Tolerant liberals say you can't compliment a conservative friend

[anatess2]

Just now, Scott said:

Ok then. I know relatively few conservatives who support this, but perhaps you can enlighten me.  I know  of several libertarians who support this, but not that many conservatives. 

Can you tell which which conservatives or conservative groups that say that there should be no federal laws against abortion? I will listen. 

That's a silly assumption.

There have been many many many moons where all 3 branches of Federal government were run by conservatives.  No anti-abortion law ever made it to Fed Law.  After Roe vs Wade things changed.  Now, a Federal Law - NOT enacted by Congress, became the law of the land.  What do you think conservatives - even the Republican Party (which is not really conservative) are doing today?  Overturning Roe vs Wade!  Except that every attempt to do so has been met by fire and fury by Democrats.  What's the Democratic litmus test for being a SCOTUS judge?  Roe vs. Wade.  Of course.  They know that conservatives will overturn that ruling the minute they get a chance to do so.

 

Just now, Scott said:

Have you ever been to a country that has lax environmental laws?  Just breathing the air is the equivalent of smoking several packs of cigarettes a day. 

I can promise you that if there are no laws against pollution that the vast majority of corporations aren't going to spend money to clean up pollution just out of the goodness of their hearts. 

So you're saying that the United States of America doesn't breathe the equivalent of smoking several packs of cigarettes a day because of liberals and ONLY liberals?  You're saying that... Wyoming, Nebraska, Idaho - State Congresses that have been led by Conservatives for multi-decades have clean air only because of Federal Liberal-enacted Laws?

 

Just now, Scott said:

There is plenty of evidence.   You sound like the executives of the cigarette companies when they used to claim that there was no evidence that cigarettes caused lung cancer. 

There's no sense in talking about this in general terms when you monster paint the other side of the table by "you sound like an executive of a cigarette company".  So let's make this more specific.  Name a law that was opposed by Conservatives that you think is causing - or going to cause - the deaths of millions of lives?

 

Just now, Scott said:

Until they are invading countries all over the world in wars that have nothing to do with the freedom of Americans or our allies.

That's not a conservative position.  The conservative position is National Defense - which includes stopping wars before it gets to American soil.  It is not the fault of Conservatives if the President of the United States lies to them about the necessity of stopping the war before it gets to American soil.

In any case, unless you consider the supporters of Hillary Clinton as Conservatives, this is not really a Liberal vs Conservative argument.

 

Just now, Scott said:

That's good.   As mentioned, I'm an Independent.  For the record, I'd be thrilled if Rand Paul were in charge of national defense.  When it comes to National Defense I agree with Rand Paul more than any other politician.  

Then you are thrilled with Trump on this matter too.  Trump and the Pauls are on the same playbook on this one.

 

For the record, I'm not American.  Just so you know.  So, I guess that makes me Independent.

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree, but is Medicaid a conservative or liberal concept?

At the State Level - conservative.  At the Federal Level - liberal.

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

I think that children should get a fair change and have access to education and medical care, regardless of the circumstances of their parents.  

Conservatives and Liberals agree on this.

Where they disagree is the HOW.

Conservatives believe in small government.  Giving this responsibility to the government gives the power over lives to a corruptible entity.  And, as money doesn't grow on trees, a government solution WILL ALWAYS involve using their power of force to shift resources from those who have to those who need.  So, the least amount of responsibility is handed over to government the better.  So they try to keep this stuff away from government and, instead, build things like Faith Communities that can do the job and then go full-speed on policies designed to improve the economic outlook of all citizens.

Liberals believe that the life of a child is worth applying forceful compassion.  The government is the only entity with the power to force people into compassionate actions.  @Traveler and I had a discussion about this on capitalism vs socialism.  I stated that capitalism gives power to each transacting member to stop greed simply by disengaging from the transaction.  Traveler countered with - when your wife or kid is dying, you don't have the luxury to disengage from the transaction.  So I presented the moral dilemma - is the life of your wife worth forcing somebody to cure her?  A lot of people will say yes, a lot of people will say no.  Nobody is necessarily right or wrong - but that's the moral dilemma.

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 hours ago, Scott said:

Of note, here is the public statement of the Church on the matter (for anyone interested):

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-calls-for-unity-compassion-in-new-statement-on-immigration?lang=eng

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.

 

@anatess2 and @Vort you are both missing the point.  LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not.  My point was that neither follows the Proclamation.  As noted by Scott above, the statement by the church makes it clear that separating families at the border is not pleasing to God.  And regardless of how it started (that's a discussion for another thread) Conservatives whole-heartedly back this policy now---a policy which is anti-family and therefore anti-Christ.

Yes, @anatess2 I am aware of what is going on at the border.  Many families coming TOGETHER seeking asylum are being separated at the border because Trump and Sessions think it will be a deterrent.  But since you think the statement about is from church media and that they are wrong, I hardly expect you to believe me.    We'll just have to disagree 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, LePeel said:

The law is preeminent above all things. Here and in eternity. You can't simply ignore the law because you find it immoral. If you don't like it, you can change it. But ignoring laws you don't like renders the whole law null and void.

God's law is preeminent above all things, not mans.   

I didn't say anything about ignoring laws anyway.  I was just making the point, that both Conservatives and Liberals support laws that are anti-family i.e. anti-Christ. 

[Overwatch]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

God's law is preeminent above all things, not mans.   

I didn't say anything about ignoring laws anyway.  I was just making the point, that both Conservatives and Liberals support laws that are anti-family i.e. anti-Christ. 

We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates. In honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. One wants to temporarily separate families the other wants to terminate children when they are inconvenient 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates. In honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. One wants to temporarily separate families the other wants to terminate children when they are inconvenient 

You saw the church's statement, correct?  I've quoted a part of it below.

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families.

It appears our church leaders take the separation of families more seriously than you do.  

[Overwatch]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

You saw the church's statement, correct?  I've quoted a part of it below.

It appears our church leaders take the separation of families more seriously than you do.  

It appears some parents are willing to risk being separated by breaking the law.

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes, @anatess2 I am aware of what is going on at the border.  Many families coming TOGETHER seeking asylum are being separated at the border because Trump and Sessions think it will be a deterrent.   

That's media disinformation.  Again.  Neither Trump nor Sessions can do anything that is not written in LAW.  There are only 3 ways you can get separated from your kids at the border:

1.)  Your parents can't prove they are your parents.  This law was enacted back in... Bush or Obama, can't remember... to stop child trafficking.

2.)  Your parents got put in jail (e.g. they were carrying drugs, they have been convicted of crimes prior, got deported, then tried to re-enter, etc.).

3.)  Your parents (who don't qualify for #1 and #2 above) applied for asylum.  Getting caught illegally entering the US border and then saying you need asylum will cause a very long asylum process.  First of all, Mexico is not a war zone.  Therefore, you can seek asylum from the Mexican government or seek asylum from any of the US federal offices in Mexico.  Travelling the extra 2,000 miles to the US border and then entering illegally to seek asylum is highly suspect.  A federal law exists - enacted back in Clinton, I think - that states you cannot detain a child for over 20 days without charging them of a crime.  As children cannot be charged with illegal entry when their parents brought them, then they have to be released from detention into Human Services.  The parents remain in detention.  Hence, separation.  Trump changed this law by Executive Order.  Children are now detained with their parents for however long the asylum process takes.

Anything else that do not meet those 3 criteria get processed together and deported within 72 hours together.

Now tell me @LiterateParakeet, which of those criteria you think should NOT BE ENFORCED?

Now, what Trump has stated is that Strictly Enforcing Existing Laws will be a deterrent to illegal entry especially those sending their kids on this perilous journey.

 

21 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But since you think the statement about is from church media and that they are wrong, I hardly expect you to believe me.    We'll just have to disagree 

If that's what you got out of my statements, then no wonder you can't understand what's REALLY happening at the border.  You have this thought in your head and you just make whatever I said fit it.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

It appears some parents are willing to risk being separated by breaking the law.

And what is your response about the church's statement?

@anatess2 disagreeing with you is not the same thing as not understanding.  It is a Trump admin policy, but as I said before...that's really not the point.  My point has been along that the church has spoken out against this, it is anti-family.  
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border

Edited August 3, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest Scott]

Quote

So @Scott are you willing to discuss what it takes for someone to be considered human?  Are you ready to put out a definition?

I know what my definition is.   My definition is that if a fetus can feel pain, then it is a person.  Maybe even before that, but for sure once a fetus can feel pain.  If  a fetus can feel pain, there's no way (in my opinion) an abortion should be performed unless under dire medical circumstances. 

As mentioned, I don't like or agree with abortion.  I don't understand why anyone could have one unless it was for medical purposes. Abortion is terrible in my opinion.   I don't want anyone to get one.

I also don't want any unwanted children to be born and have to live under neglect and abuse.   This is even more terrible.   

Abortion ruins a birth; a neglected and abused child ruins his or her life.

I do not think that abortion is good.  I just think that it is the lesser of the two evils.  And by saying lesser, I don't mean the evil is small either.  

If there was a way to negate both of those situations, I'd be all for it.  

The only way I can see that actually would negate both of those situations is that if people would be forced to not cause a pregnancy before they are ready to have a child.   We can't really force that situation though.  We'll just have to let God be the judge.  

Quote

Crying "A pox on both their houses!" is willful ignorance.

I disagree.   I have already explained why though, so no reason to rehash the same things over and over again.  

Independents can look at both sides with a less biased eye.  😏

Edited August 3, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I know what my definition is.   My definition is that if a fetus can feel pain, then it is a person.  Maybe even before that, but for sure once a fetus can feel pain.  If  a fetus can feel pain, there's no way (in my opinion) an abortion should be performed unless under dire medical circumstances. 

Hmmm... this is interesting too.

So, what makes a person is the ability to feel pain?

So, let's say... we come up with this new-fangled scientific discovery that if we shut off this gene, then a fetus can't feel pain.  So, they can't be a person?

How about if... we can shut that off on a 1-second-old baby?  You can kill them now?

Dire medical circumstances... that's interesting too.  That would be - when the mother's life is on the balance, right?  So, causing the death of an innocent life is illegal.  Everybody agrees it is wrong so we ban murder.  So, let's say your airplane blows up and you are falling from the sky and the pilot has one parachute and it can only save either you or your child but not both, so he decides to give you the parachute and your child dies... do you think the pilot is now going to have to face court proceedings to prove he didn't murder your child?  Would the possibility of that scenario happening necessitate that we have to make it legal to kill an innocent life so that the pilot won't have to worry about risking being sued?

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hmmm... this is interesting too.

So, what makes a person is the ability to feel pain?

So, let's say... we come up with this new-fangled scientific discovery that if we shut off this gene, then a fetus can't feel pain.  So, they can't be a person?

How about if... we can shut that off on a 1-second-old baby?  You can kill them now?

That's like asking if it's OK to beat a child if we can shut off their ability to feel pain.  The answer is no and I would apply that to abortion too.

Also, I do not ever plan to get an abortion or to encourage anyone to have one.  If you don't understand my own opinion on the matter by now, then it would be useless to delve further.  I already know and understand why you are against abortion.   

Anyway, the only thing this thread has taught me is that is it apparently hard for Conservatives to admit that some of their policies/laws are against families and decency too.   This thread has made me more and more glad that I am an Independent. 

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@anatess2 and @Vort you are both missing the point.  LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not.

Where? I do not believe @LePeel ever made any such statement. Not in this thread, at least.

Your point seems to be that the political right is just as corrupt as the political left. You are wrong. That's like saying that three-day-old moldy bread is just as rotten as a decaying animal carcass. By any realistic measure, the political left in the US is very greatly more corrupt and perverse than the political right.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

Independents can look at both sides with a less biased eye.  😏

It is said that an agnostic is an atheist who lacks the courage of his convictions. I would say the same about a great many self-proclaimed "independents".

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

15 hours ago, LePeel said:

Yes there's Satanic influence on both sides. But when you read the Family Proclamation and realize that it is contrary to the Leftist orthodoxy at every point, one must conclude the Devil is intimately at work in the Left. I know its a contradiction in terms to call the radical left an orthodoxy. But they determine the direction of the rest of the wing. I don't care for the Republican party either, I should add.

@Vort I was referring to this post.  My point is that "the devil is intimately at work in" both the right and the left.    I didn't say "as corrupt as" because I don't think that can be proven either way.  You shared your opinion, which you are welcome too, but it doesn't prove anything.

I have acknowledged that there are problems on the Left, I'm wondering why it is so hard for so many here to admit there are also problems on the Right.  

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

30 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's like asking if it's OK to beat a child if we can shut off their ability to feel pain.  The answer is no and I would apply that to abortion too.

So you gave a wrong definition of a person.  You said what makes a fetus a person is her ability to feel pain.

 

30 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, I do not ever plan to get an abortion or to encourage anyone to have one.  If you don't understand my own opinion on the matter by now, then it would be useless to delve further.  I already know and understand why you are against abortion.   

That's what we're trying to do here... Understand your opinion on the matter.  We can't understand it because it is not consistent.  I'm simply trying to understand why you are Pro-Choice.  All my questions/statements on the matter point to that goal.

Nobody here is saying that because you believe that X should be legal that you are doing/or would encourage X.  That would be silly.  And it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.   Lots of Mormons here who discourage alcohol but has no problem with the legality of alcohol.

 

30 minutes ago, Scott said:

Anyway, the only thing this thread has taught me is that is it apparently hard for Conservatives to admit that some of their policies/laws are against families and decency too.   This thread has made me more and more glad that I am an Independent. 

Oh... heavy charges.   Name a policy/law supported by Conservatives that are against families and decency.  I can't even think of one on this thread.  Separation of families at the border?  Is that the law you're talking about?  What law promoted by conservatives that causes children becoming separated from their parents at the border is against families and decency?

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I have acknowledged that there are problems on the Left, I'm wondering why it is so hard for so many here to admit there are also problems on the Right.  

 

Because the things you are pointing to are either, not on the right, or are monster painting.

I don't disagree that there are problems on the right.  That's part of why I'm a Trump supporter.  The problem is - the ones people on this thread are pointing to are not "problems on the Right".  Like separation of families at the border, or pollution.

Edited August 3, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

38 minutes ago, Scott said:

I know what my definition is.   My definition is that if a fetus can feel pain, then it is a person.  Maybe even before that, but for sure once a fetus can feel pain.  If  a fetus can feel pain, there's no way (in my opinion) an abortion should be performed unless under dire medical circumstances. 

 

Great a workable definition..  So lets see how it holds up...  But it looks like Anatess beat me to it... So carry on

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I don't disagree that there are problems on the right.  The problem is - the ones people on this thread are pointing to are not "problems on the Right".  Like separate of families at the border...

Obviously, I disagree, but moving on.... what do you see as problems on the right? 

Edited August 3, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I have acknowledged that there are problems on the Left, I'm wondering why it is so hard for so many here to admit there are also problems on the Right.  

I think it's because "what's wrong with the Right" is all we ever hear about in day to day life. I think it's understandable that people are a bit sensitive and defensive.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort I was referring to this post.

Note that @LePeel never said anything like, "Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not." On the contrary, his very first sentence that you quoted was, "Yes there's Satanic influence on both sides." So your characterization of what he said was completely wrong. This is important because it suggests that you do not understand even what people are writing, much less what they are trying to communicate. So when you then claim,

20 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I have acknowledged that there are problems on the Left, I'm wondering why it is so hard for so many here to admit there are also problems on the Right.

it leaves many of us shaking our heads and wondering which planet you're living on. Those on the political right have freely admitted the problems on the right. It's those on the political left who either refuse to admit the befouling of their own beds, or else gloss over their evils by saying, "Both sides are at fault."

For all their evils, conservatives are not the ones propounding infanticide as a "right", or looking to dissolve national borders. That's completely, utterly, and totally on the political left. And almost no one who identifies as a leftist will simply fess up to being united with a bunch of people looking to do some breathtakingly evil things.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Note that @LePeel never said anything like, "Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not."

That is what i am referring to.   It's very clear.  He said Liberals don't follow the Proclamation, I'm saying Conservatives don't either. 

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

it leaves many of us shaking our heads and wondering which planet you're living on.

Why don't we skip the ad hominem attacks and stay with the point?  You say those one the right have freely admitted the problems.  Except for LePeel, I don't see anyone doing that.  Perhaps I missed it.  What did you say was the problem with the right?  

Edited August 3, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think it's because "what's wrong with the Right" is all we ever hear about in day to day life. I think it's understandable that people are a bit sensitive and defensive.

I appreciate you answering, but considering that Conservatives are easily the majority here on this board and in the church, what is to be defensive about?   

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That is what i am referring to.   It's very clear.  He said Liberals don't follow the Proclamation, I'm saying Conservatives don't either.

No, @LiterateParakeet, that is not what you said. What you said was:

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LePeel made the claim that Conservatives follow the Proclamation on the Family, and Liberals do not.

You were wrong. LePeel said no such thing. What happened to your willingness to admit fault?

10 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Why don't we skip the ad hominem attacks and stay with the point?

Really? "...wondering which planet you're living on" is an ad hominem? Do you really want to go back over your past contributions and do an ad hominem analysis based on that standard?