Some of you here should get exactly what I'm saying...Equating "democracy" (as in terms of the People making the decisions) with "freedom", then substituting "republic" (which we really are) with "democracy" is not really in the best interest of the People. Wasn't Orwell mentioned earlier? By the way, Animal Farm is my favorite.
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
Nothing more prescient than that quote. It's the mantra of the republican base who don't believe that the rights of women or gays should be protected. Or any minority for that reason.
Goes far beyond that, though. Not all republicans are against women or gays. Log Cabin Republicans are an example of this, which are gay Republicans. People only tend to look at "social issues" and "morality" in the conservative Christian sense (homosexuality is a sin), and there are those that feel that they should ban it only on those grounds through the use of laws. That's what bothers me about "Republicans" these days. Many will claim "morality" or only look at issues from the social conservative side. They then want to turn around and have further govt restrictions (which goes against the "smaller govt" thing), such as in the case of gay marriage. This issue has no impact on me, personally, and it should be up to the individual. To enforce a ban like this, to me, is advocating more govt influence, but it is in the name of "morals" (which are subjective and can vary from individual to individual...not like looking at murder being right or wrong, which impacts others, especially in a negative way). In the case of gays, some say to allow marriage is an "extra privilege or right", but it really isn't. A lot of misunderstanding there.
I'm just all for govt intervention ONLY when TRULY needed, and banning marriage for gays just doesn't seem to be one of those issues that affect me (or anyone else for that matter), whether I think it is a sin or not. It's not my place to enforce my beliefs on another person (as long as it's between that person and God). This is why the Republican party mostly gets the vote of the Conservative Christian, or any other group against homosexuality in general.
Add to that the increasing pressure from the republican base to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights. So many of them want to control a uterus. In the body of a person that they don't consider has the right to control her own uterus. They want to impose their morality on that body.
https://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina
"What sort of chaos will this world be in if tyrants can invade countries, put bayonets through the bellies of pregnant women (is that protected under Roe v. Wade?) and the UN just makes idle threats?"
Considering the number of brutal dictators that the U.S. has backed and installed, you get what you pay for.
Why didn't the U.S. get involved in the Rwandan genocide? Could it be because there was nothing of value in that country for them?
Very interesting discussions on world events and recent history. My only comment is the hope that one would try for brevity. Perhaps one would consider not discussing multiple subjects in a single post.
Returning to the main thread; The Constitution of the United States.
Question: How many amendments to the Constitution focus upon a person's "Rights"?
Hint: The answer is not ten.
"Bibi still offers peace, the Palestinians don't want it. They are isolated because they are the aggressors. They elect terrorists as heads of state. They want all Jews dead."
Bruce has this terrible habit of painting with the broadest brush and blaming every single individual of a culture or country for the sins of a few. "Bibi" wants peace on his own terms, including the right to extend his population into disputed territories that aren't a part of his country and to have Jerusalem be strictly for Israelis. That's not exactly friendly bargaining.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!