Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Frisivisia]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

Except the CIA had intelligence that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq. Would you have been angrier had Bush not gone in and Israel had been nuked and intelligence come out that the President received reports that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq yet he did not pursue them or if Bush had gone in on intelligence and found no weapons? I would have been most certainly angry about the former. You talk of the Bush Administration but you forget that there were only 2-3 votes against the measure in Congress.

Source?

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

Except the CIA had intelligence that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq. Would you have been angrier had Bush not gone in and Israel had been nuked and intelligence come out that the President received reports that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq yet he did not pursue them or if Bush had gone in on intelligence and found no weapons? I would have been most certainly angry about the former. You talk of the Bush Administration but you forget that there were only 2-3 votes against the measure in Congress.

Sources please. Also, as for congress, politicians are spineless bastards. I suspect that many disagreed with invading iraq, but didn't want to loose their jobs due to the fear 9/11 spread.

[Democratic Republic of Sapientia]

I am glad that you accept the dishonesty of the Bush administration but the problem with your contention that all nations have If all nations believed it was their right to expand there borders it would violate the right of nations with less military power to exist. I believe one of the positive aspects of the currant age we live in is the loss of the notion that powerful nations have the right to conquer small nations. Empires only lead to oppression and more unnecessary war.

That's why I added qualifiers to my statement: by taking over another country, those people should be considered citizens of the conquering nation, thus giving them the political cloud to hopefully stop oppression. Of course, this rarely, if ever, happened, but that's how I feel it should be.

I think empires are oppressive by their nature, but I can understand where you are coming from.

[Neutraligon]

As far as the war on iraq, my main qualm is bush's dishonesty: If he had said outright that the point was to aquire oil, which we need, or to depose saddamh hussein, and then aquire oil, I would have been fine, but bullshitting nuclear weapons doesn't really sit well with me- I believe countries have the right to be as expansionist as they want, but only if their citizens support them knowing exactly what it going on.

Except the CIA had intelligence that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq. Would you have been angrier had Bush not gone in and Israel had been nuked and intelligence come out that the President received reports that there were Nuclear Weapons in Iraq yet he did not pursue them or if Bush had gone in on intelligence and found no weapons? I would have been most certainly angry about the former. You talk of the Bush Administration but you forget that there were only 2-3 votes against the measure in Congress.

There is debate over whether the CIA had the evidence, as well as over how strong that evidence really was. (thank you Rachel Maddow, anyone else watch Hubris?)

[Tmutarakhan]

You reference Homosexuals getting married. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

and it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy.

I agree that there should be spending cuts, but the problem with some Republicans (and sometimes even the republican base) is instead of cutting the ridiculously high amount of military spending they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and other programs that help less fortunate people. They also do not want to raise taxes on the rich even though they did not work. Yes, there needs to be done to decrease the deficit, but cutting social services isn't one of them.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

You reference the right to choose, but you completely ignore the fact that most Republicans believe the fetus is a living human, as I do. In this sense allowing abortion is no less then allowing murder.

How about those who are raped? Do they not have the right to choose? The women who are in danger because of pregnancy, do they not have the right to live?
Republicans in Arizona have gone to a extreme level in case of abortion. Seriously? What if the woman's life is in danger, do they not have the right to choose?
I believe that abortion is wrong, but if I'm in the government I will allow the people to choose, that's what freedom is, right?, or at least, allow some exceptions like if the woman is rape or in danger.

[Neutraligon]

Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy.

I agree that there should be spending cuts, but the problem with some Republicans (and sometimes even the republican base) is instead of cutting the ridiculously high amount of military spending they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and other programs that help less fortunate people. They also do not want to raise taxes on the rich even though they did not work. Yes, there needs to be done to decrease the deficit, but cutting social services isn't one of them.

The deficit (not debt) is decreasing
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

I agree that there should be spending cuts, but the problem with some Republicans (and sometimes even the republican base) is instead of cutting the ridiculously high amount of military spending they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and other programs that help less fortunate people. They also do not want to raise taxes on the rich even though they did not work. Yes, there needs to be done to decrease the deficit, but cutting social services isn't one of them.

The deficit (not debt) is decreasing
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html

But they still need to be decreased, right?

[Euronion]

You reference Homosexuals getting married. Republicans oppose this because they believe marriage is a term used for religious purposes

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

and it should not be a term forced upon every church and religious institution

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion. The state has no right to say what is marriage and what is not marriage. That is a decision for religious institutions not the state. The state DOES had the power to say what is legal and what is not (Civil Union).
2. No, but you are saying to religious institutions "You don't like homosexuals getting married to each other? TOO FUCKING BAD! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! GOVERNMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING! YOU HAVE NO SAY! GO FUCK YOURSELF!" you can see how that is not a very appealing message.
3. Care to elaborate?

[Euronion]

You reference the right to choose, but you completely ignore the fact that most Republicans believe the fetus is a living human, as I do. In this sense allowing abortion is no less then allowing murder.

How about those who are raped? Do they not have the right to choose? The women who are in danger because of pregnancy, do they not have the right to live?
Republicans in Arizona have gone to a extreme level in case of abortion. Seriously? What if the woman's life is in danger, do they not have the right to choose?
I believe that abortion is wrong, but if I'm in the government I will allow the people to choose, that's what freedom is, right?, or at least, allow some exceptions like if the woman is rape or in danger.

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime. You think that because the child's father raped a woman that therefore the child should be put to death? what kind of justice is that? There is also Plan B which prevents ovulation.
2. They have the right to do what they want, they do not have the right to make the decision of life or death for the human inside them.
3. In which case I think that abortion is okay, though I think this "A woman's life is always in grave danger if she is pregnant!" B.S. is just that, B.S.
4. Does the Child not have the right to live?
5. I do not think that people should have the freedom to kill their own child because they don't feel like having a kid or are irresponsible in High School or College.

[Neutraligon]

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion. The state has no right to say what is marriage and what is not marriage. That is a decision for religious institutions not the state. The state DOES had the power to say what is legal and what is not (Civil Union).
2. No, but you are saying to religious institutions "You don't like homosexuals getting married to each other? TOO FUCKING BAD! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! GOVERNMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING! YOU HAVE NO SAY! GO FUCK YOURSELF!" you can see how that is not a very appealing message.
3. Care to elaborate?

1. Marriage is a LEGAL term, therefore the state has every right to say what marriage is. The state has every right to determine who gets the legal benefits of marriage.
2 No we are not. The church could say we do not marry homosexuals and that would be the end of that. However a government office would have no such right. WE are not forcing a church to recognize a marriage as legitimate, the government, on the other hand, would be forced to recognize that type of partnership.

[Twilliamson]

It is a term used for LEGAL purposes. The law should not be dictated by your religion.

NOBODY is talking about forcing churches to do anything. People get married without any church having anything to do with it, and no church has to perform a wedding for any couple if the church doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that is not going to change.

One of our greatest causes for dismay about Republicans lately is your tendency to fantasize and get intensely attached to policies that do real harm to real people in order to avoid something completely imaginary.

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion. The state has no right to say what is marriage and what is not marriage. That is a decision for religious institutions not the state. The state DOES had the power to say what is legal and what is not (Civil Union).
2. No, but you are saying to religious institutions "You don't like homosexuals getting married to each other? TOO FUCKING BAD! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! GOVERNMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING! YOU HAVE NO SAY! GO FUCK YOURSELF!" you can see how that is not a very appealing message.
3. Care to elaborate?

1 not every religion has a problem with gay marige
2 so insteed to gays your saying, you want to get married well to fucking bad I know it doesn't affect me in anyway but i don't like it so its not going to happen.

[Tmutarakhan]

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime.

It is not a "Child" for the same reason it has committed no crime: it is not sentient, and does not have any capacity either for taking actions or for making choices. If someone drips blood, the pool of blood is "living" and is "human", but we do not believe that there is any obligation to keep it alive in a Petri dish, because it has no mind.

[Frisivisia]

How about those who are raped? Do they not have the right to choose? The women who are in danger because of pregnancy, do they not have the right to live?
Republicans in Arizona have gone to a extreme level in case of abortion. Seriously? What if the woman's life is in danger, do they not have the right to choose?
I believe that abortion is wrong, but if I'm in the government I will allow the people to choose, that's what freedom is, right?, or at least, allow some exceptions like if the woman is rape or in danger.

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime. You think that because the child's father raped a woman that therefore the child should be put to death? what kind of justice is that? There is also Plan B which prevents ovulation.
2. They have the right to do what they want, they do not have the right to make the decision of life or death for the human inside them.
3. In which case I think that abortion is okay, though I think this "A woman's life is always in grave danger if she is pregnant!" B.S. is just that, B.S.
4. Does the Child not have the right to live?
5. I do not think that people should have the freedom to kill their own child because they don't feel like having a kid or are irresponsible in High School or College.

1. It's not a child, and your feeble appeal to emotion is obvious.
2. If someone attaches themselves to your kidneys, and will die if you do not let them use your kidneys, do you have the right to detach them from your body?
3. No one said that. Ever.
4. No, it doesn't.
5. wut

[Euronion]

Republicans however simply want to cut spending, let people spend the money that they have and that they make to stimulate the economy.

I agree that there should be spending cuts, but the problem with some Republicans (and sometimes even the republican base) is instead of cutting the ridiculously high amount of military spending they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and other programs that help less fortunate people. They also do not want to raise taxes on the rich even though they did not work. Yes, there needs to be done to decrease the deficit, but cutting social services isn't one of them.

I do not think that cutting military spending is a good idea. The Iranian situation is escalating, the North Koreans recently performed a Nuclear Test and there are Anti-Chinese and Anti-Japanese protests all over Japan and China respectively. The Chinese are increasingly modernizing their military, the Japanese have called for the modernization and increase of their Self Defense Units and the Chinese are conducting military exercises in the South China Sea near and inside Japanese waters. The region has entered "a simultaneous buildup of advanced weaponry on a scale and at a speed not seen since the Cold War arms race between America and the Soviet Union."¹ Now is not the time to be cutting back on our military, but we have to cut somewhere.

[Frisivisia]

I agree that there should be spending cuts, but the problem with some Republicans (and sometimes even the republican base) is instead of cutting the ridiculously high amount of military spending they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid and other programs that help less fortunate people. They also do not want to raise taxes on the rich even though they did not work. Yes, there needs to be done to decrease the deficit, but cutting social services isn't one of them.

I do not think that cutting military spending is a good idea. The Iranian situation is escalating, the North Koreans recently performed a Nuclear Test and there are Anti-Chinese and Anti-Japanese protests all over Japan and China respectively. The Chinese are increasingly modernizing their military, the Japanese have called for the modernization and increase of their Self Defense Units and the Chinese are conducting military exercises in the South China Sea near and inside Japanese waters. The region has entered "a simultaneous buildup of advanced weaponry on a scale and at a speed not seen since the Cold War arms race between America and the Soviet Union."¹ Now is not the time to be cutting back on our military, but we have to cut somewhere.

Therefore, fuck poor people.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime. You think that because the child's father raped a woman that therefore the child should be put to death? what kind of justice is that? There is also Plan B which prevents ovulation.
2. They have the right to do what they want, they do not have the right to make the decision of life or death for the human inside them.
3. In which case I think that abortion is okay, though I think this "A woman's life is always in grave danger if she is pregnant!" B.S. is just that, B.S.
4. Does the Child not have the right to live?
5. I do not think that people should have the freedom to kill their own child because they don't feel like having a kid or are irresponsible in High School or College.

1. It's not a child, and your feeble appeal to emotion is obvious.
2. If someone attaches themselves to your kidneys, and will die if you do not let them use your kidneys, do you have the right to detach them from your body?
3. No one said that. Ever.
4. No, it doesn't.
5. wut

Define child. When does a being become sapient, and therefore worth of legal rights? While I agree that abortion should be allowed in the stages of pregnancy where the child is obviously not sapient, but when dealing with people's lives I feel justified in erring heavily on the side of caution, and not letting abortions happen after the first trimester, except in cases where the mother's health is threatened directly by the existence of the child, in which case the mother really should have the right to choose.

[Euronion]

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime. You think that because the child's father raped a woman that therefore the child should be put to death? what kind of justice is that? There is also Plan B which prevents ovulation.
2. They have the right to do what they want, they do not have the right to make the decision of life or death for the human inside them.
3. In which case I think that abortion is okay, though I think this "A woman's life is always in grave danger if she is pregnant!" B.S. is just that, B.S.
4. Does the Child not have the right to live?
5. I do not think that people should have the freedom to kill their own child because they don't feel like having a kid or are irresponsible in High School or College.

1. It's not a child, and your feeble appeal to emotion is obvious.
2. If someone attaches themselves to your kidneys, and will die if you do not let them use your kidneys, do you have the right to detach them from your body?
3. No one said that. Ever.
4. No, it doesn't.
5. wut

1. It is not an appeal to emotion. I believe the fetus is a child, so do most Republicans. So instead of demonizing us for being evil and holding you back, perhaps you should actually listen to what the other side believes to be true. We believe the fetus is alive. I take that as fact. Nothing you say can change my opinion on that. Even Roe is now Pro-Life.
2. If that person is going to die if I do not allow them temporary access, no. I do not have the right to kill someone else.
3. obviously you haven't met Dyakovo.
4. Yes it does. The fact that you do not believe that everything deserves a right to live is sickening. Go ahead and spout your ideology of mass genocide. I will not participate.
5. Most cases of abortion do not happen because of rape or the mothers life is in danger, they happen because a woman does not take the proper precautions and so she wants to kill her own human child for it. I do not believe that is right.

[The Nuclear Fist]

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion.

Marriage predates most religions, if not all. Just because you lot came along and decided you wanted in on what had previously been an economic and political institution doesn't mean you get to decide the sole definition. Don't want to marry gays? Fine, don't get gay married and, if you're a church, don't marry them in your church.

[Euronion]

1. It's not a child, and your feeble appeal to emotion is obvious.
2. If someone attaches themselves to your kidneys, and will die if you do not let them use your kidneys, do you have the right to detach them from your body?
3. No one said that. Ever.
4. No, it doesn't.
5. wut

Define child. When does a being become sapient, and therefore worth of legal rights? While I agree that abortion should be allowed in the stages of pregnancy where the child is obviously not sapient, but when dealing with people's lives I feel justified in erring heavily on the side of caution, and not letting abortions happen after the first trimester, except in cases where the mother's health is threatened directly by the existence of the child, in which case the mother really should have the right to choose.

at 2-3 months it becomes human and worth full legal rights.

[Euronion]

1. It is not just MY religion, it is EVERY religion.

Marriage predates most religions, if not all. Just because you lot came along and decided you wanted in on what had previously been an economic and political institution doesn't mean you get to decide the sole definition. Don't want to marry gays? Fine, don't get gay married and, if you're a church, don't marry them in your church.

source that shows that people who invented marriage did not believe in a higher power?

[Euronion]

I do not think that cutting military spending is a good idea. The Iranian situation is escalating, the North Koreans recently performed a Nuclear Test and there are Anti-Chinese and Anti-Japanese protests all over Japan and China respectively. The Chinese are increasingly modernizing their military, the Japanese have called for the modernization and increase of their Self Defense Units and the Chinese are conducting military exercises in the South China Sea near and inside Japanese waters. The region has entered "a simultaneous buildup of advanced weaponry on a scale and at a speed not seen since the Cold War arms race between America and the Soviet Union."¹ Now is not the time to be cutting back on our military, but we have to cut somewhere.

Therefore, fuck poor people.

No, therefore preserve peace through strength.

[Euronion]

1. The Child is innocent, it has committed no crime.

It is not a "Child" for the same reason it has committed no crime: it is not sentient, and does not have any capacity either for taking actions or for making choices. If someone drips blood, the pool of blood is "living" and is "human", but we do not believe that there is any obligation to keep it alive in a Petri dish, because it has no mind.

Except a pool of blood is not in the shape of a human, has the potential to become human and responds to stimuli.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

Define child. When does a being become sapient, and therefore worth of legal rights? While I agree that abortion should be allowed in the stages of pregnancy where the child is obviously not sapient, but when dealing with people's lives I feel justified in erring heavily on the side of caution, and not letting abortions happen after the first trimester, except in cases where the mother's health is threatened directly by the existence of the child, in which case the mother really should have the right to choose.

at 2-3 months it becomes human and worth full legal rights.

No seriously, please define sapient: I'm gathering people's opinions because I feel that we need a clear, legal definition of sapient to help resolve things like abortion, and in the future possibly genetically modified humans and very advanced AI, and in the far future aliens.