised ceiling during his tenure, why weren't spending cuts demanded?

Of course, we have a choice. You say the economy is bad so we need to cut spending. I say the economy is bad so we shouldnt cut spending (on programs on which people's lives depend). Your approach begins reviving a broken system now. My approach delays the fix while allowing people to live to see that improved system. Why would we take away the $1000/yr that someone uses to feed their family when companies are bringing in billions of dollars and paying a lower tax rate? IMO that's just plain wrong.

Your 15,000 needy people example smells just like Romney's 47% comment. You referred to them as gangrenous limbs. But these are real people with beating hearts in their chests and the American dream in their minds. Do you really believe we should let people die?

I truly believe we can afford to wait on these spending cuts. And I know there are families that cannot afford to see these cuts now. But you seem to think TODAY is the mythical straw that breaks the camels back.

WDRacing wrote:

hannibal wrote:We've raised the debt ceiling dozens of times. Why was this last one THE ceiling increase that HAD to be accompanied by spending cuts? When Obama raised the debt ceiling in 2010, how was he able to do it without spending cuts? When Bush raised ceiling during his tenure, why weren't spending cuts demanded?

Of course, we have a choice. You say the economy is bad so we need to cut spending. I say the economy is bad so we shouldnt cut spending (on programs on which people's lives depend). Your approach begins reviving a broken system now. My approach delays the fix while allowing people to live to see that improved system. Why would we take away the $1000/yr that someone uses to feed their family when companies are bringing in billions of dollars and paying a lower tax rate? IMO that's just plain wrong.

Your 15,000 needy people example smells just like Romney's 47% comment. You referred to them as gangrenous limbs. But these are real people with beating hearts in their chests and the American dream in their minds. Do you really believe we should let people die?

I truly believe we can afford to wait on these spending cuts. And I know there are families that cannot afford to see these cuts now. But you seem to think TODAY is the mythical straw that breaks the camels back.

Dude...get a grip. Save me your bleeding heart Liberal bullsh1t, I don't have time for it. You're not comprehending anything we're talking about...that's painfully clear. So why don't you let the adults continue having a conversation and you can go do whatever the hell makes you happy.

Go plant a tree or something.