I tend to lean to the right

[rudder]

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

That is why I won't touch the subject. First off, she is not performing the abortion on herself, someone is doing it on her child inside her body(state licensed medical practitioner), and there is debate at to at what point do rights begin for the unborn child. Nice try... but far from a comparison to slavery.

 

[nick1985]

To me, that is the single biggest problem with the current GOP. There are no strong ties that link them together. Can you give me one valid reason why these must happen?

If you want lower taxes, why must you be pro-life?
If you want pro-life, why must you be pro-NRA?
If you are pro-NRA, why must you be anti-gay rights?
If you are anti-gay rights, why must you be for a smaller federal government?
If you are for a smaller federal government, why must you be pro-military?
If you are pro-military, why must you be in favor of lower taxes?

Yet, the GOP essentially requires any politician to link ALL of the topics or be banished. The GOP gets its power, not from a group of united individuals, but instead from an iron fist controlling disparate groups. That tactic worked in the 1990s, but it cannot and will not work forever. The GOP really must fix that problem, or they will eventually fall apart.

To be fair, one could make a similar argument about the Democratic party.

 

[Atreus21]

To me, that is the single biggest problem with the current GOP. There are no strong ties that link them together. Can you give me one valid reason why these must happen?

If you want lower taxes, why must you be pro-life?
If you want pro-life, why must you be pro-NRA?
If you are pro-NRA, why must you be anti-gay rights?
If you are anti-gay rights, why must you be for a smaller federal government?
If you are for a smaller federal government, why must you be pro-military?
If you are pro-military, why must you be in favor of lower taxes?

Yet, the GOP essentially requires any politician to link ALL of the topics or be banished. The GOP gets its power, not from a group of united individuals, but instead from an iron fist controlling disparate groups. That tactic worked in the 1990s, but it cannot and will not work forever. The GOP really must fix that problem, or they will eventually fall apart.

It's just a compilation of principles. They need not be interconnected. The best republican, by republican standards, adheres to all of them. To the extent they don't is the extent to which they drift incrementally into democrat territory.

 

[dullard]

To be fair, one could make a similar argument about the Democratic party.

See my edit above (the last paragraph). The democrats have a far looser hold on their members. Plenty of democrats vote against the party on pretty much ANY issue. There is a pretty vast difference in the way the parties address their varied members.

With the GOP, you pretty much have to sign a document saying that you'll vote with them on all issues otherwise you won't get a dime in campaign funds.

With the Democrats, the diversity is encouraged.

The difference is almost like comparing the freedoms of a democracy to a dictatorship. Sure, both have varied members, but in one case, you are far freer to express your differences.

 

[cubby1223]

To me, that is the single biggest problem with the current GOP. There are no strong ties that link them together. Can you give me one valid reason why these must happen?

that's why the GOP is often called the party of principles, not the party of issues.


Now you can debate all you want on how you feel the GOP breaks all their principles all the time, but this is the general idea.

 

[cubby1223]

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

When a woman gets pregnant, she is now sharing her body. At what point does the baby gain the right to life?

Do we blanket say all living creatures always have the right to life? Or do we allow the government the power to decide when something has that right, and when something does not have the right to life?


Well, I guess we just handed over health care to the government, and we all know that it is impossible to provide full treatment to all people, so I suppose we already have expanded the federal government's power to decide who has a right to life and who doesn't.

 

[thraashman]

14th amendment gives slaves citizenship...

Perhaps my memory is fuzzy

It also guarantees equal rights and privileges to those who are citizens. Since we give benefits to married couples, denying gay people the right to marry denies them protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
We are a nation now, and states are a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name.

I guess thats the difference between you and I. I still believe in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name.
/Moonbeam

The Constitution is what the Supreme Coup says it is. On 2000 the rights of the states to decide how state law applies to it's own ballots went right out the window, with 5 conservatives out-voting four liberals to rule in favor of a fed decision over the state.

You believe in the Constitution just as far as it serves what you want. When it doesn't it's toilet paper.

 

[cubby1223]

It also guarantees equal rights and privileges to those who are citizens. Since we give benefits to married couples, denying gay people the right to marry denies them protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Gays have equal rights to marry just like the rest of us. A gay man can go out right now and marry a lesbian woman and receive every benefit offered by law.



Would you support a brother and sister having the right to marry? Two brothers? A father and a son? Just curious if you feel there should be any limitations on marriage, or open season for all.

 

[nonlnear]

You believe in the Constitution just as far as it serves what you want. When it doesn't it's toilet paper.

I agree. The sentiment I ascribed to you works wither way.

The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. Nothing more, and nothing less. As an empirical observation, that is an unassailable fact. It's only when people romanticize it as embodying certain virtues (which are always precisely those virtues which the speaker values!) that the imagined Constitution take son a life outside of SCOTUS. The irony is that the people who typically argue against it being viewed as a "living document" are doing the same thing they argue against, only they are in denial of the nature of their rhetoric. The fact that I happen to agree with a lot of the "right" readings of federalism doesn't give me the right to invoke the authority of a mythology over precedent. (That makes me somewhat of a curiosity among classical federalists.) Judicial traditions are what they are, and that's the battleground on which these wars are fought. Denying that is simply putting blinders on.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So do you also think that if a state wants to allow slavery of a specific race that that falls under states rights as well?

I'll just shake my head at this post. I know others have already answered it, so I won't beat a dead horse.

 

[nonlnear]

So do you also think that if a state wants to allow slavery of a specific race that that falls under states rights as well?

I'll just shake my head at this post. I know others have already answered it, so I won't beat a dead horse.

Well obviously blanghorst wants to revive slavery!

 

[Moonbeam]

When a woman gets pregnant, she is now sharing her body. At what point does the baby gain the right to life?

Do we blanket say all living creatures always have the right to life? Or do we allow the government the power to decide when something has that right, and when something does not have the right to life?


Well, I guess we just handed over health care to the government, and we all know that it is impossible to provide full treatment to all people, so I suppose we already have expanded the federal government's power to decide who has a right to life and who doesn't.

Yeah, we expanded health care so more folk will have a chance at life. We moved a bit to the left so more would have a chance to life.

Like the ancient Jews who said live was breath of a living baby, we do not extend that right to an amoeba who has the potential to become a life over the real and actual life of a woman whose body would be made an unwilling prisoner of an amoeba if she didn't have the right to decide if she wants to be such a prisoner. You can't create one absolute right if it destroys another absolute right when one right is for a being who has no real consciousness and the other one does. It is only a freak of evolution that we have two sexes and can't self will when we procreate. It is man's mental nature to free himself from the mechanics of his physical nature. It's called intelligence and free will.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well obviously blanghorst wants to revive slavery!

I just got my sarcasm meter back from the shop and it is working well!

For those without a sense of humor or working sarcasm meter, and as was mentioned earlier in this thread, see: 13th amendment and how the amendment process works.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree. The sentiment I ascribed to you works wither way.

The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. Nothing more, and nothing less. As an empirical observation, that is an unassailable fact. It's only when people romanticize it as embodying certain virtues (which are always precisely those virtues which the speaker values!) that the imagined Constitution take son a life outside of SCOTUS. The irony is that the people who typically argue against it being viewed as a "living document" are doing the same thing they argue against, only they are in denial of the nature of their rhetoric. The fact that I happen to agree with a lot of the "right" readings of federalism doesn't give me the right to invoke the authority of a mythology over precedent. (That makes me somewhat of a curiosity among classical federalists.) Judicial traditions are what they are, and that's the battleground on which these wars are fought. Denying that is simply putting blinders on.

Well that sounds about right to me but I can't really extend the discussion because I'm ignorant. I don't know what judicial traditions exist and I don't therefore know what a classical federalist is. Too bad my buddy LunarRay doesn't post much as he has interests in these matters and knows stuff.

I argued with him that judges interpret the law according to the law. I say they read the law according to emotional feelings and he says they have to put those aside and decide strictly on the law. Hehe, at least that's what I think he said. I am pretty sure what I said is what I believe. But it could be that because the sun is out after a nice rain I'm just feeling emotionally cheery.

 

[zsdersw]

Gays have equal rights to marry just like the rest of us. A gay man can go out right now and marry a lesbian woman and receive every benefit offered by law.

I've heard this argument before, and it's quite stupid, frankly. Would you marry a guy if that were the only legally recognized/incentivized way to do so?

The reason the government is involved with marriage at all is to incentivize ideal conditions. Ideal conditions that the government and society would have an interest in promoting do not exist only for heterosexual couples, but for homosexual couples as well. The ideal conditions for heterosexual couples are a man and woman, so as to create the best environment in which to have and raise children. Ideal conditions for homosexuals is a monogamous committed relationship so as to foster a good (though not ideal) environment for adopting or having children (surrogate mom or sperm-donating dad), but to also help reduce the spread of STDs.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just got my sarcasm meter back from the shop and it is working well!

For those without a sense of humor or working sarcasm meter, and as was mentioned earlier in this thread, see: 13th amendment and how the amendment process works.

Humor's fine, sarcasm meter on, but I ain't looking any shit up because, because, because, well I don't know. The sun is our and I'd rather think about what kind of tomatoes to plant.

 

[Hacp]

Again, its all about government intervention. You give the government power and they will dictate everything about your life. You want to collect your own rainwater to drink? You can't do that! You want to disconnect your house from the sewage system and rely on a well? You need to pay a tax! Burning your own garbage for heat and energy? Illegal! Less government, more freedom!

 

[Moonbeam]

I've heard this argument before, and it's quite stupid, frankly. Would you marry a guy if that were the only legally recognized/incentivized way to do so?

The reason the government is involved with marriage at all is to incentivize ideal conditions. Ideal conditions that the government and society would have an interest in promoting do not exist only for heterosexual couples, but for homosexual couples as well. The ideal conditions for heterosexual couples are a man and woman, so as to create the best environment in which to have and raise children. Ideal conditions for homosexuals is a monogamous committed relationship so as to foster a good (though not ideal) environment for adopting or having children (surrogate mom or sperm-donating dad), but to also help reduce the spread of STDs.

How about because it makes them fucking happy. I fucking want to live in a society where the only miserable assholes there are, are the folk who want to deny other people their rights. I want the exercise of those rights by married gays to be shoved right up their anally retentive asses. I got a gay agenda and it's poke a gay in every assholes eye.

But then I know it's useless because they're already blind.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Again, its all about government intervention. You give the government power and they will dictate everything about your life. You want to collect your own rainwater to drink? You can't do that! You want to disconnect your house from the sewage system and rely on a well? You need to pay a tax! Burning your own garbage for heat and energy? Illegal! Less government, more freedom!

What happened? Since when did so many Americans fear their own government? The government should be afraid of you, not the other way round.

 

[Moonbeam]

Again, its all about government intervention. You give the government power and they will dictate everything about your life. You want to collect your own rainwater to drink? You can't do that! You want to disconnect your house from the sewage system and rely on a well? You need to pay a tax! Burning your own garbage for heat and energy? Illegal! Less government, more freedom!

Yup the asshole who lives up wind of me burns a fire that fills my house with smoke because he says he's allergic to the dust a gas furness stirs up, the fucking pig. He has a right to burn that fire except on clean air days. I get clean air on dirty air days.

 

[Moonbeam]

What happened? Since when did so many Americans fear their own government? The government should be afraid of you, not the other way round.

We hate ourselves. We are the government and we should definitely be afraid.

 

[MotF Bane]

What happened? Since when did so many Americans fear their own government? The government should be afraid of you, not the other way round.

The government should be afraid, but they are not. Too much power, I guess.

 

[bamacre]

How many people in here disagree with the OP's sentiment, but also support the right of states like California to legalize marijuana?

 

[ElFenix]

Not allowing a woman to do with her body what she deems necessary and proper is a form of subjugating her against her will. Not allowing someone to have the protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment is in itself violating that amendment.

did you just equate one of the natural consequences of sex with slavery?