Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Right, so them Dems started it all so voter suppression and gerrymandering are now a-okay? Really?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You may be right about that last point. The way it works is this...
The Democrats engage in some previously unthinkable tactic in order to win elections, so the Republicans think "Two can play at that game. It worked for them, so we need to counter it. " But when they do it, the Dems scream bloody murder about how unthinkable and corrupt that very same practice is--as if it were brand new.
Right, so them Dems started it all so voter suppression and gerrymandering are now a-okay? Really?
I didn't say that. I said that the Republicans picked it up from the Democrats.
Whatever
Maybe we could have a thread just for cute one-liners that don't do anything for the discussion.
Only if that thread could also be used for flimsy rationalization like "they did it first!" which haven't worked since the third grade.
You missed the point entirely, didn't you?
My intention was not to make petty jabs at anyone--like you enjoy--but simply to point out that what the Republicans have done in this regard they did because the Democrats first got away with it.
That's it. A statement of fact. If you want to play 'tit for tat' with partisan insults, and imagined ones, find someone else.
That's despite the direction of the wind, not because of it. In the last election Republicans were able to secure more seats despite having fewer votes in some districts.
Not suggesting that Republicans alone are guilty of this, but they do seem to be quite adept at it.
Not really, as a deity coming forth to claim authorship for the bible would have been pretty newsworthy and would not have gone unnoticed.
Why did you put elected in quotes? If you're referring to President Obama, he was most definitely elected into office, without question. But that aside, all elected officials are accountable to the voters for reelection, at the very least. That the president isn't allowed more than two terms doesn't change that fact.
You mean like some people wanting to vote on whether or not certain Americans are entitled to the right to marry the person of their choice? I agree, that has created a problem...fortunately, one many state judiciaries have tried to correct.
How does having two loving parents, regardless of gender or marital status, infringe on a child's rights, exactly? I'll grant you that drug addicts might be unsuitable parents, assuming they are not recovering addicts. However, it should be noted that being a drug addict alone, recovering or otherwise does not cause you to lose your parental rights over your own children, adopted or otherwise.
I'm talking about both quality and quantity, both of which point in the same direction.
The only time you're "forced" to go to the doctor is in an emergency situation, where your life may be in danger without treatment. Otherwise, no one's gonna force you to see your doctor.
As to taxation, that's a duty of citizenship.
To an extent....however, there are times when their decision affects others. Already, certain diseases though to be wiped out are making a comeback, due to people choosing not to vaccinate.
At some point, the public good has to be more important than the right to be an uninformed idiot.
The idea, put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, is that everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and that those who don't have insurance are driving up the costs for those who do when they finally need healthcare. So the Heritage Foundation felt that everyone needed to have skin in the game, so to speak. By requiring everyone have some form of health insurance, it spreads the risk further (which is what insurance is all about) and makes it cheaper overall.
The Heritage Foundation also suggested using private for-profit health insurance carriers to provide health insurance for everyone, because they felt relying on the private sector for healthcare was better than relying on the government to provide health insurance.
And that's what we have now, a conservative, market-driven health care system.
If you don't like this plan, take it up with the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, who first proposed it back in the 1990s.
Then it's in the best interest of society to ensure all citizens are educated, which is why we pay for schools with our tax dollars and require school for all children.
Another idea we liberals love!
No, we don't. I didn't seek a vote when I chose to get married, why should anyone else?
No, you're not. Not in the US, anyway, due to the Constitution. Do you know what "inalienable" means?
It may not be a crime, but it is unconstitutional. Check out the 14th Amendment some time.
This is another thing that distinguishes liberals from conservatives: liberals don't favor voting away the constitutional rights of entire segments of the public. We believe in equal protection under the law.
Nope. It's based on the idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not through some deity.
Or, to put it another way:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.No mention of sin anywhere.
Only if you don't wish to serve the public with your service. It's a reality some find hard to accept: people you don't like have the same rights you have.
Sure. Religious organizations are well within their rights to practice according to their faith and not necessarily according to the law.
However, private businesses open to the public are not free to deny services to entire segments of the public. The right to serve the public and be paid for your product or service carries the responsibility to actually serve the public, even "those kinds of people" you might not like.
Then see my response to it.
One individual's right to practice his or her religion does not include the right to allow or disallow others to live as they choose to. Liberals have fought for decades to uphold the right of all individuals to live as they see fit.
Only to a point. It is unconstitutional to try and vote away civil rights for a certain segment of Americans. Many have tried, but they've found out over time that many brave Americans will stand strong against such tyranny.
It's a fight liberals have been, and continue to be, proud to undertake whenever they are called upon to.
Making a claim like that and trying to back it up with a little graphic from a magazine like Mother Jones is pretty weak. Sorry.
There is not a lot to discuss, the Republican party is on the decline all across the US because of their crazy antics..Would anyone like to discuss the subject of the thread?
There is not a lot to discuss, the Republican party is on the decline all across the US because of their crazy antics..
We already know that those who are knee-jerk supporters of everything the Democratic Party does and stands for are against the Republican Party
True, but they're not taking advantage of this thread by making it a potpourri of meaningless insults against the other party.We also already know that such people exist on the Republican side as well
True, but they're not taking advantage of this thread by making it a potpourri of meaningless insults against the other party.
there's nothing newsworthy about endless examples of schoolyard name-calling from that quarter!
Would anyone like to discuss the subject of the thread?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?