Would Today's Republican Party Oppose Slavery?

[Q Classic]

what about those people on the democratic side who believe in welfare, are pro-life, and anti-capital punishment? are they also jesus nazis?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you don't have an obligation to take care of a helpless baby that only you can save, then I have no obligation to pay for welfare to keep someone who is not helpless alive.

Liberals have some platform issues.

Fair enough.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you don't have an obligation to take care of a helpless baby that only you can save, then I have no obligation to pay for welfare to keep someone who is not helpless alive.

People who are born are contributing members of society. Each one of them has the right to welfare if they need it. Each one of them is obligated to pay for it if they don't. This is completely different. A fetus has no obligation to the person who gives birth to it.

[chequita guevara]

Jesus Nazis! I love it!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
if by issues you mean "problems", conservatives have issues too.

like the "every life is sacred" and then "RAH RAH RAH! GO EXECUTION!" bit.

I don't see "every life is sacred" from anyone but the Catholic Church, which is also opposed to the DP. "Innocent life is sacred" would be closer to what you're talking about, AND consistent.

[Q Classic]

I don't see "every life is sacred" from anyone but the Catholic Church, which is also opposed to the DP.

actually, you got that wrong. the Catholic Church things "every sperm is sacred", whereas many Christian denominations, at least with lip service, say that "every life is sacred". of course, we could then keep arguing semantics further: what about the true meaning of that commandment: is it "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder"?

i'm just trying to see why patroklos wants to call them jesus nazis. how is that any different from calling radical feminists feminazis?

admittedly, i don't like either radical sect, but it's just interesting to note that it's the right that whines when bush is compared to hitler, and then proceeds to make its own slurs to a whole group of people, rather than just a select few.

[Q Classic]

People who are born are contributing members of society.

how does an infant contribute to society? by making piles of crap for more people to dispose of? seriously, you materialists in this disgusting corporate society...

Each one of them has the right to welfare if they need it. Each one of them is obligated to pay for it if they don't. This is completely different.

what about those people who need it but don't get it because of the fact that they have a job that pays just enough to not receive welfare, but whose pay is markedly below what is considered the poverty line?
what about those people who don't need it but get it? and by don't need it, i mean those who sponge off the government and refuse self-betterment, thinking it easier to just not work and soak up what is essentially free money?

A fetus has no obligation to the person who gives birth to it.

so you say. it's my understanding that a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, a teen, and a young adult have enormous obligations to its parents. so much so that filial piety is an enormous part of their upbringing. of course, this could just be confucianism talking, but.

[GhengisFarb™]

Re: Would Today's Republican Party Oppose Slavery?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Or would would they say it's a state's rights issue?

Would today's Republican Party start the Civil War to keep the Union together?

The oroginal GOP was a party that argued for more power to the Federal government and less power to the states. The Democrats and Republicans switched positions somewhere along the way. What happened?

The Republicans still hold a similiar position to what they originally held, its simply the conservative side now as opposed to the liberal side.

Republicans gave up their lives to end slavery, abolition of slavery was one of the founding goals of the Republican party.

Democrats gave up their lives to keep slavery in existence, the Democratic Party has never officially renounced its pro slavery position to my knowledge.

[Patroklos]

Actually that comment was a sligt against the Religious Right, and I find much more in common about their fanaticism and the the Nazi (used here just to denote fanaticism, but any fantic group will do) than comparing Bush to Hilter, which people do for a far different reason. No comparison.

I do use the term feminazi for the same reason.

what about those people on the democratic side who believe in welfare, are pro-life

Not that that string of beliefs are very promonent, but they wouldn't be Jesus Nazis unless of course they determine every decisions they make by using a thousand year old book (that they mis quoted). That term is irrespective of party affiliation, and was obviously used in context to my nominal politcal allies that I do not agree with on a host of issues, the religious right. Feel free to come up with a term for the religious left if you are so inclined.

People who are born are contributing members of society. Each one of them has the right to welfare if they need it. Each one of them is obligated to pay for it if they don't. This is completely different. A fetus has no obligation to the person who gives birth to it.

An extreme assumption on your part. But that brings up a good pont. The extremely elderly are not productive, as are some of the disabled. We shouldn't support them either by your abortion logic. At least the baby COULD be productive, while a good portion of those we keep alive now are obviously not and never will be.

[Ned]

Think back to Nixon. He was a very strong Federal rights kind of guy. He started Affirmative Action to force Southern unions to desegregate. He began revenue sharing and in general advanced Federal power more than any other president in history.

[chequita guevara]

Nixon was a leftist compared to today's Repugs.

[Ned]

You know it is funny that many young people think that Lincoln was a Democrat and that Republicans, not the Democrats, blocked civil rights legislation for a century after the burst in the immediate years following the Civil War.

Why do the think this?

(Why of course, they are taught this is school.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nixon was a leftist compared to today's Repugs.

Maybe.

But now consider Cali's complaint about Bush. She thinks HE is too liberal.

[Q Classic]

Actually that comment was a sligt against the Religious Right, and I find much more in common about their fanaticism and the the Nazi (used here just to denote fanaticism, but any fantic group will do) than comparing Bush to Hilter, which people do for a far different reason. No comparison.

many of those who compare Bush to Hitler do so for reasons of his aggresive foreign policy, which they see as expansionistic imperialism, and his support for the patriot act, which they see as an abridgement of personal liberties. both of which happened under hitler's leadership of germany in the 30s and 40s.

i'm just pointing out that comparing complete idiots to loaded terms related with nazism is a rather extreme and somewhat fanatical response as well. which is why you tend to only see vehement and fanatical opponents of bush equating him to nazism, and you tend to see those who are just as radically against radical feminists comparing them to the same.

besides, i don't who it's worse for. the non-nazis, who are too idiotic and inconsequential to ever rival the nazi's power, and probably unable to dream up anything as horrid, or the nazis, who are compared to impotent and retarded morons.

[Q Classic]

You know it is funny that many young people think that Lincoln was a Democrat and that Republicans, not the Democrats, blocked civil rights legislation for a century after the burst in the immediate years following the Civil War.

Why do the think this?

(Why of course, they are taught this is school.)

citation, please.