Holy shit this is crazy. all the people in the world and this is the best we can do for presidents. Rep. bullshit.- guns are great but its not the focus of the entire election, Its my pussy and if I want an abortion then who the fuck are you to tell me other wise. Do religion on your own time. Jesus prob doesn't go to strip club and I can assure you that my drinking smoking premarital sex self doesn't care that you go to church every sunday. Dem. bullshit. Everything cant be free. Work equals money which equals you being able to buy stuff. A vagina doesn't make you a good candidate. If that's the case mine is way better im sure and everyone should vote for me. stop taking more of my money. taxes are already retarded stop raising them. Sorry I am by no means a political person and honestly don't really care but im just sick of seeing this shit all the time. All I want out of a president is a job money transportation roof over my head and the ability as a woman to make my own decisions without some old white guy calling the shots.
Holy shit, unless I have had a memory lapse, the wisest thing ever posted on TUSCL that I have read just came from a stripper. I always thought it would come from a PL.
PS - that is not sarcasm from me pole, I'm serious.
Well said, Poledancer. Just curious- how much of your cash earnings get reported on your tax forms? I know several dancers who report very little in order to qualify for the earned income tax credit.
I disagree, strongly, with pole dancer. The government should not provide jobs, money, transportation, and housing. That is communism, that has failed worldwide, and for reasons that intelligent people will never understand, the democrat party is trying to bring it back. The only function of government should be to provide national security, national infrastructure, interstate commerce, and stay the hell out of the way. Imagine how low your taxes would be then.
pd, I think Clubber was challenging your statement that abortion is completely up to the woman. I suspect he was suggesting that the man who impregnates you should have some say. I'm not particularly in the mood to debate abortion but I think that's what he meant.
@Poledancer: Clubber is referring to your stance on abortion, which boils down to "my body, my choice."
He appears to hold the position, that since a man was involved, he oughta get some say in the matter as well. A stance with which I can agree, to a point.
It *is* your body, and so is ultimately your choice. There are circumstances where the man should have some input, but there is no circumstance, in my opinion where anyone but the woman involved has absolute veto power over the decision.
The Republican Party disagrees with me on that, claiming that their shared delusion of the Mighty Ghost Daddy in the Sky justifies that stance for everybody, whether they believe in their god or not.
Please not that you should not construe my position to mean that a woman has a right to an abortion, if she can't find a doctor willing to perform one. A woman's right to abort is absolute. A doctor's right to decline to perform one is just as absolute.
I will add that while I consciously said "well said" to @poledancer, I absolutely agree with @gammanu85. It is not the government's nor the president's job to provide money, jobs, transportation, a roof over your head, etc. That is Communism and one reason this country is 20 trillion dollars in debt.
And now I'm going back to work and will leave the rest of you to the debate. Although it would be interesting to know how much in taxes poledancer and our other TUSCL dancers contribute?
"who the fuck are you"? Is this a good time for one of Juice's alias, the Lordalmighty to post on here or whatever he called the one alias?
I was thinking one day, if Jesus were alive today like supposedly he was back about 2000 years ago visiting the hated tax collectors and other hated people of the day, would he be looked down upon today if he went to visit strip clubs? I think the answer is yes, he would be looked down upon today for visiting such places just as he was 2000 years ago and probably by the same people who claim they go to church every week and aren't that kind of person.
People need to understand the difference between communism and socialism. Communism is a one party system where the government appoints all the officials. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns all the businesses. The US is neither, and neither is Sanders. We already have socialism in some aspects of our society, such as public schools, the military and most infrastructure. Sanders wants to expand the role of government to include health care and higher education.
We also have a very Communist system at the federal level, because the most likely way a congressman or senator is replaced is if his own party wants him out. The vast majority of congressmen and senators are re-elected because of gerrymanded districts, which were determined by those in power. It is rare for the opposition party to take a seat, which is why just a small percentage of 'at large' seats will change the majority party.
TL;DR: Twentyfive and rockstar666 are wrong, when disagree me, LOL. Just playing, guys.
Socialism is the economic model of the communist government system, although the term socialism has been used to describe political ideologies; the difference is negligible. Both use class warfare and social or communal ownership of goods and services. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the basis of each, as well as the failed US tax code and welfare policies. "you didn't build that, somebody else built that" also belied Barry's (O) true beliefs of communal ownership of private business. Barry (O), Sanders, and Hildebeast have been openly competing to see who can introduce the most liberal/progressive/communist policies such as: Socialized healthcare, socialized college education, increased taxes on entrepreneurs, businesses, and earners.
BTW: Sanders is a socialist, Barry (O) is a communist, and Hildebeast only cares about herself.
If I'm going to debate politics I want to do it in person. It's a pain to type on these phones, and once I get started I would have a hard time stopping. Maybe I'll join in on a discussion with one of the regulars at the inner room when i visit tomorrow.
I agree that Sanders is not running as a communist. But he most definitely is a socialist. The fact that some government programs are already have socialist characteristics is irrelevant. In the extremely unlikely event he ever got elected, Sanders would extend socialist policies and principles throughout government.
There is so much more involved than 'it is my body and I should be able to do with it what I want' when it comes to abortion. Three lives are affected plus if you are drawing government assistance that means the tax payer also is involved because that is who is paying for it. With that said, I hate that abortion is such a political issue, People should take care of their own responsibilities and the government has more important items on their agenda, like running the government of the United States..
The only government I've ever personally encountered that has no socialistic aspects was in Thailand before the millitary coup. For the rest of us, it's a matter of degree. Lots of European countries are (more or less) socialist but are decidedly NOT communist.
gammanu95 seems to be confusing politics with facts. In a communist country, there is no class warfare because there are no classes. Not officially at least. That is why a socialist economy is so important: the "people" own everything. In reality of course, the government makes the policies and the people have no say in the matter.
I would question why our welfare system is "failed". Actually it's beneficial to the economy since poor people spend every dollar they get, and our wealth as a country is based on consumer spending. Every dollar of tax money spent on social programs returns many fold to the economic strength of our nation - as opposed to making weapon systems for example that might provide security but are an economic waste otherwise (unless you happen to have the government contract).
You are correct that as I also pointed out, both Democratic candidates want to expand the role of government in healthcare and education, while the Republicans want cut funding to both. This is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
I hope anyone commenting on my posts will refrain from the name calling....if you can't discuss politics dispassionately, you probably shouldn't be discussing politics.
poledancer for President!!!! We'll just have to get a makeup artist to make her look at least 45 and get her a fake ID. She makes more sense that the so-called candidates, although that's admittedly a pretty low bar.....
If you told me Star Trek was a socialist dream when I was younger I might not have believed you. However in the show they do not use money, everyone works for the common good I believe. I would find that not too inspiring. It would be nice not to bother with an annual performance review because if you aren't getting paid money, why bother with a performance review unless it's for some kind of bonus bragging rights? In Star Trek, I guess everyone works for free and the government provides everything you need that the government thinks you need. Do socialists say Star Trek is great?
I was joking about juice's alias even though I do believe that was one of his aliases at one time. probably not too funny. I had a dream one time I was stuck in heaven as a superpowerful entity and super bored. That dream seemed so real and I seemed to be stuck in it for eternity until I made myself human and woke up. Being human though kind of sucks. not nearly as much fun as being superpowerful. I screwed up the earth and universe 6 times and this time I left it alone like it is now. I think I dreamed the universe is alive. All the galaxies make up like living cells on a scale so large, no one can barely imagine all the other cells out there beyond our visible universe. Big bangs are happening all the time blowing up and expanding all kinds of other universes with different laws of physics in each. Some other universes are similar to ours. just another one of my weird dreams one night.
unfortunately neither pole dancer, me, or anyone else in the middle class or part of the lower classes will ever become president without getting rich first. We're all screwed.
"Clubber is referring to your stance on abortion, which boils down to "my body, my choice."
What gives you the right to say what I mean. I am ABSOLUTE in what I say. The father (sperm donor, if you wish), has as much right as the mother in this scenario.
Disagree. It should be 51/49 in favor of the mother until the baby is born.
If abortion was a male reproductive rights issue (males gave birth) then abortion would be a universal right by the GOP, since it's a female reproductive issue is why we have the debate -- I don't think otherwise for one single second.
I think Clubber must be joking. By the logic he's using, men should also be able to force women to have abortions if they don't want the child, since it "takes two to tango."
Yes, it takes two to tango. But once a woman is impregnated, it is her body that carries the fetus. A man is no longer necessary, in theory. Men don't spend 10 months being pregnant, nor do they give birth or breastfeed. Therefore, although it can seem unfair that man has no say whatsoever in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, it's an absurd and extremely outdated idea that she be FORCED to carry a baby to term, as if women are incubation machines and nothing else.
Once a man gets pregnant, he can have a say in whether or not he wishes to abort. I don't see that happening any time soon. Lol.
Personally, I don't see myself ever having an abortion. But I'm damn sure not going to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with HER body. Perhaps I may think she's making a selfish choice, but it is still her choice to make and I would never jump on a political platform that is trying to take away her right to choose.
@sharkhunter: I'm a big Star Trek fan from the past, and yes, they do depict a socialist Federation. But some shows mention 'gold pressed latinum' so they do have money of a sort too. It's really somewhat ambiguous. I also agree it's unrealistic but I was able to suspend disbelief because the point of most shows was not an indictment of capitalism. Although, shows with the Ferengi tended to mock unfettered capitalism so there was a little bit of that.
I agree that they are all full of crap. Libertarian(get the government out of my face).
Your body your choice, I just do not want to be forced to pay for it.
If you want to take your clothes off for a living fine but have the courtesy to not have your club next to a church or school. If you want to sell it that is also up to you. I think stripping is no different than runway modelling (both have hazards to your body from diet and drugs). Selling pussy is no different than many other occupations that put you mental health and body at risk. Being a cop is a soul crushing dangerous job if you don't have the constitution for it.
Any politician is more of a whore than the sleaziest crack whore that walks the earth, at least with a prostitute you get something for your money. Politicians are the ultimate ROBs! they promise everything to the ones that can least afford it and after they have taken everything leaving the poor taxpayer destitute they then come back at gun point and take what is left promising that if you just give them everything you have they will make you life better while they hop into their limo then jet you paid for to go to their mansion you paid for!.
I don't know if I can change any minds here, but when talking about abortion and reproductive rights I believe it should a female's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry that baby till it is born. Unlike many of you I am old enough to remember when abortion was completely banned and there were real horrors for young unwed women at that time.
One fact that is indisputable is that although abortion was illegal, there were backroom practitioners that would perform abortions on the most desperate of these young girls, often under filthy unsanitary conditions using kitchen utensils and even coat hangers, as a result of this too often, at least once a month there would be a story in the newspapers about some young girl found dead or horribly mutilated in some back alley in a seedy part of town as a result of these backroom abortions.
Human nature being what it is, I believe that it is impossible to legislate behavior, be it drug use, abortions or other things that people do to themselves and as a result, if you genuinely care about women this is not an agenda to be taken lightly, regardless of your personal beliefs or convictions, I have heard all of the endless arguments both for and against and no matter what you say there are going to be desperate young women that for reasons of their own do not want to carry that baby, so here is my logic on this. We should keep it safe not criminalize people because of their needs and so this old white man does not want to loose any more daughters to prove some persons point about their belief's.
That is sick! We are talking about a human life and you relegate it to " But once a woman is impregnated, it is her body that carries the fetus. A man is no longer necessary, in theory. Men don't spend 10 months being pregnant, nor do they give birth or breastfeed."
Yes, we are talking about a human life. But who's life are we talking about? Clearly you hold the fetus's life in higher regards than the mother, whose life you ignore.
I'm no emryologist and obviously neither are you, but while embryos/fetuses are biologically alive, that gives us no answer as to when it becomes an actual human. Our age is determined by the day we were born, not the day we were conceived. Fetuses are not counted in the US census.
I would say (and plenty in the field of science would agree) that 'personhood' begins once the fetus is formed enough to be able to live outside of the woman's body. This can be as early as 20 weeks or so, which is why late term abortions are illegal in most states.
We can go back and forth as much as we want but you are not to overturn Roe v Wade, nor are you going to justify taking away the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that is completely dependant on the woman's body and could not yet survive outside of it.
Sure, abortion may be a shitty thing to do in most cases, but telling women what they can and cannot do with THEIR bodies is unconstitutional. It is also even more baffling when a man, who will never even be able to conceive, wants actual legislation in place dictating a woman's right to her own body.
I normally don't post on political threads because there seems to be little point, but I am a bit shocked by some of the sentiments expressed by people claiming to be libertarian (I think Clubber has claimed to be libertarian).
Although NinaBambina is right that some people define personhood once a fetus could live outside of the womb. But that doesn't matter. Ultimately, anybody can believe what they want, but you shouldn't ask the government to impose anybody's beliefs on anybody else.
And don't kid yourself that you're not asking the government to get involved and impose beliefs of some people on other people. In Clubber's scenario a man that doesn't want a woman he impregnated to have an abortion would have to ask the courts to stop the woman if she wants one. And what if she claims that he isn't the father? Should he have the right to force her to provide genetic samples for a paternity test?
In general I consider myself a moderate with libertarian tendencies. I think some of the extreme libertarians put forward silly positions that won't work in real life. But in general I don't want to give the government additional ways to control lives. Taking the position that men have as much say in abortion decisions as women ultimately imposes a huge amount of government regulation on women.
Against abortion? Don't have one! Can't get pregnant because you're a man? Problem solved because you'll never have to have an abortion!
I've probably gone on too long, but I'll just add that the argument that fathers have as much right to decide as mothers is silly because it doesn't address what is actually going on.
Antiabortion politicians aren't saying "well, let's give men as many rights as the women to decide, but if the man and woman agree abortion is ok." They are just trying to make abortion as difficult as possible for women. By imposing government power and regulations on the women.
Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Instead, it sounds non-brilliant!
Conservatives want less government interference in our lives, yet want to dictate abortion law in the name of preserving human life. If they also would be against capital punishment I'd have more respect for their position. You can't have it both ways. Either all life is sacred, or a fetus isn't a person.
Personally I don't know when a fetus becomes a person and I don't care. The decision to have an abortion is sacred to the mother and her own personal beliefs and situation, not any religion or government. Naturally a woman might look to government or her faith for guidance but I think it's an act of evil for either institution to impose its will. They don't have the moral authority to do so IMHO.
I disagree. I vote every time I can to nullify votes such as yours.
Also, if you call BS on my second part, and am afraid my friend that wool has been placed over your eyes or you fail to understand the full thinking of some of the social conservative establishment. You have been duped my friend!
I'll never pass up the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism. Let's flip Rockstar's comment
While conservatives are against the murder of innocents, but in favor of the execution of convicted killers, liberals are in favor of the murder of innocents, and against the execution of convicted killers. Doesn’t sound too good, does it?
Don't forget, in New Hampshire voters who are registered to vote without a party affiliation can choose whether to participate in the Democratic election or the Republican one. Between that and not even having a vote in Iowa, these can mean little other than getting your name at the top of the list.
Let's see what happens when the real voting starts in SC.
Well I feel pretty confident no one will change their view if I state mine so I didn't.
I have no idea where the republican candidates stand on various issues but I hope to read about it soon rather than hear all the political ads. I believe my vote probably won't change anything but I put forth the effort every presidential election.
In some other news, I read since 1940, maybe longer, second term presidential election years have averaged down about 14% for the Dow and 11% for the SP500. The funny thing I heard about averages was that your feet could be in the oven and your head in the freezer but on average, you'd feel fine.
"
I'll never pass up the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism. Let's flip Rockstar's comment
While conservatives are against the murder of innocents, but in favor of the execution of convicted killers, liberals are in favor of the murder of innocents, and against the execution of convicted killers. Doesn’t sound too good, does it?"
Libs just love protecting criminals! No doubt that it's a driving reason behind high crime rates and how fucked this country has become.
TheeOSU: That's a mis-statement of what I said (I can't account for the "liberals" you seem to be quoting. Who are they anyway?) How do you place more value on a ball of cells if you are also pro-capital punishment? If you consider a ball of cells a human being, then I plead guilty. We are better off killing balls of cells than fully formed humans.
You ignored that Motorhead wrote that not me. He explained his reason for writing it and all I did was use his quote to add my comment which was about libs in general and not specifically about you.
But your ball of cells comment does require a rebuttle. That ball of cells you refer too has been shown and proven to be a living breathing being. If you really believe that you're more far gone than I figured. To ignore or deny that fact is sticking your head in the sand and compares to the see hear and speak no evil monkeys.
And just for the record, even though I believe abortion is wrong I am not totally against it but I have enough sense to know that what's being aborted is more than a ball of cells.
The bigger issue than the winners of IA and NH is who drops out. Fiorina should be done. So should Christie, but with the fragmented establishment vote still up in the air we may see those guys all stick around.
Oh and those fully formed humans facing execution are for the most part criminal dregs, yet you think their lives are as or more important than their victims, right that makes so much sense now that you've said it.
58 comments
Latest
Unless you are another Virgin Mary, there was a man involved. He has some say, or are you just a selfish bitch? Just a question.
PS - that is not sarcasm from me pole, I'm serious.
If you have to ask, "what do you mean clubber?", no sense wasting my time.
He appears to hold the position, that since a man was involved, he oughta get some say in the matter as well. A stance with which I can agree, to a point.
It *is* your body, and so is ultimately your choice. There are circumstances where the man should have some input, but there is no circumstance, in my opinion where anyone but the woman involved has absolute veto power over the decision.
The Republican Party disagrees with me on that, claiming that their shared delusion of the Mighty Ghost Daddy in the Sky justifies that stance for everybody, whether they believe in their god or not.
Please not that you should not construe my position to mean that a woman has a right to an abortion, if she can't find a doctor willing to perform one. A woman's right to abort is absolute. A doctor's right to decline to perform one is just as absolute.
And now I'm going back to work and will leave the rest of you to the debate. Although it would be interesting to know how much in taxes poledancer and our other TUSCL dancers contribute?
I was thinking one day, if Jesus were alive today like supposedly he was back about 2000 years ago visiting the hated tax collectors and other hated people of the day, would he be looked down upon today if he went to visit strip clubs? I think the answer is yes, he would be looked down upon today for visiting such places just as he was 2000 years ago and probably by the same people who claim they go to church every week and aren't that kind of person.
Obama is talking crap right now. No idea what.
We also have a very Communist system at the federal level, because the most likely way a congressman or senator is replaced is if his own party wants him out. The vast majority of congressmen and senators are re-elected because of gerrymanded districts, which were determined by those in power. It is rare for the opposition party to take a seat, which is why just a small percentage of 'at large' seats will change the majority party.
Sanders is NOT a communist.
Socialism is the economic model of the communist government system, although the term socialism has been used to describe political ideologies; the difference is negligible. Both use class warfare and social or communal ownership of goods and services. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the basis of each, as well as the failed US tax code and welfare policies. "you didn't build that, somebody else built that" also belied Barry's (O) true beliefs of communal ownership of private business. Barry (O), Sanders, and Hildebeast have been openly competing to see who can introduce the most liberal/progressive/communist policies such as: Socialized healthcare, socialized college education, increased taxes on entrepreneurs, businesses, and earners.
BTW: Sanders is a socialist, Barry (O) is a communist, and Hildebeast only cares about herself.
gammanu95 seems to be confusing politics with facts. In a communist country, there is no class warfare because there are no classes. Not officially at least. That is why a socialist economy is so important: the "people" own everything. In reality of course, the government makes the policies and the people have no say in the matter.
I would question why our welfare system is "failed". Actually it's beneficial to the economy since poor people spend every dollar they get, and our wealth as a country is based on consumer spending. Every dollar of tax money spent on social programs returns many fold to the economic strength of our nation - as opposed to making weapon systems for example that might provide security but are an economic waste otherwise (unless you happen to have the government contract).
You are correct that as I also pointed out, both Democratic candidates want to expand the role of government in healthcare and education, while the Republicans want cut funding to both. This is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
I hope anyone commenting on my posts will refrain from the name calling....if you can't discuss politics dispassionately, you probably shouldn't be discussing politics.
ignore my ramblings if you want to.
"Clubber is referring to your stance on abortion, which boils down to "my body, my choice."
What gives you the right to say what I mean. I am ABSOLUTE in what I say. The father (sperm donor, if you wish), has as much right as the mother in this scenario.
Put in very simple terms, it takes TWO to tango!
If abortion was a male reproductive rights issue (males gave birth) then abortion would be a universal right by the GOP, since it's a female reproductive issue is why we have the debate -- I don't think otherwise for one single second.
BS!
lol, my iPad changed the word wrongs to wings the first time and worms the second time.
Why do you and Scat hate women so much?
Yes, it takes two to tango. But once a woman is impregnated, it is her body that carries the fetus. A man is no longer necessary, in theory. Men don't spend 10 months being pregnant, nor do they give birth or breastfeed. Therefore, although it can seem unfair that man has no say whatsoever in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, it's an absurd and extremely outdated idea that she be FORCED to carry a baby to term, as if women are incubation machines and nothing else.
Once a man gets pregnant, he can have a say in whether or not he wishes to abort. I don't see that happening any time soon. Lol.
Personally, I don't see myself ever having an abortion. But I'm damn sure not going to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with HER body. Perhaps I may think she's making a selfish choice, but it is still her choice to make and I would never jump on a political platform that is trying to take away her right to choose.
Season 2017 coming soon
Your body your choice, I just do not want to be forced to pay for it.
If you want to take your clothes off for a living fine but have the courtesy to not have your club next to a church or school. If you want to sell it that is also up to you. I think stripping is no different than runway modelling (both have hazards to your body from diet and drugs). Selling pussy is no different than many other occupations that put you mental health and body at risk. Being a cop is a soul crushing dangerous job if you don't have the constitution for it.
Any politician is more of a whore than the sleaziest crack whore that walks the earth, at least with a prostitute you get something for your money. Politicians are the ultimate ROBs! they promise everything to the ones that can least afford it and after they have taken everything leaving the poor taxpayer destitute they then come back at gun point and take what is left promising that if you just give them everything you have they will make you life better while they hop into their limo then jet you paid for to go to their mansion you paid for!.
One fact that is indisputable is that although abortion was illegal, there were backroom practitioners that would perform abortions on the most desperate of these young girls, often under filthy unsanitary conditions using kitchen utensils and even coat hangers, as a result of this too often, at least once a month there would be a story in the newspapers about some young girl found dead or horribly mutilated in some back alley in a seedy part of town as a result of these backroom abortions.
Human nature being what it is, I believe that it is impossible to legislate behavior, be it drug use, abortions or other things that people do to themselves and as a result, if you genuinely care about women this is not an agenda to be taken lightly, regardless of your personal beliefs or convictions, I have heard all of the endless arguments both for and against and no matter what you say there are going to be desperate young women that for reasons of their own do not want to carry that baby, so here is my logic on this. We should keep it safe not criminalize people because of their needs and so this old white man does not want to loose any more daughters to prove some persons point about their belief's.
That is sick! We are talking about a human life and you relegate it to " But once a woman is impregnated, it is her body that carries the fetus. A man is no longer necessary, in theory. Men don't spend 10 months being pregnant, nor do they give birth or breastfeed."
Sad, very sad.
Yes, we are talking about a human life. But who's life are we talking about? Clearly you hold the fetus's life in higher regards than the mother, whose life you ignore.
I'm no emryologist and obviously neither are you, but while embryos/fetuses are biologically alive, that gives us no answer as to when it becomes an actual human. Our age is determined by the day we were born, not the day we were conceived. Fetuses are not counted in the US census.
I would say (and plenty in the field of science would agree) that 'personhood' begins once the fetus is formed enough to be able to live outside of the woman's body. This can be as early as 20 weeks or so, which is why late term abortions are illegal in most states.
We can go back and forth as much as we want but you are not to overturn Roe v Wade, nor are you going to justify taking away the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that is completely dependant on the woman's body and could not yet survive outside of it.
Sure, abortion may be a shitty thing to do in most cases, but telling women what they can and cannot do with THEIR bodies is unconstitutional. It is also even more baffling when a man, who will never even be able to conceive, wants actual legislation in place dictating a woman's right to her own body.
I apologize in advance for any other typos.
Although NinaBambina is right that some people define personhood once a fetus could live outside of the womb. But that doesn't matter. Ultimately, anybody can believe what they want, but you shouldn't ask the government to impose anybody's beliefs on anybody else.
And don't kid yourself that you're not asking the government to get involved and impose beliefs of some people on other people. In Clubber's scenario a man that doesn't want a woman he impregnated to have an abortion would have to ask the courts to stop the woman if she wants one. And what if she claims that he isn't the father? Should he have the right to force her to provide genetic samples for a paternity test?
In general I consider myself a moderate with libertarian tendencies. I think some of the extreme libertarians put forward silly positions that won't work in real life. But in general I don't want to give the government additional ways to control lives. Taking the position that men have as much say in abortion decisions as women ultimately imposes a huge amount of government regulation on women.
Against abortion? Don't have one! Can't get pregnant because you're a man? Problem solved because you'll never have to have an abortion!
Antiabortion politicians aren't saying "well, let's give men as many rights as the women to decide, but if the man and woman agree abortion is ok." They are just trying to make abortion as difficult as possible for women. By imposing government power and regulations on the women.
Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Instead, it sounds non-brilliant!
Personally I don't know when a fetus becomes a person and I don't care. The decision to have an abortion is sacred to the mother and her own personal beliefs and situation, not any religion or government. Naturally a woman might look to government or her faith for guidance but I think it's an act of evil for either institution to impose its will. They don't have the moral authority to do so IMHO.
I disagree. I vote every time I can to nullify votes such as yours.
Also, if you call BS on my second part, and am afraid my friend that wool has been placed over your eyes or you fail to understand the full thinking of some of the social conservative establishment. You have been duped my friend!
I am not a libertarian. I consider myself a conservative leaning towards liberal (not leaning far) on some issues.
I do believe in the sanctity of human life.
While conservatives are against the murder of innocents, but in favor of the execution of convicted killers, liberals are in favor of the murder of innocents, and against the execution of convicted killers. Doesn’t sound too good, does it?
New Hampshire primary: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders cruise to wins
Primaries are not the general election, and New Hampshire is not the entire country.
SJG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/w…
Let's see what happens when the real voting starts in SC.
I have no idea where the republican candidates stand on various issues but I hope to read about it soon rather than hear all the political ads. I believe my vote probably won't change anything but I put forth the effort every presidential election.
In some other news, I read since 1940, maybe longer, second term presidential election years have averaged down about 14% for the Dow and 11% for the SP500. The funny thing I heard about averages was that your feet could be in the oven and your head in the freezer but on average, you'd feel fine.
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.co…
See, California comes almost at the end.
SJG
img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/willthet…
I'll never pass up the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism. Let's flip Rockstar's comment
While conservatives are against the murder of innocents, but in favor of the execution of convicted killers, liberals are in favor of the murder of innocents, and against the execution of convicted killers. Doesn’t sound too good, does it?"
Libs just love protecting criminals! No doubt that it's a driving reason behind high crime rates and how fucked this country has become.
But your ball of cells comment does require a rebuttle. That ball of cells you refer too has been shown and proven to be a living breathing being. If you really believe that you're more far gone than I figured. To ignore or deny that fact is sticking your head in the sand and compares to the see hear and speak no evil monkeys.
And just for the record, even though I believe abortion is wrong I am not totally against it but I have enough sense to know that what's being aborted is more than a ball of cells.