Post by: mek42 on May 30, 2008, 06:10:02 PM
I think the two-party system is bad for America as it limits choices and forces compromises on principals rather than compromises on legislation. Ironically, being that I personally do not consider myself overly Conservative, I feel that the right, especially the religious right are the people most shafted by the two party system.
Post by: LAK on May 30, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.com/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2008, 07:57:54 PM
Quote
This is a departure from the traditional recent linkage between the Conservative and Republican parties.
It's not a departure. There's long been a divide between the Conservative grass roots and the moderates, and I'm not sure it's that much more pronounced than usual. Perhaps the era of Reagan, and later of the 94 revolution are the exception rather than the norm.
If you want to know why we haven't seen a Conservative third party candidate, just look at the Republican primaries. McCain won because Conservatives were splintered between Romney, Thompson, Paul, Huckabee, Hunter, and so on and so forth. Many of those guys were still on the ballet when I voted in Missouri, even ones that had pulled out several weeks prior. I wonder how many Republicans voted for, say, Thompson, not realizing he had thrown in the towel.
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 30, 2008, 08:22:56 PM
Post by: LAK on May 31, 2008, 02:29:32 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 31, 2008, 05:54:03 AM
Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Ron Paul of the republican party comes to mind. Are we defining conservative as being a good steward of the public trust, or religious zealotry that wants to force it's morals on others?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(We were talking about Goldwater Conservatives, I believe. AKA, actually politically savvy adults.)
Post by: Gowen on May 31, 2008, 07:10:28 AM
Because GWB and the so called conservative Republicans in Washington so poisoned the field against us. They threw out who they could in 06 and the rest might go in 08. Just be happy that obama is enough of a boob that McCain will be elected and we can hopefully elect some real conservatives in the future. It will take time to rebuild what Regan and Newt started. We just have to suffer through McCain.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 07:15:32 AM
Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Ron Paul of the republican party comes to mind. Are we defining conservative as being a good steward of the public trust, or religious zealotry that wants to force it's morals on others?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(We were talking about Goldwater Conservatives, I believe. AKA, actually politically savvy adults.)
You may want to read "Glorious Disaster".
And frankly, if McCain is your image of adulthood, I'd rather never grow up.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 31, 2008, 08:24:46 AM
Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Ron Paul of the republican party comes to mind. Are we defining conservative as being a good steward of the public trust, or religious zealotry that wants to force it's morals on others?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(We were talking about Goldwater Conservatives, I believe. AKA, actually politically savvy adults.)
You may want to read "Glorious Disaster".
And frankly, if McCain is your image of adulthood, I'd rather never grow up.
You may want to read Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative.
McCain is not an ideal candidate by anyone's standard, but it's the least of all evil. Put down the wookie costume and wear a nice suit, and people will take you seriously.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on May 31, 2008, 08:29:00 AM
Quote
Bob Barr of the libertarian party or Ron Paul of the republican party comes to mind.
The same Bob Barr who wants the practice of Wicca banned from the military? Doesn't sound very "Libertarian" to me. But then, that's why I'm not one.
Ron Paul might have had a chance, with just a teensy effort to sound less "extreme". Had he tabled the issue of a Gold Standard ,which nobody was talking about except him, and spoken of issues people were concerned about, things might have been different.
I am saddened and embarrassed that in 2008, the best we have to choose from are McCain, Clinton, and Obama. With Barr as a possible spoiler thrown into the mix.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 09:32:30 AM
Quote from: Manedwolf
You may want to read Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative.
Oh, I actually am planning to read it. But if you read any history of the Goldwater Campaign, including "Glorious Disaster" [written by one of the guys who were Goldwater conservatives before Goldwater even knew he was going to run], many of the people who turned out most helpful to Goldwater were 'wackos' by modern standard.
Conservatives have been 'wearing nice costumes' and adopting to the debate language of the status quo for decades now, and it doesn't seem to be working.
You need to raise more hell and less corn.
Post by: grampster on May 31, 2008, 12:21:07 PM
So this time around we have a choice between a JFK Democrat, a strong willed Socialist on the order of FDR and a committed Marxist. Take yer pick.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 31, 2008, 01:34:00 PM
I find it interesting that being relatively young and living in Israel that you apparently have a better understanding of our internal politics than we do. Conservatives have been losing ground for a variety of reasons, a lack of hell raising wackos is not one of them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 31, 2008, 02:59:02 PM
But why are we still talking when I answered the question a long time ago?
Quote
Conservatives were splintered between Romney, Thompson, Paul, Huckabee, Hunter, and so on and so forth.
We're still splintered. Conservatives are not ready to unite on one candidate.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 31, 2008, 05:32:49 PM
Raising hell only works if you have an audience and you actually have a coherent message. Oh wait, that is sort of like normal politics isn't it?
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 31, 2008, 06:34:17 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 07:11:54 PM
Micro,
I find it interesting that being relatively young and living in Israel that you apparently have a better understanding of our internal politics than we do. Conservatives have been losing ground for a variety of reasons, a lack of hell raising wackos is not one of them.
I find it interesting that being relatively young and living in Israel that you apparently have a better understanding of our internal politics than we do. Conservatives have been losing ground for a variety of reasons, a lack of hell raising wackos is not one of them.
I find it interesting that you criticize my views based on my identity, rather than their content.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 31, 2008, 07:44:25 PM
The weird thing is that the FSPers who've alienated people here do the same thing! Instead of finding out what NH people are frustrated with and working with that they just do what makes them feel good and important. You try having a naked pretest here and you're just going to piss us off, if you knock on my door and speak to me like an adult I'll hear what you have to say and you might get aid from me if you've got a good cause, and that's not an uncommon attitude among New Englanders.
If you actually want the FSP to suceed the first thing needed to be done is to change the voting laws, we've had quite a bit of fraud up here with people voting more than once and even people coming up from other states to vote in our election. What good is moving people here to affect the voting block if others can waltz in and make every vote irrelevant?
If you really want to know at least one reason why Conservatives have lost ground check out "The Art of Political War" by David Horowitz.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 31, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Micro,
I find it interesting that being relatively young and living in Israel that you apparently have a better understanding of our internal politics than we do. Conservatives have been losing ground for a variety of reasons, a lack of hell raising wackos is not one of them.
I find it interesting that being relatively young and living in Israel that you apparently have a better understanding of our internal politics than we do. Conservatives have been losing ground for a variety of reasons, a lack of hell raising wackos is not one of them.
I find it interesting that you criticize my views based on my identity, rather than their content.
I think what he's saying is that this is as if we, over here in America, were talking with "authority" about the hows and whys of internal politics of Kadima vs. Likud and the like.
Which we can't. Because we don't know what the sentiment is there, because we don't live there.
The weird thing is that the FSPers who've alienated people here do the same thing! Instead of finding out what NH people are frustrated with and working with that they just do what makes them feel good and important.
That is exactly what they've done. The only thing that NH people are frustated with...is the free staters. Old-style New Englanders HATE pushy carpetbaggers, and the FSP people just won't get a clue about that. Unless your family has been in New England for centuries, you're a newcomer, which is fine, everyone will be friendly as long as you respect the traditions and culture of the place. Making a scene and being obnoxious, pushy and loud in public is not part of that culture. Neither is telling the longtime residents that they're wrong, and that your group of newcomers is going to change things. That is what the FSP did, and that's why they are being rejected. They need to move on to someplace like Wyoming, where they can be alone.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 11:31:11 PM
Anyhow, long post:
MicroBalrog Disclaimer: This post is being written away from my home, as such I have no access to my books, and am unable to provide detailed bibliographical reference. Bear with me, please.
* * *
Consdier, if you will, the following. The conservative movement can be subdivided for the purposes of my argument into what the New York Times would call 'creedal conservatives' and 'mindset conservatives. The mindset conservatives would be best described by pointing to Edmund Burke's diatribe against the French Revolution i.e., their key opposition to social-democrats or Progressive does not stem from some principled opposition to Big Government, or to secularism, but rather from their opposition to radical change.
In the modern era, these people are often represented by neoconservatives. By the term 'neoconservative' I do not mean 'anyone who disagrees with me', as some people are wont to, but rather, I direct you to Irving Kristol's book on Neo-Conservatism. Kristol speicifically advises that conservatism, as he sees it, is not to be entrapped by some 'ideological' opposition to big government, and rather, moderation is to be pursued in this venue. Above all, remember Burke [whom Kristol references very fondly]: RADICAL CHANGE BAAD!
On the other hand, you have the people who want particular change the evangelicals, the libertarians, and whoever else. Note that libertarians are conservatives no matter how some of them bitch and moan and try to pretend they're a separate movement. The libertarians and evangelicals and Reaganites are all separated from the social-democrats by virtue of believing that capitalism is better than socialism, that human beings are individually responsible for moral choices, and that good and evil are not subjective. They differ of course on the extent of the policies they puruse. But the point is, none of these people are 'conservatives' in the sense that they oppose radical change. In fact, technically speaking and as Reagan pointed out the people who want to preserve the welfare state are the Tories. The Reaganites, and the evangelicals, and the libertarians, are revolutionaries.[A useful book on this is Exit With Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan ].
The mindset conservatives (whom I'll call Burke conservatives from now on) have very often won primaries and elections, among other things, by promising the creedal conservatives that they're either better than the other guy [If you don't vote for McCain, Obama will win and take all of your guns!] or that they are a 'way to get what you want, slower'.
Newsflash: It has not worked.
The current status-quo is not going away. The Burke conservatives LOVE the status-quo. The Obamaniacs are going to further the status-quo, and possibly make it slightly* worse
[* During the reign of President Johnson, stuff like guaranteed income (putting everybody on welfare) was seriously discussed in Congress. Reading Man versus Welfare State , one can get really surprised at how left-wing Johnson and the Democrats were then.]
The first thing you need to do to go anywhere is to realize that people like John McCain are NOT like you. They're not 'people just like you, but much more moderate'. They operate on a completely different mindset and set of ideas.
The system where everybody wears suits and ties, speaks only within the allowed frame of debate (enforce existing laws vs. add more laws, cut taxes slightly vs. increase taxes, and so on) benefits 'Da System' and those people who are in charge of it (I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe that, 'in every system of government, an olygarchy lurks behind th facade').
You want freedom? Do you SERIOUSLY want freedom or do you just want to avoid Obama eating your children? If B, let me remind you that you can't win every election. You avoided having your nightmare candidate win in 2000, and in 2004, and maybe you're going to avoid having your nightmare candidate win in 2008. Maybe Obama really is the guy who will eat your kids, but seriously, unless you change the system all around, you can't win every single time.
Eventually an unAmerican candidate is going to win and REALLY eat your kids. Unless you destroy the Welfare State first, that is.
And as we demonstrated above, you can't do that by wearing a suit and a tie and voting every few years.
People on these forums argue, repeatedly, that the leftists, and especially Obama, hate America not in the sense that they want to blow up the White House and the Pentagon, but in the sense that they hate everything America is actually about. Forever do the very people who are arguing against me on this thread argue, also, that the leftists are 'at war with America.'
Very well, then. Act like it. Protest. Scream. Subscribe to The American Conservative. You are the people who claim you're at war, aren't you?
Pass to the right. Sign for your placard here.
No, the wookie-suits only come in two sizes, soldier too big and too small.
[I had the vision of a giant, military-like, depot, where Manedwolf and Fistful sign for their wookie-suits. The mental image was too goddamn awesome to pass up.]
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 11:37:29 PM
Post by: Tallpine on June 01, 2008, 06:32:35 AM
Quote
Put down the wookie costume and wear a nice suit, and people will take you seriously.
I for one am getting really sick of the personal attacks against people you (plural - not just MW) disagree with
Post by: Manedwolf on June 01, 2008, 06:44:38 AM
Quote
Put down the wookie costume and wear a nice suit, and people will take you seriously.
I for one am getting really sick of the personal attacks against people you (plural - not just MW) disagree with
It's a metaphor for the ineffectual and local-alienating methods they've chosen here, which includes yelling in public, deliberately getting arrested and hassling the police. And, to be honest, beclowning themselves. Nobody takes them seriously.
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 01, 2008, 04:55:56 PM
Post by: mek42 on June 02, 2008, 02:08:57 PM
Back to topic, if conservatives aren't ready and/or willing to do what it takes to get behind someone, even as a third party, isn't it time to stop whining? Kind of a do-your-business or get off the pot moment?
If there was a Conservative person on the ballot with no other party affiliations I might vote for them just to give the Rs and Ds a wake up call that the people need to be listened to.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 02, 2008, 02:19:22 PM
Post by: mek42 on June 02, 2008, 04:19:28 PM
To hear Conservatives in the media - maybe "whining" isn't the absolutely correct word, but it seems like if the Conservatives with the loudest voices actually did something other than bemoan the current state of affairs there might be less for them to moan about.
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 02, 2008, 06:33:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 02, 2008, 07:12:06 PM
Quote
Back to topic, if conservatives aren't ready and/or willing to do what it takes to get behind someone
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I said we weren't ready to unite, I didn't mean we didn't want to do anything. I meant that we haven't decided which way to go, and we're split on the correct policies, or sometimes just on the correct priorities. That's why McCain won. Some thought that Huckabee's platform was best. Some liked Thompson. Some Romney, some Hunter. Now a lot of that had to do with personality and elect-ability, but still, there are disagreements about which planks are more important. National defense, border security, social issues, spending, earmarks, deficit, the economy, and so on. I think conservatives are divided over which are most important. Add to that, we're split over the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, a bunch of things I can't remember now, because it's too late.
As for the "whiners," you'll always have a segment that is more complaint than accomplishment. As for the conservative pundits, they are doing their job, which is to opine. Rush Limbaugh is probably encouraging activism now, more than he ever has. He has long said that it isn't his job to tell his listeners what to do, or to call this or that politician, or to write letters. Operation Chaos is, as far as I know, his biggest foray into activism so far.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 02, 2008, 08:16:31 PM
Post by: mek42 on June 03, 2008, 01:25:21 PM
I think you are referring to Bill Buckley Mek. I am going to have to agree with fistful as there are conservatives that think that being conservative means forcefully protecting old standards and the status quo, and there are the conservatives that believe in being good stewards and not playing the tax and spend game that is ruining the country. Throw in the extreme libertarians that understand good government policy but can't figure out that just because you can be free to do something doesn't mean you should do it (especially in public while wearing wookie suits) and there is no wonder why the "conservative" movement is so split up. I would consider myself a conservative Republican if it wasn't an oxymoron right now considering how the party is acting. All have done in eight years is proved that we can outspend democrats and expand the government needlessly just as much. Just look at my home state of Mississippi where we just elected a democrat congressman because he seems to be pro 2ndA, moral, and not fiscally reckless.
Yes, Bill Buckley, thank you!
Lately I've kind of joked around that I could win an election with no party affiliation using a platform of, "I will neither lie nor pander." Maybe that isn't quite the joke I thought it was.
Post by: erictank on June 06, 2008, 09:29:40 PM
I think you are referring to Bill Buckley Mek. I am going to have to agree with fistful as there are conservatives that think that being conservative means forcefully protecting old standards and the status quo, and there are the conservatives that believe in being good stewards and not playing the tax and spend game that is ruining the country. Throw in the extreme libertarians that understand good government policy but can't figure out that just because you can be free to do something doesn't mean you should do it (especially in public while wearing wookie suits) and there is no wonder why the "conservative" movement is so split up. I would consider myself a conservative Republican if it wasn't an oxymoron right now considering how the party is acting. All have done in eight years is proved that we can outspend democrats and expand the government needlessly just as much. Just look at my home state of Mississippi where we just elected a democrat congressman because he seems to be pro 2ndA, moral, and not fiscally reckless.
Yes, Bill Buckley, thank you!
Lately I've kind of joked around that I could win an election with no party affiliation using a platform of, "I will neither lie nor pander." Maybe that isn't quite the joke I thought it was.
Almost no one would believe you.
Those who did would take it as a sign that you are utterly unsuitable for public office.
Post by: gunsmith on June 07, 2008, 07:21:27 AM
I'm googling it right now but my pc is slow.
I know we have a constitution party. Is there some American conservative party now too?
Instead of having 3 or 4 or 20 parties , lets concentrate on building a real conservative movement.
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 07, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
Bah, I write a long, detailed post, and it gets entirely ignored.
Youth and nationality don't and shouldn't nullify an opinion. Your views are well thought out. I might not agree with all of them, but hey, I don't have to agree with someone to enjoy reading their stuff. Keep it up.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 07, 2008, 08:04:38 AM
btw, what conservative party are we discussing?
I'm googling it right now but my pc is slow.
I know we have a constitution party. Is there some American conservative party now too?
I'm googling it right now but my pc is slow.
I know we have a constitution party. Is there some American conservative party now too?
I assumed he was referring to conservatives, generally.
Post by: Tallpine on June 07, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
Post by: gunsmith on June 07, 2008, 06:51:02 PM
Quote
I for one am getting really sick of the personal attacks against people you (plural - not just MW) disagree with
Me too, what happened to the "polite" part of armed?
The first FLDS thread had a bunch of ad hominen (however you spell it)
If John M doesn't pick a good conservative candidate VP I am not voting for him and will be voting third party for the first time since Perot (that went great didn't it?)
Quote
A "conservative party" is hard liquor without the drugs
Hmmm, WRT drug legalization?Even though I support total legalization of every drug I tend to vote for more Christian right wing types that traditionally support the opposite, because they're better on the abortion question.
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 07, 2008, 07:58:07 PM
That's it, keep losing other ground fighting a battle you've already lost
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 07, 2008, 08:30:51 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 07, 2008, 08:46:05 PM
There is every reason to believe that the pro-abortion side is losing ground. There is also every reason to keep fighting that "lost battle." That is, the millions who might be aborted murdered in decades to come.
I'm still in favor of Norplant or something comparable as a prerequisite to get welfare, but the ACLU destroyed any suggestions of doing just that. It'd also severely cut down on the number of convenience "oops, I was drunk again" abortions, I believe, as well as the number of drug-addicted babies.
They said it was "racist". No, it's against the people of any race who pop out ten kids they can't feed and don't even know who the daddy is, because they have absolutely no self control and no deterrence because they can rest assured Big Government will give them money, ostensibly for the kids, that they then spend on further personal gratification.
And then their girls have zero guidance, so they become mothers at 14 that have ten welfare kids, or boys that are more likely to get into trouble and become part of gangs.
The ACLU has shot down even OFFERING Norplant and other things free to welfare recipients or low-income people, they Godwin'ed the argument.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 07, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
Post by: gunsmith on June 08, 2008, 07:02:30 AM
Quote
it kills mainly black children.
lets go to the video tape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ0bJxP2jdI
Quote
That's it, keep losing other ground fighting a battle you've already lost
The drug legalization gang is the one that is losing ground, as medical science improves, it is crystal clear that partial birth abortion is murder.
Many children can live happy lives after being born at 8 months, perhaps less (not sure).
Bans on partial birth abortion are gaining ground, meanwhile people like Bill Clinton (pro
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Cpeace2.cfm
Quote
Ironically, it was the federal government's retreat from a medical-marijuana experiment that made California's initiative campaign inevitable. In 1991, President Bush killed a 15-year-old program under which Uncle Sam had grown marijuana in Mississippi for a handful of patients. Only those willing to jump through myriad legal and medical hoops had gotten pot: There were but 10 on the roster when AIDS sufferers began submitting a flood of applications. Rather than meet the need and dilute the message of the drug war, Bush shut down the program. Gay activists asked Clinton to revive it and were rebuffed. To be denied relief from AIDS symptoms felt to many gays like the same old hateful bull****t.
Quote
The Clinton drug war is bigger, by any measure - dollars, arrests, length of sentences than those of Bush and Reagan. The post-Cold War Pentagon has found a new purpose in the drug war, flying missions over the Gulf of Mexico and patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border. And, in some cases, it is marching straight over the face of the U.S. Constitution.
BTW, I used to be pretty good friends with
Dennis Peron, the founder of the med MJ movement.
He is a pretty good guy, mixed up with some not so good ones though.
Post by: Glock Glockler on June 08, 2008, 07:26:58 AM
It's a political loser, since Roe v. Wade abortion has become heavily funded by govt, the pro-life movement has actually lost ground on that issue, bravo! Why is it that people say doing the same thing over again and expectiing different results in insanity? Pro-life people would actually be more successful if they dropped the 'make abortion illegal' stance to 'no govt. funding for abortion', and the Democrats would lose quite a bit of support, maybe we could actually recover lost ground and make govt. smaller.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 07:32:21 AM
Quote
it is crystal clear that partial birth abortion is murder.
Yes. PBA is murder. It must be banned. We can all agree on that. The problem however that I have with the anti-abortion people is just the same I have with the anti-gun people.
A LOT of the anti-abortion people want to ban ALL abortion. That bugs me a whole lot.
I also find the medical marijuana movement to be beyond misguided.
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 07:44:31 AM
Quote
Quote
A "conservative party" is hard liquor without the drugs
Hmmm, WRT drug legalization?
Even though I support total legalization of every drug I tend to vote for more Christian right wing types that traditionally support the opposite, because they're better on the abortion question.
A "conservative party" is hard liquor without the drugs
Hmmm, WRT drug legalization?
Even though I support total legalization of every drug I tend to vote for more Christian right wing types that traditionally support the opposite, because they're better on the abortion question.
Umm .... humor alert
Here I crack a joke and you guys have drug up the abortion issue.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 08, 2008, 09:16:54 AM
A LOT of the anti-abortion people want to ban ALL abortion. That bugs me a whole lot.
What abortions would you have remain legal?
Hey, Tallpine, I got the joke. But you know how I am once the abortion talk begins.
Post by: LAK on June 08, 2008, 10:24:56 AM
Quote
That's interesting. Anti-abortion groups are saying the same thing about abortion, that it kills mainly black children. Some point out the high percentage of Planned Parenthood centers in Black neighborhoods. Haven't looked up the numbers for myself, but it wouldn't be surprising.
Culture problem; and most conservative blacks I talk to are the first to agree. Black "pop" culture - or black "no culture at all" - precipitates this.Of all the groups, the vietnamese, chinese, east indians, pakistanis etc generally have more stable families, discpline their children, etc and thus have far less of a problem.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 10:36:32 AM
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 11:18:40 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 11:19:30 AM
It should be up to the states.
Agreed.
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 08, 2008, 11:20:16 AM
It should be up to the states.
I concur.
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 11:39:31 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 11:42:12 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 08, 2008, 11:55:13 AM
Well, that makes three of us. Now why doesn't the country follow our majority
Pretty simple, I think. The part of the country that doesn't agree that it should be left up to the states is infinitely impressed with the power off fed.gov. We virtually lose from the get-go.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 08, 2008, 11:58:20 AM
For some reason I imagine Nevadan 16-year-old girls traveling to California for abortions.
You mean, the way under-age girls in their third trimester
Although recent legislation may have changed that.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 12:03:09 PM
Of course, then we'll have some idiot stretch interstate commerce to cover abortions.
Then we'll be back at square one.
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 08, 2008, 03:01:00 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 08, 2008, 03:04:58 PM
How expensive IS an abortion, anyway?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 08, 2008, 03:06:39 PM
Post by: mek42 on June 08, 2008, 04:55:02 PM
Until these two systems are significantly revamped (which may prove too burdensome as a cost to the taxpayer and/or too intrusive of privacy to the non-abusive parents) I think the best way to prevent abortions is on the local community level of helping mothers-to-be (parents-to-be in the cases where there'd be two parents) either seek adoptive parents and / or help them rise to the challenge of parenthood. This would be in the form of both money and time at the prenatal and post-birth levels. Mere legislation without doing anything to support parents who would otherwise have had abortions does nothing for the children other than to increase the resentment the parents might have toward the children.
I remember hearing a news story about a Democrat representative from downstate NY (NYC or Long Island) and his family took in one of his daughter's pregnant high school friends after she was kicked out by her parents (the friend) so that the friend would have the child and be able to better care for it while finishing school. (This story is from a year or two ago and I do not remember if the gentleman was a national or state level representative. He was not one of the two Federal Senators though.)
If anti-abortion laws are passed with the current adoption / child abuse systems in place then the gov't should also be responsible for providing full mental health services to abused and neglected children even after they become adults.
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 05:29:40 PM
Quote
I think the best way to prevent abortions is on the local community level of helping mothers-to-be (parents-to-be in the cases where there'd be two parents) either seek adoptive parents and / or help them rise to the challenge of parenthood.
There are folks doing this very thing. They usually call them "Crisis Pregnancy Centers."
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 08, 2008, 07:36:53 PM
Quote
I think the best way to prevent abortions is on the local community level of helping mothers-to-be (parents-to-be in the cases where there'd be two parents) either seek adoptive parents and / or help them rise to the challenge of parenthood.
There are folks doing this very thing. They usually call them "Crisis Pregnancy Centers."
Why yes. There are a lot of them.
Quote
I fail to see how sentencing an unborn child to 15 - 20 years of an abusive / neglectful environment is better than just killing the child at the beginning.
Well, if you completely mis-characterize the issue, it is easy to craft a persuasive argument for your view.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 09, 2008, 12:19:49 AM
The problem is, there's no incentive to NOT get pregnant unless you threaten to cut off the statist gravy train of welfare.
Don't people generally give welfare payouts to those who DO give birth to a child, rather than those who don't?
Did I miss a memo here?
Post by: mek42 on June 09, 2008, 02:22:28 AM
Quote
I think the best way to prevent abortions is on the local community level of helping mothers-to-be (parents-to-be in the cases where there'd be two parents) either seek adoptive parents and / or help them rise to the challenge of parenthood.
There are folks doing this very thing. They usually call them "Crisis Pregnancy Centers."
Why yes. There are a lot of them.
Quote
I fail to see how sentencing an unborn child to 15 - 20 years of an abusive / neglectful environment is better than just killing the child at the beginning.
Well, if you completely mis-characterize the issue, it is easy to craft a persuasive argument for your view.
How am I mis-characterizing things here? I'm not making a pro-choice argument here, it is a welfare of the child argument. There's no intent of deception to make a point here. If I am not properly understanding something please educate me.
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 09, 2008, 04:21:27 AM
The problem is, there's no incentive to NOT get pregnant unless you threaten to cut off the statist gravy train of welfare.
Don't people generally give welfare payouts to those who DO give birth to a child, rather than those who don't?
Did I miss a memo here?
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 09, 2008, 08:26:45 AM
How am I mis-characterizing things here? I'm not making a pro-choice argument here, it is a welfare of the child argument. There's no intent of deception to make a point here. If I am not properly understanding something please educate me.
Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to say that you misunderstand the issue. I'm at work right now. I'll try and get back to you.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 09, 2008, 09:37:44 AM
The problem is, there's no incentive to NOT get pregnant unless you threaten to cut off the statist gravy train of welfare.
Don't people generally give welfare payouts to those who DO give birth to a child, rather than those who don't?
Did I miss a memo here?
You're doing it wrong. You probably buy them stuff and pay attention to them and plan for college.
You're supposed to dress them in the most ill-fitting, cheapest clothing possible, not even apparently ever wash then, give them a corn-syrup-and-water drink and something off the McDonalds dollar menu, then leave them in front of the TV for eight hours while you smoke a whole carton of cigarettes you bought with the rest of the welfare check.
Post by: gunsmith on June 09, 2008, 05:28:41 PM
Quote
"Crisis Pregnancy Centers."
There is one around the corner from me.Quote
I fail to see how sentencing an unborn child to 15 - 20 years of an abusive / neglectful environment is better than just killing the child at the beginning.
My dad got arrested twice for child abuse, me and my siblings had a pretty bad time of it.
I fail to see how my execution would have contributed to my well being.
Though I'm sure some of the liberals I debate had wished I had been executed.
Lots of people have grown up in abusive / neglectful homes and gone on to great things.
Killing someone because their parents are abusive / neglectful seems pretty abusive / neglectful itself.
I just bought a book (first edition) written by M Sanger called "women and the new race"
Sangar was the founder of "planned parenthood" she believed that abortion and infanticide would lead to a "new race" similar to Hitlers dream of a "master race"
This new race didn't seem to include anyone other then white people related to the Pilgrims, and they had to be physically perfect too, Hawkins according to Sangar the founder of "planned parenthood" wouldn't have had a useful productive life and it was the kinder thing to kill him at childbirth.
Post by: HK-91-762MM on June 12, 2008, 04:27:46 AM
I stopped buy an Got all worked up here !!!!
Im an owner of many many EBRs . I usually vote for the guy with the R after his name .
I support ABORTION IN ALL WAYS ! Its the 2nd issue on my list Guns first..
I hate -YES hate the people who wish to force there religion on me =you want to force ideas on people =Move to Russia /Cuba and have at it .as to peacefull christians -Calling for the killing of abortion/birth control doctors and nurses is a good as ALF/Peta /Hsus burning farms and calling for the murder of hunters.
I can never support a conservitive --If it means someone sticking the Jessus into my bed room !
Now you wonder why conservitives cant get elected?
Post by: gunsmith on June 12, 2008, 06:43:19 AM
Quote
I support ABORTION IN ALL WAYS
Then you're a minority, even most liberals do not support partial birth abortions.The pro abortion R's usually support gun control too. (Rudy/Arnold)