The Downfall of the GOP

I didn't liberty is to refuse to be a slave to anyone or anything. It is not the pursuit of the vain by the venal.

 

you did .. go read your posts .. You brought up murder - rape - and so on - to a conversation about essential liberty w/r to law - showing no understanding of any distinction between crimes of essential liberty - and the crimes you are referring to - in a desperate attempt to support your theoctratic position. that giving examples of law on the basis of religious belief

Unfortunately gary .. none of the laws/crimes you mentioned - have anything to do with the crimes we are discussing - in the convo you interjected yourself into - so mate .. get on the same page.

 

get your stawmen in order, the post I responded to didn't mention any specific crimes. Then you started talking about essential liberty, a concept of which your opinion is strict libertarian which has little or no connection to modern or any other conservatism save for a shared distaste of the creeping federalization of crime and law enforcement. Again the term, essential liberty as used by the founders had nothing to do with yours or anyone else's vain pursuit of pleasure even at the expense of your own progeny.

 

You jumped into the conversation - and showed no understanding of the subject matter -

What was it that you were responding to - what was the point of posting those crimes - in respect to a conversation about the founding principles and essential liberty - that you jumped into .. what does "murder - rape" have to do with what was being discussed .. do tell.

 

The point sir was that the Bible and other ancient texts talk about far more than religious laws.

 

Few realize that the Roe v Wade decision was not about abortion specifically, only peripherally due to the case presented. The decision is based on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the right to privacy on our own personal affairs. The religious right seem to think that women of childbearing age have no right to privacy. Whether or not I, personally, approve of the practice is not the point. The point is, it's none of my business what other women choose.

They should not call themselves pro-life, IMO. What they are is anti-14th Amendment, anti-free will, anti-choice. If they believe abortion is a sin, shouldn't their almighty god sort that out?

 

So in your lame opinion as long as you do it in private murder is okay?

 

The term "Pro Life" is deceptive language - which is pretty much what the whole anti abort platform consists of along with logical fallacy - or do "Pro Lifers" not need to kill life in order to survive like the rest of us ?

 

You having trouble figuring out that Abortion is not murder - or are you knowingly spewing falsehoods ?

 

This nonsense comes from Democrats. End of that story.
https://occupydemocrats.com/

 

Trump in a single sentence advanced freedom for America. And did a lot to restrict foreign influences from running this country.
We on the right may or may not attend church. And churches do have differences so it is wrong to blame a small group such as the evangelicals for problems. They are as dangerous as Mennonites.

Democrats in daily practice rush to create laws.
1. Pack the supreme court.
2. Convert the nations capitol as a state.
3. Dictate authority over your personal health.
4. Think an abortion is good for the female.
5. Think we fight against women who want to kill off the unborn. (books are out on the damage done to the black community by killing their unborn. Books are also out showing that one impact of abortion on blacks is to cut down their crime rates.

 

Haven't you killing a human being us murder even if you don't choose to admit that said human being is a human being.

 

You walking on the stage and assuming the defacto that you have solved the abortion debate main question - is laughable nonsense on steroids.

Do back up this claim - Tell us how you a single living human cell - constitutes a living human "defacto"- both scientifically and legally.

 

Science and DNA says it's human the only thing backing up your claim is the same arguments of convenience used by the Klan, and the Nazis. To wit: It can't be human because I don't want it to be.

 

Of course a zygote is human - who said it wasn't.

Go learn the difference between the descriptive adjective use of the word "Human" ( human cell, human heart, human feces) and the Noun use of the word "A Human, A Living Human, Homo Sapiens, Person" and get back to us.

Probably a good idea to know what the words you are using mean - prior to running around making defacto claims.

That a single human cell has human DNA - does not make it a human according to science.

Strike one -... Next ?

 

A laughable attempt at self vindication if a horrible idea especially give how short the zygote stage of development is. You've sold yourself a bill of fraudulent goods for your own personal convenience, scarcely uncommon these days but hardly admirable or for that matter intellectual honest or in this case scientifically sound.

 

You mean like when the Trump said dumb things and the next week it’s base would come up with all manner of arguments as to why dear leader was absolutely correct? Why it lost?

 

When J. P. Morgan bought Carnegie Steel, he made Andrew Carnegie the richest man in the world. But obviously J. P. Morgan controlled vastly more wealth. The wealth of nations originally was in its land. At some point industrialization created more wealth than the land ever could.

By the fifties a new class of people had arisen. The trust fund babies. People born with more money than most people could earn in a lifetime. They grow up being served by other people. Even as children, they have maids to clean up after them. Cooks to prepare meals and snacks. Drivers to drive them around. Attend the finest schools. I’m guessing there are maybe a million such people. Quite a few, but a rather small percentage of the overall population. Most are content to live a life of ease, but some have ambitions. Both Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson were born into great fortunes.

Beginning in the sixties, but really hitting its stride after Reagan era tax changes, these trust fund children began to buy up small companies, working their way up to large corporations. The typical method would be to buy up two or three competing companies. They would combine them, cutting out the redundancies and then drop all the products below a certain profit level, and selling off excess assets. The result would be a lean efficient business. But the cost cutting efforts typically leave the companies without sufficient resources, including R&D efforts, to improve upon their technologies. Many new technological products have a selling life time of close to ten years, before upgrades become unavoidable. Rather than develop the technology themselves, they just buy another company, one who has already developed the newer technology, integrate it with what they already have.

Pick just about any name brand that you can think of, and if you look behind the scenes, you will see that it is owned, ultimately, by one of these conglomerates that are owned by people who grew up with trust funds. Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital is one such conglomerate. They don’t create wealth, they just suck it out of others.

 

That's the irony of it! All religious people are not Trumpists, but many Trumpists align with some of the most rightist religious positions, the most obvious example being the one on abortion. And Trump knows it, hence his recent shift to the repub party. But it's all hypocritical as evidenced by his pitiful show with a bible in front of that church in DC, and it also reflects the high degree of hypocrisy you encounter in the bible belt.

Religious is not bad as such as long as you keep it to mark out your own path and don't impose it to others, although some soft proselytism is acceptable, imho.

And non-religious people are not necessarily "bad" people either. Although agnostic myself, I don't like abortion -but who does btw?-but I believe aborting or not is a personnal decision to be made by the woman concerned and the current laws are fair enough to prevent excesses.

 

This is America, the land of the free. If one does not want an abortion, no one is forcing one to have one. If one wants to have an abortion, there are places where one can go to have one done in a safe and sanitary environment by knowledgeable doctors.

It is like alcohol. I rarely drink the stuff, but plenty of people drink on a daily basis. My choice, their choice. Alcohol kills people. As I reach my mid sixties, I can see that those who I have associated with throughout my life who have consumed large quantities of alcohol and tobacco, as well as other drugs, are now paying for it either in diminished lifestyle or early death. But if it is made illegal..... people will still find a way to get drunk, err, take the edge off.

I have heard that the term nerd comes from spelling drunk backwards, knurd. It refers to the behavior of college students. Some go out at night and get drunk, especially on the weekends. Others, the knurds, or nerds, stay in their rooms and study.

 

Interesting that you said this - working for GE - this is exactly what happened. One couldn't get squat for new technology development or research despite their "Imagination" commercials - GE would buy companies and that is how they got their "research". The company didn't give a sht about people.

I did delve into these "Conglomerates" - and yes .. they own everything - the biggest of which is R&R. We have essentially found ourselves in a variation of the modern feudal system - where you have the "Owners" and the serfs.

 

Quit making up nonsense. There is nothing fraudulent about pointing out the simple fact that you don't understand the difference between the noun and descriptive adjective form of the word "Human"

It is you that presented a "fraudulent bill of goods" trying to claim that something that can be described as human .. such as a human cell - constitutes a human according to science.

It is you who is being intellectually dishonest - and when called out on your dishonesty - you try to turn things around and project your behavior onto others.

No Sir - Your claim was crucified - and as such you still have yet to offer support for your claim that a single human cell is a human - rather than using intellectually dishonest and misleading language in a desperate attempt to salvage your lost position.

 

Change is percolating.

Patty Murray has a GOP challenger. She shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss her.
Opinion by Henry Olsen

 

More nonsense. Please note human being is a noun human an adjective. Your claim, such as it is, is self serving poppycock.

 

Never claimed the compound word "Human being" was not a noun. You are confused - and can't remember your own words - had have nothing but false accusations to support your claim.

To refresh your memory - you said "Science and DNA says it's human the only thing backing up your claim is the same arguments of convenience used by the Klan, and the Nazis"

I did not claim a zygote was not human - so yet another false accusation - after which you accuse the person of being a Nazi.

Do you have anything other than false accusations -and using terms incorrectly because you don't understand the difference between the Noun and descriptive adjective form of the word Human ?

So once again - do show us how a single human cell is "A Human" according to Science.