Todd Adkin meet Richard Mourdock

[piney]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Do you really believe fiscal conservatives would rather kill off welfare recipients than give them money?

I think some people could be talked into it....

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by parafly

Just curious, are you against the death penalty?

Another great point. Republicans all for the death penalty (which I am too btw), but when it comes to abortion thats a no go, because god is involved somehow.

Doesn't make sense.

[piney]

This thread is about to blow up......


piney exit stage left

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

I think the OP is only in his early 20's

26, engaged, and a business owner.

suck it JP

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Another great point. Republicans all for the death penalty (which I am too btw), but when it comes to abortion thats a no go, because god is involved somehow.

Doesn't make sense.

/facepalm

To get the death penalty, an adult person must CHOOSE to engage in a crime so horrible as to warrant their own death. They choose. They act. They are responsible. They are guilty.

To be aborted, a fetus has no role or responsabillity. They cannot choose. They cannot act. They are wholely NOT responsible for the action to be taken. They are innocent.

If you cannot see the rather obvious moral difference here, I don't know what to tell you.

The "right" may cover their positions in God Talk, I agree, but the above is the core reason why one is acceptable and one is not to most righties.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Another great point. Republicans all for the death penalty (which I am too btw), but when it comes to abortion thats a no go, because god is involved somehow.

Doesn't make sense.

I'm certainly not for the death penalty.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Warfish

/facepalm

To get the death penalty, an adult person must CHOOSE to engage in a crime so horrible as to warrant their own death. They choose. They act. They are responsible. They are guilty.

To be aborted, a fetus has no role or responsabillity. They cannot choose. They cannot act. They are wholely NOT responsible for the action to be taken. They are innocent.

If you cannot see the rather obvious moral difference here, I don't know what to tell you.

The "right" may cover their positions in God Talk, I agree, but the above is the core reason why one is acceptable and one is not to most righties.

I do see the moral difference, but it still can be looked at as being hypocritical.

Yes there is more justification for the death of someone who committed a heinous act, but it is still killing someone.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Of course not, but I dont consider a 3 month fetus a life...

Right. And that's the crux of it. If you do consider a fetus a life, abortion in any form is abhorrent. If you don't, it's a matter of personal choice and liberty. For all the convoluted debate about abortion, the matter is very simple.

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I do see the moral difference, but it still can be looked at as being hypocritical.

Yes there is more justification for the death of someone who committed a heinous act, but it is still killing someone.

You can look at it as hypocritical, but you'd be wrong. Hypocrisy is a well defined characteristic. If you can appreciate the moral difference, you cannot correctly attribute hypocrisy in the generally understood sense of the word. If you're redefining words to suit your argument, then my mistake, please continue.

[MnJetFan]

Originally Posted by parafly

This is a good example of why it's very difficult to vote for today's Republican Party: socially backward, religiously extremist, and fiscally conservative in rhetoric only.

Like Democrats who raise taxes and spend more money on social programs like buying Obama Phones for morons. The entitlement Generation.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

Like Democrats who raise taxes and spend more money on social programs like buying Obama Phones for morons. The entitlement Generation.

Yes, it is difficult to vote for today's Democratic Party as well.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I do see the moral difference, but it still can be looked at as being hypocritical.

Yes there is more justification for the death of someone who committed a heinous act, but it is still killing someone.

I think we define "hypocritial" differently.

For example, I;d define it as when a Liberal complained that Bush killed terrorists without due process, and now wholely support Obama when he kills American Citizens (who are also terrorists) without due process.

Exact same action, two different opinions.

In your hypothetical, they are NOT the same situation. Just because they're both "life" or even both "human life" does not make them the same unless you're pushing an agenda. If we used that line of reasoning, we could never improson anyone for anything, because man, it's like, life dude, and we can't lock up LIFE man.

In the two sceanario, there is a core differentiation between the two lives that makes their situations 100% different. The only similarity is that they are both life. And if one takes that point as the core of their argument, I hope to **** their a vegetarian, cause like, cows are life too man.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I think we define "hypocritial" differently.

For example, I;d define it as when a Liberal complained that Bush killed terrorists without due process, and now wholely support Obama when he kills American Citizens (who are also terrorists) without due process.

Exact same action, two different opinions.

In your hypothetical, they are NOT the same situation. Just because they're both "life" or even both "human life" does not make them the same unless you're pushing an agenda. If we used that line of reasoning, we could never improson anyone for anything, because man, it's like, life dude, and we can't lock up LIFE man.

In the two sceanario, there is a core differentiation between the two lives that makes their situations 100% different. The only similarity is that they are both life. And if one takes that point as the core of their argument, I hope to **** their a vegetarian, cause like, cows are life too man.

I guess man, idk, wheres the hampur again? im not smart enough for this place.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I guess man, idk, wheres the hampur again? im not smart enough for this place.

Sure you are Ruby.

Anyway, being dumb as a rock never stopped me from posting.....

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by parafly

Just curious, are you against the death penalty?

Yes

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

Of course not, but I dont consider a 3 month fetus a life...

Of course you don't. That's the crux of the argument (actually, among those that understand the scientific fact that life begins at conception, the argument is whether or not the life is "viable")

But by your previous logic, I could say that since most abortions occur in low income residents, and low incomes generally vote Democratic, then shouldn't liberals all be pro-life?

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by parafly

This is a good example of why it's very difficult to vote for today's Republican Party: socially backward, religiously extremist, and fiscally conservative in rhetoric only.

Social issues has been the major culprit holding the party back imo. Personally McCain wins hands down without that nitwit Palin on his ticket. Between him and Romney, both pretty moderate republicans. Which is why I think Romney is winning this election btw.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by Ruby2

I guess man, idk, wheres the hampur again? im not smart enough for this place.

STAY!!! Please!!! I like having company.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by HessStation

Personally McCain wins hands down without that nitwit Palin on his ticket.

Enh... i think McCain was going to lose in a landslide before Palin. He threw a hail-mary, it got picked off, he still lost in a landslide. Overall i think McCain was a better candidate than Romney in '08, but i don't think any Republican was going to win after 8 years of Bush. Romney is a much better candidate this time around because he has a stronger resume concerning the economy.

I would've much preferred to see Christie or even Gingrich take the nomination. Hell my first choice would be Paul but he was entirely unelectable. Republicans went with the "safe" choice though, we will see how well it works out.

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by HessStation

Social issues has been the major culprit holding the party back imo. Personally McCain wins hands down without that nitwit Palin on his ticket. Between him and Romney, both pretty moderate republicans. Which is why I think Romney is winning this election btw.

Paul Ryan is as socially conservative as any Republican in office. He's just known more as the "numbers guy"

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by Axil

Enh... i think McCain was going to lose in a landslide before Palin. He threw a hail-mary, it got picked off, he still lost in a landslide. Overall i think McCain was a better candidate than Romney in '08, but i don't think any Republican was going to win after 8 years of Bush. Romney is a much better candidate this time around because he has a stronger resume concerning the economy.

I would've much preferred to see Christie or even Gingrich take the nomination. Hell my first choice would be Paul but he was entirely unelectable. Republicans went with the "safe" choice though, we will see how well it works out.

I agree. 3 major factors really, IMO
8 years of Bush
Palin
Age

You could say age and Palin were intertwined.

Paul or Gingrich would be my first choices too.