HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

The inevitable Republican civil war: Who survives and what becomes of the Republicans

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 11:41 PM
  #51
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
It is the inevitable reaction of the losing side to think there is something wrong with their party/philosophy/core beliefs, etc... major handwringing always happens immediately after a loss, especially one when you think you should have won.


however, in time, I think that rational people will come to the realization that the loss was less due to being out of the mainstream than it was due to a flawed candidate who was the result of a flawed primary process.

republicans nominated previous loser Dole in an election that they felt like should have been an easy win in 1996. loser nominee, election lost.

so in 2000 they went back to the formula that had worked before, a conservative sitting governor, running for the first time, and even though the democrats should have won based on the economy, the center right country elected the republican who looked like a winner not a loser.

in 2008, the republicans nominated former loser Mccain and he got clobbered. in 2012, the republicans could tell that former loser Romney wasnt their best option, and searched desperately for a candidate who met the winning formula, ie a conservative governor.. and if Rick Perry hadnt been a complete dumb_ass he would have won the nomination in a walk and would have likely done much better than Romney in the general election.

I suspect in 2016 the republicans will look for a conservative sitting governor, or failing that a conservative former governor, meaning at this point the early favorites are Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Mitch Daniels. They will make moves to make themselves more attractive to hispanics, and more than likely they will nominate someone who has some gravitas on health care who can effectively make the anti-Obamacare case much more effectively than Romney, who was obviously the worst person to nominate to attack Obamacare..

the other thing the republicans will do at the senate/house level is the will make sure that tea party types have only one opponent in the primaries, making it less likely that wackos like Akin can win a nomination with 37% of the vote..
I don't see much of a future for Walker on the national stage...Bush I hope can build some momentum...And I thought it was you that told me Daniels was out of politics? Might have been another poster.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2012, 11:49 PM
  #52
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Obamacare is probably here to stay, especially once everyone sees that it's not the trail wreck you all think it will be. Who knows though, maybe people like Papa John will wise up and realize that the best thing for their business is universal single-payer health care, and the Republican party will back that horse. That will probably happen when pigs become airborne.

Republicans are even more delusional than I thought if they thought 1996 should be an easy win. The economy was strong, the deficit had been halved since 1992 and the incumbent president was intelligent and charismatic. Incumbents are pretty hard to beat when the economy is average (see: GWB, Obama), let alone when the economy is humming along nicely.

And Scott Walker, ugh. If I'm still living in Australia and he's elected president, I'll just go ahead and sign a contract with my employer here that runs through Walker's entire term.
and I agree, if Obamacare turns out to be not so bad, the democrats are likely to be in good shape for quite some time, especially if the economy turns around and has sustained job growth.

and I also agree that thinking 1996 was an easy win was an illusion based on the 94 midterms, just like the republicans(including me) thinking that this year should have been an easy win was somewhat illusory also based on the previous mid-terms... the truth is the economy got just good enough between 2010 and 2012 to buoy the incumbent, especially in the face of a weak opponent.

I really think if Jeb Bush chooses to run, there wont be much of a primary at all... and Bush v Clinton II will be a fun ride...

PredsV82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:08 AM
  #53
BrainOfJ
Diva
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 17,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Understood.

Just in terms of that particular discussion, I think you'd find you'd have a lot of allies with your position.

On the other side, I really don't know of anyone that I would describe as pro abortion.

I am pro choice, and I have to put up with the fact that people make choices that I disagree with all the time.
And I think even though I consider myself prolife and yourself prochoice...we agree. Becasue no matter what, government shouldnt say yes or no. I dont want them making that decision...I want my own personal experiences and beliefs making that decision.

My only opposition on a law federal level is tax funded abortions.

But yeah...I feel like the stance I propose is not only extremely reasonable for the republican party...but also where the general country stands. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative with a smaller government. I could be wrong but thats just my observations.

I like 2016 for the republicans...I think we see some up and comers like Christie and Jindal who understand this. I am cautiously optimistic...but very very cautious.

Kate never showed up...

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:09 AM
  #54
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
but you see, Romney had to run that gauntlet and kiss ass to those crazies just to prove he was a "real" conservative and get the nomination... a guy like Daniels or Walker or Bush already will have bona fide conservative credentials and can ignore the crazies and talk directly to the reasonable people...
You may be right.

But my own experience tells me that ignoring the crazies is not a tactic that ever works. Now if a Bush or a Daniels stands up to the anti science, anti everyone that does not follow their narrow belief system, then the mainstream will be interested.

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:10 AM
  #55
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,375
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
I suspect in 2016 the republicans will look for a conservative sitting governor, or failing that a conservative former governor, meaning at this point the early favorites are Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Mitch Daniels. They will make moves to make themselves more attractive to hispanics, and more than likely they will nominate someone who has some gravitas on health care who can effectively make the anti-Obamacare case much more effectively than Romney, who was obviously the worst person to nominate to attack Obamacare..

the other thing the republicans will do at the senate/house level is the will make sure that tea party types have only one opponent in the primaries, making it less likely that wackos like Akin can win a nomination with 37% of the vote..
Scott Walker? Yeah right. He'd be a horrible choice that would only satisfy the Tea Bagging right.

Jeb Bush I have reservations with as well. I think his views on the feminism and gay rights are pretty horrendous (calling them the new victim groups? please.). I don't know if I would vote for him, but he's certainly better than someone like Romney or someone from the fringe right.

I would not mind Christie or Mitch Daniels. I am still al in on Christie because of how good of a ****ing job he has done. He's not only a moderate conservative who can *GASP* appeal to moderate voters (I am NOT talking about independents -- the Republicans lost because they lost the moderate vote). Those two would all be guys I would vote for depending on who they ran against.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:23 AM
  #56
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
And I think even though I consider myself prolife and yourself prochoice...we agree. Becasue no matter what, government shouldnt say yes or no. I dont want them making that decision...I want my own personal experiences and beliefs making that decision.

My only opposition on a law federal level is tax funded abortions.

But yeah...I feel like the stance I propose is not only extremely reasonable for the republican party...but also where the general country stands. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative with a smaller government. I could be wrong but thats just my observations.

I like 2016 for the republicans...I think we see some up and comers like Christie and Jindal who understand this. I am cautiously optimistic...but very very cautious.

Kate never showed up...
Well, tax payer funded is a murky area. One the one hand if it is a women's health insurance program
then that is different. Same with Planned Parenthood, in my view.

And this may be our basic disagreement.

Sorry about Kate.

She is capricious.

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:24 AM
  #57
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
I really think if Jeb Bush chooses to run, there wont be much of a primary at all... and Bush v Clinton II will be a fun ride...
I read an article about Jeb Bush fairly recently, and it said that one thing people are not considering about Bush is that his wife is quite a private person and isn't all that enthusiastic about being in the public eye, let alone doing stump speeches like wives of presidential candidates usually do. Now it's possible that the Bushes could get around that by having various members of the extended Bush family speak instead, but a lot of people think that she is happy is south Florida with a tight group of Spanish-speaking friends, and would be very reluctant to support a presidential bid by her husband.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:32 AM
  #58
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,985
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Now if we look 15-20 years down the line, Jeb's son George P. Bush could be a serious contender. Served in Afghanistan, has two degrees and is slowly working his way up the ladder in political circles right now.

Free Torts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 12:44 AM
  #59
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,375
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
I read an article about Jeb Bush fairly recently, and it said that one thing people are not considering about Bush is that his wife is quite a private person and isn't all that enthusiastic about being in the public eye, let alone doing stump speeches like wives of presidential candidates usually do. Now it's possible that the Bushes could get around that by having various members of the extended Bush family speak instead, but a lot of people think that she is happy is south Florida with a tight group of Spanish-speaking friends, and would be very reluctant to support a presidential bid by her husband.
Well, his wife was ridiculed in Texas. Once it was found out that he married a Latina woman it created a ****storm. It's one of the primary reasons he left that ****hole state.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:09 AM
  #60
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
So you are pro choice.
No, you can be pro-life and still respect that abortion should be a personal decision. You may be both pro-life and pro-choice. I am against abortion, but that does not mean I believe the government should have any part in its outlaw, however.


As for the topic-- the problem is clear simply by considering the depressing display that was the Republican primary. Any party that allows blow hards and brain dead half wits such as Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Santorum to rise to the top is not a party that will ever gain national support. And rightfully so.

The Republican party needs to cut out its baggage. Never will it gain the support of moderates or rational thinkers when it has such a divisive and irrational social wing attached to it.

A return to simple conservative values would revitalize the party. Small government and fiscal conservatism should be the only topics important to the party at this point. And I disagree with some in this thread who believe this to be a demand for a more moderate party. On the contrary, I believe social issues have no place on the linear political spectrum. Perhaps I am describing moderate libertarianism. I would disagree. Rather, I would suggest it to be a return to real conservatism. What we see today in the Republican Party is not real conservatism. It is an ugly devolution, and it seems the more people reject it, the more rabid the party becomes in its promotion of it.

Now, it is highly unlikely that the Republicans will completely detach the party from its social values, so it appears we're stuck. We have only a fringe base voting for the Republican candidates because they actually agree with the platform. The rest vote for the Republicans to vote against the Democrats. And the Republican Party has its head up its ass not realizing that there is a significant portion of those who vote Democrat who could be swayed to vote Republican by organizing a party and a candidate who does not pander to the fringe base.

It's an ugly scene for the Republicans, and I believe the only way to revive the party is to regroup and create a fundamental change in who it considers to be its base. It could take multiple election cycles. But some sort of revolution needs to occur. The current party is good for only a fringe portion of the country. The rest of its support comes from those who vote Republican only to vote against the Democrats.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 01:11 AM
  #61
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
Yet Bush and the Republicans got a vote of no confidence for being liberal all around in 2006.
What liberalism came from Bush and the Republicans?

Quote:
The problem here is that many of the people in America were not smart enough to give full power back to the Republicans in the senate in 2010 and even worse voted back in a president you had no vote of confidence in 2010 in along with allowing the Democrats control of the Senate again in 2012.
Yes. The Republicans that went full crazy in 2010? Where they decided that there wasn't crazy enough people running our government? We need more people like Mourdock and Akins in the Senate! And more class warfare! Because hell if you aren't a guy like Papa John, than you are a nobody right? And who the hell cares about 'junk' science like evolution, the God Particle and that the Earth is over 4.6 billion years old! Nope! It's all God! We should look at Kansas and go, yep! That's what we want the country to be like!

Quote:
If the United States is destroyed, it will be because of the stupid in this country.
Good to know you recognize you are apart of the destruction of this country. Next step is fix the little bits.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 02:46 AM
  #62
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
No, you can be pro-life and still respect that abortion should be a personal decision. You may be both pro-life and pro-choice.
I don't think so. Pro-choice basically means that a woman should be able to decide if she wants to have an abortion; i.e., the government should not be able to prohibit her from doing so. You are pro-choice because you support the woman's right to choose; you personally just choose life over abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 04:11 AM
  #63
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
I don't think so. Pro-choice basically means that a woman should be able to decide if she wants to have an abortion; i.e., the government should not be able to prohibit her from doing so. You are pro-choice because you support the woman's right to choose; you personally just choose life over abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.
I kind of have to agree with that. If you want to allow women the right to chose (i.e. you don't want the government to outlaw abortion), you are pro-choice. Meaning everybody should be allowed to make their own choice, it shouldn't be a segment of the population imposing their views on another.

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 07:52 AM
  #64
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,914
vCash: 500
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:01 AM
  #65
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,274
vCash: 500
I'm personally pro-get-the-f u ck-out-of-my-private-life

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:08 AM
  #66
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,530
vCash: 2050
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I'm personally pro-get-the-f u ck-out-of-my-private-life
Too bad there is no such thing as a 'private life'.

If you feel there is, by all means, go ahead and define it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
Interesting. What's your argument?

Epictetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:19 AM
  #67
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Interesting. What's your argument?
I won't presume to speak for him, but since I share the same opinion, I'll comment:

"Pro-abortion" makes it sound like the person in question wants others having abortions. Personally, as someone who'd be considered "pro-choice" (although I think the topic is sufficiently complex so as to not merit such simplistic pigeonholing of viewpoints), I would love it if there wasn't a single abortion performed, ever. But that's not realistic, and so I strongly advocate it being a legal procedure which is available in a safe, sterile, monitored environment. As part of being someone who is pro-choice but does not want to see abortions performed, I think a comprehensive approach to birth control and sex education is necessary, to inform people as to what options are available and the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

A big problem is that there is a sizable chunk of the "pro-life" crowd who are really "anti-sex unless it's for the purposes of procreation".

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:25 AM
  #68
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Too bad there is no such thing as a 'private life'.

If you feel there is, by all means, go ahead and define it.
It's the part of your life that don't directly relate to the society in which you are living. For example, if you sleep with someone (consentual), that is something that doesn't affect the society at large, and therefore shouldn't be regulated.


Quote:
Interesting. What's your argument?
You can be personally against Abortion, thinking it's a wrong thing to do to your personal body or your child, while still thinking it's a right for those who wish to have access to it (whatever your rational. Mine is that women will try to self-abort themselves even in an illegal environment when they are desperate enough, and that is a direct danger to their health).

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:09 AM
  #69
theotis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,438
vCash: 500
The GOP won't be able to pivot and fix their social issues as long as they are being drug down by the evangelical base. Goldwater warned them about this decades ago, as the party was just starting to pander to them to garner votes.

Quote:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
The religious right sees the entire world as binary: black and white, good and evil, us and them. There is no such thing as middle ground, compromise or grey areas. Fundamentalism doesn't allow room for any of those things, and doesn't permit understanding or respecting the other side. The only answer to every conflict is, "We're right because it's God's will, and the other side needs to be destroyed." It's the exact same thing that middle east is going through, just in a less violent fashion.

The problem is, I don't see how the GOP can untangle themselves from the religious right. It's like a parasite that's taken over the host at this point. If they were able to somehow completely scrub their platform of any of the pet social issues the evangelicals demand, there wouldn't be enough votes left to win on any national stage. And minority voters aren't going to just start voting for the party that, for all intents and purposes, has been disdainful of them for 40+ years. Unless Republicans go beyond just scrubbing right-wing social nonsense from their platform and openly embrace a major issue that endears them to minorities, similar to what Democrats did when they went full-bore into civil rights.

theotis77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:30 AM
  #70
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,530
vCash: 2050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
"Pro-abortion" makes it sound like the person in question wants others having abortions.
Interesting angle; I think there is some merit to this point since this often the problem with any 'label'. For example, you can be a Republican, but by virtue of being a Republican, does it mean you have to necessarily agree with all Republican views? Similarly, if I disagree with the Catholic Church's stance on abortion and prefer a stance of something like the United Way (how it's morally wrong to bring an unwanted child into existence), am I suddenly not a Catholic? So, to connect this back to the question, if I am ''pro-abortion'' does that mean I must always be in favour of a female having an abortion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Personally, as someone who'd be considered "pro-choice" (although I think the topic is sufficiently complex so as to not merit such simplistic pigeonholing of viewpoints)
I agree.

My argument for the same position, however, is different (or maybe you have the same agreement).

Pro-abortion can be defined as: 'a person who is in favour of abortion in particular circumstances'. Particular circumstances can be defined as situations you feel are correct or situations you feel are wrong; it provides the divide from being an absolute position to a moderate position. This avoids the problem with labels.

Pro-choice can be defined as: 'the belief that a female should have a choice, if to have an abortion or not to have an abortion'.

So from here, both of these are perfectly compatible (as separate terms) and hence accounts for the proposition: "Pro-choice is not pro-abortion". A woman should always have a choice, which is an absolute. However, there may be times where I do not agree with the abortion performed in that circumstance. Or, there may be times where woman's choice is compatible with my view on abortion. This can also be extended to "pro-life".

Pro-choice then cannot be a direct comparison to Pro-life since they are different issues based on their definitions (as stated above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
As part of being someone who is pro-choice but does not want to see abortions performed, I think a comprehensive approach to birth control and sex education is necessary, to inform people as to what options are available and the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
What exactly is your objection to abortion then, if you are pro-choice but anti-abortion? Birth control provides the same function as an abortion (i.e., the prevention of life or potential life becoming actual life). So why be in favor of birth control but not be in favor of abortion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
A big problem is that there is a sizable chunk of the "pro-life" crowd who are really "anti-sex unless it's for the purposes of procreation".
For the most part these views are at least compatible, however incorrect they appear to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
It's the part of your life that don't directly relate to the society in which you are living. For example, if you sleep with someone (consentual), that is something that doesn't affect the society at large, and therefore shouldn't be regulated.
So you define 'private life' on the basis of the lack of the state's involvement in an individual's private life, correct?

For your example, and following from the definition, I don't see how say an act of r*pe directly involves the state, if the state is unaware of the crime performed. This could then be classified as my private life.

However, more directly related to the example, a person sleeping with another could affect the society at large, if from the action they say, produce a child.

My usage of 'private life', which may be more applicable than the political usage of interaction with state, is just on the basis of individual to individual (a criteria), where any action performed where you do not interact with any other persons can then be defined as a private life. The only real drawback is suicide since that is performed as your own person and involves the state.

This usage of the term "the state should mind it's own business" is inadequate however, since any action performed (unless at particular times performed as your own person) can potentially affect or at least involve the state.

If this was confusing (for whatever reason), then perhaps my view can be summarized in this phrase: 'the only private life you have is your thoughts'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
You can be personally against Abortion, thinking it's a wrong thing to do to your personal body or your child, while still thinking it's a right for those who wish to have access to it (whatever your rational. Mine is that women will try to self-abort themselves even in an illegal environment when they are desperate enough, and that is a direct danger to their health).
So, you can think it's wrong to have an abortion performed on yourself since it can endanger you, but think that for others, regardless of that fact, they have their own right to have an abortion?

Cool. That works. Though, I think instead of 'right', I would say 'choice'.

Argument, for the distinction, would be something like:

1. An abortion can endanger me.
2. As a choice, I would prefer not to have an abortion performed on me.
3. It's possible for other people to think that an abortion will not harm their body.
4. They too, have a choice, and may instead prefer to have an abortion.
5. Hence, a person's choice can be distinct from the actual act of an abortion.

Epictetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:42 AM
  #71
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,485
vCash: 500
Epictetus, I'd rather you re-read my post carefully. I didn't say I believed Abortion is dangerous for your health (it ain't especially dangerous), I said self-abortion (i.e. abortion done by non-medical professionals) is dangerous for one's health.

Taken that into account, your whole logic fell appart. Try again.

PricePkPatch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:53 AM
  #72
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 9,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theotis77 View Post
The problem is, I don't see how the GOP can untangle themselves from the religious right. It's like a parasite that's taken over the host at this point. If they were able to somehow completely scrub their platform of any of the pet social issues the evangelicals demand, there wouldn't be enough votes left to win on any national stage. And minority voters aren't going to just start voting for the party that, for all intents and purposes, has been disdainful of them for 40+ years. Unless Republicans go beyond just scrubbing right-wing social nonsense from their platform and openly embrace a major issue that endears them to minorities, similar to what Democrats did when they went full-bore into civil rights.
Remember how bonkers they went when the Democrats took "God" out of the party platform this summer? (And then put it back in, for some strange reason.)

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:04 AM
  #73
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I'm personally pro-get-the-f u ck-out-of-my-private-life
This is absolutely what I believe as well.

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:23 AM
  #74
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Always good to hear from a moderate.

But I honestly think you have a better chance scoring with Kate than the GOP swinging to the center.

The only scenario where I could see the GOP moving en masse to socially centrist/libertarian light position is if the extreme right gets its way and nominates a far right conservative in the next cycle...and then loses in a landslide. Then there might be some movement.

Anyway, tell Kate I'm sorry for not calling her back after I said I would.
OH! Dawggy!!

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:09 AM
  #75
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoBlues View Post
OH! Dawggy!!
Once they get a taste of Dawg...

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.