Also because the left broke their promise to reagan. Amnesty for three million and we promise promise promise well secure the border and this will never happen again. Lol.

---

I don't dispute that Republicans are moving right. I dispute the implication that Republicans are moving away from Americans and a shared set of facts as a result of them moving right. This is essentially a post hoc fallacy. People and, by extension, parties tend to move when presented with new circumstances, and so it should be expected considering how different the culture was in 1980 compared to today. You may believe the same things as a 1980s conservative, but that is irrelevant in 2018, as we are dealing with an entirely different culture.

The simple fact is that both parties are moving because they have different agendas and, therefore interpret information differently. The more those agendas are realized the greater the push-back will be until an equilibrium is found. This can not happen in today's political climate. The data shows the Republican party moving at slower pace than the Democrats. More over, Republicans tend to become more moderate with a Republican President. Democrats have been getting progressively more, well, progressive no matter who is in office.

I haven't seen any "data" on that.  I guess you're referring to polls?

Pew Research - Partisan Gaps Grow Wider

---

Also because the left broke their promise to reagan.  Amnesty for three million and we promise promise promise well secure the border and this will never happen again.  Lol.

Reagan didn't ask for the border to be secure. He said he hoped it could be even more open.  Watch the video again.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Simpson mizolli, the actual legislation, not just the platitudes.

---

I haven't seen any "data" on that.  I guess you're referring to polls?

Pew Research - Partisan Gaps Grow Wider

Thanks for the article.  There's a lot of data there, and it has some value, but not as much as you seem to think.
Polls like these can't account for people changing their party affiliation or people becoming disengaged and failing to answer their phone.  They're more designed to explain election results and hopefully predict the next one.  They do not answer the question of which individual people are moving and which are standing still.
And frankly, even if the Democratic Party is moving "left" faster than the Republican party is moving "right," that doesn't contradict my statement that the I didn't move but the Republican party did move.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Simpson mizolli, the actual legislation, not just the platitudes.

Right.  Congress makes law.  They are many people who make compromises with each other.  Their laws often have components that one faction likes mixed with another component that the same faction doesn't like.
The executive enforces law.  In 1980, Reagan and Bush made it very clear that they didn't think additional border security was a high priority.  
The Simpson Mazzoli act did not speak to border security. It sought to stop illegal immigration by requiring employers to complete more paperwork like the I9 form.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Simpson mizolli, the actual legislation, not just the platitudes.

Right.  Congress makes law.  They are many people who make compromises with each other.  Their laws often have components that one faction likes mixed with another component that the same faction doesn't like.
The executive enforces law.  In 1980, Reagan and Bush made it very clear that they didn't think additional border security was a high priority.  
The Simpson Mazzoli act did not speak to border security. It sought to stop illegal immigration by requiring employers to complete more paperwork like the I9 form.

Although a large portion speaks to immigration and jobs, you may want to glance at Title I, Part B as it specifically speaks to enforcement and border security. The bill was smeared with controversy at the time. There are reports upon reports on how Reagan was duped in providing more amnesty versus the tighter border he really wanted.

---

Pew Research - Partisan Gaps Grow Wider

Thanks for the article.  There's a lot of data there, and it has some value, but not as much as you seem to think.
Polls like these can't account for people changing their party affiliation or people becoming disengaged and failing to answer their phone.  They're more designed to explain election results and hopefully predict the next one.  They do not answer the question of which individual people are moving and which are standing still.
And frankly, even if the Democratic Party is moving "left" faster than the Republican party is moving "right," that doesn't contradict my statement that the I didn't move but the Republican party did move.

I am trying really hard to take you seriously.

---

Thanks for the article.  There's a lot of data there, and it has some value, but not as much as you seem to think.
Polls like these can't account for people changing their party affiliation or people becoming disengaged and failing to answer their phone.  They're more designed to explain election results and hopefully predict the next one.  They do not answer the question of which individual people are moving and which are standing still.
And frankly, even if the Democratic Party is moving "left" faster than the Republican party is moving "right," that doesn't contradict my statement that the I didn't move but the Republican party did move.

I am trying really hard to take you seriously.

Where do you get your news?  Talk radio, websites, TV? All of the above? None?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I haven't seen any "data" on that.  I guess you're referring to polls?

Pew Research - Partisan Gaps Grow Wider

"Democrats are divided by education and race in their views of hard work and success. White Democrats and those with higher levels of education are less likely than nonwhite Democrats and those with less education to say that hard work leads to success."
That is probably the saddest quote in that whole article. The more 'education' these democrats get, the more they believe they are victims and can achieve nothing through hard work. What a terrible way to think.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Pew Research - Partisan Gaps Grow Wider

"Democrats are divided by education and race in their views of hard work and success. White Democrats and those with higher levels of education are less likely than nonwhite Democrats and those with less education to say that hard work leads to success."
That is probably the saddest quote in that whole article. The more 'education' these democrats get, the more they believe they are victims and can achieve nothing through hard work. What a terrible way to think.

Eh, it's kind of a loaded question though.
Do we mean "hard work" in terms of physically difficult and backbreaking, or do we mean "hard work" as in diligence in general?
Do we mean "success" as you've become a contributing member of society, or you are now in the elite 10% or 1% of America?

Because it's obviously not true that people who just do more and more physically difficult, backbreaking labor eventually get to an elite amount of income or wealth.  Maybe in a better world they would, but not in this one.
While it obviously is true that trying hard and being diligent will set nearly anyone who's not disabled up to be a contributing member of society.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here's a conservative claim:
anyone who contributes to the demise of a fetus for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, should be prosecuted. Protecting another human life is the only possible justification for taking a human life.
Do you agree with that one? Or are you actually the fake conservative?

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

Like [BLEEP] it is.

---

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

Like [BLEEP] it is.

Is it 2019 already?

---

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

Like [BLEEP] it is.

Lol, the Libertarian Party Position is that government should not be involved. That is not in anyway being pro-abortion, it's pro-freedom. The Non-Aggression Principle that drives much of Libertarian thought though is immutable and inconsistent with advocating for abortion. In other words the government should have no say in forcing a woman to do one or the other, but a woman of Libertarian Conscience would not aggress against her unborn child. In my response earlier to Mikie I agreed that taking a life to save the mother is acceptable to me, I did not adequately clarify that I don't agree with prosecution of those who choose differently, and that is on me. It's a tough subject best left to the individual's choice.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Like [BLEEP] it is.

Lol, the Libertarian Party Position is that government should not be involved. That is not in anyway being pro-abortion, it's pro-freedom. The Non-Aggression Principle that drives much of Libertarian thought though is immutable and inconsistent with advocating for abortion. In other words the government should have no say in forcing a woman to do one or the other, but a woman of Libertarian Conscience would not aggress against her unborn child. In my response earlier to Mikie I agreed that taking a life to save the mother is acceptable to me, I did not adequately clarify that I don't agree with prosecution of those who choose differently, and that is on me. It's a tough subject best left to the individual's choice.

We pretty much agree, actually, now that this is clarified. Our disagreement seems to be on the definition of a child vs a fetus, and that's not a discussion that's ever gone well on these forums.

---

Like [BLEEP] it is.

Is it 2019 already?

I'm steering clear of the Jaguars subforum for a while because, well, I don't really see a need to discuss that clown car act right now.

---

Lol, the Libertarian Party Position is that government should not be involved. That is not in anyway being pro-abortion, it's pro-freedom. The Non-Aggression Principle that drives much of Libertarian thought though is immutable and inconsistent with advocating for abortion. In other words the government should have no say in forcing a woman to do one or the other, but a woman of Libertarian Conscience would not aggress against her unborn child. In my response earlier to Mikie I agreed that taking a life to save the mother is acceptable to me, I did not adequately clarify that I don't agree with prosecution of those who choose differently, and that is on me. It's a tough subject best left to the individual's choice.

We pretty much agree, actually, now that this is clarified. Our disagreement seems to be on the definition of a child vs a fetus, and that's not a discussion that's ever gone well on these forums.

---

Is it 2019 already?

I'm steering clear of the Jaguars subforum for a while because, well, I don't really see a need to discuss that clown car act right now.

I agree with both of those statements.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There is no discussion. The false distinction was don draper attempting to package mass slaughter.

---

There is no discussion.  The false distinction was don draper attempting to package mass slaughter.

This is why we can't have nice conversations.

---

There is no discussion.  The false distinction was don draper attempting to package mass slaughter.

This is why we can't have nice conversations.

It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This is why we can't have nice conversations.

It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.

At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.

---