Imagine a world without Democrats?

Excellent point. I've never heard of a woman aborting her lungs. Curious.

 

Bwahahaha, sounds to me like delusions from a brainwashed person.

 

Newsflash: people from Spain both speak Spanish and are white.

Yes, I fully understood your "code", I distinctly noticed your "wholesome morals" means "Christians only".

- - - Updated - - -

You've never heard of someone having a lung removed?

 

Because the law says so? Or because of some other arbitrary reason?

And yet some people do, in fact, have the right to kill another person to ensure their own convenience? Very sound reasoning there.

And before you try to use the "fetus isn't a person" argument, let me remind you that you've already referred to it here as "no one (someone)" and spoken of "ensuring their own survival."

 

You don't seem to have any trouble posting, and your signature says that very same thing, but, tell me, how would you like it if one of them said that about Christianity or Jesus? You can't be one-sided, you know.

 

Oh cry me a river.

San Francisco property is expensive for two reasons:
a) More people want to live there than most other places and
b) The city is physically constrained- 36 square miles and nowhere to grow.

But we have tons of middle class living in San Francisco- I know- I am one of them.

 

Which is relevant how? I just searched "family" and that was what came up. The fact that it was from a Spanish site was completely random. I just thought it was interesting to point out since you are so determined to turn a happy and productive society into racist and discriminatory one. Because you so desperately need to see it that way.

"Code." That's cute. I'm sorry if you've chosen to feel left out. But wholesome morals simply means doing what's right and not being stupid. Something that I don't expect a moral relativist to understand. No one is required to be Christian. Most common sense morals are simply Christian values. And when a society practices those regularly, it is more likely to remain healthy and productive.

It's a pragmatic approach rather than an emotionally idealistic one. Which is probably what's offending you.

Not because they simply "no longer wish for it to be there," no.

 

Try to even begin to imagine a world without liberals, aka Democrats. Were it not for liberals, Jewish people in particular, there would be no television, no jet aircraft, no printing press, no democracy, no automobiles, no computers, no Obamacare no internet, no cell phones, no electricity, no peanut butter,no modern medicine -- and the list goes on forever.

 

Yeah, sure, but it would be nice if the Republican Party did not exist either. Maybe then the two parties would be one of greens and socialists versus another of libertarians and classical liberals - each concentrating on the individual's rights. If there can only be two of them after all, better to have the authoritarians, corporatists, theocrats, paternalistic folk, etc. in little fringe groups where they won't so easily force their traditional ways, religious teachings, power-centralizing tendencies, militarism, nationalist fervor, sprawling bureaucracies, loophole-riddled taxes, and webs of red tape on us all.

If this is really such an individualist, pluralistic, free, and open society... what gives with communitarian folk from both the Democratic and Republican Parties going out of their ways to micromanage parts of our lives that should just be left be?

Or might I just be in a small minority here deeply discontent with all factions prominent in the U.S. government right now?

 

Because that's how property rights work. If a woman owns her body, then she has a right to modify that property as well as deny its use to other people.

If you are arguing that she doesn't have that right, then you are arguing that her body is not her own property and that she is someone's slave.

No one has the right to kill another person. That is why I only support methods of abortion that don't directly kill the fetus.

 

And now you are unemployed. Maybe moving from California wasn't such a good idea after all.

 

fetuses aren't people, certainly not in the first 3 months.

 

Four out of twelve 'dependable' cars. What don't you understand about dependable? Dependable doesn't make something (or someone) the best. We bought a Nissan hatch back in 2002. We handed it down to our daughter in 2007, she still drives it. It hasn't missed a beat, only routine services and consumables replaced. It is very dependable and reliable, but is it the best?

I have a 1990 Moto Guzzi LeMans which I've mothballed until I get back to Australia, I bought it new. This bike hasn't been without problems but it is well fettled. Japanese bikes cream all over my Guzzi in terms of reliability and performance. The two BMWs I've owned were more reliable, but my Guzzi LeMans is the best live I've ever owned.

Juvenile post. Where did I say Australian built cars are the best, the top selling or the most dependable. Please point me to that post.

 

Yeah, who would do our hair & bring us refills on coffee?

- - - Updated - - -

If left alone they turn into people. Or do you think they turn into frogs?

 

take a fetus out after 3 months and it will be dead in minutes.

 

Was the sex consensual? Is there any other time during their life they can invite a risk or assume one and not bear the consequences? What other times is the use of deadly force justified to prevent an inconvenience?

 

Leave it alone for 9 months and it will be a healthy little human being.

What's your point?

 

if someone made a thread called "Imagine a World without Republicans", right-wingers on this forum would accuse the author of suggesting genocide of all Liberals.

 

I think you got that as backwards as your economic theories.

 

Blackrook,, do you want a one political party form of government with the only Republicans holding power? Imagine any political party holding power without opposition.



Think about this before you answer.

 

That's because there is no evidence to support the claim that he was a Republican. Just because he may have voted for Eisenhower in 1952 does not mean he was a Republican. Similarly, just because he may have voted for Kennedy in 1960 does not mean he was a Democrat either. His father was a Republican (though he voted for Kennedy in 1960), but it was not usual for Black voters to associate with the party of Lincoln at that time. It was not until the 1940's and 1950's, when the Democratic Party developed a more progressive stance, that Black voters began to change alliances.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...n-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/

 

Unless you are going to argue that I have the right to use my fist however I choose - including to punch someone else out - then this is not a property rights issue. Because, as we should all know by now, your rights end where somebody else's begin.

Oh, this should be good. How exactly does this work? How do you kill someone without killing them?

 

Based on what?

 

No, the big 3 in detroit have the largest share of the market.

 

John Lennon is rolling in his grave. He was a huge socialist Lib, and hated conservatives, especially American conservatives...which means he would have really hated you.

That family looks about as boring as a box of rocks