HOME | DD

vaidlus In reply to Favninthedirewolf [2013-07-03 06:15:46 +0000 UTC]

Looks like it haha.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Favninthedirewolf In reply to vaidlus [2013-07-03 15:45:20 +0000 UTC]

It's like Republicans want that nice piece of ass. Never heard of a nice piece of elephant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vaidlus In reply to Favninthedirewolf [2013-07-03 19:09:55 +0000 UTC]

Of course they want some ass, they wont be getting much at home with the way things are going over there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Favninthedirewolf In reply to vaidlus [2013-07-03 20:17:41 +0000 UTC]

Haha!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hungrydead In reply to Andersxx2 [2011-05-11 16:30:04 +0000 UTC]

Yeah they can't do anything right accept produce talk radio shows.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rtully2639 In reply to Hungrydead [2012-07-18 07:28:00 +0000 UTC]

That's funny because the democrats have tried to compete with talk shows, and failed; they have tried to restrict the talk shows through the horrible fairness doctrine. All of the little liberals are quick to attack SOPA and all other forms of censorship and yet are ok with form of censorship.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rtully2639 In reply to MiharuMiho [2012-07-18 07:29:10 +0000 UTC]

And what gay right would we be infringing upon?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

AnselmBlackheart In reply to rtully2639 [2013-02-19 14:00:34 +0000 UTC]

Let me answer that. How about... all of them? Seeing as it is in the Republican party platform to oppose all attempts to advance gay rights. Hell, since we are on that document... how about opposing amnesty for immigrants? And don't forget their opposition to abortion, any tax increases, any health care reform, and ANY gun regulation (even the formerly non-controversial stuff).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rtully2639 In reply to AnselmBlackheart [2013-02-20 11:40:35 +0000 UTC]

It is not a Republican platform to oppose views. It is however a platform to promote their views as is the Democrats to promote theirs. Most republicans apart from your fringe voters believe all gay rights should be relegated to the states. If a state wants to ban gay marriage ok, if they want to legalize and promote it great. Most have the same viewpoint for abortion and healthcare. The view that the government should not intervene in the public in that way. The fact that we need a law regarding who we can and can't marry is horrible. Also many republicans led the way in health care reform. Democrats did not want health care reform as much as raising taxes. There is also a large difference between amnesty for illegal immigrants and immigration reform. There is a pathway for citizenship any claim to provide one is anything but.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AnselmBlackheart In reply to rtully2639 [2013-02-20 19:26:12 +0000 UTC]

Let me just quote from the party platform...

On gay marriage: "A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle – in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts – makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so."

Get it? They don't support the STATES deciding, in fact, they want to make a FEDERAL AMENDMENT which bans gay marriage.

---

On abortion (And a few other topics):

"The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life (Top)

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives."

This one gets a bit bigger response from me. As an independent, I do have some conservative principles and a few parts of this I would support. "We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm..." I agree with this, though not the second half of the statement which opposes euthanasia... I DO support laws that restrict when Euthanasia is viable though (Specifically, only if the person who wishes to die is capable and found to be mentally fit enough to decide this for themselves).

The rest of this though... is pure crazy. Now though, some of it I WOULD support... if it was not ALREADY illegal. Partial birth abortions and early induction abortions are illegal in most states, and any clinic that DID do it does not deserve tax payer money since those specific kinds of abortion I do agree are unethical.

The rest of this bit speaks for itself though. Also, note that AGAIN they seeks a FEDERAL AMENDMENT to ban this.

---

Now, for the rest of your points, there is no quote I can use since what you refer to is minutia that has to be responded to directly.

For healthcare reform: No the republicans did not... The republicans attempted to block the Affordable Care Act every step of the way. They turned on their OWN ideas, such as the mandate, just to score political points. And yes, the Mandate WAS a republican idea.

Immigration reform does includes quite a bit of amnesty for illegal immigrants... and rightfully so. Now, let me explain. Things like the Dream Act, which provide children who were brought here to have a chance to become citizens (Republicans are against it, despite it originally being one of their ideas). Giving a, as you put it, "Pathway to Citizenship" is actually meant for illegal immigrants who are here to have a method of becoming full citizens.... Republicans oppose it.

---

In addendum, do you not find it strange that the party who claims to be the one for STATES right, is also the party who wants to assert its power through FEDERAL amendments?

Also, here is the link to the Republican Party platform [link] Straight from one of their own sites.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rtully2639 In reply to AnselmBlackheart [2013-02-22 09:26:35 +0000 UTC]

I appreciate all of the research that you have done. I however am not a republican nor espouse their beliefs. The republican party of reagan is gone. I have been a registered conservative for 8 years now. The idea of a mandate can be traced to both parties. I think the biggest issue with abortion would be the slippery slope. Where do you stop? The public had no problem with abortions up until the 2 trimester. Then that was ok so they moved to the third and eventually trying to legalize partial birth abortions. The latter was championed and signed by Clinton by the way. One of the main and most important tenets of conservatism is the reservation of rights to the states. Due to populaces it would make sense that gay marriage is legal in states like California and New York and not in states like Alabama and Mississippi. What might be good for one state might not be for another. This is why I think most of our decisions need to be taken care of by the states. California and New York might need more social assistance than states such as Pennsylvania or Maryland. I will be honest, lately I have seen little differences between the parties evidenced by their wishing to get more of the "moderate" and "undecided" votes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AnselmBlackheart In reply to rtully2639 [2013-02-22 10:26:57 +0000 UTC]

The comment that you had originally responded to WAS responding to the republican party. You yourself said that "It is not a Republican platform to oppose views.". So this response to mine comes a bit out of left field.

And I do have to correct you. The mandate was originally posed way back in 1989 by the Heritage Foundation; now, their version was different in the specifics, but it also was much more vague and held the same general idea.

I also have to correct you about Clinton supporting partial birth abortion. He does not, he DID though, veto a bill that would ban it nationally. There is a reason he did though, the bill was incredibly vague and the vagueness could easily have been a way to ban abortion period. So he did not veto it because he supports partial birth abortion, but instead to prevent an incredibly vague law that would likely have extremely negative effects outside what its stated goals were.

As to states rights... I would agree if that system was consistently working, but it is not. The way this government is set up, is so that the states can largely make their own laws so long as they abide by and legislate under the national constitution. One needs only look at Florida to see how that goes haywire with something as simple as VOTING.

Finally, as to differences between the parties.... the Republican Party has now been consistently anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-racial minorities, and anti-poor. If you cannot see a difference between the two parties, than you are not looking hard.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rtully2639 In reply to AnselmBlackheart [2013-02-27 06:39:07 +0000 UTC]

For being anti-women they sure are putting up a lot of Women candidates for posts such as governorships and representatives. For being anti-racial minorities is just plain wrong. They were the party pushing for the abolishment of slavery as well as the civil rights act of 1964. They are as well as conservatives which the media lacks the intellect to seperate, supportive of immigration reform. It's just not the immigration reform that would favor illegal immigrants. In defending Bill Clinton's veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion you could also point to Bush's Patriot Act and claim that it was supported to better consolidate intelligence gathering protocol. Conservatives also have as I have said before been on the fence about gay rights defering the right to legislate to the states. Also the mandate that you are referring to by the Heritage foundation was not to require employers to provide health care but heads of household. It would also have tax credit tie ins for abiding. In finishing, I did not say that there was not a difference between Republicans and Democrats just that the views of the Establishments of each party are getting blurred.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MiharuMiho In reply to rtully2639 [2012-07-19 00:44:25 +0000 UTC]

The point of that comment was to point out the Elephant giving it to the Donkey... Through the ass.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

XXXnycmangaluverxxx In reply to MiharuMiho [2011-12-11 03:30:57 +0000 UTC]

WIN!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MiharuMiho In reply to XXXnycmangaluverxxx [2011-12-11 04:20:44 +0000 UTC]

;D hahahaha

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AnselmBlackheart In reply to Purin95 [2013-02-22 10:29:58 +0000 UTC]

Huh? Democrats won that one. Democrats are the Donkeys.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Purin95 In reply to AnselmBlackheart [2013-02-23 00:19:26 +0000 UTC]

could it be I did that on purpose?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AnselmBlackheart In reply to Purin95 [2013-02-23 04:01:58 +0000 UTC]

I would have to ask why?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Purin95 In reply to AnselmBlackheart [2013-02-23 09:42:17 +0000 UTC]

because im fucking hilarious

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

001ef In reply to Shebshie [2012-01-11 00:27:45 +0000 UTC]

that`s right!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Taylei4eva In reply to werejaguar [2009-04-10 19:49:06 +0000 UTC]

Well whoop-de-do for the democrats. That was a very thoughtless reply. Next time try thinking harder.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0