Abortion, welfare and the daffy talking points of the left to micharacterize the GOP
Since I took the time to write these I figure I'll archive them here.
If you're against abortion, I respect your opinion but that isn't the topic at the time.
Huckabee's comments, Bill, Hillary, leftist views of women, abortion, "choice', welfare...
"Senator Paul is, in my opinion at least, attempting to deflect." It would be impossible for someone on the left to think otherwise. That's not a shot. It's a simple reality. To call this deflection is deflection, but that's instinct for leftists. To properly examine his point means to recognize the obvious contradiction (read lie) of the Democrat (leftist) Party and leftist ethics. What you present is a series of opinions of the Republican stand. (A rather cliched, simplistic caricature, actually.) That Bill committed sexual harassment (predatory behavior), and that his wife accepted his extra marital and predatory behavior, is fact. That what he did is considered harassment and predatory behavior among the Left is fact. (That's why I presented the links) [* links at bottom] . That the Left accepted, excuses, and deflects from all of the above is fact. Leftists simply don't care that Bill (and Hillary through enabling, acceptance) committed this behavior that is in direct contradiction of much of their ideology, because he furthers their agenda. (see also, Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to die, then calling hotel management to complain about noise disturbing his sleep).
What the Democrat Party will excuse regarding the treatment of women by their elite, or who think UnGood thoughts (political opposition) is obvious and regularly displayed. This picture is of just a few people, but is an example of ubiquitous behavior among the Left. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Be8J5b3CAAAClSU.jpg [If the link is non functional, this was a picture of leftists wearing "Sara Palin is a cunt" t-shirts.] Few if any among the left will condemn their own for it. Leftists justify and rationalize it all by claiming they are the champion of women. The contradiction is obvious.
The following rewards the deflection from Ron Paul's argument, but I feel the misrepresentation can't be left to stand.
"the Republican party is [inhibiting] the right of a woman to bodily autonomy" - They would disagree. They would argue the autonomy is in the choice leftists always ignore, the choice both sexes have (equality!), which is to partake in or avoid sex. They would argue that once that choice is made both parties are responsible for the life they've created. That life is 50%+ likely to be female, whose bodily autonomy leftists ignore. You can and will respond by launching into an argument of when life begins, or possibly by rationalizing, labelling the results of their choices a parasite. That's deflection from the fact you misrepresent the opposition's view on bodily autonomy. It pretends those who re anti-abortion have no argument, that they are oppressors for the sake of oppression, which is simply and absolutely untrue. (I'll save time and grief from being demonized and falsely accused, and state up front that I am pro abortion. I just don't dishonestly portray the opposition.)
Here's a fun exercise I enjoy: I argue that men should have the closest to the same choice women have regarding abortion. I believe men should be notified of the pregnancy, then given the option to advocate abortion (advocate only, mind you) and in so doing opt out of any future contact or responsibility for the pregnancy or child. Doing so fully informs the woman, the only one of the two (three?) given a choice post-intercourse, of the future of the child-to-be. When I make this suggestion the pro abortion crowd goes nuts. They immediately say that's a disservice to the baby. To which I respond it isn't a baby according to them. It can't be both a baby and not. If it isn't a baby at the time for abortion choice, then a man should be able to opt out. If he can't, her choice for "bodily autonomy" includes the option of him becoming an indentured servant for 20+ years to come. That effectively robs him of his bodily autonomy, as he will be laboring for another against his will. Most in the pro abortion crowd don't care. hat would make it seem as if choice and bodily autonomy aren't really of interest to them.
(The following rewards the deflection from Ron Paul's argument, but I feel the misrepresentation can't be left to stand.)
"when women do get pregnant as a result of their policies" Women do not get pregnant as a result of anyone's policies. Women get pregnant because sperm enters their vagina. Statements like yours illustrate a mindset that diminishes women, pretending they are unable to control themselves or make decisions. (This was Huckabee's point in context, BTW) Republicans don't wander the land seeding women. Women make the same choice men do.
"and don't want to keep the baby [...] they get mad." Actually I believe most anti aborts are big fans of adoption. Most pro aborts, especially leftists, viciously attack that suggestion. "autonomy", remember?
"need government assistance to raise it, they get mad" Those who are anti-abortion argue the obvious - the optimal situation is that people avoid intercourse unless they intend to have children and can afford it. That this so offends leftists would be comical if it weren't so harmful. When people who can't afford it have sex and so have children it is sub optimal for all involved. Again, this shouldn't be in dispute. The more likely people are to do this, especially without protection, the more irresponsible they are likely to be. The more times they do this resulting in pregnancy, certainly the more irresponsible they must be. Irresponsible people are more likely to raise irresponsible children, especially when rewarded for it. This then creates a growing group of the irresponsible - guaranteed leftist voters, but sub optimal for themselves and society. *None* of these simple realities should be in dispute by any rational adult. Leftists will attempt to deflect from all this with some individual example of woe to justify the general principle. It does not change the truth of the general arguments.
Republicans are not necessarily anti-welfare. They recognize it as a sub optimal situation for all involved, especially if nothing is ever expected of the recipient. Republicans in general prefer welfare have demands attached to it, like helping the recipient improve their life through education or seeking work, and avoiding drugs. Both of those things benefit the recipient and society. Leftists pretend this is unreasonable. It isn't.
Also, leftists have the tendency to assume that if government doesn't do something it doesn't get done. This isn't true. Charity can do and has done these things. Leftists do not like charity without government involvement because it 1) means no power for government and 2) often involves God, something most inherently reject.
Do Republicans "get mad" when all of these rational arguments are written off as "YOU WANT TO SUBJUGATE WOMEN AND STARVE THE POOR"? Yes. Reasonably so.
FYI, I'm unlikely to respond beyond this for two reasons. The first is that Govind's leftist hyenas will come out to nip at my ankles, screeching troll with impunity, and I tire of that behavior being tolerated. The ridicule and noise is meant to silence opposition. Since it's enabled responding only adds to the noise. The second is that I feel it's very likely any response can be met with simple repetition of what I've already written. I hate repeating myself, so I'd likely end up just cutting and pasting.
* links referenced above-
"Sexual harassment really comes down to power. Whether it's Quid Pro Quo or Hostile Workplace Harassment, the perpetrator is exerting a form of power when they sexually harass. In Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment, the perpetrator is in a position of power at work and is exerting this power to get sexual favors in exchange for a workplace benefit. "
http://www.sexualharassmenttraining.biz/sexual_harassment_training_course_Sexual-Harassment-and-Power-Dynamics.html
"MacKinnon concludes, 'Pryor confirmed the notion that men engage in offensive sexual conduct in the workplace primarily as a way to exercise or express power, not desire.'"
http://womensissues.about.com/od/sexualharassment/a/Men-Power-And-Sexual-Harassment-Why-Powerful-Men-Sexually-Harass-Women.htm
If you're against abortion, I respect your opinion but that isn't the topic at the time.
Huckabee's comments, Bill, Hillary, leftist views of women, abortion, "choice', welfare...
"Senator Paul is, in my opinion at least, attempting to deflect." It would be impossible for someone on the left to think otherwise. That's not a shot. It's a simple reality. To call this deflection is deflection, but that's instinct for leftists. To properly examine his point means to recognize the obvious contradiction (read lie) of the Democrat (leftist) Party and leftist ethics. What you present is a series of opinions of the Republican stand. (A rather cliched, simplistic caricature, actually.) That Bill committed sexual harassment (predatory behavior), and that his wife accepted his extra marital and predatory behavior, is fact. That what he did is considered harassment and predatory behavior among the Left is fact. (That's why I presented the links) [* links at bottom] . That the Left accepted, excuses, and deflects from all of the above is fact. Leftists simply don't care that Bill (and Hillary through enabling, acceptance) committed this behavior that is in direct contradiction of much of their ideology, because he furthers their agenda. (see also, Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to die, then calling hotel management to complain about noise disturbing his sleep).
What the Democrat Party will excuse regarding the treatment of women by their elite, or who think UnGood thoughts (political opposition) is obvious and regularly displayed. This picture is of just a few people, but is an example of ubiquitous behavior among the Left. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Be8J5b3CAAAClSU.jpg [If the link is non functional, this was a picture of leftists wearing "Sara Palin is a cunt" t-shirts.] Few if any among the left will condemn their own for it. Leftists justify and rationalize it all by claiming they are the champion of women. The contradiction is obvious.
The following rewards the deflection from Ron Paul's argument, but I feel the misrepresentation can't be left to stand.
"the Republican party is [inhibiting] the right of a woman to bodily autonomy" - They would disagree. They would argue the autonomy is in the choice leftists always ignore, the choice both sexes have (equality!), which is to partake in or avoid sex. They would argue that once that choice is made both parties are responsible for the life they've created. That life is 50%+ likely to be female, whose bodily autonomy leftists ignore. You can and will respond by launching into an argument of when life begins, or possibly by rationalizing, labelling the results of their choices a parasite. That's deflection from the fact you misrepresent the opposition's view on bodily autonomy. It pretends those who re anti-abortion have no argument, that they are oppressors for the sake of oppression, which is simply and absolutely untrue. (I'll save time and grief from being demonized and falsely accused, and state up front that I am pro abortion. I just don't dishonestly portray the opposition.)
Here's a fun exercise I enjoy: I argue that men should have the closest to the same choice women have regarding abortion. I believe men should be notified of the pregnancy, then given the option to advocate abortion (advocate only, mind you) and in so doing opt out of any future contact or responsibility for the pregnancy or child. Doing so fully informs the woman, the only one of the two (three?) given a choice post-intercourse, of the future of the child-to-be. When I make this suggestion the pro abortion crowd goes nuts. They immediately say that's a disservice to the baby. To which I respond it isn't a baby according to them. It can't be both a baby and not. If it isn't a baby at the time for abortion choice, then a man should be able to opt out. If he can't, her choice for "bodily autonomy" includes the option of him becoming an indentured servant for 20+ years to come. That effectively robs him of his bodily autonomy, as he will be laboring for another against his will. Most in the pro abortion crowd don't care. hat would make it seem as if choice and bodily autonomy aren't really of interest to them.
(The following rewards the deflection from Ron Paul's argument, but I feel the misrepresentation can't be left to stand.)
"when women do get pregnant as a result of their policies" Women do not get pregnant as a result of anyone's policies. Women get pregnant because sperm enters their vagina. Statements like yours illustrate a mindset that diminishes women, pretending they are unable to control themselves or make decisions. (This was Huckabee's point in context, BTW) Republicans don't wander the land seeding women. Women make the same choice men do.
"and don't want to keep the baby [...] they get mad." Actually I believe most anti aborts are big fans of adoption. Most pro aborts, especially leftists, viciously attack that suggestion. "autonomy", remember?
"need government assistance to raise it, they get mad" Those who are anti-abortion argue the obvious - the optimal situation is that people avoid intercourse unless they intend to have children and can afford it. That this so offends leftists would be comical if it weren't so harmful. When people who can't afford it have sex and so have children it is sub optimal for all involved. Again, this shouldn't be in dispute. The more likely people are to do this, especially without protection, the more irresponsible they are likely to be. The more times they do this resulting in pregnancy, certainly the more irresponsible they must be. Irresponsible people are more likely to raise irresponsible children, especially when rewarded for it. This then creates a growing group of the irresponsible - guaranteed leftist voters, but sub optimal for themselves and society. *None* of these simple realities should be in dispute by any rational adult. Leftists will attempt to deflect from all this with some individual example of woe to justify the general principle. It does not change the truth of the general arguments.
Republicans are not necessarily anti-welfare. They recognize it as a sub optimal situation for all involved, especially if nothing is ever expected of the recipient. Republicans in general prefer welfare have demands attached to it, like helping the recipient improve their life through education or seeking work, and avoiding drugs. Both of those things benefit the recipient and society. Leftists pretend this is unreasonable. It isn't.
Also, leftists have the tendency to assume that if government doesn't do something it doesn't get done. This isn't true. Charity can do and has done these things. Leftists do not like charity without government involvement because it 1) means no power for government and 2) often involves God, something most inherently reject.
Do Republicans "get mad" when all of these rational arguments are written off as "YOU WANT TO SUBJUGATE WOMEN AND STARVE THE POOR"? Yes. Reasonably so.
FYI, I'm unlikely to respond beyond this for two reasons. The first is that Govind's leftist hyenas will come out to nip at my ankles, screeching troll with impunity, and I tire of that behavior being tolerated. The ridicule and noise is meant to silence opposition. Since it's enabled responding only adds to the noise. The second is that I feel it's very likely any response can be met with simple repetition of what I've already written. I hate repeating myself, so I'd likely end up just cutting and pasting.
* links referenced above-
"Sexual harassment really comes down to power. Whether it's Quid Pro Quo or Hostile Workplace Harassment, the perpetrator is exerting a form of power when they sexually harass. In Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment, the perpetrator is in a position of power at work and is exerting this power to get sexual favors in exchange for a workplace benefit. "
http://www.sexualharassmenttraining.biz/sexual_harassment_training_course_Sexual-Harassment-and-Power-Dynamics.html
"MacKinnon concludes, 'Pryor confirmed the notion that men engage in offensive sexual conduct in the workplace primarily as a way to exercise or express power, not desire.'"
http://womensissues.about.com/od/sexualharassment/a/Men-Power-And-Sexual-Harassment-Why-Powerful-Men-Sexually-Harass-Women.htm