Bush does not govern by the polls. He pays very little attention to them and does what he believes is the right thing, popularity be damned.
It is an admirable trait.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Well, we should legislate what the vast majority of the country agrees is moral or rather immoral. Murder, theft, rape, etc… should be illegal. I think things with a huge amount of controversy are best left to the states and private citizens, particularly when it’s a huge stretch to try to apply the constitution to the issues.
EXACTLY, PRECISELY!!! THANK YOU!!!
(Why do so many people not understand this)??
99.9% of the population agrees that murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. should be illegal. Case closed. 51% or so of the population believes that the woman should have the right to choose when it comes to the issue of abortion. What don’t these pro-life nuts understand regarding the idea of not being able to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION and outlaw something when at LEAST half the population of the country would disagree, many of them VEHMENTLY, with that? You can’t and shouldn’t do it!! AGAIN: let God sort 'em out!
If 51% of the country voted to enslave 49% of the country would that be acceptable? Let God sort out who is right and who is wrong!
When you say the “right to choose” what you really mean is the right to kill the fetus/baby developing inside the woman.
I hate the term “right to choose”. Abortion is such a morally repugant thing even its most vehement supporters try to hide what it is.
I do not think we should make abortion illegal but I do believe it should be a last resort.[/quote]
Zap, I think it’s pretty morally repugnant too, and I wouldn’t have the heart to want to have any offspring of mine, accidental or not, aborted. I’d probably never get over the guilt.
BUT, at LEAST half the population thinks it should be up to the woman. No one is TELLING women to have abortions. If they DO, it’s between them and their God, if they so believe. Also, some people view “life” as beginning at conception, some view it as beginning at birth, and some view it as officially beginning somewhere in between. People are never going to agree on when exactly “life” begins – it’s a judgement call. And again, since you’re never going to get an overwhelming majority to agree with you, just do the whole damn country a favor and DON’T HAVE ONE if you don’t like the idea!
A slight majority (at least) believes it should be kept legal. Can you try to convince them otherwise so that the majority is someday on your side? Sure; be my guest. But to try to vote in politicians who will try to outlaw it (NOW) and/or appoint judges who will try to outlaw it (NOW), when there’s NO overwhelming majority in the country agreeing with that (actually, a slight majority is AGAINST outlawing it) is assanine and tremendously harmful to this nation as a whole.
SO much shit is twisted and spun around that one damn issue in this country. It’s a litmus test for freaking EVERYTHING, and it’s such a damn non-issue because, given the stance of the population, the obvious position, by default, is to leave it up to the woman to decide. But NOOOOOOOOOOO, SOME people have to go and force their own “morally superior” views down EVERYONE else’s throats and fuck up all of politics in this country. You want to run for your party’s nomination for such-and-such a seat? “What’s your opinion on abortion? Ehhhh!! Wrong answer! Next!” You want to be nominated as a federal judge? “What’s your opinion on abortion? Ehhhh! Wrong answer!” E-FUCKING-NUFF ALREADY!!! The nation as plenty of issues that are INFINATELY more important facing it right now, yet people who might be meteorically capable of dealing fantastically well with THOSE problems will never make it into office because SOMEONE doesn’t think they’re morally sufficient on their abortion stance. LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE!!!
(And I don’t even like the idea of abortions! Rant over).
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And the polls are not popularity contests. Your president lives his life and makes his policy according to them, so maybe you should give them more credit.[/quote]
No - that would have been Clinton. Hardly my President.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush does not govern by the polls. He pays very little attention to them and does what he believes is the right thing, popularity be damned.
It is an admirable trait.[/quote]
I have to agree with the Democrat here, unfortunately. This Administration is as cravenly political as the rest. What do you think the prescription drug handout was about?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I know I sound like some kind of employee of McCain in '08, but he is the leading person standing up to the Administration on torture. Of course, Cheney and the Pentagon are fighting him tooth and nail on the simple issue of applying uniform standards to interrogation, and a Bush veto (when was the last time we saw one of those?) is even threatened:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/169cyftd.asp
A couple of importants point to note:
1.Reviewing even the most cursory history of these incidents, it’s apparent that confusion and lack of training–more than premeditated malice or moral failing–have been the determining factors in the misconduct of American soldiers.
2.NOT SO, says the Pentagon, which in its prosecution of the soldiers, argues that they should have been aware of the methods codified in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52) and used these standards to guide their treatment of detainees.
So, how exactly can you blame bush for any torture?
[/quote]
“Confusion and lack of training” account for water boarding, breaking arms and legs with metal bats, and more than a handful of deaths in detention? Come on.
And the Pentagon is prosecuting soldiers for breaking the regulations in FM 34-52? Then why is the same Pentagon adamantly against making those regulations uniform? Does this make any sense?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I have to agree with the Democrat here, unfortunately. This Administration is as cravenly political as the rest. What do you think the prescription drug handout was about?[/quote]
The prescription drug card was an attempt to steal an issue from the dem’s table. I think that if you look at the popularity contests about the PDC, you would find that it has NEVER been popular.
Being “cravenly political” does not require the administation to constantly have a finger in the air to check the direction of the latest breeze. Just because Clinton did it doesn’t mean that everyone else does too.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I have to agree with the Democrat here, unfortunately. This Administration is as cravenly political as the rest. What do you think the prescription drug handout was about?
The prescription drug card was an attempt to steal an issue from the dem’s table. I think that if you look at the popularity contests about the PDC, you would find that it has NEVER been popular.
Being “cravenly political” does not require the administation to constantly have a finger in the air to check the direction of the latest breeze. Just because Clinton did it doesn’t mean that everyone else does too.
[/quote]
Why would republicans steal something from Democrats all of a sudden? So, let me get this straight, if anyone questions republican action and it stands as blatantly “political”, you blame it on Democrats anyway? Where do you all buy your street drugs and have you considered changing local?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Like I said, everyone should keep their damn noses out of other people’s business and let God sort 'em out. I’m quite sure that he will.
Funny, sometimes those that claim to have so much faith aren’t willing to let God be our judge…
Wasn’t there something about “judge not”?
Prof X wrote:
That is how I feel about it. I don’t understand those that want to force laws based on religion. The religion isn’t supposed to based in offensive force at all.
So should we do away with all public morality laws?
Which ones should we keep, if any?
I am curious.[/quote]
No, those that 99.9% of the population agree with (like the laws outlawing murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.) are laws that should be kept. Those that an overwhelming majority WOULDN’T agree with (as a matter of fact, only a minority WOULD agree with), such as one outlawing a woman’s right to choose an abortion, should NOT be implemented. The “morality” in this case is clearly NOT widely agreed upon, hence . . . NO LAW.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would republicans steal something from Democrats all of a sudden? So, let me get this straight, if anyone questions republican action and it stands as blatantly “political”, you blame it on Democrats anyway? Where do you all buy your street drugs and have you considered changing local?[/quote]
Niced try, profX - but I’m not playing the tangent game today. If you know anything about G-Dub’ time as Texas Governor, you would know that he was a master at co-opting issues from the other side, and taking care of them himself. It is more to kick a leg out from under the left’s table than it is anything else.
And no - I wasn’t blaming the dems for anything. I was was just trying to make the point that Bush co-opted another idea from the left and thereby taking one more issue off the table. I hate the PDC, but you can’t blame the left for that goat screw.
If you had read all of what you qoted in your last post you would have seen that I was arguing not against the dems, but against the accusation that Bush is beholden to the polls.
It ahs nothing to do with my choice of pharmaceutical dispensing points.
Damici, as others have said this is not the place to get into an abortion debate.
My main point is I hate the pro-choice term. I feel the term “choice” is warm and fuzzy and influences peoples attitudes to be more receptive to abortion.
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.[/quote]
What is it? “Pro Abortion”? The name isn’t why anyone is against there being a law dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body. We could call it “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” and I would STILL be against there being a law like that.
Zap,
I agree that this is not the place to get into that debate. We’ve hijacked the thread a bit. And I agree with Prof. X that, no matter what you want to call it, it shouldnt’ be outlawed. But most of all I’m ever-increasingly pissed that those who want to outlaw it have managed to make it into a litmus test that supercedes ALL, thereby preventing potentially great leaders who would deal better with the REALLY important issues facing us than the bozos currently in power, from ever getting into power. It fucking infuriates me.
And now, back to our originally scheduled programming . . .
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.
What is it? “Pro Abortion”? The name isn’t why anyone is against there being a law dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body. We could call it “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” and I would STILL be against there being a law like that.[/quote]
I would still favor keeping it legal too, but with your term I suspect there would be fewer people getting pregnant at 16 and fewer abortions.
I vote we go with your term. It would make a good bumper sticker too.
“Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.
What is it? “Pro Abortion”? The name isn’t why anyone is against there being a law dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body. We could call it “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” and I would STILL be against there being a law like that.[/quote]
A woman does have the right to choose. She has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. After that it is the responsibility of society to protect the life that cannot protect itself. “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” is exactly what it is. She should not have the right to terminate a life because it’s inconvenient. Abortion is the same thing as killing people in mental hospitals because they are an inconvience.
I can hear it now, “Life dosen’t begin at conception”. What makes us who we are? Our DNA, right? At conception we have all of the DNA that we will ever have. At conception, it is determined what color eye’s we’ll have, how tall we will be, whether or not we’ll go bald. If you argue that that is not a life, then you are in denial.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
“Confusion and lack of training” account for water boarding, breaking arms and legs with metal bats, and more than a handful of deaths in detention? Come on.
And the Pentagon is prosecuting soldiers for breaking the regulations in FM 34-52? Then why is the same Pentagon adamantly against making those regulations uniform? Does this make any sense?[/quote]
What they are opposed to is, “that it is not Congress’s place to be arbiter of the rules for treatment of detainees”. And that does make sense.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici, as others have said this is not the place to get into an abortion debate.
My main point is I hate the pro-choice term. I feel the term “choice” is warm and fuzzy and influences peoples attitudes to be more receptive to abortion.
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.[/quote]
Excellent point, and to add to that, there has been a shift in support for the Pro-Choice movement. With the advances in sonogram technology and the ability to produce these images through mass media, more and more people have become more sensitive to the reality of the human life in there.
As a matter of this thread’s relevance, abortion rights are the most important thing that shifts me to the Republican side. The reason it is so important is because of the ripple effect we have on our society by allowing the killing of innocent human beings. Outlawing abortion would be wrong, but limiting it to ONLY life-threatening situations is necessary. I have a self-defense mentality on Abortion. I believe every person should have the right to defend themselves, and if there is a life inside of you that is killing you, then you should have the right to defend yourself.
Liberals claim to be “forward” thinkers, but what in the hell is “forward” about killing the innocent for any reason you see fit?
For this reason, and a few other minor reason, I will remain a registered Republican. Just because the Bush administration has made mistakes, doesn’t make me want to disown the Republican Party.
Get a spine.
(not directed at anyone in particular)
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we called it what it is I suspect more and more people would be against abortion.
What is it? “Pro Abortion”? The name isn’t why anyone is against there being a law dictating what a woman can or can’t do with her own body. We could call it “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” and I would STILL be against there being a law like that.
A woman does have the right to choose. She has the right to choose whether or not to have sex. After that it is the responsibility of society to protect the life that cannot protect itself. “Pro rip the fetus out because you had sex at the age of 16, you dumb bitch, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for it” is exactly what it is. She should not have the right to terminate a life because it’s inconvenient. Abortion is the same thing as killing people in mental hospitals because they are an inconvience.
I can hear it now, “Life dosen’t begin at conception”. What makes us who we are? Our DNA, right? At conception we have all of the DNA that we will ever have. At conception, it is determined what color eye’s we’ll have, how tall we will be, whether or not we’ll go bald. If you argue that that is not a life, then you are in denial.
[/quote]
Reddog, EVERYTHING you just said illustrates my whole freaking point. YOU feel that way about the issue. YOU feel that it’s the same as killing people in mental hospitals. YOU think it’s terminating a life. YOU think that life begins at conception. I – yes me – might even agree with you. But AT LEAST FIFTY-ONE PERCENT OF THE FREAKING POPULATION DOESN’T!! Therefore: NO LAW OUTLAWING IT!!
If 90-something percent, or maybe even 80 percent, of the population agreed with you, that would be one thing. But they don’t. As a matter of fact, more people in this country DISagree with you than agree with you. Therefore, it is not your right, or anyone else’s, to force YOUR view of things down everyone else’s throats. (And I essentially agree with your thinking on the heart of the issue)!
The massive PROBLEM that this staunch “let’s-outlaw-abortion” stance creates, as I mentioned, is that it prevents the BEST, MOST CAPABLE people, who could very ably deal with the REALLY IMPORTANT issues facing the nation (national security, war, terrorism, economy, dependence on oil, etc.) from being allowed to govern. And I’m SO fucking sick of it!!!
LET – GOD – SORT – THEM – OUT. IT’S – NOT – YOUR – LIFE/ISSUE/PROBLEM.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The GOP hasn’t been the same since Clinton did the end-run on Gingrich on the government shutdown back in the late 90s – remember “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas” Time cover? THe political lesson the party took from that led directly to “compassionate conservatism”, which essentially meant abandoning fiscal restraint on the spending side of the ledger, especially any attempts to cut back on government entitlement spending.
Essentially true fiscal conservatives don’t have a choice anymore – well, that’s overstating it. You have the choice between Republicans supporting massive spending programs (Medicaid Drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, etc.) and Democrats critical of the programs for not spending enough.
This isn’t true of the whole party of course – but it seems to be the way the President and the leadership see things. I just hope the fiscal conservatives can regain some power.[/quote]
Don’t you mean ‘starve the beast’?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ramo wrote:
ZEB: Two questions…
Do you believe in our two-party system?
Yes and no…
What is your opinion of those who are unable to consider alternative viewpoints in anything more than an utterly superficial manner before summarily dismissing them?
Just curious…
I would say welcome to Internet debate.
[/quote]
‘yes’ because if the Democrats are in power he wants an alternative and ‘no’ now that the Republicans are in power.
‘welcome to the Internet debate’ = I will use intellectual dishonesty whenever my position is busted.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Reddog, EVERYTHING you just said illustrates my whole freaking point. YOU feel that way about the issue. YOU feel that it’s the same as killing people in mental hospitals. YOU think it’s terminating a life. YOU think that life begins at conception. I – yes me – might even agree with you. But AT LEAST FIFTY-ONE PERCENT OF THE FREAKING POPULATION DOESN’T!! Therefore: NO LAW OUTLAWING IT!!
If 90-something percent, or maybe even 80 percent, of the population agreed with you, that would be one thing. But they don’t. As a matter of fact, more people in this country DISagree with you than agree with you. Therefore, it is not your right, or anyone else’s, to force YOUR view of things down everyone else’s throats. (And I essentially agree with your thinking on the heart of the issue)!
The massive PROBLEM that this staunch “let’s-outlaw-abortion” stance creates, as I mentioned, is that it prevents the BEST, MOST CAPABLE people, who could very ably deal with the REALLY IMPORTANT issues facing the nation (national security, war, terrorism, economy, dependence on oil, etc.) from being allowed to govern. And I’m SO fucking sick of it!!!
LET – GOD – SORT – THEM – OUT. IT’S – NOT – YOUR – LIFE/ISSUE/PROBLEM.[/quote]
I agree completely. This world isn’t fopr us to force everyone to be Christians and act like one. Most Christians don’t even act like one.