peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
TragicMonkey said:
No, that would be Ted Kennedy. Clinton was fairly conservative for a socialist.
Will Democrats finally get a clue?
- Thread starter Rob Lister
- Start date
No, that would be Ted Kennedy. Clinton was fairly conservative for a socialist.
Lynching is also very rarely performed. Should we legalize that, too? If something is wrong, it's wrong, period. The argument that, "Well, it's rare" doesn't change that.SlippyToad said:
No, Republicans have the brains not to pick a fight they can't possibly win. The vast majority of Republicans don't want abortion banned altogether.
Your claim above notwithstanding, it is easy to define partial-birth abortion; defining the issue does not make it a straw man. The vast majority of people, even people who think abortion should be legal well into the pregnancy, think partial-birth abortion is an abomination. The Dems like to talk about "sensible limits" on gun ownership. Why don't they want to talk about "sensible limits" on abortion?
Tmy said:
Yes, but Democrat-appointed federal judges and a liberal MA supreme court did an end-run around the people's will, now didn't it?
It never BECAME a ballot question. That's why Roe V Wade is still so contentious - not because of what it says, but how it got done... in the courts, when it should have been handled legislatively.
You do realize that if there were a national referendum on some form or reasonably restricted abortion (say, before third trimester) it would win by a comfortable margin - and then even the fundies would be forced to deal with the fact that it's a matter of popular will and not judicial fiat?
You've been reading too much Ann Coulter.Jocko said:It's obvious, man! They're different because abortion is explicitly protected in the Constitution, and guns aren't even mentioned.
Er, wait, I think I have that backwards.
She wrote some months ago, something along the following lines: "Liberals can gaze upon the Constitution, where the word 'abortion' can not be found, and yet divine that a woman has a right to one. Those same liberals can gaze upon the Second Amendment and find that it does not give her the right to carry a gun. Liberals believe it is better for a woman to kill her unborn baby than the rapist who put it inside her."
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Jocko said:
Not everything can be left to "the people's will". If we let everything be decided by a majority vote, we'd have tyranny of the majority on every single issue. Judicial review is designed to protect the Constitution, which in turn protects the rights of all Americans, not just the ones in the majority. We're not a direct democracy. The system is specifically designed to prevent mob rule just as much as it's supposed to prevent dictatorship.
Put it this way: how would a plebiscite on civil rights have fared in the 1950's? How would a plebiscite about school prayer fare today?
The "will of the people" is not allowed to trump the Constitution, and the judicial system is supposed to keep the people in line with the Constitution, not the other way around. There is an amendment process, after all. If "the people" can't muster enough support to get an amendment through, then clearly it's not that vital an issue...and certainly not one worth disposing of the entire philosophical basis of American law!
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
I'll go with the gun control position reform.
It's one of the only major issues for which I personally don't have a moral attachment to, and it sure as hell makes a lot of enemies for the Dem party. I think that if Kerry had cheered, rather than jeered, the expiration of the assault weapons ban, he might have pulled a rabbit out of his hat.
I cannot morally support the rollback of gay rights, the redistribution of wealth upwards, the decimation of environmental protections, the coming assault on abortion availability or the alienation of our allies around the world.
But gun control does little or nothing to improve American lives. Crime rises and falls with the economy. Drop it and bring back into the fold just enough of the 2nd amendment kooks and the dense deer hunters who think the Dems are after their 30-30's.
It's one of the only major issues for which I personally don't have a moral attachment to, and it sure as hell makes a lot of enemies for the Dem party. I think that if Kerry had cheered, rather than jeered, the expiration of the assault weapons ban, he might have pulled a rabbit out of his hat.
I cannot morally support the rollback of gay rights, the redistribution of wealth upwards, the decimation of environmental protections, the coming assault on abortion availability or the alienation of our allies around the world.
But gun control does little or nothing to improve American lives. Crime rises and falls with the economy. Drop it and bring back into the fold just enough of the 2nd amendment kooks and the dense deer hunters who think the Dems are after their 30-30's.
TragicMonkey said:
Point taken, but your concerns are addressed in the part of my post you snipped. Bottom line is that a great deal of the acrimony over the issue is rooted in the belief that its resolution was illegitimate *cough*Gore voters*cough*. You could have had the same result, the same laws on the books, and have the terms-of-debate-changing legitimacy of unquestioned popular support.
And even the bill of rights can be revoked, by plebescite, if deemed appropriate someday. Nothing is absolute, nothing is forever. That being said, the circumstances needed for such a scenario are beyond current imaging, just as the 19th amendment was surely beyond the expectations of the first congress.
easycruise
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 725
hgc said:
Rollback of gay rights? What rollback?
Redistribution of wealth UPWARDS? Certainly you know it's going the other way with our progressive tax system.
Decimation of the environment? Hah! Clinton's last day in office he made the arsenic rules a lot tougher. His last day! Not only that, he also made routine maintenance (replace a turbine fan or a pipe, etc.) at power plants subject to a whole new set of rules whereby the whole plant has to conform to harsher EPA policy rules. These two are among many of a trap he set for Bush. Bush did keep these two rules however, but the power plant one is probably soon to go, thankfully.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
Did you know that the proposed constitutional amendment and many of the ballot initiatives that passed in 11 states on Tuesday actually specify the elimination of rights that gay couples currently enjoy? It's not just about gay marraige, but measures short of gay marraige that are being outlawed. You should get informed about these things, so as not to look foolish.easycruise said:
We'll have plenty of time to argue over these points for the next 2 and 4 years. I look forward to it.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
peptoabysmal said:
I hate to break it to you, but socialists around the world would not view Clinton as any sort of Socialist. "It's the economy stupid" is the last thing on their mind.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
The Democratic moral agenda:
Abortion on demand.
Gays and heterosexuals should be treated absolutely identically under every aspect of the law.
Complete and total removal of God from every aspect of public life.
The Republican moral agenda:
Abortion is illegal.
Homosexuality is either illegal, or at the very least shoved back into the closet. No legal recognition of any rights of homosexuals.
Christianity recognized as the foundation of American life. So bring back school prayer and all that jazz.
(The above is, of course, oversimplified.)
I have good news for the Democrats. The last election showed that a slight majority of the American people rejected your moral agenda. However, I have read several comments by Republicans who think that the American people must have accepted their moral agenda. Look for them to push their own agenda during the next two years, when they will lose at the polls.
Abortion on demand.
Gays and heterosexuals should be treated absolutely identically under every aspect of the law.
Complete and total removal of God from every aspect of public life.
The Republican moral agenda:
Abortion is illegal.
Homosexuality is either illegal, or at the very least shoved back into the closet. No legal recognition of any rights of homosexuals.
Christianity recognized as the foundation of American life. So bring back school prayer and all that jazz.
(The above is, of course, oversimplified.)
I have good news for the Democrats. The last election showed that a slight majority of the American people rejected your moral agenda. However, I have read several comments by Republicans who think that the American people must have accepted their moral agenda. Look for them to push their own agenda during the next two years, when they will lose at the polls.