Sad time for America... Repugs pull it together!

Sigh... I am equally disgusted with people who would approve of abortions at any stage regardless.

Saying, "Why aren't you disgusted with this..." doesn't really matter. Neither of the parties are even close to what I believe and refuse to listen to any compromise.
 
Damocles said:
Sigh... I am equally disgusted with people who would approve of abortions at any stage regardless.

Saying, "Why aren't you disgusted with this..." doesn't really matter. Neither of the parties are even close to what I believe and refuse to listen to any compromise.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of ANYONE who approves of such abortions regardless. All the Democrats ever wanted was to give the woman the choice when it was her own life on the line.
 
Jarod said:
I have never heard of ANYONE who approves of such abortions regardless. All the Democrats ever wanted was to give the woman the choice when it was her own life on the line.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. You are being deliberately ignorant pretending such people don't exist. The Ds and Rs are both equally far from my opinion on this one and both refuse to listen to compromise.

It seems either we must allow them (even if just "to save her life" which for many it is not), or we must make them illegal and no other option is available to their limited minds.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. You are being deliberately ignorant pretending such people don't exist. The Ds and Rs are both equally far from my opinion on this one and both refuse to listen to compromise.

It seems either we must allow them (even if just "to save her life" which for many it is not), or we must make them illegal and no other option is available to their limited minds.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it seems to me the democrats said, years ago when President Clinton was in office... that they supported the bill if it were modified to include a provision for the life of the mother.

I know of nobody who supports that procedure unless it involves the life of the mother.
 
Cypress said:
Broadly speaking, I have to agree.

Most folks I've talked to who are self-identified Liberatarians are obssessed with economic issues. More accurately, they are economic Libertarians. And that's where there priorities lie. Not in social libertarianism.

Just visit the CATO website homepage. CATO is reputed to be the leading libertarian think tank, and they are obssessed with government spending, taxes, and budget issues.

On FP.com I think there were a few anti-choice, and pro-death penalty "libertarians".
Click to expand...

You are not speaking broadly, but very narrowly.

Again, neither of these issues speak to whether one is socially conservative or liberal. Socially partisan Democrat or socially partisan Republican, maybe, but those are not nearly the same thing.

I am pro-choice, although I don't have a problem limiting late term abortions at the state level (the federal PBA was horrible), and have mixed feelings on the death penalty. Anyone who argues the court should find the dp unconstitutional is in favor of legislating from the bench. It is a matter for state legislatures alone.

Cato does tend to focus on economics, but that is where the fed govt has interfered the most. They are a policy org that deals with the fed govt. But they have also been vocal on the war and on SC cases, where their positions are far removed from the positions of most social conservatives.

Cato is not the LP or libertarianism. Check Reason. They talk about social issues frequently.
 
Jarod said:
I have never heard of ANYONE who approves of such abortions regardless. All the Democrats ever wanted was to give the woman the choice when it was her own life on the line.
Click to expand...

No, it was health of the mother. It was purposefully vague.
 
RStringfield said:
You are not speaking broadly, but very narrowly.

Again, neither of these issues speak to whether one is socially conservative or liberal. Socially partisan Democrat or socially partisan Republican, maybe, but those are not nearly the same thing.

I am pro-choice, although I don't have a problem limiting late term abortions at the state level (the federal PBA was horrible), and have mixed feelings on the death penalty. Anyone who argues the court should find the dp unconstitutional is in favor of legislating from the bench. It is a matter for state legislatures alone.

Cato does tend to focus on economics, but that is where the fed govt has interfered the most. They are a policy org that deals with the fed govt. But they have also been vocal on the war and on SC cases, where their positions are far removed from the positions of most social conservatives.

Cato is not the LP or libertarianism. Check Reason. They talk about social issues frequently.
Click to expand...

Cato does tend to focus on economics, but that is where the fed govt has interfered the most. They are a policy org that deals with the fed govt.

Habeus Corpus has just effectively been suspended by Bush and the republicans.

Yet, not one word about this egregious assault on civil liberties, or the U.S. constitution on CATO's homepage, or on its "latest news" link.


Saving $20 on your taxes, is more important than the Bill of Rights?
 
Cypress said:
Cato does tend to focus on economics, but that is where the fed govt has interfered the most. They are a policy org that deals with the fed govt.

Habeus Corpus has just effectively been suspended by Bush and the republicans.

Yet, not one word about this egregious assault on civil liberties, or the U.S. constitution on CATO's homepage, or on its "latest news" link.


Saving $20 on your taxes, is more important than the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...
Right. All I had to do was go to their webpage and right on the front links to a poll about that law... and that was without even looking for articles on it.

http://www.lp.org/poll.shtml
 
Cypress said:
Cato does tend to focus on economics, but that is where the fed govt has interfered the most. They are a policy org that deals with the fed govt.

Habeus Corpus has just effectively been suspended by Bush and the republicans.

Yet, not one word about this egregious assault on civil liberties, or the U.S. constitution on CATO's homepage, or on its "latest news" link.


Saving $20 on your taxes, is more important than the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

Not one word... http://tinyurl.com/y8wuh8

There are several links to constitutional matters on the homepage.
 
RStringfield said:
Uhh, you are talking about Cato (and only Cato) in your "broadly speaking" way on libertarians.
Click to expand...

I can only go on what you guys tell me. Libertarians on this board and elsewhere, hold out CATO as the premier think tank for libertarian policy and thought.

I notice that CATO is ferocious on economic policy, but relatively quiet on social and civil liberties. Habeus corpus just got revoked, and CATOs homepage appears to be silent.
 
But I do salute those libertarians who are just as ferocious about defending social and civil liberties, as they do economic freedoms. CATO doesn't seem to be on board here.

I liked that Badnarik guy. He was a consistent defender of all liberties.
 
It's been revoked and they have been talking about it for quite some time. They've covered most of the cases concerning detainees. Look at the link searching the site.
 
Cypress said:
I can only go on what you guys tell me. Libertarians on this board and elsewhere, hold out CATO as the premier think tank for libertarian policy and thought.

I notice that CATO is ferocious on economic policy, but relatively quiet on social and civil liberties. Habeus corpus just got revoked, and CATOs homepage appears to be silent.
Click to expand...
When have I ever done this?
 
Jarod said:
I disagree, it seems to me the democrats said, years ago when President Clinton was in office... that they supported the bill if it were modified to include a provision for the life of the mother.

I know of nobody who supports that procedure unless it involves the life of the mother.
Click to expand...
Once again, "for the life" is still different than any proposed compromise. It is either "allow" or "do not allow" for these two parties there is no in between.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, "for the life" is still different than any proposed compromise. It is either "allow" or "do not allow" for these two parties there is no in between.
Click to expand...

You are WRONG. I know it does not happen often, but you are. Ill do some looking when I have more time later today but I distinctly remember President Clinton calling for banning this procedure but threatining to veto the ban unless it provided for an exception for the life of the woman... something the Republicans were unwilling to do, but exactly what I belived should happen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top