Still a Republican?

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL. Nah, I'm suggesting that we work the easy play first then tackle the harder issues. We've been working at this late-term abortion ban for decades and gotten nothing done. Do something, it is better than nothing.

I knew you'd attempt to make yourself look better rather than actually attempt to comprehend the post!

Was I advocating doing nothing?

You just can't even identify the evil mason within you, urging people to abandon core beliefs for watered-down, yet popular, half measures.

 

[no1tovote4]

Was I advocating doing nothing?

You just can't even identify the evil mason within you, urging people to abandon core beliefs for watered-down, yet popular, half measures.

There was nothing in my post that suggested abandoning other measures, only stressed working on the ones that will actually be successful rather than pursuing lip-service and actually doing nothing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There was nothing in my post that suggested abandoning other measures, only stressed working on the ones that will actually be successful rather than pursuing lip-service and actually doing nothing.

SO you're saying work on the ones that will be successful, and also work on the measures which may only be lip service? Or are you saying work on one and abandon the other? So it's a "shift focus of" not a an "abandonment". Be forewarned, a complete removal of focus is defacto abandonment.

 

[no1tovote4]

SO you're saying work on the ones that will be successful, and also work on the measures which may only be lip service? Or are you saying work on one and abandon the other? So it's a "shift focus of" not a an "abandonment". Be forewarned, a complete removal of focus is defacto abandonment.

I am saying..

In order to actually work on the issue, taking the first steps that will be clearly successful would be a nice start. Instead of attempting to make it look like we are working on the issue while passing laws that we know for a fact will be found unconstitutional. It isn't rocket science. Work towards both goals. It isn't either/or, it is do what can be done now while working hard towards larger goals.

I'm results oriented. When people consistently do nothing at all while talking a good game it pretty much tells me that they really don't want to actually do anything at all.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am saying..

In order to actually work on the issue, taking the first steps that will be clearly successful would be a nice start. Instead of attempting to make it look like we are working on the issue while passing laws that we know for a fact will be found unconstitutional. It isn't rocket science. Work towards both goals. It isn't either/or, it is do what can be done now while working hard towards larger goals.

So you're saying abandon "laws we know will be found unconstitutional". You are advocating abandonment. You're saying give cede certain ground. Stopping baby murder is not in the same realm as compromising a percentage point on the income tax or whatnot.

 

[no1tovote4]

So you're saying abandon "laws we know will be found unconstitutional". You are advocating abandonment. You're saying give cede certain ground. Stopping baby murder is not in the same realm as compromising a percentage point on the income tax or whatnot.

Rubbish. I am saying, get passed what we can now while we work toward a larger solution. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Instead of attempting to buy the Mercedes on a Janitor's salary, lets get the Hyundai now and then continue going to college so we can get the job where we can afford the Mercedes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Rubbish. I am saying, get passed what we can now while we work toward a larger solution. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Instead of attempting to buy the Mercedes on a Janitor's salary, lets get the Hyundai now and then continue going to college so we can get the job where we can afford the Mercedes.

No. You think it's your duty to "deradicalize" the party, so we can "get things done". Nobody wants your ned flanders-like middle way.

 

[no1tovote4]

No. You think it's your duty to "decradicalize" the party, so we can "get things done". Nobody wants your ned flanders-like middle way.

Once again, we can work on both. This isn't an Either/or situation.

Of course I advocate an entirely different solution than most, and realize that I am on the edge. However, were I in Congress I would work towards ending what I can while working towards ending it entirely rather than pretending I'm doing something with simple illusion to garner support from those who want soemthing done.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Once again, we can work on both. This isn't an Either/or situation.

Of course I advocate an entirely different solution than most, and realize that I am on the edge. However, were I in Congress I would work towards ending what I can while working towards ending it entirely rather than pretending I'm doing something with simple illusion to garner support from those who want soemthing done.

I don't know. I just kind of jumped in without really reading. What laws are you talking about?:tongue1:

I'll just slap myself. Oops. lol. psych.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know. I just kind of jumped in without really reading. What laws are you talking about?:tongue1:

I'll just slap myself. Oops. lol. psych.

LOL.

The latest Late-Term law brought out by Congress did not include the "life of the mother" clause that would make it constitutional. Those voting for it knew that it wouldn't pass muster yet lauded their victory so that the RR would jump on their bandwagon. This is moving for moving's sake, the magician showing you there is nothing up his sleeve, a distraction from the fact that nothing is actually getting done. It preserves the issue so that they can use it at a later date to get those same votes again.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL.

The latest Late-Term law brought out by Congress did not include the "life of the mother" clause that would make it constitutional. Those voting for it knew that it wouldn't pass muster yet lauded their victory so that the RR would jump on their bandwagon. This is moving for moving's sake, the magician showing you there is nothing up his sleeve, a distraction from the fact that nothing is actually getting done. It preserves the issue so that they can use it at a later date to get those same votes again.

Yeah. THat was fake out.

 

[Mr. P]

Stop pandering to the extremists on both sides and we can get back to what’s important for the whole Country. Both sides have lost their way because of them. The extremists are small in number IMO and will adapt or not vote, either way we all win.

 

[flaja]

I pay school taxes directly to the school district I live in. It's different in other states. The point is, the Federal government is not involved in taxation for public shools. It's done locally.

I don't get what is so hard to understand about it.

How does this practice, which is just tradition, show that the federal government has no role in public education?

 

[flaja]

I didn't say that I voted that way. I said I worked toward change...

Wouldn’t voting for a 3rd party, thus depriving the GOP of political power, be working for change?

I stated to work toward change, not to vote like a sheep. How you register and the actions you take can change the Party so that you can feel good about voting for it.

How so? How specifically could I vote and what specifically could I do to change the Republican Party? And at what point would you let me conclude that the Republican Party is not worth changing because it is not worth saving?

If you take no action and simply leave for one of those tiny parties you simply give up any voice you had in government and any power you had to effect the change and bring the party back to what you want to see.

How so? I thought every vote counts in this country even if it is a vote for someone who has not been anointed by Democrats or Republicans?

Last week Charlie Crist was elected governor of Florida. He won the GOP primary with something like 60% of the vote, but he got only 52% of the general election vote- and he still beat the Democrat by about 10 percentage points because alternative parties and candidates did better than is usual in a Florida gubernatorial election.

 

[flaja]

Because many stand by and say that it is good for them to muck around in what should be left to the States...

Both of the major parties have a stake in it. Many RRs and Cons believe that either prayer or the pledge should be made mandatory across the nation, the Ds believe that it should be relegated to the ashbin (I know exaggeration, not all of them, but enough that both parties want it to look like they could realistically effect this change.)

Because many stand by and say that it is good for them to muck around in what should be left to the States...

Why should public education be left to the states and only the states? What is it in the Constitution that unequivocally says the federal government has no role in public schools? What benefits do we gain by giving the states exclusive control and exclusive responsibility for public education? It’s not like the states are doing even an adequate job.

 

[flaja]

Extending it to a national program makes it progessively more expensive and demonstrably less flexible to changing needs of the populace.

How do you know this? Where is the completely nationalized public school system for you to compare state schools to so as to know that a nationalized system would be more expensive?

It is in the best interest of the nation, the students, and our welfare that we have a good system at each state with strong local control who can direct changes according to their needs.

And what happens to the national welfare when a single state fails to have a good quality school system? What happens if a dozen states fail? What happens if all 50 states fail?

BTW: What school taught to spell progressively without an “r”? I realize this may be a simple typo, but isn’t that what a spell checker is for? I personally run almost everything I post through MS Word because I don’t want others to find my posts difficult to read.

 

[flaja]

Instead of pretending to be all strong on abortion, yet passing laws known to be unconstitutional. One would pass an actual late-term abortion law with the "Life of the Woman" clauses required by the SCOTUS.[/quote]

I have a biology background and my understanding is that if a woman has managed to carry a baby into the 3rd trimester, there aren’t many situations in which an abortion would be necessary to save her life. Eclampsia{sp?}, a condition in which the mother develops high blood pressure, may be the only real medical necessity for (call it what it really is) partial birth abortion. For practically anything else the only safe thing a woman in her 3rd trimester can do is go into labor when the time comes (and then give the kid up for adoption if she’s not married).

I guess I wasn't quite expressing it as I wanted. The Party feels that it can continue to use this issue to get them to vote, they stretch it out.

In the meantime they allow Ru 486 to stay on the market and they make the morning after birth control abortion pill available over the counter and they provide funding for fatal stem cell research that essentially provides justification for the abortion industry.

 

[flaja]

I used to be a hardline conservative republican. My opinions have changed a good bit in recent years, although in many respects (but not all)

I’m not as pro-business as I used to be; Wal-Mart saw to that.

I support low taxes, but I support even more the idea of amending the Constitution to declare specifically what may be taxed by each and every branch of government.

I support strong consumer protection laws.

I support alternative energy and organic food production, but this is because our oil and chemical based economy is not sustainable.

I no longer support school prayer or public religious displays because such prayer and displays may not uphold Christianity (at least the version of Christianity that I accept on faith).

I also oppose private school vouchers because I have personally seen how badly private schools can be run and I don’t want my tax money subsidizing them.

1) Cutting government matters, not cutting taxes. The democrats pay for skyrocketing spending with taxes; the republicans pay for it with borrowing and money printing. Either one siphons wealth from the private sector.

To my knowledge the Democrats in the 1970s were the last to print money to pay for deficit spending. And we had a 15% inflation rate for the privilege.

2) Reckless military interventionism is not compatible with a small government philosophy.

Define reckless? The U. S. has a moral obligation to support, protect and defend democratic societies abroad and we often have a national security reason to comply with this obligation by sending our armed forces abroad. I supported the war in Iraq based on the reasons GWB gave. When those reasons proved to be made-up I lost a good bit of respect for GWB. When GWB proved that he doesn’t know how to win in Iraq, and he’s done nothing about North Korea, I lost all respect for him.

 

[flaja]

Any biologist will tell you life begins at conception. It's science, not religion.

This biologist concurs. A zygote, a fertilized egg, can do anything any other living thing can do except reproduce, but since a human, that we all would accept as being alive, cannot reproduce for about 12-15 years, this is no big deal.

 

[flaja]

So you're saying abandon "laws we know will be found unconstitutional". You are advocating abandonment. You're saying give cede certain ground. Stopping baby murder is not in the same realm as compromising a percentage point on the income tax or whatnot.

The Republicans all claim that they cannot do anything about abortion until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. But since the Court cannot speak except when a case comes before it, what opportunity will the Court have to overturn the Roe decision if no one passes a law that violates the Roe decision?