Christine Whitman to the GOP: " I told you so!"

In this article Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who served under the Bush Administration and was the first and only female governor of New Jersey, expresses the same views we're now hearing from others like her, moderate Republicans...those we once thought as a dying breed, or an oxymoron. Except that these are the same warnings that she gave to her party in her book, back in 2004, though at that time no one in her party was willing to listen. It may be different now as the party deals with defeat.


It's time to free the Republican Party

By Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock
November 17, 2008

Four years ago, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, “It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.”

Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the “base” at all costs was the way to go. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the presidential campaign of John Mccain this year, called the book “airy blather” and said its argument fell somewhere between “insufferable snobbery” and “complete cluelessness.” Gary Bauer, president of American Values, suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a “Michael Moore radical.” National Review said its warnings were, “at best, counterintuitive,” and author/commentator Ann Coulter said the book was “based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false.”

What a difference four years makes – and the data show it.

While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a nine-percentage-point margin among moderate voters over President George W. Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) – and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.

Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 – 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago – 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.

Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.

Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.

In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081117/news_mz1e17bostoc.html

expresses the same views we're now hearing from others like her, moderate Republicans...those we once thought as a dying breed, or an oxymoron.

Just exactly who is "we"?

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?


Paranoia strikes deep...

Bah. This is all a bunch of bullshit because Americans do not vote based on anything that have any real relevence in the real world.

This election was a great example. There were people on both sides voting for the wrong reasons (things have to do nothing with that actual politics of the elections).

The parties have power and they always shall. Things will never change. Small "battles" here and there that are more about showing the other side how they "got them" this time then anything else.

America has never really been as good or pure as kids learn in the history books, but it is farked beyond repair now. Stupid people--"democrats" and "republicans" they call themselves--destroyed this country. It is actually to the point at which people are not voting based on what would be of the most benefit to them, but what people tell them will be of the most benefit. "This asshole over here says he will make things right again. fark a plan or any indication that it can happen. I will take him at his word." Dummies.

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?

Excellent FUD.

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

Where does she (the author) say anything about Christians? All she mentions is "social fundamentalists", which could be Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or none of the above, for all I know.

You are being a bit paranoid, I think.

I am not singling you out, Jhaan, but for some reason, paranoia seems to have taken over some Christians in this country in recent years, although not the majority, many of whom still believe that religion and faith is a private matter.

I suspect that (and, again, I don't mean you, Jhaan) these are the Christians we saw at those Palin rallies, fretting that Barack Obama might be an "Arab" (i.e. a Muslim) -- and previous to that, that he was in cahoots with a crazy "un-American" preacher -- then later on, that he was a godless Socialist..and on and on. i.e. he is not "one of us". But this is similar to what I hear preached in the talk radio, right from the mouths of the usual suspects (none of whom care that much about religion or church, I suspect).

But as Ms Whitman says in this article, this is not what the majority of Americans believe, and the Republican party needs to face that. This is what she says:

"Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same."

She says nothing about Christians in particular (as she may be one herself).


There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.


Lions and beasts at the amphitheater are being prepared as we speak, just waiting for the new administration to take over, I hear. :nod:

But, seriously, who is this church with such fears? It doesn't sound like any church anyone I know attends, nor any I have attended in the past.

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?

Isn't like 90% of this country Christian? Why would the church be persecuted?

Indeed, the church is more powerful than it's ever been... to the point of asserting power over others. See Prop 8.

Indeed, the church is more powerful than it's ever been... .

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Talk about a tin foil hat......

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Talk about a tin foil hat......
I'm not paranoid or in fear of the church. I simply see that it still has a powerful hold on politics and culture in our society.

Do you feel like retracting your ad hominem attack? :rolleyes:

Bah. This is all a bunch of bullshit because Americans do not vote based on anything that have any real relevence in the real world.

What do they vote on?

Do you vote? If not, how do you know what those of us who do vote for?

This election was a great example. There were people on both sides voting for the wrong reasons (things have to do nothing with that actual politics of the elections).
There are some people who vote for what may be considered "the wrong reasons" -- like things that don't really affect their lives or interests. There are even those who vote against their own interests, often due to ignorance or being unclear as to what they are really voting for (e.g. tax issues).

The parties have power and they always shall.

Much of that power, in a democracy, comes from getting most of the votes - i.e. winning elections. Which may be, in some instances, the ability to fool most of the people some of the time.

America has never really been as good or pure as kids learn in the history books, but it is farked beyond repair now. Stupid people--"democrats" and "republicans" they call themselves--destroyed this country. It is actually to the point at which people are not voting based on what would be of the most benefit to them, but what people tell them will be of the most benefit. "This asshole over here says he will make things right again. fark a plan or any indication that it can happen. I will take him at his word." Dummies.

:rolleyes:

So...you don't vote. Or you did and your candidate lost, and you're not taking it too well.

But as one who sees the glass half full, I don't think that America is "farked beyond repair", although it may never be what it once was. But it will need a lot of work -- possibly more than four years -- on the part of the new administration to repair the mess and damage the present one has done.

Where does she (the author) say anything about Christians? All she mentions is "social fundamentalists", which could be Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or none of the above, for all I know.


Hehehe. You're right. But within the GOP, I just singled out the largest group.


I am not singling you out, Jhaan, but for some reason, paranoia seems to have taken over some Christians in this country in recent years, although not the majority, many of whom still believe that religion and faith is a private matter.


President-elect Obama is a prime example of faith being a private matter. He's publicly announced his faith on several occasions and I believe him. But any conviction that doesn't match the majority opinion should be held privately. In other words, "keep it to yourself. Fall in line. Don't step on any toes."

I recently read an article from Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island) about the separation of Church and State and the role of each within the other. It's a fascinating read (link (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm#001)) and quite timely for today's world.

The Christian Worldview has, unfortunately, been condensed into two or three issues. It's bad that it happened that way, but it's history. I think much of the finger pointing within the GOP is due to this narrow view of the Religious Right. Are those issues important? Yes, but there are tons of others that no one seems to talk about. Marriage and the Poor, for instance.

I (and others I've heard/read) worry that this backlash might cause the State to step too far into the Church. We'll have to wait and see.

What do they vote on?

Do you vote? If not, how do you know what those of us who do vote for?
It is all based upon granfalloons. There is a meaningful association that makes a person like the candidate for whom they cast their vote. "Because the candidate is [whatever quality] and I am also [whatever quality], then I feel as though this connection means that I must vote for this person," says mister or madame dumb American. "Because we are alike and I must support those like me." Of course you and I realize that this is just merely a self-identified connection and is meaningless, but others use these arbitrary found similarities as a way to create bonds. (Yeah, going far enough the whole idea of a nation is the same, but that for different times.)

I voted for Barr. I am not upset because he lost. Only that so many uninformed votes go to other candidates and count in state tallies. It is not even the ignorance of the candidate that gets me, it is the complete ignorance of the government and its processes. Something aint right there.

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?You are very correct that there is a fear amongst many of the more conservative leaning fundamental churches.

I suspect that (and, again, I don't mean you, Jhaan) these are the Christians we saw at those Palin rallies, fretting that Barack Obama might be an "Arab" (i.e. a Muslim) -- and previous to that, that he was in cahoots with a crazy "un-American" preacher -- then later on, that he was a godless Socialist..and on and on. i.e. he is not "one of us". But this is similar to what I hear preached in the talk radio, right from the mouths of the usual suspects (none of whom care that much about religion or church, I suspect).....

.....But, seriously, who is this church with such fears? It doesn't sound like any church anyone I know attends, nor any I have attended in the past.Conservative congregations in fundamental churches are concerned. A quick google search will give you many websites to choose from. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+christian+persecution&aq=2&oq=obama+christian+per) I'm not saying any of those sites are or are not credible, but simply pointing out that there ARE very real concerns and you'll probably dismiss them as being "crackpots", but the truth remains that there ARE churches with such fears.

Here's one from Focus On The Family, an organization with a large following:

Obama spells 'persecution,' warns Focus on the Family
Analysts see same-sex marriage, Fairness Doctrine on horizon
Posted: October 22, 2008
By Art Moore
WorldNetDaily

James Dobson

What would America look like after four years of a Barack Obama administration?

"Hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" are among the prospects in a hypothetical letter from a "Christian from 2012" released today by evangelical leader James Dobson's political activist group Focus on the Family Action.

Titled "Letter from 2012 in Obama�s America," the piece clearly targets the many evangelical Christians seeking "change," particularly the young, who could tip the election in favor of the Illinois Democrat. At the end of the letter, the fictional Christian laments that these people "simply did not realize Obama's far-left agenda would take away many of our freedoms as a nation, perhaps permanently," pointing to a new, liberal-majority Supreme Court unlikely to change for 30 more years.

"I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," says the fictional writer. "Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years," America is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more," the letter writer says.

Focus on the Family Action, established as a separate legal entity from Focus on the Family, has expanded abilities under the IRS code to lobby for political change.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family Action, affirmed to WND the letter is designed to address a "concerted effort by Obama and Democrats to capture people of faith since 2004."

"Certainly, I think, younger evangelicals may be swayed by the rhetoric and charisma of Obama without really having the historical perspective of what allowing liberal Democrats to control government would do," she said.

"I think a lot of Americans are not connecting the dots, that this would be the first time since 1965 that liberals have dominated the White House, Congress and, potentially, the Supreme Court."

Earll affirmed that Dobson has not endorsed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain but plans to vote for him.

In a preface, Focus on the Family Action explains the letter is a "What if?" exercise, but insists "that does not make it empty speculation, because every future 'event' described here is based on established legal and political trends that can already be abundantly documented and that only need a 'tipping point' such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place."

Focus adds that evangelicals on both sides of the election should "continue to respect and cherish each other's friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United States to differ on these issues and to freely speak our opinions about them to one another."

Nevertheless, the footnoted letter anticipates an America, under Obama, that realizes the worst fears of Dobson and his millions of supporters.

Among the possible developments by 2012:

* Six liberal justices sit on the Supreme Court after the immediate resignation of John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the later resignations of Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

* Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.

* The Boy Scouts have disbanded rather than obey a decision forcing them to allow homosexual scoutmasters. (The Scouts already had been kicked out of public facilities because of an expansion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover people who engage in homosexual behavior.)

* Elementary schools have compulsory training in varieties of gender identity. Courts rule parents cannot opt out their children, because the training is deemed essential to psychological health.

* Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.

* Church buildings are now considered a "public accommodation" by the United States Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.

* High schools are no longer free to allow "see you at the pole" meetings where students pray together or any student Bible studies even before or after school.

* The Supreme Court barred public schools in all 50 states from allowing churches to rent their facilities, even on Sundays, when school was not in session.

* Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as he promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, nullifying hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.

* The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and TV broadcasts, and television programs at all hours of the day now contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

* As a result of a reversal of its 5-4 decision in the D.C. gun-ownership case, it is now illegal for private citizens to own guns for self-defense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships

* Parents' freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted nationwide after the Supreme Court followed the legal reasoning of a Feb. 28, 2008, ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in California.

The letter also "recalls" a President Obama fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, resulting in a flood of al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran pouring into Iraq and completely overwhelming Iraqi security forces.

"A Taliban-like oppression has now taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of 'American sympathizers' have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed," the letter says. "The number put to death may soon reach into the millions. Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling this American 'defeat' and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries."

The letter also looks back at an explosion of terrorist bombs in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds and spreading fear across the nation.

"President Obama in each case has vowed 'to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,' but no arrests have yet been made," the letter says.

Obama 'tested'

The hypothetical letter plays on vice presidential candidate Joe Biden's warning to fundraisers last Sunday in Seattle that some hostile foreign country will test the inexperienced Obama in his first six months of office.

In early 2009, the letter says, Russia "followed the pattern they had begun in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries, starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania."

But the Russians don't stop there, occupying over the next three years former satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, "with no military response from the U.S. or the U.N."

By 2012, health care has been nationalized with a single payer system patterned after the United Kingdom and Canada.

"The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone � if you can get it," the letter writer says. "Now that health care is free it seems that everybody wants more of it. The waiting list for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years."

Care also has been limited for older Americans, the letter says.

"Because medical resources now must be rationed carefully by the government, people over 80 have essentially no access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their 'duty' is increasingly thought to be to go home to die, so that they don't drain scarce resources from the medical system."

Devastated economy

The letter says many Christians voted for Obama because they thought his tax policies were more fair and his "middle class tax cuts" would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis.

"But once he took office he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and the pattern of his own past record and asked Congress for a large tax increase," the letter says. "He explained that the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we simply couldn't afford to cut taxes at the present time."

Several of Obama's economic policies have hurt the poor most of all, says the letter, because they have decreased production, increased inflation and increased unemployment, leading to a prolonged recession.

"Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled."

The effect on the economy has been devastating, says the letter.

"When critics objected that Obama's tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America's materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal," the letter says.

The Focus on the Family Action letter also sees gas at $7 a gallon, because Obama has refused to allow any additional drilling in the U.S. But many Democrats openly applaud the high prices since they reduce oil consumption and thus lower carbon dioxide output.

Goodbye to talk radio

Another development is restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," which required that radio stations provide "equal time" for alternative views on political questions.

As a result, "nearly all conservative stations have now gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010."

The fictional letter writer concludes that Christian share much of the blame, having chosen Obama because they believed he "sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable."

"And during the campaign, after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his speeches, moving away from his earlier far-left record," the letter says. "No one thought he would enact such a far-left, extreme liberal agenda."

Earlier in the letter, the fictional writer notes that after many Supreme Court decisions, particularly those that restricted free speech, Obama "publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond anything that he ever expected or thought that it would do."

"But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were now the law of the land."

Americans should have known what they were getting into by choosing Obama, the letter says, his record "was all there for anyone to see."

"The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the agenda of the global warming activists, the agenda of the abortion rights activists, the agenda of the gun control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world government pacifists, the agenda of far-left groups in Canada and Europe � all of these agendas were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn't want to see it. Christians didn't take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation's future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history."

Moderates are not animated by the same things as these hardcore values voters are. I don't think anyone disputes that. The impression that's being advanced here is that the "moderates" were driven away by the social conservatives... or by social conservative policies, and not by the larger issues of the campaign. And there were many larger issues to consider this year...

For one, people think Bush sux, and therefore they think republicans suck too. It's the way of things, and I don't know that it runs much deeper than that for the majority of what we might call "non-political voters". People are also tired of the war... I think many don't care if we win or lose, they just want to get past it. Odds are the Democratic candidate gets you out of that faster.

So there's that foundation, and then we had this financial panic. This was a campaign in the midst of a financial crisis. It was a huge looming issue, and McCain was doing ok until he went wobbly on that issue, and his numbers sank from that point and never recovered.

Something else that's going to sway non-political voters is that Obama was going to be the first black president. That's history. People want to be a part of that. I think that was a very appealing story line in this election, and there's nothing wrong with it.

This was not an election that was dominated by the issues of social conservatism. So, what does that mean for Republicans? 67 million people voted for Obama... and 59 million for McCain. He lost by 7%. I do not believe that the way for McCain to have won vs Obama was for him to be more like Obama. That social conservative voting bloc isn't enough, it never is... just as the hardcore progressive voting bloc isn't enough.

The moderate Republicans have never liked the Conservative takeover of the party. However during the time when the moderates controlled the party, Republicans didn't win very much. There have always been some concerned liberals out there who say that the way for Republicans to win elections is for them to become more like Democrats.

"Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more," the letter writer says

Ironic that it is people like Dobson who seek to restrict peoples' freedoms such as having abortions (individual freedom to decide when human life begins), and marrying the single consenting adult one loves.

Ironic that it is people like Dobson who seek to restrict peoples' freedoms such as having abortions (individual freedom to decide when human life begins), and marrying the single consenting adult one loves.Individual freedom to decide when an innocent child is butchered and torn from the mother's womb? You mean individual freedom to decide when human life ends.

You are very correct that there is a fear amongst many of the more conservative leaning fundamental churches.

Those fears are totally unfounded. Usually they're either complaining about how the church is possibly losing its power to enforce morality through the government, or how people criticize them too much or ostracize them for criticizing homosexuals, speaking out against abortion, etc, which is totally unrelated to the government.

Focus on the Family pisses me off.

Quote from James Dobson :
Obama spells 'persecution,' warns Focus on the Family
Analysts see same-sex marriage, Fairness Doctrine on horizon
Oh noes! :whee:

What would America look like after four years of a Barack Obama administration?

"Hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" are among the prospects in a hypothetical letter from a "Christian from 2012" released today by evangelical leader James Dobson's political activist group Focus on the Family Action.
Persecution and suffering? Why??

Titled "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America," the piece clearly targets the many evangelical Christians seeking "change," particularly the young, who could tip the election in favor of the Illinois Democrat. At the end of the letter, the fictional Christian laments that these people "simply did not realize Obama's far-left agenda would take away many of our freedoms as a nation, perhaps permanently," pointing to a new, liberal-majority Supreme Court unlikely to change for 30 more years.
This amounts to complaining about their freedoms being taken away simply because the SCOTUS is liberal, instead of conservative. The conservative SC has had its time. It doesn't mean a liberal SC will bring about the end of the world or take away freedoms :rolleyes:

"I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," says the fictional writer. "Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years," America is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more," the letter writer says.
What freedoms would be taken away?? Freedom of religion, the first amendment? I highly doubt that is going to be taken away by ANY Supreme Court any time soon. Especially with the large religious population of our country.

In a preface, Focus on the Family Action explains the letter is a "What if?" exercise, but insists "that does not make it empty speculation, because every future 'event' described here is based on established legal and political trends that can already be abundantly documented and that only need a 'tipping point' such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place."
Here's your fear... fear-mongering that is. FOTFA says this is a what if. "If Obama wins, you'll lose your freedoms." With NO basis.

They could have mentioned some of the "established legal and political trends," but they don't. NO freedoms or rights are being taken away from Christians, unless you count the "freedom" to enforce a Christian morality viewpoint on everyone in the country.

Nevertheless, the footnoted letter anticipates an America, under Obama, that realizes the worst fears of Dobson and his millions of supporters.
In other words, FOTFA fears that things won't go the way THEY want them to. That doesn't mean they will lose their rights.

Among the possible developments by 2012:

* Six liberal justices sit on the Supreme Court after the immediate resignation of John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the later resignations of Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

* Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.
Oh no... equality. So scary :sadwalk:

* The Boy Scouts have disbanded rather than obey a decision forcing them to allow homosexual scoutmasters. (The Scouts already had been kicked out of public facilities because of an expansion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover people who engage in homosexual behavior.)
TBS could simply not discriminate. It'd be ridiculous for the government to keep giving them public facilities or funding despite their discrimination though.

I, for one, don't want a government supporting discrimination against one group. FOTF and Christians should be equally afraid of this, because the government could easily allow an organization that discriminates against Christians to continue.

* Elementary schools have compulsory training in varieties of gender identity. Courts rule parents cannot opt out their children, because the training is deemed essential to psychological health.
Sounds a little reminiscent of abstinence-only sex ed........

* Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.
Unless federal anti-discrimination laws are put into place, this is not going to happen. The adoption agencies could simply stop using public facilities or aid, then they'd be free to do whatever the hell they wanted to.

* Church buildings are now considered a "public accommodation" by the United States Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.
This is pure FUD. NO Supreme Court is going to take away private property.

FOTF can't come up with logical reasons not to vote for Obama, or against gay marriage, so they use scenarios like these that don't even make sense. :rolleyes:

* High schools are no longer free to allow "see you at the pole" meetings where students pray together or any student Bible studies even before or after school.
What's the basis/precedence for this?

* The Supreme Court barred public schools in all 50 states from allowing churches to rent their facilities, even on Sundays, when school was not in session.
That would be a step in the right direction. Public facilities shouldn't be used for religious purposes. Separation of church/state.

* Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as he promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, nullifying hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.
This is not a Christian freedom or right taken away. More whining about no longer being allowed to police morality.

* The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and TV broadcasts, and television programs at all hours of the day now contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.
Hooray for freedom of speech! :woot:

* As a result of a reversal of its 5-4 decision in the D.C. gun-ownership case, it is now illegal for private citizens to own guns for self-defense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships
This one is plausible, but still seems unlikely.

* Parents' freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted nationwide after the Supreme Court followed the legal reasoning of a Feb. 28, 2008, ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in California.
I wish they would elaborate more on this.

The letter also "recalls" a President Obama fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, resulting in a flood of al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran pouring into Iraq and completely overwhelming Iraqi security forces.

"A Taliban-like oppression has now taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of 'American sympathizers' have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed," the letter says. "The number put to death may soon reach into the millions. Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling this American 'defeat' and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries."
The US is already planning to pull out of Iraq in 2011 (IIRC).

The letter also looks back at an explosion of terrorist bombs in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds and spreading fear across the nation.
Pure, unsubstantiated FUD.

"President Obama in each case has vowed 'to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,' but no arrests have yet been made," the letter says.
Ditto.

Obama 'tested'

The hypothetical letter plays on vice presidential candidate Joe Biden's warning to fundraisers last Sunday in Seattle that some hostile foreign country will test the inexperienced Obama in his first six months of office.

In early 2009, the letter says, Russia "followed the pattern they had begun in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries, starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania."

But the Russians don't stop there, occupying over the next three years former satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, "with no military response from the U.S. or the U.N."
MORE fear.

By 2012, health care has been nationalized with a single payer system patterned after the United Kingdom and Canada.
That's not Obama's plan.

"The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone – if you can get it," the letter writer says. "Now that health care is free it seems that everybody wants more of it. The waiting list for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years."

Care also has been limited for older Americans, the letter says.
FUD.

"Because medical resources now must be rationed carefully by the government, people over 80 have essentially no access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their 'duty' is increasingly thought to be to go home to die, so that they don't drain scarce resources from the medical system."
Again!!

Devastated economy

The letter says many Christians voted for Obama because they thought his tax policies were more fair and his "middle class tax cuts" would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis.

"But once he took office he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and the pattern of his own past record and asked Congress for a large tax increase," the letter says. "He explained that the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we simply couldn't afford to cut taxes at the present time."
So I guess they didn't take McCain's tax cut policies seriously either.

Several of Obama's economic policies have hurt the poor most of all, says the letter, because they have decreased production, increased inflation and increased unemployment, leading to a prolonged recession.
:rolleyes:

"Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled."
Yeah, he's raising taxes, but not to that degree. The tax raises did a lot of good for the economy under Clinton.

The effect on the economy has been devastating, says the letter.

"When critics objected that Obama's tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America's materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal," the letter says.
More FUD.

The Focus on the Family Action letter also sees gas at $7 a gallon, because Obama has refused to allow any additional drilling in the U.S. But many Democrats openly applaud the high prices since they reduce oil consumption and thus lower carbon dioxide output.
As if drilling now would have an impact in 2012.

Goodbye to talk radio

Another development is restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," which required that radio stations provide "equal time" for alternative views on political questions.

As a result, "nearly all conservative stations have now gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010."
HYPOCRISY ALERT!

In the same letter, FOTFA was complaining about FCC restrictions going away. Do they want freedom of speech or not?

The fictional letter writer concludes that Christian share much of the blame, having chosen Obama because they believed he "sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable."
The actual letter writer clearly doesn't see that Obama IS thoughtful and reasonable.

"And during the campaign, after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his speeches, moving away from his earlier far-left record," the letter says. "No one thought he would enact such a far-left, extreme liberal agenda."
Extreme liberal?? :lmao:

Earlier in the letter, the fictional writer notes that after many Supreme Court decisions, particularly those that restricted free speech, Obama "publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond anything that he ever expected or thought that it would do."

"But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were now the law of the land."
FUD, FUD and more FUD.

Americans should have known what they were getting into by choosing Obama, the letter says, his record "was all there for anyone to see."
If you're looking at him from a hateful or fearful viewpoint, the record is there. To most rational people, he's a NORMAL guy.

"The agenda of the ACLU,
These people should be APPLAUDING the ACLU. The ACLU stands up for all Constitutional freedoms.

the agenda of liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the agenda of the global warming activists, the agenda of the abortion rights activists, the agenda of the gun control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world government pacifists, the agenda of far-left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn't want to see it. Christians didn't take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation's future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history."
All those horrible agendas. It's not like FOTF has one. :rofl2:


I conclude by repeating that churches have nothing to fear. If they lose any "rights" they'll be related to running a Christian nanny state that rules over the nation with an iron rod of morality.

Individual freedom to decide when an innocent child is butchered and torn from the mother's womb? You mean individual freedom to decide when human life ends.

Or when a person is electrocuted/injected a lethal concoction

Quote :
* Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.


Unless federal anti-discrimination laws are put into place, this is not going to happen. The adoption agencies could simply stop using public facilities or aid, then they'd be free to do whatever the hell they wanted to.

This has already happened in Mass.

This has already happened in Mass.
But AFAIK there are no federal anti-discrimination laws. So that would not come about due to the Supreme Court.

And even if it did, it wouldn't be the Supreme Court's fault, it would be the fault of the Christian adoption agencies that refuse to put children in the homes of same-sex couples.

And even if it did, it wouldn't be the Supreme Court's fault, it would be the fault of the Christian adoption agencies that refuse to put children in the homes of same-sex couples.

Wow, Imerson. That's exactly the kind of attitude the Church fears. "Comply, or Shut Down." Just how far are you willing to take the State into the Church?

Wow, Imerson. That's exactly the kind of attitude the Church fears. "Comply, or Shut Down." Just how far are you willing to take the State into the Church?
Far enough to ensure that the Church isn't violating federal/state law? Is that any more than we currently require of churches in order to continue to operate?

Not even religion is *above* the law. :shake:

Individual freedom to decide when an innocent child is butchered and torn from the mother's womb? You mean individual freedom to decide when human life ends.

No, I meant what I said.

You've just proven my point. You can't even allow me the freedom to decide when human life begins, just cause you've made up your mind. You want to force your decision on me (and everyone else). Just like Dobson.

Far enough to ensure that the Church isn't violating federal/state law? Is that any more than we currently require of churches in order to continue to operate?

Not even religion is *above* the law. :shake:

Which would be a shame considering that the Church [and churches] does a great deal in the way of adoption services. My hope is that other organizations would step up to fill the void left in such scenarios.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"... However it is the Church's God-given AND state-given right to protest and have their voice heard.

No, I meant what I said.

You've just proven my point. You can't even allow me the freedom to decide when human life begins, just cause you've made up your mind. You want to force your decision on me (and everyone else). Just like Dobson.

Contrarian point of view to your freedom of when human life begins - if it is my opinion that human life doesn't begin until adulthood, is it within my right to abort the lives of those under the legal age?

Contrarian point of view to your freedom of when human life begins - if it is my opinion that human life doesn't begin until adulthood, is it within my right to abort the lives of those under the legal age?
This again? For crying out loud, no.

Why don't we have an abortion megathread? Embryo: dependent upon the person it's implanted in. Can't be transferred. Born child: dependent upon whomever is willing to take care of it, not just one person.

This again? For crying out loud, no.

Why don't we have an abortion megathread? Embryo: dependent upon the person it's implanted in. Can't be transferred. Born child: dependent upon whomever is willing to take care of it, not just one person.

Then you're not allowing my the freedom to decide when human life begins just cause you've made up your mind [per 124nic8]

Then you're not allowing my the freedom to decide when human life begins just cause you've made up your mind [per 124nic8]
This is true. It's also true that 124nic8 can't express his thoughts on this matter properly. The issue isn't a choice of when human life begins. It's a choice on the status of an embryo/fetus. This is a separate matter, as pointed by your counterexample. Choosing when human life begins means there is no restriction on the timeline. The status of the embryo/fetus is a restricted timeline.

Far enough to ensure that the Church isn't violating federal/state law? Is that any more than we currently require of churches in order to continue to operate?

Not even religion is *above* the law. :shake:

Enter the conundrum. We desire the church to stay out of government, but not the converse.

What is a greatest motivation to get fundamentalists to push for public office? Effing up things for them on their turf. I personally think that religion and gov't should be kept out of each others business, outside of serious and real crimes (think criminal and felony, not civil).

I certainly do not want fundamentalists controlling the law of the land, however I do not think the gov't should tell people how to follow their faith as long as they do not victimize individuals.

If someone wants to ensure their child that they are unable to provide a home for goes to a specific type of home, that should be an option.

Homosexuals should be able to get married, but likewise they should not be able to force a church that does not condone homosexuality to perform the ceremony. Homosexuals should have the option to adopt, as well.

However, that should be limited to gov't agencies where such freedom from dogma is to be expected.

Contrarian point of view to your freedom of when human life begins - if it is my opinion that human life doesn't begin until adulthood, is it within my right to abort the lives of those under the legal age?

The difference is that no serious person has disputed that life is human at birth.

And bonk, I meant what I said. People can and have disputed that life is human, absent human cognitive function.

AFAIK that is the argument for ending the life of the brain dead.

Given all that, when a life has human cognitive function AND is not dependent on another sole individual for survival, it is indisputably human and that is where your right to decide its status ends.

Otherwise there is room for freedom to decide. A freedom which slick and Dobson seek to deny.

The difference is that no serious person has disputed that life is human at birth.

And bonk, I meant what I said. People can and have disputed that life is human, absent human cognitive function.

AFAIK that is the argument for ending the life of the brain dead.

Given all that, when a life has human cognitive function AND is not dependent on another sole individual for survival, it is indisputably human and that is where your right to decide its status ends.

Otherwise there is room for freedom to decide. A freedom which slick and Dobson seek to deny.

There are many disputes on where humanity begins and ends.

The fact that people seriously argue that an unborn child is not human is a travesty. I believe such people should have to forgo the right to be called human or in the least intelligent to hold such a belief.

Now whether that human child has any rights is a debatable issue, and a true point of contention.

Some people say that the child has rights once it emerges from a woman's body.

Why is that? For two reasons and two reasons alone. Convenience of women and for economics. There is a lot of money in killing young humans. It is also not politically correct to inconvenience women.

Women bear children. Fact of nature. It is also why they have custody laws ridiculously slanted in their favor. Women just do not want the accountability that comes with the power that resides there.

Doctors make a lot of money performing abortions. So, it makes sense that doctors want to keep performing procedures that bring them money. Who are the people determining it is ok to kill unborn children? Doctors.

Where do I draw the line on abortion? I have argued this before. After 20 weeks (after 5 months without a menstual cycle, a woman has had plenty of time to figure out if she desires to be a parent or not).

After 20 weeks the child can arguably feel a surgeon crushing its skull prior to removal.

I am not against abortion. I just draw the line before it is convenient for some women.

The moderate Republicans have never liked the Conservative takeover of the party. However during the time when the moderates controlled the party, Republicans didn't win very much. There have always been some concerned liberals out there who say that the way for Republicans to win elections is for them to become more like Democrats.

Good points.

I'd also like to add that I'm sure there's always conservatives out there who say that they way for Democrats to win elections is for them to become more like Republicans.

It's a bad year for the Republican brand. If Obama doesn't fix things by 2012 and loses his re-election bid, I'm sure there will be articles filled with angst about how the Democrats need to retool their party. If I'm still around on SD by then, I'll try to resist the urge to post that.

The fact that people seriously argue that an unborn child is not human is a travesty. I believe such people should have to forgo the right to be called human or in the least intelligent to hold such a belief.

Are you calling me stupid?

You're entitled to your beliefs, but labeling those who oppose them unintelligent, just indicates a weak argument.

If an organism has not developed human cognitive function, it is no more human than the brain dead.

It may have human potential, but even that is not certain.

Once again you seem to think just cause you've decided, everyone else must be forced by law to agree.

Are you calling me stupid?

You're entitled to your beliefs, but labeling those who oppose them unintelligent, just indicates a weak argument.

If an organism has not developed human cognitive function, it is no more human than the brain dead.

It may have human potential, but even that is not certain.

Once again you seem to think just cause you've decided, everyone else must be forced by law to agree.

I think your argument is stupid. I think you are playing a semantics game.

The only thing this indicates, is that I think you have a weak mind, or in the very least your argument is weak, perhaps due to you are counting on no one trying to refute what you have to say with logic.

Is humanity only a state of awareness? Very spiritual, but I think it is a load of crap.

A human that has no cognitive function is still human. Not a functioning human, but human, none the less.

Until we are taught how to express ourselves, it is really difficult to ascertain just how much cognitive function is really going on in someone's head. Yes, we can measure electrical activity in the brain before that, but does that really indicate intelligence?

Should we be able to kill people until they can convince us that they are able to have what is commonly believed to be deductive reasoning? Hell, I know plenty of adults that would fail that sort of test.

I have made quite a history for myself here. I have been on hiatus for months, but I did play here a lot in days gone by. I don't call people stupid for disagreeing with me. I call them stupid, for doing it stupidly.

Welcome back, Jack!

Are you calling me stupid?

You're entitled to your beliefs, but labeling those who oppose them unintelligent, just indicates a weak argument.

If an organism has not developed human cognitive function, it is no more human than the brain dead.

It may have human potential, but even that is not certain.

Once again you seem to think just cause you've decided, everyone else must be forced by law to agree.

Wow!

So I take it you would support not only the removal of life support systems from the "brain dead", but also actually euthanizing them?

:rolleyes:


And before you decide to attack or marginalize me, I'm pro-choice (as a matter of law, not my personal view). But I certainly respect and understand the position of those who are not.

Welcome back, Jack!

Indeed!

Wow!

So I take it you would support not only the removal of life support systems from the "brain dead", but also actually euthanizing them?


Absolutely. AFAIK, it is done routinely under the guise of pain management.

There is no practical difference between euthanizing the brain dead and removing life support. Euthanizing is probably more "humane."

And bonk, I meant what I said. People can and have disputed that life is human, absent human cognitive function.


you shouldn't. the way you worded it indeed means that life begins solely when a person decides it does. That's not the case, as per the prior example of deciding that an adult isn't alive.

Having given it some serious thought and read various points of views, I have come to the conclusion that IF the problem with the Republican party is the social conservative take-over, then at least this Presidential election was no proof of that.

In the OP, the author claims:

"McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago – 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates."

You have to ask: what the heck were these moderates thinking voting for Bush and not for McCain? Did the confuse which one of the two was, in fact, more of a social conservative?

Or, perhaps, they were not persuaded by McCain's relatively center-right positions, just as they were not threatened by Bush's strong-right positions or Obama's strong-left positions.

The fact of the matter is moderates (on the right and the left) are not married to either ideology. That does not mean that they are "hard-core centrist" either. They just don't care much about these social issues. For them, there are other more pressing issues to consider and the vast majority of the mainstream politicians as OK with them on social issues. In other words, "moderate" social positions is not a net winner in Presidential elections.

So, the bottom line is that the next Republican president will have to be a social conservative ... He/she will have to have credible pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage positions. If an Obama presidency is successful in fundamentally changing the right-left debate in this country, it will likely be on what Americans think the proper role of government is (in that he will make government intervention more acceptable), rather than what Americans think is moral or immoral.

Finally, it is important to realize that re-shaping the debate on the proper role of government can indirectly affect the debate on social issue ... for example, Reagan didn't make Americans fall in love with guns, but by branding government as a necessary evil whose powers must be contained, he did make the battle against gun control part of a larger, moral war against the evil government taking control of our lives. In other words, he gave the anti-gun control people a larger, more inclusive narrative which resonated with his other constituencies (free-market people, libertarians, etc.) ... so, anti-gun control people were just not a small group working for its own interests but it was made part of a larger "movement" that had a shared vision. A successful Obama presidency can similarly tie the various liberal interest groups into a single, more cohesive narrative ... Clinton could not do it and it remains to be seen if Obama can do it in four years.

you shouldn't. the way you worded it indeed means that life begins solely when a person decides it does. That's not the case, as per the prior example of deciding that an adult isn't alive.

As per my example, the brain dead are allowed to die (or euthanized, same difference in my mind) all the time. Doctors can and do decide that adults are not alive based on their lack of cognitive function.

Gotta love it. someone gets their drawers all in an uproar about my calling their argument inane. I at least had the decency to tell them why i thought their argument was inane, their position baseless and more imprtantly, why I questioned their intelligence in the first place.

Yet, none of the reasons I challenged their position are even remotely discussed. Just outrage at having the audacity to question their intelligence. Priceless!

At least explain your position and your point of view, if you want to be even taken remotely seriously.

As per my example, the brain dead are allowed to die (or euthanized, same difference in my mind) all the time. Doctors can and do decide that adults are not alive based on their lack of cognitive function.

It was once decided that black people were less human than white people. It was based on erroneous perception. Just because something is "decided" does not make it correct.

It was once decided that black people were less human than white people. It was based on erroneous perception. Just because something is "decided" does not make it correct.

Just as you deciding differently does not make you correct.

The point is, it cannot be proven one way or the other.

That's why we have freedom to decide for ourselves.

Until people like slick and Dobson take it away.

Just as you deciding differently does not make you correct.

The point is, it cannot be proven one way or the other.

That's why we have freedom to decide for ourselves.

Until people like slick and Dobson take it away.

I have no issue with people making decisions for themselves. I have issue with people making decisions for others. Which is precisely what abortion and euthanizing people is.

I believe everyone should have the right to take their own life, if they so desire. The world is a crowded place, resources are finite, and quite frankly starting off by eliminating those that do not wish to be here seems to be a good place to start.

That said, I don't think that decision should be made for people on their behalf.

There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and cutting off life support. The latter is passive. It is actually doing nothing. Euthanasia is actively seeking to kill someone. The results may be the same, but the path there is profoundly different.

These people should be APPLAUDING the ACLU. The ACLU stands up for all Constitutional freedoms.

Really?

Can you cite examples of the ACLU taking up a 2nd amendment case?

AFAIK they were not among the plaintiffs in the recent case vs Washington DC.

Or did you mean they stand up for all Constitutional freedoms liberals support? I would certainly agree with that.

As per my example, the brain dead are allowed to die (or euthanized, same difference in my mind) all the time. Doctors can and do decide that adults are not alive based on their lack of cognitive function.

I'm not aware of any legal euthanasias being performed anywhere in the US other than abortion.

Can you cite any?

The fact that Doctors may take the law into their own hands doesn't make it any more legal than back room abortions were in the past.

Enter the conundrum. We desire the church to stay out of government, but not the converse.

What is a greatest motivation to get fundamentalists to push for public office? Effing up things for them on their turf. I personally think that religion and gov't should be kept out of each others business, outside of serious and real crimes (think criminal and felony, not civil).

I certainly do not want fundamentalists controlling the law of the land, however I do not think the gov't should tell people how to follow their faith as long as they do not victimize individuals.

If someone wants to ensure their child that they are unable to provide a home for goes to a specific type of home, that should be an option.

Homosexuals should be able to get married, but likewise they should not be able to force a church that does not condone homosexuality to perform the ceremony. Homosexuals should have the option to adopt, as well.

However, that should be limited to gov't agencies where such freedom from dogma is to be expected.
Well said!!
Welcome back, Jack!
:iagree: Good to see you back!!

I have no issue with people making decisions for themselves. I have issue with people making decisions for others. Which is precisely what abortion and euthanizing people is.

Legal guardians are REQUIRED to make decisions for others.

And like it or not, an embryo is even less of an independent human than a child.

To pretend otherwise is just ignoring reality.

Legal guardians are REQUIRED to make decisions for others.

And like it or not, an embryo is even less of an independent human than a child.

To pretend otherwise is just ignoring reality.

You know when life begins?

You know when life begins?

I have my opinion on when life begins.

And the opinion that we should not force our opinions on others when there are grounds for reasonable differences in opinion.

Who decides? The SCOTUS, for one.

You know when life begins?
umm, if you DON'T know, the correct side to fall on would be choice as it doesn't impinge upon the freedoms of the mother. You, on the other hand, need to show that life begins at conception/implantation/penetration/whatever in order to take away a woman's liberties. If you're not sure but you choose to side with life, then the proper stance is to be pro-choice but choose not to have an abortion.

That said, he's not wrong saying a fetus or embryo is less independent than a child.

umm, if you DON'T know, the correct side to fall on would be choice as it doesn't impinge upon the freedoms of the mother.

Pure conjecture. Perhaps the correct side on which to err is that which protects the innocent life.

Pure conjecture. Perhaps the correct side on which to err is that which protects the innocent life.:iagree:

I have my opinion on when life begins.

And the opinion that we should not force our opinions on others when there are grounds for reasonable differences in opinion.

Who decides? The SCOTUS, for one.

And upon whose opinion of reasonable difference do we rely?

I'm fairly certain that "birth" is a very inaccurate and arbitrary line to draw WRT the beginning of life. Our own laws imply as much, since a criminal can be charged with murder if, through assault on the mother, he causes the death of a fetus.

umm, if you DON'T know, the correct side to fall on would be choice as it doesn't impinge upon the freedoms of the mother. You, on the other hand, need to show that life begins at conception/implantation/penetration/whatever in order to take away a woman's liberties. If you're not sure but you choose to side with life, then the proper stance is to be pro-choice but choose not to have an abortion.

That said, he's not wrong saying a fetus or embryo is less independent than a child.

I would choose the potential life of a human being over the potential freedom of the mother. I'm not sure to what extent you are speaking here, conception seems as arbitrary a moment as birth to me, as far as "life" is concerned. However, if you choose to believe that an embryo truly represents an individual with rights, then how can you in good conscience not attempt to defend that individual's rights? While I do not agree with this stance, I have the utmost of respect for those who champion it. Saying, "I think you're committing murder, but it's ok, because I would never do it" is either the epitome of hypocrisy or apathy.

Pure conjecture. Perhaps the correct side on which to err is that which protects the innocent life.

Are you taking the position that the mother's life is not innocent?

Cause it seems to me that as a country, America has traditionally taken the position that rights and freedom take precedence over life.

At least we tend to honor those who sacrifice their lives for rights and freedom.

And have sanctioned those who refuse to.

And upon whose opinion of reasonable difference do we rely?

As I said, SCOTUS for one.

I'm fairly certain that "birth" is a very inaccurate and arbitrary line to draw WRT the beginning of life. Our own laws imply as much, since a criminal can be charged with murder if, through assault on the mother, he causes the death of a fetus.


That is a very recent development.

Throughout history, birth has been the most common standard.

As I said, SCOTUS for one.



That is a very recent development.

Throughout history, birth has been the most common standard.
So, do you disagree with that development? Or deny that it is in fact arbitrary?

I would choose the potential life of a human being over the potential freedom of the mother. I'm not sure to what extent you are speaking here, conception seems as arbitrary a moment as birth to me, as far as "life" is concerned.

Well then you're restricting liberties without just cause. Unless by that you mean you personally would do it but not enforce that upon others. There is no "potential" freedom of the mother. It's her life, her liberties, her freedoms. A fetus on the other hand, is about potential -- that's why this whole debate exists. Birth is far less arbitrary than conception. For one thing, many times a conceived egg doesn't implant in the uterus. That'd be considered murder, manslaughter, or at least negligence and death if there is a human from the time of conception. Moreover, an unimplanted will never become a human life. So conception is a really bizarre timepoint. As for implantation, once it's implanted (give or take a few days), it's basically impossible to remove without killing it. IOW, only the mother can care for it. OTOH, once a child is born, anybody can take care of them. A much less arbitrary timepoint. We can easily extend this argument into banning late-term abortion (as there is enough development to survive depending on the timepoint), which I'd be fine with, but it's a much more arbitrary timepoint than birth.


However, if you choose to believe that an embryo truly represents an individual with rights, then how can you in good conscience not attempt to defend that individual's rights? While I do not agree with this stance, I have the utmost of respect for those who champion it. Saying, "I think you're committing murder, but it's ok, because I would never do it" is either the epitome of hypocrisy or apathy.

You can do it in "good conscience" but that doesn't mean you get to inflict your will upon people without proof that you're right. Say I feel that mice are truly equivalent to humans and they shouldn't be harmed. How would you feel if I tried to pass a law saying that mice, who spread disease and steal food, should be left unharmed? Without proof, I'm trying to pass a law on emotion, beliefs, and feelings. That's a big no-no. The only reason that it's even tolerated wrt abortion is because of large numbers and emotional appeal of humanity.

Pure conjecture. Perhaps the correct side on which to err is that which protects the innocent life.
You don't get to remove freedoms and rights for "what may be ok." Again, if that's how you want to err, fine. But you don't get to take away the rights of others based on your belief. After all, I believe that people should have no more than 3 kids and should give any extras to infertile couples. If both arguments are conjecture, the default is to protecting the rights for whom there is no conjecture.

Legal guardians are REQUIRED to make decisions for others.

And like it or not, an embryo is even less of an independent human than a child.

To pretend otherwise is just ignoring reality.

Ah yes. I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up independance. I have had a similar argument with Bonk.

However, he is smarter than you, and picks his points of contention better.

He is able to pick out esoteric points and terminology due to his profession to make it difficult to argue with him, at least. What do you have? a waving finger to tell me that I am wrong?

There are many limitations on what decisions you can make for your child. There are plenty of people in prison for deciding that their children were better off dead.

Does independance make someone human? Plop an infant somewhere. See how long it survives without outside assistance.

You are providing weak arguments.

Would you argue that metally retarded people are less human, due to cognitive limitations? How much smarter than you do I have to be in order to decide you do not deserve to live, following your logic?

Does independance make someone human?

Yes.

Plop an infant somewhere. See how long it survives without outside assistance.

Dependence on a sole human for survival creates a conflict of rights.

You are providing weak arguments.

No, you are. :P

Would you argue that metally retarded people are less human, due to cognitive limitations? How much smarter than you do I have to be in order to decide you do not deserve to live, following your logic?

I've compared the cognitive non-function of an embryo to the brain dead.

Not my fault if you cannot discern the difference between non-function and cognitive limitations.

Are you taking the position that the mother's life is not innocent?

Cause it seems to me that as a country, America has traditionally taken the position that rights and freedom take precedence over life.

At least we tend to honor those who sacrifice their lives for rights and freedom.

And have sanctioned those who refuse to.

I think you are having a party with strawmen here.

The point is, that the unborn is the result of the mother's negligence, assuming that she wants an abortion. The child had no part in its own conception.

My big question is why is the mothers life given so much precedence? Because she has already been given an opportunity to develop further? I think they should be weighed equally. Every life has equal value, until proven otherwise.

Now, getting to the military. That is the realm adults. That have made a choice to serve their country. It has been a long time since America has seen a draft.

Once one is an adult, they get to make decisions for themselves, and bear the costs or reap the benefits. We honor those that protect the way of life that we have.

Are you trying to make the incredibly ridiculous argument that an abortion is equivalent to a fallen serviceman that died in service to his country? In that case, the aborting mother is obviously the enemy. She must be killed at all costs!

I've compared the cognitive non-function of an embryo to the brain dead.

Not my fault if you cannot discern the difference between non-function and cognitive limitations.

I disagree with you. Your failure to be convincing or even plausible is a result of your own limitation to convey your point (assuming you genuinely have one).

My point is this, where is the line drawn? How do we know we are doing the right thing?

The moral decisions of yesterday, are todays embarrassments and lessons to be learned from. The world was once believed to be flat. Non white people were once believed to be subhuman. Women were once considered to be inferior. This planet was once believed to be the center of the universe. There are still many religions on this planet, each thinking that they have a monopoly on the right philosophy and a closer relationship to the one true deity.

People make profound decisions, that are often wrong and a lot of people get hurt because of it. What is special about your belief that is immune to this?

What is special about your belief that is immune to this?

Nothing. And there is nothing special about yours.

That is why neither should be forced upon the other as slickz and Dobson (and apparently you) want.

You think life begins at conception? Fine, don't abort.

But don't tell me that your belief holds sway over me when there are reasonable grounds for either view.

The fact that you define what is human life differently than I, is insufficient reason for you deny my rights (if I were a pregnant woman).

You think life begins at conception? Fine, don't abort.

You obviously have not been paying attention. I said at 20 weeks.

But don't tell me that your belief holds sway over me when there are reasonable grounds for either view.

My problem is that you would provide people rights that would trump rights of another person. That is what I take issue with.

The fact that you define what is human life differently than I, is insufficient reason for you deny my rights (if I were a pregnant woman).

You know, it is also supposedly a common trait of serial killers to dehumanize their victims.

I think your right is no more valid (and consequently that your beliefs are perverse) than it is for another person to determine that you are not human based your beliefs, and that consequently it is acceptable to kill you.

I find your beliefs repugnant, but that in and of itself does not negate your right to live. I feel the same way, and for the same reason, that an unborn child deserves to live and trumps the convenience of the mother. The fact that one humans conveience trumps the actual life of another is an abomination.

I find your beliefs repugnant, but that in and of itself does not negate your right to live. I feel the same way, and for the same reason, that an unborn child deserves to live and trumps the convenience of the mother. The fact that one humans conveience trumps the actual life of another is an abomination.

Perhaps you would feel differently if people were attempting to force you to donate your blood and tissue to another citizen- subjugating your rights to those of another.

You obviously have not been paying attention. I said at 20 weeks..

You think human life begins at 20 weeks. Now that is arbitrary.

My problem is that you would provide people rights that would trump rights of another person. That is what I take issue with..

And I say it is not "another person" on par with the mother.



You know, it is also supposedly a common trait of serial killers to dehumanize their victims. .

I guess you're the authority. I wouldn't know.

I think your right is no more valid (and consequently that your beliefs are perverse) than it is for another person to determine that you are not human based your beliefs, and that consequently it is acceptable to kill you. .

Beliefs are not even in the same ballpark as lack of cognitive function.

If you think they are the same then I am done here.

I find your beliefs repugnant, but that in and of itself does not negate your right to live. I feel the same way, and for the same reason, that an unborn child deserves to live and trumps the convenience of the mother. The fact that one humans conveience trumps the actual life of another is an abomination.

It's not a child until it's born.

Before that, it is a matter of opinion.

Tell you what, start a fund and collect the money necessary to fund the raising of all the unwanted children and offer to pay the mothers what it costs.

Convince them to keep their children voluntarily. That's what freedom is all about.

I find it funny that this thread has become a mini abortion thread.

Anyways, I think the republicans lost because they've already become too much like democrats. Where was the financial oversight in congress? Too much spending, and not enough oversight; whhat are they, democrats?!? I would have been happy with the election going either way, and now that the republicans were clobbered, I am looking forward to a new republican party which is in some meaningful way different than democrats.

I find it funny that this thread has become a mini abortion thread.

Anyways, I think the republicans lost because they've already become too much like democrats. Where was the financial oversight in congress? Too much spending, and not enough oversight; whhat are they, democrats?!? I would have been happy with the election going either way, and now that the republicans were clobbered, I am looking forward to a new republican party which is in some meaningful way different than democrats.
Waaaaay too simple. They became financially irresponsible (a democratic stereotype) while socially far more conservative. Maybe they became more moderate on average, but only because they had their head in the oven and feet in the freezer.

You think human life begins at 20 weeks. Now that is arbitrary.

Not really. That is the point that has been determined that a fetus will respond to outside stimulus. If it can feel its head being crushed, it is barbaric to do it. Even if it inconveniences someone.

And I say it is not "another person" on par with the mother.

Why? So as your username would suggest, you can fornicate without responsibility? Why is the child's life less significant? Because it is less convenient?

It wasn't that long ago that women were marginalized. Now they get to marginalize what was considered to have tied them to their status of marginalization (motherhood). No one can discriminate like those that have been discriminated against.

I guess you're the authority. I wouldn't know.

I was called a sociopath by several people for my views on the Iraq war here. So, in my curiousity that resulted from that, I read about sociopaths, and subsequently serial killers.

Beliefs are not even in the same ballpark as lack of cognitive function.

If you think they are the same then I am done here.

Ah, but your beliefs do raise serious doubts as to your cognitive function.

It's not a child until it's born.

Before that, it is a matter of opinion.

Both of those are opinions. You are also splitting hairs and playing a semantics game. It is a young human being at some point before it emerges from the womb. I will not say that it is at conception, but it is before full term as well.

My daughter was born 6 weeks early. Was she any less human at birth than she would have been at full term? What makes the birth the magical moment?

Tell you what, start a fund and collect the money necessary to fund the raising of all the unwanted children and offer to pay the mothers what it costs.

While you are at it, do that for everything else in this country that's too expensive. That would cover a myriad of things, and is nothing more than a lame ass excuse. People should not be given the luxury of convenience for being irresponsible.

If they don't want to raise the baby, give it up for adoption.

Convince them to keep their children voluntarily. That's what freedom is all about.

They chose to take that risk when they decided they 1 2 4nic8.

When you choose your course of action, you have to accept the risks that come with it. I think that is why liberals are for abortion and against firearm ownership. It seems to stem from an almost unilateral aversion to people having to take responsibility for their own actions.

Well then you're restricting liberties without just cause. Unless by that you mean you personally would do it but not enforce that upon others. There is no "potential" freedom of the mother. It's her life, her liberties, her freedoms.

You are speaking as if there is no flexibility here. The right to freedom is not absolute, and to impinge on the mothers "freedom" to not be pregnant in order to secure a more important freedom for her child, abiet a freedom which in this case is only represented by potential. As conception begins, that potential is relatively small, but as time passes it grows greater, until such a point as that potential is all but guaranteed to come to fruition.

A fetus on the other hand, is about potential -- that's why this whole debate exists. Birth is far less arbitrary than conception. For one thing, many times a conceived egg doesn't implant in the uterus. That'd be considered murder, manslaughter, or at least negligence and death if there is a human from the time of conception. Moreover, an unimplanted will never become a human life. So conception is a really bizarre timepoint.

I see no difference between birth and conception; they are simply flip sides of the same coin. Past birth, there is no doubt as to the individual rights of the child, prior to conception, there can be no doubts as to the lack therof. Perhaps the word "potential" was a poor choice on my part. I was allowing my own views to color my language; I do not see the viability of the embryo as an issue at all WRT to its rights, any more than I would deny a terminally ill patient the right to treatment or equal care. In other words, if an embryo has rights, it doesn't matter how likely it is to be brought to term. It has rights, or it doesn't. There can be no middle ground regarding potential or chance. Also, murder, manslaughter, negligence do not apply, and I'm sure you know it. Without intent the first two are moot, without other recourse the third is also.

As for implantation, once it's implanted (give or take a few days), it's basically impossible to remove without killing it. IOW, only the mother can care for it. OTOH, once a child is born, anybody can take care of them. A much less arbitrary timepoint. We can easily extend this argument into banning late-term abortion (as there is enough development to survive depending on the timepoint), which I'd be fine with, but it's a much more arbitrary timepoint than birth.

No, again, it is not. Past birth there is no doubt as to the fetus' rights. Prior to conception there is also no doubt. If you are willing to ban late term abortions, then you must logically ban all abortions prior to about week 20; I believe the earliest preterm baby to survive was delivered at week 21. Personally I am of the opinion that any abortion preformed must make an attempt to preserve the life of the child, so past about week 18-19 (or a similar point as set by developmental benchmarks) the abortion must be treated as a premature delivery. Before that, the mother's right to control her own body takes precedence. Note that I do not deny women the right to abort past that point; only that to intentionally terminate the life of the embryo is barbaric, when there exists a possibility of a successful delivery resulting in a child which could remain viable outside the womb. That's not really the point I was making in my previous post though; I was simply sticking up for those individuals who have taken embryonic rights to their logical conclusion and oppose all abortion.

You can do it in "good conscience" but that doesn't mean you get to inflict your will upon people without proof that you're right. Say I feel that mice are truly equivalent to humans and they shouldn't be harmed. How would you feel if I tried to pass a law saying that mice, who spread disease and steal food, should be left unharmed? Without proof, I'm trying to pass a law on emotion, beliefs, and feelings. That's a big no-no. The only reason that it's even tolerated wrt abortion is because of large numbers and emotional appeal of humanity.

So, you are comparing a fetus with a mouse? I understand that a large part of the anti-abortion movement is based on emotion, but I fail to see how you can logically argue that "passing the vaginal lips" is an excellent benchmark WRT the point a human being gains rights. If a woman has an abortion, it's a medical procedure; if on the way to the clinic, she delivers in the taxi, but still brings the baby in to have the exact same procedure preformed, except in open air, it's murder. There is no logic there. There is truly no emotion involved in a rational abortion argument. The issue: Does a fetus have rights? If so, at what point does it gain them, and to what extent do the rights of the fetus eclipse the rights of the mother? If you can honestly say that a fetus has no rights, then you will be completely accepting of abortion including the disturbing partial-birth variety. If you believe that a fetus has rights, it is important to define exactly when it shoulders those rights, and how they interact with the rights of the mother.

You don't get to remove freedoms and rights for "what may be ok."


But you have us do the same thing to the fetus... remove rights and freedoms for 'what may be ok'.



Again, if that's how you want to err, fine. But you don't get to take away the rights of others based on your belief.


Yet you grant yourself that luxury.


After all, I believe that people should have no more than 3 kids and should give any extras to infertile couples. If both arguments are conjecture, the default is to protecting the rights for whom there is no conjecture.

Your statement was conjecture b/c it asserted that a 'correct choice' is possible when the underlying issue is unproved.

But you have us do the same thing to the fetus... remove rights and freedoms for 'what may be ok'.


When has a fetus ever had the rights of an adult?

Children don't even have the rights of an adult.

If the fetus had full human rights, a mother could be charged child endangerment just for drinking to excess (or murder, if it induced abortion).

That is definitely removing rights.

It seems you are granting rights to the fetus which it has never had.

bonk cannot "remove rights" that a fetus never had.

Children don't even have the rights of an adult.
Children do indeed have some of the same rights as adults.

If the fetus had full human rights, a mother could be charged child endangerment just for drinking to excess (or murder, if it induced abortion).
According to here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/13/1697), that is the case in South Carolina.

When has a fetus ever had the rights of an adult?

Historically, blacks were not considered to have the rights of white people. Bad example.

Children don't even have the rights of an adult.

Please cite an example where children do not have the equivalent right to live as adults.

If the fetus had full human rights, a mother could be charged child endangerment just for drinking to excess (or murder, if it induced abortion).

Not a bad idea.

It seems you are granting rights to the fetus which it has never had.

The civil rights movement and ERA did the same thing. Should their results be repealed?

bonk cannot "remove rights" that a fetus never had.

The question is, is the fetus not being provided the right to live the proper thing to do? That is the crux of the entire abortion debate.

Those that are for abortions being legal strive to remove the humanity from the fetus at any cost, where those that oppose abortion are sickened by this dehumanization.

I fall somewhere in the middle. I do not oppose abortion entirely. I oppose late term abortions. Up until there is significant development, I see no issue. I find crushing the skull of something that can feel it for simple convenience to be barbaric and sadistic.

Not a bad idea.
Others, especially those with a uterus, might disagree with that opinion. :(

The civil rights movement and ERA did the same thing. Should their results be repealed?
:secret: How do you repeal something that never passed (the ERA)?

Others, especially those with a uterus, might disagree with that opinion. :(

Of course. Those that may be incarcerated as the result of something being a crime are those most concerned with it.

Of course. Those that may be incarcerated as the result of something being a crime are those most concerned with it.
Does it follow then that those who would never face such incarceration are concerned the least with it?

Does it follow then that those who would never face such incarceration are concerned the least with it?

No they fervently feel that the others should enter a state of servitude to their moral values.

As payment for the sin of having casual sex. :rolleyes:

Christine Whitman to the GOP: " I told you so!"

In this article Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who served under the Bush Administration and was the first and only female governor of New Jersey, expresses the same views we're now hearing from others like her, moderate Republicans...those we once thought as a dying breed, or an oxymoron. Except that these are the same warnings that she gave to her party in her book, back in 2004, though at that time no one in her party was willing to listen. It may be different now as the party deals with defeat.




http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081117/news_mz1e17bostoc.html


If this story had any credence, Huckabee would have won the Republican party in a landslide. It is nothing more than a slanted hit piece written to those who already believe otherwise.

No they fervently feel that the others should enter a state of servitude to their moral values.

As payment for the sin of having casual sex. :rolleyes:

No. You are wrong. I believe that when you roll the dice, you take your chances. If you don't want that risk, get sterilized. If you want to lower the risk, use birth control, and use it properly.

No. You are wrong. I believe that when you roll the dice, you take your chances. If you don't want that risk, get sterilized. If you want to lower the risk, use birth control, and use it properly.
And apparently, you also believe it's "not a bad idea" to arrest and incarcerate pregnant women due to subjective notions of what's "good for the fetus." :sadwalk:

And apparently, you also believe it's "not a bad idea" to arrest and incarcerate pregnant women due to subjective notions of what's "good for the fetus." :sadwalk:
Hold on, I don't think that what's "good for the fetus" is a subjective notion. It's fairly well established that certain practices are bad for the fetus. The question is to what extent, and at what point, the fetus has rights of its own.

And apparently, you also believe it's "not a bad idea" to arrest and incarcerate pregnant women due to subjective notions of what's "good for the fetus." :sadwalk:

How do you feel about double homicides including the fetus?

And apparently, you also believe it's "not a bad idea" to arrest and incarcerate pregnant women due to subjective notions of what's "good for the fetus." :sadwalk:

Find a credible source to prove that those things do not endanger the unborn child, and I will change my mind. You should know by now that I am not unreasonable, but you are going to have to do better than trying to instill doubt with me.

When has a fetus ever had the rights of an adult?

Children don't even have the rights of an adult.

Children are denied rights for their own protection and because they do not have the capacity to exercise their rights. This is pretty much the diametric opposite of the reason you are claiming fetus' do not have rights.

No. You are wrong. I believe that when you roll the dice, you take your chances. If you don't want that risk, get sterilized. If you want to lower the risk, use birth control, and use it properly.

You can deny it all you want, but once pregnant, you seek to draft women into servitude to your moral values.

Certainly people take their chances, but there is remediation that you seek to deny them based on nothing more than your opinion.

Children are denied rights for their own protection and because they do not have the capacity to exercise their rights. This is pretty much the diametric opposite of the reason you are claiming fetus' do not have rights.

And who says abortion is not for the good?

There are worse things than not living IMO.

A lot of people share that belief.

I think one of the FF said "give me liberty of give me death."

And who says abortion is not for the good?

There are worse things than not living IMO.

A lot of people share that belief.

I think one of the FF said "give me liberty of give me death."

And what of the infant's opinion of whether he/she would rather live or die?

If there are situations or parents in which abortion is preferential to life, then shouldn't the government tell such people to get fixed so as to nip the problem in the bud before a life is exterminated in the first place?

And what of the infant's opinion of whether he/she would rather live or die?

The whole point of lack of human cognitive function is that it has no opinions at all.

If there are situations or parents in which abortion is preferential to life, then should't the government tell such people to get fixed so as to nip the problem in the bud before a life is exterminated in the first place?

Certainly it would be preferable that they do, but not really a matter of concern for the government.

Something the libertarians should understand.

And who says abortion is not for the good?

There are worse things than not living IMO.

A lot of people share that belief.

I think one of the FF said "give me liberty of give me death."

I think we should give unborn children the opportunity to be born and then they can decide for themselves.

I think we should give unborn children the opportunity to be born and then they can decide for themselves.

And what are you willing to sacrifice to further your agenda?

How about contributing to a fund dedicating to convince women to voluntarily forego abortion?

You can deny it all you want, but once pregnant, you seek to draft women into servitude to your moral values.

Certainly people take their chances, but there is remediation that you seek to deny them based on nothing more than your opinion.

Remediation. Such a clean word for such a dirty thing. Killing for convenience hardly qualifies as "remediation".

I don't care if they raise the child, there is a shortage of babies to the point that I know people that have gone to other countries to adopt.

I don't even care if they manage to get an abortion in a timely fashion. I only care if they crush its skull when it can feel it.

If a woman can't figure out that she needs to get an abortion after missing 4 consecutive periods, she lost her chance in my eyes. She was an idiot, and no one should suffer for her idiocy but her.

Pull your head out of a certain cylindrical aperture. I am not against abortion, I am against LATE TERM ABORTION.

Remediation. Such a clean word for such a dirty thing. Killing for convenience hardly qualifies as "remediation".

Link showing it is "killing for convenience?"

AFAIK the vast majority of late term abortions are done due to severe birth defects in the fetus.

Just another reason why decisions such as this need to be made by Doctors and the people involved, not ignorant strangers such as yourself.

Hold on, I don't think that what's "good for the fetus" is a subjective notion. It's fairly well established that certain practices are bad for the fetus. The question is to what extent, and at what point, the fetus has rights of its own.
"Fairly well established"? :lmao:

That's a good one. Have you ever seen some of the restrictions/guidelines/recommendations given to pregnant women?

See a pregnant women changing a litter box? Quick, call the cops!

Or see a pregnant women eating a hoagie? Better have 911 on speed dial!

Even the "easy ones" like alcohol are actually anything but...a few beers in the first trimester can be devastating, while some wine in the third can be beneficial.

How do you feel about double homicides including the fetus?
WTF kind of question is that? :(

Find a credible source to prove that those things do not endanger the unborn child, and I will change my mind. You should know by now that I am not unreasonable, but you are going to have to do better than trying to instill doubt with me.
I'm not debating whether such actions are potentially harmful to a fetus. I'm suggesting that pregnant women shouldn't be jailed for such potentially harmful actions. There's a stark difference.

Children are denied rights for their own protection and because they do not have the capacity to exercise their rights. This is pretty much the diametric opposite of the reason you are claiming fetus' do not have rights.
No, you hit the nail on the head -- a fetus most definitely lacks the capacity to exercise rights on its own.

I think we should give unborn children the opportunity to be born and then they can decide for themselves.
Good. Then any and every time you find yourself pregnant, you can follow your personal beliefs.

If a woman can't figure out that she needs to get an abortion after missing 4 consecutive periods, she lost her chance in my eyes. She was an idiot, and no one should suffer for her idiocy but her.
Unfortunately, not every woman's cycle works like clockwork, especially when they're teenagers. When I was younger, it was not uncommon for me to go 2-3 months with no visit from Aunt Flo.

Also, it's not just a matter of "figur[ing] out she needs to get an abortion".... it's a *bit* more complex than that.

"Fairly well established"? :lmao:

That's a good one. Have you ever seen some of the restrictions/guidelines/recommendations given to pregnant women?

See a pregnant women changing a litter box? Quick, call the cops!

Or see a pregnant women eating a hoagie? Better have 911 on speed dial!

Even the "easy ones" like alcohol are actually anything but...a few beers in the first trimester can be devastating, while some wine in the third can be beneficial.

Are you trying to refute what I am saying? It doesn't seem that way. I said, certain practices are bad for the fetus. Are you denying this? Drinking to excess, the example given, is clearly bad for the fetus at all stages of development. I didn't say that every recommendation given to pregnant women should be legally enforced, or that any of them should be, for that matter. I simply took issue with your suggestion that there is a lack of medical consensus WRT certain practices being bad for the fetus. You seem to be trying to obsfucate this by throwing out other, minor practices that are less well known, and throwing out hyperbole about what may or may not be harmful rather than addressing the fact that there clearly ARE unequivocally harmful actions a mother can take.


I'm not debating whether such actions are potentially harmful to a fetus. I'm suggesting that pregnant women shouldn't be jailed for such potentially harmful actions. There's a stark difference.

But you directly stated that you felt that his ideas of what were "bad for the fetus" were subjective. Even if this were true, there are many non-subjective criteria which could easily be applied in the same way. Perhaps you should focus on the sensible portion of your argument; that a woman should be able to control her own body, rather than the portion which suggests that something which is medically relevant is not.

No, you hit the nail on the head -- a fetus most definitely lacks the capacity to exercise rights on its own.

As does a child. This does not mean that a crime against a child is unpunished; we choose to advocate rights for that child when he or she is incapable of properly asserting them. The child-fetus relationship is sound, the result he projects is not. A child has no ability to exercise rights on his own, so we protect them. A fetus has no ability to exercise rights on its own, so they are granted no protection at all?

How do you reconcile this? By simply resorting to "until birth, a fetus is not a human being"?

Are you trying to refute what I am saying? It doesn't seem that way. I said, certain practices are bad for the fetus. Are you denying this?
Yes. I deny that there is an undefined list of potential actions that are automatically "bad for the fetus".

If you'd like to clarify what "certain practices" you are referring to, I'll respond to those individually.

Drinking to excess, the example given, is clearly bad for the fetus at all stages of development.
Not necessarily. There is no guarantee that drinking to excess will automatically, absolutely, without a doubt cause any lasting harm to the fetus. Sure, it's highly likely... but not guaranteed. Typically, we don't imprison people for committing *potential* harm to others.

I didn't say that every recommendation given to pregnant women should be legally enforced, or that any of them should be, for that matter.
Okay. I never claimed you did.

My responses were directed at JackHandley's statement that such legal enforcement was "not a bad idea." Clearly, I think it is quite a bad idea.

I simply took issue with your suggestion that there is a lack of medical consensus WRT certain practices being bad for the fetus.
I never referred to any "medical consensus" wrt fetal endangerment nor did I intend to limit the scope of "good for the fetus" to only such a medical consensus.

And to be technical, I suggest that there is no medical consensus as to practices that are "bad for the fetus", only a consensus as to practices that put the fetus at risk of potential harm. Again, no guarantees.

You seem to be trying to obsfucate this by throwing out other, minor practices that are less well known, and throwing out hyperbole about what may or may not be harmful rather than addressing the fact that there clearly ARE unequivocally harmful actions a mother can take.
Hyperbole? Are you suggesting that toxoplasmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)and listeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeria)are *not* potentially harmful to pregnant women? :eek:

Again, if certain actions are "clearly unequivocally harmful" to a fetus, then I know quite a few people who should have had fetal alcohol system at birth... and yet are normal adults today. :scratchh: Same with smoking cigarettes or other "unequivocal" harms.

But you directly stated that you felt that his ideas of what were "bad for the fetus" were subjective.
Actually, I never limited it to *his* ideas. It was a general reference to *any* subjective notions of what was "good for the fetus."

Even if this were true, there are many non-subjective criteria which could easily be applied in the same way.
Such as? So far, you've named only one (drinking to excess)... which I would hardly describe as an "objective" criteria.

Perhaps you should focus on the sensible portion of your argument; that a woman should be able to control her own body, rather than the portion which suggests that something which is medically relevant is not.
Thank you for the unsolicited advice. Oh... and the ad hominem attack. :rolleyes: (After all, no one should agree with me since my arguments aren't "sensible".)

As does a child. This does not mean that a crime against a child is unpunished; we choose to advocate rights for that child when he or she is incapable of properly asserting them.
Passive protection from harm and the direct exercise of rights are two different things and certainly not interchangeable terms.

We protect animals from crimes committed against them. Does that mean that the animals have "rights" to exercise? Just because we grant something protection does not mean it automatically receives any rights along with it.

The child-fetus relationship is sound, the result he projects is not. A child has no ability to exercise rights on his own, so we protect them. A fetus has no ability to exercise rights on its own, so they are granted no protection at all?

How do you reconcile this? By simply resorting to "until birth, a fetus is not a human being"?
I "reconcile it" by pointing out its flaws. ;) We most certainly do grant fetuses some level of protection, just as we grant animals and children some level of protection. The level for each varies as appropriate.

Yes. I deny that there is an undefined list of potential actions that are automatically "bad for the fetus".

This is so broad a statement that I can't argue.

If you'd like to clarify what "certain practices" you are referring to, I'll respond to those individually.

Like I said, I'm not referring to anything in particular. I think we already agree that the mother drinking to excess is an unhealthy practice for the child. This in itself would appear to countermand your original post, that such an action has subjective results. The results might not be universal, but they are certainly not contingent upon anyone's opinion.

Not necessarily. There is no guarantee that drinking to excess will automatically, absolutely, without a doubt cause any lasting harm to the fetus. Sure, it's highly likely... but not guaranteed. Typically, we don't imprison people for committing *potential* harm to others.

Okay. I never claimed we should. ;)


Okay. I never claimed you did.

Good. I was simply clarifying my position.

My responses were directed at JackHandley's statement that such legal enforcement was "not a bad idea." Clearly, I think it is quite a bad idea.

I can''t assure you that I believe enforcing such a thing would be the most abusive law on the books. I do agree that it's unwise and unwarranted, though.


I never referred to any "medical consensus" wrt fetal endangerment nor did I intend to limit the scope of "good for the fetus" to only such a medical consensus.

I would suggest if you refute a claim that something is "bad for the fetus" as "subjective" then you are insinuating that there is a lack of medical consensus as to the veracity of such a claim. Clearly this is not the case.

And to be technical, I suggest that there is no medical consensus as to practices that are "bad for the fetus", only a consensus as to practices that put the fetus at risk of potential harm. Again, no guarantees.

So, "putting the fetus at risk of potential harm" is not the same thing as "bad for the fetus"? Does this mean that "eating whole sticks of butter" is not "bad for an adult" because said adult might never suffer an ill effect? Or that "smoking" is not "bad for you" because you might never get lung cancer?

Hyperbole? Are you suggesting that toxoplasmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)and listeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeria)are *not* potentially harmful to pregnant women? :eek:

Of course they are. However, the correlation between cat litter and toxoplasmosis, assuming you, say, wash your hands... is negligible compared to the correlation between excessive alcohol consumption and birth defects. I'm not sure why you mention listeria, if a woman gets her hands on that one while pregnant, or any other time, I would assume it's the fault of the food preparer, not sure why you single out hoagies. Then again there may be another factor at play there of which I am legitimately ignorant.

Again, if certain actions are "clearly unequivocally harmful" to a fetus, then I know quite a few people who should have had fetal alcohol system at birth... and yet are normal adults today. :scratchh: Same with smoking cigarettes or other "unequivocal" harms.

Or, perhaps those people might otherwise have been brilliant (or more brilliant) human beings. There is no way to tell. Because a percentage of the affected individuals show no signs of damage, does not mean none was done or that the behavior was not harmful... it was just not permanently harmful.

Actually, I never limited it to *his* ideas. It was a general reference to *any* subjective notions of what was "good for the fetus."

Well, I agree. It would be ridiculous to imprison anyone for violating a subjective code of morality. This is not to say that we don't... But again you are strawmanning if you attack him for a desire to imprison anyone based on subjective criteria, as the only criteria mentioned was far from subjective.

Such as? So far, you've named only one (drinking to excess)... which I would hardly describe as an "objective" criteria.

Do you mean, It's subjective because the quantity, "excess" is not well defined? Or do you believe it is a subjective criteria because the harm it could cause is a matter of opinion? The first, I agree with, although that is beyond the bound of this debate because criteria could be established easily (although probably not enforced). The second, I believe, is simply wrong, unless the opinion of the collective medical community is considered to be unobjective.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. Oh... and the ad hominem attack. :rolleyes: (After all, no one should agree with me since my arguments aren't "sensible".)

Quite to the contrary, I stated that a portion of your argument was sensible. A portion was also not so. No attack was intended, nor any misrepresentation of your position. Actually I don't see any attack there even rereading my post several times, but if you're willing to take my word that none was intended, I'll take your word that one was delivered.

Passive protection from harm and the direct exercise of rights are two different things and certainly not interchangeable terms.

And children are unable to exercise either. Nor a fetus. Did I suggest they were?

We protect animals from crimes committed against them. Does that mean that the animals have "rights" to exercise? Just because we grant something protection does not mean it automatically receives any rights along with it.

I don't understand what you are getting at. We do not protect fetuses. They currently are afforded precious few rights. I don't see the contingency you are implying, unless it is that children have rights because we protect them (I assume that's not what you're saying) or that fetuses do not have rights because we don't protect them (which also seems to fly contrary to common sense and morality).

I "reconcile it" by pointing out its flaws. ;) We most certainly do grant fetuses some level of protection, just as we grant animals and children some level of protection. The level for each varies as appropriate.

So then, let me ask you this directly: What rights and/or protections does a child receive past her first breath breath of air that she was lacking 5 seconds before, and from what mandate are they derived? We as a society believe that certain rights are inalienable to humans; is a fetus not a human being? I cannot see how you can suggest that a fetus does not have the right to live unless you suggest that it is not a human being. There are, of course, other important considerations, but let us first establish this.

Like I said, I'm not referring to anything in particular. I think we already agree that the mother drinking to excess is an unhealthy practice for the child.
Sorry, but I can only go so far as to agree that drinking to (a subjective standard of) excess carries a significant risk of harm for the fetus. If no harm is inflicted upon the fetus, then how can it be characterized as so definitively unhealthy?

This in itself would appear to countermand your original post, that such an action has subjective results. The results might not be universal, but they are certainly not contingent upon anyone's opinion.
I never claimed the results were subjective, only the standards by which pregnant women were to be judged and then imprisoned.

I would suggest if you refute a claim that something is "bad for the fetus" as "subjective" then you are insinuating that there is a lack of medical consensus as to the veracity of such a claim. Clearly this is not the case.
Those were neither my words nor the way in which I used them.

Here's my original statement (directed towards JackHandley):
And apparently, you also believe it's "not a bad idea" to arrest and incarcerate pregnant women due to subjective notions of what's "good for the fetus."

While drinking to excess was the only example specifically referenced previously, IMHO, the discussion was not limited to *solely* that one particular standard. At least, I never intended it to be, and I apologize for any lack of clarity in that regard.

So, "putting the fetus at risk of potential harm" is not the same thing as "bad for the fetus"? Does this mean that "eating whole sticks of butter" is not "bad for an adult" because said adult might never suffer an ill effect? Or that "smoking" is not "bad for you" because you might never get lung cancer?
Correct. Eating whole sticks of butter puts you at risk of potential harm, just as cigarettes do. Just as quite a lot of things in this world do.


Of course they are. However, the correlation between cat litter and toxoplasmosis, assuming you, say, wash your hands... is negligible compared to the correlation between excessive alcohol consumption and birth defects.
Given that the prenatal medical community tends to list "cat litter" pretty close under "alcohol" as things to avoid during pregnancy, I'm not sure that the current medical consensus would agree with your premise wrt the "negligible" risk of injury. :dontknow:

I'm not sure why you mention listeria, if a woman gets her hands on that one while pregnant, or any other time, I would assume it's the fault of the food preparer, not sure why you single out hoagies. Then again there may be another factor at play there of which I am legitimately ignorant.
Cold deli meats, hot dogs and soft cheeses (brie) are known to harbor listeria (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/listeria.html). Docs currently recommend that any such foods be reheated to 160 degrees to kill off any bacteria prior to being eaten by a pregnant woman.

Or, perhaps those people might otherwise have been brilliant (or more brilliant) human beings. There is no way to tell. Because a percentage of the affected individuals show no signs of damage, does not mean none was done or that the behavior was not harmful... it was just not permanently harmful.
How would the behavior induce "temporary harm"? :dontknow:

Typically, when contemplating criminalizing certain behaviors, we require actual demonstrable damage/injury to occur. Why should/would we use a different standard here?


Well, I agree. It would be ridiculous to imprison anyone for violating a subjective code of morality. This is not to say that we don't... But again you are strawmanning if you attack him for a desire to imprison anyone based on subjective criteria, as the only criteria mentioned was far from subjective.
As you mention below, "in excess" can be an extremely subjective criteria. Same with cigarettes. Do we jail the pregnant mother after the first smoke? The first pack? The first carton? Where do we draw the line? And perhaps more importantly, who gets to draw it?


Do you mean, It's subjective because the quantity, "excess" is not well defined? Or do you believe it is a subjective criteria because the harm it could cause is a matter of opinion?
Both...

The first, I agree with, although that is beyond the bound of this debate because criteria could be established easily (although probably not enforced).
Really? We can "easily establish" a criteria for judging how much alcohol is "in excess" for pregnant women? :look:

The second, I believe, is simply wrong, unless the opinion of the collective medical community is considered to be unobjective.
Aren't opinions, by their very nature, pretty subjective?

Quite to the contrary, I stated that a portion of your argument was sensible. A portion was also not so.
And, let me guess... it was the part you disagreed with that was the "non-sensible" part. ;)

Attack the points of the argument/opinion all you want (which you did the majority of the post :worthy:)... but resorting to generic name-calling is, IMHO, rather fallacious.

No attack was intended, nor any misrepresentation of your position. Actually I don't see any attack there even rereading my post several times, but if you're willing to take my word that none was intended, I'll take your word that one was delivered.
Absolutely. :hug:

And children are unable to exercise either. Nor a fetus. Did I suggest they were?
I think you underestimate children a bit. They are quite physically able (at varying specific ages) to exercise their freedom of speech. That is categorically different from a fetus or animal that is physically unable to.

There may be societal, cultural reasons why it is difficult for children to exercise their freedom of speech, but to claim they are have "no ability" to exercise their rights is, IMHO, a bit of a stretch.

I don't understand what you are getting at. We do not protect fetuses.
We don't? Then why do so many jurisdictions have criminal statutes in place penalizing the unauthorized termination of a fetus? :dontknow: Why can jurisdictions impose *any* limitations on seeking an abortion, up to and including both late-term and partial-birth abortions?

They currently are afforded precious few rights.
Again, each (child, fetus, animal) receives a level of protection proportionate to its level of development.

I don't see the contingency you are implying, unless it is that children have rights because we protect them (I assume that's not what you're saying) or that fetuses do not have rights because we don't protect them (which also seems to fly contrary to common sense and morality).
As the "powerful majority" adults choose what level of protections to give to other, less powerful, less than adult groups (like children, fetuses and animals). IMHO, the current status quo strikes a pretty fair and appropriate balance for all three. That's not to say it's perfect, but a reversal of Roe v. Wade or other drastic draconian measures would do a lot to tip the scales.

So then, let me ask you this directly: What rights and/or protections does a child receive past her first breath breath of air that she was lacking 5 seconds before, and from what mandate are they derived?
Legally speaking, it would be the rights afforded by personhood as delineated in the Fourteenth Amend, specifically, that ".... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". For a fetus to lay claim to this right, it must be considered a "person" with the full rights of "personhood".

We as a society believe that certain rights are inalienable to humans; is a fetus not a human being?
IMHO, a fetus is a potential person. Being a fetus, it has not yet reached its *full* potential until birth.

But again, legally speaking (at least as defined by the SCOTUS) the question is whether or not the fetus has "personhood".

I cannot see how you can suggest that a fetus does not have the right to live unless you suggest that it is not a human being. There are, of course, other important considerations, but let us first establish this.
When a woman miscarries, did a "person" die? Did a human being die? :dontknow: I have only the must rudimentary answers to these questions myself. I have come to terms with them personally. But I have no wish to force them upon others who may disagree with my assessment.

I'm not debating whether such actions are potentially harmful to a fetus. I'm suggesting that pregnant women shouldn't be jailed for such potentially harmful actions. There's a stark difference.

So, what do you think? You think they should get free pass to do harm b/c they are women? Women get a lot of advantages in society/laws b/c motherhood is considered a sacred thing.

Sorry, but a child is more than an extension of the mother, despite the common misconception that it is. I believe that delusion is what makes them feel justified in disposing of fetus' (feti?) in any way they see fit, regardless of the barbaric nature that may be involved. It is more than just a growth, such as a tumor. Anyone that feels differently on that, really should get sterilized.

Women do have a very significant role in the creation of children, and often their rearing.

However, they are only half of the genetic picture, despite their possessive claim said in "my baby" so often heard. The only time I hear women refer to a baby in a way that shares possessiveness with someone else, is when they want something from the father.

If you crap on what gives you the perks, there should be a price.

So, what do you think? You think they should get free pass to do harm b/c they are women? Women get a lot of advantages in society/laws b/c motherhood is considered a sacred thing.
Not all *harm* is (or, IMHO, should be) criminally punishable.

Women also get a lot of burdens in society/laws based on male-driven notions of what "motherhood" should be.

Sorry, but a child is more than an extension of the mother, despite the common misconception that it is. I believe that delusion is what makes them feel justified in disposing of fetus' (feti?) in any way they see fit, regardless of the barbaric nature that may be involved. It is more than just a growth, such as a tumor. Anyone that feels differently on that, really should get sterilized.
Is there no middle ground? Can't it be more than a tumor, but still not quite a fully realized "person" deserving of constitutional protection?

Women do have a very significant role in the creation of children, and often their rearing.

However, they are only half of the genetic picture, despite their possessive claim said in "my baby" so often heard. The only time I hear women refer to a baby in a way that shares possessiveness with someone else, is when they want something from the father.
Does that include your own wife/mother of your child? :dontknow:

And in a greater sense, doesn't everyone "want" something from the other party in a relationship, be they altruistic "wants" like love and respect or more materialistic wants like sex and money? :dontknoe:

If you crap on what gives you the perks, there should be a price.
:confused:

WTF kind of question is that? :(

Just curious about your position on that. If you think someone should be charged for double murder for killing the mother and fetus, or not.

Sorry, but I can only go so far as to agree that drinking to (a subjective standard of) excess carries a significant risk of harm for the fetus. If no harm is inflicted upon the fetus, then how can it be characterized as so definitively unhealthy?

Because we are obviously in agreement as to the potential result of any potential harm (such actions should not be illegal) I'm going to pretty much drop this because it has essentially developed into a semantic argument over the definition of "harm" and/or "unhealthy". I simply don't agree with your definition of "unhealthy" and I don't consider it to be a worthwhile endeavor to try and change your mind :D

Given that the prenatal medical community tends to list "cat litter" pretty close under "alcohol" as things to avoid during pregnancy, I'm not sure that the current medical consensus would agree with your premise wrt the "negligible" risk of injury. :dontknow:

I am not 100% sure in this regard either, however IIRC toxoplasmosis is a condition which is ordinarily contracted through ingestion. In this case, ingestion of cat feces. I was always under the impression that caution and hygiene more or less nullified any risk. In other words, even in a "high risk" situation it is preventable.

Cold deli meats, hot dogs and soft cheeses (brie) are known to harbor listeria (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/listeria.html). Docs currently recommend that any such foods be reheated to 160 degrees to kill off any bacteria prior to being eaten by a pregnant woman.

Ah. And the problem is that certain foods are not ordinarily served hot?

Typically, when contemplating criminalizing certain behaviors, we require actual demonstrable damage/injury to occur. Why should/would we use a different standard here?

I may just be picking nits here, but this is not true. We punish a number of behaviors with the intention of preventing harm to others before such harm actually occurs; speeding, for example, and foodservice standards are two relatively small examples. Drunk/reckless driving and, say, attempted murder are some big ones (although attempted murder requires intent and obviously isn't applicable here, at least hopefully!)

Really? We can "easily establish" a criteria for judging how much alcohol is "in excess" for pregnant women? :look:

I don't see why not. We have already established a criteria for how much alcohol is "excess" for a driver. I'm not saying we should... but we certainly could IMO. Again, such a regulation would be even more unenforcible than our already largely ignored drunk driving statutes.

I think you underestimate children a bit. They are quite physically able (at varying specific ages) to exercise their freedom of speech. That is categorically different from a fetus or animal that is physically unable to.

Hmm, I was referring more to rights that would also be relevant to a fetus. I would say that a fetus is certainly capable of exercising her freedom of expression, although no one would be likely to understand. This is no different from a very young baby, and unless I'm missing something I'm not sure it's relevant.

There may be societal, cultural reasons why it is difficult for children to exercise their freedom of speech, but to claim they are have "no ability" to exercise their rights is, IMHO, a bit of a stretch.

Perhaps I should have should have chosen my words more carefully. Children may exercise their rights, but they are not in a position to defend them against infringement.

We don't? Then why do so many jurisdictions have criminal statutes in place penalizing the unauthorized termination of a fetus? :dontknow: Why can jurisdictions impose *any* limitations on seeking an abortion, up to and including both late-term and partial-birth abortions?

Because such a jurisdiction has the ability to outlaw any medical procedure it wants? I am unsure here, but it seems that such a ban is created not because the fetus has a natural right under the law but rather at the whim of the lawmakers. If those procedures derived from a right inherent to the fetus then they would be nationwide and protected by the Constitution. In other words, no protection is required or implied for a fetus, but they may be enacted. I believe a fetus should be granted universal protection.

As the "powerful majority" adults choose what level of protections to give to other, less powerful, less than adult groups (like children, fetuses and animals). IMHO, the current status quo strikes a pretty fair and appropriate balance for all three. That's not to say it's perfect, but a reversal of Roe v. Wade or other drastic draconian measures would do a lot to tip the scales.

I actually substantially agree with Roe v Wade although I believe their standard for viability is a bit conservative (if that word is even applicable here :lol: ). They are a court and responded to the issue at hand admirably. I also, however, believe it is important to resolve the issue of which we speak, IE, when a fetus gains rights, an area which the court avoided.

Legally speaking, it would be the rights afforded by personhood as delineated in the Fourteenth Amend, specifically, that ".... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". For a fetus to lay claim to this right, it must be considered a "person" with the full rights of "personhood".

IMHO, a fetus is a potential person. Being a fetus, it has not yet reached its *full* potential until birth.

But again, legally speaking (at least as defined by the SCOTUS) the question is whether or not the fetus has "personhood".

Yes. This is the crux of the matter, is it not? I can't see how a fetus can be unequivocally denied human rights; the barrier of birth is, as I have said before, horribly arbitrary in my opinion. On the other hand clearly an undeveloped fetus can clearly not be extended those full rights.

When a woman miscarries, did a "person" die? Did a human being die? :dontknow: I have only the must rudimentary answers to these questions myself. I have come to terms with them personally. But I have no wish to force them upon others who may disagree with my assessment.

These are very good questions. My main concern is this: If you believe that a fetus has human rights, how can you not desire to uphold those rights?

You are speaking as if there is no flexibility here. The right to freedom is not absolute, and to impinge on the mothers "freedom" to not be pregnant in order to secure a more important freedom for her child, abiet a freedom which in this case is only represented by potential. As conception begins, that potential is relatively small, but as time passes it grows greater, until such a point as that potential is all but guaranteed to come to fruition.

The right to freedom is absolute in the case where it's not impinging on those of others. Kinda the point of the Constitution.


I see no difference between birth and conception; they are simply flip sides of the same coin. Past birth, there is no doubt as to the individual rights of the child, prior to conception, there can be no doubts as to the lack therof. Perhaps the word "potential" was a poor choice on my part. I was allowing my own views to color my language; I do not see the viability of the embryo as an issue at all WRT to its rights, any more than I would deny a terminally ill patient the right to treatment or equal care. In other words, if an embryo has rights, it doesn't matter how likely it is to be brought to term. It has rights, or it doesn't. There can be no middle ground regarding potential or chance. Also, murder, manslaughter, negligence do not apply, and I'm sure you know it. Without intent the first two are moot, without other recourse the third is also.

No difference at all? Like the fact that a conceived egg is nothing unless it implants in the uterus? Like the fact that, post-birth, a child can be cared for by anybody? I'm not even talking about "potential" here, I'm talking about clear differences between the cases. One case is a being with a fully-differentiated body, the other is basically a mass of pluripotent cells. They're two completely separate things.

There is other recourse, btw. Have the embryo surgically implanted. Negligence.



No, again, it is not. Past birth there is no doubt as to the fetus' rights. Prior to conception there is also no doubt. If you are willing to ban late term abortions, then you must logically ban all abortions prior to about week 20; I believe the earliest preterm baby to survive was delivered at week 21. Personally I am of the opinion that any abortion preformed must make an attempt to preserve the life of the child, so past about week 18-19 (or a similar point as set by developmental benchmarks) the abortion must be treated as a premature delivery. Before that, the mother's right to control her own body takes precedence. Note that I do not deny women the right to abort past that point; only that to intentionally terminate the life of the embryo is barbaric, when there exists a possibility of a successful delivery resulting in a child which could remain viable outside the womb. That's not really the point I was making in my previous post though; I was simply sticking up for those individuals who have taken embryonic rights to their logical conclusion and oppose all abortion.

There's infinite doubt of the fetus's rights post-conception because there's no fetus. There's also absolutely no logic behind your slippery slope argument -- being against late-term abortions, where premature survival is possible, means that you must be against all abortion, where survivability is 0?



So, you are comparing a fetus with a mouse? I understand that a large part of the anti-abortion movement is based on emotion, but I fail to see how you can logically argue that "passing the vaginal lips" is an excellent benchmark WRT the point a human being gains rights. If a woman has an abortion, it's a medical procedure; if on the way to the clinic, she delivers in the taxi, but still brings the baby in to have the exact same procedure preformed, except in open air, it's murder. There is no logic there. There is truly no emotion involved in a rational abortion argument. The issue: Does a fetus have rights? If so, at what point does it gain them, and to what extent do the rights of the fetus eclipse the rights of the mother? If you can honestly say that a fetus has no rights, then you will be completely accepting of abortion including the disturbing partial-birth variety. If you believe that a fetus has rights, it is important to define exactly when it shoulders those rights, and how they interact with the rights of the mother.

Note that I never said the comparison was between a fetus and a mouse. I said that the situations are equally arbitrary in how people wish to legislate, with the only method of feigning this difference being with appeal to emotion.

Also, there's plenty of logic in your taxicab situation. Once the birth is complete, anybody can care for the child. Again, I've stated above why birth is a better benchmark than conception or implantation and MUCH less arbitrary than those two scenarios. However, I'd be quite willing to make the benchmark be whenever sustainability was possible, as I've said in every single abortion thread. Once someone else can care for the fetus, it's an individual.

Not all *harm* is (or, IMHO, should be) criminally punishable.

I would think it should be treated as criminal negligence rather than assault of infanticide.

Women also get a lot of burdens in society/laws based on male-driven notions of what "motherhood" should be.

I think it is more cultural than "male driven". You over simplify in your desire to assign a target.

Is there no middle ground? Can't it be more than a tumor, but still not quite a fully realized "person" deserving of constitutional protection?

What would be the point? You would give it an empty title and offer that as a solution. Why is it not deserving of constitutional protection? Again, I am not going back to the point of conception... I am starting where it has organs, a nervous system and can feel pain.

It at least deserves the same level of consideration one would give a stray cat, which ironically does get more legal consideration than a mostly developed fetus does.

Does that include your own wife/mother of your child? :dontknow:

It includes every human being I have met with a uterus in going on 40 years.

The right to freedom is absolute in the case where it's not impinging on those of others. Kinda the point of the Constitution.

And the reverse is not true? Any rights the fetus may possess are denied because they impinge on the rights of the mother? This is not an easy situation in either respect.

No difference at all? Like the fact that a conceived egg is nothing unless it implants in the uterus? Like the fact that, post-birth, a child can be cared for by anybody? I'm not even talking about "potential" here, I'm talking about clear differences between the cases. One case is a being with a fully-differentiated body, the other is basically a mass of pluripotent cells. They're two completely separate things.

Well, as I said they are flip sides of the same coin. I did not say there is no difference between the state of the embryo/fetus. I am referring to the transitional phases of birth and conception. One ushers in the grey area which is development, the other ushers it out.

There's infinite doubt of the fetus's rights post-conception because there's no fetus.

I don't see why you differentiate between conception and implantation. Implantation greatly increases the potential for survival, however, that potential begins at conception.

There's also absolutely no logic behind your slippery slope argument -- being against late-term abortions, where premature survival is possible, means that you must be against all abortion, where survivability is 0?

Are you reading the same post as me? Because I never said that.

Note that I never said the comparison was between a fetus and a mouse. I said that the situations are equally arbitrary in how people wish to legislate, with the only method of feigning this difference being with appeal to emotion.

I do not see why extending human rights to a younger human is comparable at to extending human rights to an animal.

Also, there's plenty of logic in your taxicab situation. Once the birth is complete, anybody can care for the child. Again, I've stated above why birth is a better benchmark than conception or implantation and MUCH less arbitrary than those two scenarios. However, I'd be quite willing to make the benchmark be whenever sustainability was possible, as I've said in every single abortion thread. Once someone else can care for the fetus, it's an individual.

Once the child is out of the womb, anyone may care for it. The method of removal is what violates the fetuses rights. Premature delivery is one thing; murder and dismemberment is another. I have never said that a mother should be forced to endure her pregnancy against her will, only that the fetus should be granted equal rights and medical attention rather than an intentional slaying.

I don't see why you differentiate between conception and implantation. Implantation greatly increases the potential for survival, however, that potential begins at conception. Without implantation there is zero potential for survival. It's another required stage in development.

I believe it was Ginsburg that wrote the opinion that the Roe v. Wade decision was setup in such a way that it would eventually "collapse upon itself" because it uses viability as a metric, and viability changes with technological breakthroughs.

Are you reading the same post as me? Because I never said that. I was actually a bit confused reading your post too; I think the confusion stems from your usage of the word "prior." I think you might have meant it differently, but that is what you wrote.

Without implantation there is zero potential for survival. It's another required stage in development.

I believe it was Ginsburg that wrote the opinion that the Roe v. Wade decision was setup in such a way that it would eventually "collapse upon itself" because it uses viability as a metric, and viability changes with technological breakthroughs.

I was actually a bit confused reading your post too; I think the confusion stems from your usage of the word "prior." I think you might have meant it differently, but that is what you wrote.
I think part of the confusion was my defense of fundamentalist arguments that, to paraphrase Monty Python, "every zygote is special". I simply applaud anyone who goes so far our of their way to uphold what they see as the rights of an innocent. I don't personally advocate that degree or pro-lifism, and my post was split between my own opinion and the defense of another. I apologize.

Oh look! More non-Christians blaming Christians for the election loss. :whee:

There's a fear among churches that the religious freedoms we've enjoyed in this country are about to erode away. The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.

Will it happen? Hard to say. But how far will this blame go?Are you being sarcastic?

The church is readying itself for a state of persecution it has never seen before in this country.[/b]

The church? Which one would that be? And when was the last time you read a history book? Try 17th-18th century and see persecution of people based on religious beliefs. Quakers would be a good example that everyone should be familiar with. Obviously you are not. As someone said, paranoia strikes deep.

The church? Which one would that be? And when was the last time you read a history book? Try 17th-18th century and see persecution of people based on religious beliefs. Quakers would be a good example that everyone should be familiar with. Obviously you are not. As someone said, paranoia strikes deep.

My use of "church" was a generic term for the body of believers in this country.

As for my knowledge of church history, I've been studying it for the past four years in a group that meets weekly. Just this morning, I read the Philadelphia Articles of Confession (1742). Fascinating stuff surrounding church assemblies (well, fascinating to me).

In this country, the religious persecution has been from within the church itself based on theological differences. Today, we're seeing the (possible) beginnings of a secular backlash. If that truly happens, it'll be far different than what we've seen in this country's short history.

Are you being sarcastic?

The emoticon indicates he may be, I think.


My use of "church" was a generic term for the body of believers in this country.

As for my knowledge of church history, I've been studying it for the past four years in a group that meets weekly. Just this morning, I read the Philadelphia Articles of Confession (1742). Fascinating stuff surrounding church assemblies (well, fascinating to me).

In this country, the religious persecution has been from within the church itself based on theological differences. Today, we're seeing the (possible) beginnings of a secular backlash. If that truly happens, it'll be far different than what we've seen in this country's short history.

Perhaps not.
:D


Seriously, Jhaan. This sounds a lot like paranoia, although religious groups (not just Christian) have often used threats of persecution to rile up followers and such. What's odd in this recent tendency among (some) Christians in this country to claim victim status, is the fact that this is an overwhelmingly Christian country - akin to Jews fearing religious persecution in Israel (I use a democracy as an example).

But I also know that such fears can strengthen a group, so maybe that's the reason for all this

Powell: GOP 'polarization' backfired in election (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/11/powell-gop-polarization-backfired-in-election/)

(CNN) � The Republican party must stop "shouting at the world" and start listening to minority groups if it is to win elections in the 21st century, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for Sunday's "GPS" program, President Bush's former secretary of state said his party's attempt "to use polarization for political advantage" backfired last month.

"I think the party has to take a hard look at itself," Powell said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. "There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views � I don't object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority."

Powell, who crossed party lines and endorsed President-elect Barack Obama just weeks before the election, said the GOP must see what is in the "hearts and minds" of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters "and not just try to influence them by� the principles and dogma."

"I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country,"Powell said. "I think that the party has to take a hard look at itself, and I've talked to a number of leaders in recent weeks and they understand that." Powell, who says he still considers himself a Republican, said his party should also stop listening to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

Here I thought the Republicans lost because Bush screwed it all up monumentally.

Here I thought the Republicans lost because Bush screwed it all up monumentally.
Well, that did help, too. :D

The pain for the GOP is just beginning. GWB's lasting legacy.

Senate Republicans brace for ominous 2010 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/senate.republicans/index.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The 111th Congress has just barely begun as Senate Republicans brace for more grueling elections in 2010 that threaten to further weaken the party's influence in Congress.

The latest setback for the party came Monday, when Ohio Sen. George Voinovich -- the 72 year-old two-term GOP senator -- announced he will not seek reelection in 2010. That leaves Republicans with a highly vulnerable seat in a perennial swing state that has drifted Democratic in the last two elections.

Voinovich's decision sent Ohio Republicans and Democrats scrambling ahead of what will likely be a competitive primary on both sides, and virtually guarantees the GOP will have to spend significantly more money defending a seat that otherwise would likely have been a safe bet.

Democrats control 58 seats in the Senate -- 59 if Al Franken's lead in Minnesota's recount withstands Norm Coleman's legal challenge -- moving the party close to the 60 seats needed for a filibuster-proof majority.

"Republicans are starting the cycle on the defensive once again, it's a familiar but uncomfortable position," said Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report.

Voinovich is the most recent in a string of four Republican senators -- some from crucial battlegrounds states -- to announce his retirement, rattling Republicans in an election cycle that already promises to be difficult.

Just last week, longtime Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, unexpectedly announced he would not seek reelection after more than two decades in the chamber, abruptly setting the stage for a competitive race in a state that 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain carried by less than 1 percentage point.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, the once-popular Cuban-American who has seen his approval ratings slump of late, also recently announced he would not seek reelection. Jeb Bush, the popular brother of President Bush, announced last week he would not enter that race despite the urging of national Republicans.

Two-term Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a former Republican presidential candidate, is also retiring in 2010 to run for governor. While Kansas is traditionally considered a red state, Democrats are buoyed by President-elect Barack Obama's strong performance there and the prospect that the state's popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, may enter the race.

"A party would almost always have incumbents run for reelection rather than open seats, especially in swing states," said Quinn McCord, the executive editor of the Hotline. "These are exactly the type of seats Democrats have won the past two cycles when they have opened up."

In all, Republicans must defend 15 incumbents in addition to the four open seats next year, a number that could increase if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, decides to mount a 2010 gubernatorial bid. VideoWatch as members of the 111th Congress are sworn in �

Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend 15 incumbents and two seats for which special elections are expected to be held. Delaware will hold a special election for Vice President-elect Joe Biden's seat and New York will hold one if Sen. Hillary Clinton is confirmed as the next secretary of state.

More sobering for Republicans is the fact that few Democrats currently appear vulnerable, except perhaps for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose current approval numbers are slumping in his home state of Nevada.

But John Feehery, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor, said the GOP shouldn't panic just yet, especially considering Democrats control all three branches of government and the economy shows little signs of recovering in the near future.

"A lot depends on what happens in the next year with the economy and how [President-elect] Obama does -- That's the great unknown." Feehery said. "We've had two really bad cycles in a row, and the Democrats are running everything now."

Mid-term elections have historically not been kind to the party of the sitting president. One exception was 2002 during Bush's first term, when Republicans picked up seats in both houses.

Other Republicans are optimistic the wave of recent retirements offers the GOP a chance to move beyond its old guard and recruit fresh faces to inject the party with new energy.

"The reality is Bond and Voinovich both would have won reelection, but they would have been tough. I'd rather have someone who is 110 percent committed, gung-ho, has the energy, and wants to do that, rather than someone who is going through the motions," a Senate Republican leadership aide said.

Senate Republicans are also eyeing one of Colorado's Senate seats, recently vacated by Obama's Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar. To fill the remaining two years of the term, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, appointed Denver School Superintendent Michael Bennet -- a man who has never run for statewide office before.

"Republicans were handed a gift in Colorado," the GOP leadership aide said. "He's not someone who has run a statewide race before or known around the state. He's not tested."

Senate Democrats also face a few roadblocks: Their top picks in Iowa and Arizona to take on Republican incumbents there have both been named to Obama's Cabinet -- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

Still, much of the GOP's outlook will ultimately depend on how well Texas Sen. John Cornyn -- the man tasked to head the Republicans Senate Campaign Committee -- can recruit strong and credible candidates amidst a playing field that clearly favors the opposition.

"The map itself is working against Republicans, it's not clear yet where the vulnerable Democrats are," McCord said.

The pain for the GOP is just beginning. GWB's lasting legacy.

Senate Republicans brace for ominous 2010 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/senate.republicans/index.html)

It really does all depend on how the next two years go - the 2009 gubernatorial election in Virginia could be a bellweather to how 2010 plays out. A normally red state with current blue leadership that leaning bluer and bluer every year, if McDonnell is able to beat out Moran or McAuliffe [I think those are the two leading Dems for the VA gov], then that would mark a start of a turn around. If the Reps are able to wrestle control from Corzine in Jersey [and trust me, Corzine is very unpopular in the Garden State], that would send some shock waves and bouy Republicans.

Just as important as the Congressional races in 2010 are the many gubernatorial elections in that year. Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arizona, and Wyoming all have outgoing Democratic govs. I doubt much for Oregon or Michigan, but the rest of those seats could be contested. I wouldn't be surprised if the Reps make a strong push for Illinois and New York's governorships. I could see the Reps losing Rhode Island, California, Hawaii, and maybe Vermont. But if the Reps can make net gains in the gubernatorial elections, that would help towards building networks in those states for challengers in 2012's elections.

As for the Senate elections in 2010, again it just depends on how effective Obama and the Democratic Congress are in dealing with the economy. If there's not a tangible recovery by the beginning of 2010, then I don't see that the Reps would lose seats. If the economy improves, then the Reps will be in trouble as the people will want more Democratic leadership and that the DNC could paint Rep filibusters as getting in the way of policy. I don't think the public will vote Republican just cause there's a Democrat in the White House. I can't see the Reps really gaining a seat - they may try for Dorgon's seat in North Dakota, definitely Reid's in Nevada, Burris' in Illinois, Lincoln's in Arkansas, and the open seat in Colorado.

I'm not sure that Bush's legacy will resonate in 2010 - did Clinton's legacy [considered healthy when he left office] resonate well for the Democrats in their elections after his term?

With leaders like these... (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/01/12/blackwell-gay-and-lesbian-compulsion-can-be-restrained/)

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is coming under fire Monday for making remarks this summer that gays and lesbians suffer from a "compulsion" that can be "restrained."

"You can choose to restrain that compulsion," Blackwell told radio host Michelangelo Signorile, a gay and lesbian advocate, this summer during the Republican National Convention. "And so I think in fact you don't have to give in to the compulsion to be homosexual."

"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell added, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge."

Another RNC chairman candidate, Chip Saltsman, saw his bid derailed after circulating a CD to RNC voters that critics said was racially insensitive toward President-elect Obama.

With leaders like these... (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/01/12/blackwell-gay-and-lesbian-compulsion-can-be-restrained/)



Digging their party's grave.

Colin Powell is right. Rush Limbaugh is wrecking what's left of the GOP image. The best thing would be for the RNC chairman to tell rush to go fark off and hide in a cave for a little while along with GWB, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

Limbaugh to Powell: 'Become a Democrat' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/limbaugh-to-powell-become-a-democrat/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Rush Limbaugh fired back at Colin Powell for his critical comments earlier this week, saying Wednesday that the former secretary of state should join the Democratic Party.

"What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party," Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.

Limbaugh also took aim at Powell's decision to endorse President Obama over John McCain during the presidential election, repeating his earlier sentiment that Powell's move was "solely based on race."

"He's just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama," Limbaugh said. "It was purely and solely based on race."

During a speech on Monday, Powell said the "the Republican Party is in deep trouble" and said the GOP would be better off without Limbaugh, according to a report by the National Journal.

"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

Limbaugh's rigid, narrow views are going to alienate even more people. The Republican party needs to call this nut out for what he is.

Mr. Limbaugh fires back.

Limbaugh to Powell: 'Become a Democrat (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/limbaugh-to-powell-become-a-democrat/)'

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Rush Limbaugh fired back at Colin Powell for his critical comments earlier this week, saying Wednesday that the former secretary of state should join the Democratic Party.

"What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party," Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.

Limbaugh also took aim at Powell's decision to endorse President Obama over John McCain during the presidential election, repeating his earlier sentiment that Powell's move was "solely based on race."

"He's just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama," Limbaugh said. "It was purely and solely based on race."

During a speech on Monday, Powell said the "the Republican Party is in deep trouble" and said the GOP would be better off without Limbaugh, according to a report by the National Journal.

"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said. I do not get this. One day, these 'movement-types' (such as Mr Limbaugh) are saying that their loyalty is not with the Republican party, they don't care about the party, and that they are loyal to Conservatism only and GOP is only the more conservative of the two major parties. The next day, they are issuing edicts to who is a good REPUBLICAN and who isn't. If you are an ideologue, and believe in the truth of your ideology primarily, then what a Republican says shouldn't matter to you anymore than what a Democrat says.

By the way, I was wondering ... if Mr Limbaugh and Sec Powell were the only two candidates in a nation-wide GOP presidential primary (happening today), which one would you think will win and by what margin?

if Mr Limbaugh and Sec Powell were the only two candidates in a nation-wide GOP presidential primary (happening today), which one would you think will win and by what margin?

Powell would win by a 20%+ margin IMO.

I also wanted to note ... with regards to Mr. Limbaugh's claim that Sec Powell endorsed President Obama because of his race ... I was thinkin: how big of an ego do you need to have to claim that a man who served your country all his life, from a foot soldier all the way up to the Sec of State, is LESS loyal to your country (and more to his ethnic group) than you -- an entertainer?

Seriously, if that claim of his was not enough for conservatives to seriously consider throwing Mr. Limbaugh under the proverbial bus, then perhaps Mr. Limbaugh's ego is justified.

Powell would win by a 20%+ margin IMO.Open or closed primary?

Open or closed primary?

Closed. Registered GOP-ians only.

Closed. Registered GOP-ians only.Tougher call then. Probably Powell, only because my hope in the true conservatives of that party hasn't been driven from me fully yet. ;)

Open or closed primary?

that's a tough one --- i think (i would hope) that enough conservatives can see what happened with Powell during GWB's administration and can respect him enough to see that what he is saying is correct.

If Limbaugh won the primary (more likely if it was closed IMO assuming there are enough hardliners still left in the party), then perhaps the GOP is in more serious trouble, and really should just try and re-invent itself from the ground up. Powell definitely would get more of the moderates on board.

Is it possible that Rush is a closet Democrat? I mean why else would he say comments that inflict damage to his own party? He is reinforcing the small mindedness that drive people away from the Republican party.

Is it possible that Rush is a closet Democrat? I mean why else would he say comments that inflict damage to his own party? He is reinforcing the small mindedness that drive people away from the Republican party.

i was wondering the same thing --- a trojan horse.

Is it possible that Rush is a closet Democrat? I mean why else would he say comments that inflict damage to his own party? He is reinforcing the small mindedness that drive people away from the Republican party.

The thing is, Mr. Limbaugh doesn't really give a damn about his country or the GOP. He cares only about himself, his money and his ratings and he achieves those by telling a his followers, exactly what they want to hear and rile them up so they continue to listen to him because they believe he's one of the few (along with Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, etc.) who understands their frustrations and anger. When you appeal to angry and frustrated people's emotions, they'll become loyal listeners and believers which is what he makes his money on.

Now he may or may not really believe the garbage he spews, but it's essentially an act and he's simply a self- absorbed entertainer looking out for numero uno and basking in his ego and self importance.

The thing is, Mr. Limbaugh doesn't really give a damn about his country or the GOP. He cares only about himself, his money and his ratings and he achieves those by telling a his followers, exactly what they want to hear and rile them up so they continue to listen to him because they believe he's one of the few (along with Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, etc.) who understands their frustrations and anger. When you appeal to angry and frustrated people's emotions, they'll become loyal listeners and believers which is what he makes his money on.

Now he may or may not really believe the garbage he spews, but it's essentially an act and he's simply a self- absorbed entertainer looking out for numero uno and basking in his ego and self importance.Amen.

Analysis: Powell flap gets GOP to ask 'What kind of party are we?' (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/25/colin.powell.moderate.voice/index.html)

(CNN) -- Colin Powell stirred up the Republican Party's very public internal debate about the direction of the party and asserted it's losing because it doesn't appeal to moderates like him.

Two Republican leaders questioned Powell's GOP credentials. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Powell should leave the party. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he thought he already had.

Powell says he's still very much a Republican and said the party would be better off to include more moderates like him.

"The Republican Party is losing north, south, east, west; men, woman, white, blacks and Hispanics," Powell said in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I think the Republican Party has to take a hard look at itself and decide: What kind of party are we?"

As it has squabbled within the family, the party has wandered. Most analysts say it will get back on the right track when its next leaders emerge.

Is Powell emerging as a voice of the moderates in the party?

"A spokesman is good," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "A candidate would be better."

The Republicans' family argument started shortly after the Democrats won the White House and added to their control of Congress.

Conservatives blame moderates for the losses, saying the party didn't present a contrast with Democrats and the only way for it to be successful is to lean harder to the right.

Limbaugh and Cheney emerged from the leadership vacuum -- Limbaugh from his legions of listeners and Cheney in his emergent role as the sole defender of the Bush White House.

Powell provoked Limbaugh when he suggested the GOP's future was in peril if it went in the Limbaugh's direction. Limbaugh responded that Powell is part of the "stale, the old, the worn-out GOP that never won anything."

Powell says the right has alienated undecided and independent voters and the only way for the GOP to return to power is to expand its narrow base.

The former Pentagon commander of the 1991 Persian Gulf war has for the most part stayed out of politics since resigning as President's Bush's secretary of state in Bush's first term.

Among Republicans, Powell, Cheney and Limbaugh are equally revered with favorability ratings in the 60s, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

But among all voters questioned, Powell has a favorability rate of 70 percent compared to 30 percent for Limbaugh. A poll a week ago found that Cheney had a favorability rate of 37 percent.

"Colin Powell is not the guy you want to pick a fight with," Schneider said. "He's more popular than Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh combined.

Between the two polls, Limbaugh's unfavorable rating among all respondents was 53 percent and Cheney's 55 percent.

Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, another moderate, sided with Powell in an interview with with CNN's John King on "State of the Union" on Sunday.

The former Pennsylvania governor said the different wings of the party need to listen to each other and differences of opinions need to be less divisive.

"Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important," Ridge said.

"It does get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following," Ridge continued. "But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourself but let's respect others opinions and let's not be divisive."

Ridge, who ruled out a Senate bid earlier this month, also called for an end to personal attacks.

"Let's lead our party based on some principles that have been very much a part of who we are for decades. And let's be less shrill ... and particularly, let's not attack other individuals. Let's attack their ideas," said Ridge.

Republican strategist and CNN contributor Mary Matalin challenged what she called the "liberal-lite" wing of the party and said Republicans win when they run on their conservative convictions.

When [Powell] supports Barack Obama, one presumes he's supporting those principles and policies," Matalin said. "Those are liberal principles and they spawn liberal policies. The road forward for Republicans is not to be 'liberal-lite,' " said Matalin.

"This debate is a long one and it always is taking place vigorously when we change through any new paradigm. What is the scope and the role of a government in a free state? Those are big principles, big ideas, and that's how we should go forward. And anybody who agrees with those ideas should be in the party. If you don't agree with those ideas, you can be in the other party," she said.

On another talk show, former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove, who served with Powell and Cheney in the White House, took Limbaugh's side, saying he would choose the radio host over the former secretary of state if he "had to pick between the two," in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Powell would win the presidency for the GOP like no other wingnut like Palin, Cheney, or Limbaugh, or Rove could

The thing is, Mr. Limbaugh doesn't really give a damn about his country or the GOP. He cares only about himself, his money and his ratings and he achieves those by telling a his followers, exactly what they want to hear and rile them up so they continue to listen to him because they believe he's one of the few (along with Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, etc.) who understands their frustrations and anger. When you appeal to angry and frustrated people's emotions, they'll become loyal listeners and believers which is what he makes his money on.

Now he may or may not really believe the garbage he spews, but it's essentially an act and he's simply a self- absorbed entertainer looking out for numero uno and basking in his ego and self importance.

Any comparable folks on the left you'd like to give honorable mention?

Any comparable folks on the left you'd like to give honorable mention?

That is a good question... The only one that comes off the top of my head is that kook Olbermann.

By the way, bravo to Mr. Powell! Some one needs to bring some sanity to the party.

I find it pretty funny that Conservatives like to paint Liberals as "Wacky", when in fact its the GOP that has become the "wacky" party. Like it or not the GOP needs to move towards the center on many issues.

Distancing themselves from the Fundimentalist would be a good first step.

The leading figure in the party is a Comic Strip Character like Rush Limbaugh?.....lol

Poll: Majority unsure who speaks for the GOP (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/10/poll-majority-unsure-who-speaks-for-the-gop/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the Republican Party struggles to regain its footing following the November elections, a new survey shows that a majority of adult Americans sees no clear leader for the minority political party.

Even more problematic for the GOP is that one-third of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of their party, according to the USA Today/Gallup poll.

When it comes to naming a “main person” who speaks for the GOP, 52 percent of Americans were unable to do so.

Among those who did name a speaker for the GOP, 13 percent identified conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, while 10 percent named former Vice President Dick Cheney. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were each named by 6 percent of Americans in the poll.

Just 3 percent said former President George W. Bush is currently the most prominent Republican speaker, while Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and House Minority Leader John Boehner were each named by 1 percent of participants in the survey.

“These numbers are troubling for Republicans, who are engaged in a civil war right over the ideological direction of the party,” said CNN Political Editor Mark Preston. “When one-third of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of the party, it makes it difficult to establish a united front to promote GOP policies at the same time opposing President Obama’s agenda.”

A third of Republicans in the poll said the GOP should not moderate its policies in its quest to regain power.

The poll surveyed 1,015 adults on May 29-31 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I find it pretty funny that Conservatives like to paint Liberals as "Wacky", when in fact its the GOP that has become the "wacky" party. Like it or not the GOP needs to move towards the center on many issues.

Distancing themselves from the Fundimentalist would be a good first step.

The leading figure in the party is a Comic Strip Character like Rush Limbaugh?.....lol

This is nonsense. Ever since the party has moderated to the center we have been loosing. Conservatism is what is needed. Not what we have seen. Moderates have been running the party and look what its got us. If moving to the center was what was needed then we should have done better the last several years. After 98 we started moderating and slowly lost all power. What is needed is leadership from the conservative/libertarian viewpoint that will communicate better the ideas we belive in and not caving to moderation and politics that are just dem lite. That makes our side look like our ideas suck or do not work.

Leaders such as Reagan didn't cowtow to the moderates... he sold what he believed in and got the moderates to come to his way of thinking. Not the other way around.

This is nonsense. Ever since the party has moderated to the center we have been loosing. Conservatism is what is needed. Not what we have seen. Moderates have been running the party and look what its got us.

you think GWB was a moderate??? :lmao:

you think GWB was a moderate??? :lmao:

He wasn't conservative.

Poll: Majority unsure who speaks for the GOP (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/10/poll-majority-unsure-who-speaks-for-the-gop/)

RNC = Rush Newt Cheney. Rush, of course, comes first. He's big on that. Newt says some funny things (http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001832/). Cheney serves to tie the party to Nixon with a nice bow (and reminds us all of what is and is not ;) torture every day).

A third of Republicans in the poll said the GOP should not moderate its policies in its quest to regain power.

I hope they go along with that minority, like they did during the election.

The left has been flogging Limbaugh as the "leader" of the RNC in their talking points (and consequently in the MSM), for months.

Now, X amount of people believe it.

Big surprise.

He wasn't conservative.

he was as socially conservative as it gets.

he was as socially conservative as it gets.

Sorta.. but did little with it. Prescription drugs is not a socially conservative issue...And I can't think of any real socially conservative issues he championed.. only spoke about. In the end , other than taxes and the war( only in some aspects) was he conservative. He was really in the totallity of he lack of fiscal disapline a moderate democrat. His lack of vetoing made that clear. I don't hate Bush. But He was not as conservative on enough things as he made himself out to be in elections... just as Obama is much more liberal and socialist than he made himself out to be in the elections and his words.

Just thought of one.. He was pretty conservative on embrionic stem cell research.

Just thought of one.. He was pretty conservative on embrionic stem cell research.

Well... he was Conservative on that issue in the extreme... but not in the way most people think. That is b/c he allowed a compromise to rule the government policy w/r/t how money is used. He made a prudent choice given the circumstances, and his view of the life issue. I see that as a fundamentally Conservative thing to do.

If he were the kind of 'conservative' that most of these people make him out to be, where he's out to impose his 'values' on everyone ... he'd have sought to ban the practice in the nation as a whole.

Well... he was Conservative on that issue in the extreme... but not in the way most people think. That is b/c he allowed a compromise to rule the government policy w/r/t how money is used. He made a prudent choice given the circumstances, and his view of the life issue. I see that as a fundamentally Conservative thing to do.

If he were the kind of 'conservative' that most of these people make him out to be, where he's out to impose his 'values' on everyone ... he'd have sought to ban the practice in the nation as a whole.

Thats right,. he was more of a paper tiger conservative. Mostly talked of the things social conservatives like.. but did little to push that agenda.

This is nonsense. Ever since the party has moderated to the center we have been loosing. Conservatism is what is needed. Not what we have seen. Moderates have been running the party and look what its got us.

This type of thinking is why the Republican party is in the wilderness. Without moderates the Republicans will never win the White House. You can't be inclusive and expect to win.

This type of thinking is why the Republican party is in the wilderness. Without moderates the Republicans will never win the White House. You can't be inclusive and expect to win.

I guarantee you that the small-government conservatives (the kind that the republican party forgot about) will definitely win over many moderates....

This type of thinking is why the Republican party is in the wilderness. Without moderates the Republicans will never win the White House. You can't be inclusive and expect to win.

I actually agree with what you wrote, but I don't think it's what you intended. I think that trying to include everyone, or every idea is a losing strategy... at least for Conservatives.

I agree with rrc on this... small gvt conservatives can still appeal to a wide audience... but not for the sake of appealing to a wide audience... but by being themselves...by being conservative.

Contrary to popular belief, conservatism is not dead, nor is it a losing strategy... Part of Obama's platform was running to the right of Bush on the issues of spending, waste, deficits, government inefficiency, etc. Some people knew that was just campaign strategy, but many voted for him and possibly some did for that reason.

I actually agree with what you wrote, but I don't think it's what you intended. I think that trying to include everyone, or every idea is a losing strategy... at least for Conservatives.

I agree with rrc on this... small gvt conservatives can still appeal to a wide audience... but not for the sake of appealing to a wide audience... but by being themselves...by being conservative.

Contrary to popular belief, conservatism is not dead, nor is it a losing strategy... Part of Obama's platform was running to the right of Bush on the issues of spending, waste, deficits, government inefficiency, etc. Some people knew that was just campaign strategy, but many voted for him and possibly some did for that reason.

That was exactly my point. If we get true conservatives in that are for low taxes, small govt, we can attract many who already believe in that. The idea is to stand for your principles and argue effectively your view to win those to your side. Not the opposite. If you try to appeal to everyone you will likely alienate most.

I am personally socially and economically conservative for the most part.. But I am very happy with the idea of the fed to just protect us and preserve our rights rather than take them away and get involved in areas they should not be in. let the states, as they should, decide wether they want the social liberal ideas to be enacted. We can then have a choice on the states we want to live in based on the polivies the people of that state want.

Big govt should be argued at the local level if you ask me. The one size fits all mentality of the fed doesn't work and is wasteful as well as often unintentionally abusive.

We can then have a choice on the states we want to live in based on the polivies the people of that state want.
.

That's precisely how I feel about social issues.

This is nonsense. Ever since the party has moderated to the center we have been loosing. Losing. Loosening.

Conservatism is what is needed. Not what we have seen. Moderates have been running the party and look what its got us.Are you going to bring that up at the 1952 convention, Governor Taft? ;)

You have to be really, really far to the right to think that moderates have been in charge of the party because for the past 20-30 years, the Republicans have little more than the party of Protestant fundamentalists and, I hate to say it, a lot of racists. Naive people don't recognize the racism because code words have replaced the n-word.

you think GWB was a moderate??? He wasn't conservative.GW Bush was a far right fundamentalist radical, but he identified himself as a conservative, and he certainly wasn't a moderate, except on the matters of immigration policy, race (but wasn't above exploiting it for political purposes), homosexuality (has been personally tolerant of gays since his college days, perhaps because of his own bisexuality, but again, politics came first), and foreign policy toward China, Russia, and our traditional allies.

Conservative = anti-radical. Conservative is not the opposite of liberal.

I guarantee you that the small-government conservatives (the kind that the republican party forgot about) will definitely win over many moderates....

If small government conservativism means keeping the government out of reproductive choices (including contraceptives), keeping government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults, ending the war on drugs, ending other consensual crime laws, keeping church and state separate, and a humble non-warmongering foreign policy, I would strongly consider voting for it.

The left has been flogging Limbaugh as the "leader" of the RNC in their talking points (and consequently in the MSM), for months.

Now, X amount of people believe it.

Big surprise.So if Pillsbury Doughboy #1 http://bbsnews.net/bbsn_photos/topics/Timely_Figures/rh_limbaugh_booknum2006021379.jpg isn't the leader of the Republican party, who is?

Pillsbury Doughboy #2:http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/newt(4).jpg Pillsbury Doughboy #3:http://media.canada.com/5f4aa900-9e28-4adf-a6a3-afa5261ed237/rove.jpg
Pillsbury Doughboy #4:http://stopsocialism.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dick-cheney1.jpg

This type of thinking is why the Republican party is in the wilderness. Without moderates the Republicans will never win the White House. You can't be inclusive and expect to win.


Seriously. I mean does anyone realistically see the Republicans ever winning if they were all right wing extremists? If they haven't gone to the center more on social issues I don't think I'd even classify myself as a Republican. As I'm fiscally conservative I definitely wouldn't call myself a Democrat. If the GOP goes back to the right my bet is that the party will fracture and a new party may finally come to be. We'd be the fiscally conservative yet socially liberal party.

Wait, what am I saying. GOP move to the right all you want! A viable 3rd party may actually be what this country needs so that we aren't perpetually run by either Dems or Repubs!

Seriously. I mean does anyone realistically see the Republicans ever winning if they were all right wing extremists? If they haven't gone to the center more on social issues I don't think I'd even classify myself as a Republican. As I'm fiscally conservative I definitely wouldn't call myself a Democrat. If the GOP goes back to the right my bet is that the party will fracture and a new party may finally come to be. We'd be the fiscally conservative yet socially liberal party.
Wait, what am I saying. GOP move to the right all you want! A viable 3rd party may actually be what this country needs so that we aren't perpetually run by either Dems or Repubs!

Wouldn't that be the Libertarians?

I guarantee you that the small-government conservatives (the kind that the Republican party forgot about) will definitely win over many moderates....In life, especially politics, money tends to trump ideology, and Republicans are just as likely to want government welfare as Democrats are, and both parties want it more for the rich than the poor. That's why the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce has favored every tax increase proposition placed on the ballot, and every real estate interest wants special tax breaks or even outright cash subsidies for developments and even existing properties.

And small government conservatism doesn't always work to reduce the cost of government -- look at how California has changed from being one of the best states to one of the worst ever since the Proposition 13 property tax cuts and limitations were implemented.

Wouldn't that be the Libertarians?Libertarians in real life = selling off public assets to cronies, and in the case of private toll roads, the contracts have clauses that prevent public roads next to the toll roads to be improved, and in one case there was even a limitation on maintenance.

The Libertarian party seems to attract more scamsters than even the Republicans and Democrats do. Part of that is because it's a smaller, newer party, meaning it's easier to influence it, but the libertarian mindset seems to be more common among con artists. Please don't lecture about "true" libertarians (or members of any other ideology) being better because they're not.

So if Pillsbury Doughboy #1 http://bbsnews.net/bbsn_photos/topics/Timely_Figures/rh_limbaugh_booknum2006021379.jpg isn't the leader of the Republican party, who is?

Pillsbury Doughboy #2:http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/newt(4).jpg Pillsbury Doughboy #3:http://media.canada.com/5f4aa900-9e28-4adf-a6a3-afa5261ed237/rove.jpg
Pillsbury Doughboy #4:http://stopsocialism.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dick-cheney1.jpg


:eek: This explains my aversion to Pillsbury products!

What a breakthrough! (it's all in the subconscious, as Dr Freud said)

So if Pillsbury Doughboy #1 isn't the leader of the Republican party, who is?


Who was the leader of the Democratic Party in Bush's first year as President?



Bueller?...... Bueller?........Bueller?..... Anyone?


Times up............

And small government conservatism doesn't always work to reduce the cost of government -- look at how California has changed from being one of the best states to one of the worst ever since the Proposition 13 property tax cuts and limitations were implemented.

It seems that you completely absolve the dysfunctional nature of CA government of any responsibility.

Lack of taxation isn't the reason CA has problems. And CA doesn't represent anything even CLOSE to a small government.

Libertarians in real life = selling off public assets to cronies, and in the case of private toll roads, the contracts have clauses that prevent public roads next to the toll roads to be improved, and in one case there was even a limitation on maintenance.

The Libertarian party seems to attract more scamsters than even the Republicans and Democrats do. Part of that is because it's a smaller, newer party, meaning it's easier to influence it, but the libertarian mindset seems to be more common among con artists. Please don't lecture about "true" libertarians (or members of any other ideology) being better because they're not.

links to substantiate ANYTHING you've said? Opinions don't go far in the podium.

Good thing you still have other cakes.......



j/k

Keep those fantasies to yourself, Elmer. (j/k)

Oh but how I ran past the frozen pastries section! And now, thanks to larrymoencurly, I know why: disturbing visions of pasty-face doughy men in my subconscious were at the root of the problem. As the wise saying goes: "physician, heal thyself!" ;)

My kids may now have those Pillsbury cookies with the sprinkles for Christmas.

Oh but how I ran past the frozen pastries section! And now, thanks to larrymoencurly, I know why: disturbing visions of pasty-face doughy men in my subconscious were at the root of the problem. .

I know what you mean......

http://peaceint.org/umoar/Ted_Kennedy_John_Kerry.jpg

And small government conservatism doesn't always work to reduce the cost of government -- look at how California has changed from being one of the best states to one of the worst ever since the Proposition 13 property tax cuts and limitations were implementedIt seems that you completely absolve the dysfunctional nature of CA government of any responsibility.That's not a logical conclusion.

Lack of taxation isn't the reason CA has problems. And CA doesn't represent anything even CLOSE to a small government.[/QUOTE]I don't see how California can have a small government when it has 35M people and one of the ten largest economies in the world. OTOH its taxes and spending have long been too high, and its legal setup causes too much dependence on the state government and has shifted the property tax burden from corporations and the rich more to the middle class because tax rates can't be reset until property is sold. Then there are the ridiculous referendums, which demand even more spending and less taxation.


Libertarians in real life = selling off public assets to cronies, and in the case of private toll roads, the contracts have clauses that prevent public roads next to the toll roads to be improved, and in one case there was even a limitation on maintenance.

The Libertarian party seems to attract more scamsters than even the Republicans and Democrats do. Part of that is because it's a smaller, newer party, meaning it's easier to influence it, but the libertarian mindset seems to be more common among con artists. Please don't lecture about "true" libertarians (or members of any other ideology) being better because they're not.
links to substantiate ANYTHING you've said? Opinions don't go far in the podium.Libertarian slimeball juvenille "Toad" stole $170,000 from credit cardholders by raiding their mailboxes in my parents' neighborhood. Hardcore Ayn Rand fan, reasoned that nobody was forced to give up their money. Also remember what happened to the Reform party after it won the Minnesota governorship. It was taken over by some radical opportunists who had a racist agenda, causing Gov. Jesse Ventura to quit the national party and remain only in the state party.

I'm surprised at how little common knowledge some of you people have. Haven't you done any reading at all about the history of public assets being sold to private interests without fair public auctions? Most recently, this has been done for rights of ways for private toll roads (75-year leases, sometimes to foreign companies), and some public transit systems have been financed through a system that basically turns them over to foreign private interests because their AIG bond insurance became worthless.

Oh but how I ran past the frozen pastries section! And now, thanks to larrymoencurly, I know why: disturbing visions of pasty-face doughy men in my subconscious were at the root of the problem
I know what you mean......

http://peaceint.org/umoar/Ted_Kennedy_John_Kerry.jpg

When did Rove, Limbaugh, Cheney, or Gingrich serve in the military, as opposed to actively tried to avoid service?

Which one of those people, except Kerry, is a war hero? Anybody who had to go through the hell Kerry did in Vietnam deserves respect, not a cheap shot.

When did Rove, Limbaugh, Cheney, or Gingrich serve in the military, as opposed to actively tried to avoid service?

Which one of those people, except Kerry, is a war hero? Anybody who had to go through the hell Kerry did in Vietnam deserves respect, not a cheap shot.

:secret: The pasty faced, doughy guy on the right, is Teddy Kennedy.......

When did Rove, Limbaugh, Cheney, or Gingrich serve in the military, as opposed to actively tried to avoid service?

Which one of those people, except Kerry, is a war hero? Anybody who had to go through the hell Kerry did in Vietnam deserves respect, not a cheap shot.
:secret: The pasty faced, doughy guy on the right, is Teddy Kennedy.......It's obvious I knew that, so why are you mentioning him now?

and the BIGGEST Chicken Hawk ??

Big DICK Cheney who had a bad knee, BUT he luvs wars.

Make him go to Iraq I did and see what our soldiers are going thu.

AND not just inside the Green Zone !

Love how the Chicken Hawks love to talk so tough but there Rich parents always get them out of serving the military and the average Joe, ops Jane has to live with there mess.

Same them with abortion, talk to me when men are able to have kids.

Who was the leader of the Democratic Party in Bush's first year as President?



Bueller?...... Bueller?........Bueller?..... Anyone?


Times up............ So.... you didn't know either...... so you just insult me again.....

You truly are an empty suit......You were insulting me with your childish Bueller bit, and I gave you some proper advice in response. This isn't the first time you've practiced the double standard, which is ironic because you have a habit of accusing others of hypocrisy.

I didn't know the name of the 2001 chairman of the Democratic Party, nor did I search the Internet so I could pretend otherwise, and you didn't specify you wanted the actual name. So I gave a generic answer: the party chairman, the party's leaders in Congress, and the former president or candidate. Tell me why that's unreasonable. More importantly, tell me another time when a major US political party's leadership has been so subservient to an outsider who wasn't their financier, like Limbaugh, and what it means about that party.

and the BIGGEST Chicken Hawk ??

Big DICK Cheney who had a bad knee, BUT he luvs wars.

Make him go to Iraq I did and see what our soldiers are going thu.

AND not just inside the Green Zone !

Love how the Chicken Hawks love to talk so tough but there Rich parents always get them out of serving the military and the average Joe, ops Jane has to live with there mess.

Same them with abortion, talk to me when men are able to have kids.5 draft deferment for Cheney, and for one of them he used the excuse that his wife was in the military at the time.

Apparently during the Vietnam War, no draftees from Harvard died in the war. OTOH that enemy of the right, Oliver Stone, himself a Harvard grad, volunteered for and served in combat in Vietnam.

I'm surprised at how little common knowledge some of you people have. Haven't you done any reading at all about the history of public assets being sold to private interests without fair public auctions? Most recently, this has been done for rights of ways for private toll roads (75-year leases, sometimes to foreign companies), and some public transit systems have been financed through a system that basically turns them over to foreign private interests because their AIG bond insurance became worthless.

so one "libertarian" formulates your whole view on the ideology? :shake:

You probably thought Greenspan was a libertarian too :nono2:

5 draft deferment for Cheney, and for one of them he used the excuse that his wife was in the military at the time.

Always impressive how those who have never served in the military, and in some cases, actively and shamelessly avoided doing so, are so quick to embroil us in conflict.


Apparently during the Vietnam War, no draftees from Harvard died in the war. OTOH that enemy of the right, Oliver Stone, himself a Harvard grad, volunteered for and served in combat in Vietnam.

Yes, but he was also responsible for "Alexander."

so one "libertarian" formulates your whole view on the ideology? :shake:Obviously not, but I'm in AZ, where the Libertarian Party has been more successful than in most places (they once even qualified for the gubernatorial ballot without having to petition because in a previous election they won at least 5% of the vote), and I've attended one of their meetings. They've only reinforced the cliches.

You probably thought Greenspan was a libertarian too :nono2:Only because I could see and hear. Greenspan was Ayn Rand's top protege and edited Atlas Shrugged, and considering that he never drastically change his ideology, that's pretty good evidence that he wasn't exactly a European socialist. What did you think he was?

Greenspan was Ayn Rand's top protege and edited Atlas Shrugged, and considering that he never drastically change his ideology, that's pretty good evidence that he wasn't exactly a European socialist. What did you think he was?

an egotistical person who let power get to his head? The manipulation he enacted while the head of the fed goes against the very core of libertarian ideology.

You were insulting me with your childish Bueller bit,

And you called me paranoid?

:coverlaf:

Always impressive how those who have never served in the military, and in some cases, actively and shamelessly avoided doing so, are so quick to embroil us in conflict.

I think making military service mandatory for the Presidency and VP would be a great idea.

How do you command something when you've never done it?

And you called me paranoid?

:coverlaf:Yes, because you've accused others of attacking you when they clearly were not.

Always impressive how those who have never served in the military, and in some cases, actively and shamelessly avoided doing so, are so quick to embroil us in conflict.
I think making military service mandatory for the Presidency and VP would be a great idea.

How do you command something when you've never done it?In the case of Franklin Roosevelt, quite well.

an egotistical person who let power get to his head? The manipulation he enacted while the head of the fed goes against the very core of libertarian ideology.I thought that libertarian philosophy didn't believe in a government-run central bank and ideally preferred something more like our late 19th century system. OTOH libertarian Milton Friedman had nothing against something like the Fed, so long as it simply made the money supply grow at a constant rate, regardless of economic conditions.

Greenspan never seemed like an egotist or egoist (but don't Randian libertarians consider that an ideal?), just a sincere person who tried to do what he thought was best for the economy but who was mortal and whose basic philosophy was seriously flawed. He was most successful when he had to compromise the most, during the Clinton administration, and failed when he didn't, when GW Bush was President.

In the case of Franklin Roosevelt, quite well.

A debatable point, given the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor, and his love for "Uncle Joe" Stalin among other issues.....

Always impressive how those who have never served in the military, and in some cases, actively and shamelessly avoided doing so, are so quick to embroil us in conflict.

I think making military service mandatory for the Presidency and VP would be a great idea.

How do you command something when you've never done it?

In the case of Franklin Roosevelt, quite well.

I'm unsure why my quote was included...was it to point out that there are exceptions? ;)

:secret: You're right.

And small government conservatism doesn't always work to reduce the cost of government -- look at how California has changed from being one of the best states to one of the worst ever since the Proposition 13 property tax cuts and limitations were implemented.

No matter how many times this current leftist talking point has been debunked, there is no shortage of those that will just keep parroting it.....

A lie repeated often enough.....

:shake:

No matter how many times this current leftist talking point has been debunked, there is no shortage of those that will just keep parroting it.....

A lie repeated often enough.....

:shake:But it hasn't been debunked (propaganda from a pseudo think tank doesn't count).

But it hasn't been debunked (propaganda from a pseudo think tank doesn't count).

Government revenues since the passage of Prop 13 have gone up well past inflation plus population growth.

Property taxes have also soared (since the values of homes and properties have increased dramatically, at least in part due to the supply being kept artificially low since Prop 13 passed).

California also seems to have had some good times in between 1978 and 2009. There are literally dozens of other factors that could be considered to have caused "the decline of the state"; frankly, I see the focus on Prop 13 as a pseudo-intellectual argument. It's a common refrain, especially in circles of those "in the know", but often seems to serve as providing a comforting air of superiority while ignoring that other problems have completely dwarfed it in size (and, looking at the numbers, it's hard to tell that it's even a problem).

Here are just a few other things you could mention instead of Prop 13:

1) Prison population explosion, and associated costs
2) Costs of illegal immigration
3) Costs of union influence in the state
4) Ineffectiveness of governing by initiative that limits expenditures accordingly
5) Decline of families in CA, and associated costs

and the BIGGEST Chicken Hawk ??

Big DICK Cheney who had a bad knee, BUT he luvs wars.

Make him go to Iraq I did and see what our soldiers are going thu.

AND not just inside the Green Zone !

Love how the Chicken Hawks love to talk so tough but there Rich parents always get them out of serving the military and the average Joe, ops Jane has to live with there mess.

Same them with abortion, talk to me when men are able to have kids.

Welcome, Jane!! :hug:

I think making military service mandatory for the Presidency and VP would be a great idea.

How do you command something when you've never done it?

Then you'll never see another Repub president again, LOL

Guarantee you a lot of Iraq vets that I've talk to are turning on the hypocrites of the repub's

When they see and hear and they do, the hatred spewed by the Rushbos, Sean Haternys and Beckers they wonder WTF are they talking about when I just saw another Brother die.

They keep asking me "why are we in Iraq, again "?

Jr. Bush was in elementary school the other day and a reporter ask him hows does it feel to be a civie again, and what did he say ?

"Its feels great, I don't have to think of the wars anymore"

The *&**(*(*& of this guy !

Then you'll never see another Repub president again, LOL
!

You may see few dems either lol

But it hasn't been debunked (propaganda from a pseudo think tank doesn't count).
Government revenues since the passage of Prop 13 have gone up well past inflation plus population growth.

Property taxes have also soared (since the values of homes and properties have increased dramatically, at least in part due to the supply being kept artificially low since Prop 13 passed).

California also seems to have had some good times in between 1978 and 2009. There are literally dozens of other factors that could be considered to have caused "the decline of the state"; frankly, I see the focus on Prop 13 as a pseudo-intellectual argument. It's a common refrain, especially in circles of those "in the know", but often seems to serve as providing a comforting air of superiority while ignoring that other problems have completely dwarfed it in size (and, looking at the numbers, it's hard to tell that it's even a problem).

Here are just a few other things you could mention instead of Prop 13:

1) Prison population explosion, and associated costs
2) Costs of illegal immigration
3) Costs of union influence in the state
4) Ineffectiveness of governing by initiative that limits expenditures accordingly
5) Decline of families in CA, and associated costs

I've never ignored those other factors, especially #4, but you haven't provided any evidence at all that Proposition 13 had an overall positive effect on California's economy. And to call focusing on it a pseudo-intellectual argument is just grabbing an epitaph out of thin air, until you provide some evidence.

I've never ignored those other factors, especially #4, but you haven't provided any evidence at all that Proposition 13 had an overall positive effect on California's economy. And to call focusing on it a pseudo-intellectual argument is just grabbing an epitaph out of thin air, until you provide some evidence.

I'll assume you mean "epithet" rather than "epitaph"; I chose the phrase ('pseudo-intellectual argument') carefully, as the Prop 13 blame is one I've heard repeatedly from people I otherwise consider quite intelligent. But it comes with no facts; actually it's you (making the accusation that we need to trace everything to 13's passage) that needs to prove a case.

I've stated that government revenue has gone up since 13's passage at a rate well over inflation+population growth. Are you disputing that? And, if you don't, then how can 13 possibly be to blame?

You also accused the "debunkers" of your Prop 13 argument of belonging to a 'pseudo think tank'. Presumably, then, you've got some alternate facts that refute the central thesis they hold (as posted in the CA thread):

Prop 13 not to blame.

Chris Reed from the San Diego Union-Tribune

According to the newsrooms and editorial boards of the L.A. Times and the Sacramento Bee -- heck, even according to the Bee's cartoonist -- Proposition 13 is the devil. The 1978 voter initiative limiting increases in property taxes has so reduced revenue that it has hollowed out vitally needed public services and played a key role in the state's descent into utter dysfunction, blah blah blah blah.

The Times and the Bee folks aren't just saying this as yet another rhetorical salvo in their never-ending push for higher taxes, right? Surely they have hard proof on their side, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong. Utterly wrong. Mind-bendingly wrong. So wrong as to be downright mendacious.

Remember, Prop. 13 is not a hard cap of property taxes. Levies are adjusted to current market value when property changes hands. And that happens all the time.

According to the latest info from the Board of Equalization -- look at it here -- total property taxes collected in 2006-07 were $43.16 billion.

The oldest property tax stats I could find were for 1980-81, from caltax.org. That year, property tax revenue was $6.36 billion.

So since shortly after Prop. 13's adoption, property tax revenue increased by 579 percent. That is not a typo. It went up 579 percent.

During the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 milion -- an increase of 58 percent.

As for inflation, as of January 1981, the rough midpoint of the 1980-81 fiscal year, the Consumer Price Index -- which gauges inflation -- was 88. As of January 2007, it was 202.4. That is a 133 percent increase.

So property tax revenue has increased by more than triple the combined rate of inflation and population growth -- 579 percent versus 191 percent.

Oh, yeah, Prop. 13 is the devil. Prop. 13 is our biggest problem -- not the state's inability to live within its means. Why? Because we say it. Who cares what the numbers show? Numbers are for nerds.

All right, let's bring in some "context" -- the favorite claim of those who dismiss plain facts is that the numbers are not being discussed in "context." According to LAO's wonderful searchable budget database, in 1980-1981, the total of all general and special fund revenue for the state of California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. Here is an Excel spreadsheet documenting this. That is an increase of 555 percent.

You follow? PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WENT UP FASTER THAN OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE!

If this doesn't bury the Prop.13-is-the-devil lie, nothing will.

But it won't. The L.A. Times and Sac Bee are committed to this narrative, come hell or high water. The former is what taxpayers face if they get their way.
Posted by Chris Reed at June 3, 2009 12:17 PM

I'll note that Reed should be multiplying population growth times inflation, so he really should be comparing: (38M/24M)(202.4/88) = 3.63 to the revenue growth (120.7/22.1) of 5.46. But the latter is much bigger.

Where has CA peed all the money away, and shouldn't that be the focus rather than Prop 13?

I'll assume you mean "epithet" rather than "epitaph"; I chose the phrase ('pseudo-intellectual argument') carefully, as the Prop 13 blame is one I've heard repeatedly from people I otherwise consider quite intelligent. But it comes with no facts; actually it's you (making the accusation that we need to trace everything to 13's passage) that needs to prove a case.

I've stated that government revenue has gone up since 13's passage at a rate well over inflation+population growth. Are you disputing that? And, if you don't, then how can 13 possibly be to blame?

You also accused the "debunkers" of your Prop 13 argument of belonging to a 'pseudo think tank'. Presumably, then, you've got some alternate facts that refute the central thesis they hold (as posted in the CA thread):

I'll note that Reed should be multiplying population growth times inflation, so he really should be comparing: (38M/24M)(202.4/88) = 3.63 to the revenue growth (120.7/22.1) of 5.46. But the latter is much bigger.

Where has CA peed all the money away, and shouldn't that be the focus rather than Prop 13?Prop 13 isn't the "devil" but it's certainly not free from blame. I don't get how listing the revenue that was created during inflationary periods somehow "absolves" Prop 13 of any "blame" that is to be had re: budget crisis. Shouldn't we also be considering what Prop 13 does to revenue during deflationary times as well? After all, that's really where the rubber meets the road in our current situation.

I couldn't help but think of this as an analogy to a renting situation:

Say you have a renter in your house and the agreement is that you have to justify any rent increases with documentation of associated increases in costs, but you're only allowed to assess those costs on a specific schedule; not whenever the costs rise. However, in the same agreement, you have to re-asses his rent if those costs go down; no schedule involved. So basically it becomes much easier to lower his rent than it does to raise his rent to cover expenses accordingly. And his rent goes up and you start to depend on this income. Until, of course, the market falls out and he gets to justify a significant rent decrease. But you're still on the hook for the expenditures you incurred when times were good. And to make matters even worse for you, those expenditures you had when times were good weren't even your inventions - they were decided for you by the neighborhood who gets to spend your money without having to worry about where you're going to come up with it.

IMHO, Prop13 shares as much of the "blame" for this as our legislative process does. We have a system that allows money to be spent relatively unchecked but coming up with money to cover spending requires an act of god. That's a recipe for disaster.

We have a system that allows money to be spent relatively unchecked but coming up with money to cover spending requires an act of god. That's a recipe for disaster.

No.

The latter saves us from the former.........

Where has CA peed all the money away, and shouldn't that be the focus rather than Prop 13?

Yes.

But the system doesn't want to change, so coming back to the trough is the only answer for them.....

No.

The latter saves us from the former.........So why are we in the mess we're in now? If it "saved" us from the former, the former wouldn't be able to request mandate funding using funds that didn't (don't) exist.

So why are we in the mess we're in now? If it "saved" us from the former, the former wouldn't be able to request mandate funding using funds that didn't (don't) exist.

I misspoke......

Hopefully, running out of money, and credit, will finally force the state to reduce their spending.

But, then again.... I'm an optimist.......

It's obvious I knew that

No, it wasn't. Someone posts a pic of a fat man in a conversation about fat men including pics of other fat men, and you pretend like they are bringing up the thin man.

Intentional misunderstandings are not good conversational practice.

Prop 13 isn't the "devil" but it's certainly not free from blame. I don't get how listing the revenue that was created during inflationary periods somehow "absolves" Prop 13 of any "blame" that is to be had re: budget crisis. Shouldn't we also be considering what Prop 13 does to revenue during deflationary times as well? After all, that's really where the rubber meets the road in our current situation.


So the fact that CA's revenue went up faster than inflation, and faster than the population, is meaningless, because they spent it and more, and now they're collecting less than they did in hyper-inflation times, but still more than inflation would have dictated?

Again.... people completely discount what the effect would have been to allow property taxes to completely mirror CA's meteoric real estate price increases. As they were before prop 13, retirees would have been forced from their homes. Renters would have had their rents increased. All to give Sacramento more money to waste?

Prop 13 allows increases every year.

Just not the outrageous increases politicians would like.

So the fact that CA's revenue went up faster than inflation, and faster than the population, is meaningless, because they spent it and more, and now they're collecting less than they did in hyper-inflation times, but still more than inflation would have dictated? It's not meaningless - I never said that. But it doesn't remove Prop 13 from the list of puzzle pieces that form our current situation, either.

Again.... people completely discount what the effect would have been to allow property taxes to completely mirror CA's meteoric real estate price increases. As they were before prop 13, retirees would have been forced from their homes. Renters would have had their rents increased. All to give Sacramento more money to waste? I'm a homeowner, so I love Prop 13 from that perspective. But I'm also willing to admit that there might be "costs" associated with its implementation that we're realizing now. Just saying that I think that Prop 13 shares equal blame with our legislative process doesn't mean I'm saying that other things aren't significant factors too.

Prop 13 allows increases every year.

Just not the outrageous increases politicians would like.The increases are throttled though, but the decreases aren't (AFAIK.) So like my analogy, it's much easier to lower the property taxes than it is to raise them. And I think that's a good thing all by itself. But combine it with an electorate that gets to effectievly make spending decisions without having to worry about funding them, and I like I said, it's a recipe for our current situation.

Elmer wrote:

"A lie repeated often enough....."


you mean like the ....... ..

"Fair and Balanced" network ?

Please speak speak Megan McCain, our beloved country needs some young (no offense

Elmer) and fresh ideas.

Elmer wrote:

"A lie repeated often enough....."


you mean like the ....... ..

"Fair and Balanced" network ?

Please speak speak Megan McCain, our beloved country needs some young (no offense

Elmer) and fresh ideas .

Like what? What do you have in mind? Let's hear your unique thoughts... Seriously...

I'll assume you mean "epithet" rather than "epitaph";Yes.

I chose the phrase ('pseudo-intellectual argument') carefully, as the Prop 13 blame is one I've heard repeatedly from people I otherwise consider quite intelligent. But it comes with no facts; actually it's you (making the accusation that we need to trace everything to 13's passage) that needs to prove a case.

I've stated that government revenue has gone up since 13's passage at a rate well over inflation+population growth. Are you disputing that? And, if you don't, then how can 13 possibly be to blame?Government revenue always does that, unless taxes are indexed to inflation or cut, but revenue didn't increase enough to meet California's appetite for government spending, unlike the case before Proposition 13.

Chris Reed of National Review? You need to cite somebody less biased or with better, less monotone, track record

do you ever have a thought of your own ?

or do you around messages boards and bandwagon other users ?

come on, think for yourself, take a chance?

All you do is parrot leftist catch phrases and talking points, and you accuse him?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Elmer wrote:

"A lie repeated often enough....."


you mean like the ....... ..

"Fair and Balanced" network ?

Please speak speak Megan McCain, our beloved country needs some young (no offense

Elmer) and fresh ideas.

I think Meghan McCain is a great spokesperson for the Republican party. She's young, female and honest. Exactly what we need. The party has been defined by old white dudes. We need fresh blood that has new ideas (not just "NO"), speaks openly about the party and is welcoming to women and minorities.

Every time I think that we hit bottom something happens and we sink lower. I know the GOP will bounce back but right now we're in free fall.

Government revenue always does that, unless taxes are indexed to inflation or cut, but revenue didn't increase enough to meet California's appetite for government spending, unlike the case before Proposition 13.

What rate would you like gov't to continue increasing at? Hint: if it's consistently over inflation and population growth, it's not sustainable.

Chris Reed of National Review? You need to cite somebody less biased or with better, less monotone, track record

Surely you wish to make a case against the numbers rather than the source? That's my main problem with most of the "Prop 13 is evil" arguments I hear -- they don't come with any numbers attached.

You yourself refer to "California's appetite for government spending" -- if revenues do keep increasing at healthy rates (as they have been), shouldn't this be where you look for your answers?

Adding to my short list above should be a few more items:

6) The effect of the hard spending cap (Gann Limit) in the late 70's, and its subsequent weakening in the late 80's
7) The effect of the dot com boom, which increased spending substantially in the government, and subsequent bust, which saw that many of the boom increases were locked in and thus could not be lowered.

Note that I don't discount riptide's conclusion above:

But it doesn't remove Prop 13 from the list of puzzle pieces that form our current situation, either.

I just consider the puzzle piece size Prop 13 represents to be very small. The answer is not that we don't pay enough in taxes (have you looked at CA sales tax historical rates?), and a case can be made that Prop 13 helped fuel the real estate booms in the 80's and 90's-00's, thus serving to mitigate or erase any negative impacts to government income.

Hmmmm..........

It's time to free the Democratic Party

Our central thesis was simple: The Democratic Party had been taken hostage by “social redistributionists,” the people who base their votes on such financial issues as cap and tax, the preservation of an excess of public sector union jobs, subsidies for the abortion industry, and the general funnelling of borrowered and taxed money away from successful entrepreneurs and business into the pockets of desired limitied chosen constituencies. Unless the Democrats freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.



This was an interesting thread.