Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are republicans without conscience or empathy?

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Any sources to attribute those quotes to.....or are those just imaginary statements from all of those hate-mongering Republicans??




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Once all life on this planet is extinguished, then we'll go planet to planet until this star system is purged of all life. Then we go after God to kill it.

Your question sounds just as bizarro world as this psuedo-reply.
edit on 2-8-2011 by tkwasny because: typo



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Personaly I just think conservatives are more pragmatic, they just go for what works best and don't try to fix things that arn't bust, human nature being what it is if you give people too many handouts they just become dependent on them. If socialism worked then conservatives would actually be in favour of it!

As for 'liberals' - sorry but there is mostly something wrong with you all!



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

First of all, you need to toughen up about abortion.


You need to toughen up about personal responsibility.


I think you can learn to accept a woman's right to keep her baby or not. In fact with the population issue, we are definitely not in a place where we should be forcing people to keep children if they feel they can't afford it.


This statement is a prime example of treating adults like mentally-handicapped children. I feel insulted as a woman because of your attitude of acting like women are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. Government should not be used as a means for adults to avoid the natural consequences of chosen sexual behavior. The right to life of a fetus should take precedence over the "right" of the woman to decide whether to terminate a human life or not because a fetus is completely helpless and needs protection while the woman, and every right-minded adult for that matter, knows the simple fact of life that sex=reproduction. If you would really hate to have a child THAT much or know that you can't afford it, there are choices you can make to ensure 100% that you won't get pregnant. There is absolutely NO excuse for an abortion resulting from consensual sex.


But I get it... you probably hate the family that has more kids than they can afford, and so goes on welfare, but would not have given them the right to abort the children in the first place.


You choose to have sex, you are choosing to take the risk of a pregnancy occuring. The whole notion of a pregnancy being an "accident" after making the choice to have sex is completely asinine. Abortions are common among those in poverty yet they STILL pop out child after child. Parading abortion as a woman's "right" reinforces irresponsible, destructive behavior just as much as welfare handouts.


Isn't interjecting your personal views on a woman's right just another example of big government getting in the way of people's lives... ? Just another example of republican hypocrisy...


The right to life is a basic, essential right that should not be taken from the unborn. There are only TWO people responsible for a pregnancy occuring. Granting the right to life to the unborn is NOT in anyway "forcing" the woman to have a child. She got HERSELF pregnant and cannot play the victim card.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by stephinrazin
I am not a Republican, but I have a health understanding of classical liberalism. Many of my hard core democratic friends cannot wrap their minds around the state as a weapon. Taxation by threat of force is the gun someone has already mentioned. Anytime the state uses force to confiscate wealth no matter the reason the act is immoral.


I find it interesting that republicans will use taxes as a metaphor for being forced to do something at gunpoint... but actual gun points like illegally invading countries, or torturing people, or turning a blind eye to rape and murder... or even embracing the Patriot Act and TSA is somehow excluded from this metaphorical gunpoint forced on people.

It really seems money is the sore spot for republicans... and knowing the love of money is the root of all evil... and republicans traditionally embrace big money, big corporations... Asking if republican voters have conscience or empathy I think is a valid question.

It's an interesting philosophy to embrace money above all things and yet have no problems with money spent on war. That's a very interesting position to take, morally speaking.
Why would you quote a non republican? Its really not about money, its about life liberty and property At least in the case of the post your quoting.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Personaly I just think conservatives are more pragmatic, they just go for what works best and don't try to fix things that arn't bust, human nature being what it is if you give people too many handouts they just become dependent on them. If socialism worked then conservatives would actually be in favour of it!

As for 'liberals' - sorry but there is mostly something wrong with you all!



Uh NO!

I've been a registered Rep for 40 years. I do not support welfare. I do not support funding for teenage pregnancy. I do not support throwing money at a drowning ship.

There is a difference between being logical/pragmatic and ridiculous - - - based on hysteria/emotions and drama. YES! I am talking about today's Republicans.

Today's Reps are just outright stupid. They're a bunch of back porch flag waving cross bearing nut jobs.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Jezus
 


Any sources to attribute those quotes to.....or are those just imaginary statements from all of those hate-mongering Republicans??


I'm sure you can find statements from the some republicans but this is more about their actions.

It isn't hateful to believe that most poor believe deserve to be poor.

It is ignorant of course, but it isn't hateful.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
She got HERSELF pregnant and cannot play the victim card.


SHE got herself pregnant??

Sexist much?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
You choose to have sex, you are choosing to take the risk of a pregnancy occuring. The whole notion of a pregnancy being an "accident" after making the choice to have sex is completely asinine. Abortions are common among those in poverty yet they STILL pop out child after child. Parading abortion as a woman's "right" reinforces irresponsible, destructive behavior just as much as welfare handouts.


That is a nice explanation of why you don't believe abortion is moral.

I don't think it is right to force abortions on people.

However, it is just as crazy to attempt to force someone not to have an abortion.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

First of all, you need to toughen up about abortion.


You need to toughen up about personal responsibility.


I think you can learn to accept a woman's right to keep her baby or not. In fact with the population issue, we are definitely not in a place where we should be forcing people to keep children if they feel they can't afford it.


This statement is a prime example of treating adults like mentally-handicapped children. I feel insulted as a woman because of your attitude of acting like women are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. Government should not be used as a means for adults to avoid the natural consequences of chosen sexual behavior. The right to life of a fetus should take precedence over the "right" of the woman to decide whether to terminate a human life or not because a fetus is completely helpless and needs protection while the woman, and every right-minded adult for that matter, knows the simple fact of life that sex=reproduction. If you would really hate to have a child THAT much or know that you can't afford it, there are choices you can make to ensure 100% that you won't get pregnant. There is absolutely NO excuse for an abortion resulting from consensual sex.


But I get it... you probably hate the family that has more kids than they can afford, and so goes on welfare, but would not have given them the right to abort the children in the first place.


You choose to have sex, you are choosing to take the risk of a pregnancy occuring. The whole notion of a pregnancy being an "accident" after making the choice to have sex is completely asinine. Abortions are common among those in poverty yet they STILL pop out child after child. Parading abortion as a woman's "right" reinforces irresponsible, destructive behavior just as much as welfare handouts.


Isn't interjecting your personal views on a woman's right just another example of big government getting in the way of people's lives... ? Just another example of republican hypocrisy...


The right to life is a basic, essential right that should not be taken from the unborn. There are only TWO people responsible for a pregnancy occuring. Granting the right to life to the unborn is NOT in anyway "forcing" the woman to have a child. She got HERSELF pregnant and cannot play the victim card.


Are you suggesting people should not have sex? Or are you suggesting that condoms never break or birth control never fails? Are you suggesting that honest mistakes never happen by responsible people?

There is ZERO insult to women in anything I've said. I defend a woman's right to her own body. To minimize the difficult choice of abortion, or even the experience of going through it.... No...

What you're describing is a woman should be punished for having sex if she becomes pregnant and cannot afford or is not in a place to take care of it. Shove her nose right in that mistake. She made that bed and now she can sleep in it. While the laws provide her a way out, you would seek to hold her feet to the fire and dictate that she keep the child. And then when she has the baby she couldn't afford and needs welfare... what's your stance on that precious life... F 'em!

Great example of lack of empathy. Thanks for further answering my question and proving my suspiscions.

edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Are you suggesting people should not have sex? Or are you suggesting that condoms never break or birth control never fails? Are you suggesting that honest mistakes never happen by responsible people?

There is ZERO insult to women in anything I've said. I defend a woman's right to her own body. To minimize the difficult choice of abortion, or even the experience of going through it.... No...

What you're describing is a woman should be punished for having sex if she becomes pregnant and cannot afford or is not in a place to take care of it. Shove her nose right in that mistake. She made that bed and now she can sleep in it. While the laws provide her a way out, you would seek to hold her feet to the fire and dictate that she keep the child. And then when she has the baby she couldn't afford and needs welfare... what's your stance on that precious life... F 'em!

Great example of lack of empathy. Thanks for further answering my question and proving my suspiscions.

edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

Let me give you a little something to munch on before decided who has compassion and who doesn/t. I don't believe it but here it is. If you wish to hold a gun to my head and threaten me with prison for not paying my "fair" share to feed, cloth, house, educate repeat, then you really have to be fair and let me hold a gun to her head to make her have that child. Its all about being "fair" right?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Are you sure? Then let's see the quotes...otherwise quit making stuff up.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Are you suggesting people should not have sex? Or are you suggesting that condoms never break or birth control never fails? Are you suggesting that honest mistakes never happen by responsible people?

There is ZERO insult to women in anything I've said. I defend a woman's right to her own body. To minimize the difficult choice of abortion, or even the experience of going through it.... No...

What you're describing is a woman should be punished for having sex if she becomes pregnant and cannot afford or is not in a place to take care of it. Shove her nose right in that mistake. She made that bed and now she can sleep in it. While the laws provide her a way out, you would seek to hold her feet to the fire and dictate that she keep the child. And then when she has the baby she couldn't afford and needs welfare... what's your stance on that precious life... F 'em!

Great example of lack of empathy. Thanks for further answering my question and proving my suspiscions.

edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

Let me give you a little something to munch on before decided who has compassion and who doesn/t. I don't believe it but here it is. If you wish to hold a gun to my head and threaten me with prison for not paying my "fair" share to feed, cloth, house, educate repeat, then you really have to be fair and let me hold a gun to her head to make her have that child. Its all about being "fair" right?


Listen, this whole holding guns to each others heads is a bit dramatic. Is it fair that a guy has less say? No, it's not entirely fair. There are flaws in the way men are required to get with the program whether it be child support or alimoney. I'm not going to argue that with you... but, one issue at a time. If she has a right to choose... your chances of being forced to pay are less than if she has no right at all.

I agree with the unfairness... therefore the fight should not be about a women's right to choose. All women should have that right. The next fight is exactly what responsibilities a guy should have if he wanted an abortion, if he has no interest in the child... That's a fight I can get on board with because now we're talking about gaining rights, not losing them.

This also adds empathy to the equation rather than removing it.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


That line of reasons could never work given what your stance on the subject. A man could never have rights to an unborn baby if the ultimate right on whether the child can live or die lies with the woman. You can't have it both ways.

You keep comparing the "unintentional" killing that takes place in wars with the "intentional" killing of an innocent child. That's a poor case for abortion.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This total resentment towards the poor, while consistently claiming the wealthy provide jobs. Guess what? The working class provide labor. The poor sign up for military and provide their bodies as war chum. We're all giving up our civil liberties for the sake of security... Everyone is sacrificing, and the rich who have only profited throughout these years, aren't willing to lose a tax break? How is that not pure greed? And how is it not a total d*ck move for these wealthy CEOs to say they will be *forced* to kill jobs or send them overseas when the deal they ultimately fought for will cost millions of jobs anyway?
edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


That line of reasons could never work given what your stance on the subject. A man could never have rights to an unborn baby if the ultimate right on whether the child can live or die lies with the woman. You can't have it both ways.

You keep comparing the "unintentional" killing that takes place in wars with the "intentional" killing of an innocent child. That's a poor case for abortion.


Oh, so you think it's unintentional when innocent people die in war, rather than intentional and acceptable collateral damage... Now who's being naive...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
To the OP: The premise you begin with is severely flawed. Good, intelligent and empathetic people can severely disagree about how to address problems. Intentions have little to do with the success or failure of government policies. Calling something a 'war on ______" doesn't mean our actions actually impact the problem. There's a fantastic book called "The Vision of the Anointed- Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy" by Thomas Sowell that addresses exactly these notions in great detail and respectfully to all. Take a deep breath and realize that demonizing people who disagree with you is the first step down a well trodden road of tyranny, one that often leads to re-education camps and genocide. If you want to discuss actual issues, and are willing to have the kind of conversations that deal with specifics, you will find that many people embrace that and you may find you are not so far apart on the issues as first assumed. Since many of us are different ages, have different religions, professions and interests wouldn't you expect to find a vast diversity of experience and opinion amongst free thinkers? Why is that scary to you? Would you prefer a society where those who disagree are silenced or even destroyed?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
when the democrats stop supporting abortion,classwarfare and pushing social programs that enslave millions of americans with no other means of support as it stands right now i am not convinced they have any conscience or empathy.
edit on 2-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


When democrats stop supporting a woman's right...

When democrats stop fighting for the lower income families and fully outwardly embrace the richest of the rich like republicans do...

When democrats stop supporting welfare, unemployment, and other means of survival for those who are in need...

Yes, where is their conscience.... where is their empathy to support such people in need.... Indeed.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
This total resentment towards the poor, while consistently claiming the wealthy provide jobs.


Claiming?

When was the last time a poor person gave you a job? The wealthy do provide the jobs my friend...and that does not constitute a resentment towards the poor.

Your rigid ideology is bordering on insanity.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Listen, this whole holding guns to each others heads is a bit dramatic. Is it fair that a guy has less say? No, it's not entirely fair. There are flaws in the way men are required to get with the program whether it be child support or alimoney. I'm not going to argue that with you... but, one issue at a time. If she has a right to choose... your chances of being forced to pay are less than if she has no right at all.

I agree with the unfairness... therefore the fight should not be about a women's right to choose. All women should have that right. The next fight is exactly what responsibilities a guy should have if he wanted an abortion, if he has no interest in the child... That's a fight I can get on board with because now we're talking about gaining rights, not losing them.

This also adds empathy to the equation rather than removing it.
There is nothing dramatic about it, don't pay your taxes and see what happens.
No, the next fight is to end the violence, and to do that, the biggest perpetrator of violence is the state, so the state must go and replaced by a voluntary society. There is no function of the state that cannot be replaced with a non violent one, one that is voluntary. Many of these "social problems" were once handled by churches etc.. But in order to be a "secular" nation they had to be able to replace all religious "duties" with government ones. Since both religion and statism are politically the same thing, they should be expressed as, governance. Neither can exist in a voluntary society with out strict adherence to the individuals life liberty and property.
edit on 2-8-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join