Posted on 01/16/2005 6:05:55 PM PST by RPTMS
so pro-life except for capital punishment when repubs are pro-death, right?
Hollywood hyperbole alert...yawn.
GO CLINT, EXERCISE THAT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT
A libertarian Republican, sorta like Bob Barr or Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. -- maybe a kind of a "moderate" Republican, except WITH specific, lasting, principles (some conservative, some not), which the "moderates" have none of.
"arguing that the sick and the weak should be put down like dogs."
Have you seen the movie? I really don't think it's pro-euthanasia.
Eastwood's film's are usually very a-moral. If anything, Eastwood's character kill's Swank's character so he doesn't have to look at her suffering anymore. He did it for himself.
No, Clint Eastwood is libertarian.
I've always thought Eastwood was a Republican. I just don't think he's a conservative one.
"Eastwood only populate his movies with conservative actors, who would he have play the Sean Penn role,"
I'm thinking Drew Carey would not be very convincing.
The difference of course being that "for capital punishment" refers to being in favor of putting to death criminals convicted of killing innocent people while "pro live" applies to protecting the innocent lives of the unborn.
There is a certain consistency to the conservative position. It just requires a degree of intellectual honesty to see it
Seen the Shialvo threads? As bad as the WOD and Civi War threads.
Moore, a typical commie liberal.
Did you notice Eastwood's quote on your link? "Everyone leaves everyone else alone."
I remember when THAT ideal was considered the conservative norm - like during the Reagan era. Ah, the good old days.
"...euthanasia...I'm all for it."
Me too, I want it for Michael Moore, he needs to be put out of our misery.
Can't speak for others, but I my pro-life agenda is pretty limited to unborn babies, and those helpless to defend themselves.
But punishing criminals is not comparable to either of those, and is a separate category in my mind. It's not "pro-death" it's "pro-punishment", and I think some crimes and criminals are indeed worthy of the ultimate punishment.
IMO, freedom equals the right to die if you so choose, and people who can't feed themselves are not my responsibility.
(Most neo-cons believe in "freedom-lite", and are scared of REAL freedom)
Not sure why that is hard to understand. It is possible for a criminal to have done something bad enough to forfeit his right to freedom or in some cases his right to life. An unborn child cannot have done such a thing but its life is forfeit for the convenience of others.
You are right - he meant it...
I hope you mean for people that are not pressured or feel they have to consent to save their family or "society" from a burden...and that also means not for those(handicapped newborns) who haven't consented either...We have airheads in the GOP who already favor euthanasia for those who haven't given their consent....we call them "pro-choice" Republicans...
ping
"...euthanasia... I want it for Michael Moore, he needs to be put out of our misery."
Oooookaaaaaaay.
Just a quick question. Are you taking three of the pink pills twice a day...or are you taking four of the blue pills three times a day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.