Can Reps modify abortion stance?

[USwings]

Actually, when it comes to human rights offenses we are obligated to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Otherwise, nobody would concern themselves with anyone's murder or crimes against anyone except themselves. Anarchy.

What kind of success is it if you sacrifice life for votes, your no better than your foe...

I doubt that it matters to you, but that makes NO sense, you haven't saved a life by not getting votes. If you feel like your better then your foe, good for you, but your foe...is opening all the doors to abortion that you don't want open. You didn't sacrifice life for votes you sacrificed life for the moral high ground

How many lives do you save by abandoning your principles in order to court votes? If the GOP says, "Oh, never mind the abortion thing, fuck it, no big deal", and then wins election, what have they accomplished? If you have to abandon your principles to win, have you actually won at all?

I doubt that that matters to you, though, because you've made it clear that elections are just about winning a competition to you.

Sorry,I was wrong when I said, You didn't sacrifice life for votes you sacrificed life for the moral high ground. Let me correct that. You didn't sacrifice life for votes you sacrificed life for your self righteousness. In that you were successful.

 

[koshergrl]

Ever heard of BARRY GOLDWATER?

The father of conservatism.
And he DESPISED social conservatives.
Probably LONG before your time.

so he was the first "moderate" conservative.....?

probably why the whishywashy "moderates" keep on losing...Romney being the latest...

Goldwater a moderate?

You're an idiot.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ever heard of BARRY GOLDWATER?

The father of conservatism.
And he DESPISED social conservatives.
Probably LONG before your time.

so he was the first "moderate" conservative.....?

probably why the whishywashy "moderates" keep on losing...Romney being the latest...

Goldwater a moderate?

well that was not the intellectual response i had hoped for....

i think that until the social and fiscal unite there is no real hope for the GOP....
you can't mix fiscal conservatism with social liberalism and expect to broadcast a coherent message...

 

[JoeB131]

[

well that was not the intellectual response i had hoped for....

i think that until the social and fiscal unite there is no real hope for the GOP....
you can't mix fical conservatism with social liberalism and expect to broadcast a coherent message...

I really don't want to call what the GOP currently stands for "Fiscal Conservativism".

If you want to see real fiscal conservatism, it was what we had under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we posted surpluses.... we mostly avoided unnecessary wars.

And he did that while being more socially liberal than Obama.

Of course, the fiscal conservatives hated Clinton because his fiscal conservatism also meant the rich paid their fair share and weren't allowed to defraud consumers. That bastard.

The social conservatives hated him because he was kind of a letch.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

[

well that was not the intellectual response i had hoped for....

i think that until the social and fiscal unite there is no real hope for the GOP....
you can't mix fical conservatism with social liberalism and expect to broadcast a coherent message...

I really don't want to call what the GOP currently stands for "Fiscal Conservativism".

If you want to see real fiscal conservatism, it was what we had under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we posted surpluses.... we mostly avoided unnecessary wars.

And he did that while being more socially liberal than Obama.

Of course, the fiscal conservatives hated Clinton because his fiscal conservatism also meant the rich paid their fair share and weren't allowed to defraud consumers. That bastard.

The social conservatives hated him because he was kind of a letch.

Clinton was famous for being 'socially liberal' with Monica....

the fiscal conservatism you saw was actually the result of Clinton having to work with the conservative Gingrich congress...

 

[JoeB131]

[

well that was not the intellectual response i had hoped for....

i think that until the social and fiscal unite there is no real hope for the GOP....
you can't mix fical conservatism with social liberalism and expect to broadcast a coherent message...

I really don't want to call what the GOP currently stands for "Fiscal Conservativism".

If you want to see real fiscal conservatism, it was what we had under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we posted surpluses.... we mostly avoided unnecessary wars.

And he did that while being more socially liberal than Obama.

Of course, the fiscal conservatives hated Clinton because his fiscal conservatism also meant the rich paid their fair share and weren't allowed to defraud consumers. That bastard.

The social conservatives hated him because he was kind of a letch.

Clinton was famous for being 'socially liberal' with Monica....

the fiscal conservatism you saw was actually the result of Clinton having to work with the conservative Gingrich congress...

And the thing they held against Gingrich this time was that he worked with Clinton.

This is the problem with the GOP. Cooperation has become a dirty word.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I really don't want to call what the GOP currently stands for "Fiscal Conservativism".

If you want to see real fiscal conservatism, it was what we had under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we posted surpluses.... we mostly avoided unnecessary wars.

And he did that while being more socially liberal than Obama.

Of course, the fiscal conservatives hated Clinton because his fiscal conservatism also meant the rich paid their fair share and weren't allowed to defraud consumers. That bastard.

The social conservatives hated him because he was kind of a letch.

Clinton was famous for being 'socially liberal' with Monica....

the fiscal conservatism you saw was actually the result of Clinton having to work with the conservative Gingrich congress...

And the thing they held against Gingrich this time was that he worked with Clinton.

This is the problem with the GOP. Cooperation has become a dirty word.

are you kidding? Romney was one of the biggest "cooperation" candidates out there...

 

[Cammmpbell]

No, they just realize that you can't sell Plutocracy without rapping it in social issues.

They tired that. With Goldwater in 1964. He lost 44 states, and five of the ones he did win is because the inbreds in your part of the country were still mad at LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act.

(LBJ Said, "I've Lost the South for a Generation". He was an optimist. Then again, these were the descendents of the same dumb shits who went to war so a few rich folks could own slaves.)

It wasn't until Reagan took the poison pill of Plutocracy and wrapped it in the nice Bacony goodness of social issues that you got a lot of working folks to vote against their own economic interests.

My own opinion, the Fiscal Conservatives need the Social Conservatives more than the other way around.

Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives are basically one and the same...they cannot be otherwise...

LBJ turned around and enslaved the South for generations with his "War on Poverty".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them taxing the rich will solve our country's problems...
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them killing their own children is a "right".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

it's amazing how many liberal lies the poor fools will fall for...

Ever heard of BARRY GOLDWATER?

The father of conservatism.
And he DESPISED social conservatives.
Probably LONG before your time.

LOL! I was still a Republican in 1964 and voted for Barry. Lyndon Johnson gave him a worse ass kicking than the modern Barry gave Romulus.

I'm an amateur radio amateur and so was Goldwater. Once I carried on a two way with K7UGA/3. He used the slash 3 when he was on the air from DC. He was a senator then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly. They do not care.
Their stuck in the mud "principles", more like sticking their nose in other's private affairs, is more important to them than fiscal conservatism.

No, they just realize that you can't sell Plutocracy without rapping it in social issues.

They tired that. With Goldwater in 1964. He lost 44 states, and five of the ones he did win is because the inbreds in your part of the country were still mad at LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act.

(LBJ Said, "I've Lost the South for a Generation". He was an optimist. Then again, these were the descendents of the same dumb shits who went to war so a few rich folks could own slaves.)

It wasn't until Reagan took the poison pill of Plutocracy and wrapped it in the nice Bacony goodness of social issues that you got a lot of working folks to vote against their own economic interests.

My own opinion, the Fiscal Conservatives need the Social Conservatives more than the other way around.

Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives are basically one and the same...they cannot be otherwise...

LBJ turned around and enslaved the South for generations with his "War on Poverty".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them taxing the rich will solve our country's problems...
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them killing their own children is a "right".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

it's amazing how many liberal lies the poor fools will fall for...

Nonsense.

Fiscal conservatives during Goldwater’s time also believed in responsible governance, which included raising taxes when appropriate. Unlike the reckless TPM of today.

And social conservatives are a blight brought upon us by the Faustian bargain republicans struck with Christian fundamentalists.

 

[koshergrl]

Murder is a moral and religious issue...but that doesn't mean it should be ignored by lawmakers.

 

[Cammmpbell]

No, they just realize that you can't sell Plutocracy without rapping it in social issues.

They tired that. With Goldwater in 1964. He lost 44 states, and five of the ones he did win is because the inbreds in your part of the country were still mad at LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act.

(LBJ Said, "I've Lost the South for a Generation". He was an optimist. Then again, these were the descendents of the same dumb shits who went to war so a few rich folks could own slaves.)

It wasn't until Reagan took the poison pill of Plutocracy and wrapped it in the nice Bacony goodness of social issues that you got a lot of working folks to vote against their own economic interests.

My own opinion, the Fiscal Conservatives need the Social Conservatives more than the other way around.

Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives are basically one and the same...they cannot be otherwise...

LBJ turned around and enslaved the South for generations with his "War on Poverty".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them taxing the rich will solve our country's problems...
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them killing their own children is a "right".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

it's amazing how many liberal lies the poor fools will fall for...

Nonsense.

Fiscal conservatives during Goldwater’s time also believed in responsible governance, which included raising taxes when appropriate. Unlike the reckless TPM of today.

And social conservatives are a blight brought upon us by the Faustian bargain republicans struck with Christian fundamentalists.

Granted.....and the end of financial responsibility began when Reagan didn't cut spending a dime but gave the rich a huge tax cut and he and Bush41 quadrupled the national debt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GoneBezerk embraces a Culture of Death: no abortions for any reason, damn the ho for getting pregnant, stupid woman.

This is why the GBs will be forced out of the GOP: can't afford that hate.

Evil people telling the GOP to embrace killing unborn humans to get more votes.

Abortion is not going away since there are enough evil people in this country like JaketheFake, so the GOP should just try to limit abortion istead of trying to stop it which is impossible.

When Democraps want abortion to be legal up to the delivery room moment, the GOP must block them. We can't stop scumbags using abortion as birth control early in the pregnancy, but we can stop them from killing the baby late term like liberals salivate over.

You are right about late term abortions, it is sick and irresponsible. I think most woman would support limits on abortion. I think most woman understand pregnancy is a responsibility that requires a careful, thoughtful course of action. It would be evil to wait any longer then necessary to make a thoughtful decision. God willing she may decided to have her baby. There should be a reasonable window to make that decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And I see GB's cultist buddy, Unkotare, is doing his JimJones routine. Drink the koolaide, boys.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, Jake, not killing the baby is not the death culture. The death culture is yours...i.e., the progressives who embrace killing babies.

What a dishonest douche you are.

 

[koshergrl]

GoneBezerk embraces a Culture of Death: no abortions for any reason, damn the ho for getting pregnant, stupid woman.

This is why the GBs will be forced out of the GOP: can't afford that hate.

Evil people telling the GOP to embrace killing unborn humans to get more votes.

Abortion is not going away since there are enough evil people in this country like JaketheFake, so the GOP should just try to limit abortion istead of trying to stop it which is impossible.

When Democraps want abortion to be legal up to the delivery room moment, the GOP must block them. We can't stop scumbags using abortion as birth control early in the pregnancy, but we can stop them from killing the baby late term like liberals salivate over.

You are right about late term abortions, it is sick and irresponsible. I think most woman would support limits on abortion. I think most woman understand pregnancy is a responsibility that requires a careful, thoughtful course of action. It would be evil to wait any longer then necessary to make a thoughtful decision. God willing she may decided to have her baby. There should be a reasonable window to make that decision.

You take every single one of your own traits and assign it to the right wing.

It's fascinating in it's duplicity and sliminess.

But gross all the same.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, they just realize that you can't sell Plutocracy without rapping it in social issues.

They tired that. With Goldwater in 1964. He lost 44 states, and five of the ones he did win is because the inbreds in your part of the country were still mad at LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act.

(LBJ Said, "I've Lost the South for a Generation". He was an optimist. Then again, these were the descendents of the same dumb shits who went to war so a few rich folks could own slaves.)

It wasn't until Reagan took the poison pill of Plutocracy and wrapped it in the nice Bacony goodness of social issues that you got a lot of working folks to vote against their own economic interests.

My own opinion, the Fiscal Conservatives need the Social Conservatives more than the other way around.

Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives are basically one and the same...they cannot be otherwise...

LBJ turned around and enslaved the South for generations with his "War on Poverty".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them taxing the rich will solve our country's problems...
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them killing their own children is a "right".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

it's amazing how many liberal lies the poor fools will fall for...

Nonsense.

Fiscal conservatives during Goldwater’s time also believed in responsible governance, which included raising taxes when appropriate. Unlike the reckless TPM of today.

And social conservatives are a blight brought upon us by the Faustian bargain republicans struck with Christian fundamentalists.

like Romney Goldwater was a fiscal conservative but he ignored the social side of things....in other words a 'higher reason' to vote for him than just good budgeting...

Johnson promoted his "Great Society" (sounds good, no?) and his social programs and won hands down....kinda like BO did....promising goodies... to help the poor and needy....who could say no to all that...?

 

[Antares]

[

well that was not the intellectual response i had hoped for....

i think that until the social and fiscal unite there is no real hope for the GOP....
you can't mix fical conservatism with social liberalism and expect to broadcast a coherent message...

I really don't want to call what the GOP currently stands for "Fiscal Conservativism".

If you want to see real fiscal conservatism, it was what we had under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget, we posted surpluses.... we mostly avoided unnecessary wars.

And he did that while being more socially liberal than Obama.

Of course, the fiscal conservatives hated Clinton because his fiscal conservatism also meant the rich paid their fair share and weren't allowed to defraud consumers. That bastard.

The social conservatives hated him because he was kind of a letch.

LOL, Bill had no choice he HAD to work with Pubs, sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act. In the arly 1970s he told several of us Young Republicans who were club presidents of the various states that was a mistake politically. His understanding of political reality was out of touch by the mid 60s.

Our far right's cultural insensitivity today is out of touch with political reality.

ScreamingEagle, tell us what the poverty rate was in 1964 then 1970 the 2010 in America.

ScreamingEagle, tell us what the poverty rate was in 1935 for the elderly and what it is today in 2012.

You are out of touch.

Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives are basically one and the same...they cannot be otherwise...

LBJ turned around and enslaved the South for generations with his "War on Poverty".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them taxing the rich will solve our country's problems...
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

they tell them killing their own children is a "right".....
....and the poor fools continue to vote Demonrat....

it's amazing how many liberal lies the poor fools will fall for...

Nonsense.

Fiscal conservatives during Goldwater’s time also believed in responsible governance, which included raising taxes when appropriate. Unlike the reckless TPM of today.

And social conservatives are a blight brought upon us by the Faustian bargain republicans struck with Christian fundamentalists.

like Romney Goldwater was a fiscal conservative but he ignored the social side of things....in other words a 'higher reason' to vote for him than just good budgeting...

Johnson promoted his "Great Society" (sounds good, no?) and his social programs and won hands down....kinda like BO did....promising goodies... to help the poor and needy....who could say no to all that...?

 

[koshergrl]

1964: 19 percent
1970: 12.6 percent
2010: 14.3 percent

Looks like it's headed back up.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act. In the arly 1970s he told several of us Young Republicans who were club presidents of the various states that was a mistake politically. His understanding of political reality was out of touch by the mid 60s.

Our far right's cultural insensitivity today is out of touch with political reality.

ScreamingEagle, tell us what the poverty rate was in 1964 then 1970 the 2010 in America.

ScreamingEagle, tell us what the poverty rate was in 1935 for the elderly and what it is today in 2012.

You are out of touch.

Nonsense.

Fiscal conservatives during Goldwater’s time also believed in responsible governance, which included raising taxes when appropriate. Unlike the reckless TPM of today.

And social conservatives are a blight brought upon us by the Faustian bargain republicans struck with Christian fundamentalists.

like Romney Goldwater was a fiscal conservative but he ignored the social side of things....in other words a 'higher reason' to vote for him than just good budgeting...

Johnson promoted his "Great Society" (sounds good, no?) and his social programs and won hands down....kinda like BO did....promising goodies... to help the poor and needy....who could say no to all that...?

you're the one out of touch with reality...but then so many liberal are...

i'd say it looks like the great liberal "War on Poverty" didn't do so great....see chart...

(and don't look at the initial drop.... the poverty level had fallen already from 22.4% in 1959 to 19% in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced by LBJ...)