Puh-lease. Crawl back into your hole and read some more Alex Jones.san4 wrote:
1. Every American controls his own destiny
2. Human behavior can be controlled with physical force
3. The sexual revolution of the 1960's was immoral and destructive
Virtually every position Republicans take can be derived from one or more of these propositions.
I'm Dem, and I agree with those three fundamental beliefs 100%.san4 wrote:
1. Every American controls his own destiny
2. Human behavior can be controlled with physical force
3. The sexual revolution of the 1960's was immoral and destructive
Virtually every position Republicans take can be derived from one or more of these propositions.
That would fall under the sexual revolution.Kmarion wrote:
Aren't most Republicans Pro-Life?
Last edited by rawls (2007-02-06 17:27:47)
But it contradicts 1 and 2.rawls wrote:
I'm Dem, and I agree with those three fundamental beliefs 100%.san4 wrote:
1. Every American controls his own destiny
2. Human behavior can be controlled with physical force
3. The sexual revolution of the 1960's was immoral and destructive
Virtually every position Republicans take can be derived from one or more of these propositions.That would fall under the sexual revolution.Kmarion wrote:
Aren't most Republicans Pro-Life?
lol, indeed.Turquoise wrote:
1 and 2 contradict each other too....
Because we all know that Republicans shot up Weaver's family. This thread does not belong in DST.san4 wrote:
2. Human behavior can be controlled with physical force
I don't think so. Americans can avoid having physical force applied to them. For example, in theory, the police won't apply force to you if you don't break the law. And if you've got a gun, you can prevent robbers from using physical force to take your car, wallet, etc.Kmarion wrote:
lol, indeed.Turquoise wrote:
1 and 2 contradict each other too....
I'm not sure what this is getting at. The Iraq invasion, the death penalty, the preference to fight crime through law enforcement rather than welfare programs, and the aversion to gun control are examples of Republican positions that derive from the principle that human behavior can be controlled by force.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Because we all know that Republicans shot up Weaver's family. This thread does not belong in DST.san4 wrote:
2. Human behavior can be controlled with physical force
*shrugs* Fair enough. My argument is that neither party is consistent enough in their beliefs or actions to summarize with 3 simple axioms, but I can see how these might cover a lot of conservative positions.san4 wrote:
I don't think so. Americans can avoid having physical force applied to them. For example, in theory, the police won't apply force to you if you don't break the law. And if you've got a gun, you can prevent robbers from using physical force to take your car, wallet, etc.Kmarion wrote:
lol, indeed.Turquoise wrote:
1 and 2 contradict each other too....
Agreed.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* Fair enough. My argument is that neither party is consistent enough in their beliefs or actions to summarize with 3 simple axioms, but I can see how these might cover a lot of conservative positions.san4 wrote:
I don't think so. Americans can avoid having physical force applied to them. For example, in theory, the police won't apply force to you if you don't break the law. And if you've got a gun, you can prevent robbers from using physical force to take your car, wallet, etc.Kmarion wrote:
lol, indeed.
Seriously.Cougar wrote:
Agreed.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* Fair enough. My argument is that neither party is consistent enough in their beliefs or actions to summarize with 3 simple axioms, but I can see how these might cover a lot of conservative positions.san4 wrote:
I don't think so. Americans can avoid having physical force applied to them. For example, in theory, the police won't apply force to you if you don't break the law. And if you've got a gun, you can prevent robbers from using physical force to take your car, wallet, etc.
ATG,ATG wrote:
Seriously.
No, it's Charles Bronson and Sam Houston.BN wrote:
ATG,ATG wrote:
Seriously.
Is that you in your signature?
While we're having an agree-fest, I agree that the pro-life position leads to a conflict between propositions 1 and 3. There is a fault line within the Republican party over whether women should lose control over their destiny when they get pregnant.Kmarion wrote:
Aren't most Republicans Pro-Life?
Last edited by san4 (2007-02-07 04:22:18)