In a response to Nat
"Freedom, Peace and Choice make America Great. Democratic Party."
Of course, this only works because the "conservatives" have leaned toward becoming fascist, war hawks. It's interesting that a true conservative would espose two out of three of the above on the basis of personal liberties and responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Maybe I'm confused, but aren't "freedom" and "choice" essentially the same thing?
While they could be contrued that way, I meant freedom in the bill of rights sort of way and choice as in pro-choice.
Freedom, Peace, and Choice.
I think any conservative would agree on those three. I am not so sure about a liberal.
Freedom and choice. I agree with the previous poster that these two, at least in this context, are the same. However, I fear that liberals do not want this. I hope I am incorrect in this belief, however I am seeing more evidence that this is not the case. Where is choice and freedom, when a country or state makes it illegal for me to use an incandescent lightbulb? Where is choice and freedom when I cannot teach my own children in my home as is the case currently in California? Where is choice and freedom when I want basic health insurance, but there is no such thing because of regulation? Where is choice and freedom when I cannot own a weapon for self-defense? Where is choice and freedom when I cannot send my children to something other than a government controlled school without being penalized in my taxes?
You get the idea. Liberals are pushing socialism. Not freedom. Not choice. And yet I have not even addressed peace.
Conservatives are frequently accused of being "War Hawks" or "Imperialists". The real question that needs answering is whether there is any time that war is valid. Would you have gone into WWII? Why? Was it because of Pearl Harbor? Would an attack on our shores have justified war? What about Hitler's massacre of millions? Does genocide justify war?
If an attack on our shores justifies war then 9/11 justified war. If genocide justifies war then Hussein justified war. Either way, we are in a war. A war that we are winning. WWII took many years to fight, many lives to win, and many more years to clean up after. We spent millions of America's finest men in WWII. Was it worth it? Ask a veteran.
Evil is in the world and we must fight it. If we had not conceded to Hitler early, we might not have had the massive cost in lives that it took to take care of him later. If we let radical islam become a big threat, we will spend more lives fighting it later, than we will now.
Freedom is not free. Neither is peace. "Those who would give up freedom in order to gain peace and security do not deserve either."
I recognize that most people wouldn't define life as beginning at conception, but what the heck kind of difference does birth make? Draw a better line. I mean, if you're going to abort a baby a day before it's born, you might as well just wait until it is born, and then kill it to avoid potential for complications. Same frigging thing.
...My plan is to back up my genetic material and disable undesired means of distribution thereof. A little bit of foresight can save people a lot of trouble.
Good point. The debate about abortion is not about choice, but about when is it human. As soon as it is human then it is murder to kill it. This is why conservitives are pro-life. We believe that life begins at conception and therfore to abort a fetus is to murder a child.
However, if life does not begin at conception, then it is not murder to abort the fetus as long as it happens before it is human. But when is it human?
If you are eager to ban abortion, are you also pushing the government to provide mandatory pre-natal care to any pregnant woman? Are you in support of an extension to welfare to provide for a wardrobe change necessitated by carrying a baby to term and the additional nutritional needs of the mother? Are you prepared to support an increase in taxes to help unburden the already overtaxed social services when the child is born and placed for adoption? Are you making plans to adopt one of these unwanted children?
Do you support abstainance only sex ed? Because to put your head in the ground and hope people aren't going to have sex is ludicrous. Yes, the avg age of loss of virginity goes up, but they're more likely to contract a STI on their first time out of the gate.
If you say it's not the government's place to provide these services, then it's not the government's place to ban abortion either. Whoever you feel should provide these services should be free to encourage women to not have abortions in a civil way.
Abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. It should be safe, legal and rarely used.
That being said, I'm not even a Democrat. Nat's assignment was to develop a slogan for them that could be equally powerful as "God, Guts and Guns" and encompassed their power base.
Post a Comment