Simple question....

Question. What did people do before cell phones? Called their work and asked for mom. See you even think people can survive without one. Kids won't die because their mothers don't have a cell phone.

People must have been dying all around when there was cell phones. The death rates after cell phone most have dropped by 2/3 at least.

 

I'll try to interpret what you are saying. Poor people did not have phones except if they were at work. I know that you want people to work more but 24/7 is not an option. Kid did die because they and mom did not have a cell phone. People are dying all around with or without cell phones.

Again you don't reply to what I said and just ramble on with more nonsense. Why do you bother?

 

What else are people entitled to? Cell phone, cable TV , flat screens, a car. Where does it stop.
You really think this was about saving lives. Or maybe it was about money. How many hours are the cell phone companies charging the government. I would be will to bet that their money was behind this crap. Maybe we should install cameras in everyone's house so mothers can check on their babies. Think of the babies we could save. Sure your ok with this if not your hate babies.

 

But really we need both parties. It's a balance thing. Ying yang.

 

Do you believe that your discussion has been coherent?

 

Contemplating questions like that could cause conservative pinheads to explode.

 

Morals is what dictate everything already. Wheter you like it or not, the laws that decide what you can and can't do without getting hunted by cops is based on peoples morals, and it has always been and always will be. There's no alternative.

What I mean is that the law stem from morality, or ethics, not the other way around. The question of wheter a fetus is a child obviously don't refer to the legal status of it, but how people percieve, or feel, it to be as that's the basis of the law in the first place.

 

Turn on msnbc this morn and what do you know liberal and progessive fighting about Obama and his drone speech that he lied during. Even the liberal is saying he lied. Wow the progessive didn't like hearing that. But you want me the believe this doesn't happen.

 

Follow the money! The "Right" is certainly more politically aligned with BIG MONEY; firearms, death, war and dirty energy aren't things they shy away from one iota. It is obvious.

If they (Conservatives, Republicans or the "Right") ever show me that they are truly AND deeply serious about the well being of PEOPLE (especially the Middle Class)... I may vote for someone on the Right once again. But I'm fairly certain that those on the Left are our best bet for being represented as a living HUMAN beings.

 

Amen, to that!!

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. Good question.

 

You are spot-on!!

"gabmux" is saying what MANY need to hear. And I think more and more Americans MUST say the kinds of things he has been sharing here. The extremists in our society need to see their agendas 'mitigated'.

 

Absolutely not true. Only the right wing thinks laws are about morality. Most laws are passed to protect society. Those laws based solely on morality (e.g. sodomy) are generally stroke down. You can have a moral opinion about the issue of abortion but your moral opinion should not guide the laws.

What I mean is that the law stem from morality, or ethics, not the other way around. The question of wheter a fetus is a child obviously don't refer to the legal status of it, but how people percieve, or feel, it to be as that's the basis of the law in the first place.

You actually reinforced my point. The question about a fetus should not affect the laws except by its legal status. You want to change that status but, if and up til you change that legal status, you can not use your morals to deny another person's right.

 

Can you tell me the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Are you telling me there aren't any difference? Really.

There are hundreds of post on DU on this topic. There is a difference but it isn't just straight forward. Liberals would weather see a single pay health care while progressive like the Obama care system. Liberals have a harder time seeing any good reason for war while progressives are more willing. Liberals hate companies like monsanto while progressives love monsanto. How many do I need to say before you understand? If you need more and still don't get it I can keep going. Or you can google it.

 

One reporter's opinion and "DU". What the hell is "DU"? For some reason, you think that, when 2 liberals disagree, one must be a progressive and one must be a liberal. We liberals do disagree at times but that doesn't cause some imaginary line between progressives and liberals. Dictionary.com actually use "liberal" as a synonym for the noun "progressive".

I am for single payer healthcare but also accept Obamacare. What does that make me? Some liberals are against Obamacare. What does that make them? I do not know of a "liberal" and/or "progressive" who is for Obamacare and against single payer.

BTW, does it have anything to do with the original question?

 

Agree not sure where it went off track. Probably my doing.

But I really do think both sides are need to keep the other in check. It seemed to have always kinda worked that way for this long. Though the grid lock is really getting bad

 

DU Democratic Underground. One of the biggest Dem forum. Dem only. Should check it out if you want to see how they themselves tell the difference between the two

 

Join the military.

Any other questions?

 

Thank you. So let's move on.

 

i just wasn't sure which "DU" you were referring to. I know of it. All Dems are not liberal and all liberals are not Dems.

 

Good point. I'm a liberal Whig Party member.