Conservatives and War

You statement is flawed. Had she chosen to abort it during the late term it would have suffered no more than it did being born. It lacked that area of the brain that gives us suffering. That being said, how dare you deny her her right to give birth and hold what was left of the child she carried for 9 months. If it gave her closure, then who the fuck are we to judge. This is what being pro-choice is all about. I am not going to force a woman to abort her anencephalic "child" anymore than I am going to force her to carry it to term. That is between her, her doctor and her god. Let me not judge a person till I have walked a mile in their moccasins.

We, as a society, deny many people the "right" to cause children to suffer. We do not know if that particular brain could or could not feel pain. Is it not the base, known as the reptilian brain, that feels stimulus?

Causing pain for a child, defined universally as a born human being, is not a matter between her or her God. It is a matter for society.

As to the definition of "child" census forms do not include fetuses/embryos or any other non-born entity. Once that "entity" leaves the woman's body it is a child and it deserves the protection we would afford any other human being and saying closure is sufficient reason for it to suffer is absurd.
 
On gay marriage and late term abortion you are right, the majority of america does not approve of either. But the question is; is marriage a right or privilege? Better yet, is the ability to enter into a contract a right or privilege? I am not going to argue late term abortion because I really do think reasonable people can disagree, and because late term abortions are even rarer than abortions based on life or health of the mother and anomalies with the fetus. But the right of two adults regardless of gender to enter into a contract for the purposes of unifying their lives is a right, we let two men enter into all sorts of contracts that unify a great deal of their lives. We need to get away from the States recognizing marriage and call all of them civil unions, and allow churches to solemnize them according to their dictates and rules and call them whatever they want. The state has no business recognizing what is otherwise a solemnized religious institution, nor do they have the right to nullify a civil union between anyone.

I happen to agree with you on civil unions, but that was not what my rebuttal was addressing. It was articulated that the "right" is out of touch with mainstream America because they don't support gay marriage and partial birth abortion, and that is a false assertion. It is the DEMOCRATS who are out of touch with "mainstream" views on these issues, not Republicans.
 
I happen to agree with you on civil unions, but that was not what my rebuttal was addressing. It was articulated that the "right" is out of touch with mainstream America because they don't support gay marriage and partial birth abortion, and that is a false assertion. It is the DEMOCRATS who are out of touch with "mainstream" views on these issues, not Republicans.

Once, again, the point flies by you. Mainstream America and the Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do. That is the difference.

Looking at gay marriage logically thinking people know it does not interfere with their life. They may not like gays. They may even find the lifestyle abhorrent but someone else's choice does not interfere in their life. So, when asked if they support it, they say , "No". They are not going to go out and demonstrate for gays. At the same time they are not going to demonstrate against them either.

That is the difference between the Repubs and the Dems and it's called "freedom". It's about letting people live their life their way even if we don't approve.

And here's a tip. With the internet and instant news people are being exposed to all different lifestyles. What does that mean? It means people will become more and more accepting.

What else does it mean? It means the Repubs better get their sh!t together or they'll end up in the history books.
 
From abortion to gay rights the conservatives keep growing further and further away from the general population. It can best be explained by saying the liberals represent the people whereas the conservatives insist on ruling the people.

That is what you originally said, and what I responded to. Now you come back with...

"Mainstream America and the Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do. That is the difference."

No "may not" about it, mainstream America, nearly 80% of mainstream America, is OPPOSED to gay marriage and partial birth abortion. It is REPUBLICANS who are on the side of MAINSTREAM, and Democrats who side with the other 20%, and seek to implement their view through judicial activists on the bench who RULE things into law AGAINST the will of 80% of mainstream America.
 
That is what you originally said, and what I responded to. Now you come back with...

"Mainstream America and the Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do. That is the difference."

No "may not" about it, mainstream America, nearly 80% of mainstream America, is OPPOSED to gay marriage and partial birth abortion. It is REPUBLICANS who are on the side of MAINSTREAM, and Democrats who side with the other 20%, and seek to implement their view through judicial activists on the bench who RULE things into law AGAINST the will of 80% of mainstream America.

If mainstream America felt strongly enough about those things they wouldn't have voted for Obama. Mainstream folks believe in freedom. There are things they may never do themselves but they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do.

It's the "they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do" philosophy that is mainstream. Abortion and gay marriage does not interfere in the lives of those not directly involved so while people may personally not agree with them their belief in freedom is stronger than their objection to them.

It goes way past individual issues. It's the concept of freedom. Just because some folks don't approve of something as long as it doesn't directly affect them then they mind their own business.

Most main stream Americans believe in freedom and mind their own business and the Dems agree with that. That is being in touch. That is representing the people. It is a belief system that governs all issues.
 
If mainstream America felt strongly enough about those things they wouldn't have voted for Obama. Mainstream folks believe in freedom. There are things they may never do themselves but they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do.

Uhm... Obama and Biden both said they opposed gay marriage and supported traditional marriage. Neither advocated partial birth abortion during the campaign. Indeed, mainstream folks believe in freedom, not federal judges ruling law into existence from the bench. Freedom means we ALL get to have a voice in the matter, not TOLD what to do by a judge!

It's the "they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do" philosophy that is mainstream. Abortion and gay marriage does not interfere in the lives of those not directly involved so while people may personally not agree with them their belief in freedom is stronger than their objection to them.

Again, most people do indeed believe in FREEDOM, not judicial tyranny!

It goes way past individual issues. It's the concept of freedom. Just because some folks don't approve of something as long as it doesn't directly affect them then they mind their own business.

Again, FREEEEEDOM!! Think about that! I am advocating a straight up or down democratic vote by the FREE people in a FREE election, and I will accept what the FREE people decide, either way! It is DEMOCRATS who oppose this, and seek to appoint liberal judges to the bench, who will rule by judicial fiat, OVERRIDING the FREE WILL of the people!

Most main stream Americans believe in freedom and mind their own business and the Dems agree with that. That is being in touch. That is representing the people. It is a belief system that governs all issues.

No, if they believed in FREEDOM they would allow people to decide, not activist judges. Democrats simply DON'T believe in the will of the people to decide these issues. And we've already established, the overwhelming majority of mainstream America does NOT favor gay marriage or partial birth abortion! In fact, the overwhelming majority has passed anti-gay-marriage initiatives across the country, in some of the most BLUE states in the union, and the LIBERAL activist judges have overturned the will of the voters!

It is the DEMOCRATS who support this judicial activism and usurping of our freedom to decide for ourselves. Have I tried to force my viewpoint on you or anyone else? NOPE! I have said unequivocally, I support a straight up or down vote by the people, whichever way they decide, I will live with that! How much more welcoming of FREEDOM can I be than that?
 
Once, again, the point flies by you. Mainstream America and the Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do. That is the difference....
That's because Democrats have no sense of commitment. *shrug*
 
Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do.

Yeah, imagine that? Republican politicians fighting for something 80% of mainstream America wants.... HOW DARE THEY!

I don't know what could possibly posses them to do such a thing, do you?
 
Yeah, imagine that? Republican politicians fighting for something 80% of mainstream America wants.... HOW DARE THEY!

I don't know what could possibly posses them to do such a thing, do you?
Democrats are sheep, Republicans are shepherds. *shrug*
 
All this talk of judicial tyranny. I notice that it primarily comes from the political side of the aisle that lost issues like school segregation. The majority of people in America on both sides of the Mason Dixon didn't support desegregation and when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown, that is when we first started hearing about "judicial tyranny." For some reason too many people forget that RIGHTS are not subject to popular vote or even popular support. My bet is the majority of people in the US did not support the things said by the Nazi Party in Skokie IL., but just because the majority does not like the speech of someone, doesn't mean they can stifle it. The purpose of the courts in a representative democracy is to protect the rights of the minority to protect against what Madison talks about in Federalist 10 when he says "A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party." We are NOT a pure democracy. Sometimes minority groups rights are protected to the chagrin of the majority. That is the way our country is SUPPOSED to work. When you don't like it, you call it judicial tyranny.
 
All this talk of judicial tyranny. I notice that it primarily comes from the political side of the aisle that lost issues like school segregation. The majority of people in America on both sides of the Mason Dixon didn't support desegregation and when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown, that is when we first started hearing about "judicial tyranny." For some reason too many people forget that RIGHTS are not subject to popular vote or even popular support. My bet is the majority of people in the US did not support the things said by the Nazi Party in Skokie IL., but just because the majority does not like the speech of someone, doesn't mean they can stifle it. The purpose of the courts in a representative democracy is to protect the rights of the minority to protect against what Madison talks about in Federalist 10 when he says "A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party." We are NOT a pure democracy. Sometimes minority groups rights are protected to the chagrin of the majority. That is the way our country is SUPPOSED to work. When you don't like it, you call it judicial tyranny.

And who's rights are being violated in America now? In the 21st century, not decades ago? Gay people? Seems to me, gay people have the very same exact right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's what "marriage" is, you know? So this canard that gay people are being denied their rights, and equating their issue with civil rights, is patently dishonest and unfounded.
 
All this talk of judicial tyranny. I notice that it primarily comes from the political side of the aisle that lost issues like school segregation. The majority of people in America on both sides of the Mason Dixon didn't support desegregation and when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown, that is when we first started hearing about "judicial tyranny." For some reason too many people forget that RIGHTS are not subject to popular vote or even popular support. My bet is the majority of people in the US did not support the things said by the Nazi Party in Skokie IL., but just because the majority does not like the speech of someone, doesn't mean they can stifle it. The purpose of the courts in a representative democracy is to protect the rights of the minority to protect against what Madison talks about in Federalist 10 when he says "A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party." We are NOT a pure democracy. Sometimes minority groups rights are protected to the chagrin of the majority. That is the way our country is SUPPOSED to work. When you don't like it, you call it judicial tyranny.

Good post but I have never used that term, instead using "Judicial Activism" meaning judges who ignore the Constitution and usurp it to suit an alternate agenda.
 
And who's rights are being violated in America now? In the 21st century, not decades ago? Gay people? Seems to me, gay people have the very same exact right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's what "marriage" is, you know? So this canard that gay people are being denied their rights, and equating their issue with civil rights, is patently dishonest and unfounded.
Marriage isn't a right it's a privilege granted by the State to recognize the importance of a long tradition of marriage and family as the basic building block of a stable society. The State therefor grants a license; and gays are simply not qualified for that license, as a plumber is not qualified for an electrician's license.
 
Uhm... Obama and Biden both said they opposed gay marriage and supported traditional marriage. Neither advocated partial birth abortion during the campaign. Indeed, mainstream folks believe in freedom, not federal judges ruling law into existence from the bench. Freedom means we ALL get to have a voice in the matter, not TOLD what to do by a judge!

What, exactly, are you being told to do? Did someone say you had to marry a guy? Are abortions mandatory?

Judges are not ruling law into existence. They are getting rid of laws, ie: allowing freedom. It is their job to interpret law. If they come across a law they impinges on a person's freedom they strike it down as they should.

There are laws that prevent "the people" from making certain laws. That's the Constitution. Otherwise, democracy would be nothing more than mob rule.

Again, most people do indeed believe in FREEDOM, not judicial tyranny!

That's exactly what the judges are opposing, tyranny. They are preventing the people in power from telling everyone else what to do.

Again, FREEEEEDOM!! Think about that! I am advocating a straight up or down democratic vote by the FREE people in a FREE election, and I will accept what the FREE people decide, either way! It is DEMOCRATS who oppose this, and seek to appoint liberal judges to the bench, who will rule by judicial fiat, OVERRIDING the FREE WILL of the people!

The will of the people stops at the infringement of others rights. Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell others how to live if it is not interfering with your life? Why do you insist on the right to interfere in other people's lives? Why?

No, if they believed in FREEDOM they would allow people to decide, not activist judges. Democrats simply DON'T believe in the will of the people to decide these issues. And we've already established, the overwhelming majority of mainstream America does NOT favor gay marriage or partial birth abortion! In fact, the overwhelming majority has passed anti-gay-marriage initiatives across the country, in some of the most BLUE states in the union, and the LIBERAL activist judges have overturned the will of the voters!

If they believed in freedom they would allow the individual to decide and that's exactly what they are doing. Again, what business is it of yours if gays marry?

I think it was Lincoln who said something to the effect it doesn't take anything from my pocket or break my leg. Why do you care? What concern is it of yours? Why do you insist on interfering in other people's lives?

It is the DEMOCRATS who support this judicial activism and usurping of our freedom to decide for ourselves. Have I tried to force my viewpoint on you or anyone else? NOPE! I have said unequivocally, I support a straight up or down vote by the people, whichever way they decide, I will live with that! How much more welcoming of FREEDOM can I be than that?

It is you and folks like you who try to upsurp the freedom of people to decide for themselves. Why is a vote necessary? Why do we all have to agree on how a person lives?

Why are you concerned? What harm does it cause you? How does it interfere in your life?

Are we going to have an up or down vote on what people can have for dinner? Neither what my neighbor has for dinner nor who he sleeps with makes any difference to me. Well, unless he's sleeping with my wife then, sure, that might qualify as a concern of mine. Of if he BBQs Fido then his dinner becomes my concern but other than that what business is it of mine? Or yours? Or of anyone else?
 
Good post but I have never used that term, instead using "Judicial Activism" meaning judges who ignore the Constitution and usurp it to suit an alternate agenda.

either term actually applies. If you'd like to be more specific though, you could apply activism in cases where judges create rights where there are none, and tyranny could apply in cases where judges remove rights where there obviously is one.
 
Marriage isn't a right it's a privilege granted by the State to recognize the importance of a long tradition of marriage and family as the basic building block of a stable society. The State therefor grants a license; and gays are simply not qualified for that license, as a plumber is not qualified for an electrician's license.
Marriage is an institution created by the church and the state should not be in the marriage business. The state needs to issue civil union licenses that have no gender based inequality and let the churches issue marriage licenses, to whomever they choose.
 
either term actually applies. If you'd like to be more specific though, you could apply activism in cases where judges create rights where there are none, and tyranny could apply in cases where judges remove rights where there obviously is one.
I have a problem with both terms actually because I find they are still used by people who don't like specific court decisions. After Heller, we heard the left talking about right wing activist judges just like we hear the right talking about left wing activist judges after abortion decisions. What I want is a judiciary that enforces ALL the bill of rights. 1 through 10 without the constant left wing skipping of 2 and the right wing skipping of 9. The founders included the 9th so that people could not say that if a right was not enumerated it was not a right, the complaint you hear regularly about Privacy. I can't imagine that our founders thought that people did not have a right to privacy, a right to be left alone. Knowing what I know about them, they HAD to believe that there was a right to privacy. But to many people decry that right by saying it is not included in the bill of rights, which is a completely anti-consitutional view of the bill of rights, specifically the 9th Amendment.
 
Marriage is an institution created by the church and the state should not be in the marriage business. The state needs to issue civil union licenses that have no gender based inequality and let the churches issue marriage licenses, to whomever they choose.
Many States recognize their Christian founding and wouldn't do that.
 
Back
Top