Moderator: Community Team
I admitted the second one was terribly biased, yet much of that information is confirmed from other sources. The first one really wasn't that biased.Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups.
Tricking individuals into entering a crisis pregnancy center and then holding them there using the means that some of these places do doesn't really fall under your definition above.Night Strike wrote:Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions
Well that's just a factual lie.Night Strike wrote:which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?Night Strike wrote:And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA
I don't dislike groups that oppose abortion. I dislike groups that use misinformation to trick people into doing things they don't want to do. If that happens to include certain groups who oppose abortion, then so be it.Night Strike wrote:it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
Kind of like the lies to get women to agree to illegal abortions?Woodruff wrote:You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?
I find it strange that you believe I would be in favor of that.Night Strike wrote:Kind of like the lies to get women to agree to illegal abortions?Woodruff wrote:You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?
I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping themNight Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.MegaProphet wrote:I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping themNight Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
If only it were that simple. Thanks for the reply anyhow.Woodruff wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
Fiscal conservatism I view as a bumper sticker slogan,because of the overwhelming evidence of increased government spending when republicans have control of the presidency and the house. Social conservatism is the "the sheep" that "the wolves" the ruling class of the republican party needed to win elections. The ruling class does not want a true social conservative in the white house,think back to Mike Huckabee's run for president and the response by conservative media.Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
I know really right,how insulting and dangerous it is to think women and their doctors are not responsible enough to make heath care decisions,that somehow some grey haired politician with most likely a lawyers background is more qualified.Woodruff wrote:Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.MegaProphet wrote:I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping themNight Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
Great question since so much government spending supports/undermines "social issues." It's difficult to say since the dichotomies (social v. fiscal and liberal v. conservative) are too vague to provide a good enough distinction for ya.Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history. Just look at our runaway spending by virtually all of government, regardless of party.Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?Phatscotty wrote:We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent historySymmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
I mean there haven't been many Republicans at all who qualified as fiscally conservative, specifically at a Federal level.Symmetry wrote:Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?Phatscotty wrote:We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent historySymmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
Thanks for making my long stated argument for me,but if I had said it you would say I was incorrectly stereotyping and smearing conservatives.Phatscotty wrote:I mean there haven't been many Republicans at all who qualified as fiscally conservative, specifically at a Federal level.Symmetry wrote:Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?Phatscotty wrote:We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent historySymmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
Happens when Congress no longer gives Obama a blank check and when the economy has a little bit of improvement to it. However, I'd expect the economic improvement to come to a streaking halt by this time next year due to Obamacare.ooge wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/deficits-falling/index.html
Nope, I've never believed that, which is why I'm strictly opposed to Obamacare, which is purely government involvement in health care decisions of all people. Abortion has never been about a woman's choice: it's about the unborn child being its own being and having its own right to life that is guaranteed to all. No person's right to choose extends to having the right to take away the life of another.Woodruff wrote:Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.MegaProphet wrote:I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping themNight Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
Thanks for the lack of explanation.Symmetry wrote:If only it were that simple. Thanks for the reply anyhow.Woodruff wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?
So what you meant to say was crisis pregnancy centers exist to help the fetus of an unwanted pregnancy rather than the women who have a unwanted pregnancies.Night Strike wrote:Nope, I've never believed that, which is why I'm strictly opposed to Obamacare, which is purely government involvement in health care decisions of all people. Abortion has never been about a woman's choice: it's about the unborn child being its own being and having its own right to life that is guaranteed to all. No person's right to choose extends to having the right to take away the life of another.Woodruff wrote:Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.MegaProphet wrote:I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping themNight Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.
And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.
You keep saying things like this, but it just doesn't hold any water. Do you have actual evidence of this?Phatscotty wrote:or against those who are fervently promoting it in public schools and such.
God was never taken out of the schools.Phatscotty wrote:Other things can get you a social label, such as allowing God in public schools.
Well...how many individuals have there been in the US government that have been particularly interested in balancing the budget? Clinton did a pretty decent job of it. Ron Paul has been active in that regard. I can't really think of any others, though I'm probably missing one or two.Symmetry wrote:Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?Phatscotty wrote:We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent historySymmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?