CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Catholics are Pro Life yet many vote for the Democrat Pro Abortion Party. Priorities?
It makes no sense why Catholics vote for Democrats. There are such things as priroities on issues. Even late term abortions for any reason are supported by the Democrat party & they have tried to force Churches & people with a conscience to pay for it. If Catholics are truly pro life, look in the mirror the next time you pull that lever in the voting booth. The so called Democrat compassion for the poor seems to be at odds with their abortion stances. If a Party is not compassionate for the most innocent of our unborn children, how can they truly be compassionate at all.
The so called Democrat compassion for the poor seems to be at odds with their abortion stances.
The Republican hatred of the poor is at odds with their abortion stances. What is so great about abandoning born people who can't help themselves while claiming you care about the unborn?
To add to that. What is so great about cutting services for poor people that would help them lift themselves out of poverty or ease their suffering, after poor people have more babies?
I've learned not to waste my time debating you. You will just deny the truth to prove any point. You don't want to debate. You want to silence opposing opinions so no other person can hear the truth abut so called compassionate Liberals. Just as the Liberal media refuses to cover new revealing stories about Benghazi or the IRS scandals, or forced abortion funding, you want to CENSOR, BURY THE STORY, ATTACK THE MESSENGER, these are the strategies from the Left.
You don't debate with anyone. You keep telling your lies even when you are told the actual data you are referencing. I haven't tried silencing you, I have tried to explain how things actually work in the real world.
you want to CENSOR, BURY THE STORY, ATTACK THE MESSENGER, these are the strategies from the Left.
Do you honestly believe that the right has never done that? The right wing has a very, incredibly long history of silencing dissent. The points you are bringing up border on conspiracy theories, so people are critical of the points you are raising. It is like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People are going to not take you seriously. It has nothing to do with right/left. Remember when George W. Bush was President and he started two pointless wars (one for oil) on the credit card? The using of the corporate media and militarized police the silence the dissent of Occupy Wall Street? The Dixie Chicks, and Michael Moore were a few (of many) voices of dissent, and they were silenced by the right. The right silenced Eugene V. Debs for supporting the Pullman Strike. President Hoover (a very right wing President), ordered the army to fire on Veterans demanding their combat pay (look up the Bonus Army). The right wing has a long history of silencing dissent, and killing the messenger (look up Rosa Luxembourg, and what happened to her when she questioned right wing elements that wanted to start WW1). So, stop pretending that the right doesn't ever censor, or bury the story, or attack the messenger. They do, and they have many, many times.
Do you actually understand that most of the media is liberal biased? There is no silencing stories that put down Conservatives. You will hear every bad story on any Conservative in this nation NON STOP! How soon you forget the non stop coverage of every gaff from Romney while nothing was reported on Obama's gaffes except on Fox news. The Liberal media controls every other news network. We are STILL seeing Bush blamed for everything just as you just did. THE DEMOCRATS SIGNED ON TO THOSE WARS ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The entire world believed Hussein had WMD's because he refused to allow inspectors to go where they wanted to go! Do you actually think you are kidding anyone or do you truly believe this crap. Other than Fox news, our national media are nothing more than cheerleaders for the Democrat party. Maybe you missed it, they came out with more damaging evidence on Benghazi & tax payer funded Abortions & guess what? Other than Fox news, it was not covered on the other news outlets. They control your simple mind! Everything I hear out of a Liberal's mouth comes straight out of our Liberal media. Did you know they just had more damaging news on the absence of Global warming? Funny how i saw nothing about it on network news. Did you hear that Federal studies have found Fracking does not pollute drinking water? Funny how the Liberal media missed that story also. Must be Fracking, Benghazi, IRS, tax payer funded abortions, Global warming are not news worthy if the news goes against the Liberal agendas. They covered Sarah Palin's family getting into a fight.
I do not watch media that is politically biased, and not all media is "liberal." I have given you facts from history that existed before 24 hour news cycles (and after) and you've ignored them all. Many people in "the world" did not believe Hussein had WMDs. That's why Americans did not like the dissent from the people who questioned the claim. Remember the stupidity of "freedom fries?"
There is no evidence from credible sources that refute the scientific facts behind global warming.
I'm not wasting your time with "liberal" rhetoric. I do not being to a party not do I take a side. I have what's called an "education," and I understand facts. I have presented you with facts. Can you refute them without resorting to partisan taking points? I do not care about your left/right false dichotomy. Can you refute the facts I've presented? I doubt it.
What facts? I just gave you facts about information showing facts that refute Global warming. Did you see the news? If not you proved my point of how the Liberal media refuses to show anything that goes contrary to their agendas & what they want you to believe. You still live in that nice little world where your beliefs are not questioned because you never hear the other side. There is plenty of evidence going against Global warming. Temperatures have not risen for 18 years now! There are huge sheets of Ice being built up in places where they claimed Glaciers would be melting.
I laugh when you say you do not take sides. The words from your mouth are text book Liberal rhetoric.
Tell me again how people are not forced to pay for abortions through Obamacare. That lie was just shown with some new information on how insurance companies pay for abortions. They do not separate funds from people opposed to abortion.
Facts are truths found from credible, unbiased sources.
I just gave you facts about information showing facts that refute Global warming.
You did not. You told me something that is not true according to all the brightest minds in sciences form around the world, or 99% of the world's scientists. Just because you, an undedicated "conservative" tells me something does not refute any of the facts and statistics.
That is the words of some of the most respected scientists in the world. If what you saw on Fox News Entertainment, which is not unbiased, which is not fact-based, which is not a credible source for scientific information was actually true (and, I've repeatedly shown you it is not), the brilliant minds in science from all over the world would have actually hold a conference and discuss the findings from the Fox News Entertainment pundit. However, pundits with political agendas are not scientists. There is 120 years of data that proves you wrong. One pundit does not refute 99% of the scientific community. Don't you find it strange that the only source "refuting" the words of scientists is a non-scientific, biased politically-charged entertainment channel on TV?
Science is a very open-minded discipline. It is interested in the truth and understanding the universe. New information (if true, which yours is objectively not) is actually WELCOMED by scientists.
So, the facts I'm talking about would be links or at least a citation to what you are talking about. Consider how I've shown you specific examples in our debates, how I've given you links to credible sources (like NASA), or even citing a specific time in history (as I have when mentioning child labor in the late 19th century). That's how you debate. You don't just make claims that you believe in; part of what lends credibility to your position is the quality of the sources you cite. When you cite nothing, your argument is garbage, and amounts to talking points and name-calling, like yours has been.
f not you proved my point of how the Liberal media refuses to show anything that goes contrary to their agendas & what they want you to believe.
Or, you are proving MY point which is that the "conservative" media doesn't tell the truth about things like science for political reasons, and it counts on uneducated people like you to believe it unquestioningly.
You still live in that nice little world where your beliefs are not questioned because you never hear the other side.
I used to be a Republican (never been a Democrat). In fact, I used to make the very same arguments you are. So, I've actually had an internal dialogue about everything I believe. The way I test my ideas is by debating with people like you. So, actually every single one of my ideas has been questioned, not only by me, but other people constantly. When someone proves me wrong, I change my beliefs. I don't follow a party line, I follow the truth and what works.
There is plenty of evidence going against Global warming.
No there isn't. Since 2012, there has only been ONE peer-reviewed article (that is an article written by a scientist and looked over by other scientists for quality of research) out of about 2500 peer-reviewed articles that see what's happening.
Temperatures have not risen for 18 years now!
For the FIFTH TIME, that is not true. You saying that does not refute the words of NASA Scientists: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Have a gander at that link, actually read everything, and look at the evidence. 99% of the scientists from around the world (remember the Democratic Party only exists in the US) disagree with you.
There are huge sheets of Ice being built up in places where they claimed Glaciers would be melting.
Also not true. Glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate. That is observable, and has been recorded for well over a century. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Please read that link. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. Its a fact-based study of how the universe works.
I laugh when you say you do not take sides.
I don't take sides. I just consider what works, and what the truth is.
The words from your mouth are text book Liberal rhetoric.
Because YOU take sides, anything that does not follow your false, partisan narrative appears to be "liberal" to you because you actually believe the false-dichotomy created by the two party system.
Tell me again how people are not forced to pay for abortions through Obamacare.
Besides the fact that this is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, tell me how they are, and use credible, unbiased information to prove it.
That lie was just shown with some new information on how insurance companies pay for abortions.
This is completely irrelevant. Citation please?
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. I AM TRYING TO LEAD YOU OUT OF THE CAVE (if you read Plato, you'll get that).
Here's the thing FW. Everything I am about to tell you about global warming can be corroborated by any credible scientific website around the world (i.e.: NASA, NOAA, IPCC, any .edu, and almost any scientific journal).
CO2 traps solar heat on planets. This happens on Planet Venus, where the active geology has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Now the Average Global Temperature (AGT) of Venus is about 900 degrees farenheit. The earth has natural CO2 from active geology too, even without cars. That's what makes the planet habitable. Otherwise, it would be -200 degrees at night, ant 500 degrees during the day. Okay, so we've established that CO2 traps heat. Bear in mind that CO2 comes out of your tailpipe and is emitted by industry, as it has since the industrial revolution; the earth's geology hasn't been active enough for that level of CO2 in about 800,000 years.
Now, CO2 levels have risen exponentially since the late 19th century, and the AGT has risen at the same rate--like magic, except it isn't, it's science.
We are observing sea level rise. We are also seeing species going extinct at a cataclysmic rate. My friend who is a scientist from a University in Florida (it's a private school, so don't start with how it's government funded), is doing his research on the mass-extinction being caused by global warming.
We are seeing sea level rise because of rising temperatures that are being recorded by every scientist in the world, except the pundits at Fox News Entertainment. Heat melts ice. There are pictures you can look at on the NASA link I gave you.
Here's the thing: even when I was a Republican, I was able to understand that if the earth is uninhabitable, being a Republican will not save me. We, you and I, both live on the same planet. You can ignore what is happening, or you can start doing things to stem the tide of the destruction. At this point (and I've been told this by various scientists), if we start cutting our CO2 emissions, we will be able to lessen the damage, but not avert it because it's already happening.
Simply being a Republican does not mean it isn't happening. Science is not political--it's fact-based. The words of a fox news entertainer does not negate the words of 98% of the entire world's scientists and over a century of observable evidence.
PS: if you want, I would be happy to give you links to each specific claim I made, but you can find them on any reputable scientific source. Message me, if you really want to understand. I am always glad to teach what I know.
Did you also happen to notice that I gave you a bunch of factual evidence from history of the rightwing censoring, burying facts, and literally killing the messenger, and you responded with something about the "liberal media?" That's a non-sequitor argument. Please attack the points I am presenting you with. That's what debating is supposed to be: a fact-based discussion and free exchange of ideas. A debate is not a shouting match between party-liners. If I wanted a shouting match between party-liners, I would watch Fox "News" or MSNBC. I am not here for that. I am well aware of the "conservative" party-line because I used to be one. I am here to have an informed, educated discussion.
I am not disputing that both sides play the game of under reporting stories that goes against their beliefs. MY POINT is that the Liberal media controls about 95% of our news sources. Fox news is about the only news network that is more right leaning. But, they do show news stories that sometimes hurts the Right. Fox is not as deceptive when it comes to under reporting news worthy stories. The truth of the matter is that there are far fewer examples of things that would hurt Conservatives ideology because there is truth in the Conservative stances. It's hard to make obvious truth look corrupt. There is no need to bury stories that proves that responsibility is actually good for our nation.
MY POINT is that the Liberal media controls about 95% of our news sources.
Show me a source for this information from a credible, unbiased source. I would contend that multinational corporations control 95% of our news sources.
Fox news is about the only news network that is more right leaning.
I agree, and MSNBC is the only left-leaning pundit network (neither actually report news), but journalism is not measured by its bias. In fact, bias in media is a bad thing, and actual journalists do not respect sources that are biased, and neither do I. I want the truth, and I can decide what I think. Fox "news" doesn't do that. Fox news tells you what to think.
Fox is not as deceptive when it comes to under reporting news worthy stories.
That's not true. They just choose stories that support the "conservative" narrative even if they aren't true, like stories that deny science.
The truth of the matter is that there are far fewer examples of things that would hurt Conservatives ideology because there is truth in the Conservative stances.
That is not true. Deregulated markets always lead to market failure, and history has proven this. Proof? Look at how our economy was in the 1950s, and 60s, and how it is now with less regulation.
"Trickle-down economic" has never worked, and history has proven this. Proof? Look at the 19th century, and feudal Europe. Both of those periods of time had horrible wealth distributions, and the common people did not benefit from it.
Lower wages will not lead to a better quality of life for Americans and a larger middle class, and history has proven that. Proof? Look at how our middle class is shrinking now, with lower wages, and how much larger it was when wages were higher in the 20th century.
Keeping women from having birth control has never worked well, and history has proven that. Proof? Look at Romania and what happened when President Nicolae Ceaușescu made contraception illegal, and the subsequent revolution of 1989.
Cutting funding from the VA has never worked, and history has proven that. Proof? Look at how bad the VA used to be when it was even less funded. Remember when armless veterans begged for change in Hell's Kitchen? Yeah. That's morally reprehensible.
Privatizing the public school system has never worked, and history has proven that. Proof? Look at when we did not have a public school system. Only rich kids get an education, and everyone else is left in ignorance, so that they can be easily fooled by the rich kids; it's almost like feudalism.
I can go on. Almost everything about the "conservative" platform does not benefit anyone except the very wealthy. The "conservative" platform, if you have an education, is easy to see as very far from objective truth; that is why I am not a "conservative" anymore.
There is no need to bury stories that proves that responsibility is actually good for our nation.
I don't think anyone would argue against responsibility. That is an over-simplification fallacy.
If you truly believe that MSNBC is the only Liberal biased news network then this clearly shows your indoctrination from the left. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, all bury stories that hurt the Left's agendas.
The problem is that you agree with most of the Left leaning slant from these news networks so you therefore think they are not biased. You could not be more wrong. Even Hollywood constantly ridicule the GOP & Conservatives & Christians. Do you ever watch the Colbert report, or John Stewart's comedy shows. It's laughable how biased they are.
The reason people on the right can see the bias so much is because it goes so contrary to our beliefs & ideology. You can spot the bias on Fox news instantly because you are more in tuned to news coverage that goes contrary to your ideology. Even people on the Left do not refute how Liberal most of the media is.
I've lived long enough to have watched the change in Journalism that went after corruption no matter which side of the aisle it was on, to journalism that deliberately buries stories that hurts their Party. It is truly a scary point in our history when the free press can manipulate the peoples minds.
If you truly think MSNBC is the only Liberal biased news, then the media is doing great job of controlling our minds.
I am a Catholic, and while I do not belong to a party, and abhor partisan thinking, I quite often vote for Democrats. Here's why:
Abortion is only one issue, and that issue does not affect me as a man (e.g.: I cannot possibly have an abortion, so the issue does not affect me, and I only know one person who has had one).
Abortion, as I said is one issue. It affects very few people, because men cannot have them, and very few women actually get them. Furthermore, the Democratic Party does not want the government to pay for abortions. Planned Parenthood, one of the largest, well-known clinics that does abortions, is funded on donations for the abortions that it does. So, we know that abortion is an issue that does not affect very many people, and therefore, is not an issue that we should be focused on when we have bigger fish to fry, like poverty.
The Democratic party of today, and since FDR, has been focused mostly on making life in the US to be more comfortable for working class and working poor Americans. As a Catholic, I am deeply concerned about the plight of the poor, which we have a lot of in this country. The Democratic party of today also is focused on things like funding education (an essential part of a democratized society), and veterans benefits (as a veteran, this is very important to me).
I want America to be great, and I want America to have a strong middle class and economy. As I said, I am not a Democrat (the last time I registered with a party, it was the Republican Party). I am not party affiliated. However, the Democratic party tends to (not in all cases) support my interests much better than the Republicans do, especially since this country has shifted so far to the right in its political focus.
Another reason some Catholics might vote Democrat is because the Republican party has some anti-immigration policies which alienate the latino vote, many of whom are, of course, Catholic.
In closing, you can be a Catholic, and vote Democrat very easily, because, at the present time in history (and the Democrats used to be the party of small government and big business, like the Republicans of today, so do not think I am under the impression that either party has "values" attached to them), the Democratic Party is more on par with Christian values than the Republican party is when it comes to issues that actually matter and affect the most people.
He'll respond to the 'only one issue' argument by barking about how that should be the number one priority above all things. He will then go on to scoff at the 'very few' statement by completely ignoring the valid note regarding the proportion of the population in favor of the raw number, to which he will add every single abortion of course, because he sees them on the same level as adults, rather than as potential people- even though they lack the capacity for any form of thought or sensation during the first trimester, or any of the qualities we associate with being a person or individual. In a high population like the US is still somewhat of a large number, and he will focus on that despite it being a tiny percentage affected vs the total, even with his padding.
He will repeatedly flip back and forth between talking about the evils of abortion in general, and accusing you or everyone who votes democrat of specifically supporting late term abortion; I imagine this is intended to offend and fluster the person he debates, in hopes of somehow making them look foolish.
He'll probably go on to disparage the poor with his bigotry, as he is wont to do. I usually tune him out at this point so I can't give much in the way of specifics there. Oh, he'll probably say you aren't a real christian either- possibly that no catholics are real christians. Not sure which he'll go for.
'FromWithin' evidently refers to where he sources his material, as he clearly never does any actual reading or consults any other outside sources.
FW, I think I got all your points in- no need to reply.
Just to throw this out there. 1.2 Million women get an abortion every year. There are roughly 387 million Americans. That means, .003% of Americans get abortions, while 20% of Americans live below the poverty line. Poverty, wealth inequality, and social mobility affect more people by far.
Oh, he's also strongly of the mind that the rich shouldn't have to help the poor at all, and can be trusted to do so from the goodness of their hearts, so don't dare put their tax money towards social programs.
Just to throw this out there....... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Guess what, most people live their lives never being mugged or raped or killed by criminals. I guess with your logic, those crimes are ok because they don't effect most of us? Do you care about other lives at all? If abortions kills only one innocent life, that one life deserved being protected. Am I talking to human beings here or animals.
Quit trying to say that pro life people hate the poor. They are two totally separate issues. You don't kill someone to keep them from possibly being hungry someday. GET REAL!
Quit trying to say that pro life people hate the poor. They are two totally separate issues. You don't kill someone to keep them from possibly being hungry someday. GET REAL!
No, making accusations of entire demographics is your bag. He isn't accusing pro life people in general of hating the poor- he's just recognizing that you, personally, hate the poor.
Just to throw this out there....... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
That's argumentum ad hominem, and not a valid argument point.
Guess what, most people live their lives never being mugged or raped or killed by criminals. I guess with your logic, those crimes are ok because they don't effect most of us?
If abortions kills only one innocent life, that one life deserved being protected.
I am not disputing that. My point is, that .003% of unborn people is a smaller issue than 20% of Americans who live in poverty, and poverty is directly linked to unwanted pregnancies, so we might be able to "kill two birds with one stone" if we focused on the pragmatic solution by attacking the real problem, widespread poverty, than if we put a bandaid on a tiny problem that only affects .003% of Americans.
Am I talking to human beings here or animals.
If that is a question, I believe you are still talking to human beings. At least I thought you were. Most animals cannot type coherently.
Quit trying to say that pro life people hate the poor.
I don't think pro-life people hate the poor, and I've never said that. The question for the debate is "Catholics are Pro Life, yet many vote Demomcrat..." The entire platform of the Democratic Party is not to be pro-abortion. There are more issues in this country besides abortion, and abortion is legal according to the Supreme Court.
They are two totally separate issues. You don't kill someone to keep them from possibly being hungry someday. GET REAL!
The two are directly linked, in reality. Poor people, particularly poor women, who have less access to quality education, or education at all, or access to birth control are more likely to have more unwanted children, which ensures that cycle of poverty continues, and more women have more unwanted children. This is why DR Congo has a population in which over half of the people there are under the age of 15, and why in the deep south, where we see the most poverty in America, there are larger families and more people on food stamps. Poverty and unwanted pregnancies are directly linked.
I am not making a case for killing people to prevent them from going hungry one day. I have never said anything like that. However, if you look at the demographic of the .003% of people who have abortions, they tend to live well below the poverty line. I would like to see no one be killed, and no one go hungry in the United States, since the US is the best, most wealthy country in the world.
Thanks for being so easy to read. You said everything I knew you would say. The only problem is that it's pure hogwash rhetoric from the left. Now i will talk to some people who do not follow me around trying to attack my opinions. Insecure? LOL, text book!
Come on man, that post was very nearly a copy-paste of what you've written, I just clarified a few points with a dose of reality. That's not hogwash rhetoric from the left, it's hogwash rhetoric from you (who isn't even representative of the worst of the right), with a sprinkling of moderate reality.
That's an argumentum ad hominem, and an argumentum ad poplam. The point of debating is to attack people's opinions using facts, and test ideas against one another. Could you please do that? You asked me why many Catholics vote Democrat, and I answered that for you. So, instead of attacking me personally, and making a partisan statement, could you please attack the ideas that I've brought forth (that's what a debate is. Hint: a debate is not name-calling, and arguments using partisan talking points)? I do not know you, and you do not know me. Let's stick to debating ideas using facts.
I tried to warn you. FromWithin is incapable of debate.
On the plus side, 'debating' with him is like setting up a strawman of the other side, without having to put in the legwork. He's a really easy target, a caricature of the worst qualities of conservatives. I strongly believe that he's someone's sockpuppet, created for that specific purpose- not sure whos though.
You didn't come to the wrong place, per se- you just picked the wrong debate to post in, and particularly the wrong user to debate with. Read the topic before you select a debate- this one, in particular, has an obviously loaded, partisan statement for the debate title.
There are some good ones on here, and if you're looking for a place where you can debate without having to deal with the odd troll here and there, you won't find it online.
I guess, but when it comes to voting, or just the issue in and of itself, it's not really important. Either you agree a woman can kill a kid inside of her for any reason, or you don't.
I used the blunt terms to showcase how black and white the issue really is. Note: I'm for (or not opposed to) abortion, I just recognize the gravity of it.
Well, as always I've heard these same excuses time and again. I realize it makes you squirm when someone points out your true priorities in life. None of us like having our selfish priorities mirrored to us. We would rather not think about what we already know to be true in our heart. This is why Liberals hate Conservatives. Those on the Left absolutely hate having their true selfish motivations shown to them and the world. Believe me, their agendas have nothing to do with helping the poor. It's all about getting the vote so they can get a strangle hold on Government and force their ideology on the people.
I think I will vomit if I hear how the Republicans hate poor people one more time. The Liberal media has done a bang up job brainwashing your simple minds.
Tell me one law the GOP tried to passed that was not merely cutting the rate of growth for unsustainable social programs. NAME ME ONE! But alas, to excuse the inexcusable, one must find an enemy to blame for your selfish stances in life so you will judge Bush or Conservatives or the Tea party, or Sarah Palin, etc. etc. etc.
To argue with people who actually think it is ok to end the lives of certain groups of people because of their age, or their location(inside the mother), is almost like debating Hitler as he described his reasons why the lives of Jewish people were not a priority.
Most of these people posting here, trying to judge & distort my argument are not even Catholics. They hate & judge Catholics constantly. They hate Christians unless you are the new age Christian who ignores what the Bible actually says about issues of today. They are but insecure Liberals who can not stand it when other's point out their inhumanity & lack of compassion for all innocent life. They must keep the lies going.
For those who keep trying to defend how Obamacre is not forcing Catholics and all people with humanity to pay for Abortions is absolutely laughable. It was just in the news yesterday how insurance companies are NOT separating funds from people to pay for Abortions. What a shock, Obama & the Democrats lied once more. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM! But live in your little world of denial to excuse the inexcusable. Keep right on voting for the party of Abortion while you sit their & deny what you support.
I think I will vomit if I hear how the Republicans hate poor people one more time. The Liberal media has done a bang up job brainwashing your simple minds.
Well, this idea goes back to before the so-called "liberal media," that you're referring to. As I said, "liberals" have been more in-tune with the plight of the poor since the 19th century, and the Democratic Party has been since the 1920s. There was no MSNBC, so that argument is invalid. The so-called "liberal media (that is a term coined by Nixon when he was being investigated for the Watergate Scandal, and isn't actually grounded in reality)," did not exist when the left began caring about the plight of the poor. It's just like the right wing has always stood for the powerful. It has always been that way: the Democrats of the 19th century (the Republicans were the big government progressives then) supported the plantation owners in the south's right to own slaves; the Nazis smashed unions, imprisoned socialists, supported big business in Germany and used the state to make them powerful; Mussolini's Fascists busted unions, and supported big business; the so-called "Tea Party" of today is focused on lowering taxes on the rich, keeping wages low, cutting worker's rights, and cutting programs that help the poor. Right wing elements have always supported the powerful against the everyday person. It has been that way throughout history. That is nothing new. It predates MSNBC by centuries. That is what makes the rightwing, rightwing.
Tell me one law the GOP tried to passed that was not merely cutting the rate of growth for unsustainable social programs. NAME ME ONE! But alas, to excuse the inexcusable, one must find an enemy to blame for your selfish stances in life so you will judge Bush or Conservatives or the Tea party, or Sarah Palin, etc. etc. etc.
These programs were made unsustainable by Republican tax cuts on the wealthy over the last 30 years, and wars started by Republicans which were put on the credit card. So, you might say they were "unsustainable" but that is subjective. They COULD be sustainable, if we made them sustainable, but Republicans are there to protect the interests of the wealthy, so they've framed the issues as "cutting unsustainable programs." These programs were sustainable for much of the 20th century. What happened? Tax cuts for the wealthy happened. If you want some cases of them blocking/cutting the VA (which is among many morally important social programs that make our society more just), I'll give you some: the Post 9/11 GI Bill was fought against by Republicans who said (quoting Senator McCain) "too generous" (I challenge you to go look that up, it happened. I was in Iraq when I was following the story). They blocked a veteran's jobs bill that was proposed by President Obama which would have gotten government jobs and tax cuts to corporations that hired veterans, for my veteran brothers and sisters (bear in mind, veterans, who fight to keep this country free, have a higher unemployment rate than people who don't lift a finger for their country). Finally, in February, the Republicans blocked more funding to the VA, which would have made it run more efficiently. Here's a link from reuters about it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227
To argue with people who actually think it is ok to end the lives of certain groups of people because of their age, or their location(inside the mother), is almost like debating Hitler as he described his reasons why the lives of Jewish people were not a priority.
I am not sure what you mean here. Nobody is arguing for certain groups of people because of their age, or location. Bringing up Adolf Hitler is intellectually irresponsible to this discussion. I am not in favor of abortion. I just recognize that I cannot have an abortion and only .003% of Americans actually do, while we have 20% of Americans living in poverty. So, to me, we should take care of the bigger issues that cause more suffering to more people first.
For those who keep trying to defend how Obamacre is not forcing Catholics and all people with humanity to pay for Abortions is absolutely laughable. It was just in the news yesterday how insurance companies are NOT separating funds from people to pay for Abortions. What a shock, Obama & the Democrats lied once more. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEM! But live in your little world of denial to excuse the inexcusable. Keep right on voting for the party of Abortion while you sit their & deny what you support.
I would like to see a link from a credible, unbiased source that corroborates this claim. Otherwise, frankly, it sounds like partisan banter. Your claim that "Obama and the Democrats lied once more," well okay, you're right. Sometimes the Democrats lie, but guess what, the GOP lies a lot too, so don't pretend that the GOP is somehow better than the Democrats. The only reason I have voted for Democrats (and remember, I do not belong to a party) is because they have a history of being better for people like me who work for a living. So, yes, people who vote Democrat are typically voting for their best interests, or they are voting for their morals. What would you rather? People who vote AGAINST their interests and AGAINST their morals? We have a democratized society, and the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. That means the government represents the people, and implicit in that, is that the voice and interest of the people is heard, and that happens when you vote your interests and morals. Even if you are right, again, it is .003% of Americans that actually get abortions, and 20% of Americans live in poverty. So, the immediate issue is we need to do something about the poverty and social immobility (which, studies have shown, actually leads to MORE unwanted pregnancies, and I can explain, if you'd like). 20% is a much higher proportion than .003%
Please, let's stick to objective facts. There is not a separate reality for "conservatives (who are not very conservative)," and "liberals (who aren't actually liberal according to the definition of the word)." There is only one reality. So, let us talk about the nature of the objective reality using facts. Partisan talking points are just cheerleading for a "team," the do not get us closer to the objective truth.
What a shock, you did not name one law passed by the GOP to eliminate or cut social programs. I'm still waiting for the moral laws that the GOP is supposed to be shoving down our throats. As always, you are liars!
I name law after law from Democrats forcing their PC moral values down our throats! I give facts & you liars give rhetoric!
You proved my point once more. Unless you watch Fox news, you will not hear about Obamacre heath care insurance exchanges not separating funds for abortions as they claimed they would. How do you like having the thought Police control what you hear on the news? Did you hear the news on Benghazi, Fracking, Global warming in the past few days? if you want to hear the news, try watching Fox & then maybe you won't be so ignorant to what's going on in the world.
I actually did, and I even gave you a link to one of them. The GOP does not have to pass laws to cut funding, they can also block funding to programs that would make them work properly so that they can appeal to uneducated Republicans who do not think critically or do research, and tell them the program wasn't working. Please read what I take the time to write. It isn't partisan drivel, it actually fact-based. I'm doing what they call "debating."
Here's another example of when the Republicans cut a government program that helped poor/working class people: remember when they almost unanimously voted to cut unemployment benefits? That's another example. Remember what your party line is: "cut spending (except corporate welfare, prisons, and wars. Apparently we have money for those)/cut taxes (on the rich)." The Democrat party line (according to "conservatives") is "spend, spend, spend." What they are "spending" on are programs for the working class, disabled and veterans: all things every other developed country has down, but we cannot even though we are the best, most wealthy nation in the world.
Quit spewing the same tired lies of how the GOP wants only welfare for the Rich. This is why I can not read all of your posts. When I hear continuing lies & rhetoric, I tune out because you are not worth debating. What you call welfare for the rich is actually subsidies actually designed to CREATE JOBS, not make Rich people more rich. Or it is for exploration to find more natural resources. But keep spewing lies. Welfare for the poor is done purely to give handouts to the poor. The Rich are not given money to buy food or rent. It is money given to corporations designed to spur job creation or other benefits to ALL OF US!
Yes the GOP wanted to stop giving out unemployment benefits non stop for years past their scheduled finish. The unemployed had used up whatever they paid into the unemployment system long before it stops. Those evil Rich people you hate so much pay for half of all that unemployment given to workers. But they are only worthy of your scorn. Do you have a brain? Do you understand human nature? Many many people will keep living off unemployment & working under the table for as long as bleeding heart idiots keep giving it to them. Can you even grasp the simplest form of human nature? Unemployment is not meant to go on for ever. It's sad that we have a Liberal President that has no clue how to get our economy going because he is so lost in his ideology of securing the low income votes for Democrats. He makes enemies of business & forces them to pay for Obamacare, & the highest corporate tax in the world. so blame him for unemployment.
Quit spewing the same tired lies of how the GOP wants only welfare for the Rich. This is why I can not read all of your posts. When I hear continuing lies & rhetoric, I tune out because you are not worth debating.
You actually are the one using rhetoric here. I am using facts and logic to support my arguments. I do not belong to a party, so it would be impossible for me to use partisan rhetoric.
What you call welfare for the rich is actually subsidies actually designed to CREATE JOBS, not make Rich people more rich.
We know it does not work to create jobs, and all it does is make people more rich, in practice, so why does the GOP keep giving out corporate welfare? We know it doesn't work, factually. In practice, it just makes people more rich, and I find it strange that they tell YOU that it is meant to create jobs, and you believe them, despite the objective facts, but that is why I do not subscribe to partisan politics: I am not prepared to give my mind over to a pundit.
But keep spewing lies.
That's an argumentum ad hominem, not a valid debate point.
Welfare for the poor is done purely to give handouts to the poor.
That is an over-simplification fallacy. Welfare for the poor is done for a variety of reasons. One of them is that the level of abject poverty you would see in the US today with the low wages people are paid today would be on par with the level of poverty seen in the 19th century. It would be embarrassing to be the only developed country in the world where working people starve to death and children go hungry at school.
The Rich are not given money to buy food or rent.
That's because they are rich and don't need help paying their bills.
It is money given to corporations designed to spur job creation or other benefits to ALL OF US!
History has proven that this claim is false. Trickle-down theory does not work, and it never has. If it worked, we would have the largest middle class in the world right now, and we don't. It's actually shrinking.
Yes the GOP wanted to stop giving out unemployment benefits non stop for years past their scheduled finish. The unemployed had used up whatever they paid into the unemployment system long before it stops.
Okay, now how is that something that makes the country a better place to live for people like me?
Those evil Rich people you hate so much pay for half of all that unemployment given to workers.
First of all, not all rich people are evil. Secondly, I do not hate rich people, that would be classist. Thirdly, they pay for half of unemployment because they have been made to do so by law, not because they are benevolent and want to help, and you should know that.
Do you have a brain?
That is an argumentum ad hominem, and not a valid argument point. I obviously possess a brain because I am bringing factual arguments to this debate, and I am typing on a keyboard, which requires some level of cognitive functionality, so the fact that I am even typing anything at all should prove to you that I do, in fact, have a brain. My motor skills alone should be enough evidence for that.
Do you understand human nature?
Yes. I've seen the best and the worst of it too.
Many many people will keep living off unemployment & working under the table for as long as bleeding heart idiots keep giving it to them.
Most people do not want to be unemployed. I don't know anyone who does that, and I am a working class guy, so I am one of those "evil peasants" you hate so much.
Unemployment is not meant to go on for ever.
Correct. Our so-called "job creators" should be creating decent paying jobs rather than exporting our jobs to communist china.
It's sad that we have a Liberal President that has no clue how to get our economy going because he is so lost in his ideology of securing the low income votes for Democrats.
That's an argumentum ad poplam, and it is based in partisan rhetoric. You do not know the man, and you do not know what's going on in his head. He has tried to propose several jobs bills to Congress, but they were soundly defeated by the GOP. You can verify that by going on any Congressional roll-call website. The GOP has blocked the President's jobs bills. He isn't very "liberal" either, if you actually pay attention to what he is doing, and stop believing every single word Glen Beck tells you.
That's the difference between you and I. I do not believe anything unless I research it myself, and you only believe what Fox News tells you to believe. I think that is a true statement, and it saddens me.
Can you even grasp the simplest form of human nature?
Yes. I've been to war twice, defending this country. War is pretty simple for human nature.
He makes enemies of business & forces them to pay for Obamacare, & the highest corporate tax in the world. so blame him for unemployment.
We also have the most tax loopholes in the world. Here are 20 corporations that paid 0% in income taxes or even got some back from the US Government. They are also some of our most profitable.
Company Symbol Net income Q2 2014 ($ mils)
Merck MRK $2,004
Seagate Tech. STX $320
Thermo Fisher TMO $278.5
General Motors GM $278
Public Storage PSA $276.8
Iron Mountain IRM $271.6
Newmont Mining NEM $180
Eaton ETN $171
Avalonbay AVB $158.1
Kimco Realty KIM $89.5
Prologis PLD $81.2
Boston Properties BXP $79.1
Apartment Investment AIV $77
Plum Creek Timber PCL $55
Citrix Systems CTXS $53
Crown Castle CTXS $53
Macerich MAC $16.1
News Corp. NWSA $13
Essex Prop. MRK $6.3
First Solar FSLR $4.5
Sources: S&P;Capital IQ, USA TODAY research
The reason we have the "highest corporate tax rate in the world" is because corporations aren't people, so no human being is actually getting taxed. Moreover, this has existed since BEFORE President Obama took office, so don't blame him for it. Would you rather have your personal taxes raised so that non-human corporate entities can be more comfortable despite them not actually having nerves or feelings because they aren't people? Taxation is part of civilization. You do not have to live in a civilized society. You can live for free in some subsaharan failed state.
Also the Affordable Care Act, is a Republican idea, and it is really just helping the insurance companies by giving them all of the American people. So, it's a very "conservative" idea because it relies on antiquated, market principles that don't work but help people get rich. A "liberal" alternative would be to have a single payer system and catch up with the rest of the world.
Why do people like you CONSTANTLY bring up the companies who paid no corporate taxes because of loop holes. if that were true in most cases, businesses would be flocking to have their head quarters in this nation, not moving them to other nations. It takes a little common sense to see through the rhetoric!
It is the GOP party that wants to overhaul our tax system & get rid of loop holes while lowering the highest corporate taxes on Earth. Sounds great if the Democrats would quit refusing to address it.
Why do people like you CONSTANTLY bring up the companies who paid no corporate taxes because of loop holes.
Because those companies are causing you and I to pay more by dodging taxes, and I feel that is important to mention.
if that were true in most cases, businesses would be flocking to have their head quarters in this nation, not moving them to other nations.
It's much easier to just move to communist china in the short-run, because then you don't have to worry about getting caught evading taxes. Moreover, our environmental protection laws, and worker's rights laws are seen as a threat to the bottom line of these corporate entities, so they move away. So, that's why.
It takes a little common sense to see through the rhetoric!
No it takes education, and non-partisan thinking to see that it's happening.
It is the GOP party that wants to overhaul our tax system & get rid of loop holes while lowering the highest corporate taxes on Earth.
They want to overhaul the tax system so that YOU pay higher taxes than GE, who hasn't paid taxes in a decade. I would rather non-human entities pay taxes than people, but that's just me.
Sounds great if the Democrats would quit refusing to address it.
I don't know about the Democrats. I don't follow party lines. I think for myself.
Well it's about time to ignore once again. When I hear the same lies & rhetoric of how Obamacare was a Republican idea when NOT ONE Republican voted for it. Why don't you ever address the fact that subsidies for corporations are designed around creating jobs, or other things designed around helping people, not making the owners richer.
You keep spewing the same lies that the Republicans want to take people off welfare & give them no food to eat. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We want stricter limits on welfare so that the able bodied people do not use the system & steal money from the truly needy. I would have able bodied people stand in food bank lines for food & thereby make them want to find a job. Is that starving them? No it is making them accountable for asking us to support them.
When I hear the same lies & rhetoric of how Obamacare was a Republican idea when NOT ONE Republican voted for it.
Well, we know factually that Mitt Romney invented it. Republicans tried to block it for political reasons, not because it doesn't help out big business, which is something Republicans like doing. Parties do things like this, and that's why I don't belong to a party, and instead, think for myself.
You keep spewing the same lies that the Republicans want to take people off welfare & give them no food to eat. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL, then why are they the ones that are always talking about taking people off welfare and cutting food stamps? It doesn't seem like much of a lie to me.
We want stricter limits on welfare so that the able bodied people do not use the system & steal money from the truly needy.
You sound like a "liberal" now.
I would have able bodied people stand in food bank lines for food & thereby make them want to find a job.
That system hasn't worked in the past. Also, most people on welfare programs work full time. So, how can you make people who work 40-60 hours a week stand in food bank lines, and how does that make them "want to get a job," if they already have one. Stop (let me take a page from your book) "spewing lies" that poor people are lazy, stupid, and choose to be poor. No one chooses to be poor! If you asked someone, "would you rather be rich, or poor" most everyone would say, "I want to be rich." Or if you asked, "would you rather be destitute, and live in the ghetto, or have a decent paying job," almost every would choose the latter.
Is that starving them? No it is making them accountable for asking us to support them.
You should be in favor of higher wages for workers, and increasing the minimum wage. If people were paid enough that they did not qualify for welfare, you might have a point.
Also, I wanted to point out that peppered thought this argument is argumentum ad hominem. Please try to refrain from doing that because it makes it appear as though I have frustrated you by being more educated and informed, so you just insult me personally rather than contend with my points raised.
I thought your "point" was a question about why Catholics tend to vote for the Democrats.
I name law after law from Democrats forcing their PC moral values down our throats! I give facts & you liars give rhetoric!
I have yet to see you actually name any specific piece of legislation, particularly one that "forces morals down our throats (God forbid we have a just, and moral society). Ironically, YOU have been giving us partisan rhetoric. I do not belong to a party, so I am incapable of giving you partisan rhetoric.
How do you like having the thought Police control what you hear on the news?
Let me ask you the same question: how do YOU like having the thought police control what you hear on the news? We do not have a government-controlled media, but we do have lots of media that is controlled by multinational corporations that have an agenda, like Fox News.
Did you hear the news on Benghazi, Fracking, Global warming in the past few days? if you want to hear the news, try watching Fox & then maybe you won't be so ignorant to what's going on in the world.
This is an absurd claim. Fox news is yellow journalism, and it's incredibly biased. In fact, it isn't news. It's a 24 hour cycle of pundits spewing rightwing partisan drivel. It is not objective, it is not fact-based, and it is not "fair and balanced." Journalism is not supposed to have a bias, it is supposed to be fact-based. The brand of "journalism" that Fox "news" brings to the table is cheap, and it is dishonest. There is not a separate reality for "conservatives." That means there is only ONE truth. So, if that truth does not jive with the right wing party line, the truth remains, which implicitly means the right wing is not on the side of objective truth.
To add to that, when I did belong to a party, I was a "conservative" Republican. I used to watch Fox "News," Newsmax, I listened to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Armstrong and Getty, and all the other right wing pundits. I denied science (like a good "conservative"), and thought the way the right wing told me to. Of course, this was BEFORE I went into the army and fought two wars, and BEFORE I became educated. So, please, do not think you are the only one who is privy to the "conservative" party line. I am well-versed in it, I just know better now because I am aware of the truth. Fox News and talk radio, are not the truth.
In addition to those points, I am well aware that four agents were killed at Benghazi. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to not know that. I also know that the Oil Companies are using secret chemicals and destroying the environment (the same one "conservatives" live in) with tracking. I am also aware that Global Warming is happening, and I am puzzled as to why "conservatives" are so adamant about denying science because it makes "conservatives" look ignorant and backwards.
If you would like to get back to the point of this argument, please do so. You have yet to show why the killing of unborn Babies is not the highest priority when you vote. Is life that meaningless to you? If you are Catholic, do you know what the Bible actually says?
It says God knows us in the womb. He says he knows what we will be in life. Does that bother you at all when you support Abortions on demand? Would you have supported Mother Mary's right & choice to have aborted Jesus?
If you would like to get back to the point of this argument, please do so.
That's funny because I've been trying to get you to get back on topic in a few of my other posts.
You have yet to show why the killing of unborn Babies is not the highest priority when you vote.
I've done nothing but explain that. I've shown you why I feel that we should take care of the larger issues first, and 20% of Americans (the US being the best, most wealthy country in the world) are living below the poverty line, and I want to ease the suffering of the 20% of poor people. Moreover, I've shown you that, as a veteran, it is in my interest to vote Democrat because they try to fund the VA, and expand it, which benefits me directly, while the GOP cuts the VA, or blocks funding to it.
Abortion is an issue that does not affect me, and only affects .003% of Americans who actually get them. It is not that it is meaningless, it's that it's a very small issue among many larger issues. I can never get an abortion, and hardly anyone every does. So, to me, poverty, social immobility, wealth inequality, veteran's issues, and education are important because those all affect more people.
If you are Catholic, do you know what the Bible actually says?
Yes: help the poor, help other people, tolerate all people, be kind to others, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, and do not judge others.
It says God knows us in the womb. He says he knows what we will be in life. Does that bother you at all when you support Abortions on demand?
I do not support "abortions on demand." Abortions are not simply the only issue affecting America, and I recognize that. The entire Democratic platform is not "abortions for everyone and to hell with every other issue." Again, I do not belong to a party. I am personally pro-life, so I will never get an abortion, but abortion isn't the only issue at stake, and I'm educated enough to know that.
Would you have supported Mother Mary's right & choice to have aborted Jesus?
I do not know what I would have said if I lived in Roman Judea and knew Mary, because I would have been a totally different person. This question begs a fallacy.
Can you grasp your argument? You are saying that the plight of poor people is more important to you than the killing of poor people? You are saying that since a person might be poor as he grows, we might as well kill him so he won't be poor? Can you even grasp your argument?
It's nice how you you evade the simple question about supporting Mary's choice to abort Jesus. You do so because it shows the total fallacy of your argument.
It is not false. Oh they will always bring up the life of Mother, or extreme case abortions but the fact is, a woman can have a late term abortion for any reason in many states.
The majority of late term abortions are for special Olympic kids (Downs Syndrome). I guess special needs kids are not worthy of protection in your world.
Sources? CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS. They constantly cheerlead the pro abortion mind set in the Democrat party. Do you ever watch the Democrat conventions? GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any thinking person knows that the Democrat party is the party of abortion. In Texas when they wanted to ban elective abortions after 20 weeks. IT WAS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY FIGHTING IT!
Those networks are not the Democratic Party. Furthermore, I never disagreed that the Democratic Party supports abortion. Merely that it supports late-term abortion.
And really, you're the one who keeps saying that the Democratic Party supports late-term abortion, yet you never give me any proof.
Are you serious? Maybe you never listen to the news. How about Texas? Remember recently when they want to limit abortions on demand to 20 weeks? That's five months & guess what? The Democrats as ALWAYS were fighting them to allow abortions for any reason past that time frame. The GOP always allows life of mother or other extreme cases so this was purely for later term abortions for any reason.
I remember your so called token pro life Democrat in Congress during the debates on Obamacare. Guess what, he voted for Obamacare any ways even knowing it would force all Americans to pay for abortions. Spare me, we need no hypocrites or liars telling us how they are pro life to our face while supporting it behind doors.
