Thanks to remind me that, it's not like I'm not able to read what I wrote earlier.

To be frank, against abortion except in cases of mother's death (but some are even more extreme - against abortion in all cases. I think Cruz is for banning abortions totally, while Trump is for them only in mother's life and rape) is probably one of the most shieldable points conserves have.

The thing is you should not forbid people wanting abortion to not abort, some people are against abortion mostly for, lets be honest, religious reasons. And these religious people are anyway free to not abort, but for people in favor of abortion they should also have the possibility to abort or this would be rather dictatorial and backward.
If abortion was finally tolerated in most of our modern societies it is for good reasons.

Everyday this is looking more and more accurate: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940 (Is Donald Trump a Democratic secret agent?)

Given Killary Klinton's dishonesty and professional history of lying and deceit, I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited 3/31/2016 22:52:35

The thing is you should not forbid people wanting abortion to not abort, some people are against abortion mostly for, lets be honest, religious reasons. And these religious people are anyway free to not abort, but for people in favor of abortion they should also have the possibility to abort or this would be rather dictatorial and backward.

I mostly agree, but the grounds the for-abortion argument is strong in particular is that they are killing human life, which should never be killed (but you'll see the same folk wanting more military spending and misdeeds...), and the human life that is killed doesn't get to choose at all (and even if it could choose, should it be able to choose? Should doing such an awful choice like suicide be legal?).

but for people in favor of abortion they should also have the possibility to abort or this would be rather dictatorial and backward.

Some would describe the slaughtering of our own young to be backward.

Free does not always mean good. There are certain things people should not be free to do.

the for-abortion argument is strong in particular is that they are killing human life, which should never be killed (but you'll see the same folk wanting more military spending and misdeeds...),

This is actually so true Juq, these people are most of the time those pro-life people who are generally the ones with a total absurdity in favor of military spending, I guess after all it could be explained for some of them according to their religious ideals:
Making babies is sacred ("As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.", Genesis 9:7), but killing infidels and heretics is also sacred! ("Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.", Matthew 10:34)

Edited 3/31/2016 23:51:09

Even the Book tells how to do abortions if "the wife is unfaithful". Numbers 5:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: “If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure – or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure – then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

‘“The priest shall bring her and make her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has made the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, ‘If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband’– here the priest is to put the woman under this curse – ‘may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.’

‘“Then the woman is to say, ‘Amen. So be it.’

‘“The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to make the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

‘“This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to make her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.”’

Edited 4/1/2016 00:04:41

This is actually so true Juq, these people are most of the time those pro-life people who are generally the ones with a total absurdity in favor of military spending, I guess after all it could be explained for some of them according to their religious ideals:

Or not. Unborn children are the most innocent human beings, and in a pro-life eye, the least worthy of death. You don't need religion to have that viewpoint.

And many who are in favor of not lowering or raising the military budget are worried about protection, not killing people.

This is actually so true Juq, these people are most of the time those pro-life people who are generally the ones with a total absurdity in favor of military spending,

Got some evidence to back that generalization? I'm Pro-Life and I think the U.S needs to scale back on military, or at the very least, focus that money on homeland defenses instead of maintaining a hundred off-shore bases in countries we have no need patrolling.

I guess after all it could be explained for some of them according to their religious ideals:

Always gotta bring religion into it.

This is actually so true Juq, these people are most of the time those pro-life people who are generally the ones with a total absurdity in favor of military spending,

Too many generalizations lately have been floating around.

I'm pro-life as well and favor dramatically reduced military spending and a ban on the death penalty.

@Jai
did you miss by accident "most of the time"?

And many who are in favor of not lowering or raising the military budget are worried about protection, not killing people.

"protection" through killing folk. Sounds like a plan.

Got some evidence to back that generalization? I'm Pro-Life and I think the U.S needs to scale back on military, or at the very least, focus that money on homeland defenses instead of maintaining a hundred off-shore bases in countries we have no need patrolling.

They're both conservative principles, and each Republican (I don't recall if Kasich is for-abortion or not, but I doubt he is) left supports both a bigger military force/more military misdeeds, and it's been pretty much that way for the last few decades (with notable but no-chance Republican exceptions like Rand Paul).

All you better be for the Libertarian group, then, since based on these two things, you're fit much better to them than Republicans.

Too many generalizations lately have been floating around.

Official GOP stances:

*Foreign terrorism suspects should not be given constitutional rights.
*Government needs to grow military spending.
*Military forces needs to fly more drones over countries to kill suspected terrorists.
*America should upscale the war on Mashriq.
*America should lower foreign help spending.
*America should send footsoldiers to Syria as long as it's part of an international coalition.
*After slaying Mashriq, America should overthrow Bashar Assad.
*Government should do military strikes on North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons.
*America should keep Guantánamo prison open.
*Torture is ok.
*Death penalty is ok as is.

*For-life.

You see my confusion here? Also, I was looking about, holy mackarel, GOP is now taking blatant anti-parting of faith and theode, and giving special likeness to Christians.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/Resolution_Christian_Genocide.pdf

Edited 4/1/2016 04:10:04

They're both conservative principles

There's a lot of different flavors of conservatism out there. There's not really a unified "Conservative" platform, only points of usual agreement.

and each Republican (I don't recall if Kasich is for-abortion or not, but I doubt he is) left supports both a bigger military force/more military misdeeds, and it's been pretty much that way for the last few decades (with notable but no-chance Republican exceptions like Rand Paul).

The problem with Republicans is that they have to keep several different factions in line, and in the end they don't properly represent anyone. The Democrats have the same problem.

All you better be for the Libertarian group, then, since based on these two things, you're fit much better to them than Republicans.

I disagree with Libertarians quite often when it comes to economic issues (And a few social ones as well). However, I understand the appeal to Libertarianism and I often find Libertarians to be some of the most consistent people in politics. I respect the group, but I don't know if I'll ever be a member.

Also, I should point out that I'm not officially with any major party. I generally lean Republican because of my social views. Almost all Pro-Life candidates are Republican, for example, and that's a big selling point for me (Not the only thing I judge candidates on mind you, but it's a major factor). If it wasn't for the Social Conservative side of things I probably would never vote Republican. I disagree with them both on economics (usually) and foreign policy (usually).

Official GOP stances:

*Foreign terrorism suspects should not be given constitutional rights.
*Government needs to grow military spending.
*Military forces needs to fly more drones over countries to kill suspected terrorists.
*America should upscale the war on Mashriq.
*America should lower foreign help spending.
*America should send footsoldiers to Syria as long as it's part of an international coalition.
*After slaying Mashriq, America should overthrow Bashar Assad.
*Government should do military strikes on North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons.
*America should keep Guantánamo prison open.
*Torture is ok.

1. Everyone deserves rights until proven guilty.
2. There's no need to increase military spending.
3. It's a problem that has to be dealt with, I won't say I have the best answer but "Doing nothing" definitely isn't the solution.
4. It accounts for less than a percent of our budget.....
5. Stay the heck out of Syria unless it's to fight ISIL, even then, keep distance.
6. Everytime we overthrow a dictator in the Middle East that country just gets worse. Let them keep the blasted dictators and just pull out of that bloody mess.
7. That would give North Korea the excuse to actually use said weapons, and Kimmy might just be crazy enough to do it.
8. Maybe.
9 Depends on the situation, generally not okay.

For the most part, I hate GOP foreign policy. Stop ISIL, then pull out of the Middle East and stay out of there. Seriously, that region is just a Pandora's Box and we need to stop digging ourselves deeper.

There's a lot of different flavors of conservatism out there. There's not really a unified "Conservative" platform, only points of usual agreement.

Unified conservative principles = bigger and more powerful government, right economy. Anything that falls in those umbrella are conservative principles (including taking away guns, but in America, both conserves and liberalists usually are unheard of supporting that).

The problem with Republicans is that they have to keep several different factions in line, and in the end they don't properly represent anyone. The Democrats have the same problem.

That's why there's supposed to be different candidates with moderately different outlooks, unfortunately their outlooks are pretty much the same, and all the Republican candidates this year except B. Carson and R. Paul supported agressive foreign policy to my knowledge.

Also, I should point out that I'm not officially with any major party. I generally lean Republican because of my social views.

Why do you value relatively insignificant things like should gay folk vote over should these lives be ended?

Anyhow, you just happen to hate mostly Republican foreign and economic policy more than other policies, noone will have 100% agreement with them (actually, many falsely will, since they don't bother to do some research and there's strong party bonds), but the point is, you're an exception, and a true Republican (as you said before was who you leaned most towards, I don't really like Democrats or Republicans, but it's a matter of picking the relatively better). A true Republican will have much more support for what they stand for. See GeneralPE for example, I bet he would agree with 9/10 these points.

Edited 4/1/2016 04:28:10

A human life is not worth much on the free market.

Not much to the socialists either.

Unified conservative principles = bigger and more powerful government, right economy. Anything that falls in those umbrella are conservative principles

Xpapy, stop spreading blatant lies. Big government is not a pillar of conservative belief; they believe in a limited government. To say that taking away guns would be conservative is ludicrous. You are so wrong.

For me:
Conservative = small gov't; constitution; capitalist; closed borders
Liberal = big gov't; do whatever seems good, not what our laws are; semi-socialist; open borders

Some Americans obsess over the constitution so much. They need to realise that it has some major flaws that are outdated, that need to be ironed out by now. The constitution isn't a person, it's an object that needs to adapt as the years pass. We're no longer in a world where people can own guns to keep their slaves quiet. Guns are bad because they kill people, and were designed to kill people; nothing else. This is where the argument of "You can kill people with bricks!" falls flat on its face. Bricks have alternative uses. Guns are designed to kill people, and are always people's weapon of choice in a mass-killing. Knives have alternative uses, and people can't kill as much with knives, as they can with guns.

To the point: The constitution doesn't breathe. You always need to change it, and you shouldn't defend it when it has obvious flaws. It was written hundreds of years ago and doesn't have nearly enough amendments. "Our laws" generally means "constitution", and the constitution is inherently bad because it has outdated policies.

We're no longer in a world where people can own guns to keep their slaves quiet.

That's what the police and military are for, and you are trying to make it easier for the blue shirts. Also funny that you want to call gun ownership racist, when Martin Luther King most likely would have been attacked earlier if the Deacons For Defense and Justice hadn't been there.

Guns are bad because they kill people, and were designed to kill people; nothing else.

Except you can easily use them for sport (hunting) and recreation.

Guns are designed to kill people, and are always people's weapon of choice in a mass-killing

Oh you must have not heard of explosives. You can strap them on your body or throw them at people and it helps a lot with mass killing.

To the point: The constitution doesn't breathe. You always need to change it, and you shouldn't defend it when it has obvious flaws. It was written hundreds of years ago and doesn't have nearly enough amendments. "Our laws" generally means "constitution", and the constitution is inherently bad because it has outdated policies.

When it has good policy designed to stop the government from squeezing people's freedom's. It's failed because the American people are actively complacent in it's enforcement.