Pandora
Well-Known Member
Since democrats never claimed to have any values they really are not being hypocritical like republicans are
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Trial for Republican sex offender starts
- Thread starter Popeye
- Start date
Since democrats never claimed to have any values they really are not being hypocritical like republicans are
Werbung:
Since democrats never claimed to have any values they really are not being hypocritical like republicans are
Ah, yes, the Democratic party, party of no values at all.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
Ah, yes, the Democratic party, party of no values at all.
They have things they value
Unions
Global warming
Abortion on demand
Take from the rich and give to the government err.. Sorry, I mean give to the poor
Affirmative action
Keep people dependent on the government with stuff like welfare
They are huge on animal rights; hell they care more about an unfertilized owl’s egg than they do a fertilized human egg.
So sure they have values
I just don’t know that there is any value in the things they value
That's as opposed to Republican values of big government, authoritarianism, lip service to fiscal responsibility, and mouthing platitudes about "family values."
Yes, I think we've pegged the values of the two major parties pretty well.
Time for a third party. How about the Libertarians?
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I think even a 4th party
I personally am not a republican but my values do tend to lean that way but not in all things.
I think they do stand for family values but sadly a handful of them we see talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Most conservative republicans do walk the walk as best a human can, but of course they are not perfect. I still believe conservative republicans are for fiscal responsibility and small government but there are too many rino's in the party doing the opposite. Can you please give me an example of authoritarianism as a problem in the Republican Party?
cough cough..huffington post...man I hate to say that outloud!
hold on..need to google again to find it...
Here ya go..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-eisenbach/the-beltway-unbuckled-sex_b_175076.html
For one thing, there is the issue of abortion.
Let me explain that I'm against abortion. I'm even more against the idea of the government deciding who may or may not have an abortion. I feel no need to impose my values on the rest of society by force. Doing so is an authoritarian position.
Does the government have the right to decide who may or may not marry? I say no, most Republicans say yes. I'm a registered Republican, BTW, but they can't count on my vote. They have to earn it.
In fact, most of the time, I'll vote my conscience which leans strongly Libertarian on most issues.
Is there even one Republican who is in favor of a more rational drug policy? The war on drugs is another example of authoritarianism. Now, I'm not a druggie myself, mind you, but if someone else wants to smoke a little weed, what's that to me? Throwing them in prison is not the answer. As for the hard stuff, it's time to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not a legal one.
There is the "Patriot Act", deserving of the Orwellian Doublespeak Award.
And the death penalty. Why is the party of limited government so ready to give the government the power of life and death, especially when so many have been proven innocent after having been convicted?
Of course, there are authoritarian planks in the Democratic Party's platform also, but you already know that.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
Where you against the government forcing the death of Terri Schiavo? Demanding she will not only be taken off the feeding tube but refusing to let her parents feed her and give her water through her mouth, no matter how many times the parents begged to be able to feed her and give her water? I hope so.
Do you have a problem with the government putting a mother in jail for hitting their child? If so why? Hitting them can not be nearly as bad as killing them. You say you are against abortion so you must realize its murder. At what point is it not ok to kill your child in your opinion? At what point should the law get involved? Obama says you can kill them after they are born by refusing them any medical care or any assistance, just sticking them in a soiled utility room to die. Do you go that far also if it’s the parent’s wishes?
I can only assume you mean homosexual marriage? I guess I am with you there. I think government marriage should be that anyone or anything should be able to marry anyone or anything in groups or in singles for any reason. If we make it meaningless then people will not continue to care what the frak the government thinks and wont look to the government to validate their relationships. They will go back to the church where it was established and have God validate it. I personally want to marry both my kids so when I die the government wont take everything I have worked for in the death tax, it can just pass to them freely.
I don’t really care about pot either but I would hate to see us go the way of Amsterdam, so I am not sure where that fine line is.
You know I made a post about that and asked several times for some examples of the abuse of the patriot act, a couple of people replied but nothing they said was a patriot act thing. It was rules that were already in place in one section or another just not combined.
I am still waiting to hear what rights we lose by having it. If there is one I am against it. I have had so many rights that only can affect me taken away from me, like having to wear a seat belt and helmet when only my own life is at risk. It’s just crazy, I can kill my child but I can’t drive without a seat belt and the people who support that tell me the patriot act took something away from me. I also lost the right to cut down the frakin tree I planted in my yard without city permission.
I am with you there, I am very pro life. I don’t think we should be killing anyone, not babies not men on death row.
yeah but I like to hear it every so often to make sure I am not the only one who is upset about it
Interesting that you should bring up the Terri Schaivo case.
Terry was in a persistent vegetative state, according to her doctors. The family had the heart wrenching decision to make whether to keep her on a feeding tube and keep her body functioning artificially, or not. There was a dispute between family members, which was settled by a state court. That should have been the end of it, but no.
The all powerful, all knowing federal government had to step in and try to tell the poor peons what was right and wrong.
They should have kept their noses out of it. It was not their decision, whether or not you or I think that the feeding tube should have been removed, it was a decision best made by the doctors and the family, not the feds.
That's a perfect example of federal authoritarianism.
The federal government does not have the power to make those kinds of decisions. Some of them are local matters, especially where to draw the line between discipline and child abuse. Some of them are personal decisions. None of them are federal decisions.
Careful, there, you just might be a Libertarian and not know it.
Are you aware that Holland has a lower rate of drug abuse than we have in the US? Maybe going the way of Holland wouldn't be so bad after all.
The principle is that decisions affecting the individual should be left to the individual. Some things, like that tree, could affect your neighbors, I'm not sure. If it was big enough to hit someone else's house, then there was a need for some oversight.
As for seat belts and helmets, you have a point so long as the rest of us are not required to pay for your injuries, either through higher insurance premiums, or higher costs at the emergency room
Personally, I'd give out little bumper stickers with the signing of an organ donor card, saying "exempt from seat belt/helmet laws." That would thin out the stupid people, and increase the number of donor organs as well.
It's a perfect solution.
If by "we", you mean the government, then I agree as well.
Neither party is pro liberty. Only if the people are willing to pay the price of eternal vigilance will we continue to be free. Right now, I'm not making any bets as to how long we'll do so.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
The only doctor to testify she was in a persistent vegetative state was a doctor who only saw her for 15 minutes and was a strong advocate for the death with dignity (kill’em before they suck the inheritance resources) The husband testified when suing for the millions of dollars in her name that she would live a very long time and he needed this big lump sum to take care of her, right after the settlement he hired attorneys to help him have her killed. The judge who ordered the tube removed never saw her and also insisted no one was allowed to feed her via mouth or give her water. She could eat its just that the husband did not want to pay to have someone feed her so he had the feeding tube installed. There is video tape of her following objects with her eyes, blinking once or twice for yes and no, saying the word pain when she was menstruating and wanting something to help with the cramps. A number of nurses who said she was communicative but none of that mattered. There were also two ex girlfriends of the husbands who testified that he often called Terri a pig and was angry that she would not just hurry up and die because it was wasting his funds.
I agree with you here that this would be a case of federal authoritarianism, but it came from the left not the right.
neither should abortion on demand for any reason be a federal decisions
Careful, there, you just might be a Libertarian and not know it.
.
I was, but in my county you pretty much have to be a democrat to be sure your vote counts. When I was a republican I would always get a note about 4-6 weeks after the election saying my vote did not count because my signature did not match and being a 3d party does not let you vote in primaries. I would be a registered independent if I could vote in primaries and I was sure my vote would really count.
I am aware that Amsterdam has a very high case of people addicted to heroin and even though they have free needle giveaway’s they have to hire a person to pick up dirty needles in the streets and in parks. I don’t see that as a plus. I also know that you cant smoke cigarettes in public but you can toke on a doobie in the park in front of the kids and all is good.
Not being able to cut down your tree here is not about safety it’s about tree hugging liberal freaks from hell that like the trees more than they like your rights. But we have it better than Marion County in Salem, you can not plant a bush, shrub or tree unless its pre approved by the county, and it must be indigenous to the area.
Even if someone is wearing a seat belt it’s not responsible people’s problem to have to take care of them. I do not expect my responsible neighbors to have to take care of me.
A perfect solution? Blackmail?
So you are saying that you believe people have to do what others feel is right even if you don’t like wearing a seat belt or helmet but you can buy your way out of it by donating organs? That seems more like blackmail to me.
I should be able to drive without a seat belt except for maybe if I am pregnant, I can see having to give safe passage to the other person within me. And If I get myself in a wreck and it’s my own fault no one should have to pay for me, I should pay for myself. If the other driver is at fault his insurance should have to pay for it.
I mean no one should be killing others, not mothers killing their kids, not the state killing prisoiners and we are sick that we just talk about it being wrong but do nothing.
I agree both parties have problems, morally I think the democrats have bigger problems.
Regardless of whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats championing the intervention, it is a classic example of federal authoritarianism.
But the government isn't forcing anyone to have an abortion. It's about choice, not about you or I imposing our values on the rest of society by force of law.
Unfortunately, it's like that here, too, in the primaries at least. I'm still a registered Republican, and voted in the primary (not for McCain!). There is some movement toward open primaries, though.
I agree that the rules that apply to smoking tobacco need to apply to other drugs as well, but can't see any reason for the government to decide that tobacco is OK, but other drugs are forbidden.
In that case, no, it's none of the city's business whether you cut down a tree on your own property or not.
I cut down two on mine last year, and didn't ask anyone. Maybe I'm just lucky that the tree police didn't come by. I've planted several, also, without asking anyone.
All that is well and good, so long as an indigent person who is injured can't go to the emergency and then expect the rest of us to pay for it, or can't get cared for by insurance, thus raising the costs for us all. If the actions of an individual affect the rest of us, then the rest of us have a right to make some rules.
And, if the other driver is not at fault, or if he or she is a deadbeat without insurance, then who pays the bill?
The organ donor idea was just a kind of joke, but it does make sense in a way, doesn't it?
OK, if you say so.
Popeye
Well-Known Member
Big difference between a couple of consenting adults and Republican Pedophiles..how does it feel to be a member of a party that has a disturbing pattern of pedophilia?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
As far as I can tell pubs and dems are involved in sex scandals about equally.
You are just nuts if you think that all sex crimes have pubs behind them. There are far too manay examples of scandals involving dems for anyone to possibly think that the pubs are behind them all.
Nuts. nuts. nuts.
http://redblueamerica.com/truthorno...rats-more-prone-sex-scandals-republicans-1754
Werbung:
Pandora
Well-Known Member
It’s scary to me when we let our government decide who are persons and who are not. Some judge who never met her decided Terri was not a person because a doctor who spent 15 minutes with her said she was not. No one cared to listen to the other doctors who did spend hours with her and said she was and she could be helped if only her husband would get her therapy. I can understand the government not wanting to pay for her care but that was not the problem, there was a healthy settlement from her first injury to take care of her and give her therapy and her parents were willing to take the burden on
It’s also scary to think the government let her die a long hard torturous death and did nothing. Had that been a dog or cat PETA would have been protesting and had it stopped. We don’t even kill our unwanted animals in such a ghoulish manner. Kind of funny (in a sick way not ha ha) right after Terri was forced to die over days of being denied food or water there were some people tube feeding dolphins in Florida.
how silly, we impose our values every single day. Murder is a crime. It’s against our value and moral system. Beating your kids is a crime for the same reasons. You never replied to me about when its ok to kill your kids. You personally think abortion is wrong you said… at what point is it a choice for you and not something the state should get involved with? The 9th month? Till birth? Till right after birth like Obama? When do we start protecting the children, at what point do you deem them worthy of protection?
There is a little difference. Smoking a cigarette does not alter your state of mind. You can smoke a cigarette and then drive or run machinery and it does not effect you. This can not be said for pot or any other drug out there.
You can do it without asking because those city, county and state laws are probably not implemented yet. But they are more good examples of what the left keeps taking away from me. I am wondering what rights the right takes away from me?
If someone is injured and the other guy does not have insurance ours does pick up the bill and if we don’t have insurance then oh well. A few cases of people not getting government help will make the others be more careful to take care of themselves. I have faith in Americans though. If a person were in this state and there were no programs from the government to help them. There are Americans would and churches who would and doctors who would help for free exc. But it would also wake people up to their own responsibility.
For the organ donor idea, no I do not think it’s a good idea at all. The government has no right to force us in seatbelts in the first place and now to give them more rights in telling us they will cut us a deal if we give them our body parts we can get out of the law that was wrong to implement in the first place.
But here is something I do think is a good idea.
If we made a new program in conjunction with the hospitals that anyone who signs a donor card now has a sort of life insurance. GOVERNEMENT DOES NOT PAY THE MONEY!!!! Hospitals do or the person needing the organ or the insurance of the person needing the organ…
By this I mean….
I am not a current donor but if the scenario I am about to lay out were true, I would be a donor in a heart beat.
Upon the death of a donor their body is checked for useable organs. There would be a list of what each organ was worth. A person with a rare blood type would have organs worth more; common blood types would get less. If enough people were doing this the value of the organs would go down over time because it would not be that long before there was a surplus of organs.
If lets say at my death both kidneys were useable and my liver and that was all, my beneficiary would receive 10 thousand per kidney and liver. So now it’s become a life insurance for my family and I was able to do something good for mankind too.
In the beginning of the program the organs would be worth more like 60 thousand because of supply and demand, but over time it would probably be more like 5-10 thousand after more where doing the program.
Everybody wins
The person who died can know they were able to leave a little something to their kids or family
The person who gets the organ gets to live
The doctor gets to work and the hospital gets to charge an arm and leg for the patients stay
I don’t see any losers and the frakin government need not be involved except to make sure that the donor’s family did get the money
