I don't think anyone in my immediate family has ever voted for a Republican candidate as president. So I've recently wondered what it would take for me to seriously vote across the aisle. The fact is that its hard to vote for a party whose ideals you don't share.

But I came to the realization that there is a strong chance that I would have voted for McCain back in 2000 if he had won the Republican primaries. I truly liked Gore as a vice-president, but McCain in 2000 was probably the first time I thought, "Well, here's someone who might be able to actually bridge that gap that so many politicians talk about but never really are able to bridge." Someone who could actually rise above the partisan bickering and possibly bring out the best aspects of both parties and, in turn, the country. Someone whose ideals I didn't share entirely, but at least there was some degree of understanding (largely in his moderate social views and work on lobbying reform). Maybe the idea of someone who can bridge the gap is not possible or is just a naive fantasy. But for a while there, I truly thought it might just happen

Well, now it is 2008 and sadly that man is no more. For all of his talk of reform, he has virtually made it impossible for reform to take place within a possible McCain administration. For votes, he has largely become the thing he rallied against so badly. And even if I felt a sign of the man from 2000 remained, and this posturing for the religious right was only a ruse until election, I see no sign of any such interest in his running mate. This past election, as in years before, the discourse (or lack thereof) has just worked to make the divide wider. (And for what it is worth, I'm not any more convinced Obama would bridge that gap any better).

But in 2000, on that naive belief, I would have probably broken with family tradition and voted across the aisle.

So my question is: Realistically, have you ever or could you ever seriously consider voting across the aisle, and if so, what would it take?

I'm actually a registered independent believe it or not, and i'm voting democrat this year. This is the first year i've actually followed politics. I was actually contomplating voting for McCain after super tuesday I believe (or the day he won south carolina) Well, then i found out about all the voting with Bush most of the time, the flip flopping, and well, the idea of Palin being president, supposing McCain croaks scares me. That and i agree on most of Obama's view points.

And hey, someone else from Reisterstown.

For Democrats to take a rational, humane stance on abortion.

If someone doesn't display the common sense to grasp the most obvious, basic issues of protecting the most defenseless human life...or worse, is unwilling to summon the courage & compassion to face the issue...that is a deal-breaker so far as trusting their judgment on other issues of consequence.

For Democrats to take a rational, humane stance on abortion.

If someone doesn't display the common sense to grasp the most obvious, basic issues of protecting the most defenseless human life...or worse, is unwilling to summon the courage & compassion to face the issue...that is a deal-breaker so far as trusting their judgment on other issues of consequence.

So I guess the flip-side question would be:

- Could you support a candidate who supports the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or any war, for that matter), with the knowledge that many innocent, defenselesss human lives of all ages are lost because of war?

Could you support a candidate who supports the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or any war, for that matter), with the knowledge that many innocent, defenselesss human lives of all ages are lost because of war?

Many innocent, defenseless human lives of all ages are lost in any war whether you justify it or not.

I'm actually a registered independent believe it or not, and i'm voting democrat this year. This is the first year i've actually followed politics. I was actually contomplating voting for McCain after super tuesday I believe (or the day he won south carolina) Well, then i found out about all the voting with Bush most of the time, the flip flopping, and well, the idea of Palin being president, supposing McCain croaks scares me. That and i agree on most of Obama's view points.

And hey, someone else from Reisterstown.

Did you know most democrats 'vote with Bush' about 75% of the time? I'm always confused about that line. Does Bush vote somewhere? Also, isn't Obama the picture of flip flopping? Why judge McCain in one light and Obama in the other? Lastly, if Palin scares you, why doesn't Obama? Both are equally inexperienced, only Obama will be guaranteed to be president.

If these are your reasons for voting across the aisle, I'm disappointed.

For me, I would (and have) voted across the aisle (voted for Clinton over Dole) because I thought Dole was a very weak candidate, severely out of touch and I was going with Clinton's centrist first term which went pretty well. Little did I know what was to come. I would vote for a Liebermann democrat, someone tough on defense, strict with the budget, and pretty centrist or 'status quo' on everything else.

McCain could get my vote if he wasn't so hawkish and he had a more reasonable fiscal policy. Show specific cuts in spending to pay for the tax cuts he wants.

Obama could get my vote if he didn't want the govt to grow so much - mostly universal healthcare. Also his wanting to increase my taxes doesn't help.

For me to vote Democrat they would have to go more conservative with spending, reduce federal government intervention in American society (i.e. less socialistic), and a more realistic energy policy. As a Republican I have been very disappointed in Bush's high budget deficits. Runaway spending HAS to stop.

As far as fiscal discipline is concerned - neither party will give y'all the kind of discipline you claim you want.

I know :(

I love how every reply has been "I would vote across the aisle if the other party switched their entire platform to match my party." :lol:

Nothing.

I'm Libertarian, but voted for Kerry in 2004. I hadn't planned on it, but as I walked into the polling center, this douchebag Republican volunteer walked up to me and asked for a couple minutes to explain why I absolutely had to vote for Bush. As I moved around him, he tried to take my arm and pull me aside. At that point I told him that if he touched me again, I'd be pressing charges. I then explained that I had planned to vote third party, but I'd be voting for Kerry, just to nullify his vote. So in 2004, it took someone being an aggressive asshole for me to vote across the aisle.

For the present, one of the two main candidates would have to do something to convince me that the country would be in substantially worse condition if he were to win for me to vote for the other one. I doubt that will happen in the next month and a half, but anything's possible.

Obama could get my vote if he didn't want the govt to grow so much - mostly universal healthcare. Also his wanting to increase my taxes doesn't help.

You make over $250,000 a year. Good job.

More like, "what would it take for you to vote at all?". When I did vote regularly, it was about 2/3rds Rep to 1/3rd Dem.

Quite a bit.
1) Fiscal responsibility and actually attempt to make the f'ovt smaller. Republican presidents seem to love running up enormous deficits.
2) An end to supply side economics
2) Understand increased gun control doesn't mean outright gun banning.
3) Understand individual rights applies to everyone, including gays
4) Absolute separation of church and state.
5) Understand pro-choice does not mean pro-death, and does not mean an abortion will automatically occur. It means giving a woman an "option" in light of serious consequences that may result from unintended pregnancy. The lack thereof means she has no option whatsoever.

Did you know most democrats 'vote with Bush' about 75% of the time? I'm always confused about that line. Does Bush vote somewhere?Congressional Quarterly keeps a tab of roll call votes on bills where the president has a stated position. So, for example, in 2006 we see this:

name party state support
Shelby R AL 86
Sessions R AL 91
Stevens R AK 93
Murkowski R AK 89
McCain R AZ 89
Kyl R AZ 90
Lincoln D AR 59
Pryor D AR 64
Feinstein D CA 54
Boxer D CA 47
Allard R CO 91
Salazar D CO 58
Dodd D CT 49
Lieberman D CT 62
Biden D DE 55
Carper D DE 64
Nelson D FL 60
Martinez R FL 92
Chambliss R GA 93
Isakson R GA 93
Inouye D HI 56
Akaka D HI 48
Craig R ID 94
Crapo R ID 88
Durbin D IL 47
Obama D IL 49
Lugar R IN 91
Bayh D IN 58
Grassley R IA 87
Harkin D IA 46
Brownback R KS 92
Roberts R KS 88
McConnell R KY 91
Bunning R KY 90
Landrieu D LA 71
Vitter R LA 87
Snowe r ME 75
Collins R ME 79
Sarbanes D MD 54
Mikulski D MD 49
Kennedy D MA 48
Kerry D MA 51
Levin D MI 56
Stabenow D MI 51
Dayton D MN 48
Coleman R MN 88
Cochran R MS 89
Lott R MS 88
Bond R MO 89
Talent R MO 82
Baucus D MT 61
Burns R MT 85
Hagel R NE 96
Nelson D NE 76
Reid D NV 57
Ensign R NV 90
Gregg R NH 93
Sununu R NH 90
Lautenberg D NJ 46
Menendez D NJ 50
Domenici R NM 91
Bingaman D NM 51
Schumer D NY 52
Clinton D NY 50
Dole R NC 90
Burr R NC 88
Conrad D ND 52
Dorgan D ND 46
DeWine R OH 86
Voinovich R OH 89
Inhofe R OK 88
Coburn R OK 88
Wyden D OR 51
Smith R OR 83
Specter R PA 76
Santorum R PA 86
Reed D RI 53
Chafee R RI 71
Graham R SC 91
DeMint R SC 90
Johnson D SD 57
Thune R SD 87
Frist R TN 93
Alexander R TN 93
Hutchison R TX 84
Cornyn R TX 91
Hatch R UT 88
Bennett R UT 90
Leahy D VT 46
Jeffords D VT 49
Warner R VA 91
Allen R VA 91
Murray D WA 59
Cantwell D WA 54
Byrd D WV 49
Rockefeller D WV 55
Kohl D WI 57
Feingold D WI 47
Thomas R WY 91
Enzi R WY 91 On average, Democratic Senators voted with the president 54% of the time, while their Republican counterparts did so 89% of the time. So, your 75% number is a little exaggerated I would think.

You make over $250,000 a year. Good job.

i don't. but i do have capital gains

Many innocent, defenseless human lives of all ages are lost in any war whether you justify it or not.

True. I'm just trying to balance why many conservatives put more value on the unborn life as compared to those who have been born. Esp. when all murder is considered a sin.

Just like I have trouble rationalizing the justification people make for their candidates lying when it is a generally agreed tenet of Christianity that all sins are equal in the eyes of G*d.

For Democrats to take a rational, humane stance on abortion.

If someone doesn't display the common sense to grasp the most obvious, basic issues of protecting the most defenseless human life...or worse, is unwilling to summon the courage & compassion to face the issue...that is a deal-breaker so far as trusting their judgment on other issues of consequence.

Question. During what stage of fetal development do you oppose abortion?

So are you saying if someone does not choose to confront the abortion issue, they are incapable of overseeing other issues such as foreign and domestic policy, fiscal responsibility, military intervention, or diplomacy?

I love how every reply has been "I would vote across the aisle if the other party switched their entire platform to match my party." :lol:

That's what it boils down to.

More like, "what would it take for you to vote at all?".


I'll be going to the polls in November, but I am pretty sure that I will be abstaining the Presidential vote like I did in '04. None of these guys, 3rd parties included, have earned my vote.

It took the dems nominating an empty shell like Obama for me to vote Republican for the first time in any race ever.

So here's a follow-up question:

For those that really can't or won't cross the aisle, and do plan on voting, do you plan on voting FOR your candidate or AGAINST the opposing candidate?

Just for argument's sake, they are not the same. There is a difference in purpose.

So here's a follow-up question:

For those that really can't or won't cross the aisle, and do plan on voting, do you plan on voting FOR your candidate or AGAINST the opposing candidate?

Just for argument's sake, they are not the same. There is a difference in purpose.


Both. I could tolerate McCain, I'm just afraid he's going to be Bush III. Palin on the other hand.......no way!

I love how every reply has been "I would vote across the aisle if the other party switched their entire platform to match my party." :lol:

That about sums it up for me. Why vote for anyone who doesn't agree with me on the positions I think are important. It would be kind of like saying, "I'd have gay sex if he looked a little more like a woman."

Nothing could make me vote for a Democrat as they currently are (Talk to me again when the Kennedy Democrats come back), but I could be convinced very easily to vote for a third party or just sit the whole thing out (like I almost did again this year).

That about sums it up for me. Why vote for anyone who doesn't agree with me on the positions I think are important. It would be kind of like saying, "I'd have gay sex if he looked a little more like a woman."

Nothing could make me vote for a Democrat as they currently are (Talk to me again when the Kennedy Democrats come back), but I could be convinced very easily to vote for a third party or just sit the whole thing out (like I almost did again this year).

I guess I'm an idealist at heart. I believe most people are moderate and lean only a little to one side or the other.

In politics, as in marriage, I believe compromise is an acceptable as well as necessary solution. I would compromise on some issues if others were secure. Esp. with a candidate who is open to dialogue and who is willing to listen to disparate views. More along the lines of "I would be willing to have sex with a manly looking woman."

I believe the old McCain would have done that, as his pre-2000 work in the senate had reflected. I don't believe McCain 2008 would (though I will be happy to be proven wrong, if he should be elected).

severe brain damage

I'll be going to the polls in November, but I am pretty sure that I will be abstaining the Presidential vote like I did in '04. None of these guys, 3rd parties included, have earned my vote.
Same here. I'll be voting in a bunch of state and local elections. There are a number of corrupt dems that I will futilely try to unseat. ;)

Registered Republican, lean more Libertarian, have voted and will vote for Democrats in the future. My November vote for McCain is about 50% for McCain and 50% against Obama.

For what its worth, my vote is 40% for Obama and 50% against McCain 2008/Palin. The remaining 10% is holding out for the slim chance that McCain 2000 re-appears after this whole messy affair is through (regardless of how it ends).

So my question is: Realistically, have you ever or could you ever seriously consider voting across the aisle, and if so, what would it take?

The Democrats balls to drop.

old McCain
-ohbfrank-

I guess I'm an idealist at heart. I believe most people are moderate and lean only a little to one side or the other.


I can agree with this. I'm obviously left of center, but that doesn't mean I don't have conservative viewpoints. I'm for capital punishment (remember this skeleton?). I don't see the point in putting someone in jail for 60 years and wasting taxpayer money if it can be absolutely proven he/she is guilty. Fry 'em! I'm for small gov't like traditional Republicans (not the neo-conservative corporatists currently in office). I'm anti-immigration.....although I'm unsure which party favors what nowadays since they both keep flip-flopping. I just don't see the point in offering opportunities to struggling citizens of other countries when we have plenty of struggling Americans in need of opportunity already.

I have voted for the other side before, but they were NY Republicans, so most likely RINOS to the hard core red states. I regretted Pataki, but I think Rudy did a good job as mayor of NY.

With the Republican clowns they have running for office in my current state, I can't see myself voting for one in the foreseeable future.

Congressional Quarterly keeps a tab of roll call votes on bills where the president has a stated position. So, for example, in 2006 we see this:

name party state support
Shelby R AL 86
Sessions R AL 91
Stevens R AK 93
Murkowski R AK 89
McCain R AZ 89
Kyl R AZ 90
Lincoln D AR 59
Pryor D AR 64
Feinstein D CA 54
Boxer D CA 47
Allard R CO 91
Salazar D CO 58
Dodd D CT 49
Lieberman D CT 62
Biden D DE 55
Carper D DE 64
Nelson D FL 60
Martinez R FL 92
Chambliss R GA 93
Isakson R GA 93
Inouye D HI 56
Akaka D HI 48
Craig R ID 94
Crapo R ID 88
Durbin D IL 47
Obama D IL 49
Lugar R IN 91
Bayh D IN 58
Grassley R IA 87
Harkin D IA 46
Brownback R KS 92
Roberts R KS 88
McConnell R KY 91
Bunning R KY 90
Landrieu D LA 71
Vitter R LA 87
Snowe r ME 75
Collins R ME 79
Sarbanes D MD 54
Mikulski D MD 49
Kennedy D MA 48
Kerry D MA 51
Levin D MI 56
Stabenow D MI 51
Dayton D MN 48
Coleman R MN 88
Cochran R MS 89
Lott R MS 88
Bond R MO 89
Talent R MO 82
Baucus D MT 61
Burns R MT 85
Hagel R NE 96
Nelson D NE 76
Reid D NV 57
Ensign R NV 90
Gregg R NH 93
Sununu R NH 90
Lautenberg D NJ 46
Menendez D NJ 50
Domenici R NM 91
Bingaman D NM 51
Schumer D NY 52
Clinton D NY 50
Dole R NC 90
Burr R NC 88
Conrad D ND 52
Dorgan D ND 46
DeWine R OH 86
Voinovich R OH 89
Inhofe R OK 88
Coburn R OK 88
Wyden D OR 51
Smith R OR 83
Specter R PA 76
Santorum R PA 86
Reed D RI 53
Chafee R RI 71
Graham R SC 91
DeMint R SC 90
Johnson D SD 57
Thune R SD 87
Frist R TN 93
Alexander R TN 93
Hutchison R TX 84
Cornyn R TX 91
Hatch R UT 88
Bennett R UT 90
Leahy D VT 46
Jeffords D VT 49
Warner R VA 91
Allen R VA 91
Murray D WA 59
Cantwell D WA 54
Byrd D WV 49
Rockefeller D WV 55
Kohl D WI 57
Feingold D WI 47
Thomas R WY 91
Enzi R WY 91 On average, Democratic Senators voted with the president 54% of the time, while their Republican counterparts did so 89% of the time. So, your 75% number is a little exaggerated I would think.

I did say 'most'. Take away those that are the farthest left and what do you have? Wish I had the link where I read this before. I did notice that Democrats voted against the 'kittens are cute' measure, so I think this is a little suspect.

That about sums it up for me. Why vote for anyone who doesn't agree with me on the positions I think are important. It would be kind of like saying, "I'd have gay sex if he looked a little more like a woman."



You too?

I did say 'most'. Take away those that are the farthest left and what do you have?I didn't realize that Senator Nelson of Nebraska qualifies as "most" Democrats (he and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only two Senate Democrats who voted with the president more than 70% of the time in 2006), but whatever; I've learned my lesson about arguing with people who have already made up their minds.

It took the dems nominating an empty shell like Obama for me to vote Republican for the first time in any race ever. Same. In the past I've always voted for the socially liberal platform even though I don't like big government, but I just can't vote for Obama. He may be great, but at this point, I'm not convinced he'll know what he's doing.

a blow job. :(

I'm too easy on this one.

I didn't realize that Senator Nelson of Nebraska qualifies as "most" Democrats (he and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only two Senate Democrats who voted with the president more than 70% of the time in 2006), but whatever; I've learned my lesson about arguing with people who have already made up their minds.

I've learned the same lesson arguing with you. :lol:

I didn't realize that Senator Nelson of Nebraska qualifies as "most" Democrats (he and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only two Senate Democrats who voted with the president more than 70% of the time in 2006), but whatever; I've learned my lesson about arguing with people who have already made up their minds.

:sad: We'll miss you around here.

A gun to my head.

A gun to my head.Assuming you're Republican, this won't be a problem.

a blow job. :(

I'm too easy on this one.


That's why you keep telling all the left-leaners to "blow me". I get it now! :eek:

I'm a left leaning Libertarian.

I'd vote for a REAL budget-cutting Republican that wasn't tapping our phones and torturing people and riding the anti-gay train ...and violating every other personal liberty they can stick their fingers into in the name of "protecting" us.

In my eyes the Republicans are horribly wrong on personal freedoms and liberties, the with-us-or-against-us foreign policy, and now they suck ass at keeping the budget in check too.

I think Bush is the worst president in the last century or so. If the Republicans were actually not destroying the budget and taking away freedoms I'd back to not voting, which is what I did pre-Bush. I think Bush and his Republican spending-happy congress has actually driven me more left.

I feel like both parties are going to run the economy into the ground with crazy deficits. At least the Democrats using the China credit card to help Americans. Republicans seem to be deadset on running up the China credit card on pipedreams of democracy in foreign countries.

Democrat here. Put the gun away (or at least point it at a Republican, preferably in one of those "red states")

Question. During what stage of fetal development do you oppose abortion?

So are you saying if someone does not choose to confront the abortion issue, they are incapable of overseeing other issues such as foreign and domestic policy, fiscal responsibility, military intervention, or diplomacy?



Not saying they aren't capable. I'm saying that they are capable of confronting the abortion issue, which is a fundamental issue.

Hitler confronted all sorts of issues in Germany such as foreign and domestic policy, fiscal responsiblity, military intervention, and diplomacy. Lest you forget, he was elected and had the support of vast numbers of the German public.

However, he had that teeny personal failing in his respect for certain segments of the population.

No, I'm not saying that pro-abortion people are Hitlers. I'm just pointing out that it's hard to trust a "leader" to do the right thing on the issues you mention...all which have a MORAL component regarding what is "right" or "wrong"...when that leader refuses to take a stand on protecting defenseless human life.

BTW...for those who continue to be so concerned that a President McCain wouldn't survive until his term(s) concluded, here's a pop quiz?

Who was the last American President to die in office?
How old was he?

Nothing. I know what liberals are thinking before they actually think it. I know them better than they know themselves.

Seriously, the problem for me with voting conservative dems for national office is that they get to washington and fall right in line with Pelosi and Reid(pretty much). Heck even republicans tend to lose a bit of their conservatism when they get to Washington in order to be liked by the press(a futile endeavor) and be invited to cocktail parties.

BTW...for those who continue to be so concerned that a President McCain wouldn't survive until his term(s) concluded, here's a pop quiz?

Who was the last American President to die in office?
How old was he?

Knew off the top of my head that it was Warren G Harding because of the pneumonia he got from the long speech in the rain. Had to look up his age which was 58.

But let's not pretend that there isn't a high risk of McCain having another bout of cancer is unlikely.

Knew off the top of my head that it was Warren G Harding because of the pneumonia he got from the long speech in the rain. Had to look up his age which was 58.

But let's not pretend that there isn't a high risk of McCain having another bout of cancer is unlikely.

Actually, it was JFK. He was 46 (the point being that even relative youth does not ensure that one lasts until the end of an elected term). Lest someone say that was a freak incident, remember when Reagan was shot early on in his Presidency.

Before JFK, the most recent to die in office was FDR at age 63.

And Clinton always was a high risk for heart attacks with all the jogging trips for a Big Mac...among other activities that raised blood pressure/heart rate.

Heck, while we're at it, remember when Bush I keeled over & puked in the lap of the Japanese head of state? At the time, there were some serious concerns about his health.

Obviously, the risk of death increases with age & adverse medical history. Just sayin' that it seems that the oldsters have a pretty good record of surviving (outside of FDR, but one has to consider his declining health and the fact that he got 3 1/2 terms anyway).

LOL, I forgot about FDR; I was going for an obscure reference due to the question being posed as "die" and so I discounted JFK with him being assassinated.

I agree that older presidents have done ok with age, but there's been bouts of near-misses, Eisenhower's heart attack, Reagan's polyps, etc., so you're playing the odds.

I've often read threads here on DVD Talk, and often wanted to respond to many posts, however haven't been able to overcome the laziness to register and actually begin posting. Well, thanks to creekdipper, that has changed.

For Democrats to take a rational, humane stance on abortion.

If someone doesn't display the common sense to grasp the most obvious, basic issues of protecting the most defenseless human life...or worse, is unwilling to summon the courage & compassion to face the issue...that is a deal-breaker so far as trusting their judgment on other issues of consequence.

First, to even begin to pretend that this issue is so cut and dry that it requires terms like 'most obvious' and 'common sense' to be thrown around is completely asinine. Furthermore, if the abortion issue were able to be settled with a little... common sense..... It would seem to me that the opposite would actually be the correct judgement.

Along with most self-proclaimed "pro-life"ers, you seem to be making the same exact mistake that they make. Having the right to be alive doesn't give any human the right to be parasitic.
Even if I grant you that a couple of cells actually become a person at conception (which is also ridiculous), thus creating the idea that those cells deserve the same rights as people, then it must still be explained why that right to be alive also gives them the right to steal from the host.
If another person, who we agree has the right to live, requires half of all your nutrients in order to stay alive, then you must agree that you should be forced to sacrifice your own nutrition and well-being in order to keep that person alive. If you don't agree with that last statement, then you must lacking of any 'common sense' and 'rationality'.

Thanks for posting Adrian. Welcome to the friendly confines!

The parasite argument really doesn't hold water. The mother/fetus relationship is not parasitic if you go by the scientific definition of parasitic. This is natural reproduction of the mother's own kind. It is not an invading organism.

I think I could vote across the aisle if a candidate like Bobby Kennedy came around. He seemed to really get mad about injustice and had real convictions. I could take a socially liberal candidate if they were really serious (i.e. had a voting record) about eliminating the deficit and wasteful spending.

By all biological definitions of parasites or parasitic relationships, the mother/fetus relationship is indeed parasitic. The mother/fetus relationship represents a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is harmed. The fetus requires the host's (mother's) nutrients, oxygen and the like in order for survival.

My point was that I can get behind making it illegal to actually kill an embryo, fetus ect.(as "pro-life"ers would want), if it is legal to simply remove the fetus from the body thus allowing the organism to die by natural means. (I realize that those actions are leading to the death of the fetus, but still clearly distinct from killing it)

i don't. but i do have capital gains

That's what I hate about this sneaky bullshit...

"I'm only going to increase the taxes of those making over 1/4 mil a year! We can all get behind that, right??"

Then, raise these "other, lesser" taxes many, many people making under that mark have to pay.

Anyone who says they'll raise taxes in any capacity = Someone not getting my vote.

What would it take? A whole lot of money. At least that way I'd have a reason for being a Republican.

That's what I hate about this sneaky bullshit...

"I'm only going to increase the taxes of those making over 1/4 mil a year! We can all get behind that, right??"

Then, raise these "other, lesser" taxes many, many people making under that mark have to pay.

Anyone who says they'll raise taxes in any capacity = Someone not getting my vote.

But of course the catch is that if you increase the need to spend (by, let's say...oh I don't know...unnecessary wars), someone has to pay for it. And that money comes from taxes.

To not increase taxes means a further straining on the gov't budget which means borrowing. This is not a no-limit credit card which never has to paid off. Tax increases are just something that should be expected as a natural consequence of government's growing expenditures. For that, there should be no debate.

Where there is room for debate is in regards to the expenditures that are driving up the national debt and whose taxes are increased to pay for it.

But to disavow tax increases entirely, or even worse, to decrease them when there is no room for such actions is just a recipe for disaster.

On a personal note, I don't mind an increase in taxes if it means my children don't have to take on that burden, which via interest will only increase with each passing year.

First, to even begin to pretend that this issue is so cut and dry that it requires terms like 'most obvious' and 'common sense' to be thrown around is completely asinine. Furthermore, if the abortion issue were able to be settled with a little... common sense..... It would seem to me that the opposite would actually be the correct judgement.

Along with most self-proclaimed "pro-life"ers, you seem to be making the same exact mistake that they make. Having the right to be alive doesn't give any human the right to be parasitic. Even if I grant you that a couple of cells actually become a person at conception (which is also ridiculous), thus creating the idea that those cells deserve the same rights as people, then it must still be explained why that right to be alive also gives them the right to steal from the host. If another person, who we agree has the right to live, requires half of all your nutrients in order to stay alive, then you must agree that you should be forced to sacrifice your own nutrition and well-being in order to keep that person alive. If you don't agree with that last statement, then you must lacking of any 'common sense' and 'rationality'.

I would say you are correct in your assessment that it is not so cut and dry. Even the supreme court agrees with that.

However, the problem is that by the time someone realizes they are pregnant, you no longer have 'a clump of cells'. What defines life? Heartbeat? Organs? Usually present within two months.

This (http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm) is interesting in seeing what is present at two months...sorry, sounds like a baby to me.

Anything prior to two months, I'd have no problem with. The SC only claimed they ALL agreed life started by the 3rd trimester, which is why no abortions are supposed to take place after that. My personal view is within two months. Even that is suspect, by my own admission.

Well, two friends of mine each had children 3 1/2 months prematurely. They both survived...fucked up to think about the fact that they could have aborted the supposed 'fetus' when I'm looking at the baby right there. Since they needed incubation, I guess it would have been 'moral' to let the baby go without and die, if we just decided to...fuck, it needed outside help to survive, so it must not really be 'alive'.

The ability to survive without the assistance of others has never been a prequalifier for whether or not you are living.

The problem I have with abortions is the fact that OVER HALF of the abortions performed are repeat abortions. People who have one, then still fuck around without using condoms, unprotected; stupid morons who refuse to learn.

IF it is wrong, IF it is murder, then these people are damn near worthless. I knew a gal in college who had SIX abortions by the age of 22. That's fucked up and that's what I'm talking about. We have an abortion every 20 seconds in this country...That's too much...we've had 40 (http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/abortion-in-america.html) million abortions since Roe v Wade, 1 of 3 women have an abortion by age 45. I just can't help but think this is all too much.

There are other options.

A gal I knew once told me, "Come on, it feels so much better without a condom."

I told her, "Come on, it feels so much better without a kid."

People act like a woman will be saddled her entire life if she has a child. Put it up for adoption. Lord knows there are a ridiculous number of people out there who want one and can't have one. But, I suppose we can always go to Thailand or some other shithole country for our babies if we REALLY want to adopt...

:rolleyes:

But of course the catch is that if you increase the need to spend (by, let's say...oh I don't know...unnecessary wars), someone has to pay for it. And that money comes from taxes.

...

On a personal note, I don't mind an increase in taxes if it means my children don't have to take on that burden, which via interest will only increase with each passing year.

You will always think war is unnecessary, but you are wrong. You may have thought WWII 'wasn't worth the price'. You can say it's unnecessary, but it's highly debatable...neither you or I will be proven right or wrong or change the others' mind. Let's talk about 'unnecessary universal health care'.

I find it highly interesting that you want to ensure your children don't have to suffer a financial burden, but you'd allow them to endure an Islamic one. If we really want to save our offspring money, we'd cancel this Social Security experiment immediately.

You will always think war is unnecessary, but you are wrong.Where did he say this? It seems like you are making things up.I find it highly interesting that you want to ensure your children don't have to suffer a financial burden, but you'd allow them to endure an Islamic one.That's awfully presumptuous, and is probably closer to fiction than anything.

I would say you are correct in your assessment that it is not so cut and dry. Even the supreme court agrees with that.

However, the problem is that by the time someone realizes they are pregnant, you no longer have 'a clump of cells'. What defines life? Heartbeat? Organs? Usually present within two months.

This is interesting in seeing what is present at two months...sorry, sounds like a baby to me.

Anything prior to two months, I'd have no problem with. The SC only claimed they ALL agreed life started by the 3rd trimester, which is why no abortions are supposed to take place after that. My personal view is within two months. Even that is suspect, by my own admission.

Well, two friends of mine each had children 3 1/2 months prematurely. They both survived...fucked up to think about the fact that they could have aborted the supposed 'fetus' when I'm looking at the baby right there. Since they needed incubation, I guess it would have been 'moral' to let the baby go without and die, if we just decided to...fuck, it needed outside help to survive, so it must not really be 'alive'.

The ability to survive without the assistance of others has never been a prequalifier for whether or not you are living.

The problem I have with abortions is the fact that OVER HALF of the abortions performed are repeat abortions. People who have one, then still fuck around without using condoms, unprotected; stupid morons who refuse to learn.

IF it is wrong, IF it is murder, then these people are damn near worthless. I knew a gal in college who had SIX abortions by the age of 22. That's fucked up and that's what I'm talking about. We have an abortion every 20 seconds in this country...That's too much...we've had 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade, 1 of 3 women have an abortion by age 45. I just can't help but think this is all too much.

There are other options.

A gal I knew once told me, "Come on, it feels so much better without a condom."

I told her, "Come on, it feels so much better without a kid."

People act like a woman will be saddled her entire life if she has a child. Put it up for adoption. Lord knows there are a ridiculous number of people out there who want one and can't have one. But, I suppose we can always go to Thailand or some other shithole country for our babies if we REALLY want to adopt...

:rolleyes:

I never said that the fetus wasn't alive because it couldn't survive on its own. What I said was that saying it has the right to be alive and saying that it has the right to steal life essentials from its host thus hindering the host's life are two different things. I agree that it has the right to be alive. And I agree that even though it is a parasite, it indeed is alive. What I don't agree with is risking the mother's life against her will. Everyone is so fixated on the rights of a fetus, that they completely ignore the rights that the mother should have. Any person should have the right to preserve their own life.

I agree with nearly all of your assessments from a moral standpoint. I don't think moral questions however are places for law to govern to begin with.
Are there often better options than abortion? Sure.
Can abortion be avoided in most cases? Absolutely.
Is it the place of government to tell people that they must always act morally? Absolutely not.

By all biological definitions of parasites or parasitic relationships, the mother/fetus relationship is indeed parasitic. The mother/fetus relationship represents a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is harmed. The fetus requires the host's (mother's) nutrients, oxygen and the like in order for survival.

My point was that I can get behind making it illegal to actually kill an embryo, fetus ect.(as "pro-life"ers would want), if it is legal to simply remove the fetus from the body thus allowing the organism to die by natural means. (I realize that those actions are leading to the death of the fetus, but still clearly distinct from killing it)

I have to disagree. The definition of a parasitic relationship does not apply to a female animal and that animal's own developing offspring. A parasite has to be an organism of a different species. But really this is beside the point and (IMO) it's a weak attempt to cast the fetus in a negative light as if it's some kind of biological nuisance, an unpleasant annoyance. It is a shallow justification and/or a way to make oneself feel better about killing it.


I agree with nearly all of your assessments from a moral standpoint. I don't think moral questions however are places for law to govern to begin with.
Are there often better options than abortion? Sure.
Can abortion be avoided in most cases? Absolutely.
Is it the place of government to tell people that they must always act morally? Absolutely not.
This viewpoint is contrary to the reality of how government legislates and enforces morality every day in thousands of ways. This is basically what laws are. Certain actions are illegal because they are deemed immoral or harmful within the context of our society. I'm not saying we should absolutely outlaw all abortion. But we should be honest with ourselves about the seriousness of what we as a society are allowing to happen and the (IMO) overwhelming tragedy of the number of abortions that go on here every day. Dismissing it as a mere choice of the mother with no restrictions (not that you are saying this, but many do) is oversimplifying and dehumanizing the issue.

I never said that the fetus wasn't alive because it couldn't survive on its own. What I said was that saying it has the right to be alive and saying that it has the right to steal life essentials from its host thus hindering the host's life are two different things. I agree that it has the right to be alive. And I agree that even though it is a parasite, it indeed is alive. What I don't agree with is risking the mother's life against her will. Everyone is so fixated on the rights of a fetus, that they completely ignore the rights that the mother should have. Any person should have the right to preserve their own life.

I agree with nearly all of your assessments from a moral standpoint. I don't think moral questions however are places for law to govern to begin with.
Are there often better options than abortion? Sure.
Can abortion be avoided in most cases? Absolutely.
Is it the place of government to tell people that they must always act morally? Absolutely not.
I think you have a tough sell on your hands with "fetus = parasite"
Also, if you think it is the government's place to protect the rights of individuals by creating and enforcing laws, then the government certainly has the right to tell people to live morally. Perhaps not to live every aspect of their lives morally, but certainly to the extent that people's immoral actions violate other's rights.

Commitment to free trade.
Limited government intervention in the economy.
Smart, prudent and lightweight regulation.
Freeing up the educational system.
Aggressive and ambitious program for developing energy alternatives.
Coercive stance against crime.
Support for freedom and development around the world.

I think you have a tough sell on your hands with "fetus = parasite"
Also, if you think it is the government's place to protect the rights of individuals by creating and enforcing laws, then the government certainly has the right to tell people to live morally. Perhaps not to live every aspect of their lives morally, but certainly to the extent that people's immoral actions violate other's rights.

I am only referring to it as a parasite to explain the fact that it inhibits the life of the mother. You are essentially agreeing with me without realizing it. Its the fetus who is violating the mother's right to life, not the other way around. As I said, a person should have the right to pursue whatever means necessary to preserve their own life so long as they are not infringing upon another's right to do the same.

And to say that the government has the right make laws forcing them to live morally is ridiculous. Who is the government or anybody else to tell you what morals and values should be important to you? Who appointed the government as God? The government doesnt even have the power to decide what is moral and what isnt, let alone have the power to govern morality with laws.

I have to disagree. The definition of a parasitic relationship does not apply to a female animal and that animal's own developing offspring. A parasite has to be an organism of a different species. But really this is beside the point and (IMO) it's a weak attempt to cast the fetus in a negative light as if it's some kind of biological nuisance, an unpleasant annoyance. It is a shallow justification and/or a way to make oneself feel better about killing it.



This viewpoint is contrary to the reality of how government legislates and enforces morality every day in thousands of ways. This is basically what laws are. Certain actions are illegal because they are deemed immoral or harmful within the context of our society. I'm not saying we should absolutely outlaw all abortion. But we should be honest with ourselves about the seriousness of what we as a society are allowing to happen and the (IMO) overwhelming tragedy of the number of abortions that go on here every day. Dismissing it as a mere choice of the mother with no restrictions (not that you are saying this, but many do) is oversimplifying and dehumanizing the issue.

The fact of the matter is that the fetus is a biological nuisance. Morever a biological threat. I was never offering that as "justification to make someone feel better about killing it." In fact I never advocated killing it at all. What I said was that people should have the right to prevent the fetus from killing themselves.

It seems as though government is enforcing morality to you because the laws that exist to protect people's lives and other rights are usually consistent with morality. But what about the other thousands of moral questions that aren't dictated by law? Should they be? Should it be illegal to cheat on your boyfriend or girlfriend? How about to lie to your kids or parents? Is it morally wrong to cheat on a boyfriend or girlfriend...? Most people would say "Yes" but I should hope that you don't think that means it should be illegal.

The fact is, allowing government to start stepping in and answering these moral questions for us and dictating what we can and cannot do with our own lives is a dangerous precedent that I hope I never have to see.

Commitment to free trade.Many Democrats support free trade, although this is sadly changing. FWIW, Republicans say they are for free trade, but don't always act that way.
Limited government intervention in the economy.Good luck getting that from either party.
Smart, prudent and lightweight regulation.Ditto.
Freeing up the educational system.That would be nice.
Aggressive and ambitious program for developing energy alternatives.I would imagine Democrats are more likely to do this than Republicans, although neither seem to really care much.
Coercive stance against crime.What sort of crime would that be? The "war on (some) drugs"?
Support for freedom and development around the world.Nobody cares about this, except for lip service. Sorry.

So, while I certainly can't encourage you to support the Democrats, I really can't see why you support the Republicans, given their massive government, massive debt, massive intrusion into peoples' lives agenda.

The government doesnt even have the power to decide what is moral and what isnt, let alone have the power to govern morality with laws.
Laws = governing morality. You may not think of murder or burglary as immoral but, essentially, they are.

Laws = governing morality. You may not think of murder or burglary as immoral but, essentially, they are.

You completely switched around what I said. I didn't say that nothing that is governed by law is also a question of morality. What I said was that issues that are questions of morality shouldn't necessarily be govered by law.

Murder isnt illegal because it's immoral... It's illegal because it infringes upon somebody else's rights.

You completely switched around what I said. I didn't say that nothing that is governed by law is also a question of morality. What I said was that issues that are questions of morality shouldn't necessarily be govered by law.

Murder isnt illegal because it's immoral... It's illegal because it infringes upon somebody else's rights.
I think that you are saying that the government can not make laws based on a particular view of morality. I think that they can and do. The possession laws are based on morality. Maybe I am missing your point, but isn't infringing upon somebody else's rights immoral? Perhaps we are just arguing over semantics?

You will always think war is unnecessary, but you are wrong. You may have thought WWII 'wasn't worth the price'. You can say it's unnecessary, but it's highly debatable...neither you or I will be proven right or wrong or change the others' mind. Let's talk about 'unnecessary universal health care'.

I find it highly interesting that you want to ensure your children don't have to suffer a financial burden, but you'd allow them to endure an Islamic one. If we really want to save our offspring money, we'd cancel this Social Security experiment immediately.

Three things:

As Wendersfan mentioned, I never said anything regarding all war being unnecessary. Not sure what hat you pulled that out of. I do, however, believe Iraq was unnecessary.

Second, as an American, I believe in the right for people to practice any religion they choose in a peaceful and non-harmful manner. And if my children should decide that Islam is what they choose to practice, then I will support them. Most Muslims are not fundamentalist terrorists. Religion is always only a "burden" to others who don't agree with the religion or to those having other's beliefs forced upon them. In that sense, Christianity has "burdened" more people than any other religion in history.

Finally, I spend every day thankful for the "experiment" called Social Security. When my father was forced into early retirement by cancer, I was happy to know that SS helped him to live his last days not wondering where his next meal was coming from. After my father-in-law worked forty years at a steel mill only to have his pension taken away from him in the mill's bankruptcy settlement, it's good to know that there was something there to help supplement his savings. I see no problem with the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me. To me it makes sense, as it has made sense to most cultures throughout history. It may be a flawed "experiment," but the thread that will most likely lead to its undoing, if that day should arrive, is apathy and selfishness.

Finally, I spend every day thankful for the "experiment" called Social Security. When my father was forced into early retirement by cancer, I was happy to know that SS helped him to live his last days not wondering where his next meal was coming from. After my father-in-law worked forty years at a steel mill only to have his pension taken away from him in the mill's bankruptcy settlement, it's good to know that there was something there to help supplement his savings. I see no problem with the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me. To me it makes sense, as it has made sense to most cultures throughout history. It may be a flawed "experiment," but the thread that will most likely lead to its undoing, if that day should arrive, is apathy and selfishness.


:up:

You know, it's funny. Every time there's a thread started by someone that documents some government screw-up, or some example of incompetence, there's invariably a sarcastic comment by a poster that runs along the lines of "we should let these people run our retirement system!" Yet these same sarcastic posters would have no problem handing over the whole system to the likes of Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers. There's a lot of incompetence to go around, in both the public and private sectors. Knee jerk reactions that one is always better than the other, at everything, is amazingly stupid, yet I see that attitude here a lot. Somedays, I just wonder...

I agree with nearly all of your assessments from a moral standpoint. I don't think moral questions however are places for law to govern to begin with...Is it the place of government to tell people that they must always act morally? Absolutely not.

That is absolutely the role of government.

It is immoral to have sex with a six year old, according to my and possibly your moral code. It's the government's job to step in and create legislation and enforcement to stop this. Almost all laws are created from a moral point of view.

Same with murder, theft, illegal drug usage, et cetera. Also, having someone perform medical acts such as removing a bullet without government consent is also unlawful, so abortion can and should be legislated, too...

I'm not uncaring...the first thing pro-choice people say is, "What about rape, incest and life of the mother?!?" Okay, fine. I say, keep those. Still, that's less than 2% of all abortions. I'd be happy saving the other 98%. Additionally, I'd also be in favor of terminating mental/physical handicapped babies. I know people (Palin included) gush about how great it is, but I just don't see a fantastic upside to the parents or the child.

I also know how hard it is to adopt in our country, so I'd prefer more of that.

As Wendersfan mentioned, I never said anything regarding all war being unnecessary. Not sure what hat you pulled that out of. I do, however, believe Iraq was unnecessary.

This is what I was referring to:

Could you support a candidate who supports the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or any war, for that matter), with the knowledge that many innocent, defenselesss human lives of all ages are lost because of war?

Yes, I could, because sometimes many lives are necessary to be sacrificed for the salvation of a great number more. If I was ever called for such an honor, I would see it as my duty.

I'm not trying to argue, though...I can see how someone would not be comfortable with that moral quandary...but you should be thankful that someone else is.

That's how it boils down for me in this election. I want someone in the White House who CAN say war is necessary in some cases, not dismiss it outright.

That is absolutely the role of government.

Wrong. The role of the government is to protect the rights of individual. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral but because being murdered violates the most basic human right. Theft violates my rights to property. Rape violates the right to give consent before sex.

brain damage

Wrong. The role of the government is to protect the rights of individual. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral but because being murdered violates the most basic human right. Theft violates my rights to property. Rape violates the right to give consent before sex.

And illegal drug use?

Uh...infringes on the rights of whom? Yourself?

How about speeding?

Nonpayment of personal income taxes?

Consensual underage sex?

What about my medical example?

Sure, some laws violate the rights of others, even though enforcement of those laws infringe on the rights of those being prosecuted, so it's not ALL about rights. Morals also play a part. Lots of laws do not have anything to do with the violation of the rights of others, yet they're still on the books. If you think this is not the case, I'm not going to even debate the point.

Lots of laws do not have anything to do with the violation of the rights of others, yet they're still on the books. If you think this is not the case, I'm not going to even debate the point.

Those laws are immoral.

This is what I was referring to:

Could you support a candidate who supports the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or any war, for that matter), with the knowledge that many innocent, defenselesss human lives of all ages are lost because of war?

But you took my quote out of context without reference to the post it was a response to. My comment was meant to highlight the "moral quandry" you refer to in calling abortion a killing of defenseless lives while at the same time endorsing war when it often does exactly the same thing. The idea that a life unborn is more valuable than a life born is not an attitude condoned anywhere in the Bible. I just can't comprehend why the same people who can get violently up in arms by something like the "morning after" pill don't even blink an eye when half of a neighborhood of innocent people (including newborns) are cluster bomber away in a failed attempt to kill a single person.

As for my view on war, while I personally am not hawkish in nature, I do understand that war is a necessary evil at times (WWII, for ex.). Iraq, however, was not necessary. I am not a subscriber to the Bush Doctrine.

That is absolutely the role of government.

It is immoral to have sex with a six year old, according to my and possibly your moral code. It's the government's job to step in and create legislation and enforcement to stop this. Almost all laws are created from a moral point of view.

Same with murder, theft, illegal drug usage, et cetera. Also, having someone perform medical acts such as removing a bullet without government consent is also unlawful, so abortion can and should be legislated, too...

I'm not uncaring...the first thing pro-choice people say is, "What about rape, incest and life of the mother?!?" Okay, fine. I say, keep those. Still, that's less than 2% of all abortions. I'd be happy saving the other 98%. Additionally, I'd also be in favor of terminating mental/physical handicapped babies. I know people (Palin included) gush about how great it is, but I just don't see a fantastic upside to the parents or the child.

I also know how hard it is to adopt in our country, so I'd prefer more of that.

So then it's decided then that YOU would prefer government make laws solely based on morality. You (as well as a few others) seem to be completely missing my point. I didnt say that rape, theft, murder ect. weren't immoral. Most would agree that they are indeed immoral. What I said though is that laws preventing murder, theft, ect. are entirely necessary for the preservation of personal safety and the general well-being of everybody. You are claiming that you would want governement to step in and answer ALL of your moral questions for you.
You want it to be illegal to tell a lie to your parents?
You want it to be illegal to cheat on your significant other?
Sure most would agree that these are immoral, but to want them to be legislated by government seems ridiculous. Apparently you don't see this. Apparently you don't seem to realize that allowing a government the power like this... Power to run the lives and make all the decisions of people and potentially punishing them when they disagree leads to fascism. You may want fascism, however I enjoy the freedoms (at least what are left of them) provided by the founding fathers of this country.

Wrong. The role of the government is to protect the rights of individual. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral but because being murdered violates the most basic human right. Theft violates my rights to property. Rape violates the right to give consent before sex.

Finally someone who understands what I've been saying all along. Stick around, I might need some help explaining these relatively simple concepts to others. :)

And illegal drug use?

Uh...infringes on the rights of whom? Yourself?

How about speeding?

Nonpayment of personal income taxes?

Consensual underage sex?

What about my medical example?

Sure, some laws violate the rights of others, even though enforcement of those laws infringe on the rights of those being prosecuted, so it's not ALL about rights. Morals also play a part. Lots of laws do not have anything to do with the violation of the rights of others, yet they're still on the books. If you think this is not the case, I'm not going to even debate the point.

OK.
Consensual underage sex: Still protecting the rights of children! A child may or may not be able to make a correct informed decision about the ramifications of a sexual relationship with somebody else. Can't bring children into the mix anyhow.. thats just a low blow.

Nonpayment of taxes: It's debatable whether or not all the taxes we pay are necessary, but putting that aside.... Not paying your own personal taxes means that you are stealing from everybody else. Everybody is assured certain necessities and/or luxuries (police, fire protection, ambulance, military, ect.) by the taxes that they pay. If someone gets those same benefits without paying those taxes, then they are stealing from those who are paying taxes.

Speeding: I can't believe I'm even responding to this one..... If you can't see that speeding laws are in place to protect people's lives, then I don't know where you can even go with this discussion. There are speeds determined as more likely to provide a safer environment for others on the road. If you kill somebody with your car, you are infringing upon their right to live.

Anything else?

OK.
Consensual underage sex: Still protecting the rights of children! A child may or may not be able to make a correct informed decision about the ramifications of a sexual relationship with somebody else. Can't bring children into the mix anyhow.. thats just a low blow.

Nonpayment of taxes: It's debatable whether or not all the taxes we pay are necessary, but putting that aside.... Not paying your own personal taxes means that you are stealing from everybody else. Everybody is assured certain necessities and/or luxuries (police, fire protection, ambulance, military, ect.) by the taxes that they pay. If someone gets those same benefits without paying those taxes, then they are stealing from those who are paying taxes.

Speeding: I can't believe I'm even responding to this one..... If you can't see that speeding laws are in place to protect people's lives, then I don't know where you can even go with this discussion. There are speeds determined as more likely to provide a safer environment for others on the road. If you kill somebody with your car, you are infringing upon their right to live.

Anything else?

Upon what are those "rights" based?

Whim? Public opinion? Edict of the king? Papal bull?

The authors of the Constitution recognized that those "rights" were endowed by a Creator. They constantly referred to public "morality".

Absent of an absolute code of morality that is based upon doing what is right as opposed to bestowing rights with a moral basis, laws become tools for enslavement of humans rather than tools to protect their freedoms. The Law of the Jungle...the "natural order' of nonhuman species...becomes the governing principle of the day.

In that event (absent of a moral basis), the idea of "theft" that you reference becomes only a matter of semantics. Why have "laws" against stealing unless stealing is fundamentally (morally) WRONG? What even gives one the "right" to own private property in the first place? Shouldn't all wealth be distributed equally (Of course, even that idea appeals to someone's ideas of 'right' & 'wrong')?

Why is the discussion of children's 'rights' off-limits (a "low blow", to use your terminology). Haven't we determined that it's 'wrong' to take an adult to take advantage of minors for the adult's gratification/financial advantage?

In Ye Old England, the Lord of the Manor had all sorts of legal "rights" that were not enjoyed by the serfs. The Lords would argue that those laws were necessary to preserve their society; however, the laws obviously favored the idea of a privileged society of noble-born people over the 'commoners'.

The role of politicians is supposed to be to determine what is the "right" course of action, not simply to pick the most pragmatic approach (sometimes called "the ends justify the means"). Take affirmative action, for example. Some would call the procedure a 'right' that minorities should enjoy and also argue that it is a pragmatic approach to achieve a desired end (obviously, someone had to predetermine that achieving equality in hiring/college admissions, etc. is the "right" thing to do). Others would agree with the goal of affirmitive action but argue that the process deprives others of their rights.

In cases where two person's "rights" are in conflict (and both parties cannot get what they wish), someone must determine what is the "right" (moral) thing to do (since both person's "rights" cannot be granted/protected). The biblical analogy of King Solomon dealing with the two women disputing the parenthood of a child comes to mind here. When Solomon recommended dividing the child down the middle, one person agreed (the person who was mostly concerned with obtaining her "rights"). The other declined the offered, instead choosing to forgo her "rights" in order to do what was "right" (preserve the life of the child by allowing the other woman to take custody). Of course, we all know how that court case turned out.

I've often read threads here on DVD Talk, and often wanted to respond to many posts, however haven't been able to overcome the laziness to register and actually begin posting. Well, thanks to creekdipper, that has changed.



First, to even begin to pretend that this issue is so cut and dry that it requires terms like 'most obvious' and 'common sense' to be thrown around is completely asinine. Furthermore, if the abortion issue were able to be settled with a little... common sense..... It would seem to me that the opposite would actually be the correct judgement.

Along with most self-proclaimed "pro-life"ers, you seem to be making the same exact mistake that they make. Having the right to be alive doesn't give any human the right to be parasitic.
Even if I grant you that a couple of cells actually become a person at conception (which is also ridiculous), thus creating the idea that those cells deserve the same rights as people, then it must still be explained why that right to be alive also gives them the right to steal from the host.
If another person, who we agree has the right to live, requires half of all your nutrients in order to stay alive, then you must agree that you should be forced to sacrifice your own nutrition and well-being in order to keep that person alive. If you don't agree with that last statement, then you must lacking of any 'common sense' and 'rationality'.

So infants who require feeding, medical care, diaper changes, protection from the elements, etc. are "parasites' because others must sacrifice their own "nutrition and well-being" in order to keep the children alive? That view will go over really well with the American public. Perhaps you should suggest that the candidates began using that language ("We promise to make the country safe for you and all your little parasites!").

By the way, your view is entirely consistent with those authoritarian regimes which recommended euthanasia for those mentally- or physically-handicapped persons who are "parasitic" in their lifelong dependence upon others for their existence.

You can disagree with the scientific facts of reproduction, which require the mothers to provide a safe, nurturing environment for their children. I'm sure that many would like to be utilize a reversible method to remove the possibility of pregnancy resulting from intercourse, but that's not currently a scientific reality (even women who have had their 'tubes' tied have sometimes become pregnant). Short of hysterectomies, there's no 100% surefire method to totally avoid pregnancy . Wishing it were so does not change that fact.

However, it's ironic that people should be so adamant about 'abortion rights' in an age when multiple birth-control methods are available if they want to avoid creating a "parasite" (your word).

If one views pregnancy as an adverse consequence of intercourse (a "punishment", to paraphrase one of the two major Presidential candidates), then perhaps one should not engage in intercourse. That would seem to be the height of selfishness: in order to satisfy my physical desires, I am willing to take the life of an infant created through an act of my own choosing (when I knew full well that a life might be created). Thus, my desire for sexual fulfillment take precedence over another's right to life.

That seems to be the view you are advocating.

Three things:

As Wendersfan mentioned, I never said anything regarding all war being unnecessary. Not sure what hat you pulled that out of. I do, however, believe Iraq was unnecessary.

Second, as an American, I believe in the right for people to practice any religion they choose in a peaceful and non-harmful manner. And if my children should decide that Islam is what they choose to practice, then I will support them. Most Muslims are not fundamentalist terrorists. Religion is always only a "burden" to others who don't agree with the religion or to those having other's beliefs forced upon them. In that sense, Christianity has "burdened" more people than any other religion in history.

Finally, I spend every day thankful for the "experiment" called Social Security. When my father was forced into early retirement by cancer, I was happy to know that SS helped him to live his last days not wondering where his next meal was coming from. After my father-in-law worked forty years at a steel mill only to have his pension taken away from him in the mill's bankruptcy settlement, it's good to know that there was something there to help supplement his savings. I see no problem with the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me. To me it makes sense, as it has made sense to most cultures throughout history. It may be a flawed "experiment," but the thread that will most likely lead to its undoing, if that day should arrive, is apathy and selfishness.

The problem I have with your post is that you appear to contradict yourself. If I understand you correctly, you are not in favor of having "other's beliefs" forced upon people. Yet you see no problem with 'the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me"...even if that requires the imposition of a system that forces people to take care of others who may or may not have been able to provide for themselves.

I am all in favor of charity as a matter of personal choice, and contribute quite a large percentage of personal income AND personal time & effort to charities ...including working with Big Brothers/Sisters, Boys & Girls' club, tutoring kids in the projects during the summer, reading to the elderly at nursing home, serving food at local Salvation Army, sending supplies to soldiers in Iraq, sending toys to children in foreign lands, tutoring adults in literacy program, sending money, tools, and SPOUSE to aid hurricane-rebuilding efforts in Gulf, Meals on Wheels, after-school athletic programs (run by me, my wife, and kid volunteers), etc. However, no government official had to threaten me with fines or imprisonment to participate in those programs.

Social Security has undoubtedly helped many people who could not (or WOULD not) set aside enough finances to support themselves in their old age. The idea of Social Security was supposed to be to set aside a portion of one's earnings to be saved for later; however, what if I want to spend that money now while I am physically able to enjoy the activities for which the funds could be used? What if I choose to invest that income in a higher-yield fund? It's nice that the government wants to look out for me...but shouldn't that be MY choice? If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness, do I get to receive my Social Security benefits to enjoy now...without any penalty (since I won't live long enough to qualify for full benefits)?

I am glad that your father was able to live his final days without being destitute. My own parents certainly enjoyed Social Security benefits in addition to employer pensions. I just think it should be acknowleged that those benefits...even if every penny was earned by the recipient...is still the result of a program that has been forced upon the recipient without his/her consent.

Wrong. The role of the government is to protect the rights of individual. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral but because being murdered violates the most basic human right. Theft violates my rights to property. Rape violates the right to give consent before sex.

The role of government in a perfect world is only to protect the rights of the individual. Until that perfect world is achieved, the state must also look after itself, as without it those precious individual rights are nonexistent. (That is, after all, why we gave up the state of nature, right?)

The state looking after itself usually means the right to wage war, which is ostensibly fought for its people, but ultimately fought for the existence of the state. At certain times, the state must violate individual rights in order to sustain itself. This can include conscription and, in dire times (which we living today have not seen), the suspension of habeas corpus. It can also include the state's enforcing of certain family values, so as to ensure democratic fodder for the harsh machine which keeps the benevolent state alive.

(Those "family values" have mostly been enforced by non-state means: religion, non-supernatural moral codes, etc. Intellectuality may be the next enforcer, but I've yet to see an intellectual convince modern folks to have children and take care of them. Failing intellectuality or whatever other actor may influence people, the responsibility falls to the state. Or at least to the state interested in preserving its existence.

Damn, that worldwide ideological empire can't come soon enough. Cause I long for that perfection of government, which government must be wholly libertarian.)

There is no other sustainable way. And those who would have the perfect government prematurely--i.e., in an imperfect world--risk the replacement of a mostly just state with an entirely unjust one, which surely finds its internal policies much more conducive to sustainable military and political power.

Now whom do I enlist to convince the commoners of this simple truth?

The problem I have with your post is that you appear to contradict yourself. If I understand you correctly, you are not in favor of having "other's beliefs" forced upon people. Yet you see no problem with 'the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me"...even if that requires the imposition of a system that forces people to take care of others who may or may not have been able to provide for themselves.

I am all in favor of charity as a matter of personal choice, and contribute quite a large percentage of personal income AND personal time & effort to charities ...including working with Big Brothers/Sisters, Boys & Girls' club, tutoring kids in the projects during the summer, reading to the elderly at nursing home, serving food at local Salvation Army, sending supplies to soldiers in Iraq, sending toys to children in foreign lands, tutoring adults in literacy program, sending money, tools, and SPOUSE to aid hurricane-rebuilding efforts in Gulf, Meals on Wheels, after-school athletic programs (run by me, my wife, and kid volunteers), etc. However, no government official had to threaten me with fines or imprisonment to participate in those programs.

Social Security has undoubtedly helped many people who could not (or WOULD not) set aside enough finances to support themselves in their old age. The idea of Social Security was supposed to be to set aside a portion of one's earnings to be saved for later; however, what if I want to spend that money now while I am physically able to enjoy the activities for which the funds could be used? What if I choose to invest that income in a higher-yield fund? It's nice that the government wants to look out for me...but shouldn't that be MY choice? If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness, do I get to receive my Social Security benefits to enjoy now...without any penalty (since I won't live long enough to qualify for full benefits)?

I am glad that your father was able to live his final days without being destitute. My own parents certainly enjoyed Social Security benefits in addition to employer pensions. I just think it should be acknowleged that those benefits...even if every penny was earned by the recipient...is still the result of a program that has been forced upon the recipient without his/her consent.

Social Security is an insurance policy like any other. You pay your premiums and then file a claim for benefits. You get your money back. Just like car, home, and life insurance, one person's money is used to pay the claims of another. If I have a $100,000 dollar life insurance policy and die after paying only $10,000 in premiums where does that money come from? Other policyholder's money. I pay $700/year for home insurance. In the first year the insurance company paid $4500 for my new roof. Who's $3800 was it they used? You pay car insurance premiums your whole life and never have a wreck, you paid for all the fuckups of other drivers. The examples are endless.
An arguement can be made that all insurance should be a personal choice. We should be allowed to accept the risk of non-coverage if we want to. The indivdual in me agrees. There is a cost to society as a whole for those who are uninsured, hence mandatory insurance to relieve the burden on society.
If people were allowed to opt-out of Social Security a large percentage, probably most would screw up and not invest. Another percentage would lose make bad investments. In the end the government would either throw these people to the dogs or step in and bail them out by giving them some sort on income anyway(guess which) and we would be worse off. I see mandatory insurance as a necessary evil.

I believe every human who has ever lived was born with the same rights. Government cannot grant rights, only protect or deny them. The good ole US of A has given us nothing, only protected what we already had, or(depending on your point of view), taken away what we already had. In return we show our appreciation for that protection through patriotism.
Government is often called upon to play Solomon. The rights of the indivdual vs the good of society. If Bell could come up with an invention like the telephone, he should enjoy all the benefits that come with having a monopoly on it. In the interest of common good the government took that right away.

Government is an entity unto itself, and like any entity will always have it's best interests at heart. Government walks a tightrope balancing it's interests/goals with that of the people. The more power the people have, the more government leans to the people's needs/wants. Totalitarian governments need large militarys to protect itself from the people as much as other countries.

Even in a democracy government is a necessary evil.

Social Security is an insurance policy like any other. You pay your premiums and then file a claim for benefits. You get your money back. Just like car, home, and life insurance, one person's money is used to pay the claims of another. If I have a $100,000 dollar life insurance policy and die after paying only $10,000 in premiums where does that money come from? Other policyholder's money. I pay $700/year for home insurance. In the first year the insurance company paid $4500 for my new roof. Who's $3800 was it they used? You pay car insurance premiums your whole life and never have a wreck, you paid for all the fuckups of other drivers. The examples are endless.


One big difference in SS and Private insurance companies is the Insurance companies actually make money. I don't have a problem with the idea and sentiment behind SS. Compassion for our fellow countrymen is vital. The problem is with how the gov't has run the program. No matter how much money we throw in, it's not ever going to work the way it is structured now. There has to be some kind of fundamental reform or SS is going to be a proverbial money pit forever.

One big difference in SS and Private insurance companies is the Insurance companies actually make money. I don't have a problem with the idea and sentiment behind SS. Compassion for our fellow countrymen is vital. The problem is with how the gov't has run the program. No matter how much money we throw in, it's not ever going to work the way it is structured now. There has to be some kind of fundamental reform or SS is going to be a proverbial money pit forever.


Agree, SS has been poorly mismanaged. Also would never work without the compulsory participation, otherwise those who opted out and failed would increase the welfare state. I primarily wanted to address the notion that today's worker's finanancing current retirees' benefits is some kind of rip-off is false. That's how insurance works. Now if sometime in the future SS was discontinued and everyone told, "Sorry, you're on your own", even though you paid premiums, that would be a rip-off.

Poorly managed???

Compare the administrative cost (per benefit dollar) with the major insurance companies.

The problem I have with your post is that you appear to contradict yourself. If I understand you correctly, you are not in favor of having "other's beliefs" forced upon people. Yet you see no problem with 'the idea of helping to take care of the generation that preceded me"...even if that requires the imposition of a system that forces people to take care of others who may or may not have been able to provide for themselves.

The inherent flaw in your argument is that revolving around the nature of democracy vs. religion.

Gov't is based upon an individual's relationship with their society. As a citizen in a democracy, while I may not agree with every policy acted on by the government, there is an inherent understanding of compromise in democracy based in the agreement of majority rule. We take advantage of the rights and opportunities afforded to us by the US gov't with the understanding that we will have to accept that not all policy will be to our liking. The beauty of the system, however, is that if enough people find that they don't agree with policy, it can be changed. You may one day find yourself with a majority that doesn't believe in Social Security, but for now you are in the minority. If you find the situation intolerable, you can either opt out of the system by seeking asylum in another country with a goverment more attuned to your senses or just work harder to try and convince others to share in your view until it is majority view. The only true alternatives are tyranny or anarchy.

The relationship in religion is between an individual and their deity. Period. If religion is imposed upon an individual, there has never been an understanding created between the two. No give and take is involved, no compromise is involved, no voice is involved. Imposed religion is ultimately, for lack of a better word, a form of tyranny.

And illegal drug use?

Uh...infringes on the rights of whom? Yourself?
And no one else. Which is why I favor decriminalization of possession for personal use.

How about speeding?Speeding places other people (drivers, passengers and pedestrians) in danger of immediate physical harm.

Nonpayment of personal income taxes?Of course, that begs the question about the morality and consitutionality of income taxes, but as long as everyone is forced to pay, not paying places an extra burden on everyone else.

Consensual underage sex?Since underage means unable to give legal consent, that's somewhat of an oxymoron, but keeping kids from having sex before they're old enough is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

What about my medical example?

This one?

Also, having someone perform medical acts such as removing a bullet without government consent is also unlawful, so abortion can and should be legislated, too...

Poorly managed???

Compare the administrative cost (per benefit dollar) with the major insurance companies.
Why do we always hear about how broke and depleted the SS fund is and how the program is destined to fail on its current track? I don't care who's at fault, so don't go there. The bottom line is the program is poorly managed and nobody is doing anything about it. Name a major gov't program that is NOT poorly managed. If gov't gets into universal healthcare, you can bet that will be poorly managed as well. Gov't is already screwing up on energy, education and a ton of other things. I beginning to feel the only things our federal gov't