Dems Apparently Fear Thompson

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: jman19
Pretty funny that PJ is constantly talking about the "fear" Thompson stirs up in others, yet there is rarely any discussion about what Thompson stands for. Some people are more interested in rooting for their "team" and spreading FUD than actually discussing issues, it seems...

It is that whole rabid extreme thing.

Both sides have nutjobs who think their party is the only one deserving to be in power. The whole idea of "may the best man win" has been thrown out the window and replaced by a balkanization that is only going to get worse before it gets better.

If it ever gets better.

Doesn't most polling show the electorate to be (roughly) broken into thirds - 1/3 dedicated Dems, 1/3 dedicated Repubs, and 1/3 unaffiliated moderates who generally decide elections?
Anyway, I have much more respect for the 'extremes' on both sides (even if I disagree with them) than I do for the mushy middle, who I find maddeningly inconsistent philosophically. They demand both low taxes from the Right and generous gov't benefits from the Left, and don't seem to much care that these demands are 'met' via deficits. One day they think the gov't can't tell women what to do with their bodies (abortion), and the next day think gov't CAN tell all of us what to do with our bodies (drug legalization). I will always respect someone with consistent principles (even if I disagree with some of these principles) more than anyone who just jumps from one position to the next, with no deeper basis.

I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: jman19
Pretty funny that PJ is constantly talking about the "fear" Thompson stirs up in others, yet there is rarely any discussion about what Thompson stands for. Some people are more interested in rooting for their "team" and spreading FUD than actually discussing issues, it seems...

It is that whole rabid extreme thing.

Both sides have nutjobs who think their party is the only one deserving to be in power. The whole idea of "may the best man win" has been thrown out the window and replaced by a balkanization that is only going to get worse before it gets better.

If it ever gets better.

Doesn't most polling show the electorate to be (roughly) broken into thirds - 1/3 dedicated Dems, 1/3 dedicated Repubs, and 1/3 unaffiliated moderates who generally decide elections?
Anyway, I have much more respect for the 'extremes' on both sides (even if I disagree with them) than I do for the mushy middle, who I find maddeningly inconsistent philosophically. They demand both low taxes from the Right and generous gov't benefits from the Left, and don't seem to much care that these demands are 'met' via deficits. One day they think the gov't can't tell women what to do with their bodies (abortion), and the next day think gov't CAN tell all of us what to do with our bodies (drug legalization). I will always respect someone with consistent principles (even if I disagree with some of these principles) more than anyone who just jumps from one position to the next, with no deeper basis.

I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I've heard one definition of freedom as being able to hold an unpopular opinion and walk the streets safely. It's one of the great advantages of living in a society like ours. There's nothing wrong with "extreme" (short of violence) views, as they help to prevent a society from becoming stagnant. The problem which can happen at times is people pick an idea and run with it. The idea then can become the ideal which all others must conform. When this happens you get what I call the Faithful, which will defend the idea as being one where there cannot be compromise, and will use the tactics they say they find abhorrent in others because the ends justify the means. It becomes permissible to become immoral in order to preserve morality. Twisted, but it happens. Fortunately there is a balance which tends to reel in extremes and adopt that which makes sense. It works, mostly.

 

[alchemize]

I think Fred would appeal to the "middle" because he's likable. So much on voting has to do with that, so little on political positions. Big reason why Bush beat Gore and Kerry, he's more likable.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: jman19
Pretty funny that PJ is constantly talking about the "fear" Thompson stirs up in others, yet there is rarely any discussion about what Thompson stands for. Some people are more interested in rooting for their "team" and spreading FUD than actually discussing issues, it seems...

It is that whole rabid extreme thing.

Both sides have nutjobs who think their party is the only one deserving to be in power. The whole idea of "may the best man win" has been thrown out the window and replaced by a balkanization that is only going to get worse before it gets better.

If it ever gets better.

Doesn't most polling show the electorate to be (roughly) broken into thirds - 1/3 dedicated Dems, 1/3 dedicated Repubs, and 1/3 unaffiliated moderates who generally decide elections?
Anyway, I have much more respect for the 'extremes' on both sides (even if I disagree with them) than I do for the mushy middle, who I find maddeningly inconsistent philosophically. They demand both low taxes from the Right and generous gov't benefits from the Left, and don't seem to much care that these demands are 'met' via deficits. One day they think the gov't can't tell women what to do with their bodies (abortion), and the next day think gov't CAN tell all of us what to do with our bodies (drug legalization). I will always respect someone with consistent principles (even if I disagree with some of these principles) more than anyone who just jumps from one position to the next, with no deeper basis.

I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I've heard one definition of freedom as being able to hold an unpopular opinion and walk the streets safely. It's one of the great advantages of living in a society like ours. There's nothing wrong with "extreme" (short of violence) views, as they help to prevent a society from becoming stagnant. The problem which can happen at times is people pick an idea and run with it. The idea then can become the ideal which all others must conform. When this happens you get what I call the Faithful, which will defend the idea as being one where there cannot be compromise, and will use the tactics they say they find abhorrent in others because the ends justify the means. It becomes permissible to become immoral in order to preserve morality. Twisted, but it happens. Fortunately there is a balance which tends to reel in extremes and adopt that which makes sense. It works, mostly.

I've heard freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I better see if I can get on his payroll before it's to late

LOL that is classic! You go PJ.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

It's simple, extremists believe the government is allowed to intervene in your personal life when doing so would suit their ideological goals. All other interventions outside their ideological scope are off limits.

It's basically a salad bar, they get to pick and choose when to apply the laws just like you would pick bacon bits over croûtons.

Edit - Abortion being legal is basically a equal protection argument, if abortion is legal in California but illegal in South Dakota, the women of SD are being discriminated against. That's why abortion is legal.

It's a little different than marijuana laws, the reason it's illegal is that it's classified as a tier 1 narcotic, meaning it's highly addictive and dangerous and cannot be prescribed even by a doctor.

In legal terms this means weed is as dangerous and addictive as cocaine and heroin.

Of course everyone knows this is a farce, you cannot die from a marijuana overdoes, nor is it physically addictive at all. It's psychologically addictive, just like a Snickers bar or Mint chocolate chip ice cream.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The right thinks what we need is another broken down actor, they're just yearningto have their old "glory days". Tmes have changed and the R's reputation precedes them.

Funny how last election the D's couldn't beat someone as bad as Bush and this election the R's can't come up with a canidate that has a chance. I don't think it matters who they nominate.

Have you actually listened to any of what Thompson has to say? The speeches I have heard seem to be very in tune with what I hear from people every day.

In tune with people? What people are these? Where do you reside? Is this the same "some people say" that FNC refers to all the time?

Here's the deal, the people that support Thompson are the same people that still support Bush, the 27% of the country that is the RNC base.

Go ahead and nominate him, it will be the biggest electoral defeat in the history of this country.

Thompson >>> Hillary >> Dog Poo >> Bush.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The right thinks what we need is another broken down actor, they're just yearningto have their old "glory days". Tmes have changed and the R's reputation precedes them.

Funny how last election the D's couldn't beat someone as bad as Bush and this election the R's can't come up with a canidate that has a chance. I don't think it matters who they nominate.

Have you actually listened to any of what Thompson has to say? The speeches I have heard seem to be very in tune with what I hear from people every day.

In tune with people? What people are these? Where do you reside? Is this the same "some people say" that FNC refers to all the time?

Here's the deal, the people that support Thompson are the same people that still support Bush, the 27% of the country that is the RNC base.

Go ahead and nominate him, it will be the biggest electoral defeat in the history of this country.

Thompson >>> Hillary >> Dog Poo >> Bush.

I think you have Bush ranked too high.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

Correction, Marijuana is an addictive HABIT that uncontrolled can allow a person to choose to ruin their life, while abortion ruins a life before it gets a chance to make it's own choices.

See? Perspective is everything.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

Correction, Marijuana is an addictive HABIT that uncontrolled can allow a person to choose to ruin their life, while abortion ruins a life before it gets a chance to make it's own choices.

See? Perspective is everything.

That depends on how you see embryos.

 

[Corn]

Welcome back CsG!!!!!!

Wow, it feels like 2002 all over again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

Correction, Marijuana is an addictive HABIT that uncontrolled can allow a person to choose to ruin their life, while abortion ruins a life before it gets a chance to make it's own choices.

See? Perspective is everything.

That depends on how you see embryos.

Perspective is everything

 

[alchemize]

Marijuana isn't addictive, but I digress

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Marijuana isn't addictive, but I digress

Correct, and that's why I had to correct our freind. Just because something becomes a destructive habit doesn't mean that something is addictive or "bad".


Corn, It's only been 2 years(almost to the day).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Edit - Abortion being legal is basically a equal protection argument, if abortion is legal in California but illegal in South Dakota, the women of SD are being discriminated against. That's why abortion is legal.

:laugh: You actually think that's what the equal protection clause of the Constitution means!?!

"A sign of intelligence is an awareness of one's own ignorance." - Unknown

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

Correction, Marijuana is an addictive HABIT that uncontrolled can allow a person to choose to ruin their life, while abortion ruins a life before it gets a chance to make it's own choices.

See? Perspective is everything.

Thanks CAD, and welcome back.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Marijuana is an addictive drug that can and will ruin millions of lives, while abortion isn't?

Credit cards have ruined lives too. Can I ban them?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Marijuana isn't addictive, but I digress

Pot is not physically addictive, however, it is mentally addictive. And dumbya is as likeable as a 6 week old egg salad sandwich left in a baggie in the late july florida sun.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: alchemize
Marijuana isn't addictive, but I digress

Pot is not physically addictive, however, it is mentally addictive. And dumbya is as likeable as a 6 week old egg salad sandwich left in a baggie in the late july florida sun.

I don't subscribe to "mental addiction" - there really is no such thing.

If there was, well we should outlaw sex, and doritos, and WoW, and Anandtech Forums!

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I have found the opposite to be true. The people on the extreme are usually the ones who are intellectually bankrupt and have no ability to think rationally for themselves.

The "mushy middle" tends to be full of people who hold varying opinions based on a given situation. In other words they are flexible and think things through to arrive at their positions rather than using a one size fits all approach to their politics.

Personally I have no issue with someone being anti abortion but pro death penalty. It may seem to be an ironic stance.....until you look into it. Most people I know who are anti abortion are so because they believe it is being used as a form of birth control by irresponsible individuals. Most of them believe that if someone is going to be sexually active they should take precautions in order to avoid pregnancy. If they do become pregnant they tend to believe the people involved should either take responsibility for their actions or put the baby up for adoption. You know...that whole idea of personal responsibility that seems to be about as common as UFO's these days. Most also have no problem with an abortion being performed in the case of a medical need. Again...those people are reasonable and not the zealots who think abortion was wrong even if a woman was raped by an AIDS infected crack addict and who if she delivers will die for some reason. Like I said...they lack flexibility.

I don't find anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions to be inherently inconsistent, so we have no disagreement there, but I've never heard a good explanation from a pro-choicer about why the gov't can't ban abortion but can ban marijuana. Yet there are tons of these people, especially in the middle. (As a disclaimer, I'm about as clean-living as they come, so I have no personal investment in the drug legalization debate, but I also don't believe from a philosophical perspective that it's the gov't business either.)

Another gripe I have with some of the 'flexibility' of the middle regards Constitutional interpretation. Lots of strict constructionists out there on certain amendments, like the First, but then on the Second, or Enumerated Powers, not so much! Grrr!! Make up your mind, people! Same with economic issues - gov't spending is bad, unless it benefits me or my interest group. There's no underlying principle behind it, just a determination on whether one is benefited or not. You see 'flexibility', but I see 'unprincipled self-interest', which will only doom us all.

I see, so you would rather blindly apply rules across the board rather than consider what should and shouldn't be?

Your argument about the legality of MJ and abortion is flawed as well - it assumes that our government legislates fairly and equally, which it certainly doesn't (although in theory it should...).

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ayabe
Edit - Abortion being legal is basically a equal protection argument, if abortion is legal in California but illegal in South Dakota, the women of SD are being discriminated against. That's why abortion is legal.

:laugh: You actually think that's what the equal protection clause of the Constitution means!?!

"A sign of intelligence is an awareness of one's own ignorance." - Unknown

Yep poor choice of words, due process would be more correct. Both are part of the 14th amendment.

However my example still holds, because if say abortions were legal in CA but illegal in SD, this would discriminate against poor people in who might not have the means to travel to CA. That was what I was getting at.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jman19
I see, so you would rather blindly apply rules across the board rather than consider what should and shouldn't be?

Just looking for strawmen? I merely requested consistency in government - a pipe dream perhaps, to be sure. And I believe our founding fathers also believed the gov't should be of laws, not men.

Your argument about the legality of MJ and abortion is flawed as well - it assumes that our government legislates fairly and equally, which it certainly doesn't (although in theory it should...).

I assumed nothing - certainly not fairness and equality in legislation.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jman19
I see, so you would rather blindly apply rules across the board rather than consider what should and shouldn't be?

Just looking for strawmen? I merely requested consistency in government - a pipe dream perhaps, to be sure. And I believe our founding fathers also believed the gov't should be of laws, not men.

Your argument about the legality of MJ and abortion is flawed as well - it assumes that our government legislates fairly and equally, which it certainly doesn't (although in theory it should...).

I assumed nothing - certainly not fairness and equality in legislation.

Consistency is *not* always a good thing. Rules and laws are important, but I don't believe the human element was ever intended to be removed from government, unless by "men" you are referring to emotion over reason.

As for the second point - then why would you ever expect your argument to be practical?