Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: grampster on September 05, 2012, 06:12:11 PM
-
So the D's pull any reference to God out of their platform. Huge backlash occurs. D's put God back into the platform and the moderator has to call for a vote THREE times because the noise of all the boos at putting a reference to God back into the platform.
You can't make this stuff up. ;/
-
Amusing to watch naked manipulation. Perhaps even more critical, though, was the removal and subsequent replacement of the plank affirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I wonder what the implications will be on contributions to the DNC from Jewish and pro-Israel donors, when they are already lagging in fundraising.
-
Saw the video in a link at Drudge. :facepalm: Especially noted the antics of the Arab Democrats during the vote.
Usually it's the GOP that self-destructs this way . . . hope the Romney campaign can make good use of Democrats booing God. (And if the Dems say the boos were only for the procedure . . . well, the fact that they have to make an explanation anyway will be just as damaging. =D =D =D )
But why would anyone find the absence of God in the Democrat's platform surprising?
Whether you like her commentary or not, Ann Coulter did write a book addressing this . . .
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.imagesbn.com%2Fimages%2F103130000%2F103133826.jpg&hash=1ba9a598f90de16cabedbd7ab2499866be3e3efd)
-
Obama is a canny and cynical enough politician to realize the Dem platform was a cultural death wish.
But, frankly, a lot of American Jews and evangelicals and RCs will STILL vote for him. This isn't rational what we are dealing with, it's mass psychosis.
-
This is one of those times where you just sit back and let the Democrats run their mouths. First the exclusion of God and Israel verbiage pissed off X number of people, then it's inclusion pissed off 2/3rds of the people in the "voice vote". Now everyone's angry. Perfect job there. :rofl:
As a conservative/libertarian who's about 95% Atheist, 5% Deist, I'm not offended by having "God" mentioned in the Pledge, on our money, or in a party platform. Even if I don't believe, I'm still more than willing to acknowledge the concept of God as a handy place-marker for our common Judeo Christian cultural roots, Western Civ, and as shorthand for a basic set of ethics.
DNC is a bunch of clowns that has no clue. They're lost with out a smooth talker like Clinton, or Obama with his teleprompter. And now that it's sinking in that without the teleprompter that our POTUS is Jimmy Carter's second term... they're in panic mode. Trying to appease their base, and giving lip service to the middle that's flat out a pack of lies all at the same time.
The "enthusiasm gap" just grew another percentage point IMO. =)
-
Having watched it last night, I have to say that President Clinton can still give one heck of a speech. If the Democrats are smart, they will ask Bill to be on the campaign trail making similar speeches.
-
I'll need to watch that thing again, but the way I read the last big boo was as a protest against the chair calling it passed on voice vote. I couldn't call it, from the level of sound I was hearing.
Isn't that how we got the Hughes Amendment?
-
I'm not disgusted by the booing. I'm disgusted by the establishment yet again ignoring the will of the delegates and changing policy to fit the political whims of our "betters". The curtain has been pulled back but everyone is arguing about the patterns on the curtain. :facepalm:
*expletive deleted*ing doomed.
-
I'll need to watch that thing again, but the way I read the last big boo was as a protest against the chair calling it passed on voice vote. I couldn't call it, from the level of sound I was hearing.
Isn't that how we got the Hughes Amendment?
That's exactly what happend. The ayes and nays were audibly tied, with maybe possibly the nays being higher.
Booing came after they said screw you we're doing it anyway.
-
I'm not disgusted by the booing. I'm disgusted by the establishment yet again ignoring the will of the delegates and changing policy to fit the political whims of our "betters". The curtain has been pulled back but everyone is arguing about the patterns on the curtain. :facepalm:
*expletive deleted* doomed.
Romney is also ignoring the will of the delegates.
GOP platform is against abortion, with no exceptions.
Romney believes in exceptions for rape and incest.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/06/160668087/what-the-democrats-do-over-really-says-about-party-platforms?ft=1&f=1001
Interesting article about how the party platforms are essentially a vehicle for ideologues to express themselves, but they serve little purpose beyond that.
-
Romney is also ignoring the will of the delegates.
GOP platform is against abortion, with no exceptions.
Romney believes in exceptions for rape and incest.
So what do you do if you agree with Romney and not the GOP platform?
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/06/160668087/what-the-democrats-do-over-really-says-about-party-platforms?ft=1&f=1001
Interesting article about how the party platforms are essentially a vehicle for ideologues to express themselves, but they serve little purpose beyond that.
Again its not about the actual platform. It could have been a vote on adopting the flying spagetti monster as the offical god of our nation.
Its about the process, and the subversion of the process by the elites.
They DO NOT want to turn this election into a godless democrats vs pious republicans election. As in 2006, the evangelical base will come out in droves if that happens.
No, the elites cannot afford that. So, when it came time to dictate the terms of the platform, the will of the delegates was subverted for the good of the party.
Both parties are run for "the good of the party". Party comes first.
Party before god.
Party before country.
Party before fiscal sanity.
Party before the people.
Do we get it now?
The political party will be the death of the republic.
-
So what do you do if you agree with Romney and not the GOP platform?
You stop agreeing with him, because Romney's position is just heartless and sick.
-
Do we get it now?
The political party will be the death of the republic.
The party leaders (both D and R) don't care; death of the republic works out well for them, as long as they retain power.
-
Again its not about the actual platform. It could have been a vote on adopting the flying spagetti monster as the offical god of our nation.
Its about the process, and the subversion of the process by the elites.
They DO NOT want to turn this election into a godless democrats vs pious republicans election. As in 2006, the evangelical base will come out in droves if that happens.
No, the elites cannot afford that. So, when it came time to dictate the terms of the platform, the will of the delegates was subverted for the good of the party.
Both parties are run for "the good of the party". Party comes first.
Party before god.
Party before country.
Party before fiscal sanity.
Party before the people.
Do we get it now?
The political party will be the death of the republic.
Quoted for truth. I went to my local precinct caucus early this spring. I agreed to be a delegate at the County level but at the county convention, declined at the state level, as I was unable to attend.
I'm on the local GOP email list, though, so got every request for help, money, whatever. I asked to be removed from the list but was taken to task by the local chairman. Because I was a delegate, I had agreed to support the Party financially and by assisting at parades, fairs, meetings, etc. I then stated that I was no longer a delegate adn would NOT support the party; I supported candidates. Period. I asked for a document I could sign, resigning my position. I didn't get it but haven't received any more emails, either.
jb
-
You stop agreeing with him, because Romney's position is just heartless and sick.
Really? Because when women have been raped, and become pregnant, they should be forced to carry to term? >:D
-
Really? Because when women have been raped, and become pregnant, they should be forced to carry to term? >:D
Because a child deserves to die for the crime of his father.
How the baby was conceived has no bearing on the rights of the child.
We can lessen the impact of the crime of rape on the victim by killing the rapist's child. We could lessen the impact of the crime of theft by enslaving the thief's children to repay the victim.
Do you find the second instance a horrific injustice? Why not the first?
-
Really? Because when women have been raped, and become pregnant, they should be forced to carry to term? >:D
Of course they should be forced to carry to term. Every pregnant woman should. We shouldn't allow people to kill innocent children. How can you endorse that?
-
Some situations are so dang hard to make a one size fit all, eh? Who gets to decide who is more important? Is the violated mother more important or the innocent child more important? If it is the woman? then who speaks for the child? Does some disinterested 3rd party decide? A judge? An elected politician? Should it be the state or the federal government? The argument that a woman is in charge of her own body it destroyed by the reality that she cannot walk into a hospital and demand that a limb be removed because that is "her choice". Abortion on demand means that a human baby is being treated as a lesser construct than a limb.
I don't think there is an answer to the question, unequivicably. On one side is the Humanist who says it's the mother. On another there is a Religionist who stands with the child. On another there is Somebody who can't decide. On another there is a Religionist/Humanist that qualifies the decision based on certain factors which may vary from Religionist/Humanist to another. On another Some say "I don't care, non issue". On another and another and another.....
Can it be said that rape is a 9 month long crime? If so, should then society provide an absolute top of the line care for the mother and child till it's decided if the mother bonds with the child or places the child with loving other parents? What of the rapist? If the mother and child prosper because of a society that believes she should under the circumstances, should not the rapist be deprived of freedom forever because he has violated her, the child and society as an opposite? If the child is aborted, then should not the rapist be deprived of his life as well by being executed within 9 months of the abortion?
-
This thread is now doomed
-
I don't think there is an answer to the question, unequivicably. On one side is the Humanist who says it's the mother. On another there is a Religionist who stands with the child. On another there is Somebody who can't decide. On another there is a Religionist/Humanist that qualifies the decision based on certain factors which may vary from Religionist/Humanist to another. On another Some say "I don't care, non issue". On another and another and another.....
There's nothing humanist about allowing children to be murdered.
-
Can it be said that rape is a 9 month long crime? If so, should then society provide an absolute top of the line care for the mother and child till it's decided if the mother bonds with the child or places the child with loving other parents?
Absolutely. But how many rapes actually result in pregnancy? Not many, I believe, so the cost to society would not be that large. The biggest problem is that doing this would remove the smokescreen for late-term abortions performed for the "health" of the mother ("Having a baby makes me sad", or "I don't want to get stretch marks" equals health)
-
This thread is now doomed
I guess so. But how long will we tolerate people saying hateful things like "rapists' kids should be put to death," and not respond to it? If someone was making racist comments, that would derail the thread. Same thing.
-
There's nothing humanist about allowing children to be murdered.
Who takes care of the "mother" while she is pregnant? Pregnancy, even with insurance, is expensive. Complications more so. Pregnancy, even today, can be fatal to the mother and child. Who pays for this? The rapist, who may not have anything? The mother who's only crime was being raped? You and I? What about after the birth? Who cares for the child, pays for the expenses of their life until they become and adult? What if nobody will adopt this child? What is the childbirth causes lifelong complications for the mother? Do we force "mom" to shoulder the burden because she had the temerity to be a rape victim?
Chris
-
But how long will we tolerate people saying hateful things like "rapists' kids should be put to death," and not respond to it?
Like hyperbole much?
Nobody is being hateful. Nobody is saying a rapist's baby should be murdered. What nobody has resolved is the significant expense and risks involved with carrying an unwanted child to term and then to adulthood. We can always suggest adoption, but that doesn't remove the risk of pregnancy and childbirth to the mother, who is, like the child, an innocent party to this crime. If mom can't pay, then society will pay.
Chris
-
Of course they should be forced to carry to term. Every pregnant woman should. We shouldn't allow people to kill innocent children. How can you endorse that?
Assuming this is an honest question, I would love to be able to answer it. But, an interesting thing I've learned about the world – this question can't be answered; can't be done. Not in any meaningful sense. People who believe it is correct to support such things, of which I am one, have such a drastically different perception of reality that there is actually no way to express it in a way that is truly comprehendible. If I tried to explain it, and you tried to step into that frame of mind, the resulting cognitive dissonance with the rest of your value system would just make my viewpoint look all the more abhorrent and corrupt. It would be a frustrating exercise for both of us – from where you are coming from it is both obvious and intuitive that I am wrong. And, of course, my perspective shows me the opposite.
This isn't a dig on you. This is a two way street. There is no way I will be able to internalize your perspective on this, regardless of what is said. To draw an analogy, if we were to meet someone who comes from a culture where honor killings are accepted and encouraged in specific circumstances; no matter what that person says, neither of us would be able to fully internalize a perspective where that is okay; our biases from the rest of our value system and how we see the world won't allow for it. We reject it.
In a very real sense, we live in different worlds.
-
Who takes care of the "mother" while she is pregnant? Pregnancy, even with insurance, is expensive. Complications more so. Pregnancy, even today, can be fatal to the mother and child. Who pays for this? The rapist, who may not have anything? The mother who's only crime was being raped? You and I? What about after the birth? Who cares for the child, pays for the expenses of their life until they become and adult? What if nobody will adopt this child? What is the childbirth causes lifelong complications for the mother? Do we force "mom" to shoulder the burden because she had the temerity to be a rape victim?
Chris
Who takes care of the "business owner" after an arson? Arson, even with insurance, is expensive to recover from. Government regulations on rebuilding, more so. Rebuilding a lost business, even today, can be fatal to the owner working long hours. Who pays for this? The arsonist, who may not have anything? The business owner whose only crime was having his business burned down? You and I? What about after the business is rebuilt? Who runs the business, pays the salaries to keep it going? What if no one wants to buy this business? What if rebuilding the business stresses out the business owner and causes lifelong complications? Do we force a business owner to shoulder the burden because he had the temerity to be an arson victim?
Shorter version: crimes cause significant cost to the victim, many that extend far beyond the immediate moment of the act. Rape is one of these that have long term consequences. We don't try to alleviate the consequences of one crime with a greater one against an innocent. (See my question about enslaving the progeny of other criminals.)
-
This disagreement is the main reason I'd like to see the SC overturn Roe vs Wade and let this go back to the 50 states to decide. If you don't like what your state is doing, you got more choices.
-
This disagreement is the main reason I'd like to see the SC overturn Roe vs Wade and let this go back to the 50 states to decide. If you don't like what your state is doing, you got more choices.
That may be a best case outcome for a time, but I don't see it lasting any more than Roe settled the question. More court challenges, and drives for Constitutional amendments from both sides is what I see as a more plausible scenario.
-
Who takes care of the "business owner" after an arson? Arson, even with insurance, is expensive to recover from. Government regulations on rebuilding, more so. Rebuilding a lost business, even today, can be fatal to the owner working long hours. Who pays for this? The arsonist, who may not have anything? The business owner whose only crime was having his business burned down? You and I? What about after the business is rebuilt? Who runs the business, pays the salaries to keep it going? What if no one wants to buy this business? What if rebuilding the business stresses out the business owner and causes lifelong complications? Do we force a business owner to shoulder the burden because he had the temerity to be an arson victim?
Shorter version: crimes cause significant cost to the victim, many that extend far beyond the immediate moment of the act. Rape is one of these that have long term consequences. We don't try to alleviate the consequences of one crime with a greater one against an innocent. (See my question about enslaving the progeny of other criminals.)
There is more than a little difference between a violent assault and burdening the victim with another human's life and replacing a business. It doesn't even compare.
Chris
-
There's a case currently that really highlights the problem with the "no abortion ever" belief.
11 year old girl, raped by her mother's boyfriend and gotten pregnant.
Those of you arguing that even in cases of rape, abortion should never happen, are arguing that this 11 year old child should be subjected to 9 more months of abuse (physical, as her body changes. And emotional, being forced to act as an incubator for her rapists child). All for the "crime" of being the victim of a rapist.
Keep that VERY firmly in mind, when you say "no abortion ever". You are placing the "rights" of that unborn child above the rights of that rape victim. THAT, to me, is FAR more hateful than saying "the victim should have the right to terminate the pregnancy"
-
This thread is doomed because this is an unanswerable issue.
My family has always been opposed to abortion. Having said that, we also see no end to abortions. What does one do? Well, we've been supporting a local Pregnancy Resource Center, in fact helped start it around 1985 or so. The PRC supplies every and all sorts of support for women with unwanted pregnancies, through birth and beyond. My family along with thousands of others put our money where our mouth is and provide whatever assistance is needed. Our financial aid cancels out any of my tax dollars that are used to kill babies. I can't stop paying the tax, so we feel we have to spend voluntary dollars to provide alternatives to abortion. Our local PRC has been the seed organization to assist other PRC's start up in other cities and states.
One of the reasons why we did this was to expose Planned Parenthood for the abortion mill that it is. Our first PRC opened up next door to PP. They were hateful people there at PP. They tried to find people to buy the building we were in from our landlord, offering him more money than the building was worth so they could close us down. He told them to fly a kite. They lied and denied that abortions were being performed in their building and lied about the PRC. The local PRC has thrived and continues to perform its mission.
-
Who takes care of the "business owner" after an arson? Arson, even with insurance, is expensive to recover from. Government regulations on rebuilding, more so. Rebuilding a lost business, even today, can be fatal to the owner working long hours. Who pays for this? The arsonist, who may not have anything? The business owner whose only crime was having his business burned down? You and I? What about after the business is rebuilt? Who runs the business, pays the salaries to keep it going? What if no one wants to buy this business? What if rebuilding the business stresses out the business owner and causes lifelong complications? Do we force a business owner to shoulder the burden because he had the temerity to be an arson victim?
Shorter version: crimes cause significant cost to the victim, many that extend far beyond the immediate moment of the act. Rape is one of these that have long term consequences. We don't try to alleviate the consequences of one crime with a greater one against an innocent. (See my question about enslaving the progeny of other criminals.)
So instead you're enslaving the VICTIM of the crime, rather than the criminal (or, to continue your analogy, his children). You're committing a further abuse of the victim, with the backing of society and the force of government behind it. ETA - like Strings said. You're claiming that the wrong already done that little girl is not enough, that she must be FURTHER harmed, at the hands of those she has a right to expect JUSTICE from, beyond what that waste of oxygen has already done to her.
This is kind of what Nick was talking about, IMO - the different views held by each side make this a problem unlikely to ever be "solved".
-
Yet again, the unsolvable abortion argument wrecks a thread.
-
I believe that maybe a baby is better off in heaven than on earth with a damaged, resentful mother
Am I the only person who believes this?
-
I guess so. But how long will we tolerate people saying hateful things like "rapists' kids should be put to death," and not respond to it? If someone was making racist comments, that would derail the thread. Same thing.
While this may not have been directed at me I feel I should respond to it.
I would never state "rapists' kids should be put to death." I didn't sayReally? Because when women have been raped, and become pregnant, they should be forced to carry to term? >:D
because I necessarily thought I had the answer. I don't. I'm not sure you have the answer, or anyone here has the answer.
I don't really understand why it is "hateful" to have a particular opinion on this subject, however. Certainly one may disagree with an opinion, but I don't see how that necessarily makes an opinion "hateful."
I don't "hate" babies that were created through rape any more than through the act of a loving dedicated couple who wish to become parents. I do, however, for the record, hate rapists.
-
known a few damaged resentful moms. none were that way as result of rape.
-
Irrelevant as usual, csd
-
Irrelevant as usual, csd
well maybe this will help
know 4 possibly 5 ladies with kids that were conceived as a result of rape none of them are "damaged and resentful" seems some folks have the character it takes to not fall into that "damaged and resentful " pit.
further no one says that you need to keep a kid. lots of folks would love to adopt
if we were to remove kids from "damaged and resentful " parents, of either gender, there would be a lot of kids needing luggage
-
Sweet baby fetus enough.
-
And reporting this post is senseless: I already locked it. Pay attention.