Racist Republican Party

[Winchester]

On 3/31/2016, 12:11:57, Nihil Obstat said:

You can do better than that. That is one of the dumbest arguments you have ever made.

Ok.

[little2add]

On March 21, 2016 at 10:12:04 PM, Hasan said:

You mean the point in time when the Democratic Party embraced a libertarian position on abortion? That was towards the latter half of the 80s. 

The  libertarian party of Canada  legalized abortion five years before the United States in 1968 

Abortion in Canada is legal at any point in a women's pregnancy for any reason, and is governed by the Canada Health Act.

Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.

 Abortion and Obama/Canada healthcare is democratic-racism too

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

The  libertarian party of Canada  legalized abortion five years before the United States in 1968 

Abortion in Canada is legal at any point in a women's pregnancy for any reason, and is governed by the Canada Health Act.

Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.

 Abortion and Obama/Canada healthcare is democratic-racism too

The libertarian party has never formed government in Canada. Or even won a single seat in the house, I would wager.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Ok.

Here is the problem: if you are going to claim faithfulness to Church teaching, in particular the infallibility of tradition and the competency of the magisterium to teach on social issues, from this perspective the anarcho-capitalist position does not hold up to scrutiny. Ultimately you have to either abandon some fundamental an-cap points, or you will have to deny Church teaching. At a fundamental level they are irreconcilable. What it comes down to is that the Church teaches and has always taught that there does exist a natural right for a state to exist and to govern. You have claimed that all states are inherently evil. Either the Church has taught error, or you have.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[little2add]

19 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The libertarian party has never formed government in Canada. Or even won a single seat in the house, I would wager.

 

 Changing the subject does not change the facts

 The Republican offical party stance is against abortion 

 Unlike the Democratic agenda and the Canadian government's agenda concerning abortion 

Early in Canadian history, all abortions were illegal. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentalerthat the existing laws were unconstitutional and struck down the 1969 law. The then governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. Without legal delays, most abortions are done at a very early stage.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, little2add said:

 Changing the subject does not change the facts

 The Republican offical party stance is against abortion 

 Unlike the Democratic agenda and the Canadian government's agenda concerning abortion 

You were the one who brought up Canada, Ken M.

 

[little2add]

the racist Democrat party of the USA and racist Liberal Party of Canada are one in the same

 

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, little2add said:

the racist Democrat party of the USA and racist Liberal Party of Canada are one in the same

 

Great hair, though.

[little2add]

The racist Liberal party has dominated federal politics for much of Canada's history, holding power for almost 69 years in the 20th century—more than any other party in a developed country—and as a result, it is sometimes referred to as Canada's "natural governing pay The Liberals' signature policies and legislative decisions including free and unfettered abortions through universal health care,

[Nihil Obstat]

Stop plagiarizing content.

[little2add]

46 minutes ago, little2add said:

The racist Liberal party has dominated federal politics for much of Canada's history, holding power for almost 69 years in the 20th century—more than any other party in a developed country—and as a result, it is sometimes referred to as Canada's "natural governing pay The Liberals' signature policies and legislative decisions including free and unfettered abortions through universal health care,

Wikipedia

there, you happy now

[Nihil Obstat]

Not particularly, but it is a start.

[little2add]

11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Not particularly, but it is a start.

 I noticed that about you 

 Cheer up   

[Winchester]

16 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The libertarian party has never formed government in Canada. Or even won a single seat in the house, I would wager.

Here is the problem: if you are going to claim faithfulness to Church teaching, in particular the infallibility of tradition and the competency of the magisterium to teach on social issues, from this perspective the anarcho-capitalist position does not hold up to scrutiny. Ultimately you have to either abandon some fundamental an-cap points, or you will have to deny Church teaching. At a fundamental level they are irreconcilable. What it comes down to is that the Church teaches and has always taught that there does exist a natural right for a state to exist and to govern. You have claimed that all states are inherently evil. Either the Church has taught error, or you have.

Or the usage of "state" is quite different. The documents you so recently read and were quite surprised by are nothing new to me, and I find, when taken in its totality, that Church teaching in no way stands in contradiction to the moral and political positions of anarchy. I entered anarchy from the perspective of a Catholic, and the more I learn of history, the more I understand the disparity between "state" as used by the Church in various documents (being translations of course causes issues) and "state" as it is understood in the modern sense.

Within the Church, there have been varying differences of opinion on the matter of regicide. I could decide that one party or the other is heretical, or I could go with the more likely position that some forms of rule are legitimate. As an anarchist, I do not have to reject all forms of rule, but only that rule must be consented to (in the sense of general governance, not in the sense of obeying the common law, which all must do. I guess we could call it the "rule of law" as opposed to the rule of men--which I submit is the current model of nearly every state). Not all anarchists would agree. There are those who reject all society as contrary to individualism. There are even those who set up a model of behavior that I believe rejects the NAP. 

Following Gerard Casey, I've taken the term "libertarian anarchist". 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

The Church has taught very clearly that legitimate rule does not need to be consented to.

[little2add]

On March 21, 2016 at 7:52:48 PM, Hasan said:

I think that Ronald Reagan really began the process of the Republican Party recruiting highly racist former Democrats and Independents. But some people think that it began earlier. What do you think?

Both parties submit to  lobbyist and have sold there souls for pieces of silver.  

[Socrates]

I think it's simply more race-baiting bs - the resort of leftist Dem shills bereft of any substantive ideas or arguments.  ("They gonna put y'all back in chains!")

The Democratic Party has far more blatant racism in its history than the GOP, but that's conveniently ignored.

Of course, I've yet to see libs explain exactly what policy of Reagan (or any other modern Republican president for that matter) was in fact so horribly racist.

Somehow, we're supposed to get all fired up to go out and vote for Hillary or whomever, on the thought that there might be racists out there somewhere who vote Republican.

However, as others alluded to, both the Democratic Party's policies and its national platform actively and blatantly support the murder of unborn children.  That's not an opinion or a conspiracy theory, but obvious fact.

 

Also the Dem Party does not in fact take a libertarian position on abortion or anything else.  They're not content to simply allow the killing of babies in the womb, but demand that others be forced by the federal government to subsidize this killing and the organizations which perform this murder.  (And there are pro-life libertarians, for whatever that's worth.)

[Socrates]

On 3/24/2016, 12:50:41, Winchester said:

The libertarian view of abortion? I've got one, and it rules out abortion.

If I invite someone onto my property, I cannot then dismember that person at will. flooping is an invitation to a fetus. It's not a perfect analogy. But I'm drunk.

If someone trespasses on your property and leaves a baby at your doorstep, you cannot dismember the baby at will, either, for that matter.

The basic human right to life is not dependent on property rights or any such other extrinsic factors.  It's even more basic and fundamental.

But what the heck do I know?  I'm a dirty statist.

[4588686]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016‎ ‎8‎:‎34‎:‎53‎, little2add said:

the racist Democrat party of the USA and racist Liberal Party of Canada are one in the same

 

Current Democratic Party is not racist, you silly sally

14 hours ago, Socrates said:

I think it's simply more race-baiting bs - the resort of leftist Dem shills bereft of any substantive ideas or arguments.  ("They gonna put y'all back in chains!")

The Democratic Party has far more blatant racism in its history than the GOP, but that's conveniently ignored.

Of course, I've yet to see libs explain exactly what policy of Reagan (or any other modern Republican president for that matter) was in fact so horribly racist.

Somehow, we're supposed to get all fired up to go out and vote for Hillary or whomever, on the thought that there might be racists out there somewhere who vote Republican.

However, as others alluded to, both the Democratic Party's policies and its national platform actively and blatantly support the murder of unborn children.  That's not an opinion or a conspiracy theory, but obvious fact.

 

Also the Dem Party does not in fact take a libertarian position on abortion or anything else.  They're not content to simply allow the killing of babies in the womb, but demand that others be forced by the federal government to subsidize this killing and the organizations which perform this murder.  (And there are pro-life libertarians, for whatever that's worth.)

1-It's not ignored. The Republican party used to be the clearly more progressive party in race. Unfortunately, the Conservative movement made the GOP its home and now it's just a party that has pandered to racists for most of my life.

2-Not racists out there somewhere. The single largest voting plurality in your party.

3-The Democratic Party can be wrong on Abortion. That has nothing to do with the Republican Party being racist.

4-Haha your nominee is probably Donald Trump.

 

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016‎ ‎12‎:‎47‎:‎57‎, little2add said:

Both parties submit to  lobbyist and have sold there souls for pieces of silver.  

Sure. There aren't any clean hands in politics. But I'd rather throw my lot in with the party that treats racism as a real issue, redistributes wealth to the poor and working class, and is social liberal.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Hasan

[little2add]

 A human fetus is a person.    if you intentionally, willfully or support the ending of said life you are a  racist and a humanophobe   

 

[4588686]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

 A human fetus is a person.    if you intentionally, willfully or support the ending of said life you are a  racist and a humanophobe   

 

Hehehe

Edited April 4, 2016 by Hasan