colourwheel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) You are right Obama was an unknown back then. But he wasn't chosen in response to outrage from a speech made by another Democrat at a DNC event. Why was he chosen? Obama was chosen because of the unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary which made him overnight a rising star within the national Democratic Party. I think your missing the point... Why even talk about a woman's reproductive system at all? Because it is exactly the kind of wedge issue that the major parties like to focus on and thereby encourage you and others, republican and democrat alike, to focus on so that they can work in lockstep to support their common financial interests and profit from our government's imperialism and our corporation's destruction of our society and cultures. 53% of the national voting block is represented by female voters. It is a "fact" a huge majority of women in the nation do not like Republican social policies... A woman's reproductive system shouldn't be a wedge issue... the only reason it is a wedge issue is because the Republican party tries to make it one.... This kind of thinking that women can be persuaded by bringing up their "reproductive system" as a political issue is exactly one reason why the Republican party has such a bad gender gap.... Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Obama was chosen because of the unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary which made him overnight a rising star within the national Democratic Party. Rodgers served 10 years in her state's legislature and five terms in the House of Representatives, yet you question her validity......because of her gender. How progressive of you! A woman's reproductive system shouldn't be a wedge issue... the only reason it is is because the Republican party tries to make it one....I don't think the federal government should involve itself in the health care choices of any individual. You, in contrast, DO think that it is the government's role to be involved in that aspect of our lives. You are arguing that it is acceptable for the government to involve itself in your health care choices UNLESS it involves reproduction, which is an illogical position. If you want the government to be in control of your health care then that is fine, but you should understand that you are opening yourself up to being forced to accept decisions that you disagree with that are made "in your best interest" by government officials who do not know you or your situation, are rarely actual doctors and, more often than not, know little to nothing about the medical sciences. If you truly do not want that intrusion then you must take responsibility for every aspect of your own health care. You have stated many times that you want the government to regulate your choices, that we as a society need the government to regulate our health choices. You really can't have it both ways. Edited January 25, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Here's the thing, Government will never allow people to do what they want with their bodies for the sole reason that people would intentionally do things to their body that may require medical attention or disable them in some way. Now that health insurance is being covered by taxes, it becomes even more of an issue. Sure, the average person won't do that sort of thing, but we're talking about Americans here, there are people who would saw off their own foot just to get a handicapped parking spot, or cut off a finger just to get disability pay. Then you have all those body modification procedures that people would want to do, that normally wouldn't be approved by a doctor, which they could now do because "It's my body and I'll do what I want!", but still claim for insurance when it goes horribly wrong or ends up with complications. Saying "That's their problem" doesn't work when you're dealing with idiots. Idiots are still part of society, and short of re-enacting Eugenics or a similar program, we're stuck with them. The only reason why birth control is even on the list of topics is because it is this thing that government now has to pay for, and it's something which resonates with beliefs that women should remain chaste until they are married, and only have sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation. Views which conflict heavily with reality, or practicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Here's the thing, Government will never allow people to do what they want with their bodies for the sole reason that people would intentionally do things to their body that may require medical attention or disable them in some way. Here are some things that people intentionally do that often require medical attention or disable them in some way: -smoking-drinking-football-boating-construction-cooking-eating what you cooked-sex-mining-EDM festivals-motor sports-gaming/modding-hiking-rail yard labor-ballet-youtube and, of course -cutting off your own feet? We have already established that you do not think that people should be allowed to choose to amputate their limbs. Fair enough, but are there any other items in that list that you think the law should prevent you from doing? Every single one of those examples fits the criteria of "elective activities that could potentially cause injury or disability, or otherwise require medical care". Edited January 25, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) @TRoaches Within this thread you "claim" you want to get rid of Federal prohibiting laws yet seemingly keep supporting and defending a party that is trying to restrict a woman's reproductive rights... By your logic you can't have it both ways either.... The real issue is the lack of support the Republican party has when it comes to closing the gender gap for the party with females. Pushing policies restricting any rights of a woman isn't going to help gain more support by females in general by any party... Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) @TRoaches Within this thread you "claim" you want to get rid of Federal prohibiting laws yet seemingly keep supporting a party that is trying to restrict a woman's reproductive rights... By your logic you can't have it both ways either....I have never supported either party. I am a conservative, but not a Republican. The Republican party has been anything but conservative for a very long time now. Eisenhower was the last true conservative president, and Kennedy was the last truly principled president of either party. Since then they have all been thespians and criminals, and the two wings of the monolithic entity known as "The Republicans and Democrats" have done everything necessary to keep it this way. eta: I forgot about Carter, who was a great President who stuck to his principles and as a result is still attacked to this day for being "stupid", despite all evidence to the contrary. He didn't cause as much trouble as Kennedy, though, and wasn't nearly as popular or charismatic so there was no need to publicly execute him. He has only suffered character assassination by the financial powers that he annoyed. Edited January 25, 2014 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) I have never supported either party. I am a conservative, but not a Republican. Then why waste the time defending a party you do not even support anymore? Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) You can support an idea and not be for either side. That's a problem of today, someone agrees with one idea of the left or right and you are automatically considered to agree with every idea for that group. Just because someone agrees with what Huckabee says, doesn't mean they agree with everything he says or Republicans say. We need to open our minds again that people are all different. Not every woman believes what the democrats say as well. I know women who are liberal and conservative, and some who agree with what Huckabee said and who don't. It's not a block format who all vote the same. Edited January 26, 2014 by rizon72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 26, 2014 Author Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) You can support an idea and not be for either side. That's a problem of today, someone agrees with one idea of the left or right and you are automatically considered to agree with every idea for that group. Just because someone agrees with what Huckabee says, doesn't mean they agree with everything he says or Republicans say. So let me get this straight, he is defending Huckabee because he supports the same ideas Huckabee stands for yet claims he wants to get rid of federal prohibiting laws? How is restricting a woman's reproductive rights not be a prohibiting law? Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 So let me get this straight, he is defending Huckabee because he supports the same ideas Huckabee stands for yet claims he wants to get rid of federal prohibiting laws? How is restricting a woman's reproductive rights not be a prohibiting law?I never defended anything that Huckabee said, except perhaps his right to say it. I dislike Huckabee politically, and have said nothing whatsoever in support of his politics. If he really was being considered for the SOTU rebuttal I am glad that he was replaced by Rodgers. I have stated my dislike of government intrusion into personal medical affairs several times, so it is strange that you believe that I agree with Huckabee on that. When I said "prohibition" I was referring to the criminal prohibition of recreational and medicinal usage of non-pharmaceutical drugs. I assumed that simply saying "prohibition" was clear enough, given the historical usage of that word in American English. Obviously I was mistaken, since you apparently interpreted "I oppose prohibition" to mean "I oppose any law that prohibits anything, ever". @Rizon72: Well said! colourwheel's last post further illustrates what you are describing, in that she believes that I MUST agree with Huckabee regarding health care simply because I may agree with him about something like economic policy. I don't agree with the entire Republican platform, or even most of it. I just agree with more of it than I do the Democrat platform and therefore tend to support Republicans more often than Democrats. I have also have made multiple campaign contributions to, of all people, Dennis Kucinich, probably the most ideologically liberal politician to serve at any level in my entire voting lifetime, simply because he has proven himself principled enough to publicly support a Republican proposal or oppose a Democratic proposal. He has done this even when it meant damaging his personal political career or standing within his party. When he ran for president his own party hated him, just like the Republicans hated Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. I think there is no better indicator of a principled politician than seeing their own party try to shut them up and shut them out. The shame of it is that most voters are so loyal to one party that they don't even think about the issues, they just believe with whatever their party tells them to believe. Republicans who supported Bush's expansion of executive power are now critical of Obama continuing that trend, not even realizing that they allowed Obama's power grabs to happen by allowing Bush to set the stage. Democrats who protested Bush's wars and domestic surveillance are now silent while Obama expands upon those policies, waging more war than Bush ever did while listening to your phone calls and shining his Nobel Peace Prize. The media is partially to blame for this problem, but not entirely because nobody is being forced to listen to their nonsense. People choose to get their information and opinions from the very same companies that profit from the war machine. Does anyone remember Cindy Sheehan? She never stopped her activism and has been protesting Obama's policies for his entire presidency. When Bush was in office she showered with admiration on MSNBC and vilified by Fox News.....every single day, all day. Now she is never mentioned, because she is protesting against Obama and a peacenik activist protesting against a Nobel Peace Prize recipient for his war policies does not fit into the script that they are working from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts