Wow, I really don't like McCain but I have to admit he is not a gun grabber. I despise his positions on campaign finance, immigration and willingness to sell out his own party to grab center stage as exemplified in the judicial nomination process. At least though he has a positive 2A track record, not perfect in some people's minds but certainly positive. I can vote for him unlike Rudy who would have had me voting for the Libertarians.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another One Bites the Dust... CNN reporting Romney is out
- Thread starter Unregistered
- Start date
Wow, I really don't like McCain but I have to admit he is not a gun grabber. I despise his positions on campaign finance, immigration and willingness to sell out his own party to grab center stage as exemplified in the judicial nomination process. At least though he has a positive 2A track record, not perfect in some people's minds but certainly positive. I can vote for him unlike Rudy who would have had me voting for the Libertarians.
The Huckabee comment is a bit overblown. He was talking about abortion and gay marriage. He isn't the first to discuss the amendments, won't be the last and presidents can't just write it in. There's been quite a few amendments to the constitution, I guess everyone that supported them are unconstitutional?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Ummm...did you miss the part where he specifically says...Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars.
I guess you did.what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards
So it is okay to enforce his religious beliefs on the rest of the country as long as it deals with these subjects...or is it okay all the time to base political and legal decisions on what the bible says regardless of the will of the populace?The Huckabee comment is a bit overblown. He was talking about abortion and gay marriage.
I must have misunderstood the part of that states "Of the people, by the people, for the people..."
22-rimfire
New member
There is quite a lot of support for both an amendment defining marriage between a male and female, and an amendment defining the rights of the unborn which would equate intentionally taking the life of a human fetus as murder with some exceptions. The question has always been at what age of development. And that is "Of the people, by the people, for the people...". I am not normally a single issue voter, but basic beliefs by a presidential candidate on 2A rights comes about as close as it gets to forcing me into a single issue candidate choice. Rights of the unborn and marriage are secondary in terms of criteria I use to evaluate a candidate. If you are politically active, part of my criteria in making a choice is this person someone who I could get along with or would I just avoid confrontation entirely because their belief system is entirely alien to mine.??
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
right... his book of mythology should be used to amend the COTUS. God wrote it (according to some) so we should just make certain it goes into the COTUS regardless of the impact it has on the lives of people other than ourselves.
I notice those who are most religious and seeking power always seem to want to legislate OTHER people's behavior.
I don't give a fig if Bob wants to marry Larry. I don't care if Joe wishes to marry Jen and Kate. These are adults, let them do as they want. Why do any of you care what your neighbor decides to call a marriage? Is your holy book going to turn to dust if two gay men are married with the same rights to insurance, social security benefits, inheritance, quality of life decisions for spouses or hospital visitation rights as you and your wife? Is there one real reason to oppose any form of consensual adult family unit aside from some ingrained religious proscription?
Then we get to abortion, again a religiously driven issue. While I think abortion is generally the last resort used by those who are irresponsible and it generally should not be considered a good option I see no reason to limit a first trimester and possibly (depending on the science on brain development) second trimester abortion. At the same time those women who usually decide to have an abortion and can do so safely now that they are legal are also usually those who were most unsuitable to raise a child to begin with... hence the plummeting crime rates in the starting one generation after Roe vs. Wade (which could be confirmed as the dominating cause since the crime rates began to drop years earlier in those states where abortion was legalized prior to Roe vs. Wade and by the same amount of years early as the number of years abortion had been legalized there prior to Roe vs. Wade.) No politician though, even pro-choice, is going to claim support for abortion because it actually decreases crime. By allowing those most unfit to raise children (the demographic most likely to have children who will grow up to be violent criminals) to abort them the large explosion of violent crime expected to peak in the 90s was literally aborted. Mind you, the well to do always had access to safe, albeit illegal, abortions but again their parenting demographic is also not the one contributing to violent crime. So should we still outlaw abortion now that we know, although no politician will admit to it, that the reason for the drop in violent crime was the criminals were never born?
Big left turn
Wow, this thread took a big left turn! If we want to keep it open, we may want to steer back to the original focus of the thread. Just a suggestion.
Here is my $.02 on VP. I think Huckabee is in it to win the nomination, but also knows he isn't hurting his chances at VP either. I would really be surprised if McCain asks Romney, I am pretty sure they don't care much for each other. As it has been said, Lieberman would only add more leftist credentials to McCain and not the conservative issues he needs support on.
Lg_mouth
Wow, this thread took a big left turn! If we want to keep it open, we may want to steer back to the original focus of the thread. Just a suggestion.
Here is my $.02 on VP. I think Huckabee is in it to win the nomination, but also knows he isn't hurting his chances at VP either. I would really be surprised if McCain asks Romney, I am pretty sure they don't care much for each other. As it has been said, Lieberman would only add more leftist credentials to McCain and not the conservative issues he needs support on.
Lg_mouth
So should we still outlaw abortion now that we know, although no politician will admit to it, that the reason for the drop in violent crime was the criminals were never born?
You bring up great arguments. Perhaps there are many people including myself that believe their tax dollars shouldn't pay for them. Our local paper decided to chronicle the story of a 15 year old black girl who is pregnant. They compared the various top candidate in this years election to see who would give her the most support. But sadly any reference to personal responsibility hasn't been referenced as of yet. I like the ideal of Liberty and Freedom to make your own mistakes and the responsibility to live with your choices. Many of these problems stem from poor parenting. Since I've been referred to as an Elitist, I guess I am. My kids go to a private school where we find many involved parents. We play basketball with some public schools who have the nicest facilities but way less dedication and support from the parents. Yes, I pay thousands in real estate taxes to buy these fancy gyms and I pay even more to not use them by sending my kids to private schools.
Back to topic: I'm happy to support RP thru the primaries. I'm happy he's still in the race and am glad to see Romney drop out and unfortunately he didn't drop before super tuesday, where Huckabee and RP could have grabbed many more delegates.
You bring up great arguments. Perhaps there are many people including myself that believe their tax dollars shouldn't pay for them.
I agree, nobody should be forced to pay for another in that sense, even if it is a crime reduction. At the same time there are enough fanatical Pro-Lifers out there that I am certain some sort of charitable organization could step in to assist using VOLUNTARY donations, not tax money taken at gunpoint.
Back to topic, which I so widely departed. I am glad to see Paul at least still around. Again, I never thought he would get the nod but I at least want what he says and stands for to be heard.
22-rimfire
New member
I feel the same way about the tax dollar support mentioned above. Maybe they should make adoption more easily obtainable in this country. Right now, it is a very expensive and I feel that money spent dealing with a buracracy is just pissing the money down the drain and not applying it to things that matter.
Interesting argument about crime Musketeer. No politician would ever say this publically, but I believe what you say is essentially true. I have said similar things in the past. Future success of a child (rich or poor) often reflects their intelligence and their ability to apply that intelligence in a practical way. Simply saying that their life not important because of race, the neighborhood they live in, financial assets of the parents, pier pressure, or their bloodline is a cop out. The responsibility lies with the individual ultimately. But the parent(s) have a great deal to responsibility to control and influence that development at pre-teen ages.
I hope Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are in the presidential race until the convention. I want them to be able to express their ideas, potentially influcence the party platform, and participate. Neither likely will gain the nomination as it stands now barring some major slip up by McCain.
Added: I have no problem assigning legal rights to some sort of civil union status regarding tax status, social security, pensions, inheritance, possibly insurance, medical decisions, and similar kinds of things. Things change as society changes. Change in this emotional area is likely to happen also regardless of what the Bible or Koran says. There really is a separation of Church and State in this country even though the framers of the Constitution used essentially Christian principles in writing the document.
Interesting argument about crime Musketeer. No politician would ever say this publically, but I believe what you say is essentially true. I have said similar things in the past. Future success of a child (rich or poor) often reflects their intelligence and their ability to apply that intelligence in a practical way. Simply saying that their life not important because of race, the neighborhood they live in, financial assets of the parents, pier pressure, or their bloodline is a cop out. The responsibility lies with the individual ultimately. But the parent(s) have a great deal to responsibility to control and influence that development at pre-teen ages.
I hope Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are in the presidential race until the convention. I want them to be able to express their ideas, potentially influcence the party platform, and participate. Neither likely will gain the nomination as it stands now barring some major slip up by McCain.
Added: I have no problem assigning legal rights to some sort of civil union status regarding tax status, social security, pensions, inheritance, possibly insurance, medical decisions, and similar kinds of things. Things change as society changes. Change in this emotional area is likely to happen also regardless of what the Bible or Koran says. There really is a separation of Church and State in this country even though the framers of the Constitution used essentially Christian principles in writing the document.
Abortion is not a religious driven issue. I consider it a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and abortion is murder.
Regarding the supposed "drop" in the crime rate after Roe became the law of the land, a big factor in the crime rate over the last 15-20 years has been the high rate of illegtimacy-50% for blacks, 25-30% for whites, Hispanics somewhere in the middle. Recall an article in the New York Times on what it's
like inner city schools, they cited a high school in Manhattan (this was 4-5
years ago) where they said in one year ONE THIRD of the 16 year old girls gave birth. Visit a juvenile detention center or a prison, ask the inmate how
many of them had married parents or even knew their fathers. Even the older
inmates find the younger ones wild, vicuious-"feral" is the word most often used.
Regarding the supposed "drop" in the crime rate after Roe became the law of the land, a big factor in the crime rate over the last 15-20 years has been the high rate of illegtimacy-50% for blacks, 25-30% for whites, Hispanics somewhere in the middle. Recall an article in the New York Times on what it's
like inner city schools, they cited a high school in Manhattan (this was 4-5
years ago) where they said in one year ONE THIRD of the 16 year old girls gave birth. Visit a juvenile detention center or a prison, ask the inmate how
many of them had married parents or even knew their fathers. Even the older
inmates find the younger ones wild, vicuious-"feral" is the word most often used.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I can't share that opinion since I find it hard to find anything that does not even have a brain or a nervous system a sentient living creature. However, I do not agree with abortion (and never after the first trimester) . Partially because I think it is cruel and partly because I think it perpetuates a lack of personal responsibility. These people made the mistake of getting pregnant and should not be offered a tax-payer funded way out with no repercusions whatsoever.I consider it a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and abortion is murder.
I will add that I have been appalled by what passes as sexual education in public school systems these days. Especially since the current administration took over and started pushing the total failure of a system know as "abstinence only" programs. I cringe every time I see those govt sponsored ads on TV telling kids to "wait until marriage" to have sex. Talk about a wste of money. I guess their is a reason the teen pregnancy rate just went up for the first time in 16 years.
Find a religion which supports it.Abortion is not a religious driven issue.
I consider it a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and abortion is murder.
Debatable and the majority of scientific opinion is against you. If an adult who has no higher brain functions can be considered dead then why not a fetus without higher brain functions? There really is no debating that in the first trimester.
Exactly my point. While illegal, safe abortions were effectively out of reach of the black and lower income communities. They continued to have children they were completely unprepared for and they knew it. Yes it is a failing in responsibility to get pregnant (and for the guy as well) but that doesn't solve the problem that now you have some completely unsuitable parent who has no choice but to bring a kid into the worst demographic when it comes to raising a violent criminal. One generation after given the option of abortion though the violent crime rate dropped like a rock.Regarding the supposed "drop" in the crime rate after Roe became the law of the land, a big factor in the crime rate over the last 15-20 years has been the high rate of illegtimacy-50% for blacks, 25-30% for whites, Hispanics somewhere in the middle. Recall an article in the New York Times on what it's
like inner city schools, they cited a high school in Manhattan (this was 4-5
years ago) where they said in one year ONE THIRD of the 16 year old girls gave birth. Visit a juvenile detention center or a prison, ask the inmate how
many of them had married parents or even knew their fathers. Even the older
inmates find the younger ones wild, vicuious-"feral" is the word most often used.
It is no surprise what the demographic is that contributes the most violent criminals and that demographic is the largest contributor with or without abortion (check the numbers). What changed was that the demographic was having FEWER children who were destined to become criminals (statistically speaking). Yes, they are still the worst but at least there are a hell of a lot less than there would have been!
As far as abortion, sorry but that is a joke. The bottom line is well to do white couples in stable relationships are generally not interested in adopting black crack babies. Yes, you will find some loving souls up to the task, but not anywhere near the numbers needed to solve the problem that exists and would grow larger should abortion be banned. Why do you think white couples spend thousands to get white babies from Eastern Europe or even Asain babies rather than volunteer to tack some black crackheads's child? I am not saying its right, and yes, there is some level of racism in it. I am saying it is what it is and claiming otherwise is like fooling only yourself.
A few points in no specific order.
Penny wise pound foolish.
Refusing to support public finding of abortion means that you'll pay the much higher cost of childbirth and removing the mother from the labor market and putting her in the social safety net.
Personal responsibility has become a buzzword an excuse to avoid social responsibility. The result is high taxes and a diminished culture.
Among other reasons, social responsibility exists to save the individual money.
Religion and abortion.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions were completely tolerant of abortion until relatively recently.
It wasn't until the early to mid-1800's that abortion became stigmatized. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that abortion was outlawed in the United States.
Today all religions are divided on the issue of abortion, just as the general population is.
Given the evidence that Old Testament priests performed abortions, an Abrahamic justification to oppose abortions is tenuous.
Science for sciences sake.
The largest scientific organization that deals directly with abortion is the AMA. That organization does not consider life to begin at conception and it doesn't consider abortion to be murder.
Ironically one of the main groups that lobbied to make abortion illegal was the early medical profession. Some more cynically minded people suggest that they were just trying to get rid of competition from mid-wives.
So you say you're anti-abortion.
Another of life's little ironies is that in those nations where women have the greatest access to women's sexual health care, including abortion, the lower the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies. The less women have access to woman's health services, including abortion, the higher the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies.
Now that's not the irony. The irony is that the same people that are most vocally against abortion are also amongst the most vocal against allowing women unfettered access to woman's sexual health services.
In effect they are promoting abortion.
That they tend to be against sex education and birth control, is just frosting on the irony cake.
So whose got the time.
One of the reasons I support abortion being a decision made solely by the woman and her doctor is because having the government set arbitrary limits is a recipe for dead women.
The vast majority of late term abortions directly deal with the health of the mother or because the fetus is non-viable.
Having people who don't have medical degree and who often have a political motive decide that abortions shouldn't happen after a certain trimester or that a certain procedure is just too icky, is simply medieval.
Penny wise pound foolish.
Refusing to support public finding of abortion means that you'll pay the much higher cost of childbirth and removing the mother from the labor market and putting her in the social safety net.
Personal responsibility has become a buzzword an excuse to avoid social responsibility. The result is high taxes and a diminished culture.
Among other reasons, social responsibility exists to save the individual money.
Religion and abortion.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions were completely tolerant of abortion until relatively recently.
It wasn't until the early to mid-1800's that abortion became stigmatized. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that abortion was outlawed in the United States.
Today all religions are divided on the issue of abortion, just as the general population is.
Given the evidence that Old Testament priests performed abortions, an Abrahamic justification to oppose abortions is tenuous.
Science for sciences sake.
The largest scientific organization that deals directly with abortion is the AMA. That organization does not consider life to begin at conception and it doesn't consider abortion to be murder.
Ironically one of the main groups that lobbied to make abortion illegal was the early medical profession. Some more cynically minded people suggest that they were just trying to get rid of competition from mid-wives.
So you say you're anti-abortion.
Another of life's little ironies is that in those nations where women have the greatest access to women's sexual health care, including abortion, the lower the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies. The less women have access to woman's health services, including abortion, the higher the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies.
Now that's not the irony. The irony is that the same people that are most vocally against abortion are also amongst the most vocal against allowing women unfettered access to woman's sexual health services.
In effect they are promoting abortion.
That they tend to be against sex education and birth control, is just frosting on the irony cake.
So whose got the time.
One of the reasons I support abortion being a decision made solely by the woman and her doctor is because having the government set arbitrary limits is a recipe for dead women.
The vast majority of late term abortions directly deal with the health of the mother or because the fetus is non-viable.
Having people who don't have medical degree and who often have a political motive decide that abortions shouldn't happen after a certain trimester or that a certain procedure is just too icky, is simply medieval.
Last edited:
Penny wise pound foolish.
Refusing to support public finding of abortion means that you'll pay the much higher cost of childbirth and removing the mother from the labor market and putting her in the social safety net.
Personal responsibility has become a buzzword an excuse to avoid social responsibility. The result is high taxes and a diminished culture.
Among other reasons, social responsibility exists to save the individual money.
I understand what you are saying but disagree to some extent. Sorry but "Social Responsibility" has become the buzzword for "Lack of Personal Responsibility." You have it backwards. Nobody should be forced to pay for the elective procedure of another (even lifesaving is debatable since they should have planned ahead as I have). Abortion is certainly elective.
If you feel so strongly that those who don't have the modicum of responsibility to use a condom should have their abortion paid for then you do it. Let charity handle it. Guess what? Even I would contribute to that as long as those receiving the abortions are truly too poor to afford them. I do this not to save the careless mother the trouble of raising the child but because I feel it important enough to avoid having to deal with the criminal consequences. The difference between my view and yours though is that I think people should have the OPTION of giving charity, not having it forced from them under the threat of federal prosecution.
Gov't not only should stay out of legislating abortions, they should stay away from paying for them.
"How can people that put so much value on the constitution vote for Huckabee? A man that has stated that the constitution needs to be changed to reflect the word of god. He wants to completely ignore seperation of church and state and have a "faith based" constitution."
I don't worry too much because the constitution is difficult to change in that it requires 4/5ths of the states to ratify a new amendment. I don't think one could get 40 states to pass either a marriage or anti abortion amendment. He still isn't my first choice but Huck is ahead of McCain and Hillary for me.
I don't worry too much because the constitution is difficult to change in that it requires 4/5ths of the states to ratify a new amendment. I don't think one could get 40 states to pass either a marriage or anti abortion amendment. He still isn't my first choice but Huck is ahead of McCain and Hillary for me.
I'm not sure what you misunderstood but he did say "we" not "me". Using that logic one could say that those who believed that supporting equal rights for women and blacks by amending the Constitution to reflect God's standard were unconstitutional too.Ummm...did you miss the part where he specifically says...
Quote:
what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards
I guess you did.
Quote:
The Huckabee comment is a bit overblown. He was talking about abortion and gay marriage.
So it is okay to enforce his religious beliefs on the rest of the country as long as it deals with these subjects...or is it okay all the time to base political and legal decisions on what the bible says regardless of the will of the populace?
I must have misunderstood the part of that states "Of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Karl Marx would be proud of you but it stands in stark contrast to what made the US great. One could use your argument for euthanasia as well. Too old or incapable to be a contributing member of the collective? Sorry, your time is up.Refusing to support public finding of abortion means that you'll pay the much higher cost of childbirth and removing the mother from the labor market and putting her in the social safety net.
Personal responsibility has become a buzzword an excuse to avoid social responsibility. The result is high taxes and a diminished culture. Among other reasons, social responsibility exists to save the individual money.
Would you care to support that pile of bovine excrement? I can show you writings from 2,000+ years ago where Christian church leaders condemned this pagan practice, including what is translated as "exposure".Religion and abortion.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions were completely tolerant of abortion until relatively recently.
It wasn't until the early to mid-1800's that abortion became stigmatized. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that abortion was outlawed in the United States.
Today all religions are divided on the issue of abortion, just as the general population is.
Given the evidence that Old Testament priests performed abortions, an Abrahamic justification to oppose abortions is tenuous.
The baby was left at the side of the road, exposed to the elements. Hopefully to be picked up by someone. I haven't read specifically about the OT Jewish priests but given that they believed God knew you in the womb and their strict law of conduct against murder, (let alone a priest!)it would be hard to believe. Did you just make it up or read that somewhere?
You have a gift for the obvious but since when did the AMA or any group decide national moral values?Science for sciences sake.
The largest scientific organization that deals directly with abortion is the AMA. That organization does not consider life to begin at conception and it doesn't consider abortion to be murder.
Odd how you marry it with 'sexual health care' but your conclusion is based on a personal bias one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. I'm skeptical of your "facts" anyway.So you say you're anti-abortion.
Another of life's little ironies is that in those nations where women have the greatest access to women's sexual health care, including abortion, the lower the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies. The less women have access to woman's health services, including abortion, the higher the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies.
The irony is that you use the term abortion interchangeably with sexual health care, sex ed and probably mom's apple pie.Now that's not the irony. The irony is that the same people that are most vocally against abortion are also amongst the most vocal against allowing women unfettered access to woman's sexual health services.
In effect they are promoting abortion.
That they tend to be against sex education and birth control, is just frosting on the irony cake.
So whose got the time.
One of the reasons I support abortion being a decision made solely by the woman and her doctor is because having the government set arbitrary limits is a recipe for dead women.
The vast majority of late term abortions directly deal with the health of the mother or because the fetus is non-viable.
Having people who don't have medical degree and who often have a political motive decide that abortions shouldn't happen after a certain trimester or that a certain procedure is just too icky, is simply medieval.