DescentBB

Apparently, the GOP is now convinced that they can just run ads featuring examples of those demographic groups that hate them at the polls, and their message will be magically accepted by those groups. To wit, they ran a series of ads with a 'hipster', who, as it turns out, is actually a pampered brat, whose current job is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts(a group the GOP consistently attempts to de-fund, ironically enough). The ad fails, if one can judge by the 15-1 negative/positive feedback on youtube. Best comment I read it the one quoted below, which sums up the Grand Old Party's longterm issues:




"My American Dream is one where women have control of their own bodies, very narrow religious morality isn't legislated, consenting adults can marry whoever they want, minorities aren't constantly demonized either overtly or through dog-whistle code words, where greed at the expense of human life and dignity are punished rather than rewarded, where scientific consensus is understood and accepted and where everyone feels it is their civic duty to help their brothers and sisters rise to their level rather than stamp them down into the dirt to elevate themselves.
This is why I will never vote Republican. Your party is an unholy marriage between the remnants of the Moral Majority, the southern racists that joined your party after Nixon courted them and Gordon Gekko. No. F***ing. Thanks"

callmeslick wrote:Apparently, the GOP is now convinced that they can just run ads featuring examples of those demographic groups that hate them at the polls, and their message will be magically accepted by those groups. To wit, they ran a series of ads with a 'hipster', ...

When in Rome...

callmeslick wrote:To wit, they ran a series of ads with a 'hipster', who, as it turns out, is actually a pampered brat, whose current job is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts

Dude... that's just funny. No wonder they're failing and flailing.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:To wit, they ran a series of ads with a 'hipster', who, as it turns out, is actually a pampered brat, whose current job is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts

Dude... that's just funny. No wonder they're failing and flailing.

Yes lets be more like Liberals, where women can "control" their bodies:

"The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as 'clinical waste' by hospitals in Britain with some used in 'waste to energy' plants"

I'm not sure if your last sentence was supposed to evoke a bad emotion woodchip, but I personally think that's great! Another source of renewable energy that we didn't know about...awesome!!

I agree Z, eventually the Libs will burn themselves out from existence.

You're right, that's exactly what will happen!!

Zuruck and Woodchip agree....buy those lotto tickets NAOW!

I'm trying to figure out what woodchip wants to do with all the dead babies. After I'm dead I hope my body can continue to be useful by providing information, food, and energy to the world.

vision wrote:I'm trying to figure out what woodchip wants to do with all the dead babies. After I'm dead I hope my body can continue to be useful by providing information, food, and energy to the world.

You know whats scary about you Vision? Your posts sound like Solyent Green is something you condone. When people like you start thinking human beings, when they die, should be treated like so much manure...marks the slow demise of all respect for human beings.

Personally I think it is rather disgusting that human beings spend their whole lives polluting the Earth, and then get pumped with toxic embalming fluids so they can poison the Earth more after they die. I'm also not a fan of cremation since that creates air pollution. Natural burial is the way to go. Why not use a deceased person for the benefit of all? It's not like the dead are going to need their bodies again, and recycling them helps prevent a zombie apocalypse. If people want to eat my body after I die, more power to them. Feed it to animals, plants, fungi, whatever. Use my organs to save lives. Use my body for science. If you can use my body as a green energy source then by all means do it. I won't be needing again.

It is not disrespect for the dead, but love for all living things.

well put, Vision.

callmeslick wrote:well put, Vision.

Now we have 2 necrobiotics.First we have a attack on religion and now we have to eat our dead. Ghouls.

My understanding is that incinerating aborted fetuses is the standard procedure for most hospitals. I believe that what they do with the resulting energy is the least morally relevant part of that practice.

vision wrote:I'm trying to figure out what woodchip wants to do with all the dead babies.

Perhaps letting them live instead…Dunno just a wild guess.

He said “babies” lol didn’t he mean blobs of non human non person extra body parts.

Spidey wrote:Perhaps letting them live instead…Dunno just a wild guess.

He can start helping the ones who are alive by adopting several thousand of the ones without parents, you know, because he is so full of caring and stuff.

Jeff250 wrote:My understanding is that incinerating aborted fetuses is the standard procedure for most hospitals. I believe that what they do with the resulting energy is the least morally relevant part of that practice.

thank you for that clarification.....further, to Woody, I merely agreed with what Vision wrote regarding his own personal decision about his own body. Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

callmeslick wrote: Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

No I won't tell you what to do with your body as you are capable (I think ) of making such a decision. The unborn don't have that luxury and to then treat their remains as nothing more than debris is unconscionable. I've buried my daughters pet rats when they died.

On a larger level what does it say about our human morality? When will we start looking at the permanently incapacitated and elderly in the same manner? If you do not see the start of the degradation of what it is to be human, that corpses are just so much trash then I can only shudder at what is over the horizon.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

No I won't tell you what to do with your body as you are capable (I think ) of making such a decision. The unborn don't have that luxury and to then treat their remains as nothing more than debris is unconscionable. I've buried my daughters pet rats when they died.

On a larger level what does it say about our human morality? When will we start looking at the permanently incapacitated and elderly in the same manner? If you do not see the start of the degradation of what it is to be human, that corpses are just so much trash then I can only shudder at what is over the horizon.

Ya know, I'd be all sympathetic to your cause of human baby suffering if your party wasn't the one who thinks that poor people are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing leeches that suckle off the teats of those generous rich people and who should be left to die or suck off the underbelly of society if they don't get off their lazy behinds and get one of those slave wage jobs that we have left in this country. Your party is all about making sure all babies be born regardless of circumstance, but are pretty lacking in any assistance to those babies, or their mothers and families once they ARE born and out in the world. Your party is the one who thinks that old people should be housed in smelly, retched, overpriced care facilities and be required to stay alive at all costs and suffering when death would be more compassionate, THEN thrown out and left to die once their insurance or their family's money runs out. And your party talks about morality. The only morality Republicans understand is based on capitalism, not compassion.

Nooot... I want to perpetuate themselves in the fossil record . To find me a hundred thousand years , and began to learn how dinosaurs. Or that my body was mummified nature. For example , I love to represent my mummy as a climber on Chomolungma or as mammoth in Yakutia in permafrost. Future scientists to find me and began to study the ancient twenty-first century on my remains. To understand how much radiation is in my bones . I want to become the subject of study , but not recycling.
The only thing I do not want this to be a mummy in the mausoleum . It's awful.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

No I won't tell you what to do with your body as you are capable (I think ) of making such a decision. The unborn don't have that luxury and to then treat their remains as nothing more than debris is unconscionable. I've buried my daughters pet rats when they died.

On a larger level what does it say about our human morality? When will we start looking at the permanently incapacitated and elderly in the same manner? If you do not see the start of the degradation of what it is to be human, that corpses are just so much trash then I can only shudder at what is over the horizon.

Ya know, I'd be all sympathetic to your cause of human baby suffering if your party wasn't the one who thinks that poor people are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing leeches that suckle off the teats of those generous rich people and who should be left to die or suck off the underbelly of society if they don't get off their lazy behinds and get one of those slave wage jobs that we have left in this country. Your party is all about making sure all babies be born regardless of circumstance, but are pretty lacking in any assistance to those babies, or their mothers and families once they ARE born and out in the world. Your party is the one who thinks that old people should be housed in smelly, retched, overpriced care facilities and be required to stay alive at all costs and suffering when death would be more compassionate, THEN thrown out and left to die once their insurance or their family's money runs out. And your party talks about morality. The only morality Republicans understand is based on capitalism, not compassion.

Ummm, did I anywhere equate my replies in this thread to any political party. As usual TC, you come out making preposterous claims (much like Harry Reid) based on nothing more than vapid ideology.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

No I won't tell you what to do with your body as you are capable (I think ) of making such a decision. The unborn don't have that luxury and to then treat their remains as nothing more than debris is unconscionable. I've buried my daughters pet rats when they died.

On a larger level what does it say about our human morality? When will we start looking at the permanently incapacitated and elderly in the same manner? If you do not see the start of the degradation of what it is to be human, that corpses are just so much trash then I can only shudder at what is over the horizon.

sorry, I hold the general populace to be bright enough to keep the distinctions clear.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Would Woody tell me how my body is to be utilized?

No I won't tell you what to do with your body as you are capable (I think ) of making such a decision. The unborn don't have that luxury and to then treat their remains as nothing more than debris is unconscionable. I've buried my daughters pet rats when they died.

On a larger level what does it say about our human morality? When will we start looking at the permanently incapacitated and elderly in the same manner? If you do not see the start of the degradation of what it is to be human, that corpses are just so much trash then I can only shudder at what is over the horizon.

Ya know, I'd be all sympathetic to your cause of human baby suffering if your party wasn't the one who thinks that poor people are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing leeches that suckle off the teats of those generous rich people and who should be left to die or suck off the underbelly of society if they don't get off their lazy behinds and get one of those slave wage jobs that we have left in this country. Your party is all about making sure all babies be born regardless of circumstance, but are pretty lacking in any assistance to those babies, or their mothers and families once they ARE born and out in the world. Your party is the one who thinks that old people should be housed in smelly, retched, overpriced care facilities and be required to stay alive at all costs and suffering when death would be more compassionate, THEN thrown out and left to die once their insurance or their family's money runs out. And your party talks about morality. The only morality Republicans understand is based on capitalism, not compassion.

Ummm, did I anywhere equate my replies in this thread to any political party. As usual TC, you come out making preposterous claims (much like Harry Reid) based on nothing more than vapid ideology.

The only party I see trying to push morals and abortion laws is the Republican Party and the tea party. Since you are always putting down liberals, that must mean you're a conservative, and by extension, a Republican, or a tea partier. I consider the tea party to be an offshoot of the Republican Party by the way, so you must adhere to most of their platform.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Perhaps letting them live instead…Dunno just a wild guess.

He can start helping the ones who are alive by adopting several thousand of the ones without parents, you know, because he is so full of caring and stuff.

Setting the bar a little high there?

I’m willing to bet conservatives adopt as many children if not more than liberals.

pure guesswork here, but I'd guess far more moderates adopt than true liberals and conservatives put together.

tunnelcat wrote:




The only party I see trying to push morals and abortion laws is the Republican Party and the tea party.

Good thing someone is pushing morals.

woodchip wrote:"The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as 'clinical waste' by hospitals in Britain with some used in 'waste to energy' plants"

LOL. Comedy gold.

because that right there is funny.

------

this thread turns into an abortion debate in three... two.. one.

Ferno wrote:LOL. Comedy gold.

Speaking of comedy gold, and because I didn't see slick post it anywhere, the following link takes you to the Daily Kos site where the videos can be seen along with some spectacular commentary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/2 ... creepy-ads

My god, they are actually worse than I imagined.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:


The only party I see trying to push morals and abortion laws is the Republican Party and the tea party.

Good thing someone is pushing morals.

What morals? Keep all babies safe from abortion, but turn a blind eye when they become poor and wards of the state, or worse, criminals locked up and left to rot. Help seniors, until they can't pay for housing, care and medicine, then they're forgotten and left to die a lonely death in poverty and misery. I see a twisted set of morals coming from Republicans nowadays.

tunnelcat wrote: The only party I see trying to push morals and abortion laws is the Republican Party and the tea party.

If you believe that, then you intentionally have your head in the sand

CUDA, I think I see your point of view........the Dems tend to push taking away restrictions on certain 'morality' matters, so you view that as 'pushing' a certain morality. I think TC was trying to state that the GOP is the only group trying to impose morality by law, and in that, she is quite correct. In other words, liberalizing the recognition of gay marriage doesn't force anyone to be gay, liberalizing abortion law doesn't force anyone to have an abortion. On the other hand, writing a law that prevents women from getting abortions DOES force certain options, as do laws that have been suggested that impose forced medical procedures(ultrasounds, etc).

It all comes down to the definition of who's a citizen....

The core value of the law is to protect citizens and their rights.... rights which can be at odds, forcing the government to arbitrate between them.

Republicans (generally) assert that the unborn are citizens, and that protecting those citizen's right to life is more important than protecting their mother right to autonomy - a decision that must be made since nature has forced the two to be at odds.

Democrats (generally) assert women's rights while completely ignoring the possibility of those unborn blobs being citizens... and try to make it into some kind of a "moral" thing where some people are pushing their narrow views on the rest of society. Everyone avoids the idea that a living, thinking, blob of human cells could possibly be a citizen because it would make a whole lot of people's lives a whole more less convenient...

As for the hypocrisy of fighting so hard over abortion, but ignoring the poor and hungry: you're right... but that doesn't excuse the killing of citizens - it just means that we all need to be better.

We'll fight about it for ages but....

If we ever get to the point where it's universally accepted that unborn children are citizens, we're going to look back at these days and call ourselves barbarians... just like we look back at slavery and say that was barbaric. (Funny how subtle forms of slavery still pervade our society.. yet we convince ourselves that we've progressed.)

how the hell can you call a non-viable pile of human tissue cells a 'citizen'? There is no certainty, until it happens, of a live birth. Never has been, never will be. Calling such 'citizens' is the most dubious interpretation of the word I could imagine.

callmeslick wrote:how the hell can you call a non-viable pile of human tissue cells a 'citizen'? There is no certainty, until it happens, of a live birth. Never has been, never will be. Calling such 'citizens' is the most dubious interpretation of the word I could imagine.

...And there we go with the argument.

1: How does "viability" pertain to citizenship/identity as a human individual?
2: How does age at the time of natural death pertain to citizenship/identity as a human individual?
3: How does age (in general) pertain to citizenship/identity as a human individual?

(I change to human individual because I think governments should protect people within their borders equally whether they are citizens of the country or not.)

If you want to start playing around with qualifiers to define who's a human individual (or citizen which is the term I used earlier) and who isn't, any don't we throw in skin color and gender as qualifiers, too? Don't you see the extreme hypocrisy in your stance? You fight tooth and nail for some people to be able to get "married" while you turn a blind eye to the murder of others.... you look on bigots with hatred because they define some races as non-human while you define certain ages/levels of independence as non-human. When you come back with all of your justifications for defining the unborn as non human that's fine if it lets you sleep at night... but know that the slave owners had their excuses that allowed them to sleep at night, too - and as far as I'm concerned you're both in the same boat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEsTCTuajE&feature=kp

EDIT: An illustration.

I'll totally support making abortion illegal if the following conditions are met:

1. Birth control is made available to people of any age. That means, for example, by the time a girl reaches puberty she would have unfettered access to birth control if she chooses it, whether her peers or parents disagree. (personal freedom)
2. Teach prepubescent children about sex and how horrible an abortion is (it really is horrible) and how to prevent unplanned pregnancies. Give them a mature understanding about sex and sexuality, which means it's not just about procreation and not only between opposite genders. Explain the importance of family and intimacy. Make this knowledge equal to reading, writing, and arithmetic.
3. Make legal exceptions for abortion due to rape and the mother's health. If the mother is in a real danger of dying from the pregnancy, cut that kid out. Better to lose one and let the mother try again than to potentially lose both.

If you really want an end to the "problem" of abortion, then there are the types of realistic compromises you need to make. If you don't want to compromise, then STFU.

I could agree with that.

tunnelcat wrote: Ya know, I'd be all sympathetic to your cause of human baby suffering if your party wasn't the one who thinks that poor people are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing leeches that suckle off the teats of those generous rich people and who should be left to die or suck off the underbelly of society if they don't get off their lazy behinds and get one of those slave wage jobs that we have left in this country. Your party is all about making sure all babies be born regardless of circumstance, but are pretty lacking in any assistance to those babies, or their mothers and families once they ARE born and out in the world. Your party is the one who thinks that old people should be housed in smelly, retched, overpriced care facilities and be required to stay alive at all costs and suffering when death would be more compassionate, THEN thrown out and left to die once their insurance or their family's money runs out. And your party talks about morality. The only morality Republicans understand is based on capitalism, not compassion.

Like! In Russia, even severely ill cancer people have many bureaucratic obstacles for even painkillers. Or paying crazy money to bribe doctors. Most often they are simply deceiving , but still take the money . I will always support the legalization of euthanasia in Russia . It hurts me to know that law-abiding , free people every day are forced to resort to a very painful and agonizing methods of suicide. At that time , they could just go to sleep forever surrounded by relatives. I believe that everyone should have the right to own and quietly die.

callmeslick wrote:how the hell can you call a non-viable pile of human tissue cells a 'citizen'? There is no certainty, until it happens, of a live birth. Never has been, never will be. Calling such 'citizens' is the most dubious interpretation of the word I could imagine.

Try researching how many murder charges will be applied if you kill a pregnant woman.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: The only party I see trying to push morals and abortion laws is the Republican Party and the tea party.

If you believe that, then you intentionally have your head in the sand

Ya know, slick said it better than I could have.

callmeslick wrote:CUDA, I think I see your point of view........the Dems tend to push taking away restrictions on certain 'morality' matters, so you view that as 'pushing' a certain morality. I think TC was trying to state that the GOP is the only group trying to impose morality by law, and in that, she is quite correct. In other words, liberalizing the recognition of gay marriage doesn't force anyone to be gay, liberalizing abortion law doesn't force anyone to have an abortion. On the other hand, writing a law that prevents women from getting abortions DOES force certain options, as do laws that have been suggested that impose forced medical procedures(ultrasounds, etc).