Game over for Republicans - NOW what?

[Ron]

Someone explain this to me:
Why are so many people that on one hand say, "Get the government out of my life" also people that say "we gotta ban gay marriage and abortion!"

If you look at the post above your last one I think I answered the question about gays as far as my opinion. The left should stop the assault on the common culture and the right should stop going on the offensive against people who are different (gay).

Abortion is the taking of life, government should protect the most innocent of life among us. Turn it back over to the states and let the folks decide how to handle this issue. We don't need black robed demi gods telling us how it will be.

[Sindawe]

I don't see anything in the constitution that gives the federal government power over homos, guns, or abortion.

My, that Wookie suit must get awful itchy. 

Of course, you are correct Nitrogen and the idea of each state determining their own path on such issues is what the founders of the nation had in mind when they drafted up the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution. But the nation has veered away from such "dreamland fantasies" toward enforced fairness in outcome for all and making people do what is good for them, even if they don't want to.

If the Republican party were to return to supporting the founding idea of this nation AND actively pushing legislation (be it enacting new laws or better repealing old ones), I'd be in their camp in a heart beat.  Perhaps the only good thing to come out of this election will be a move in that direction.  Although I doubt it, they did not carry through with their promise after the '94 elections, and did squat when their anointed one held the White House for eight years.

Shouldn't LIFE be defended as well?

Yes, and therein lies the rub.  Nobody can agree on just WHEN that life begins.  Some conservatives and fundimentalists insist that it begins at conception.  One can argue that this does not go far enough, since even the ovum and sperm are alive and preventing each from joining at any opportunity is murder most foul.

Not an argument I support, neither do I support that fallacy that human life begins at birth and any action taken prior to that moment is just work on an insensate lump of tissue.  As I've said on these pages before, in my view the criteria for begining of human life should be the same as that which marks the end of human life, the presence or absences of brain activity.

[A.M. Baer]

"That's it, the Great Experiment is over."

Over?  Wrong!  You should never give up so soon and be so willing to declare judgement and defeat.  The great experiment is not over until you stop standing against tyranny.  As long as some of the American People stand against the government, the Great Experiment is still running.  If we can take back our country than we can be sure that the Great Experiment is alive.  That experiment was not only to create a prosperous nation, it was to allow the people to take the nation back when stolen by government; we can still do that.

[Manedwolf]

"That's it, the Great Experiment is over."

Over?  Wrong!  You should never give up so soon and be so willing to declare judgement and defeat.  The great experiment is not over until you stop standing against tyranny.  As long as some of the American People stand against the government, the Great Experiment is still running.  If we can take back our country than we can be sure that the Great Experiment is alive.  That experiment was not only to create a prosperous nation, it was to allow the people to take the nation back when stolen by government; we can still do that.

It wasn't stolen, that's the point. It was given away by a stupid, lazy majority who don't want a government, they want Santa Claus.

[charby]

My answer to everyone who has called me on my comments.

I have been active in the republican party since the 2000 elections, I've been on Central Committees of three different counties in Iowa. At these meetings we have a hard time even getting anything done because a large enough group in there only wants to discuss two items, gay marriage and right to life. Hardly ever to we get to discuss conservative fiscal polices and other republican ideals. Most the time the only rebuttals people can come up with to the opposition is so and so will allow gay marriage or so and so supports abortion.

By the third meeting of the year most everyone who was voted in at caucus to be on the central committee quit showing up. All that is left is a few stragglers like me and the rest are Christian right folks. I have one more year left in my term and I thinking about giving up because I am tired of volunteering only to hear the same *expletive deleted*it talked about all the time.

I'm a mix of Barry Goldwater and TR Roosevelt Republican. I am also socially libertarian, I believe in the Constitution. I believe that everyone in this country has equal rights. I hold no ill will against the Christian right, I just wish sometimes you could put as much energy into other idea as you do in right to life and gay marriage. I'm not for abortion, but I don't think it should be made illegal either, I think about those folks who think they have no options and return to the back alley abortions. I also think it doesn't need to be treated/advertised as a form of birth control either.

[K Frame]

Game over?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Nitrogen]

My, that Wookie suit must get awful itchy. 

I absolutely love playing devil's advocate.

Not an argument I support, neither do I support that fallacy that human life begins at birth and any action taken prior to that moment is just work on an insensate lump of tissue.  As I've said on these pages before, in my view the criteria for begining of human life should be the same as that which marks the end of human life, the presence or absences of brain activity.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Someone above me said that "The left should stop the assault on the common culture and the right should stop going on the offensive against people who are different"

Part of the problem with freedom is that people are going to do things you don't like.  You're going to have to deal with it.  Much like we tell anti-gunners, "I am going to own, buy, and carry guns wether you like it or not" you'll have other people wanting to live a gay lifestyle (I'm not getting into teh argument if its a choice or not) or you'll want women that want the choice to be able to end a pregnancy.

According to my religion, a baby isn't alive until he or she takes her first breath.  I realize that's not the norm for others.  While I find abortion morally repugnant, I'd rather keep the choice between a woman, her doctor and G-d.  My beliefs are just that, mine.  

I do think Government needs to step in, but those limitations should be, well limited.  Most people agree that abortions after the last trimester are wrong, for instance.  I'm fine with a set of guidelines, much like, "Felons can't have guns."  (Again, I don't want to argue that point either, I actually don't fully agree with it, but for the sake of argument..."

That's the rub in a truly free society.  We have to allow people to do things we might find morally repugnant.

I think that's exactly why the founders argued for a limited federal government.  As Obama says, "What's right for New York isn't necessarily right for Montana."
While I think he's wrong when he says it about guns, I think it's a great argument to allow states to do what they feel they need to do.

[MicroBalrog]

My, that Wookie suit must get awful itchy.  grin

I'd rather wear a wookie suit for freedom than wear a tie for the welfare state.

[roo_ster]

I'd rather wear a wookie suit for freedom than wear a tie for the welfare state.

Hmm, I'd best take my temperature, as that makes some sorta sense to me.

[seeker_two]

No, because they will only have about 2 years to take care of it.  Because once they screw everything up the 2010 elections will make the 96 Republican storm look like a gale.

Only if you think the 2010 election will be any more honest and well-reasoned than this one...before 2009 ends, the Democrats will pass legislation that makes McCain-Feingold look like a minor political inconvenience....not to mention the Fairness/Anti-Hate-Speech Doctrine Mk. II.....

[Perd Hapley]

Someone explain this to me:
Why are so many people that on one hand say, "Get the government out of my life" also people that say "we gotta ban gay marriage and abortion!"

That argument is an utter failure with regard to abortion.  The pro-life position is premised on the belief that abortion is murder.  Preventing murder isn't "getting all up in your personal life." 

It is also a failure with regard to homosexual marriage, because "bans" on gay marriage prohibit govt. action, not personal behavior.  They do not go into anyone's bedroom, or into anyone's "life."  Homosexuals are perfectly free to live together, to have wedding ceremonies, etc. 

[Perd Hapley]

The pro-life position is not a fringe issue, supported only by fundies.  It is a mainstream point of view, supported by legions of people who are not necessarily religious and/or not necessarily conservative.  The same goes for homo marriage, which suffered heavy, HEAVY losses in state-wide votes four years ago.

Hey, guess what?  Homo marriage was voted down in CALIFORNIA of all places.  And in Florida and Arizona.  Some fringe issue, that.   

[Manedwolf]

Hey, guess what?  Homo marriage was voted down in CALIFORNIA of all places.  And in Florida and Arizona.  Some fringe issue, that.   

Has Gavin Newsom released a statement that he'll defy the law, yet? Not like they'd cut off funding for the city or anything.

[nobody's_hero]

Believe it or not, there are libertarian arguments for the case of life in the abortion debate (that really shouldn't be a federal-level debate, anyway).

http://www.libertariansforlife.org/

Some good, logical points there, I think.

[seeker_two]

Hey, guess what?  Homo marriage was voted down in CALIFORNIA of all places.  And in Florida and Arizona.  Some fringe issue, that.   

....until the 9th Circuit gets ahold of it, that is.... 

[French G.]

Game over?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Manedwolf]

....until the 9th Circuit gets ahold of it, that is.... 

Yes. Can't let the voters have their say. Only activist judges get to make laws.

[Balog]

When even freaking Kalifornia shoots down your supposed "Religious Right theocratic fundamentalist only" idea, that's what we call a clue.

[Perd Hapley]

    

Thanks.  I needed a laugh.  I just recovered from a bit of a nervous, screaming episode about this [nithe young man] we just elected.  And, no, Godwin does not apply.  Look at his position on infanticide. 

[Gewehr98]

Umm, yes, Godwin's Law does apply, based on the definition thereof.

We're starting to look and sound a LOT like Democratic Underground today.

That ain't good.

I would've figured Fistful to know better, but I cleaned up his posting in an effort to regain some composure in the thread and this particular sub-forum... 

[Perd Hapley]

OK, so could I compare his view of newborns and preborns being less than human, to that of Judge Taney?  He of Dred Scott versus Sanford fame? 

[Gewehr98]

No, it appears you're bent on invoking Godwin's Law.

Me, I'm bent on keeping a thread alive and free of absolute silliness like that.

It's a public forum - and we don't need to broadcast such, thereby lowering ourselves to the level of less-palatable forums on the Web.

I have to concur with Mike, Mtnbkr, and the rest of the staff - if people here at APS are wrapped that far around the axle today, go outside and take a walk, read a book, or have a nice dinner with your significant other. 

Your blood pressure will thank you, and you won't drop dead in a fit of apoplexy over the whole deal.

[seeker_two]

It's a public forum - and we don't need to broadcast such, thereby lowering ourselves to the level of less-palatable forums on the Web.

We're a pro-RKBA, pro-Constitution, pro-USA forum full of white, independent-thinking males....how much less palatable can we GET?.....

[roo_ster]

fistful:

Nah, refer to the Chicoms and their forced-abortion policy. 

Comparisons to Nazis who killed 6+ millions are beyond the pale and have their own built-in foul buzzer (Godwin).

Comparisons to Maoists who killed 10+ millions, OTOH, is edgy & progressive.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Hmm, I'd best take my temperature, as that makes some sorta sense to me.

i thought the same thing