How pro-choice are democrats, really?

Ok, so I'm picking on democrats only because that is the name of the video, and this takes place at the democratic convention. There is just as much idiocy, hypocrisy, lunacy, and any other type of -acy on the other side of the isle.

That said, this really does expose a rank hypocrisy on both sides.







Fixed
Post edited by (SF) DirtyRatFink at 9/5/2012 2:06:24 PM

For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

God help us.......That was the most painful thing I have ever seen in my life.

People aren't just made up of contradictions, they are a walking, talking, contradiction.

"You have the right to choice.......my choice." That's ultimately what they were really saying over and over again.



Perhaps more of us might get it one day.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/5/2012 2:26:03 PM

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.

And you have every right to try to help them........

Just as they have ever right to help themselves.

Outside of that your ability to push your beliefs onto others is null and void. Other people are not your property, they are not your pet (as Pixel so beautifully illustrated with his stupid cartoon )

I have no more of a right to tell you how to live your life than you have a right to tell me how to manage mine.

Good intentions, good ideas, good "RESULTS" be damned.

But its not just there. It's everywhere. I swear 95% of the posters here are the same. And most of the cats here are actually pretty smart. When you see it in front of you on video, it's pretty easy to just write it off as editing. I mean, how many people would they have to interview to find people who so clearly don't know what they believe? But in fact, almost everyone will answer along the same lines.

I seem to remember a number of people here in support of the ridiculous 16oz drink ban. I bet most of those same people are pro choice.

If you are free to make a choice what you do with your own body, but you can't make a choice that we dont agree with, then is it a choice. Not by the definition of choice. And if you can only follow the choice we give you, are you free? Not by the definition of free.

So you don't have free choice. You don't have any choice. Might as well call it pro-, well, I don't know what word is the opposite of choice, or it would fit there perfectly.

I guess the real question is, if you willingly allow someone else to own your body, and make your choices, does that make you a slavery loving libertarian?

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.

So you admit that you are pro-choice, so long as I make the choice you allow me to make?

I hate getting into personal shit........

But my own Mother just recently drank herself to death.

No amount of intervention, rehab, or begging her to quit was ever able to work.

There is no such thing as addiction, only things that people enjoy doing far more than living.

You would think that if anyone would be a poster child for substance control I would be......fighting this shit with someone I loved so much my entire life.

Yet, I'm not. What happened to me doesn't change the reality of addiction or the reality of how the world works. No matter how closely and emotionally this specific topic personally involves me.

Originally posted by: Mockery
I hate getting into personal shit........

But my own Mother just recently drank herself to death.

No amount of intervention, rehab, or begging her to quit was ever able to work.

There is no such thing as addiction, only things that people enjoy doing far more than living.

You would think that if anyone would be a poster child for substance control I would be......fighting this shit with someone I loved so much my entire life.

Yet, I'm not. What happened to me doesn't change the reality of addiction or the reality of how the world works. No matter how closely and emotionally this specific topic personally involves me.

Sorry to hear that man

Glad you are able to keep a clear head about it.

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
But its not just there. It's everywhere. I swear 95% of the posters here are the same. And most of the cats here are actually pretty smart. When you see it in front of you on video, it's pretty easy to just write it off as editing. I mean, how many people would they have to interview to find people who so clearly don't know what they believe? But in fact, almost everyone will answer along the same lines.

I seem to remember a number of people here in support of the ridiculous 16oz drink ban. I bet most of those same people are pro choice.

If you are free to make a choice what you do with your own body, but you can't make a choice that we dont agree with, then is it a choice. Not by the definition of choice. And if you can only follow the choice we give you, are you free? Not by the definition of free.

So you don't have free choice. You don't have any choice. Might as well call it pro-, well, I don't know what word is the opposite of choice, or it would fit there perfectly.

I guess the real question is, if you willingly allow someone else to own your body, and make your choices, does that make you a slavery loving libertarian?

That is exactly it, DRF..........

The problem is that most people don't evaluate their beliefs beyond what initially makes them feel good.

If people sincerely evaluated their beliefs, or anything they believe, to the degree you just did the world would be a far more tolerant place to live in.

Unfortunately we think with our feelings more than we do with our mind. Like skipping a rock along a puddle, people really don't dive down much beyond that. A philosophical and inquisitive mind isn't a predominantly occurring mind......especially not anymore......it has all but been considered a sickness and a mental illness this day and age.

That's probably why this movie was (much like the clip above) so unbelievably painful to watch.



We are all but living it today.......with zero prospects of improvement in the future.
Post edited by Mockery at 9/5/2012 2:49:29 PM

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.

So you admit that you are pro-choice, so long as I make the choice you allow me to make?

Lets not make huge generalizations but overall I have always been pro-choice except on things like Heroin and drugs that take the choice out of the users hands. I'm only for legalization Pot. Nothing more.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.

So you admit that you are pro-choice, so long as I make the choice you allow me to make?

Lets not make huge generalizations but overall I have always been pro-choice except on things like Heroin and drugs that take the choice out of the users hands. I'm only for legalization Pot. Nothing more.

So are you in favor of banning all other addictive substances too (even currently legal ones)?

Because if that is your requisite for something not being legal we can start to define a list.

I'd personally be interested in seeing how you personally define addiction. Is it always the product of a substance, a psychological mindset, or is it physical mechanism?

I'm pretty sure I know of someone in that video you posted, DRF!


I'm verifying it now.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
For everyone on both sides, I know that most of you are pro choice. So, if the argument is that a woman has the right to choose because it is her own body, how do you reconcile taking away someones right to drink sugary drinks? Or how do you reconcile that with not allowing someone to shoot heroin?

I agree on the soda. heroin however takes any choice you have away because you become an addict. If you have been around someone that uses that drug you can see they are almost powerless to the addiction. It's a sad thing to see.

So you admit that you are pro-choice, so long as I make the choice you allow me to make?

Lets not make huge generalizations but overall I have always been pro-choice except on things like Heroin and drugs that take the choice out of the users hands. I'm only for legalization Pot. Nothing more.

So are you in favor of banning all other addictive substances too (even currently legal ones)?

Because if that is your requisite for something not being legal we can start to define a list.

I'd personally be interested in seeing how you personally define addiction. Is it always the product of a substance, a psychological mindset, or is it physical mechanism?

C'mon man. Not all addictions are close. Physical addictions like Herion can kill you. You are almost never able to just stop. Booze, cigarettes and Pot have varying degrees of addiction but it is possible to stop unlike opiates for example.

We are not gonna agree on this. I respect you want to make everything legal. Just as I would hope you respect my view that we would be making the biggest mistake this country has ever made by doing that.
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin

Up! Up! Up! ..and Away!!!

=========

While I do believe that the mother does have a choice, the father and the life inside do not. My premise is founded on the belief that the life inside has the Right to life except in special circumstances such as incest (which I believe most everyone can agree on) or clearly threatens the life of the mother.

There is no easy answer or middle ground on this.

Snake, how many people in 1000 do you wager are sitting around wishing that heroin was legal so that they could try it? there has to be a percentage of people who have never used it but really want to, because if there isnt then your argument is empty.

As for the people who already do it, do you believe they would use it more frequently if it was legal? Is their usage limited by a legality, or by limited funds?

Basically, I don't think that anyone who wants to use heroin isnt already. Therefore nothing would change, yet prison populations would be drastically reduced as would be the associated tax burden.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


Up! Up! Up! ..and Away!!!

=========

While I do believe that the mother does have a choice, the father and the life inside do not. My premise is founded on the belief that the life inside has the Right to life except in special circumstances such as incest (which I believe most everyone can agree on) or clearly threatens the life of the mother.

There is no easy answer or middle ground on this.

So where in life do you cease to support the right to choose what you do with your own body?

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


Up! Up! Up! ..and Away!!!

=========

While I do believe that the mother does have a choice, the father and the life inside do not. My premise is founded on the belief that the life inside has the Right to life except in special circumstances such as incest (which I believe most everyone can agree on) or clearly threatens the life of the mother.

There is no easy answer or middle ground on this.

So where in life do you cease to support the right to choose what you do with your own body?

Until you can separate the child from the mother, there is no clear answer. We all know it is a symbiotic relationship -it's not like humans drop fucking eggs somehwere and let them hatch.

So conversely, if the mother has Rights, are you for denying that the child and father do not?

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-


Up! Up! Up! ..and Away!!!

=========

While I do believe that the mother does have a choice, the father and the life inside do not. My premise is founded on the belief that the life inside has the Right to life except in special circumstances such as incest (which I believe most everyone can agree on) or clearly threatens the life of the mother.

There is no easy answer or middle ground on this.

So where in life do you cease to support the right to choose what you do with your own body?

Until you can separate the child from the mother, there is no clear answer. We all know it is a symbiotic relationship -it's not like humans drop fucking eggs somehwere and let them hatch.

So conversely, if the mother has Rights, are you for denying that the child and father do not?

Ok, I gave you a chance, I thought I must have been mistaken, but you have apparently missed the point of the thread, which greatly surprises me.

This thread has little to do with abortion, and there is zero intention of sparking a debate on such.

I am only concerned with the hypocrisy involved when people can believe a in a right to your own body in one instance, and turn around in the next and contradict themselves.

Wake up, Slappy.

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink

Ok, I gave you a chance, I thought I must have been mistaken, but you have apparently missed the point of the thread, which greatly surprises me.

This thread has little to do with abortion, and there is zero intention of sparking a debate on such.

I am only concerned with the hypocrisy involved when people can believe a in a right to your own body in one instance, and turn around in the next and contradict themselves.

Wake up, Slappy.

Do I detect you losing your cool? You need to regain your composure.

The over arching point is about Rights and with those Rights comes responsibility -personal responsibility.

What you are failing to grasp is that abortion is inherently part of this conversation since you clearly elaborated about what you can do with your body and the video uses it as the baseline to display the hypocrisy between sodas and 'pro-choice'. That is your error, not mine.

Would you like to know more?

Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Actually, DRF is indirectly slamming you over your support for soda bans and your underlined comment above cements your hypocrisy.

You big gvt lover you.

i'm concerned for the persecuted christians in this country. very concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixel
i'm concerned for the persecuted christians in this country. very concerned.

As well you should be, they are used to doing the persecuting....not being persecuted.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Actually, DRF is indirectly slamming you over your support for soda bans and your underlined comment above cements your hypocrisy.

You big gvt lover you.

I support soda bans? Hmm, that's news to me. I don't support big government either. We should fire all 545 of them right now.

& Pixel, my thoughts on pro-life have nothing to do with religion.
Post edited by Stoneymontana at 9/5/2012 6:16:44 PM

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: Pixel
i'm concerned for the persecuted christians in this country. very concerned.

As well you should be, they are used to doing the persecuting....not being persecuted.

That's a total BS statement. Walk into a prison & poll all the inmates on their belief in God & Jesus Christ. Get back to me in what your results are.

There are far more religious people in the country then non-believers. Yet you think the people with the majority are the least persecuted?

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
soda bans

Wait, I thought we agreed that was the best idea of the twenty-first century so far. Why are we rehashing it?

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
soda bans

Wait, I thought we agreed that was the best idea of the twenty-first century so far. Why are we rehashing it?

We thought that it should be re-examined under the scope of your new found libertarianism.

Alright, Mr. "Yeah I guess slavery is a reasonable practice now that I think about it."

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Alright, Mr. "Yeah I guess slavery is a reasonable practice now that I think about it."

Actually, I never said that.

In addition, after thinking it over since last week, I have in my mind a clearer answer for you. I will post it back over there, so as not to hijack this very nice thread from such a super guy.

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: Pixel
i'm concerned for the persecuted christians in this country. very concerned.

As well you should be, they are used to doing the persecuting....not being persecuted.

That's a total BS statement. Walk into a prison & poll all the inmates on their belief in God & Jesus Christ. Get back to me in what your results are.

There are far more religious people in the country then non-believers. Yet you think the people with the majority are the least persecuted?

What? LoL

First it was said in fun, secondly, what does what you claim have to do with anything?

Although it was a VERY small sample...perhaps the U.S SHOULD move to a totalitarian state.

People are obviously idiots!
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Actually, DRF is indirectly slamming you over your support for soda bans and your underlined comment above cements your hypocrisy.

You big gvt lover you.

I support soda bans? Hmm, that's news to me. I don't support big government either. We should fire all 545 of them right now.

& Pixel, my thoughts on pro-life have nothing to do with religion.

O RLY?

Here's a reminder and why you were hammered for days over this:

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: William T. Sherman
Nobody is banning soda, just over sized soda cups. That is encouragement. You have to understand, the logic behind this kind of policy is based in human psychology. The goal is effectively to trick people into drinking less soda by only allowing restaurants to serve smaller amounts. People drink and eat what you put in front of them, so if you put less soda in front of them they drink less soda.

And about the marijuana thing. Marijuana is not nearly as bad for your lungs as cigarettes are, and NYC has the highest cigarette prices in the country. We also banned trans fats a while ago too. So this policy is totally consistent with a lot of other stuff that's happened here.

Edit: Bloomberg is in his 3rd term and can't run again, so he doesn't give a fuck about what anybody thinks of him or this policy.

I 100% agree. Nobody is preventing them from drinking as much soda as they want to. Just the size of the serving in one purchase. If you want more, go buy more. But the odds are they won't go buy anymore.
Vs. how it currently is, they will go to the refill machine 3 or 4 times before they leave the place & suck down a gallon of soda in one sitting.

/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=9&threadid=481996&page=4

Now I am certain you will try to say that you support a ban on the cups and not soda... you really have no choice because you said it above.

What you dont realize is that you support limiting choice for people... while clearly stating you support choice in the first quote.

This is why you're a hypocrite.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
soda bans

Wait, I thought we agreed that was the best idea of the twenty-first century so far. Why are we rehashing it?

I recall you decided to retreat behind your ideological Maginot Line instead of trying to weave your way through the Ardennes to secure a foothold for an illegitimate occupation.

Something along the lines of... "dont waste words".

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Actually, DRF is indirectly slamming you over your support for soda bans and your underlined comment above cements your hypocrisy.

You big gvt lover you.

I support soda bans? Hmm, that's news to me. I don't support big government either. We should fire all 545 of them right now.

& Pixel, my thoughts on pro-life have nothing to do with religion.

O RLY?

Here's a reminder and why you were hammered for days over this:

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: William T. Sherman
Nobody is banning soda, just over sized soda cups. That is encouragement. You have to understand, the logic behind this kind of policy is based in human psychology. The goal is effectively to trick people into drinking less soda by only allowing restaurants to serve smaller amounts. People drink and eat what you put in front of them, so if you put less soda in front of them they drink less soda.

And about the marijuana thing. Marijuana is not nearly as bad for your lungs as cigarettes are, and NYC has the highest cigarette prices in the country. We also banned trans fats a while ago too. So this policy is totally consistent with a lot of other stuff that's happened here.

Edit: Bloomberg is in his 3rd term and can't run again, so he doesn't give a fuck about what anybody thinks of him or this policy.

I 100% agree. Nobody is preventing them from drinking as much soda as they want to. Just the size of the serving in one purchase. If you want more, go buy more. But the odds are they won't go buy anymore.
Vs. how it currently is, they will go to the refill machine 3 or 4 times before they leave the place & suck down a gallon of soda in one sitting.

/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=9&threadid=481996&page=4

Now I am certain you will try to say that you support a ban on the cups and not soda... you really have no choice because you said it above.

What you dont realize is that you support limiting choice for people... while clearly stating you support choice in the first quote.

This is why you're a hypocrite.

Don't be a tool.

He clearly said he wants to turn one choice into 3 or 4 choices.

Originally posted by: Coba|t
Don't be a tool.

He clearly said he wants to turn one choice into 3 or 4 choices.

More choices! Who could disagree?
Post edited by the wierdo at 9/5/2012 8:17:00 PM

Originally posted by: Coba|t
Don't be a tool.

He clearly said he wants to turn one choice into 3 or 4 choices.

Stay out of conversations too complicated for your statist "Owebama, 2 terms" programming.

If you ever figure out that limiting choice does not equal being pro-choice, your head would explode.

That might not be such a bad thing.

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: Pixel
i'm concerned for the persecuted christians in this country. very concerned.

As well you should be, they are used to doing the persecuting....not being persecuted.

Even in the Middle Ages, the Christians were rank amateurs.

So when are you guys going to update to a view of the world that's isn't 400 years out of date?

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Not that i believe anybody will ever get roe vs. wade overturned, so i don't know why it's always brought up in elections.


But i'm pro-life, with an exception or two.

Actually, DRF is indirectly slamming you over your support for soda bans and your underlined comment above cements your hypocrisy.

You big gvt lover you.

I support soda bans? Hmm, that's news to me. I don't support big government either. We should fire all 545 of them right now.

& Pixel, my thoughts on pro-life have nothing to do with religion.

O RLY?

Here's a reminder and why you were hammered for days over this:

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: William T. Sherman
Nobody is banning soda, just over sized soda cups. That is encouragement. You have to understand, the logic behind this kind of policy is based in human psychology. The goal is effectively to trick people into drinking less soda by only allowing restaurants to serve smaller amounts. People drink and eat what you put in front of them, so if you put less soda in front of them they drink less soda.

And about the marijuana thing. Marijuana is not nearly as bad for your lungs as cigarettes are, and NYC has the highest cigarette prices in the country. We also banned trans fats a while ago too. So this policy is totally consistent with a lot of other stuff that's happened here.

Edit: Bloomberg is in his 3rd term and can't run again, so he doesn't give a fuck about what anybody thinks of him or this policy.

I 100% agree. Nobody is preventing them from drinking as much soda as they want to. Just the size of the serving in one purchase. If you want more, go buy more. But the odds are they won't go buy anymore.
Vs. how it currently is, they will go to the refill machine 3 or 4 times before they leave the place & suck down a gallon of soda in one sitting.

/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=9&threadid=481996&page=4

Now I am certain you will try to say that you support a ban on the cups and not soda... you really have no choice because you said it above.

What you dont realize is that you support limiting choice for people... while clearly stating you support choice in the first quote.

This is why you're a hypocrite.

Are you that stupid? Banning & limitations are not the same thing. Where do i saw ban sodas. I didn't, so move along & attempt to troll someone else. Next!
If you don't know the definitions of banning & limitations then i'm sorry, nobody can help you.