Forums - Politics Discussion - The Racist history of the Republican Party

Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
NinjaguyDan said:

The Republicans are the champions of freedom?

The freedom to marry who you want?

The freedom to use a safe, natural substance, either medicinally or recreationally?

The freedom for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions?

 

Or are you trying to feed me some bullshit?

By that last statement if you mean contraceptives , I have not heard any elected republican official try to ban contraceptives. That is a ridiculous argument ginned up by leftists to try to make it sound like elected officials on the right wants to ban contraceptives. I have never seen them advocating for that.

If by that statement you are also meaning abortion then I have a question for you:  When does that life inside the mothers womb become a human?


Personhood is not a scientific thing, nobody can say that it scientifically occurs at a definite point. The right wing does want to limit access to reproductive health services - Romney just said that as president he would abolish planned parenthood entirely. He's the most moderate of the Republican candidates.

That's not really true.

Sicence can tell you exactly when personhood happens.  So long as  you have a definition of personhood.

Really, based on that abortion can happen between never, and up to the age of two.

Really abortion is a much more interesting issue then the banal arguements that keep reappearing... conected to a lot of interesting issues.

As it is, most people on both sides have some huge contradictions in their stances because they don't put proper thought into it.

 

As for planned parenthood.  That seems more about cutting back on government services that don't pay for needs.

What I'm saying is that there  is no scientific definition of personhood.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:

The GOP, for minorities, means "Jews" for the most part, eventhough you get token minorities in there.  These tokens operate under a delusional belief that they are immune to systemic and social values that cause people to be discriminated against.  Such individuals end up thinking, by gumption, they are just plain superior and thus don't need to worry about such things.  

This is the current reality of things.  In the past, the Democratic Party was the home of racists.  But now, it isn't as a rule.  

I'm not really sure what the first sentence is supposed to mean, but the rest of this is pretty enlightening as to how Richard Hutnik thinks: minorities who are Republicans are merely tokens who are operating under a delusion. And it's the Republicans who are racists.

Also, I'm pretty sure any non-white racist is likely to be a Democrat, or at least not a Republican for sure. And only Democrats can get away with open race-mongering.

This has been the Democrats' modus operandi from the very beginning. That they've become a little more diverse in their racism and have replaced the KKK with the SEIU as the military wing of their party really means nothing.



It's like what Bill Maher once said: Not all Republicans are racists, but if you are racist you are probably a Republican (I'm paraphrasing).

About the Republican being all for freedom, it depends on what freedoms you talk about. They are against certain freedoms, especially ones that go against Christian morals. They also tend to favor restricting freedoms in exchange for security.

Now Democrats are also all for freedom but it also depends on which freedoms you talk about. They are against freedom to get rich by any means necessary. And they are against the freedom of people to make bad choices.

"¿Por qué justo a mí tenía que tocarme ser yo?"

Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
NinjaguyDan said:

The Republicans are the champions of freedom?

The freedom to marry who you want?

The freedom to use a safe, natural substance, either medicinally or recreationally?

The freedom for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions?

 

Or are you trying to feed me some bullshit?

By that last statement if you mean contraceptives , I have not heard any elected republican official try to ban contraceptives. That is a ridiculous argument ginned up by leftists to try to make it sound like elected officials on the right wants to ban contraceptives. I have never seen them advocating for that.

If by that statement you are also meaning abortion then I have a question for you:  When does that life inside the mothers womb become a human?


Personhood is not a scientific thing, nobody can say that it scientifically occurs at a definite point. The right wing does want to limit access to reproductive health services - Romney just said that as president he would abolish planned parenthood entirely. He's the most moderate of the Republican candidates.

That's not really true.

Sicence can tell you exactly when personhood happens.  So long as  you have a definition of personhood.

Really, based on that abortion can happen between never, and up to the age of two.

Really abortion is a much more interesting issue then the banal arguements that keep reappearing... conected to a lot of interesting issues.

As it is, most people on both sides have some huge contradictions in their stances because they don't put proper thought into it.

 

As for planned parenthood.  That seems more about cutting back on government services that don't pay for needs.

What I'm saying is that there  is no scientific definition of personhood.

Sure there is.  It's just, nobody would want to use that definition of personhood, because it'd be seen as extremely cruel and immortal.  Since it's not some time until after birth, and once a child is born, nobody wants to kill it.  Up until a certain point, a child is no more advanced then an animal.

I mean, afterall your an atheist right?  With no soul or spirit, personhood is encapsulated in the mind isn't it?



Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

What I'm saying is that there  is no scientific definition of personhood.

Sure there is.  It's just, nobody would want to use that definition of personhood, because it'd be seen as extremely cruel and immortal.  Since it's not some time until after birth, and once a child is born, nobody wants to kill it.  Up until a certain point, a child is no more advanced then an animal.

I mean, afterall your an atheist right?  With no soul or spirit, personhood is encapsulated in the mind isn't it?


I'm an atheist yes, and in my opinion personhood is in some way linked to the mind. I strongly disagree however that there is a scientific definition of when it begins as the idea of personhood is an entirely philosophical construct.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

and once a child is born, nobody wants to kill it.

Well... I wouldn't say nobody.



NinjaguyDan said:

The Republicans are the champions of freedom?

The freedom to marry who you want?

The freedom to use a safe, natural substance, either medicinally or recreationally?

The freedom for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions?

 

Or are you trying to feed me some bullshit?

Small government = more freedom

Marriage is lame. Just ask any young person.

Ron Paul is for legalizing that stuff.

Maybe her man should put on some fucking rubber instead of using my tax dollars to pay for her bastard. It's not a moral issue, it's a stop being a slut and taking my money issue.

 

Why yes, yes I am.



Snesboy said:

Small government = more freedom

Marriage is lame. Just ask any young person.

Ron Paul is for legalizing that stuff.

Maybe her man should put on some fucking rubber instead of using my tax dollars to pay for her bastard. It's not a moral issue, it's a stop being a slut and taking my money issue.

 

Why yes, yes I am.

You do realise that condoms are not 100% effective?



TadpoleJackson said:
NinjaguyDan said:

The Republicans are the champions of freedom?

The freedom to marry who you want?

The freedom to use a safe, natural substance, either medicinally or recreationally?

The freedom for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions?

 

Or are you trying to feed me some bullshit?


The republican party has a higher percentage of Libertarian leaning people in office. So I am going to say yes to the first one...

Neither party is really good at the second one... Obama was for Don't Ask Don't Tell... and if the Dems were such supporters of gay marriage they would have legalized it when they had control of both the house and senate... 

Again, neither party is great with this... Paul wants to legalize it... Obama has been the hardest president on legal pot sellers. 

I'll give you this one. Those Republicans would rather give the fetus the right to live 

Edit: And I found this funny. This is what happens when the liberals have complete control of a city http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/10-things-that-are-banned-in-san-francisco Freedom!

Definitely agree with your 2nd point.  There are many things they have promised to do , and yet, even when they have the majority rule they don't inact these policies.  Why?  Because if people aren't constantly suffering or feel like they are being discriminated against, they won't need Daddy Government to step in and take care of the problem. 



   

Delusional, the new N-word.

Around the Network
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

and once a child is born, nobody wants to kill it.

Well... I wouldn't say nobody.


Wow.  Surprised some scientist actually had the balls to publish that.