Splitting The Republican Party

[Gunny]

I think there are too many shades of gray for you to say that the majority of Americans agree with the extremist conservative agenda. While I might say they agree with many of the basic principles, they disagree with the extremity at which they would be imposed by the far-right if the far-right had its way. For instance, a majority of Americans agree to limits on abortion, but a majority also agrees on exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother. That doesn't make the majority wishy-washy on abortion... that makes it majority.

And, a handful is useless if they're so extreme that they can't get more than a handful. (I hope that makes some sense) Perhaps you could show me this "handful of conservatives in the House and Senate who are trying to do just what say"... I'll check their voting record and see if they voted against the tax cuts on the principle that there was no corresponding spending cuts. Why do I think they aren't voting in a manner consistent with your assertion?

Perhaps a re-read is in order. He didn't say "extremist conservative agenda."

 

[musicman]

Testing AGAIN - damn it to hell! This is twice today that I have lost an entire post, and been fed back to the home page as if I were not even logged in! If I can stop seething long enough to retype my post - AGAIN - it will have made FOUR TIMES of typing some rather involved stuff - from memory - in order to manage TWO REPLIES. Could someone please help me?

Thanks,

mm

 

[jasendorf]

Maybe it's the magic post fairies trying to tell you something about your post? Maybe they're saying, "dude, quit while you're ahead."

 

[musicman]

Maybe it's the magic post fairies trying to tell you something about your post? Maybe they're saying, "dude, quit while you're ahead."

My @#$%^&* fingers are tired, jasendorf - so let me just ask you a quick question: Whose call do YOU think abortion policy should be - the people's, through their duly elected state representatives, or the federal courts?

 

[Annie]

My @#$%^&* fingers are tired, jasendorf - so let me just ask you a quick question: Whose call do YOU think abortion policy should be - the people's, through their duly elected state representatives, or the federal courts?

dammit, I can't slam him again!

 

[jasendorf]

I think the USSC has already answered what the Constitutional answer to your question is. And, I agree with their decision 100%. I wouldn't want individual state laws determining who can have Free Speach and who cannot... the same goes for abortion and other privacy issues such as those which protected Rush Limbaugh's medical records.

But, I still want to know how conservatives can defend their position of wanting federal laws for gay marriage but want state laws for abortion.

 

[musicman]

dammit, I can't slam him again!

LOL - I'm not having any luck slamming much of anything, it seems. Everything I try to do is dying in cyberspace somewhere...

 

[jasendorf]

dammit, I can't slam him again!

"Again" would indicate that you ever slammed me once... which is obviously inaccurate.

 

[jasendorf]

LOL - I'm not having any luck slamming much of anything, it seems. Everything I try to do is dying in cyberspace somewhere...

I'm telling you! Magic post fairies!!!!

 

[musicman]

I think the USSC has already answered what the Constitutional answer to your question is.

Have they? We shall see.

But, I still want to know how conservatives can defend their position of wanting federal laws for gay marriage but want state laws for abortion.

Ah, well - if I'm going to type it twice, you might as well have the opportunity to read it once...

Some Republicans (a term not necessarily synonymous with "conservatives", mind you), are in favor of trying to thwart the attempts of liberal judges to hijack marriage on a national level. I'm not much in favor of it myself. For one thing, it's unnecessary; individual state referenda are doing a nice job of upholding the will of the people on this matter. But, give these Republicans credit: at least they're trying to change the law according to constitutional procedure, which is a damned sight more than I'll say for any liberal activist judge.

While I'm in the answering mode, I believe you brought up the matter of Congress trying to pass an Amendment regarding flag desecration. Try to get your mind around this, jasendorf (I know that it will be a strange sound to your ears): Congress - not the federal judiciary - makes laws. It's what they do. It's why we call them LAWMAKERS.

 

[musicman]

"It's way" = A federal law similar to South Dakota's new law which forces a woman to have a child (or drive herself to a neighboring state) fathered during a rape or incest. Obviously NOT what the majority believes. some numbers

Obviously, what the majority of South Dakotans believe, which - according to the U.S. Constitution - is the important question.

Oh - and please list the conservatives who are seeking further federal involvement in the abortion question.

 

[jasendorf]

Have they? We shall see.

Ah, well - if I'm going to type it twice, you might as well have the opportunity to read it once...

Some Republicans (a term not necessarily synonymous with "conservatives", mind you), are in favor of trying to thwart the attempts of liberal judges to hijack marriage on a national level. I'm not much in favor of it myself. For one thing, it's unnecessary; individual state referenda are doing a nice job of upholding the will of the people on this matter. But, give these Republicans credit: at least they're trying to change the law according to constitutional procedure, which is a damned sight more than I'll say for any liberal activist judge.

While I'm in the answering mode, I believe you brought up the matter of Congress trying to pass an Amendment regarding flag desecration. Try to get your mind around this, jasendorf (I know that it will be a strange sound to your ears): Congress - not the federal judiciary - makes laws. It's what they do. It's why we call them LAWMAKERS.

1) I can't tell you how happy I am to see the Republican Party falling apart as the "conservatives" attempt to distance themselves from "the Party."

2) So, conservatives don't desire a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in such a way as to eliminate same-sex marriage but Republicans do. Republicans aren't conservatives and conservatives aren't Republicans... I get it... so, what Party are youleft voting for some lever-pulling time?

3) To act as if the federal judiciary, in particularly the USSC, isn't charged with adjudicating the laws created by lawmakers is to IGNORE an entire article of the Constitution so charging them with upholding the Constitution in its entirety instead of cherry picking what parts it wants to uphold and what parts it wants to enforce. That means it can't ignore the First Amendment unless it is altered by a subsequent Amendment. The USSC has already upheld the Constitutionally-based First Amendment right to burn the flag in protest in Texas v. Johnson. Hence, without an Amendment, the Congress knows it cannot create a law against flag-desecration without trampling the First Amendment unless they first amend the Constitution. Try to wrap your head around that.

 

[jasendorf]

Oh - and please list the conservatives who are seeking further federal involvement in the abortion question.

Well I'll be... guess I was living in 2000.

Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment
We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

REPUBLICAN FLIP FLOP

Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals
We support the President's strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.

Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 82-83

I stand corrected... conservatives no longer believe what they said they believed just four years ago. You are right.

 

[manu1959]

They don't get it. They won't. Only question remaining, will anything intervene prior to November, that will rally the 'base'?

i don't see the base...or even the average guy jumping ship to vote dem...or not voting.....at the end of the day....we will stick by our guys and gals....and continue to pressure them to do what we think is right....

 

[Annie]

i don't see the base...or even the average guy jumping ship to vote dem...or not voting.....at the end of the day....we will stick by our guys and gals....and continue to pressure them to do what we think is right....

You may be right. Unless something changes, I won't, but I've always been a bit off.

Either will sit out or find some off party to vote for.

 

[dilloduck]

i don't see the base...or even the average guy jumping ship to vote dem...or not voting.....at the end of the day....we will stick by our guys and gals....and continue to pressure them to do what we think is right....

Agreed----as usual the alternative will be too terrifying to stay home and do nothing.

 

[manu1959]

You may be right. Unless something changes, I won't, but I've always been a bit off.

Either will sit out or find some off party to vote for.

if you sit it out ... you lose

if you vote off party ... you lose

stand by your team.....they may not win every game...but they are your team

 

[musicman]

1) I can't tell you how happy I am to see the Republican Party falling apart as the "conservatives" attempt to distance themselves from "the Party."

You're pretty young, aren't you? This has been going on for a long time; e.g., Goldwater conservatives versus Rockefeller elitist Republicans. Conservatism is a hardy strain, my friend - don't worry.

2) So, conservatives don't desire a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage in such a way as to eliminate same-sex marriage but Republicans do.

Conservatives are kicking same-sex marriage's ass at the state level - the way it should be done.

Republicans aren't conservatives and conservatives aren't Republicans... I get it... so, what Party are youleft voting for some lever-pulling time?

Ah - but that's MY call, is it not?

3) To act as if the federal judiciary, in particularly the USSC, isn't charged with adjudicating the laws created by lawmakers is to IGNORE an entire article of the Constitution so charging them with upholding the Constitution in its entirety instead of cherry picking what parts it wants to uphold and what parts it wants to enforce. That means it can't ignore the First Amendment unless it is altered by a subsequent Amendment. The USSC has already upheld the Constitutionally-based First Amendment right to burn the flag in protest in Texas v. Johnson. Hence, without an Amendment, the Congress knows it cannot create a law against flag-desecration without trampling the First Amendment unless they first amend the Constitution. Try to wrap your head around that.

None of which changes the facts that Congress makes law and the judiciary - when running properly - holds said law up to one yardstick; the U.S. Constitution. The idiotic interpretations we have seen during our lifetimes (defining vile acts as "speech"; a national policy on abortion) will pass as the judiciary returns to the strict constructionist body the American people demand. Hide and watch.

 

[Annie]

if you sit it out ... you lose

if you vote off party ... you lose

stand by your team.....they may not win every game...but they are your team

Only 'my team' if they are responsive. That's what's great about the idea of contract government. They are acting like the government is for the people, instead of by the people. They are confused.

 

[manu1959]

Only 'my team' if they are responsive. That's what's great about the idea of contract government. They are acting like the government is for the people, instead of by the people. They are confused.

true...but who do you belive at the end of the day will do it the way you want?.....will the dems build a wall?....at least the repubs made it illegal to hire illelgals