Liberals clinging desperately to gun control and abortion

[Agit8r]

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

aka; liberal democracy (see link above if this still confuses you)
________________________________________________________________________

"We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when, by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from its use or direction more than they him."
-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)

 

[Derideo_Te]

What Gosnell did was illegal, including many of the abortions he performed.

Is it your belief that any new laws can constrain criminals?

If they don't believe that new laws will prevent criminals from obtaining guns why do they believe that new laws will prevent abortions?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

And yet nothing seems to stop the endless attempts to deprive minority voters of their rights or women of their privacy rights.

 

[Agit8r]

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

And yet nothing seems to stop the endless attempts to deprive minority voters of their rights or women of their privacy rights.

That is because the GOP is republican in name only.

 

[t_polkow]

"...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

President Obama speaking about you people :And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion

 

[tjvh]

"...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

President Obama speaking about you people :And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion

Obama was pissed because Democrat Senators hung him out to dry.

 

[koshergrl]

"...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

President Obama speaking about you people :And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion

You just keep aiming for "coherence", son. Someday, you may be able to communicate with humans. On a rudimentary level. Perhaps.

 

[t_polkow]

"...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

President Obama speaking about you people :And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion

You just keep aiming for "coherence", son. Someday, you may be able to communicate with humans. On a rudimentary level. Perhaps.

Hey I'm not the one who has an avatar picture of a schmuck hanging on two sticks

 

[tinydancer]

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

And yet nothing seems to stop the endless attempts to deprive minority voters of their rights or women of their privacy rights.

If we go down that path to debate your post re: minority voters/women's rights it would become a whole different thread; that constitutes derailing. I don't like doing that to anyone's OP.

Plus it goes against the rules.

As it is the side conversation I'm having on democracy vs republic has me skating on thin ice as it is.

 

[tinydancer]

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

aka; liberal democracy (see link above if this still confuses you)
________________________________________________________________________

"We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when, by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from its use or direction more than they him."
-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to P. S. Dupont de Nemours (April 24, 1816)

Liberal democracy is a catch all term that encompasses many forms of governments with constitutions. Republic, Monarchy, or Parliamentary.

Even here at your link they list America as a constitutional republic.

We really are getting far astray of the OP though.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).


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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

And yet nothing seems to stop the endless attempts to deprive minority voters of their rights or women of their privacy rights.

If we go down that path to debate your post re: minority voters/women's rights it would become a whole different thread; that constitutes derailing. I don't like doing that to anyone's OP.

Plus it goes against the rules.

As it is the side conversation I'm having on democracy vs republic has me skating on thin ice as it is.

While minority voting rights might qualify as a side track abortion is most definitely a woman's privacy right and therefore fits within the stated context of the thread subject.

 

[koshergrl]

Murder isn't okay when it's private. Sorry.