• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Herman Cain being attacked for being a TRUE LIbertarian

Krhazy said:
The pro-life ideology has always seemed to me like it belongs in the liberal movement. It's far more in line with the general view-point of those who are against the death penalty in all circumstances than with the ideology, for example, that people who chose not to buy health insurance should just deal with the consequences and shouldn't be given healthcare. Liberals are also those who more often take the side of those who can't or are politically unable to speak for themselves . . . and I can think of no better example than unborn children.

I understand why pro-choice became a liberal staple during the period when being an unwed mother was basically a criminal offense in the eyes of society, though.
Click to expand...

Totally with you there. Why is it that people who are pro-life are frequently pro-war (unless a democrat is in office)? Seems like inconsistent logic to me.
 
Tigger said:
WRONG. Anti-Abortion (the proper term) people believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT Life. Once it comes out of the womb and commits its first crime, it's no longer innocent and deserves no more protection.
Click to expand...

But when a child is born to a parent who puts it up for adoption or foster homes (since she would have no choice if the right had any say in this), and his life is destroyed and he ends up doing crime to survive, then its his fault? You would rather he grow up a criminal, then be killed rather than not be born to a parent who absolutely was not ready to have the child?

Oh and if you start with the "she should keep her legs shut" I will say the same thing to you since sex (according to the bible) is only for procreation, not pleasure. Unless of course, you are only having sex to procreate, and if so....how many kids do you have?

So, this is all about the fetus...the second its born, who cares. Righty?
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Totally with you there. Why is it that people who are pro-life are frequently pro-war (unless a democrat is in office)? Seems like inconsistent logic to me.
Click to expand...

And quite often pro death penalty, too. Mind boggling.
 
AdamT said:
And quite often pro death penalty, too. Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Those issues aren't one-size-fits-all philosophical positions. For example:

Abortion: killing an innocent life that never had a choice.
Death Penalty: killing a guilty life that chose to commit a heinous crime.
Pro-War: Defending the lives of your citizens.

Those three positions aren't mutually exclusive. However, if you subscribe to a blanket "life is a right" position, then it would be difficult to be pro any of those. If you subscribe to a philosophy that says "no one must take proactive measures to defend the right of another," then abortion would be acceptable, because sustaining such a life is arguable a proactive measure, and that wouldn't be mandated under such a belief system. If instead, you believe that rights come from the state or the people, and not some creator, then being pro-war would be acceptable, because killing a member of a "rival" state or people wouldn't be infringing the rights of anyone else. Or, finally, if you believe that life is a privilege, and not a right, then the death penalty would be just hunky dory, but abortion wouldn't be, because the unborn child did nothing to lose their privilege to life.
 
Nick2253 said:
Those issues aren't one-size-fits-all philosophical positions. For example:

Abortion: killing an innocent life that never had a choice.
Death Penalty: killing a guilty life that chose to commit a heinous crime.
Pro-War: Defending the lives of your citizens.

Those three positions aren't mutually exclusive. However, if you subscribe to a blanket "life is a right" position, then it would be difficult to be pro any of those. If you subscribe to a philosophy that says "no one must take proactive measures to defend the right of another," then abortion would be acceptable, because sustaining such a life is arguable a proactive measure, and that wouldn't be mandated under such a belief system. If instead, you believe that rights come from the state or the people, and not some creator, then being pro-war would be acceptable, because killing a member of a "rival" state or people wouldn't be infringing the rights of anyone else. Or, finally, if you believe that life is a privilege, and not a right, then the death penalty would be just hunky dory, but abortion wouldn't be, because the unborn child did nothing to lose their privilege to life.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, if you are a religious type, it is God -- not man -- who determines if or when someone has given up the privelege of living. That's the hypocrisy, IMO.

After all, man is imperfect. It is a virtual certainty that some innocent people have been executed and that others will be in the future, so long as we maintain the death penalty. Thus, if you are are pro death penalty you have to accept that you are advocating for a position that will inevitably result in innocent people being put to death by the government.
 
AdamT said:
My understanding is that, if you are a religious type, it is God -- not man -- who determines if or when someone has given up the privelege of living. That's the hypocrisy, IMO.

After all, man is imperfect. It is a virtual certainty that some innocent people have been executed and that others will be in the future, so long as we maintain the death penalty. Thus, if you are are pro death penalty you have to accept that you are advocating for a position that will inevitably result in innocent people being put to death by the government.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you feel it is a "virtual certainty that some innocent people have [and will] be executed." The standards for execution are much higher than for simple incarceration. Also, if we wrongly sentence a man to life in prison without parole, how is that any better than execution? We still run the same risk that they will have died in prison before we clear their name.
However, such a philosophy could be used to justify concentration camps and child pornography.
 
Nick2253 said:
Abortion: killing an innocent life that never had a choice.
Death Penalty: killing a guilty life that chose to commit a heinous crime.
Pro-War: Defending the lives of your citizens.
Click to expand...

Kind of, but if you look at it another way:

Anti-War: state should not be risking the lives of its citizens/killing foreigners
Anti-death penalty: state should not be imposing death as a penalty
Anti-abortion: abortion is the equivalent of murder

kind of similar... then you have

Free market: lack of government regulation in economics
Low taxes: lack of government interferences with personal finances
pro-choice: lack of government interference with personal decisions.
 
EagleAye said:
Totally with you there. Why is it that people who are pro-life are frequently pro-war (unless a democrat is in office)? Seems like inconsistent logic to me.
Click to expand...

It seems like inconsistent logic I would imagine because you're either:

1) Not taking an honest attempt to understand WHY the other side feels the way they do about the various things
2) Twisting the other sides reasoning for the various things to suit your purposes
3) Transferring your own views, thoughts, or stereotypes upon the situation
4) Deciding that your particular world view is the only logical way to view something

First, not all people who are pro-life are pro-life for the same reasons.

Second, "Pro-war" is a horribly broad stroke that again completely misses any ability to determine the various actual reasons someone may hold such a position.

Third, all three situations have a plethora of differing factors that, depending on the reason a person is "pro-whatever", may affect how they view it. In the case of abortion you have issues regarding the helplessness of the target and the presumed innocence of it. In the case of war you have the possible alliegances of the target and the actions the target may be undertaking at the time of death. In the case of the death penalty you have issues regarding the guilt of the target and the possible need for justice and/or vengence. In all three cases you have varying ways one may think the government is responsable to its citizens in regards to those situations.

All of those things have varying contexts and factors that play into them and attempting to act like all of them are exactly the same is purely ridiculous.

The ONLY form of "pro-life" arguments that would be hypocritical across the board in the above scenarios would be an argument that all life in all fashions is sacred and at all times should always be preserved through any means possible. If that was their argument in favor of "pro-life" issues then yet, being in favor of a war or the death penalty would be hypocritical. However, that is one view out of hundreds that could be an individuals justification for why they are pro-life and attempting to assign that reasoning to ALL pro-lifers to attempt to call them all hypocritical is just dishonest.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but these GOP/Tea-Bagger attacks against Cain are true hypocrisy.

True Libertarianism seeks to limit as much government involvement in people's lives as possible.

And to his credit, Cain's views on abortion represent TRUE Libertarianism.

He is against abortion....BUT...he believes its not the role of government to tell women or any other person what they can/cannot do to/with their body.

This is the view of a TRUE Libertarian, and I totally respect Cain for his view.

But unfortunately, as the GOP/Tea-Baggers are a bunch of hypocrites, such a view will not help his chances, but hurt them.

Such is the fate of Conservatives who actually hold true to their views, regardless of how popular they are.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't try to engage in civil debate with anyone who starts out by using the term "tea bagger". You immediately prove yourself to be incapable of civility.
 
Zyphlin said:
You're attempting to, erroniously and ignorantly, infer your own belief system as to whether or not a child in womb should or should not be considered a child under the law as some kind of official unquestionable libertarian belief, which it is not. There is no definitive libertarian ideological position as to whether or not a child in the womb should be considered a person under the law or not, and that designiation is what would determine a persons view based on libertarianism in regards to the legality of abortion.

It is absolutely 100% possible to be a libertarian and pro-life.
Click to expand...

Wait, didn't you say in the previous post that one way was libertarian and the other wasn't? Now I'm confused by you saying whether or not the child in the womb....... isn't a definitive libertarian ideology?
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but these GOP/Tea-Bagger attacks against Cain are true hypocrisy.

True Libertarianism seeks to limit as much government involvement in people's lives as possible.

And to his credit, Cain's views on abortion represent TRUE Libertarianism.

He is against abortion....BUT...he believes its not the role of government to tell women or any other person what they can/cannot do to/with their body.

This is the view of a TRUE Libertarian, and I totally respect Cain for his view.

But unfortunately, as the GOP/Tea-Baggers are a bunch of hypocrites, such a view will not help his chances, but hurt them.

Such is the fate of Conservatives who actually hold true to their views, regardless of how popular they are.
Click to expand...

Is that why the dude is smoking in the Cain ad?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Sorry but I don't try to engage in civil debate with anyone who starts out by using the term "tea bagger". You immediately prove yourself to be incapable of civility.
Click to expand...

It's really a term of endearment.

Besides who can take the Tea Partiers seriously when we know they're a corporate funded fake uprising filled with people who get their history from Glenn Beck. An ignorant mass being manipulated and used by the Koch bros.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but these GOP/Tea-Bagger attacks against Cain are true hypocrisy.

True Libertarianism seeks to limit as much government involvement in people's lives as possible.

And to his credit, Cain's views on abortion represent TRUE Libertarianism.

He is against abortion....BUT...he believes its not the role of government to tell women or any other person what they can/cannot do to/with their body.

This is the view of a TRUE Libertarian, and I totally respect Cain for his view.

But unfortunately, as the GOP/Tea-Baggers are a bunch of hypocrites, such a view will not help his chances, but hurt them.

Such is the fate of Conservatives who actually hold true to their views, regardless of how popular they are.
Click to expand...

I was about to thank this post until I hit the second use of the derogatory term "tea bagger".

I can't thank a "libtards" post for saying tea bagger. But in general I agree with you. But just to make you more credible next time, leave out the personal attacks, don't blanket everyone in a party for the behavior of a few, and for crying out loud, have a link to back up the crap you post.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
I was about to thank this post until I hit the second use of the derogatory term "tea bagger".
Click to expand...


If the bag fits....


JP-TEAPARTY-1-sfSpan.jpg
 
hazlnut said:
It's really a term of endearment.

Besides who can take the Tea Partiers seriously when we know they're a corporate funded fake uprising filled with people who get their history from Glenn Beck. An ignorant mass being manipulated and used by the Koch bros.
Click to expand...
And your problem with the Koch brothers is what? They look too much like your personal savior George Soros? David Koch actually supports gay marriage, did you know that? So stop your bitching about Koch funding some of the Tea Party movement when George Soros is funding MoveOn and other leftwingnut groups.

This whole "Koch Brothers" thing promoted by the left is total hypocritical bull****. You people are as guilty as sin.
 
Herman Cain isn't worth attacking because he's not a TRUE Presidential Candidate!
 
Thunder said:
yes, but only if someone buys into the ignorant belief that human life begins at the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
Ignorant? So what kind of life is it?
 
BalmerLiberal said:
Herman Cain isn't worth attacking because he's not a TRUE Presidential Candidate!
Click to expand...
Maybe you could start a thread on that topic, dazzle us with your expertise on what a true candidate is. Why you care about it, as a liberal, is puzzling.
 
American said:
Wait, didn't you say in the previous post that one way was libertarian and the other wasn't? Now I'm confused by you saying whether or not the child in the womb....... isn't a definitive libertarian ideology?
Click to expand...

Whether or not the child in the womb is a person under the law and is thus subject to all rights thereof does not have an absolute answer based singularly on libertarianism. It is within the realm of libertarian ideology to view that in either direction.

What I was stating was that depending on what an indivudals answer to the above is you could then come to some conclussions regarding libertarianism.

IF they believe child in womb = person with full rights, then libertarian ideology would say its incumbant on the government to protect the rights of an individual incapable of defending themself.

IF they believe the cihild in the womb != person with full rights, then libertarian ideology would say the government should not be interfering with what a woman chooses to do or not do with her own body.

Those two things are more clearly defined, but they rely on a decision that isn't clearly defined under libertarian ideology...whether or not the chlid in the womb is fully granted rights or not.
 
Thunder said:
yes, but only if someone buys into the ignorant belief that human life begins at the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

Thank you for highlighting my point.

The only thing ignorant is you believing that something that is entirely a determination based on opinion is somehow an unquestionable truth.

All this post has done is show that the entire premise nad purpose of this thread is dishonest, with no actual attempt to debate but rather just for the OP to blather on based singularly on his unchanging, unbending, unrealistic, and narrow-minded world view.

Cain's status as a "true" libertarian or not hinges on his views, views that the OP doesn't particularly care about because he...someone who isn't a libertarian in the slightest...has deemed that his particular views are the only correct or intelligent views and that any other such view is impossible and based on those FACTS, as he so often mislabels his opinions, he states that Herman Cain is acting like a true libertarian.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom