Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on September 10, 2009, 10:49:32 AM
-
http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/remember-remember-the-8th-of-november-1994-that-is/
This has been said before, but it’s worth repeating: a robust health care reform bill will not hurt Democratic electoral prospects next year. If anything, it will energize the Democratic base, discourage Republican opposition, and give Democrats – conservative or otherwise – the opportunity to campaign on delivering “affordable health care” to their constituents. For recently-elected Democrats vulnerable to high Republican turnout, this is a good thing. Someone needs to explain to our centrist and conservative friends that their fates are directly tied to the success of health care reform; after all, Democrats didn’t lose the House in 1994 because they passed a reform package, they lost because they failed and voters reacted accordingly.
This is a claim I've read elsewhere.
Democrats think they lost in 1994 because they FAILED to pass healthcare. They think their voters were dissatisfied with them is why they lost.
Seriously? They are so deluded that they don't realize they lost because they TRIED TO PASS IT. Imagine how bad it would have been had they succeeded.
I can remember 1994. People were angry NOT because the democrats didn't live up to their "promises", they were angry because they were trying to take over healthcare. Do they honestly think that succeeding will save them?
-
Democrats believe that politics is about how much you can promise to give away, regardless of whether it makes any economic sense or violates justice. Yes, they really do believe they err by doing less.
-
Are Democrats REALLY this deluded?
Very much so. Very much so. They are true believers in their cause, and will not give up.
Republicans fail to realize this fanatical devotion for what it is.
I can remember 1994. People were angry NOT because the democrats didn't live up to their "promises", they were angry because they were trying to take over healthcare. Do they honestly think that succeeding will save them?
You are only thinking ahead one or two election cycles.
Okay, say the Dems do pass healthcare and get tossed out. The Republicans come in. Will the Republicans repeal the healthcare? Not bloody likely. Meanwhile, the mainstream media is running 24/7 pumping out anti-Republican propaganda and the Dems behave like they did back when they were in the minority during the Bush administration (i.e, obstructing stuff whenever they can and sure as hell not "working in bipartisanship" like the Republicans are so eager to do).
Within a couple of election cycles, the Dems are back to continue their campaign of destruction, with the help of RHINOs, of course.
-
Very much so. Very much so. They are true believers in their cause, and will not give up.
Republicans fail to realize this fanatical devotion for what it is.
You are only thinking ahead one or two election cycles.
Okay, say the Dems do pass healthcare and get tossed out. The Republicans come in. Will the Republicans repeal the healthcare? Not bloody likely. Meanwhile, the mainstream media is running 24/7 pumping out anti-Republican propaganda and the Dems behave like they did back when they were in the minority during the Bush administration (i.e, obstructing stuff whenever they can and sure as hell not "working in bipartisanship" like the Republicans are so eager to do).
Within a couple of election cycles, the Dems are back to continue their campaign of destruction, with the help of RHINOs, of course.
I am well aware of how passing this will drive us ever onward to European Socialism (YAY!), but my incredulity is that the Democrats think they lost because they failed. AND, by implication, think that PASSING this healthcare will win the election for them next year.
-
Democrats believe that politics is about how much you can promise to give away, regardless of whether it makes any economic sense or violates justice. Yes, they really do believe they err by doing less.
"Wait!" I wanted to object. "That's completely irrational!"
I selected and copied and hit the reply button. I pasted the copied text into a quote. Fingers poised over the keyboard, I... Well, I... I reread it. I started to sketch one of my usual snide remarks about leftist extremists and/or socialist and/or statist parasites.
I do manage to stay on message fairly well; unfortunately, that's up there with being really good at counting angels dancing on pin heads.
I remembered moving from Iowa to Michigan when I was seven years old. My father sat me down with a map and showed me the roads we were going to take, the new state we were going to live in. He talked about the new house, the new school I'd be going to, new places we'd go and sights we'd see. Some of that was interesting in a mild way; at the heart of the matter, however, I didn't want to go to a completely different state.
The big move worked out all right. I noticed my mother never really made the move. She mourned Iowa beef and Iowa corn and Iowa this, that, and umpty-dozen other things all the rest of her life. I'm sure it didn't occur to either of my parents to go anywhere else on vacation. My father interested himself in fishing and later skiing, and drove all over Michigan. I had a good time in the Boy Scouts, and learned considerably more than I noticed at the time. Apart from hitchhikking trips and brief moves, I stayed in Michigan through my twenties, then went to Wisconsin when unemployment in upper Michigan crossed the 35% mark. I still miss Michigan now and then. Both my parents are buried there. My brother continues to get by without actually working for a living there. I sometimes flirt with the idea of driving back that way on one of my trips, though I've ended up becoming a westerner at heart. Realistically speaking, Michigan is a failure. $.90 of every tax dollar collected in the upper peninsula, for example, ends up being poured down the drain of southeastern Michigan: Detroit, in short. Unemployment is beyond counting. Anyone with ambition gets up and goes. The governor is still taxing and squandering for all she's worth. It's become a monument to the abject failure of so-called "affirmative action" and so-called "welfare." The current resident of the White House has handed uncounted billions to the United Auto Workers in the name of "bailing out" two out of the three American car companies: billions that aren't being accounted for nor ever will be.
What's all that got to do with the price of pickles in Pakistan?
It's occurred to me I may have overlooked the obvious: while I've been complaining the leftist extremists are trying to turn America into a larger, slightly more prosperous East Germany, they've already done it. I've remarked a time or two this isn't the same country I was born in. That sounded snappy. I just didn't realize it was true.
longeyes wrote:
Yes, they really do believe they err by doing less.
Yep. They're as sure even more needs to be done as the door to door Jesus jumpers who believe they're a special exception to the "No Soliciting" sign immediately below my door bell button. They sincerely do believe we don't have enough government. They sincerely do believe we need still more—and more and more and more—government intervention.
I've been thinking all this time they're trying to change the rules. In fact, they've already moved the entire country out from under us. They couldn't move us, so they moved the whole country.
-
The Republicans are that deluded too, seems like they think everyone is against gay marriage and against abortion, and those two topics will create a Republican super majority.
Both parties get to narrowly focused on a few minute ideals and fowl it up for everyone else.
-
When Reagan won his second term, on election night I remember a Democrat pundit indignantly sputtering "We're right on this issue, we're right on that issue - these results are crazy - the people HAVE to vote for us!"
"The people HAVE to vote for us!"
Insufferable arrogance and self-delusion, coupled with a poor candidate, cost them the White House.
But they CAN be trained - remember when the Dems lost 54 seats in the House? Even Clinton recognized that at least 20 were due to their votes on the AWB. Today, many democrats - all but those from the safest districts - don't want to TOUCH gun control.
The Republicans are that deluded too, seems like they think everyone is against gay marriage and against abortion, and those two topics will create a Republican super majority.
Abortion in particular isn't even in the top 10 list for many GOP voters, they're more concerned about fiscal responsibility (Bush & Co. cost the GOP a lot of credibility there) and the fact that some prominent Republicans (cough - McCain - cough) have been on the wrong side of other hot button issues like illegal alien amnesty.
-
Abortion in particular isn't even in the top 10 list for many GOP voters, they're more concerned about fiscal responsibility (Bush & Co. cost the GOP a lot of credibility there) and the fact that some prominent Republicans (cough - McCain - cough) have been on the wrong side of other hot button issues like illegal alien amnesty.
That is probably true but if a Republican candidate doesn't go on record condemning legal abortion they seem to get cast aside and lose the support of the party.
-
That is probably true but if a Republican candidate doesn't go on record condemning legal abortion they seem to get cast aside and lose the support of the party.
I'm sure you're referring to Mitt Romney here.
The reason is: The core of the Republican voters ARE opposed to abortion as murder. There's no room for compromise for "less murder".
You will of course respond that they could ignore those voters and simply run as pro-abortion because those voters have nowhere else to go with their vote. Unfortunately, they do. They can just go home and ythey have.
If you want to get smaller government, you're going to have to accept that those who are your best allies want most abortions stopped.
Honestly, is the ability to have sex without the consequence of a baby that important to you?
-
Honestly, is the ability to have sex without the consequence of a baby that important to you?
No
I am saying that there are more important (and bigger) things to be concerned about then abortion and gay marriage. Those two items should pretty much be small potatoes on a candidates platform.
-
No
I am saying that there are more important (and bigger) things to be concerned about then abortion and gay marriage. Those two items should pretty much be small potatoes on a candidates platform.
I agree there are more important things than gay marriage to be concerned with. Can you honestly think that those who believe abortion to be murder of a baby would believe it less important than... well... ANYTHING?
I think those who refuse to support someone who is for a smaller government AND is also opposed to abortion because of his position on abortion are a great deal more worrisome than those who think abortion is killing a baby and therefore refuse to support anyone who is for that.
IF what you want is someone for smaller government AND your most ardent supporters also are opposed to abortion, shouldn't you be looking for a candidate that holds both those positions rather than complaining that the candidates that only support your preferred position get shut down?
E.g. what's wrong with a Ronald Reagan?
-
The Republicans are that deluded too, seems like they think everyone is against gay marriage and against abortion, and those two topics will create a Republican super majority.
Both parties get to narrowly focused on a few minute ideals and fowl it up for everyone else.
Your little synopsis is flawed, when Republicans sail to the right, they win elections. Regan, hard right, two terms. George HW Bush, soft right, one term. Newt Gingrich, hard right message, Republicans won. Bob Dole, soft right, lost. George W Bush, talked to the right, McCain to the middle, Bush won. Bush and Republicans stay hard on core issues and hold both houses in 2002. Republicans soften up and barely win in 2004. Republicans go really soft in 2006 and loose badly. Need I go on.
-
Charby's point here is "I don't care about abortion, no one else should either." Sadly, the vast majority of hard line Republican base voters do, in fact, care about it. And they will, in fact, vehemently reject anyone who is for it.
-
I am saying that there are more important (and bigger) things to be concerned about then abortion and gay marriage. Those two items should pretty much be small potatoes on a candidates platform.
"Small potatoes" until you pause to ponder the fact abortion results in human deaths.
-
Can you honestly think that those who believe abortion to be murder of a baby would believe it less important than... well... ANYTHING?
Exactly.
Both parties get to narrowly focused on a few minute ideals and fowl it up for everyone else.
They like those ideals because they can gin up strong reactions, thus voter turnout. What's even better, it lets them do as they please in any number of other areas. Corporate welfare? No problem. Universal healthcare? Ditto.
-
"Small potatoes" until you pause to ponder the fact abortion results in human deaths.
Aside from the ethical issues of abortion versus murder, think of the number of potential tax payers that no longer exist as a result of abortion.
Social Security was never designed to accommodate abortion on demand. Ponzi schemes must have a spiraling subordinate population. Our tax system in general is capitalistic in nature and requires a growing market share to function properly. Abortion undermines that from an economic perspective.
Putting it plainly and rather insensitively, abortion increases taxes per capita.
Another side effect of the abortion on demand environment: it allows physical adults to behave like irresponsible teens for as long as they want. Having a child is often a wake-up call for many couples to knuckle down and start being productive towards their own future. This decreases crime, increases civic responsibility, reduces neighborhood blight, reduces drinking and drug use, increases tax revenues and drives couples to achieve more in their lives.
Fewer abortions and more babies results in greater responsibility overall.
-
I give up, you right wing conservatives can have your theocratic society/government, just think Iran but Christian instead of Muslim.
Lets start stoning people who don't argee with whatever sec of Christianity you belong too.
-
I give up, you right wing conservatives can have your theocratic society/government, just think Iran but Christian instead of Muslim.
Lets start stoning people who don't argee with whatever sec of Christianity you belong too.
cop out
-
I give up, you right wing conservatives can have your theocratic society/government, just think Iran but Christian instead of Muslim.
Lets start stoning people who don't argee with whatever sec of Christianity you belong too.
Wow, and I went out of my way to lay it out civilly.
Funny how "abortion isn't important" apparently translates into "abortion IS important and I want it!"
-
Also I never said I was for abortion, I personally wouldn't want to be part of/associated with an abortion but if a person wants to make that choice and live with it, it is their decision. I'm not the one who is allowed to judge, they will have to settle that later.
Lot of the actions of the right wing conservatives have really almost made want to quit the republican party. Seems like they really don't give a care anymore about fiscal conservative issues, say what they have to to get elected.
-
Whether or not they care about fiscal conservatism is not related to whether they care about abortion.
-
Charby's point here is "I don't care about abortion, no one else should either." Sadly, the vast majority of hard line Republican base voters do, in fact, care about it. And they will, in fact, vehemently reject anyone who is for it.
A majority of Americans oppose both gay marriage and on-demand abortion. Why would a party put forth candidates who are in favor of either?
-
A majority of Americans oppose both gay marriage and abortion. Why would a party put forth candidates who are in favor of either?
legitimate poll please
-
legitimate poll please
Google is your friend.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
The notion that anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage stances are political liabilities is a complete myth.
-
Aside from the ethical issues of abortion versus murder, think of the number of potential tax payers that no longer exist as a result of abortion.
Social Security was never designed to accommodate abortion on demand. Ponzi schemes must have a spiraling subordinate population. Our tax system in general is capitalistic in nature and requires a growing market share to function properly. Abortion undermines that from an economic perspective.
Putting it plainly and rather insensitively, abortion increases taxes per capita.
Another side effect of the abortion on demand environment: it allows physical adults to behave like irresponsible teens for as long as they want. Having a child is often a wake-up call for many couples to knuckle down and start being productive towards their own future. This decreases crime, increases civic responsibility, reduces neighborhood blight, reduces drinking and drug use, increases tax revenues and drives couples to achieve more in their lives.
Fewer abortions and more babies results in greater responsibility overall.
I have to wonder about a few of your statements.
Are you saying the majority of these abortions would turn out to be non-welfare good upstanding citizens?
I ask because the last time I did a yearly refrigeration inspection at a planned parenthood place most of the young ladies in there didn't give me the married in a good home feeling.
jim
-
Google is your friend.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
The notion that anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage stances are political liabilities is a complete myth.
Wow! 22% who want abortion completly illegal is now a majority.
I do see that a slight majority polled don't want gay marriage.
-
75% want abortion either entirely illegal or legal only in specific circumstances. I really fail to see why it's a Really Bad Idea for either party to put forth candidates who echo that belief.
Actually, I'm peeved at the misperception of so many people on abortion and gay marriage. It seems to be taken as gospel truth that any polit-critter who opposes these is automatically out of touch with society and sure to lose. The actual numbers show the reverse, but that doesn't seem to stop people from spouting off about these issues being some kind of third rail.
I suspect that this perception is a fabrication of the media, and it saddens me to see otherwise intelligent people buy into the myth.
-
75% want abortion either entirely illegal or legal only in specific circumstances. I really fail to see why it's a Really Bad Idea for either party to put forth candidates who echo that belief.
Isn't that the current legal standing on abortion. Or do these people want to decide what the specific circumstances are. :O
jim
-
Actually, I'm peeved at the misperception of so many people on abortion and gay marriage. It seems to be taken as gospel truth that any polit-critter who opposes these is automatically out of touch with society and sure to lose. The actual numbers are the opposite.
One thing the Dems have done extremely well in the last 30+ years... is indoctrinate the concept of "tolerance" into the independent and conservative voting masses, while leaving leftist-radical prejudices in place.
If you're generally conservative and don't believe in the validity of X issue (abortion, federalized health care, social security, whatever) and don't want it in your life, you're expected to still consider the plight of the "others." After all, who are you to judge?
Your vote is your judgement, IMO, and there's nothing wrong with judging.
Believe you me, the left judges when they vote.
Do you think that illegals that foist their way into the voting booth, sit there and think: "It's not my place to increase the tax burden on others, so I will vote against the healthcare benefits for illegal aliens."? Heck, no!
Vote for what you believe in. God knows, the other guy will vote for what he believes in.
Unless you don't believe in anything. =|
-
I have to wonder about a few of your statements.
Are you saying the majority of these abortions would turn out to be non-welfare good upstanding citizens?
I ask because the last time I did a yearly refrigeration inspection at a planned parenthood place most of the young ladies in there didn't give me the married in a good home feeling.
jim
Wooa, don't tell me you are taking the Margaret Sanger view? I don't care about someone's parentage, they deserve the right to life. Many, many fine upstanding people came from a single mother, these people were adopted out:
http://www.adoptionopen.com/famousadoptions.html
Alexander the Great - King of Macedonia, 356-323 B.C.
Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Belin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Brent Jasmer - actor
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charles Dickens - writer
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbi Harry - singer
Edgar Allen Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
Gary Coleman - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - diver
Halle Berry - actress
Ingrid Bergman - actress
James McArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Louisa May Alcott - writer
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Marilyn Monroe - actress
Mark Acre - athlete
Mark Twain - writer
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - dancer
Moses - adopted by the princess of Egypt (Bible)
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Laborteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President Gerald R. Ford - adopted by step-father
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Rep. Jim Lightfoot - politician
Richard Burton - actor
Sara Gilbert - actress
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Shari Belafonte-Harper - actress
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator
Who's to say your planned parenthood mother isn't aborting the person who finds a cure for cancer, aids or becomes a President.
-
Isn't that the current legal standing on abortion. Or do these people want to decide what the specific circumstances are. :O
jim
No. "Specific circumstances" in this context means instances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, things like that. It is distinctly different from the on-demand "kill the kid because he's inconvenient" universal legality of abortion.
-
Who's to say your planned parenthood mother isn't aborting the person who finds a cure for cancer, aids or becomes a President.
Don't know if it's true or not, but there's a story that Mother Theresa was once asked why God hadn't sent us a cure for cancer, why He doesn't care about so many of us dying. She responded that we had probably aborted the person He sent to discover the cure.
-
Isn't that the current legal standing on abortion. Or do these people want to decide what the specific circumstances are. :O
jim
You have a very odd and wholly incorrect view of the current laws on abortion. Rape, incest, and life of the mother are what, %1 of all abortions? And really only serious danger to the life of the mother is valid; it's sad that you were raped but murdering your child is not a proper response.
-
You have a very odd and wholly incorrect view of the current laws on abortion. Rape, incest, and life of the mother are what, %1 of all abortions? And really only serious danger to the life of the mother is valid; it's sad that you were raped but murdering your child is not a proper response.
My view may be odd but not incorrect. There are laws currently in place but they are very wide open.
Wooa, don't tell me you are taking the Margaret Sanger view? I don't care about someone's parentage, they deserve the right to life. Many, many fine upstanding people came from a single mother, these people were adopted out:
I'm not taking any view. I was making an observation. And I was wanting some more information on how everything would be so much better without abortion.
How are we sure we wouldn't have a whole new entitled generation?
And back to the OP. I don't think they need an R or a D by their name to be deluded.
jim
jim
-
There's this thing called "the base," and both parties have it. A huge percentage of the Republican base are fervent believers in the right to life. Republicans cannot win without them.
It makes no more sense to try to sidestep the abortion issue than it does gun control, as there are many abortion opponents who are one-issue voters just as I'm a one-issue voter on gun control.
-
Vote for what you believe in. God knows, the other guy will vote for what he believes in.
Unless you don't believe in anything.
Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
-
My view may be odd but not incorrect. There are laws currently in place but they are very wide open.
jim
Umm, no. There are minimum age requirements in some states, but that's it. "Illegal with some exceptions" is in now way comparable to "be over X age."
-
Lot of the actions of the right wing conservatives have really almost made want to quit the republican party.
Go ahead and quit. If you can't manage to defend basic human rights (such as the right to life) then get out of my party. The sooner the better.
-
Go ahead and quit. If you can't manage to defend basic human rights (such as the right to life) then get out of my party. The sooner the better.
Do you seriously think that anybody who holds views on abortion other than 'ban it entirely' must be evicted/excluded from GOP circles?
-
Do you seriously think that anybody who holds views on abortion other than 'ban it entirely' must be evicted/excluded from GOP circles?
Must they be excluded? No, probably not. Should they be? Yeah, I think so.
I suppose if they can keep their mouth shut about it and focus on other issues it wouldn't be a problem. But what's the point of having a party if you can't use it to advance rights? They should join the Democrats if they don't care about individual rights and think government oughta destroy peoples lives.
-
I believe it can be very reasonably argued that seriously early-stage foetuses (blastocyst) are not really human beings. Moreover, even if they are, an argument for abortion can be made.
-
That sounds like rationalizing murder to me. "It isn't really a person, therefore I can kill it without remorse."
I don't buy it.
Eh. Ya know, this isn't really the place to get into an argument about abortion. Let's not drag this one any farther off topic than we already have.
-
This thread is going nowhere fast with the abortion discussion...
-
Go ahead and quit. If you can't manage to defend basic human rights (such as the right to life) then get out of my party. The sooner the better.
fistful beat me to it, good riddance.
Life, Liberty and Property.
Governments role is to protect the right to these three pillars of civil society.
-
fistful beat me to it, good riddance.
Life, Liberty and Property.
Governments role is to protect the right to these three pillars of civil society.
So making abortion illegal is protecting life? What about the potential uprising of back alley abortions and other medical quackery that may come about from people who think they have no other place to turn?
Like I said earlier I personally am against abortion, but I don't think it should be made illegal.
Also why are people who are against abortion, pro death penalty?
-
Gentlemen, this thread is way off target. Now, back to the original discussion, are the Democrats really this deluded?
Thread lock in ...3...2...1
-
Gentlemen, this thread is way off target. Now, back to the original discussion, are the Democrats really this deluded?
Thread lock in ...3...2...1
Both parties are.
-
Both parties are.
I agree. And they are deluded about many different things. To the point where they don't represent their members all that well any longer.
What was it that has been said of the Repubican Party? "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
Are the Dems saying something similar amongst themselves right now, I wonder?
-
This thread is going nowhere fast with the abortion discussion...
They never do in this setting. Which is sad.
I don't understand why it is so hard to see how RKBA and abortion are intertwined. I know someone will say RKBA is in the Constitution but abortion is not, but then I'll here someone say the Founding Father's wrote all men are created equal. And that includes babies. But if you look at it. All men at the time did not not include all men or women and children. All men meant some men. So now we have to look at the wording in the second amendment. Does it mean what it says? Or what you or someone else wants it to?
If you want to debate for or against anything you need to make sure you know what you are talking about.
I know you know where you stand. But make sure you don't look like the anti going on about assault weapons and cop killer bullets that has no clue what he is talking about. He is just telling you where he stands. He just looks like a fool doing it.
I'm not here to start a pissing match with anyone, but the laws are more defined then age. In some cases age does not matter. Please research the laws before you tell me I am wrong.
pm me if you want a pissing match. It doesn't belong here.
jim
-
Wow! 22% who want abortion completly illegal is now a majority.
Politicians are often elected by less than ten percent of the eligible voters in their district, so if you can actually get 22% of voters to the polls on any one issue, you'll have a landslide in most elections.
Actual majority doesn't matter: it's how many actually do something about their beliefs that determines everything.
-
Also why are people who are against abortion, pro death penalty?
Because both stances are about preserving life.
-
Do you seriously think that anybody who holds views on abortion other than 'ban it entirely' must be evicted/excluded from GOP circles?
That's not what I said. If Charby, and others like him, are so upset by the "far right" that they've considered leaving the party, maybe they should just leave the party. He's upset that some of us have principles about the murder of small children, and find that to be a more important issue than fiscal policy.
What are we supposed to do? Put money ahead of innocent people's lives?
Do we really want these people in our party, if they have such an attitude? We don't need to kick them out, but I'm tired of them. Let them leave.
-
I agree. And they are deluded about many different things. To the point where they don't represent their members all that well any longer.
What was it that has been said of the Repubican Party? "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
Are the Dems saying something similar amongst themselves right now, I wonder?
I think that the far left of the Democratic party has spoken. They helped get Obama elected and they are reminding him to "dance with the one who brung him." A lot of the people who would have been Nader or Green Party voters went ahead and voted for Obama this time, and they want their agenda pushed through.
One thing that has confused me is why there are not more Republican social conservatives that are outspoken on the abortion issue. At this point a Republican candidate cannot win an election, without the support of the Pro-Lifers. However, I have seen few meaningful moves from the Republicans towards a tightening of restrictions on abortions. There have been a number of times since 1995 where the Republicans have had a lot of power in Washington, but they haven't addressed the Abortion issue in a meaningful way. I think a lot of these Republican politicians are cynically paying lip service to the issue while having no intent to push for an issue that is #1 for a significant number of their constituents. Perhaps pro-lifers need to hold their congresscritter's feet to the fire and tell them to honor their promises or pro-lifers will go back to being the "silent majority" and stay home on election day.
-
What are we supposed to do? Put money ahead of innocent people's lives?
Do we really want these people in our party, if they have such an attitude? We don't need to kick them out, but I'm tired of them. Let them leave.
As I have explained previously on the forum, there can be a variety of legitimate disagreements between people on abortions. Even if one accepts that the foetus is a child from day one, which many people do not, there can be a serious argument on this issue without calling absolutely everybody who disagrees with you a baby killer. Would you like it if I referred to (for example) people who support the war on drugs "homicidal maniacs" (as some newspapermen in America do) or to people who enforce laws I disagree with as "modern-day Gestapo"? Or to Bush as a fascist? No? Thought so.
Please don't refer to me as someone who wants to murder your children. We can legitimately disagree on issues without calling people murderers.
-
Many, many fine upstanding people came from a single mother, these people were adopted out:
<SNIP>
Jesse Jackson - minister
<SNIP>
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
<SNIP>
President William Clinton - politician
You really should learn to trim your lists. One could use the above as an excellent argument in favor of abortion.
Who's to say your planned parenthood mother isn't aborting the person who finds a cure for cancer, aids or becomes a President.
For a second there I parsed that as suggesting that the kid might find a cure for becoming President. I was really hoping it was something that could be aerially dispersed over certain areas.
-
Technically speaking, Alexander The Great was only adopted by at an advanced age. In the ancient world it was common to adopt people for political purposes even when they were already adults, and there is at least one example of a person being adopted by a 'parent' half their own age. I am not sure that counts.
-
As I have explained previously on the forum, there can be a variety of legitimate disagreements between people on abortions. Even if one accepts that the foetus is a child from day one, which many people do not, there can be a serious argument on this issue without calling absolutely everybody who disagrees with you a baby killer. Would you like it if I referred to (for example) people who support the war on drugs "homicidal maniacs" (as some newspapermen in America do) or to people who enforce laws I disagree with as "modern-day Gestapo"? Or to Bush as a fascist? No? Thought so.
Please don't refer to me as someone who wants to murder your children. We can legitimately disagree on issues without calling people murderers.
I didn't call anyone a murderer. I never said anyone wants to murder my children. And you're not in a position to explain anything to me about this issue.
-
Okay this dead horse is suffering from a case of violent thread veer.