• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to strike down D.C. law banning reproductive discrimination

If by pointing out you mean just slapping negative adjectives on things you don't like, yeah, okay.
My likes are not really that relevant, but facts are and it is also a fact that employers do not share your extremist views and they do not share them because any rational examination of them results only in one conclusion, that they are born of ignorance and hate. They are devoid of any intelligence and indicate lack of education. Sorry that these adjectives cause you angst but they are apt.

It's great talking to you like this, so productive.
No one who does not agree with you has ever had a productive discussion with you.

I sure hope you keep at this.
Only to the extent where facts need to be shown.
 
That is because rational and intelligent people do not really give a crap what the ignorant believe.
Since I cant tell by your post, which party do you associate with? The rational or the ignorant?
 
Only to the extent where facts need to be shown.

Sure. Let me know when you want to start showing facts. It should be a refreshing change of pace for you.
 
Seriously, do you have any other objection besides "the founders"? Everything they intended or wrote in the constitution was perfect, right? Like slavery and only men being able to vote. What's the possible reason to oppose these people having the full representation and rights of the American citizens that they are?

You could not make your contempt for the Constitution of this country more clear. But your description of yourself as a socialist makes the reason for that contempt obvious. The Constitution designs a very weak central government, only strong enough to prevent anarchy, and that is the very opposite of the centralized control socialism requires. You are living in the wrong country, in that sense, so you would like to refashion it to suit your taste, and to hell with the Constitution.

Of course the authors of the Constitution were well aware it might from time to time need to be amended as conditions changed. That is exactly why they included right within it the processes for amending it--something novel at that time. Article V is devoted to those processes.

No one who understood the most basic history of the Constitution would even suggest that the men who wrote it believed it was anything but a very imperfect compromise--not least because it allowed slavery. But through amendments, slavery was ended and full suffrage provided. You would just like to skip the difficulties of amendment, and take the shortcut of lawless, arbitrary rule--or, to use another term for it, tyranny. And your president, having a taste for rule by diktat, shares that wish.
 
and you label yourself "Libertarian" without seeing the contrast in your stated positions on this forum and what is seen as Libertarianism in other countries. The American version seems to favour Christian theocracy, government control of women's decisions and the oppression of minorities when a state or town wants to do it.

I think you might have a rather queer view of what libertarian means. Why should a libertarian approve elective abortion? It seems odd to me.
 
What a moronic and ignorant thing to say. Considering the number of women who have had abortions and are employed, it is clear that rational employers do not share your extremist idiotic views.

What is moronic or ignorant about that? Seems quite a sane opinion and certainly one that is protected by the constitution. Why should anyone be forced to employ someone that did something they consider to be murder?
 
What is moronic or ignorant about that?
The total disconnect from reality and intelligent reasoning. Much like your post.

Seems quite a sane opinion
Yes, even some of the dumbest things in life seem sane to some.

and certainly one that is protected by the constitution.
So what? So were the morons protesting at service men's funerals. Does not change what they are and is.

Why should anyone be forced to employ someone that did something they consider to be murder?
Nobody said otherwise. Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension.
 
I think you might have a rather queer view of what libertarian means. Why should a libertarian approve elective abortion? It seems odd to me.

I thought libertarians were against government interference in the personal decisions of adults. Are you saying, that only somethings the government does or wishes to do might be seen as "governmental over-reach".

There is a reason the anti-abortion crowd prefers the term "pro-abortion" when speaking of their opponents. Pro-choice sounds a bit more in the libertarian side of the political spectrum, more traditionally American.
 
I thought libertarians were against government interference in the personal decisions of adults. Are you saying, that only somethings the government does or wishes to do might be seen as "governmental over-reach".

There is a reason the anti-abortion crowd prefers the term "pro-abortion" when speaking of their opponents. Pro-choice sounds a bit more in the libertarian side of the political spectrum, more traditionally American.

Libertarians are not all stupid. Most of them know quite well, that a society needs rules to survive. And as far as the way words sound, don't give that too much weight other than for the populist quality they have. You could just as easily as "pro-choice" call it "pro-killer" and would have the same activity in mind.
 
Libertarians are not all stupid. Most of them know quite well, that a society needs rules to survive. And as far as the way words sound, don't give that too much weight other than for the populist quality they have. You could just as easily as "pro-choice" call it "pro-killer" and would have the same activity in mind.

However, by using the phrase "pro-killer" you are deliberately instilling into the minds of the public the idea that those who advocate "pro-choice" are evil people. Words matter, and which ones are used in discussion does affect public perceptions
 
However, by using the phrase "pro-killer" you are deliberately instilling into the minds of the public the idea that those who advocate "pro-choice" are evil people. Words matter, and which ones are used in discussion does affect public perceptions

Of course, spin is a useful tool in politics. That is why we have spin doctors, as the English used to call them. But the reality is the same, whether you call them "pro-choicers" or "pro-killers". The people support the free choice to kill defined types of human. ;)
 
Of course, spin is a useful tool in politics. That is why we have spin doctors, as the English used to call them. But the reality is the same, whether you call them "pro-choicers" or "pro-killers". The people support the free choice to kill defined types of human. ;)

Until quite recently, that being inside its mother was not considered to be human until it took its first breath. In some cultures, the infant wasn't seen as human until it had survived the first six months after birth. The modern belief that once an egg and a sperm have joined, it is a human being, simply makes no sense except as a matter of religious dogma.

My point - I and others do not see a blastula, foetus or embryo as a human.
 
How anyone can look at this and not see that the people of DC need to be governing themselves, out from the thumb of elected leaders from other states, is crazy. DC needs to be a state. The land on which the three main government buildings sit can stay federal land, but the people of the city need the same rights and representation as the rest of the nation.



You might start by recognizing that your beliefs don't get special privilege and don't get to be enshrined in the law over anyone else's. You want to make laws? Then you need facts and not beliefs.
Maryland is a good name for such a proposed state.
 
Columbia would be better, IMO

Nope, it's purely a scam to make more democratic urban senators. There is no reason to make DC a state, and if the people want congressional representation then retrocede the land back to maryland.
 
Nope, it's purely a scam to make more democratic urban senators. There is no reason to make DC a state, and if the people want congressional representation then retrocede the land back to maryland.

It's sad when partisan politics get in the way of American values.
 
It's sad when partisan politics get in the way of American values.

What value? The district was never intended to have a residential population, that land came from Maryland, so I say, retun it to which it came, maryland would gain a congressional seat and an electoral vote. It it not an American value that the nations capital have senators, that was specifically rejected in the constitution

There's lots of areas of the country that would like their own state as well. Maybe we can make a new state out of pieces of upstate New York that will trend republican at the same time as making DC a state, but no one will go for that deal.

In addition it would be the only state with no rural population, the number one state for receipt of federal funds, would surpass california as the most impoverished, and would have irregular borders and numerous jurisdictional problems between the "state" and federal authorities

Just remember that democrats had the house of reps for forty years and DC statehood was never a priority until the 90s when republicans got the senate
 
Last edited:
Until quite recently, that being inside its mother was not considered to be human until it took its first breath. In some cultures, the infant wasn't seen as human until it had survived the first six months after birth. The modern belief that once an egg and a sperm have joined, it is a human being, simply makes no sense except as a matter of religious dogma.

My point - I and others do not see a blastula, foetus or embryo as a human.

Why would you say that? You do not need religion to realize that the DNA is all set for life, given half a chance. And viability is a pure question of technology. Like you in the voids of Universe do not do well without the gadgets to keep you fed and warm, the littler pile of human material requires a suitable environment. That is the only difference.

My point - Then you should not find it illegitimate for a majority to find something about you a mark that allows elimination of the bearer.
 
Back
Top Bottom