Unless of course you are a homosexual who would like the "freedom" to marry the person they love. And they do so by decrying Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, WIC, and unemployment as "socialism" and somehow antithetical to what it means to be American. Unless of course, the "someone else" is a woman who would like to have the choice over whether to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term and bear it. Yes, with the exceptions listed above, of course.
read previous posts. I've addressed everything you wrote. they aren't exclusively liberal's views and yes I support civil rights. See abortion addressed in previous post.
I'm confused about how you can talk out of your ass with any seriousness on the subject of conservatives not forcing their views on people.
So if somebody disagrees with you and votes Republican, they must just be unaware. Your megalomania of awareness and enlightenment must be a difficult burden to shoulder.
If by "addressed," you mean "tried to obfuscate and redefine the terms used in my post," I would agree. You claim (twice in the same post) that freedom from having external beliefs imposed on you is somehow central to Republican ideology when both abortion and gay marriage involve Christians forcing their beliefs on other people. Sorry, but "personal freedom" is hardly the platform of the Republicans when what they espouse is the freedom of Christians to impose their religious beliefs on the entire American population. By the way, you didn't address anything about the second paragraph, not a word.
Republicans are the party of selfishness, plain and simple. I have mine and don't even think of trying to take it from me or even bothering of asking if I will share, because it ain't gonna happen!!
abortion is protecting individual rights of the baby. I alrdy addressed this..... the stance on gay marriage is because liberals demand a stance. Liberals say their must be a definition. not Conservatives/Libertarians. Conservatives/Libertarians would be perfectly content with individual freedom on marriage (everyone having their own definition). Liberals fear and fight this. what second paragraph? You didn't write any paragraphs.
The fetus doesn't have any rights (you have to be "born" to have rights under the Constitution), but the woman does. She has the right to decide how her body (the uterus is part of her body) is used and if she doesn't want to use it to bring a fetus to term, that is her choice. The GOP would remove that choice, infringe on the woman's rights, and impose their own belief system on the woman, which is the exact opposite of what you say the Republicans are about. WTF kind of doublespeak is this? The stance on gay marriage is a religious one, nothing else. The religious want to impose their beliefs on people to the point of wanting a Constitutional Amendment that would deny homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have, the right to marry the person they love. You claimed that, when talking about Republicans, that "Most believe in giving your brother a helping hand (unlike Obama)" when the Republicans are the ones trying to get rid of all the "helping hand" government programs like SS, Medicare, WIC, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment. I know, you believe that charitable organizations funded with voluntary dollars are better suited to caring for the less fortunate, but the problem is that they only serve a narrow section of the population, which is the reason that SS, Medicare, WIC, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment were created in the first place, to provide for the "general Welfare," as the Constitution requires of the government.
It makes perfect sense to me. It has nothing to do with being compelled. I know wealthy Republicans, middle class republicans, retired republicans, and poor republicans. I'm not talking about the Tea Party here which is about 1/3 of the party and are just loonie fanatics. I'm talking about the sane conservatives. I never said Republicans were devoid of values. Quite the contrary, take out the rich republicans we see demonized in the media, and most middle class republicans are extremely family and valued focus. I find that conservatives that are not tea party types, not rich, and not religious zealots (see tea party) are the core group that vote Republican. Most of these folks are why Obama can have an 80% approval rating on his inauguration day. They are country first type of people (unlike Tea Partiers and the Rich Repubs) and truly want the president to succeed and help the country no matter what party they are from. And yes, they do think it's important to give and help people help - but their people. Local. And they more often give their time than their money. They also rather give through the organizations they have relationships with, and they give because it feels good and what they believe in. And they don't like the gov't doing "handouts" because they see the receivers of it as unworthy. Where as when they give it's to someone they deem is worthy and appreciative. Locals whom they want to help. Not some stranger whom they imagine to be a sloth. It's not being compelled to give, its' they don't like the causes and the people its being given to - those people are not worthy. That is how they think.
I would argue a woman doesn;t have the right to kill another human being, but you think a fetus is a piece of luggage do be discarded at will. Either way, I am right in saying Conservatives are not in the business of pushing beliefs on others. They are in the business of protecting individual rights (like the right to life). You argument stems from the belief a fetus is not human. This is not held by most Republicans, therefore your argument is built on a faulty premiss. No. the religious are forced to push their definition of marriage on the country (everyone is) by liberals. Most Republicans would prefer government not be in the marriage business. Correct. They would rather it be an individuals choice. this is called freedom. You should give your earned money to whoever you think cares for people best. I'll do the same. oh wait. you've taken that choice from me......
Republicans, and American Libertarians have a warped understanding of freedom that they seek to impose on American discourse. They seek to substitute their definition for the common definition used by many other more moderate individuals. It is a battle of language, but it has a practical impact on policy. Tallanvor throws the term freedom around like a bludgeon seeking to use the rhetorical, culturally derived, power as some sort of argument in an of itself. It's a powerful effort simply because we hold the term in awe, but if you look at how he defines the term, you see that his understanding is hollow. He doesn't care about making the sacrifices necessary for freedom of the many. He would rather have a system where only a select few get to actually exercise the benefits of their freedoms - and only the freedoms which he feels have value. People on the more moderate end of the political spectrum and on the left recognize that economic freedom is not the only freedom and even if it were that it is not simply the theoretical ability to decide how every dollar you earn is spent, but rather the practical freedom for most Americans to know that their life and the lives of your family will not be ruined if they catch a bad break in life, that they are not at the mercy of their employer, or the vagaries of fate. Tallanvor doesn't think about freedoms in terms of any trade off or sacrifice, he only thinks about the easy black/white path of "individual choice." But, by thinking about freedom in such a limited, facile manner, he and others like him seek to diminish the freedoms that we have built for Americans of all races, creeds, genders, and incomes - freedoms that many Americans have fought for throughout the 20th Century. Defining freedom simply as "individual choice" is ridiculous because in practice in has simply lead to freedoms exercised by a the few, but it makes for a good soundbite.
Forcing a woman to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term is forcing your beliefs on someone else. The woman who chooses abortion doesn't believe it is a "human being," that is YOUR belief that, if you had the power, you would force on a woman with rights. Your argument requires that someone else accept your belief. Thus, you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Thank you for proving my point so clearly. You are delusional. The Republicans are the ones who pushed DOMA, the ones who have pushed many same sex marriage laws and amendments all over the country. For a party that doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, they sure have made absolutely sure that government will be in the marriage business. The general Welfare of Americans isn't your choice, it is your duty as an American. You are welcome to do that, after you have done your American duty to pay the required taxes to ensure that Americans' general Welfare, which the Constitution mandates the federal government see to, is provided for.
I'll admit from my perspective this makes little sense as an argument. Human society, after all, does not let murder slide from the perspective of "the perpetrator sincerely believed that his victim was not human/a monster/etc." If one believes that abortion is indeed the murder of a child, it stands to reason that the proper course of action would be to prevent people from murdering those kids, regardless of the individual beliefs of the people doing the murdering.
The difference, of course, is the exceptionally small number of twisted individuals who believe that murdering a person (as in, someone who was born and is actually a human, not a fetus or embryo. Far less than half the country believes abortion qualifies as "murder" and those people don't have the right to force their beliefs on the rest of the country. BTW, if the people who DO believe abortion is "murder" got real about the issue, they could actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by allowing honest sex education, making sure contraception was ubiquitously available, and making sure that women's reproductive health needs were provided for, but they oppose all of these things. They COULD have an actual impact, but instead spend their time, money, and effort trying to criminalize abortion, a law that would do us as much good as the Controlled Substances Act has, which is to say none at all. Besides, the point was refuting tall's attempt to prove his laughable claim that Republicans and conservatives aren't interested in forcing their beliefs on other people. They are and, if they had the power, they would. There is no doubt or question about this plain fact, except in the delusional minds of people like tall.
