]I'd not add abortion to that list.
Why not? I think most people do believe that there are moral aspects to the issue of abortion. ****. I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't think there is a moral aspect. For most people, it's a conflict between the innately immoral act of terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy versus a woman's right to control her own body. People fall on all parts of the scale between those two, but that is the primary axis of the issue. If not, then what is? If there were no moral angle, then why not allow elective abortion right up to the moment of birth?
I don't agree. I don't think democrats are clamoring for more and better ways to cheat on their spouses anymore than republicans are. If anything, I'd hold *** marriage up as proof that democrats are striving to eliminate infidelity...much more so than republicans anyways.
That's not what I was talking about. I was saying that Democrats seem to be more likely to be motivated to avoid (or conceal) behavior the public might not like, not out of an agreement with the public that said behavior is "wrong", but out of a desire to avoid the scandal and the harm it might to do their party's position and power. And Democrat supporters (aka "liberals") tend to be more likely to share this view and also be more annoyed at the fact that a scandal is occurring than at the act which may have created the scandal.
One need only look at Obama's "phony scandals" approach going on right now to see this in action. He's playing on that very viewpoint. He knows that his audience (liberals) are more willing to ignore the actions themselves, but care about the fact that a scandal (whole set of them in his case) is causing a disruption in his ability to get more important things done.
You're repeating yourself but using more words.
I repeat myself in order to ensure that the person reading my post understands what I'm trying to say. Given that you completely missed the point I was making, it would seem like maybe *more* repetition is needed.
Integrity is a human characteristic. Republican's haven't cornered the market on it - sorry.
I didn't say that. This is not an "all or nothing" scenario. I'm talking about trends here.
Anyone who's ever had a civics class knows that the government should always operate under heavy scrutiny. Just say that Republicans tend to be more paranoid. Though I'd still dispute it.
Dems are much more likely to look the other way though, if the increase in government power is framed in the context of some greater "good" (like say health care reform, education reform, sexual/gender/race equality, etc). And when Republicans oppose such things, they're accused of wanting people to die from illness, or are opposed to education, or hate women, gays, blacks, etc. And liberals certainly don't blink at the prospect of jumping right on that bandwagon when it comes along.
So yeah. Liberals are vastly more likely to ignore increases in government power.
yeah thanks, 'we' believe that too.
And yet, didn't we just have a thread where many of the forum liberals were saying that what Weiner did wasn't a big deal? I had to point out like 3 or 4 times that the issue wasn't about the sexual aspect of what he did, but that it represented both a lack of self control and a casual willingness to lie about it. And when I did that the usual response was that it shouldn't be a big deal because what he was doing wasn't that bad. Clear indication of the liberal willingness to ignore lying to the public. In this case, it doesn't matter what he was lying about, but the fact that he did it.
Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak.
No they don't. But thanks for saying the same wrong thing in like three different ways.
See the example of Weiner above.
Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).
I don't know what you're talking about (or who). Can you be more specific?