DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Diplomatic "talks" still continue during war. In other words, they go hand in glove with war.War occurs when diplomacy fails.
Diplomatic "talks" still continue during war. In other words, they go hand in glove with war.War occurs when diplomacy fails.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's because Democrats have no sense of commitment. *shrug*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....
Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do.
Democrats are sheep, Republicans are shepherds. *shrug*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?
If by "shepherds" you mean the dogs with teeth that use force to keep people in line then yes. If by "shepherds" you mean the passive guy with the walking stick that directs the dogs, then no.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.
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.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.
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!
Again, most people do indeed believe in FREEDOM, not judicial tyranny!
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!
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Many States recognize their Christian founding and wouldn't do that.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.