Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But I hate Ron Paul, too. He's a hypocrite. He accepted money from neo-Nazis.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
Justin Hoffer wrote:

2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.



More like 20 or more years. In addition many woman who abort children do so because they are not capable or inclined to raise them. Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.
That is not even getting into those children who are aborted because of severe defects.


You have just contradicted yourself on that one. It is against human instinct, but aborting your child is not?


Yes. Human instinct is developed from millions of years of evolution. The ability to abort a child on purpose has been around only a couple thousand (and for the vast majority of the worlds population probably less than 100 years).
The genes of mothers who abandon their children would not have been passed on and as a result only the genes of mothers who want to keep their children would be passed on. This forms "human instinct" Maybe in a few thousand years, it will be human instinct not to have abortions (since pro-lifers" would have more kids. But we are not their now. For right now, abortion is an abstract concept to "human instinct".


Decisions and making decisions on life do not seem to be passed down by genes, but by your own experiences and thought. Just because I am pro-life does not mean my children will take the same position as I will.

Mothers who abandon their children are not really abandoning them if they give them up for adoption, but giving them hope of a future that the biological mother could not give them.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd consider myself a libertarian conservative, however I'm not an atheist, a porn star, or a [well, I do have my vices] moral degenerate. That being said with regards to marriage I think the government should simply get out of the business of being in marriage altogether. The government issuing a slip of paper won't make relationships stronger. As for abortion, I'm pro-life in most cases, that's why I'm also against the death penalty, euthanasia, and wars of choice.

The states role in enforcing traditional values, who here trusts a federal bureaucrat to enforce "tradition values." If anything with regards to conserving our culture it's better left up to the local communities instead of a distant government. Decentralization will be a far more prudent way to create a better society than giving the federal government more power over the lives of individuals. If we give the state power to enforce traditional morality, then they can just as easily enforce a separate morality as well.

With regards to Ron Paul, yet, it's been noted that he received money from neo-Nazis. But he stated before that he's not a racist, nor has he ever supported any form of racism. But it's rich to call Ron Paul a hypocrite yet then support Mitt Romney who conveniently switched his position on abortion right before the GOP Presidential race began. I'm not looking for perfection from politicians, I'm simply looking for those who recognize that I'm better able to run my life than the government.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
I'm not looking for perfection from politicians, I'm simply looking for those who recognize that I'm better able to run my life than the government.

But the benevolent Nanny State will protect you right up until it assimilates you...

-Mac
John Larocque





Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 223
Reputation: 35Reputation: 35Reputation: 35
Location: North York, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hoffer wrote:
But I hate Ron Paul, too. He's a hypocrite. He accepted money from neo-Nazis.


Don't forget his association with the "truther" movement, by which I mean, he takes their money, and they use his name in Alex Jones' documentaries (where he, alongside Denis Kucinich) appear as heroic anti-Government figure who aren't part of the Obama/Bush/Clinton fascist cabal that initiated 9/11 and have been running America for a long time. (This isn't me talking, it's the Alex Jones koolaid)
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So this bashing is based on guilt by association and nothing else. It's like saying that if I fight for David Irvings right to freedom of speech I'm no different from a holocaust denier.

Their have been many conservative movements that have unfortunately attracted unsavoury characters, as with any other political movement. To ignore positions touted by an individual simply because of guilt by association is ridiculous.

We might as well judge McCain based on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ez2C4GwqE4
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
...That being said with regards to marriage I think the government should simply get out of the business of being in marriage altogether. The government issuing a slip of paper won't make relationships stronger...

While I agree, there's some necessary implications to that position that many would be uncomfortable with. For instance, the end of spousal deductions, any kind of income splitting, and hundred other benefits of joint filiing. Perhaps even spousal protection against testifying in court, too. In the eyes of the law, marriages would become just another contract.
tanja





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:09 pm    Post subject: Small business Reply with quote

Well, Yes you can give up a child for adoption, but giving away your child once born goes against every human instinct and in many cases does not happen.
That is not even getting into those children who are aborted because of severe defects.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Why I don't trust Libertarians.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB