Can Reps modify abortion stance?

That's because a large portion of that was Latinos and unmarried women, who broke for obama in large numbers.

Exactly what I have pointed out many times. Hispanics/Latinos are natural born Republicans. They are hard working, deeply religious, and family oriented.

The GOP is missing the boat, bigtime.

.

The GOP doesn't want Latinos. I've had posters on this site say they'd rather the party die off than "compromise their beliefs" to include Latinos.

How many? Thirty? Forty? Since when do. A few on a website speak for a whole party? You need to quit being narrow minded and more tolerant.
 
Don't kid yourself, clown. The democrats have always had at least as much "racism, homophobia and misogyny" as anyone.

The only difference is unlike the republican party, the democratic social policy has kept current with the times.

Translation: Democrats decide morality by what gets them votes in the current election.

Translation: Democrats don't base their ingrained social inequality on their perceived morality, but rather on the changing demographics of society itself.
 
Don't kid yourself, clown. The democrats have always had at least as much "racism, homophobia and misogyny" as anyone.

The only difference is unlike the republican party, the democratic social policy has kept current with the times.

Translation: Democrats decide morality by what gets them votes in the current election.

Yeah, that's pretty much how "morality" is decided, by what people accept at a given time....

For instance, when I was growing up in the bad old days of the early 1970's, a couple living together without being married was considered to be a bit of a scandal. Today, most couples do a "trial marriage" before actually tying the knot.

Morals change.
 
He does exhibit, however, the hypocrisy typical of many on the right: where he claims to advocate ‘less government’ yet approves of government interfering in our most personal of affairs, and disallowing the citizen to follow his conscience in good faith concerning subjective ‘moral’ issues, such as abortion.



There is no hypocrisy involved at all. And moral issues that necessarily involve the life and death of innocent human beings are not merely personal and subjective.

Of course it’s hypocritical – you either abide by a doctrine of less and limited government or you don’t.

And if one abides by a doctrine of less and limited government, he does so with the understanding that follow Americans are going to believe in and do things he disagrees with, and will respect those actions and beliefs, even if he considers them ‘immoral.’



Wrong, simpleton. Support for a more limited government is NOT a call for anarchy.
 
Jones is right, and Unkotare is wrong.

Less and limited government should have nothing to do with imposing a group's morals from society on everyone else.

Social value Republicans are not conservatives: they are statist right wing moral value progressives.

There is no hypocrisy involved at all. And moral issues that necessarily involve the life and death of innocent human beings are not merely personal and subjective.

Of course it’s hypocritical – you either abide by a doctrine of less and limited government or you don’t.

And if one abides by a doctrine of less and limited government, he does so with the understanding that follow Americans are going to believe in and do things he disagrees with, and will respect those actions and beliefs, even if he considers them ‘immoral.’



Wrong, simpleton. Support for a more limited government is NOT a call for anarchy.
 
[

You are not only deliberately and nihilistically immoral, but you are an illogical dunce. You need to update your handbook of liberal responses, because "you don't have a uterus!" is a ridiculously failed 'argument.'

So besides the name-calling (your usually response when you lose an argument) can you you actually REFUTE THE POINT?



There have recently been some debates about whether or not (male) circumcision should be outlawed. Do you think that women shouldn't be 'allowed' to talk about it or, if elected officials, legislate over it since they don't have the key body part in question? That would be pretty stupid, huh? Should only citizens and legislators with drivers licenses be allowed to consider laws about drunk driving or grand theft auto? Pretty stupid, huh?

And regardless of that, anything that affects the welfare of all members of society is obviously the business of all members of society.
 
Less and limited government should have nothing to do with imposing a group's morals from society on everyone else.



Despite how foreign the concept may be to you out there on the fringe far left, all laws may be said to reflect society's values. Particularly those most directly involving the very lives of the members of that society.
 
The GOP has always sold the bitter pill of Plutocracy with a coating of racism, homophobia and misogyny, none of which anyone will tolerate anymore.



Don't kid yourself, clown. The democrats have always had at least as much "racism, homophobia and misogyny" as anyone.

No, they really don't... Having been on both sides of the fence, I can attest to that much.


Yes, they really do. And you are a life-long, permanent resident of land so far to the left of the fence you can't even see it from your porch.
 
Horsecrap, Unkotare. The social values crowd are trying to impose their values on the larger majority of the country who believe evangelicalism and its derivatives are stark raving mad. They pretend to be conservative but are in fact statist right wing big government progressives, like you.

I am not a progressive statist like you, Unkotare. I believe the government should stay out of the issue, and the women of America have decided the same thing.

Complain all you want, but it means nothing.
 
dude shut up, you are not going to do anything about it.



Where did I mention "doing anything about it"? Go stick your nose somewhere else if you're too stupid to follow along, "dude." :rolleyes:

hey you are the one telling people to get the fuck out of your country, not me.
You are just trying to be an internet tough guy....Lame


Don't be scared little one, I didn't say anything about taking them by the scruff of the neck and throwing them out myself. I was pointing out the course of action that makes the most sense considering their attitude about my country and in consideration of how much it would benefit everyone. So calm down and try not to be frightened.
 
Unkotare is the frightened one, believe me. He see "his" idea of America disappearing in the past and can't handle it.
 
You and your haters are not a decisive part of it anymore. The leadership has decided your hate has to go, and you along with it if you can't give the hate up. Your extremist right wing terrorism is over as a force in the party.
 
Horsecrap, Unkotare. The social values crowd are trying to impose their values



Read again slowly, idiot: all laws may be said to reflect society's values. Particularly those most directly involving the very lives of the members of that society.
 
Because I am the one who grabbed you by the scruff of your internet neck and straightened you out when you first tried your crap here.



Wrong again, Fakey. Hilariously wrong. As I recall, you still haven't recovered from the humiliation of having it pointed out that you are incompetent in the use and understanding of the English language. But that's for you and your shrink to work out.
 

Forum List

Back
Top