If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Social conservatives want the GOP to shrug off that flesh wound and keep fighting the good fight against gay marriage and abortion. The Black Knight always triumphs   (nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com) divider line 287
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

3954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2012 at 10:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-22 07:32:55 AM
We're referring to them as "conservatives" ironically, right?
 
2012-11-22 07:34:55 AM
thewordchef.com
Oh yes, please continue, the Chicken is ASKING for it!
 
2012-11-22 08:12:07 AM
Good luck with that.

Or perhaps folks could just live their ideals and tend to their own knitting...
 
2012-11-22 08:50:09 AM
As I'm told, if it's a legitimate rape, the chickens have a way of shutting their bodies down so they don't get pregnant from the white guy farking it.

img850.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-22 09:10:22 AM
I wish we'd stop lumping so many issues together under the title of "social conservative". You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.
 
2012-11-22 09:14:47 AM

serial_crusher: I wish we'd stop lumping so many issues together under the title of "social conservative". You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.


...and yet, impossible to reconcile with the right to privacy or freedom of religion. Therein lies the rub.

Social Conservatives are hardly Conservatives. They are radicals. Plain and simple.
 
2012-11-22 09:16:06 AM

serial_crusher: I wish we'd stop lumping so many issues together under the title of "social conservative". You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.


except that the GOP doesn't do something like that. you wanna be Republican, you have to have accept their preset conditions for morality. no compromise, no negotiations.
 
2012-11-22 09:22:04 AM

serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.


Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time. In fact, try to claim you're a moderate Republican in today's political climate. Unless you toe the religious right, tea party extremist line, you're accused of being a RINO or secret Democrat. Hell, look at what happened to Gov. Christie when he praised FEMA's response in Sandy. The right rags started calling him a democrat, and printing his name with a (D) attached to it.

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.
 
2012-11-22 09:23:40 AM

BronyMedic: As I'm told, if it's a legitimate rape, the chickens have a way of shutting their bodies down so they don't get pregnant from the white guy farking it.

[img850.imageshack.us image 320x313]


some chickens rape easy
 
2012-11-22 09:32:09 AM

BronyMedic: serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.

Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time. In fact, try to claim you're a moderate Republican in today's political climate. Unless you toe the religious right, tea party extremist line, you're accused of being a RINO or secret Democrat. Hell, look at what happened to Gov. Christie when he praised FEMA's response in Sandy. The right rags started calling him a democrat, and printing his name with a (D) attached to it.

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.


Oh that's not what I was trying to get at at all. It's true that on a personal level I get annoyed when people hear my opinion on one issue and start making assumptions about the others, but I've more or less come to accept that. I just think that an overall sheepish mentality causes people to throw in with one camp because of that one issue they actually do care about, then just blindly agree with the loudest person in the room on any other topic. 99.95% of people don't actually agree on those various issues; they just don't care enough to form their own opinion. It's human nature to an extent.

It would be nice if politicians on all sides of the political spectrum would stop taking advantage of that. I know it'll never happen, but I can dream, can't I?
 
2012-11-22 09:36:02 AM

serial_crusher:
Oh that's not what I was trying to get at at all. It's true that on a personal level I get annoyed when people hear my opinion on one issue and start making assumptions about the others, but I've more or less come to accept that. I just think that an overall sheepish mentality causes people to throw in with one camp because of that one issue they actually do care about, then just blindly agree with the loudest person in the room on any other topic. 99.95% of people don't actually agree on those various issues; they just don't care enough to form their own opinion. It's human nature to an extent.

It would be nice if politicians on all sides of the political spectrum would stop taking advantage of that. I know it'll never happen, but I can dream, can't I?


except that the GOP has backed themselves into a corner. you CANNOT be pro-life and indifferent towards gay marriage. if you want to stay in the Republican party, you have to accept ALL the Republican positions...that means you have to be pro-life and against gay marriage. you don't get to pick and choose because the Republicans themselves have said this.
 
2012-11-22 09:52:59 AM

serial_crusher: I wish we'd stop lumping so many issues together under the title of "social conservative". You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.


If people took honest positions on matters it would less confusing. The pro-life movement is not about protecting the lives of the unborn, it is primarily about denying women equality by controlling their reproductive rights.

Case in point: Countries with Liberal/Progressive social policies (universal healthcare, sex education, better access to birth control, stronger social programs, stronger protections against rape) have less abortions (murder of tummy children) than countries with regressive Conservative social policies.

So if you are voting Conservative and want less abortions, you are being inconsistent.

If you are voting Conservative because you don't really care about unborn lives but want to deny women this form of social equality, than you are voting consistently.
 
2012-11-22 10:03:56 AM

mrshowrules:
If people took honest positions on matters it would less confusing. The pro-life movement is not about protecting the lives of the unborn, it is primarily about denying women equality by controlling their reproductive rights.


for what it's worth, I believe that a lot of the pro-life crowd really DO believe that 'all life is sacred' and that taking options away from women is for some version of the 'greater good'. are they consistent in this believe? no. have they considered the implications of their own philosophy? probably not. But do they believe it's the best option for all concerned? oh most certainly.

it's easy to dismiss the pro-life guys as cartoon villains and just assume they're out to control women for the sake of control but that can make it difficult to understand some of their motivations.

then there's the gay marriage folks...if they just said 'hey, same sex relationships make me feel icky' then that would be a valid opinion. we'd have to actually debate them on it. But most of the people on the right wing want to use the bible to justify their positions. problem is....there is NOTHING in the new testament about the matter. old testament, sure. but if you are a christian you CANNOT use the old testament to justify your stance on gay marriage...because that's the jewish section of the bible. the new testament is the christian section. can't have it both ways folks....the christian god himself said "this new testament is for us, the old testament is for jews". the christians who wanna quote the bible ARE GETTING IT WRONG! how can you even being to debate them on gay marriage when they don't even understand what their own religion says?
 
2012-11-22 10:08:52 AM

Weaver95: you have to accept ALL the Republican positions


I have a picture of Ruby Rod in my brain now.
 
2012-11-22 10:32:18 AM
It's increasingly clear that the Republican Party didn't learn a damn thing from what happened a couple of weeks ago. The assbeating that they are going to take in 2014 isn't going to teach them anything either.
 
2012-11-22 10:37:29 AM

Weaver95: it's easy to dismiss the pro-life guys as cartoon villains and just assume they're out to control women for the sake of control but that can make it difficult to understand some of their motivations.


Yeah, I love seeing people try to play some moral/intellectual superiority card while saying crazy stuff like that. It's the Democrat counterpart to teaderpers saying Obama's out to take yer guns and convert everybody to Islam. Go into an echo chamber with everybody saying the same bullshiat and you eventually start believing even the craziest of conspiracy theories.
 
2012-11-22 10:41:10 AM

Weaver95: mrshowrules:
If people took honest positions on matters it would less confusing. The pro-life movement is not about protecting the lives of the unborn, it is primarily about denying women equality by controlling their reproductive rights.

for what it's worth, I believe that a lot of the pro-life crowd really DO believe that 'all life is sacred' and that taking options away from women is for some version of the 'greater good'. are they consistent in this believe? no. have they considered the implications of their own philosophy? probably not. But do they believe it's the best option for all concerned? oh most certainly.

it's easy to dismiss the pro-life guys as cartoon villains and just assume they're out to control women for the sake of control but that can make it difficult to understand some of their motivations.

then there's the gay marriage folks...if they just said 'hey, same sex relationships make me feel icky' then that would be a valid opinion. we'd have to actually debate them on it. But most of the people on the right wing want to use the bible to justify their positions. problem is....there is NOTHING in the new testament about the matter. old testament, sure. but if you are a christian you CANNOT use the old testament to justify your stance on gay marriage...because that's the jewish section of the bible. the new testament is the christian section. can't have it both ways folks....the christian god himself said "this new testament is for us, the old testament is for jews". the christians who wanna quote the bible ARE GETTING IT WRONG! how can you even being to debate them on gay marriage when they don't even understand what their own religion says?


If the goal is protecting unborn life, Conservative policies fail whereby Liberal policies are proven to work.

Some Conservatives have a consistent opinion that abortion should be illegal purely on ideological grounds. I get that. When they pretend it is about protecting the sanctity of life, they are full of shiat.

This issue has been argued to death. My only point is that the GOP platform is really about putting women back in their place. If they adjusted their platform with actual pro-life positions, I would also adjust my opinion of their objectives.
 
2012-11-22 10:41:41 AM
I don't give a shiat what my next door neighbor does with their lawn, why would I care what gays do legally or what women do with their bodies? Stop being farking assholes.
 
2012-11-22 10:44:28 AM
What their chair at the table might look like.

ak1.ostkcdn.com
 
2012-11-22 10:45:05 AM
"No, Sony! Just keep selling CRT 4:3 televisions! Screw those people who want LED widescreens! We'll tell them what they want!"
 
2012-11-22 10:46:07 AM

Weaver95: serial_crusher:
Oh that's not what I was trying to get at at all. It's true that on a personal level I get annoyed when people hear my opinion on one issue and start making assumptions about the others, but I've more or less come to accept that. I just think that an overall sheepish mentality causes people to throw in with one camp because of that one issue they actually do care about, then just blindly agree with the loudest person in the room on any other topic. 99.95% of people don't actually agree on those various issues; they just don't care enough to form their own opinion. It's human nature to an extent.

It would be nice if politicians on all sides of the political spectrum would stop taking advantage of that. I know it'll never happen, but I can dream, can't I?

except that the GOP has backed themselves into a corner. you CANNOT be pro-life and indifferent towards gay marriage. if you want to stay in the Republican party, you have to accept ALL the Republican positions...that means you have to be pro-life and against gay marriage. you don't get to pick and choose because the Republicans themselves have said this.


They're not a Big Tent Party anymore. They're a Litmus Test Party now.
 
2012-11-22 10:47:35 AM

serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.


The "three legged stool" model seems to get the Moneycons right, but it seems to neglect the Xenocons by oversimplifying them in with the Jingocon "national security conservatives" and with the Theocons "social conservatives". But then, one big key to the GOP is pretending racism is just a thing in America's past.

Nohow, since the biggest factor correlated to attitudes on abortion, who consenting adults fark, and creationism is religion, pretending the outliers with secular objections to abortion are the norm is hard to take seriously.

BronyMedic: Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time.


A lot less than that; more like 60-80% of the time. But that's still a lot stronger than most one-factor sociological correlations.

mrshowrules: So if you are voting Conservative and want less abortions, you are being inconsistent.


More subtly, it's taking a deontological rather than consequentialist approach: rules over results.
 
2012-11-22 10:49:05 AM

BronyMedic: serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.

Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time. In fact, try to claim you're a moderate Republican in today's political climate. Unless you toe the religious right, tea party extremist line, you're accused of being a RINO or secret Democrat. Hell, look at what happened to Gov. Christie when he praised FEMA's response in Sandy. The right rags started calling him a democrat, and printing his name with a (D) attached to it

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.


Solution? More than two viable political parties. We have 63 kinds of individually wrapped cheese slices to choose from in this country but cant have more than two major parties...and RON PAUL!... to choose from. Until there is a better, real representation of values with which one can align, were stuck in the quagmire weve created for ourselves.
 
2012-11-22 10:51:32 AM

BronyMedic: serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.

Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time. In fact, try to claim you're a moderate Republican in today's political climate. Unless you toe the religious right, tea party extremist line, you're accused of being a RINO or secret Democrat. Hell, look at what happened to Gov. Christie when he praised FEMA's response in Sandy. The right rags started calling him a democrat, and printing his name with a (D) attached to it.

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.


And the party wonders why so many people are leaving. It's the angry old white guy and super religious party.

Nobody cares about BC and abortions when you can't get a job
 
2012-11-22 10:52:02 AM
FTFA: "But to social conservatives, the challenge going forward is not a question of moderating; they argue that to rip out their leg from under the GOP would be to cripple the party politically. Rather, they argue the question is whether the party is able to find a more articulate messenger of social concerns."

We can't stop saying teh ghey is icky and women need to make rapeade out of rape babies. We just need to figure out how to say it better.
 
2012-11-22 10:55:18 AM
The interesting thing about the abortion debate is it's extremely easy to prevent unwanted pregnancy through the intelligent use of contraception.

But the abortion debate has never really been about babies, has it?
 
2012-11-22 10:55:28 AM
this will end in a three party system - Democrats, moderate conservatives and the batshiat crazies
 
2012-11-22 10:57:27 AM
It would be in the GOP's strategic interest to support gay marriage.

A majority of the nation supports it, and the shift is happening incredibly rapidly. There's no downside in supporting it.

Further, it would allow them to look like they're moderating while they continue to have extreme positions on abortion and birth control.

And at the end of the day, I suspect social conservative voters care a lot more about abortion than gay marriage. As long as the GOP remains staunchly anti-choice they'll keep winning the social conservative vote.
 
2012-11-22 10:59:35 AM

chuckufarlie: this will end in a three party system - Democrats, moderate conservatives and the batshiat crazies


To be fair, the left has its own batshiat crazies, too.
 
2012-11-22 10:59:53 AM

chuckufarlie: Democrats, moderate conservatives


You said Democrats twice.
 
2012-11-22 11:01:16 AM

Bartleby the Scrivener: BronyMedic: serial_crusher: You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.

Except that in the real world, those beliefs overlap 99.95% of the time. In fact, try to claim you're a moderate Republican in today's political climate. Unless you toe the religious right, tea party extremist line, you're accused of being a RINO or secret Democrat. Hell, look at what happened to Gov. Christie when he praised FEMA's response in Sandy. The right rags started calling him a democrat, and printing his name with a (D) attached to it

Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.

Solution? More than two viable political parties. We have 63 kinds of individually wrapped cheese slices to choose from in this country but cant have more than two major parties...and RON PAUL!... to choose from. Until there is a better, real representation of values with which one can align, were stuck in the quagmire weve created for ourselves.


One thing I think would help is if we had greater segmentation of government responsibilities. i.e. the guy making decision about what moral values should drive our criminal code (i.e. whether abortion should be legal) shouldn't be the same guy deciding what tax policies are going to be best for the economy, or what types of "science" we should teach in schools. I get that we elect people on top who then appoint people to those positions, but I don't think that's working out very well, and maybe we should just let people directly elect to those positions.

The trade-offs on electing at that granularity at the federal level are that you end up with more government officials (aka "big government") and its more information for voters to think about, where just voting for something beyond the presidency is a little bit much to ask of most people.

I guess local politics work that way, what with elections for school board members, railroad commissioners and the like. You know, the elections that most people either totally ignore or vote straight ticket on.
 
2012-11-22 11:01:44 AM
Dear Social Conservatives:

You can continue to have a seat at the table. All you have to do is make some of those attitude adjustments that you keep demanding everyone else make, and learn to compromise.

Let's take an example: abortion.

First of all, kudos to you: you like life. That's a good thing. And credit where it's due, a lot of you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, and pay heavily to support your cause. That's also a good thing.

Unfortunately, your insistence on yes/no, black/white, good/bad binary views is killing you politically, and not just because some people want to get abortions for the heck of it: in a plurality of 300,000,000 it's just bad policy. Currently, you're not only making yourselves seem like loonies to everyone else, you're also making it less likely that abortion will ever be restricted. That's right: your policies are actually doing precisely what they're designed to prevent.

*pause for heads exploding, followed by a tide of indignant denials*

Look: I know you want to stop all abortion. But maybe, just maybe, you should start with trying to stop some instead. And 'some' != 'all in one state', FYI.

Why don't you push for some sort of graduated difficulty of abortions, instead of outright bans? Everyone always gets one free of difficulty in the event of rape, true medical necessity (for example, ectopic pregnancy), a doctor's recommendation, etc. They also get one free of all harrassment, etc. This acknowledges that people make mistakes, that life is difficult, that all the stats say teen mothers are usually better off without kids, etc. But if you want #2 for no medical reason, you have to get counseling...and it costs twice as much. And #3 costs 4 times as much as #1, and will get you a visit from social services besides.

I know it's not perfect and it's not exactly what you want, but that's what compromise is. That way, you get to have a real voice at the table for the preservation of life, and you get to ensure that people don't casually get abortions or use it as a way to enable their irresponsibility. And you would probably actually prevent more abortions that way - people listen to reason, not extremism - than you are currently preventing now.

Just a thought,

whistleridge
 
2012-11-22 11:01:53 AM

hubiestubert: serial_crusher: I wish we'd stop lumping so many issues together under the title of "social conservative". You know, it is possible to think abortion should be illegal while simultaneously not giving a crap who consenting adults are farking, or wanting to force public schools to teach creationism.

...and yet, impossible to reconcile with the right to privacy or freedom of religion. Therein lies the rub.

Social Conservatives are hardly Conservatives. They are radicals. Plain and simple.


I question their Christianity, because many of their positions are most unChristian.
They cherry-pick the Bible the same way they do the Constitution.
That, and the tax write-off...
 
2012-11-22 11:03:26 AM
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's criticism of Akin is par for the reality disconnect that is the face of the GOP. McDonnell walks around with a vaginal wand shoved up his ass and then wants to pretend he's in favor of a 'softer and kinder' Republican party.

After the loss, they are not sorry for the comments, they are only regretful their positions were spoken aloud within earshot of the voting public. Fark you in the heart with stake. I ain't falling for no Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Piyush Jindal kumbaya BS! You cannot polish a turd.

Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof. The Temptations
 
2012-11-22 11:06:06 AM
Thornhill

As long as the bible is used as a foundational political text, "social conservatives" will not budge on gay marriage, because leviticus. Majority doesnt matter, it just turns into persecution and they are daniel in the lions den.
 
2012-11-22 11:06:22 AM

mrshowrules: If the goal is protecting unborn life, Conservative policies fail whereby Liberal policies are proven to work.


Your problem is, you're looking at this logically; "The policies republicans endorse would lead to more abortions, therefore they must not really be pro-life". That's giving them WAY too much credit.

Look at the whole "tough on crime" thing - it's been shown time and time again that prison systems with a focus on rehabilitation lead to less recidivism, while prison systems that focus on punishment lead to more. You wouldn't assume republicans are in favor of crime because they favor the latter, though; they favor the latter because their gut tells them that obviously rehabilitation is hippy bullshiat, and prisons should be horrible places to deter crime. Evidence to the contrary is just those sneaky liberals trying to trick you.

In a similar fashion; they really are pro life, but they're also kinda stupid, so they're endorsing policies that "feel" pro-life, and simply assuming evidence to the contrary is liberal propaganda.

Basically, it's Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
 
2012-11-22 11:07:08 AM

mrshowrules: If people took honest positions on matters it would less confusing. The pro-life movement is not about protecting the lives of the unborn, it is primarily about denying women equality by controlling their reproductive rights.

Case in point: Countries with Liberal/Progressive social policies (universal healthcare, sex education, better access to birth control, stronger social programs, stronger protections against rape) have less abortions (murder of tummy children) than countries with regressive Conservative social policies.

So if you are voting Conservative and want less abortions, you are being inconsistent


Depends on how you view things. Take this as an analogy - let's assume it wasn't currently illegal to kill someone. Ie, there's no such thing as "murder". Liberals focus on creating social structures so that people kill other people less often, but they are vehemently against the idea of making killing someone illegal. Conservatives don't do anything about the social structures that cause people to kill others, but instead focus on making it illegal to kill others. Now if your position is that killing other people is wrong, which party should you choose? The one who insists that killing others is ok, but acts to lessen the frequency, or the party that does nothing to decrease the frequency but wants to make it illegal? Noting, of course, that making it illegal would decrease the frequency substantially if they managed to accomplish it.

There's certainly a case to be made for the liberal perspective, but at the same time, the conservative angle is manifestly superior if they can actually accomplish what they say they will. The main issue is their ability to deliver on that promise.
 
2012-11-22 11:07:46 AM
Put them in a Bumbo
Put them on the edge of the table
Then just wait for them to get upset

Only seat they deserve
 
2012-11-22 11:07:50 AM

serial_crusher: Weaver95: it's easy to dismiss the pro-life guys as cartoon villains and just assume they're out to control women for the sake of control but that can make it difficult to understand some of their motivations.

Yeah, I love seeing people try to play some moral/intellectual superiority card while saying crazy stuff like that. It's the Democrat counterpart to teaderpers saying Obama's out to take yer guns and convert everybody to Islam. Go into an echo chamber with everybody saying the same bullshiat and you eventually start believing even the craziest of conspiracy theories.


Thinking Obama wants to take away your guns is insane. Thinking the GOP wants to take away women reproductive rights, is academic.

When the GOP is pro-capital punishment, against universal health care and loves bombing shiat, it is not crazy to call their pro-life stances disingenuous.

When the same politicians voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Bill also want to redefine rape, you have to clean-up your own party rather than take offense that us Liberals don't under stand the nuance of your personal platform.
 
2012-11-22 11:08:47 AM
"Republicans' soul searching following the 2012 election could shortchange social conservatives, who say they're hardly to blame for the party's difficulties at the polls."

But they're totally to blame for the party's difficulties at the polls. Well, maybe not toally; say, 50%. The rest of trhe problems are due to Romney's incredibly unloveable personality (20%) and his refusal to spell out a specific and credible economic plan (30%). But it was the social issues that pushed the party over the edge; the women-are-second-class-citizens issue, the rape babies issue, the go-away-Latinos-we-don't-need-you issue, the poor-people-are-morally-deficient issue. Every time the social conservatives came out with another dictum they alienated another sector of the population.

The repub Party needs to eschew all social issues, limit itself to specific proposals for safely reducing the size and scope of government, and come up with a reasonable plan for increasing revenues. I still won't vote for them (sorry, they now have a firm track record of running on one set of issues and then pulling a completely different, totally unexpected agenda out of their asses once they're in office) but I'll have a little more respect for them and feel less uncomfortable with them in power.
 
2012-11-22 11:10:30 AM
The GOP should.

The GOP needs to stand proudly to protect the unborn from infanticide, and society from the radical homosexual agenda.

Honestly, I think part of Mittens problem was his wishy-washy (dare I say, limp-wristed) defense of traditional marriage, and lack of clear-cut policies to solve the homosexual problem. If he had adapted say, Santorum or Perry's full throated defense of traditional values against the encroachment of homosexuals, he would have been able to carry a handful of states and he'd be President-Elect today.

Instead, he didn't want to be "mean", and tried to be "inclusive", and he lost.

In 2016, hopefully the GOP will show moral courage, pass on the easy wrong instead of the hard right, and we'll elect a President willing to not only prevent the perversion of marriage but also to re-criminalize the homosexual.
 
2012-11-22 11:12:38 AM

Gunther: mrshowrules: If the goal is protecting unborn life, Conservative policies fail whereby Liberal policies are proven to work.

Your problem is, you're looking at this logically; "The policies republicans endorse would lead to more abortions, therefore they must not really be pro-life". That's giving them WAY too much credit.

Look at the whole "tough on crime" thing - it's been shown time and time again that prison systems with a focus on rehabilitation lead to less recidivism, while prison systems that focus on punishment lead to more. You wouldn't assume republicans are in favor of crime because they favor the latter, though; they favor the latter because their gut tells them that obviously rehabilitation is hippy bullshiat, and prisons should be horrible places to deter crime. Evidence to the contrary is just those sneaky liberals trying to trick you.

In a similar fashion; they really are pro life, but they're also kinda stupid, so they're endorsing policies that "feel" pro-life, and simply assuming evidence to the contrary is liberal propaganda.

Basically, it's Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


I'm not really sure it's that they're stupid as much as they're vain. They think that looks are what is most important. Who cares if those tennis shoes are practical? Those flashy stilleto pumps are sexy! In the same way, allowing people to use birth control to limit abortions is practical, but giving the death penalty to women who have abortions and doctors who give women abortions is sexy.
 
2012-11-22 11:13:00 AM

Dahnkster: Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof. The Temptations


I thought you were wrong. I was thinking of the Ojay's similiar version in Backstabbers.
 
2012-11-22 11:14:53 AM
While I share the anti-abortion views of the right (but from a non-religious perspective) and their aversion to entitlements, I had to vote for Obama because the rest of their nonsense is so extremely unpalatable.

As someone above was articulating, the left does tend to lump everyone together that holds one of the many viewpoints of the right. "Oh, you don't like entitlements? WHY ARE YOU FOR BIG OIL AND FORCING YOUR RELIGION ON EVERYONE AND AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!?!?!"
 
2012-11-22 11:15:47 AM
In their defense, it has got to be tough with all the people like me, logging on to Freep w/ our alts and stirring the pot the moment it looks like it is calming down.

Encourage these people.
 
2012-11-22 11:15:56 AM

jake_lex: It's increasingly clear that the Republican Party didn't learn a damn thing from what happened a couple of weeks ago. The assbeating that they are going to take in 2014 isn't going to teach them anything either.


American Heritage, the granddaddy of right-wing think tanks, said conservatives are at war with Obama... the day after the election. I didn't know it was possible to quadruple down.
 
2012-11-22 11:17:13 AM

Hunter_Worthington: The GOP needs to stand proudly to protect the unborn from infanticide, and society from the radical homosexual agenda.


Mr. Worthington, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2012-11-22 11:17:58 AM

Bhruic: mrshowrules: If people took honest positions on matters it would less confusing. The pro-life movement is not about protecting the lives of the unborn, it is primarily about denying women equality by controlling their reproductive rights.

Case in point: Countries with Liberal/Progressive social policies (universal healthcare, sex education, better access to birth control, stronger social programs, stronger protections against rape) have less abortions (murder of tummy children) than countries with regressive Conservative social policies.

So if you are voting Conservative and want less abortions, you are being inconsistent

Depends on how you view things. Take this as an analogy - let's assume it wasn't currently illegal to kill someone. Ie, there's no such thing as "murder". Liberals focus on creating social structures so that people kill other people less often, but they are vehemently against the idea of making killing someone illegal. Conservatives don't do anything about the social structures that cause people to kill others, but instead focus on making it illegal to kill others. Now if your position is that killing other people is wrong, which party should you choose? The one who insists that killing others is ok, but acts to lessen the frequency, or the party that does nothing to decrease the frequency but wants to make it illegal? Noting, of course, that making it illegal would decrease the frequency substantially if they managed to accomplish it.

There's certainly a case to be made for the liberal perspective, but at the same time, the conservative angle is manifestly superior if they can actually accomplish what they say they will. The main issue is their ability to deliver on that promise.


Murder is a poor analogy because it does not conflict with any other base right (control of you own body), control of your own life (pursuit of happiness and all that).

Let's say you had to donate a pint of your blood a month to sustain another person in society with an unusual contracted medical condition. Let's say society has decided that it is acceptable for you to deny them that blood and cause their death and it would not be murder.

Party A is advocating for this to be deemed as murder.

Party B is against calling it murder but advocating research to prevent this medical condition, Government pay for the blood transfusion and compensation for the donor and education that will prevent people from contracting this medical condition.
 
2012-11-22 11:19:15 AM
Huh. I also want the GOP to keep doing the same thing they've been doing. Who woulda thunk that me and social conservatives would ever agree on something?
 
2012-11-22 11:21:46 AM
Of course... what else would they do?
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report