Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: be careful who you vote for - you may get more than you voted for

Posted 5 years ago on Oct. 21, 2012, 8:35 a.m. EST by mideast (506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

the Rs platform:
“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the
unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the platform language approved Tuesday, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

this means the birth control pill murders people
this means in-vitro fertilization cannot be done because the fetuses in the dish are people

we are one SCOTUS vote away from ending Roe
the oldest Justice is a 77 yo cancer survivor - progressive



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

This is an important lesson for the newbies. No progress is safe with RepubliCons in our governments, from city hall to the three branches of the fed.

Not only have these bastards worked to rescind Roe V Wade, gave us Citizens United, taxed labor income twice as much as capital gains, and ratified Stand-your-ground laws in certain, ahem, special states; the crazy bastards want to make Christianity the national religion, the ten commandments part of the Constitution, and take the right to vote away from women!!

Vote early and often!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The Truth About the Conservative Mind: Why Reactionaries from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin Have Fought Real Liberty

Conservatism is a reaction to democratic movements, like OWS, that challenge the authority of elites.

January 29, 2012 |

The following is an adapted excerpt from Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin." Click here to buy a copy.

It's been a rotten few months for the nation's wealthiest 1 percent. From the senatorial candidacy of Elizabeth Warren to Occupy Wall Street, economic elites have faced a concerted attack on their riches and power, their arrogant and unaccountable ways. And you can hear it in their voices, or at least the voices of their spokesmen. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor declared, "I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country." Mitt Romney told an audience in Florida that "I think it's dangerous—this class warfare." So rattled is George Will that he's been forced to pull out a playbook from an older time. All but calling Warren a Communist, he accused the Oklahoma-born scholarship kid of believing that the government "is entitled to socialize—i.e., conscript—whatever portion" of an individual's property "it considers its share."

After decades of "compassionate conservatism," "a thousand points of light," and "Morning in America," dark talk of class warfare on the right can seem like a strange throwback. So accustomed are we to the sunny Reagan and the populist Tea Party that we've forgotten a basic truth about conservatism: It is a reaction to democratic movements from below, movements like Occupy Wall Street that threaten to reorder society from the bottom up, redistributing power and resources from those who have much to those who have not so much. With the roar against the ruling classes growing ever louder, the right seems to be reverting to type. It thus behooves us to take a second look at the conservative tradition, not just its current incarnation but also across time, for that tradition provides us with an understanding of why the conservative responds to Occupy Wall Street as he does.

Since the modern era began, men and women in subordinate positions have marched against their superiors. They have gathered under different banners—the labor movement, feminism, abolition, socialism—and shouted different slogans: freedom, equality, democracy, revolution. In virtually every instance, their superiors have resisted them. That march and démarche of democracy is one of the main stories of modern politics. And it is the second half of that story, the démarche, that drives the development of ideas we call conservative. For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on, and theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

Despite the very real differences among them, workers in a factory are like secretaries in an office, peasants on a manor, slaves on a plantation—even wives in a marriage—in that they live and labor in conditions of unequal power. They submit and obey, heeding the demands of their managers and masters, husbands and lords. Sometimes their lot is freely chosen—workers contract with their employers, wives with their husbands—but its entailments seldom are. What contract, after all, could ever itemize the ins and outs, the daily pains and continuing sufferance, of a job or a marriage? Throughout American history, in fact, the contract has served as a conduit to unforeseen coercion and constraint. Employment and marriage contracts have been interpreted by judges to contain all sorts of unwritten and unwanted provisions of servitude to which wives and workers tacitly consent, even when they have no knowledge of such provisions or wish to stipulate otherwise.

Until 1980, for example, it was legal in every state for a husband to rape his wife. The justification for this dates back to a 1736 treatise by the British jurist Matthew Hale. When a woman marries, he argued, she implicitly agrees to give "up herself in this kind [sexually] unto her husband." Hers is a tacit, if unknowing, consent, "which she cannot retract" for the duration of their union. Having once said yes, she can never say no. As recently as 1957, a standard legal treatise could state, "A man does not commit rape by having sexual intercourse with his lawful wife, even if he does so by force and against her will." If someone tried to write into the marriage contract a requirement that express consent had to be given in order for sex to proceed, judges were bound by common law to ignore or override it. Implicit consent was a structural feature of the contract that neither party could alter. Through that contract, women were doomed to be the sexual servants of their husbands.



Choice matters, People. Use it while you still have one!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 5 years ago

Yeah, that's telling it like it is.

And the article in this post also tells it like it is.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

There are volumes on this problem.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

rant and rave about all of the things Obama did or did not do -
complain here all you want
BUT vote what's best for America & SCOTUS & your favorite woman ( or u )

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Disseminate facts and information to encourage votes in our best interests, instead of spreading ignorant and misinformed BS to encourage votes against our best interests.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

It was a "conservative" court that passed it to begin with. It's not going anywhere. Republicans calling abortion murder should fall on def ears, because they certainly have no problem with war, and the death penalty.

Innocent people are still dying everyday from their wars. They dont care. It's just politcal talking points.

No one wants to talk about war and the banks, so they bring up the same wedge issues as the last 40 years- abortion and race.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago


A wedge issue?

Fuck off!!!

Your Bircher colors are showing again.

To think I almost forgave you.

That won't happen now you fuckin' fraud!!!!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

^point proven. Mention of race being used as a politcal tool by the Republicans and this guy goes into a total meltdown.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Your brain is what melted years ago.

Your racism is now blatant.

You ARE the ass you tried to warn everyone about!!


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"conversing with blacks"....

Im not the one that talks like that, you are.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

no, you just talk like a racist.

Calling it a "wedge" issue, like it doesn't exist.

Bircher shit!

That's all it is.

Bircher shit.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

It does exist, thats why its a wedge issue.


Specifically by those who state "conversing with blacks":...how fuckin insulting is that?!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Read about your Florida hero, bircher boy.


I don't suppose you ever have actually conversed with a black person.

Birchers don't do that. Nor do States rights advocates.

Now back to your usual bullshit!!

Look!!...............Over there!! Obama!!!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

The Bucs are on soon....Im out of here. Have fun embarrassing yourself as usual.

You know, most of the team is black. And lots of the people in the stands are too. Maybe I'll over there (the stadium is about a half mile from my house) and see whats up. Or as you call it , "Converse with blacks"...

You really have a bad habit of grouping people together, shoving them in a corner. All in an attempt to marginalize and make your own pathetic life seem better.

I'm suprised someone from Detroit could speak so racist. Im from Rochester, which is a smaller version of Detroit. Cant recall ever saying "conversing with blacks"...not cool dude.

Have a nice day troll.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Weren't you the one just pitching a BITCH about the 99% filling football stadiums?

Yes, you were. You fucking hypocrite.

Screwy racist, Bircher boy.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

repeat the lie again shooz.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

haha.. assume much? When you were a libertarian, did you think the civil rights issue was stupid? i bet you did. Its why you know so much about the people you allegedly hate. You were them. Thats sick.

"conversing with blacks"....Thats all I have to say. That is your "47%" moment. Deal with it.

[-] -1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 5 years ago

Actually, the history of the 13th, 14th and 14th amendment goes much deeper than giving alleged liberties to alleged "blacks" in this country. The south was not feeling it, the whites there had no real social status, due to the "black republicans" who were running the states up north.....Read your true history! Now, comes succession from the Union and the rest is history..... "Although this may seem strange, given that the majority of white Southerners did not own slaves, virtually every white Southerner supported slavery because he did not want to be at the bottom of the social ladder"

So, as I see it, these new additions to the Constitutional amendments are not really for alleged people of color, but to ensure the the alleged "white" European race does not disappear from the face of the earth...or lose their alleged power, or alleged status here.
After all, according to the maintenance of the alleged "black" race by alleged "whites" on these shores, no alleged dark skinned race or people of color was supposed to even exist after 300 years of European rule here.... This is the reality folks......better to face it now, than later since ain't much you can do to change it!

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

of course its a wedge issue were told by the media it is. Racism is forced down our throats everyday by the big M. Whenever we hear a story of someone beating someone up or shooting someone the media is the first to point out the persons color and religion. There is no need for them to do this but they do because they want us to hate each other.

they're trying to divide us

Watch American History X you'll see that some people just don't like others see how the wheel spins around and around.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago


You should come and actually see the city of Detroit, if you want to see the reality of the divides that racism creates.

It's no damn irrelevant "wedge" issue.

No indeed, it's not!

It's very, very real.

Perhaps you need to see it and feel it, rather than "learn" about it on TV.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

ive been to Detroit many times and i know what your talking about but some of that is self inflicted damages. Most people have accepted races and do not care.

does the media not overplay

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Self inflicted?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

yes family units broken and joining gangs when there is no reason to. There is a lot the outside world can do but the people living there must want the help.

the community must work to help themselves.

You live there, would it not be better if the community worked as a unit instead of the crime ridden city it is.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Do you ever think before you speak? You go from 0 to lunatic on 3 seconds, it makes you like a crazy person. Try breathing a few times before you respond, the oxygen in your brain may help.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Not very impressive, but left wing links seldom are. I sign with bullet holes wow I hope you have a bit more.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Yeah, there's all the stuff you've ignored so far.

You do realize that for actual understanding, some reading is required.

This isn't stormfront you know.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 5 years ago

Birth control does not murder, it makes conception unlikely. No one has a problem with birth control, in fact most conservatives prefer birth control to abortion. It makes abortion less likely. They have a problem with the "morning after" pill because they consider it possible murder if conception has occurred. There is a difference. Also, the majority don't have a problem with in-vitro in most cases because the eggs are not being destroyed. They have a problem with stem cell research because the eggs ARE being destroyed.

The majority of conservatives I have encountered throughout the course of my life since roe v wade does NOT want the law overturned. They want the public informed so there will be less abortion. Conservative women don't want to return to back alley abortions because even though they don't agree with abortion, they don't want harm to come to women who do. They would prefer to educate young women on preventive measures. They do, however, want the government to quit spending tax dollars on abortion facilities. There is enough private funding of these facilities that tax dollars need not be used. Of course, there are some of the more extreme but they are a minority.

A constitutional amendment will never happen and I don't see the justices overturning it. Even the most conservative judges have ruled to keep roe v wade when cases were brought before it. Also, several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

The "personhood" bill that willard specifically said he would sign
would ban the pill & in-vitro

If you don't understand why this is true, check a biology text book

Amendment 26 - The Mississippi Personhood Amendment-- is a citizens initiative to amend the Mississippi Constitution to define personhood as beginning at fertilization or "the functional equivalent thereof." Its purpose is to protect all life, regardless of age, health, function, physical or mental dependency, or method of reproduction. The entire proposed Amendment is as follows:
SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 5 years ago

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't apply to birth control pills. Birth control does not kill an unborn. It prevents pregnancy. There's a difference. No one is trying to take away birth control. The morning after pill does kill the unborn. That could be banned but not birth control. In vitro is also not killing eggs but saves them. This would not apply to that law either.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

the pill operates in different ways-
ONE way is that it stops a fertilized egg [ = HUMAN BEING ] from attaching to the uterine wall - thus killing the [ HUMAN BEING ]
analogous to "starving" the [ HUMAN BEING ]

TYPICAL EXAMPLE: Invitro usually means ferilizing may eggs - maybe 10. eggs to make 10 [HUMAN BEINGS]
Then 2 are implanted the other 8 [ HUMAN BEINGS ] are discarded -
ie starved to death

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

is this to segway to the right to reproduce?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

i dont know i read in a book and to control overpopulation the governments encourage people to be gay. That will never happen in our life times. But the human race is a weird animal

abortion will always be legal and so will the pill

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

4/9 justices will overturn R v W
willard will overturn it by appointing 1-2 justices a "personhood" bill that willard advocates will make the pill illegal

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

.....no one would dare touch that, stop spreading lies like that

[-] 0 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

are you blind? or are you deaf? or are you dumb? or are you touched?
abortion rights in 20+ states have been curtailed in the last few years

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

have you been prevented from getting an abortion

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

the blue cohesh

anti-abortion is not reasonable enforceable

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

blue cohesh?

of course its not reasonable the people use shock value to scare men and women to not like them.