Chizzang wrote:Because having a debate with somebody that cannot be fundamentally honest on a particular topic89Hen wrote:Cleetzang, why are you trying to change the discussion?
is a waste of time
Everybody has to play by the same ground rules
lying about our position and about what we don't know and do know makes it worthless
You're a moron.
AZGrizFan wrote:Well, when one equates positions to polling numbers, it's apparent they don't believe its obvious...Chizzang wrote:
Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate
That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)89Hen wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Because having a debate with somebody that cannot be fundamentally honest on a particular topic
is a waste of time
Everybody has to play by the same ground rules
lying about our position and about what we don't know and do know makes it worthless
Tennis without the net
Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.Chizzang wrote:That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)89Hen wrote:
But my original point still stands
You can't play tennis without a net
You say you do not want doctors interfering / then you do / then you don't
all based on the definition of the word fetus (that you choose to call baby)
Frankly it's like watching Joe explain there are only a few thousand child rapists in the organization
Not hundreds of thousands - so all of us are wrong
That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.Chizzang wrote:That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
A baby absolutely has rights !89Hen wrote:That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.Chizzang wrote:That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.
Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.CAA Flagship wrote:Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.Chizzang wrote:
That ^ is an entirely different debate (seriously worth some deeper discussion)
But my original point still stands
You can't play tennis without a net
You say you do not want doctors interfering / then you do / then you don't
all based on the definition of the word fetus (that you choose to call baby)
Frankly it's like watching Joe explain there are only a few thousand child rapists in the organization
Not hundreds of thousands - so all of us are wrong
I never see anyone run into the net.Grizalltheway wrote:Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.CAA Flagship wrote:
Sure you could. It could be a brick wall or a wood wall or a glass wall. I don't think it would affect the game that much.
The net thing has worked fine for 150 years. If it ain't fixed, don't broke it.CAA Flagship wrote:I never see anyone run into the net.Grizalltheway wrote:
Sure, until you had to play a drop shot and run full speed towards said wall.
But you would know better than me so pad the wall.
No. We must build the wall to keep the terrorists on their side of the court.Grizalltheway wrote:The net thing has worked fine for 150 years. If it ain't fixed, don't broke it.CAA Flagship wrote: I never see anyone run into the net.
But you would know better than me so pad the wall.
The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.Chizzang wrote:A baby absolutely has rights !89Hen wrote: That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.
The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without
The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?
No. I like some of their food.Grizalltheway wrote:I thought that was for Meheecans?
Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?AZGrizFan wrote:I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.89Hen wrote: I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.
But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
89Hen wrote:The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.Chizzang wrote:
A baby absolutely has rights !
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without
The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?
"cannot live without..." there you go again. Trying to jump ahead or insert other things. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.
Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.BDKJMU wrote:Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?AZGrizFan wrote:
I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.
Where do you put issues like judges, immigration, nat security, environmental, etc. Fiscal? Social? Both? Neither? Think there's a lot of issues that can be labeled both fiscal and social, or neither..
I think only a precious few people suggest that the fetus has rights that exceed the mother's.Chizzang wrote:A baby absolutely has rights !89Hen wrote: That didn't stop you from going on a religion tangent that had zero to do with our discussion.
The entire disagreement is over whether the baby has rights. I think they do, you think they don't. There's really no point in discussing further if we don't agree on that.
A fetus does not have rights that exceed the rights of the mother
in which it resides and cannot live without
The question becomes does a fetus have MORE rights than the mother ..?
Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..AZGrizFan wrote:Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.BDKJMU wrote:
Guns is a social issue, no? You aren't with the donks on that are you?
Where do you put issues like judges, immigration, nat security, environmental, etc. Fiscal? Social? Both? Neither? Think there's a lot of issues that can be labeled both fiscal and social, or neither..
National Security, Environmental, etc., are first and foremost financial issues for me. We can't "spend" ourselves to safety or clean air. Besides, the only thing worse than no security is the "illusion" of security and that's what our billions have bought us...the illusion that we're safe.
When I say "social" issues, I'm talking about welfare, immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. I support work for welfare, but time limits on receipt of welfare benefits, a path to naturalization, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
The only one being terminated asshat.Chizzang wrote:89Hen wrote: The right to life is the most important right there is. Nothing trumps that.
"cannot live without..." there you go again. Trying to jump ahead or insert other things. I knew you couldn't stay on topic.
Who's life..?
define who's life you're talking about exactly..?
Why are you hell bent on parsing this? Yes, EVERYTHING ultimately is a fiscal issue. Especially if a government program/dept is started up to "manage" it. But first and foremost, it's a social issue. The SOLUTION to it is fiscal.BDKJMU wrote:Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..AZGrizFan wrote:
Guns are not a social issue. Guns are specifically addressed in the constitution. I support the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. ANY arms.
National Security, Environmental, etc., are first and foremost financial issues for me. We can't "spend" ourselves to safety or clean air. Besides, the only thing worse than no security is the "illusion" of security and that's what our billions have bought us...the illusion that we're safe.
When I say "social" issues, I'm talking about welfare, immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. I support work for welfare, but time limits on receipt of welfare benefits, a path to naturalization, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc.
Welfare I think is just as much if not more a fiscal issue as social due to the fiscal costs. I would include under that unbrella direct cash payments, EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc..
BDK has a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees.AZGrizFan wrote:Why are you hell bent on parsing this? Yes, EVERYTHING ultimately is a fiscal issue. Especially if a government program/dept is started up to "manage" it. But first and foremost, it's a social issue. The SOLUTION to it is fiscal.BDKJMU wrote:
Wouldn't immigration also be fiscal? The fiscal costs of border security & interior security. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration (courts, jails, prisons, schools, hospitals, social services, etc)..
Welfare I think is just as much if not more a fiscal issue as social due to the fiscal costs. I would include under that unbrella direct cash payments, EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc..
Really didn't think that was too difficult to understand.