Who you leaning towards in the 2016 Presidential Election?

[J.]

I just wish canada would stop giving us their crap like justin bieber and ted cruz.

 

[CiG]

Like you can even notice it among the crap native to America.

 

[J.]

Thtas just it. We have enough crap. We dont need another country's shit

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

So this will be the second year that Obamacare has stolen thousands of dollars from me, because I do not need health insurance. Meanwhile Democrats are applauding that the House has failed to override the veto to stop funding of both the former and the murder of infants. What in the utter fuck happened to principles?

If I remember things correctly, Obama ran using the residual speak of free healthcare in his usual grandiose and eternally vague teleprompter style. How is forcing someone to buy something free? Then he had the audacity to quote the coverage numbers. OF COURSE more people will have health insurance. You made them have it. This goes for grandpa Sanders as well. I wonder what he is truly offering as far as college tuition which he thinks is for everyone regardless of aptitude apparently.

Oh yea, and Cruz won over Trump in Iowa. Whoopty doo. Huckabee and Santorum won in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Lost and irrelevant cause even though Cruz is the only real conservative LEFT (hur hurr) on the field.

The good news is that they don't have much competition from the socialists. The Republicans have now become the party of diversity. Old white people are on the left telling blacks and other minorities what they need. Not a far cry from yesteryear. Ya know...how the Democrats founded the KKK.

Great year ahead. Should be fun to hear debate season as grandma or grandpa try to hand out freebies to idiots i.e. the near majority of the country. Hopefully they will be exposed for it as long as Cruz and/or Trump stick it to them. Romney was too soft or "moderate" as the left-wing media like to call it. Either way, I can't wait to see the mules unmasked.

 

[J.]

So this will be the second year that Obamacare has stolen thousands of dollars from me, because I do not need health insurance. Meanwhile Democrats are applauding that the House has failed to override the veto to stop funding of both the former and the murder of infants. What in the utter fuck happened to principles?

Regarding health insurance that you dont need, I agree. My company health insurance is outrageous and the coverage sucks. However, for those that are retired and are too young (<65) for medicare, it does help. My father in law is in this situation.

Abortion is a tricky one for conservatives. They claim less gov't intrusion is their goal, yet these same rich white guys want to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body. Either way, Roe vs Wade was decided before we were born, so we've had the same principles (laws) all our lives regarding this.

The gun debate is the other tricky one for republicans, that is, if you are a Christian, which many of them are.

Oh yea, and Cruz won over Trump in Iowa. Whoopty doo. Huckabee and Santorum won in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Lost and irrelevant cause even though Cruz is the only real conservative LEFT (hur hurr) on the field.

Yeah, it's overblown. He got one more delegate than Trump and Rubio. And he resorted to dirty tactics. Very presidential.

grandma or grandpa try to hand out freebies to idiots i.e. the near majority of the country.

Do people really believe this schlock, or just enjoy regurgitating Brietbart and Rush?

 

[CiG]

Abortion is a tricky one for conservatives. They claim less gov't intrusion is their goal, yet these same rich white guys want to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body. Either way, Roe vs Wade was decided before we were born, so we've had the same principles (laws) all our lives regarding this.

More women are pro-life from the stats I see.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Regarding health insurance that you dont need, I agree. My company health insurance is outrageous and the coverage sucks. However, for those that are retired and are too young (<65) for medicare, it does help. My father in law is in this situation.

Yes it will help some, but this becomes the exception and not the rule. Do we really need the Federal government to pass sweeping laws that affect both New York City and country bumpkin rural towns? Also, if you employee 50+ people you have to provide them with healthcare. If I'm teetering on 49, am I really going to hire anyone else or if I am at 60 do you think I'm not going to find a way to get that down to 49? Let the states decide which is kind of the point of this country.

Abortion is a tricky one for conservatives. They claim less gov't intrusion is their goal, yet these same rich white guys want to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body. Either way, Roe vs Wade was decided before we were born, so we've had the same principles (laws) all our lives regarding this.

Fundamental stances aside, conservatives are simply arguing that the state should not be funding it. You spoke about guns as well so let's compare the two arguments.

Leftists say that no one should have an automatic weapon (when they truly mean semi-automatic, but their sophistry gets in the way of them making accurate statements) meanwhile bashing the NRA which is a private organization with no government funding. Right-wingers worry about a gun grab which isn't too far-fetched when the Left keeps pushing the envelope. On the abortion side, conservatives ask you to stop forcing them to pay for other people's sexual irresponsibility through a government funded nightmare called Planned Parenthood. This is somehow twisted into a women's rights issue? No intrusion argument can be made here. If you're going to kill babies, do it on your own dime. Not to mention it fosters a culture of single-motherhood which is just terrible.

And about it being tricky for Christians...This is a separate conversation, but if you'd (as an Atheist I'd assume) like to make the argument go for it. I didn't see one. But remember you'd have to craft the argument from their scripture and not insert broad-brush Atheistic interpretations about their beliefs.

Do people really believe this schlock, or just enjoy regurgitating Brietbart and Rush?

What part did you disagree with and why? Lumping what I said in with some big controversial names is a tactic of dismissal rather than refutation.

 

[rms]

No intrusion argument can be made here. If you're going to kill babies, do it on your own dime. Not to mention it fosters a culture of single-motherhood which is just terrible.

You literally just answered why PP exists for poor women

 

[CiG]

As a teen parent moron myself, if you can't afford to kill a pregnancy you can't afford to go raw to begin with.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

You literally just answered why PP exists for poor women

I wasn't talking about whether or not it should exist. It's easy to be charitable with other people's money to make yourself feel better. If the Left supports them, donate. Hell they make the majority of the money in this country anyway. Let's call Hollywood and ask why they don't support women's rights.

 

[rms]

As a teen parent moron myself, if you can't afford to kill a pregnancy you can't afford to go raw to begin with.

Asking people, especially poor people, to act logically and rationally is obviously impossible in this world. Or else government wouldn't need to exist.

I wasn't talking about whether or not it should exist. It's easy to be charitable with other people's money to make yourself feel better. If the Left supports them, donate. Hell they make the majority of the money in this country anyway. Let's call Hollywood and ask why they don't support women's rights.

Well you dodged your own assertion, that PP somehow creates a culture of single motherhood. From what i've read, 0 dollars of government money goes to abortions and over/roughly half of their total spending is generated privately. Left does plenty in tax giveaways, their whole fucking ideology is based off taxation to support others. Nice word choice of "murdering" btw

 

[CiG]

That's a shit excuse, considering how "poor" in rich western countries like America actually means something completely different.

 

[rms]

edited to read impossible.

 

[J.]

Ill respond later. I keep weird hours.

 

[dorian gray]

Whats the wife up to?

 

[J.]

Yes it will help some, but this becomes the exception and not the rule. Do we really need the Federal government to pass sweeping laws that affect both New York City and country bumpkin rural towns? Also, if you employee 50+ people you have to provide them with healthcare. If I'm teetering on 49, am I really going to hire anyone else or if I am at 60 do you think I'm not going to find a way to get that down to 49? Let the states decide which is kind of the point of this country.

I agree, it discourages hiring if a company is at that threshold. The states deciding wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would be another red/blue state divider. In reality, the entire healthcare system needs an overhaul. Quality healthcare is quickly becoming a luxury only the upper middle class can comfortably afford, which in principle, should not be the case. I'm curious what Rubio/Trump/the Canadian would do if they won.

Fundamental stances aside, conservatives are simply arguing that the state should not be funding it. You spoke about guns as well so let's compare the two arguments.

Leftists say that no one should have an automatic weapon (when they truly mean semi-automatic, but their sophistry gets in the way of them making accurate statements) meanwhile bashing the NRA which is a private organization with no government funding. Right-wingers worry about a gun grab which isn't too far-fetched when the Left keeps pushing the envelope. On the abortion side, conservatives ask you to stop forcing them to pay for other people's sexual irresponsibility through a government funded nightmare called Planned Parenthood. This is somehow twisted into a women's rights issue? No intrusion argument can be made here. If you're going to kill babies, do it on your own dime. Not to mention it fosters a culture of single-motherhood which is just terrible.

And about it being tricky for Christians...This is a separate conversation, but if you'd (as an Atheist I'd assume) like to make the argument go for it. I didn't see one. But remember you'd have to craft the argument from their scripture and not insert broad-brush Atheistic interpretations about their beliefs.

Abortion first. If this was a state decision, once again it'd be a red/blue situation. Roe v. Wade made it legal in 1973 with a Supreme Court decision. It should be left alone. I won't get into the whole "it's a person at conception" "no it's not" argument, because quite frankly, I'm no doctor or theologian.

But what drives me crazy is that politicians want to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Seriously, how does anyone justify that? If we're talking principles here in a FREE COUNTRY, you cannot force a person to do something they do not want to do. It's that simple.

I live in Texas, so the abortion debate is constantly in the local headlines. Politicians FORCING doctors to show the woman pictures of the fetus before making the decision is just disgusting. Land of the free, huh? And I thought conservatives wanted less government intrusion. They sure are obsessed with controlling a woman's uterus. How is this not intrusion?

As far as PP, its's funny that Conservatives only want to concentrate on abortion and ignore the numerous other services that PP offers. And the one service that tax payers do not contribute to is the service they want to stop. The funny part is that this promotes single mothers, which are typically poor considering the situation. And guess who wants to stop welfare for poor people? Yep, the same group of politicians that wanted them to be single mothers. I'm not so blind as to think teens aren't going to have sex out of wedlock. It's practically encouraged in today's society. When Conservatives accept this as fact, perhaps they can be part of the solution.

As far as guns, I don't really care if folks want to have an arsenal. Do I think suburbanite Stan needs an AR-15 for home protection? No. A shotgun or pistol will do just fine for that. But if he wants it, fine. Texas just passed Open Carry and that fine. Just don't flash it around or wear your AR-15 strapped to your back like wannabe Rambo, and I'm cool with it.

My problem is more with the Christian Right than conservatives as a whole. I grew up in church, with my mother (RIP) being a staunch Baptist. So I am familiar with scripture. And I can tell you right now that the Christ (Jesus) that Christians (Christ-like) worship was a pacifist.

This says it all: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

How can any Christian argue with this?

What part did you disagree with and why? Lumping what I said in with some big controversial names is a tactic of dismissal rather than refutation.

I simply disagreed with the part that stated that the majority of the country are idiots that want free stuff. It sounds like a generalization Rush or an idealist like Hannity might say.

 

[CiG]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

Well you dodged your own assertion, that PP somehow creates a culture of single motherhood.

I definitely should have been more clear on what I meant by that. Providing the safety net of infanticide encourages risky sexual behaviors. Women used to have to choose better men to sleep with or risk raising the child alone and without much monetary support. In this culture that celebrates these poor decisions, women can not only sleep around with the dumbbells and abort the leftovers, but they also get the extra incentive of a fat tax return.

Abortion first. If this was a state decision, once again it'd be a red/blue situation. Roe v. Wade made it legal in 1973 with a Supreme Court decision. It should be left alone. I won't get into the whole "it's a person at conception" "no it's not" argument, because quite frankly, I'm no doctor or theologian.

This kind of goes along with what I was saying to 'rms'. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but ignoring it's existence will cut off your peripherals when taking a stance on something as important as this. With that being said, in my opinion Roe v. Wade has crippled or at least played a big role in the destruction of the black family if you consider the single mother-headed household statistics since the decision. Just look at this shit.

Single mother headed households. U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, 2011

But what drives me crazy is that politicians want to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Seriously, how does anyone justify that? If we're talking principles here in a FREE COUNTRY, you cannot force a person to do something they do not want to do. It's that simple.

Before I follow the breadcrumbs even further, I need to firmly state again that I am neither arguing for nor against PP. I am arguing that the government should not be funding it at all. Period. And this is the fundamental conservative argument as well.

Now the women's body argument: This is not about her selfish uterus. This is about the person she willfully helped create and now wants to discard as if it was just a whoopsy daisy. There are even women coming out saying that they are proud they got an abortion. It is disgusting and bizarre. A conservative saying they do not want to pay for it does not equate to telling a women what they can and cannot do. Like I mentioned before, if the left supports it they can donate to their immoral cause. That's the difference. Democrats legislate at gunpoint their beliefs. True conservatives simply say "Will you please just leave me out of it?". How is that intrusion?

And guess who wants to stop welfare for poor people?

Who said this? Either way I just hope you don't think welfare is efficient. How many people are just having their poor life decisions enabled by the incentive of welfare? And then the blues argue against policies requiring job application submissions and drug tests. It's nonsensical.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

My problem is more with the Christian Right than conservatives as a whole. I grew up in church, with my mother (RIP) being a staunch Baptist. So I am familiar with scripture. And I can tell you right now that the Christ (Jesus) that Christians (Christ-like) worship was a pacifist.

I didn't really have much more to add to this, but I was interested to hear if an atheist could present a respectful case against it which you did. I guess the retort would be that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Translation: just having an armed populace discourages or at least makes the criminal think twice before using it. i.e. less senseless violence.

 

[J.]

Before I follow the breadcrumbs even further, I need to firmly state again that I am neither arguing for nor against PP. I am arguing that the government should not be funding it at all. Period. And this is the fundamental conservative argument as well.

I am not opposed to this. It would certainly shut everyone up. However, I do not think it would stop politicians from going after PP, especially in light of those doctored videos.

Now the women's body argument: This is not about her selfish uterus. This is about the person she willfully helped create and now wants to discard as if it was just a whoopsy daisy.

For argument sake, we'll assume there is a "person". "Willfully helped create" makes it sound like she met the dude at the bar and said "Lets make a baby!" Girls get pregnant. It's the 21st century. Sex is nigh impossible to escape. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. But it's reality. And yes, a whoopsy daisy is exactly what it is. Not to sound cold, but accidents happen.

A conservative saying they do not want to pay for it does not equate to telling a women what they can and cannot do. Like I mentioned before, if the left supports it they can donate to their immoral cause. That's the difference. Democrats legislate at gunpoint their beliefs. True conservatives simply say "Will you please just leave me out of it?". How is that intrusion?

How many times does one need to be told that the government does not fund abortions? So relax, you're out of it.

Who said this? Either way I just hope you don't think welfare is efficient. How many people are just having their poor life decisions enabled by the incentive of welfare? And then the blues argue against policies requiring job application submissions and drug tests. It's nonsensical.

It isn't efficient, but that's because of the individuals that abuse it (just like anything really). But personally knowing a people that have been on welfare for help (one a single mother; the other a lesbian couple with 5 kids) and seeing how it benefited them, showed me that it can work. The single mother has now been off welfare for years and she and her daughter are doing well. Unfortunately, everyone likes to concentrate on the negatives and bad apples.