Well said. Not accurate. Big business and profits over public health, the environment (public health issue). Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others. Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no.

The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well. Most people don't like abortion. The difference is whether a women makes that decision for herself or if Jim decides. Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester.

In US, the numbers come out to about 12 million fertilized eggs per year. 6 million pregnancies 4 million live births. more than a million each miscarriages and abortions of choice. 9 out of 12 million fertilized eggs are not born and only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman.

Having 1 kid, no kid, or 30 kids is a personal choice. I won't tell you or anyone else how many you should have. If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood.

Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats. Totally bogus.

I don't know if Jesus was a true Christian. But there is no evidence that he believed that government, especially secular government, should be responsible for either the physical or spiritual life of individuals. He seems to have preached that individual responsibility nonsense that the GOP spouts.

Now that is comical. Good one :humpty:

"Big business "

What does this mean, exactly? There is a liberal myth that republicans are happy to let businesses maximize profits even if it means slaughtering their employees and selling their organs on the black market. It's not true. Republicans are less hostile to business than democrats, that's typically true. I've never heard a republican call for a repeal of labor laws to let business run amuck. So I have no idea what your point is when you say "big business". I have news for you. Big business isn't bad. I have worked for big business my whole life, they employ thousands of Americans, generate wealth for shareholders, and give a ton of money to local charities.

"Individual rights claim as a way to discriminate against others"

Certain rights are guaranteed in the constitution, even if liberals are offended by them. Hurt feelings do not trump the Constitution. Do you agree?

"Sanctity of life- if you are referring to abortion- maybe; sanctity of life when you are talking about the right to clean water and air, health care, food quality, no"

You are making these crazy assumptions, for example, that Republicans don't like clean water and air. I spend a lot more time outdoors than most people. I think we have a responsibility to safeguard these beautiful ecosystems that give us so much. We need honest research about such things, and common sense reaction to them. I don't know any part of the GOP platform that endorses pollution. But we aren't a bunch of fanatical tree huggers, either. The right answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

"The abortion/religion connection is somewhat bogus as well"

The hell it is. Most conservatives are anti-abortion, most liberals are pro-abortion.

"Is it sad so many babies are aborted? Sure. What about the 50% of fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant? Sad. What about for those that do? Another 20% end fail in the first trimester. "

Nonsensical comparison. The latter events, while sometimes tragic, are natural. Abortion isn't. Apples and oranges. I happen to believe all life is precious, which is why I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, for the same exact reason.

"only about 1 million of those is due to the choice of the woman. "

What the heck, what's a million babies slaughtered in the womb each year, why cry over spilled milk. No reason to get so worked up.

Democrats are in favor of snuffing out a million lives a year. And you are trying to claim that this platform, more closely embraces Christianity? That's taking some liberties, boy.

"If republicans and so concerned about how many fertilized eggs become live births, they might also focus on improving reproductive health rather than defunding planned parenthood."

Anoother demonstrable false, bullsh*t lie. The GOP plans to de-fund Planned Parenthood, called for every cent that was formerly going to PP, to go to other women's health centers that don't do abortions.

See, this is what your side does. If the GOP wants to fund actual health care but not elective abortions, you know you cannot win that argument. So you lie, and claim that we oppose women's health. There is zero truth to that. But your side frames it this way, so that your position doesn't seem as evil as it actually is.

Try to follow along. We favor the funding of women's health. That does NOT include elective abortions. Am I going too fast for you?

All you did, was recite MSNBC bumper stickers. Little truth or logic. But that's liberalism.

You said the following two things.

(1) only about 1 million of those (unborn deaths) is due to the choice of the woman.

And then,

(2) Not a single real piece of evidence that republicans value life more than democrats

Your side advocates for the right to slaughter a million unborn babies every single year. My side opposes that. And you don't concede, that means my side values life more than your side.

I also posted a study which says that conservatives are also more charitable (not by much at all) than liberals.

That's quite a bit of evidence that my side has more empathy for the voiceless and the vulnerable. Which is why I like my side.

Again a simpleton response. There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born. A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies. I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. Looking at the posts and responses of people in this forum only reinforces that I should trust women and their doctors, not the crowd who voted in Captain Traffic Cone.

The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. Muslims would come out as one of the most charitable sub-groups in a such type of analysis.

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

"Again a simpleton response"

I am a very simple guy.

"There are another other 9 million babies that aren't born"

You are talking about natural miscarriages and abortion, as if they are the same thing. Natural miscarriages do not happen because of a legislative mandate. Abortions do. We can't legislate who has miscarriages. Jeez.

"A variety of health care issues that would help those unborn are ignored or negatively impacted directly or indirectly by republican supported policies."

I notice that despite your opinion that there are a variety of such issues, you didn't specify any. I'm not sure much helps the unborn more, than being protected from slaughter. For example, availability of prenatal vitamins, doesn't do an aborted fetus a lot of good that I can see.

"I think women are smart enough to make their own decision. "

See, there is the dishonest framing of the issue again. My opposition to abortion, doesn't mean I think women are stupid. My wife is ten times smarter than me in every imaginable way. And I don't think she has the moral right to elect an abortion. But I know she's smarter than me.

Liberals FRAME this as about how conservatives view women - again, they like to gframe things in a dishonest way. It's not. If it was, why are so many women opposed to abortion? The only issue, is the rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus.

Pro-life folks are pro-life, because they have empathy for the fetus. But I have never, not once, ever - heard a liberal say "I respect that pro-life people have empathy for the fetus, but I think it's misplaced empathy". Liberals never say that, because as usual, the truth makes there side look evil. So they say we are opposed to women's health. It's obviously dishonest, but it sounds better to liberals, than admitting the ugly truth about what the two sides actually believe.

Liberals do this (demonize the opposition) all the time. If you think white cops are usually heroes, you hate blacks. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women. If you want secure borders, you hate Hispanics. If you think the bill of rights applies to bakers who are opposed to gay weddings, you hate gays. If you are worried about jihadists, you hate Muslims. If you think Social Security needs to be fixed, you hate old people. If you think there are limits to how much we can spend, you hate poor people. It never ends. Never.

"The tendency of conservatives to be more charitable is directly related to tithing. "

I thought you said Christians didn't care about the poor? So why do they tithe? You can't have it both ways! Which is it?

"Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable"

Pretend you are an unborn baby with some health issues. God asks you whether you'd prefer to be placed in the womb of the head of the RNC or the head of the DNC. You going to claim that you wouldn't have a very strong preference?

I provided factual evidence that Republicans have more empathy (the issue of abortion, and charitable giving) You have provided zero evidence that I am wrong. You have slogans like "big business", and "profits before people". Bumper sticker slogans that dishonestly demonize conservatives. That's 90% of what liberalism is - dishonestly distorting what it is, that conservatives actually believe.

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. I am to blame for the public policy he advocates.

Character wasn't on the ballot in 2016. It was a choice of two morally bankrupt reptiles. I won't begin to claim Trump is more ethical than Hilary. I am quite comfortable debating that conservatism (which he advocates for, at least at the moment) is more ethical than liberalism (which she advocates for). I'm holding all the cards in that debate.

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody. And the divisiveness has nothing to do with the way liberals play the race card. Rather, the divisiveness comes from people who admit that today, there are two distinct political camps, and that most of us fall into one or the other.

Gotcha.

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

"The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)"

You can state that the earth is flat. Doesn't make it so.

"Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. "

And SOME of the ones that I have seen, claim it will help the poor and the middle class, and also help the rich.

"If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are. "

If that's what happens, I agree with you. I don't know, that's what is going to happen. And neither do you.

Why can't you tell me, how doubling the standard deduction, fails to help the people who utilize that deduction, none of whom are wealthy?

""Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities"

True. Your team also voted for an ethically bankrupt lizard.

"Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich"

Well with such convincing supporting data, that's a compelling argument.

"Bottom line, 2+2=5".

See what I di dthere.

Sorry Paul, I spent half my life living near New Haven, and the other half working near Hartford. Liberal cities in a liberal state. There is zero evidence that liberalism has helped these people. I have seen firsthand what a generation of pure liberalism has done.

After 40 years of voting for Democrats, the fatherlessness rate among blacks has more than doubled.

Fat lot of good liberalism has done for poor people.

I'm not saying conservatism eliminates poverty either.

Gee, that's a tough one.

Oh wait, it's easy. You said I don't care about babies, and you and Zimmy are saying I support policies that hurt poor people.

It's OK when liberals do it. It's only problematic when I do it.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that when Jim arrived on the scene he hit it hard, filter removed, and guns a-blazin.....

But he has definitely dialed it way back the past couple of years. I don't see anything remotely hateful in this thread.

You just don't really like the guy's politics is all

not sure what your definition of "poor" is but from what I understand the "poor" in this country are, in general, not paying any income tax and in many cases getting money through the earned income tax credit...

from Marketwatch..I think this was a 2015 analysis

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

I am not an accountant. So I could absolutely be wrong here...

But when I heard about the doubling of the standard deduction, I was very glad to see that in there. I figured that cannot fail to put more money in the pockets of people who are, I presume, mostly lower middle class. Isn't that who uses the standard deduction?

That piece alone, must necessarily reduce taxes for these people. Is there another feature of the bill, that increases their taxes by more than the deduction lowers them?

This is an honest, sincere question, not sarcasm or hyperbole.

I was just reading this about Pocahontas...too funny

touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color"


"My favorite Elizabeth Warren story involves a cookbook. Warren, who was at that time posing as a trailblazing Cherokee, actually contributed recipes to a recipe book with the name, I kid you not, “Pow Wow Chow.” But here’s the best part of the story. She plagiarized some of the recipes. Yes indeed, her version of “pow wow chow” came directly from a famous French chef. My second-favorite Warren story involves breastfeeding. She once claimed to be the first “nursing mother” to take the New Jersey bar exam, making her, I suppose, the Jackie Robinson of lactating lawyers. The problem? There’s no evidence this is true. Women have been taking the New Jersey bar since 1895, and the New Jersey Judiciary was “not aware” whether they tracked the nursing habits of test-takers. Warren is a bit of an academic grifter. She’s willing to fake her way to the top. When she came to Harvard Law School, she was — believe it or not — considered by some to be a “minority hire.” She listed herself as a minority on a legal directory reviewed by deans and hiring committees. The University of Pennsylvania “listed her as a minority faculty member,” and she was touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color.”

I think the issue is they while they may double the standard deduction they also remove other exemptions and tinker with the rates so it's neutral or in some cases a net loss. The CBO report just hammered the Senate plan as a big hit on the middle class and will add substantially to our deficit spending.

Someone has to cover the tax cuts for private jets, golf courses and hotels. Sheeeesh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think he's changed a bit.

Neither have you Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I give him credit where due, he doesn't immediately take a hard right turn to steer every topic to abortion like he did at first. So he's got that going for him... 😁😁😁😁😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the selective quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the out of context quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that was in response to PaulS referring to the fact that considering members of a party a "Team" or "Side" is what's contributing to why our "Political Climate is so Decisive" (pretty sure he meant divisive)"

Good work on your lack of reading comprehension skills though

What I mean and what Samsung Android here's are two different things LOL.

I can live with gyms see it just heard me say gyms instead of jim politics as I used to vote majority Republican. What I respond to is the constant insults. For someone so smart I think it brings him down
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reading comprehension? You told Paul he should "talk to this guy" in reference to me using the word "side". I was quoting "side" from Jim. It isn't a reading comprehension problem on my part. You missed the context of my post. Side was Jim's word. Next time I will put it in quotes and add a footnote for you.

You said I care less about babies. I guess it's OK when you lob insults, no one else is supposed to stoop to that. Do I have that right?

Same exact kind of woman Hilary is for getting through her first dinner date with Bill when he left the table to have a quickie with the coat-check girl.

Please post where I said that about you.

I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind. Love the fetus care less about the baby seems to be the Republican way. Cut WIC, chip Etc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he actually do that? Cuz if he did that's horrible. If not it's scummy of you even accuse someone of doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not that I know of. But neither do you know what happened during the first 10 minutes of Melania's first conversation.

Melania and Hilary, safe to say, both married for convenience, not love. You go ahead and deny that if it suits you.

Again, it's OK for you to speculate on what happened on the Trump's first date, but "scummy" for me to do the same exact thing with the Clintons.

You're not having a good couple of days here.

"Please post where I said that about you"

Your post #47..."Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

"I only Respond to your anger with Posts in kind"

So when I respond to anger with my own anger, it means I have a character flaw. When you respond to anger with you own anger, hooray for you!!!