• 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!

Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York

MACS-24 said:
So, your answer is that Coumo gets to choose what rights are okay? WOW!
Click to expand...

Sure, once a court approves it. Things change if another overturns it.

1. Abortion is legal; no one has overturned it, not for lack of trying.

2. Gays are legal, Lawrence v Texas

3. Assault weapons have been banned in NY. See recent ruling
 
ludin said:
it caused more issues than he thought it would. people are mad up there more so when you get outside of NY city and into places like upstate and other more rural area's were people are less liberal.

he wouldn't be in back peddle mode if he felt that it didn't have much play. personally NY is only 2nd worst to CA. the only reason NY stays relevant is because of wall street.
without that NY would crumble to the ground.

the reason is people like Cuomo. disagree with my point of view and well you just don't belong here. the open mindedness and tolerance of the left wing at it's finest.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between a classic liberal and what is a liberal today in the Democratic Party. It basically boils down to the same word, two different meanings. I remember when liberal mean a guardian of freedom, a believer in individual liberty and free speech. There was an old motto among the Classic Liberals, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say until death."
 
Perotista said:
There is a huge difference between a classic liberal and what is a liberal today in the Democratic Party. It basically boils down to the same word, two different meanings. I remember when liberal mean a guardian of freedom, a believer in individual liberty and free speech. There was an old motto among the Classic Liberals, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say until death."
Click to expand...

What is now called liberal is the opposite to the classical meaning. Today a liberal resembles the European socialist in many ways.
 
joG said:
What is now called liberal is the opposite to the classical meaning. Today a liberal resembles the European socialist in many ways.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.
 
MACS-24 said:
Gotta love when posters have no or terrible argument go with 'I'll post idiotic stuff but you are not allowed to respond'. :lamo
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but if he's not going to take the time to view any justification for my opinions, then what was I supposed to say? I didn't realize that posting a study conducted by a university is considered a terrible argument.
 
calamity said:
He basically said the haters and their assault weapons are not welcome there. I like the gusto in that. Libs are usually all squishy and nice. About time one called it like it is. NY doesn't like haters or their guns.
Click to expand...

Prove it. the only person spreading hate is you and cuomo.

again liberal open mindedness and tolerance at it's finest.
 
calamity said:
He basically said the haters and their assault weapons are not welcome there. I like the gusto in that. Libs are usually all squishy and nice. About time one called it like it is. NY doesn't like haters or their guns.
Click to expand...

What I find hypocritical about many on the left is they believe that rights for gays shouldn't be voted on, but are ok with gun rights being voted on even though it is a given right in the Constitution.

I don't believe EITHER should be able to be voted on.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and does that basic feature disqualify it from being a valid system?
Click to expand...

It has rather sever problems of efficiency, but if you are willing to lose a large amount of consumption/production in the long run?
 
Lursa said:
Works for me! Pro-life people wish to FORCE their agenda on others.

Pro-choice people wish to allow Americans their free will and personal liberty.
Click to expand...


not exactly.. why should I be FORCED to pay for abortions with my tax dollars..

now whos being forced to do what again?... did I force the women to become pregnant?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the term socialist is a broad one that contains many different branches. which kind of socialism is practiced in Europe?
Click to expand...

I was agreeing the term liberal as in the Democratic Party is more attuned to the Liberal Parties of Europe and to a certain extent of socialism when it comes to more of an equal outcome than an equal starting point than to the Classic Liberalism that founded our country.

Classic Liberalism is/was based on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. In other words civil and economic liberties with a limited government under the rule of law. Somewhere along the line the Republicans became the party of economic liberties and the Democrats the party of civil or social liberties. There is a bit of classic liberalism in both parties, but both parties fall way short in the sense of being a classic liberal.
 
Perotista said:
There is a huge difference between a classic liberal and what is a liberal today in the Democratic Party. It basically boils down to the same word, two different meanings. I remember when liberal mean a guardian of freedom, a believer in individual liberty and free speech. There was an old motto among the Classic Liberals, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say until death."
Click to expand...

tell that to cuomo he and others in this thread obviously don't believe that.
 
joG said:
It has rather sever problems of efficiency, but if you are willing to lose a large amount of consumption/production in the long run?
Click to expand...

Don't all system's have flaws? Are the problems in socialism flawed enough to ignore any of its good features or principles?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Don't all system's have flaws? Are the problems in socialism flawed enough to ignore any of its good features or principles?
Click to expand...

Socialism is always slavery, so yes, its flaws are enough.
 
Henrin said:
Socialism is always slavery, so yes, its flaws are enough.
Click to expand...

One of the basic principles of socialism is equality, that a person's worth should not devalued because of social status, economic status, bigotry, or beliefs. A banker should be held to the same standards as a coal miner.

How is that slavery?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
One of the basic principles of socialism is equality, that a person's worth should not devalued because of social status, economic status, bigotry, or beliefs. A banker should be held to the same standards as a coal miner.

How is that slavery?
Click to expand...
There is no equality, especially under socialism. Very quickly formed a class of officials who substitute for the masters. Disappear "social elevators". Decreases productivity.
Slavery become necessity.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I'm sorry to hear that you lack self-control and feel the need to reply to all of my posts.
Click to expand...

Well, it's kind of idiotic to make a post and then ignore or refuse to answer questions about it. Thus, it makes more sense to just not post. I wasn't aware that I have replied to all of your posts, but I certainly don't feel a need to reply to all of them.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
One of the basic principles of socialism is equality, that a person's worth should not devalued because of social status, economic status, bigotry, or beliefs. A banker should be held to the same standards as a coal miner.

How is that slavery?
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you go about reaching these goals. You will find quickly that people are forced to serve others.
 
calamity said:
He's referring to weapons banned in his state by a new law which a court upheld in late December.
Judge upholds most, but not all, of New York's assault weapons ban - latimes.com

However, most of the posters here have created their own imaginary boogyman on the subject, and they are all running with their own definitions, like chickens sans head.
Click to expand...

Not just posters here, seems like everyone that uses the term, has their own definition, so it's unclear what they are talking about. I also like the "military style" description. It means absolutely nothing. That could describe a water pistol. Pretty soon, Cuomo will want those banned too.
His "Who needs 10 bullets to kill a deer?" remark makes him look stupid, since it has nothing to do with hunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom