Liberals clinging desperately to gun control and abortion

koshergrl

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2011
81,129
14,025
"...the media have underplayed the Gosnell story because its details might undermine support for the abortion status quo, or at least cause people to ask what exactly that status quo is these days. Rather than risk that, the Gosnell story was demoted.
In response, some have said the conservative bloggers are wrongly seeing a conspiracy of silence where there is only a difference over news judgment. By now, this response is implausible. It is hardly a revelation anymore that the media play the news in subtle but tilted ways to protect what they think is a settled social good, such as access to abortion, no matter what.
Another question raised by the trial of this abortion doctor is the matter of reactionaries clinging to the past.

"Mr. Obama's remark about rural Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion is the coin of the realm in his crowd. But let's put their shared consensus another way: Somehow it became a conventional view in contemporary American politics that it is non-urban conservatives who in every case have to accommodate their beliefs to a national culture created by people who live somewhere else. "They" must adjust on abortion, guns, school prayer, sexual mores and all the rest of it. Liberals, meanwhile, not only feel no need to concede anything but use the commanding heights of the press and academia to define anyone who dissents from their ever-evolving national culture as a political fringe obsessed with people, one might say, who aren't like them."

"But what about Kermit Gosnell? This story suggests something Neanderthal-like may have developed around the fringe of abortion practice in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade. But rather than re-examine and even reform those practices, the curtain will be pulled on the Gosnell case. They'll cling to Roe, no matter how unseemly its status quo."


Henninger: Clinging to Guns?and Abortion - WSJ.com

:clap2:
 
Last edited:
What Gosnell did was illegal, including many of the abortions he performed.

Is it your belief that any new laws can constrain criminals?
 
Isn't it strange that statistically you are more likely to get gunned down in Chicago, then killed in a Terrorist attack in Boston. Something to think about.
 
Isn't it strange that statistically you are more likely to get gunned down in Chicago, then killed in a Terrorist attack in Boston. Something to think about.

You're also more likely to get an abortion, and die from it, if you live in an area with heavy PP infiltration. Likewise, you're more likely to be an abused kid in those neighborhoods.

Go figure. Guess the presence of free abortion for all DOESN'T reduce the numbers of abortion or reduce the incidence of child abuse. What a shocker.
 
They bitterly cling to these issues because they have nothing else. They can not balance a budget. They can not solve our economic problems (which basically means stop molesting it) and are just making them worse. The union thumping and education issues need to be side stepped because it is their policies that have FUBARed education. I mean, they have nothing else. Even Goebbel's Warming is going down in flames these days.

Since republicans have been put out to pasture, it's only a matter of time before the LOLberals follow and hopefully not before it's compeltely too late.
 
Last edited:
We're a federal constitutional republic...which is a type of democracy, but not a true democracy.
 
Liberals clinging desperately to gun control and abortion
At least we're not clinging to....

The NEW YORK POST!!!!


493.gif
.
493.gif
.
493.gif
.
493.gif
 
And America is not a democracy.

I keep hearing people say that, but why? What aspects differentiate it from a democracy?

Democracy quite simply put is mob rule. I'll give you a practical example of that in a minute. I live in one.

But for a simple definition of a constitutional Republic and why America is one can found here.

2. Republican Form of Government

There are two basic requirements which must be met if a government is to be styled a republic:

(1) it must be popular in origin, i.e., draw its authority from an extensive electorate; and (2) power must be exercised by representatives.

It is distinguished from an hereditary monarchy in that it is based on popular election and from democracy in that power is wielded by representatives.

Those who favored the new Constitution took pains to show that the government it provided for was republican in character.*

James Madison showed that its powers were derived from the people by this explanation:

The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people.

The Senate, like the Present Congress and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. [The Senate was chosen by state legislatures until the ratification of the 17th Amendment.]

The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States.

Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves.¹²

Here's the kicker:

As they understood the difference between a republic and a democracy, it was a republic, not a democracy.

Though it was based on the people, the people acted through representatives.

Popular decision went through a series of filtrations, as Madison put it, before it became government action.


The Founding of the American Republic: 17. Principles of the Constitution : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
 
We're a federal constitutional republic...which is a type of democracy, but not a true democracy.

Because certain rights are guaranteed. Yeah, that's called liberal democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

No way jose. It's because America is a Republic that your rights are written in stone.

If you lived in a democracy, mob rule could cancel those rights at any time.

Great explanation here.

Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority.

Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic.

* For example, the First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't – or shouldn't – matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people. Speech is not subject to majority approval.

Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob.


A Republic, Not a Democracy by Ron Paul
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top