Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Green Lantern on November 04, 2008, 10:59:13 PM
-
So...I think it's time to hit up the activism HARD and FAST.
Let your elected officials, from BHO on down to State legislators know that you will NOT stand for AWBII, or any other un-Constitutional CRAP that may be in the works.
Joining up to one NATIONAL and one STATE 2A advocacy group (at a bare MINIMUM) strikes me as a must too...
Anything else?
-
Wow, way to quit. A little early to throw in the towel, don't you think? I admit, it looks bad, but come on...
-
Early, perhaps, but the cat's in the bag. O'Biden's been called by all the major networks and outlets. It's over. Now what?
-
Now what?
That's it. The Great Experiment is over.
-
Now what?
That's it. The Great Experiment is over.
Because a candidate who was barely different from the other, but just happened to be different in a way that you don't like, won the election? Yeah right.
After more than a decade of conservative political organization and confidence, I never thought I would live to see the despair and tooth gnashing that I saw in liberals after 2000 and 2004. I mean, I knew lawyers who cried because Bush got re-elected.
It's just a mind trip for me seeing it with conservatives now.
-
Early, perhaps, but the cat's in the bag. O'Biden's been called by all the major networks and outlets. It's over. Now what?
Now is the time to go after the people who caused this. The moderate Republicans.
As a minimum, one would expect that we should never see McCain's face ever again.
-
After more than a decade of conservative political organization and confidence, I never thought I would live to see the despair and tooth gnashing that I saw in liberals after 2000 and 2004. I mean, I knew lawyers who cried because Bush got re-elected.
It's just a mind trip for me seeing it with conservatives now.
Great Googly Moogly! I agree with shootingstudent! This must truely be the End of Days!!!!
-
Don't give up yet. that's what the media wants everyone to think. Look at the percentages. They called Ohio for Obama with only 44% of precints reporting. I'll believe he's won when all the votes are in. I have to admit, it's discouraging.
-
Because a candidate who was barely different from the other, but just happened to be different in a way that you don't like, won the election? Yeah right.
After more than a decade of conservative political organization and confidence, I never thought I would live to see the despair and tooth gnashing that I saw in liberals after 2000 and 2004. I mean, I knew lawyers who cried because Bush got re-elected.
It's just a mind trip for me seeing it with conservatives now.
This is true, though I can understand why people are upset, and I think there was quite a difference between the candidates.
As you mention 2004, I would point out that it has taken 8 years of Bush to put Obama into office. Maybe 4 years of Obama will have a similar effect - after all, it did for Carter.
-
We won't survive four years.
I'm hoping for a year max before he's perp-walked out of of the White House if Rezko squeals. It's the only hope now.
-
We won't survive four years.
I'm hoping for a year max before he's perp-walked out of of the White House if Rezko squeals. It's the only hope now.
I want to get your predictions down.
You're expecting a major collapse.
What will this manifest in?
Riots? Civil war? 9-11 grade terrorism? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Two years until The House is re-elected, and a third of the senate. Let's get cracking. If you are not a member of a state or federal RKBA organization, now is the time to join one. Its not like we didn't see this coming (Obama has led the entire time) so lets not act surprised. Go ahead and have your private little cry if you need one, then come back and put your game face on. They can only win if we let them.
-
Now is the time to go after the people who caused this. The moderate Republicans.
As a minimum, one would expect that we should never see McCain's face ever again.
Let's be fair: Supporting giant welfare programs for corporations and a huge expansion of executive power, including the claimed authority to make war without anyone's permission, is not a set of "moderate" positions.
How about this for a new Republican agenda: For every cut in spending they engineer, there is an equal and fairly distributed cut in personal income taxes that corresponds to the exact amount of the cut.
The problem with the republican party is that they tried to hard to implement back-channel welfare policies: they would use the government to grant huge handouts to favored clientele, and then impose the cost on the public via crushing public debts, which will have to be paid from money that belongs to us, and should be used for our benefit.
If they had cut spending in tandem with their tax cuts, instead of funding the cuts with massive public debt that ends up squarely on the shoulders of the public, they might have a case to make.
But definitely, you can't win an election by yelling "socialist" when you've handed out as much free welfare as the Republicans have. That's just wishful thinking.
-
I want to get your predictions down.
You're expecting a major collapse.
What will this manifest in?
Riots? Civil war? 9-11 grade terrorism? Inquiring minds want to know.
If you want my predictions?
Depression.
No, not me. My worth is not bound up in the future of a country, no matter how dear to me.
I mean the economy. We're at a dangerous point right now and we have politicians who, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, vowed to raise taxes on investment. Even if it hurt the economy.
We're in for a depression.
I'm just glad my job will be relatively safe- otherwise, I'd fear for my family's well being. (Though it's just me and my wife now).
-
Now is the time to go after the people who caused this. The moderate Republicans.
As a minimum, one would expect that we should never see McCain's face ever again.
Actually I blame the right wing fringe, when conservative thinking non Republicans hear the word Republicans they think of the right wing fringe.
Republican party needs to build a foundation in fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Personal freedom and the ability to succeed financially if one puts in the hard work.
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics. I actually can't blame them either, there are some kooks I have met.
-
Let's be fair: Supporting giant welfare programs for corporations and a huge expansion of executive power, including the claimed authority to make war without anyone's permission, is not a set of "moderate" positions.
How about this for a new Republican agenda: For every cut in spending they engineer, there is an equal and fairly distributed cut in personal income taxes that corresponds to the exact amount of the cut.
The problem with the republican party is that they tried to hard to implement back-channel welfare policies: they would use the government to grant huge handouts to favored clientele, and then impose the cost on the public via crushing public debts, which will have to be paid from money that belongs to us, and should be used for our benefit.
If they had cut spending in tandem with their tax cuts, instead of funding the cuts with massive public debt that ends up squarely on the shoulders of the public, they might have a case to make.
But definitely, you can't win an election by yelling "socialist" when you've handed out as much free welfare as the Republicans have. That's just wishful thinking.
Actually, I think your idea is wrong.
We should tie tax cuts and spending together.
We should cut spending. PERIOD. It's the right thing to do.
We should cut taxes. PERIOD. It's the right things to do.
No connection. It should simply be- the government is WAY TOO BIG. Everything is getting cut.
-
Rezko's dead. He just doesn't know it yet.
Or he'll disappear to some third-world hellhole, where he'll have a big house, servants, and an airstrip with small private army, until the lone karate master infiltrates by night...
IMHO, the major problem is that there aren't enough moderate republicans... Or moderate democrats. The voters have gravitated to the fringes.
The Republicans HAD to field a reform candidate. WHY? Hillary spent millions pushing the reform message, and it stuck. It stuck HARD.
-
Republican party needs to build a foundation in fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Personal freedom and the ability to succeed financially if one puts in the hard work.
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics. I actually can't blame them either, there are some kooks I have met.
Exactly. Myself and my fellow libertarians should fold ourselves into the republican party and create reforms from the inside. Because really the libertarian party is what the republicans purport to be.
-
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics. I actually can't blame them either, there are some kooks I have met.
Concur. There are a LOT of gay folks who are fiscally conservative. Who own guns. Who are people who we would get along with.
And they're scared to death of the right wing religious fundamentalists.
Where will the thumper votes go? How "big" is the thumper block?
If the Republicans lose 10% (and they ain't going to the democrats), and gains 15%, that makes some serious sense.
We've got 1/20/09 coming up fast - what do you think Obummer's first action will be?
-
We've got 1/20/09 coming up fast - what do you think Obummer's first action will be?
Duh. Wealth redistribution.
Wonder if Ayers will be appointed Secretary of Education.
-
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics. I actually can't blame them either, there are some kooks I have met.
Yet, two out of the three are wildly popular while the other one is supported by a majority or near-majority, depending on the wording of the poll.
And NONE of them played a role in the general election. Laying the blame for the Republican loss on those issues is an exercise delusion.
-
Let's be fair: Supporting giant welfare programs for corporations and a huge expansion of executive power, including the claimed authority to make war without anyone's permission, is not a set of "moderate" positions.
How about this for a new Republican agenda: For every cut in spending they engineer, there is an equal and fairly distributed cut in personal income taxes that corresponds to the exact amount of the cut.
The problem with the republican party is that they tried to hard to implement back-channel welfare policies: they would use the government to grant huge handouts to favored clientele, and then impose the cost on the public via crushing public debts, which will have to be paid from money that belongs to us, and should be used for our benefit.
If they had cut spending in tandem with their tax cuts, instead of funding the cuts with massive public debt that ends up squarely on the shoulders of the public, they might have a case to make.
But definitely, you can't win an election by yelling "socialist" when you've handed out as much free welfare as the Republicans have. That's just wishful thinking.
Word.
-
And NONE of them played a role in the general election. Laying the blame for the Republican loss on those issues is an exercise delusion.
The last 4-8 years of those messages being beaten to death is what lead to a Republican loss. If those really were how the majority of republican voters felt, than Tancredo, Fred Thompson or Brownbeck would have been the Republican candidates.
Two of those three ideas can be easily tied to GWB and the last one loosely.
-
I think the idea that giving up a social agenda (which actually does provide Republicans with a popular vote base) to focus on being "fiscally conservative" is misguided, because it presumes that republicans actually are fiscal conservatives.
The republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative for decades-check out the budget deficits and national debt from Reagan on. Government spending has soared to unimaginable heights under the most recent round of republican leadership.
The difference is that democrats tend to spend government money on programs to garner more popular votes: if you come up with a welfare or medicare program, that might benefit a few million people. You have some serious vote power from that.
On the other hand, spending all the public's money on weapons systems, wars, and a byzantine security apparatus (think Homeland Security and the much ridiculed TSA baggies on airplanes), garners almost no votes. The employees who work in these industries are not numerous enough to swing an election, and all of the contracts tend to amount to welfare when you consider the "service" being purchased with public money.
This is the fundamental conservative problem in America: the party of conservatives has become a socialist party just like the democrats, but it spends all its government bonus on a relatively narrow sector. When the economy was fine, that was all well and good, and the social/moral/character themes were more than enough to supply the party with votes....but now that large numbers of people are feeling a pinch, they're obviously going to vote for the party that is more likely to spend public money in their favor.
-
Concur. There are a LOT of gay folks who are fiscally conservative. Who own guns. Who are people who we would get along with.
And they're scared to death of the right wing religious fundamentalists.
Where will the thumper votes go? How "big" is the thumper block?
If the Republicans lose 10% (and they ain't going to the democrats), and gains 15%, that makes some serious sense.
We've got 1/20/09 coming up fast - what do you think Obummer's first action will be?
Homosexuals make up from 1%-3% of the population. Those who are right-leaning make up some small minority of that 1%-3%.
Evangelicals make up about 30% of the population.
Even if you convinced every homosexual to vote Republican you would never make up for the loss in evangelical voters if you jettisoned what keeps evangelicals in the Republican coalition.
Where they gonna go? They'll stay home, like they did before they became politicized in reaction to the excesses of the 1960s. See, politics is not the driving force in their lives. They can and have lived with minimal interaction in the political sphere.
Face it: any conservative/right-leaning coalition that can actually win in America will include fundies.
-
The last 4-8 years of those messages being beaten to death is what lead to a Republican loss. If those really were how the majority of republican voters felt, than Tancredo, Fred Thompson or Brownbeck would have been the Republican candidates.
Care to show me any successes in those three fields that can be lain at the feet of a conservative federal leadership?
Didn't think so.
Progress on any of those fronts would have demonstrated value in the current Conservative crop.
Instead, we got fear-mongering against gays/illegals/abortions but no progress made against any of those boogiemen.
I can drop the gay issue just fine, and let the abortion issue be settled at the state level.
But the illegal alien enforcement plank HAS to stay, and actually get pushed. That is one of the core failures of the McCain camp. Good old Senator John "God's Children" Lettuce McCain.
-
It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a couple of years, to see if the various grim predictions being made here come true.
-
The last 4-8 years of those messages being beaten to death is what lead to a Republican loss. If those really were how the majority of republican voters felt, than Tancredo, Fred Thompson or Brownbeck would have been the Republican candidates.
Two of those three ideas can be easily tied to GWB and the last one loosely.
Beaten to death?
GWB pushed zero pro-life initiatives and gave only infrequent lip-service. He was in favor of mass immigration & amnesty. His position on gay marriage is that taken by every presidential candidate & vice presidential candidate from the Republicans & Democrats since the issue came about, to include BHO.
And my claims for the issues' popularity was not WRT Republicans, but the general population.
Also, you might have noticed that:
1. The conservative vote in the Republican primaries was split several ways.
2. While these issues are popular, they are not the only issues. Three issues does not a coalition make. Add things that may not be dear to fundies, but are dear to other coalition partners (fiscal conservatism, strong defense, law & oerder, etc.) and you start to have a coalition.
Until Nixon activated the evangelicals, Republicans had been a minority party for 40 years. Their addition to the Republican coalition made the Republicans a majority party, able to compete nationally. Toss them over the side and you can expect another 40 years in the wilderness.
Sorry, your analysis does not stand up to reality.
-
It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a couple of years, to see if the various grim predictions being made here come true.
Pre-Bush tax levels and maybe another AWB are the only realistic damages. Basically the crap we got under the Democrats from 1992-1994 could happen again.
The other fears are, well, more like the kinda thing you'd have seen on DU in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Not exactly based on sound reasoning.
-
It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a couple of years, to see if the various grim predictions being made here come true.
If we still have internet access in most communities. Who knows?
Or if this board is allowed to exist. It could be "hate speech" because it mentions guns.
-
Where they gonna go? They'll stay home, like they did before they became politicized in reaction to the excesses of the 1960s. See, politics is not the driving force in their lives. They can and have lived with minimal interaction in the political sphere.
But if they were to retreat again, their numbers would be replaced by people chased off by them. Really, I'm not socially conservative, except for the Second Amendment--I'm generally pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etcetera. I'm fiscally conservative--not as conservative as Ron Paul, but in general agreement with the Austrian school. And the GOP has forgotten fiscal conservatism. They too have lavishly spent money that doesn't belong to them, but this time around, Deficit Spending wasn't beneficial--not that it was last time, but in the 80s it looked like a good idea.
I want a party that will stay out of my wallet, my computer, and my bedroom*. Surely I can't be the only one.
*And who aren't narcissistic Libertarians.
-
What's Next?
Hm, lets see.
Likely......
- Economy will continue to crumble.
- AWB II (Likely a total Simi-Auto Ban) will appear, and probably be rammed or snuck trough somehow (Likely With no Sunset or Grandfathering).
- A Ban on .223 .308 .338 .50BMG .45 .40 9mm (Basically anything bigger than a .22lr) will likely at the very least make several appearances.
- Ammo Tax
- Other New & Higher Taxes
- 2nd Great Depression
- Civil War/Revolution if things crumble far enough and the general population are not as Dumbed down and Mentally Numb as we fear.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zazzle.com%2Fwere_screwed_08_white_bumper_sticker_bumpersticker-p128644105721125965x6_210.jpg&hash=656ff086cdc603392875f78e31cc4e6da22526bc)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg148.imageshack.us%2Fimg148%2F777%2Fusscrewedmu5.jpg&hash=61dd70bed5204a4ba61a775adbd7fc8a5292e5be)
-
But if they were to retreat again, their numbers would be replaced by people chased off by them...Surely I can't be the only one.
Not hardly...to both.
You aren't the only one, but you are uncommon. Compared the 30% of the population that self-identifies as evangelical, your particular issue-set-group is small taters. Heck, I wished there was an army of anti-bubbas out there that rivaled the size of the evangelicals to help the coalition.
But, it is not the reality. Push out the fundies and expect to lose more & more often.
-
McCain was a killjoy to the party and depressed turnout. It's because he was a centrist.
If the party nominated a good Conservative, and adopted a handful of planks from the Libertarians, and STUCK TO THEM, they'd have the votes they needed.
1. Small, limited government.
2. Fiscal responsibility.
3. States rights, People's rights (honor the 10th Amendment).
4. For that matter, honor the other 9 while you're at it.
It ain't big, sexy, PatriotActWallStreetBailOutUnilateralWarmongeringTM, but I think we'd get along fine anyways.
-
Priority One: militancy.
We don't have to lie down and roll over. We know what they want to do, but we can put up enough of a fight that they decide it's not worth the aggravation.
I too expect major economic convulsion.
But that may help us: Obama could end up having to resign long before his term's over.
I still believe the cultural and demographic changes in America that have accumulated over four decades almost ensure that conservatives will never have a plurality again. We will end up having to separate to survive, call it what you wish.
-
Can I order my "Don't blame me I didn't vote for the Socialist" bumper stickers yet?
-
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. And I might add that the issue brought many conservatives to the polls, to put Bush over the top.
I don't think I even need to bother refuting the nutty idea that illegal immigration is only opposed by some radical fringe.
Actually I blame the right wing fringe, when conservative thinking non Republicans hear the word Republicans they think of the right wing fringe.
Republican party needs to build a foundation in fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Personal freedom and the ability to succeed financially if one puts in the hard work.
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics. I actually can't blame them either, there are some kooks I have met.
No wonder Obama won, when even some of you conservatives think those three common sense positions are "right wing fringe." Go ahead and blame me, Charby. I'll blame you. Deal?
-
The Republican party needs to step away from the right to life, anti gay marriage and hard core anti-immigration. People look at these ideas and some of the people who beat these ideas at the pulpit as lunatics.
I agree. I think that's what really fuels the hostility that the left exhibits toward republicans or at least republican candidates. I also think these non-issues are what clouds up the areas where everyone seems to agree.
In the end everyone, be they gun owners, gay, pro-choice or whatever just want to be left the hell alone to do their thing and make a living without interference from someone else.
Also, most people AREN'T anti immigration. They are anti-illegal immigration as am I.
I live in a commercial fishing community with an on-shore processor where the vast majority of the employees are foreign nationals. All of them, with an exception of perhaps a dozen over the course of 7 years, are here legally going through the motions and processes that will eventually to US citizenship if they choose to do so.
Why should foreign nationals who are here illegally and haven't went throught the requirement to be here, be rewarded the same as those who've paid their dues and followed US law?
-
If anything, now is the time to let the Republican party in your area know that, if they don't get their act together & flush the neo-con(-artists) out of the party and return to their conservative roots, that another party can and will take their place....
...maybe now the GOP will listen to its base....
-
Pre-Bush tax levels and maybe another AWB are the only realistic damages. Basically the crap we got under the Democrats from 1992-1994 could happen again.
The other fears are, well, more like the kinda thing you'd have seen on DU in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Not exactly based on sound reasoning.
A depression is extremely likely given the social programs Obama wants to push and the tax increases he is guaranteed to put in (even elimination of the Bush tax cuts could do that).
The Middle East will likely pop, either due to Israel going proactive rather than being thrown under the bus or the US pulling out of Iraq and Iran moving in. So, gas will climb once again. Since drilling here is now a dead issue, and the utility industry knows it's in his sights, watch for power costs to skyrocket. This, of course, leads up back to the depression.
The likely scenario is economic turmoil like nothing the last few generations have seen, combined with even more aggressive manuevering to replace the US on the global scene by Russia and China.
-
In the end everyone, be they gun owners, gay, pro-choice or whatever just want to be left the hell alone to do their thing and make a living without interference from someone else.
If that's the case, then why does the left tell us how we must live, how we must think, and that we must not just tolerate other lifestyles but support them? Obama is the classic example: if you want to keep what you earned, you are selfish and the full power of government will be used to take some portion (which you have no control over deciding) of it from you.
There are control freaks in both parties. They tend to turn the parties. Right now, the control freaks on the left have total control.
-
I believe strongly in right to life. A pro-abortion republican party would be one I could not accept. I don't think that is a fringe issue.
-
If the Republicans jettison the Christian right and allow the left to implement their cultural Marxism without resistance they will be a permanent minority party.
-
If the Republicans jettison the Christian right and allow the left to implement their cultural Marxism without resistance they will be a permanent minority party.
Why? They didn't need it when Goldwater created modern conservatism. They didn't need it for Reagan to rise to greatness.
The Falwell era was after that, on the downside.
-
Reagan doesn't get elected and re-elected without the Christian right.
Newt and the gang do not take over congress without the Christian right.
-
I think the problem was more when the visible symbol of the Christian right became the opportunistic televangelists with their giant shiny holy Rolexes and pleas for money.
-
What's Next?
Hm, lets see.
Likely......
- Economy will continue to crumble.
- AWB II (Likely a total Simi-Auto Ban) will appear, and probably be rammed or snuck trough somehow (Likely With no Sunset or Grandfathering).
- A Ban on .223 .308 .338 .50BMG .45 .40 9mm (Basically anything bigger than a .22lr) will likely at the very least make several appearances.
- Ammo Tax
- Other New & Higher Taxes
- 2nd Great Depression
- Civil War/Revolution if things crumble far enough and the general population are not as Dumbed down and Mentally Numb as we fear.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zazzle.com%2Fwere_screwed_08_white_bumper_sticker_bumpersticker-p128644105721125965x6_210.jpg&hash=656ff086cdc603392875f78e31cc4e6da22526bc)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg148.imageshack.us%2Fimg148%2F777%2Fusscrewedmu5.jpg&hash=61dd70bed5204a4ba61a775adbd7fc8a5292e5be)
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.
-
I think the problem was more when the visible symbol of the Christian right became the opportunistic televangelists with their giant shiny holy Rolexes and pleas for money.
The whole stereotype of the religious right that has been presented (based on some reality like all stereotypes) and the ham handed pandering the Republicans have done is a big part of the problem.
I don't need (and I suspect most evangelicals would agree) an offensive against gay marriage, constitutional amendments enshrining Christian doctrine or non religious/marginally religious politicians pretending to be devout.
I just want assurances they will not actively undermine the culture, err on the side of protecting life and stand as a firewall against those who would enshrine materialism/cultural Marxism as the state religion.
-
If the Republicans jettison the Christian right and allow the left to implement their cultural Marxism without resistance they will be a permanent minority party.
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!"
The solution seems simple to me. Give the liberals the abortion and gay rights issues, and let them have it in their states; repealing all federal laws on abortion and gays. In return, they repeal all federal gun laws, allowing the individual states to make their own laws.
I don't see anything in the constitution that gives the federal government power over homos, guns, or abortion.
-
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!"
The solution seems simple to me. Give the liberals the abortion and gay rights issues, and let them have it in their states; repealing all federal laws on abortion and gays. In return, they repeal all federal gun laws, allowing the individual states to make their own laws.
I don't see anything in the constitution that gives the federal government power over homos, guns, or abortion.
And as a Christian opposed to Abortion and Gay Marriage, I quite agree. (Except for guns, the constitution clearly gives the federal government power to PREVENT gun regulations: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No mention of Congress like in the First...)
These (Abortion and Homosexual Marriage) are morally repugnant. However, there is no federal law against murder (well... shouldn't be), nor should there be a federal law against abortion. These are state issues where our focus should be. I am a firm federalist.
However, it is the purpose of the federal government to ensure that the foolishness of other states does not adversely affect mine. (Defense of Marriage Law- other states need not recognize gay marriages from more liberal states.)
One thing I find interesting- so many people here are firmly defending liberty and property, as well they should.
Shouldn't LIFE be defended as well? (Life, Libery and Property...)
(Edit: also, somewhere in the recent flurry of postings, I broke 100. Huzzah. )
-
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.
-
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. =D
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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
Game over?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
-
My, that Wookie suit must get awful itchy. =D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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. ;/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.... :mad:
-
Game over?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
=D
-
....until the 9th Circuit gets ahold of it, that is.... :mad:
Yes. Can't let the voters have their say. Only activist judges get to make laws.
-
When even freaking Kalifornia shoots down your supposed "Religious Right theocratic fundamentalist only" idea, that's what we call a clue.
-
:laugh: =D
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?.....
-
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.
-
Hmm, I'd best take my temperature, as that makes some sorta sense to me.
i thought the same thing
-
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.
Amateurs.
The Soviets killed almost that many in the Great Famine.
Pat
-
We're a pro-RKBA, pro-Constitution, pro-USA forum full of white, independent-thinking males....how much less palatable can we GET?.....
That may be the demographic here, but it doesn't mean we don't abide by the forum description:
A CIVIL place to discuss politics.
Regardless, I draw the line at Godwin's Law, if anything to prevent invocation of Irwin's Law:
The premise that a 'tard will eventually ruin an otherwise perfectly good discussion forum thread, whether by malice or stupidity...
-
See, that's the difference. Step out of what you KNOW and
Jews usually believe that a fetus isn't a full blown person unless it's emerged halfway out of the birth canal or from a C-section.
Jewish law is recognized as REQUIRING an abortion if the fetus can harm or kill the mother.
That's what I mean by leaving the government out of the decision.
-
You mean you don't want govt. to require an abortion in those cases?
Or you don't want Jewish laws to govern who is or is not a "person," whatever that means?
WAIT. When did this become a discussion of Jewish laws? ???
-
WAIT. When did this become a discussion of Jewish laws? ???
I think he was politely telling you to check out other prospectives (on what constitutes life and wasn't does)
-
Why?
Unfortunately, if we are to have laws against murder, we have no alternative but to legally define which organisms are protected by that law. Someone's toes will be trod upon, let's just try not to tread on anyone's rights.
-
Why?
...because the worst thing a person can do it get so narrow minded on one particular subject that they quit seeing the forest around that one tree. I don't think he was telling you your beliefs, ideals, coda, matra, or whatnot was wrong, just to explore all side of things form all angles.
-
Thanks for the condescending tone, but I don't need any right now.
Especially not when I'm being chided for being unfair to the medieval side of the abortion debate.
-
Are we being a bit druidish?
Now what?
That is the question. This is not the question of this discussion.
Maybe a new thread for brainstorming ideas and building a new consensus or building a new party would be in order.
-
While there are a large number of Evangelicals in the US, they aren't all Republicans. A fair number are actually Democrats. The problem with the Republican Evangelicals is that they scare away moderates.
People can't agree with each other about religious matters, but then can generally agree about money. The first an foremost concern in regards to tax money, is that it is spent wisely. This is what killed the GOP in 2006. They blew the budget. Granted, there were two wars going on, but they still expanded the size and cost of gov't, spent everything they had and more, and generally turned away from hopes of fiscal conservatives. This led to their downfall...
The Republican party needs to cut the social conservatives out and pursue a more socially moderate stance. Next, they need to get down to brass tacks. Pursue reduction in gov't handouts, subsidies, entitlments, etc... cut taxes, or pursue a flat tax rate. Military spending is okay, but focus on getting good value out of projects. Military spending can't just promise better weapons and equipment. Military projects need to be able to show some financial advantage versus the status quo. This means not only must they give our soldiers better effectiveness, survivability, etc... but they must be easier and cheaper to maintain, transport, and upgrade.
Money is more important to people than social issues. If something is too expensive, like healthcare, there is always a reason. It isn't necessarily greed. It could be the astronomical price of malpractice insurance, created by uncontrolled litigation. But, our gov't is made up of lawyers who wouldn't want to cut their buddies' purse strings.
It's time to pursue a more libertarian (little 'L') when dealing with social issues, and a more conservative view on fiscal responsibility.
-
That's right. Alienating the Republican base has worked very well so far. Let's have some more of that.
-
Jewish law is recognized as REQUIRING an abortion if the fetus can harm or kill the mother.
Some Orthodox Jews actually believe that masturbation is a sin because it 'kills' little baby spermatosoa by not allowing them to be delivered to their proper destination. I've actually read Orthodox literature that promotes that.
-
Some Orthodox Jews actually believe that masturbation is a sin because it 'kills' little baby spermatosoa by not allowing them to be delivered to their proper destination. I've actually read Orthodox literature that promotes that.
They are pretty outside of the mainstream, at least from what I know in the USA.
-
Some Orthodox Jews actually believe that masturbation is a sin because it 'kills' little baby spermatosoa by not allowing them to be delivered to their proper destination. I've actually read Orthodox literature that promotes that.
ZOMG! I'm a serial killer!
Sawdust
-
ZOMG! I'm a serial killer!
Sawdust
Two kinds of people ones who masterbate and ones who lie about it.
-
Some Orthodox Jews actually believe that masturbation is a sin because it 'kills' little baby spermatosoa by not allowing them to be delivered to their proper destination. I've actually read Orthodox literature that promotes that.
Does that make the Internet a WMD now?......just don't tell BATFE.....
-
They are pretty outside of the mainstream, at least from what I know in the USA.
Yes, in the US they are.
In Israel.... *headbangs*.
-
Yeah, but it appears Paulistas are mainstream in Israel, too. =D
-
Yeah, but it appears Paulistas are mainstream in Israel, too. =D
I'm not mainstream. Kthx.
Israel, btw, has FOUR! Free State Project signatories.
http://freestateproject.org/about/countries_count.php
-
Some Orthodox Jews actually believe that masturbation is a sin because it 'kills' little baby spermatosoa by not allowing them to be delivered to their proper destination. I've actually read Orthodox literature that promotes that.
One wonders what their take is on the natural biological response to refraining from such "sin" for extended periods...
-
So one shouldn't take a stand on public policy until one reads every legal opinion from each major religion? You're sounding a bit theocratical, there, Mr. Nitro. Or did YOU bother to ask the Bunny Man whether he thought life-of-the-mother abortions should be legal?
My bizarre method of political decision-making involves looking for what's true for everybody, and trying to do the right thing. For example, I'm not going to temper my view of bank-robbery by looking at the thief's point of view. ;/