I have no problem with V777 "recruitment mission" for blacks to join the republican party. If the republicans stop using blacks and other minorities as scapegoats to prop the party up with the white base. It will take a couple of decades for the republican convention to look like what we saw at the DNC in the summer. Good luck, GOP.
Remember Ralph Abernathy and James Brown? They hanged with those Republicans and they always got the short end of the stick.
Well, I think republicans have very little to offer! And I am one jof them, mainly because I'm not democratic. I have seriously considered going independent, but I like some say in the primaries. I don't think an independent is likely to win the presidency anytime soon. Republican pros: Lower taxes, Pro life, Pro small business, Pro capitalism, pro fighting terror.... (not much else) Republican cons: Stupid immigration policies, mostly dishonest politicians, mostly no one knows what they stand for anymore... Democratic pros: better immigration policies, some good public programs (not all mind you)... Democratic cons: Pro choice/abortion, higher taxes, wellfare programs that keep people down, dishonest politicians, pro activists rights (as if they were civil rights) wacko policies... That pretty much says it all..
Pro life and pro fighting terror contradict themselves IMO. I class myself as pro life - I'm against abortion and death penalty etc. Used to be pro choice until I got pregnant, I was all booked for a termination but had an "epiphany". Well I just saw the scan (which was turned away) and I saw my little boys perfect body and heart beating and ever since then I've just been against it. But yeah, I couldn't be pro fighting terror and pro life because the fight on terror is killing thousands of innocent civillians, and being pro life, I believe all life is sacred including those innocent civillians.
Well, that was a McCain slogan, he was a war hero, he is all for the "County First" I think to him that means - Take care of our Veterans, take care of our borders, take care of our budget. Do so, before taking care of outside/foreign interests, that is not typically republican policy. IMO! He works closely with vets in AZ to make sure they get what they need, and he has IMO wacko immigration policies. (We've heard rumors of "putting the army on the border" or other such nonsense in the name of protecting us.) I do agree with his financial policies though. Still kinda/sorta wish he would have won. (not hating on Obama though, I want to see him get a fair chance to mess things up, otherwise it just wouldn't be right)
Good point. Very good point. I'm pro-choice, but i'm choosing not to agree on the killings of innocent civilians because of for example homemade lies about hidden weapons (iraq, hint hint).. But thats a different discussion, whitch in my experience could go on forever, and at some point ending up in bizarre comparisions about when a foetus becomes a human being and when a human being becomes a terrorist. Lets not go there. ^^
You might have another "epiphany" if a large building in your home town was bombed by terrorists, killing thousands, or if a family member or close friend had been raped, and beaten to death by a serial rapist who was out on parole. I think capital punishment/war is just when the criminal is wreaking such havoc, it doesn't compare with giving an innocent life a chance to start in any way. Sorry!
I get it if you're in the military, but what does the term mean to an average citizen? Say like a Joe 6-pack, or Joe the Plumber? I just want to know what this term really means.
I didn't say I agree with the war on Iraq. I have mixed feelings about that. But something has to be done about terror in general. I know you didn't want to go there, but I fail to see how innocent civilians don't remind you of innocent pre-born infants. Innocence is innocence!!
*not going there* (pre-born infants.. never heard that one before.) I just reflected on SarahS sayings, didn't reflect that much about yours. Terrorist actions should off course be stopped. I don't think anyone disagrees on that. Its the definition of terrorist thats a bit of a problem, who is going to be the world police? Because really, nobody wants USA to be it anymore..
I seriously don't like the idea that the state can chose who lives and who dies. I'm sorry but someone cannot be pro life and support the murder of select others. That's extremely hypocritical. I don't class you as "pro life", or the republican party. Anti abortion, but not pro life. I oppose all acts that can end human life. Yeah, maybe if a family member was murdered I might change my mind, but generally speaking, I think this person should be locked up for eternity but I don't think that any human should be able to choose whether another human can live or die, regardless of what they've done. I respect all life - be that a human, animal or unborn human. But like I said, the main reson I disagree with the death penalty is that I dislike the fact the the government can choose who can die, where do we draw the line? Innocent people get convicted of crimes all the time, it's obvious that some of those innocent convicted may have died from the death penalty. Don't even get me started on the "war on terror", not even half of the people killed have been terrorists. So do we just go kill a heap of innocent civillians and hope that we killed a few terrorists too? This annoys me! People cannot claim a moral high ground and proclaim to be pro life and then want to kill people. It's messed up! An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.
I don't want us to be either really, but with power comes a certain amount of responsibility also. So finding the balance is important. I really debate that very question in my mind a lot. If not us then who?? Is it important to have anyone at all in that role??
Don't worry I'm not going to shove pictures of bloody foetuses in your face. Being pro life or whatever politically correct term I'm branded with is my choice, just as it's your choice to be pro choice. It's all good Lol yeah, from experience these discussions turn to debates and then arguments and nothing gets solved
That same argument is used to prefer some animal life over human, in all practicality it is not possible to hold every single life sacred when those persons have already taken the lives of others. Somehow their life becomes forfeit in my mind. It isn't murder when it is a known law and a person choses to commit the crime anyway. I am not for changing a law retroactive to impose a death penalty on someone who may have committed an act that would be covered by such a penalty prior to there having been such a penalty, this only works going forward, and persons committing such an act would be aware of the penalty. I would agree, except that it won't happen, they often find a loop hole. Right you are, so they have an appeals process in place to prevent it, if they have grounds to appeal they will. I don't think keeping innocent people in jail forever is really any better, certainly not if you ask some of the supposedly innocent. I'm not an army general or a commander, I wouldn't begin to tell them how to do their job, but I must agree with you that innocent people do get hurt, killed, and terrrorised in war, so there has to be some better solution, I just haven't seen it yet, and I don't think leaving the terrorists alone will help.
The United Nations? If anyone should do it, they should. They only have mandate to keep the peace, not start wars.
Its good, it needs thinking about! Being outside the USA, I have to say that the general feeling here is that the USA has got to stop that policing. Everytime you do it, we have riots all over the place.. Its getting a bit tiring. But now it seems like you'll have a president who wants to try this new thing, diplomacy .
I totally respect your views and perhaps I'm a bit extreme in expressing mine I just don't like the thought that the govt. can choose who dies. Obviously their life (killers and such) isn't as sacred to me as an unborn child or even an animal. I just don't think a life for a life solves anything. You're right though, killers/baby rapists and other bad people often find a loop hole. I think I'm still confused about the issue, when I think of the Baby P case here in the UK I think deep inside part of me wants the people who killed the little boy to die, but on the other hand I don't think that the government should have the right to decide who lives and dies. I need to think about it a lot. I remember when I was younger I used to think that peedos and murdererd should be used in product/medical testing since the results would be more reliable than testing on animals. I think that MIGHT violate their human rights. I do need to think about it though, main issue was the war on terror thing. Again, I'm not knowledgeable to make a proper decision on what my view of it is. I just see a contradiction of the term "pro life". Blah rambling...
