[ebuddy]

Some adhere to a more staunch ideal of Republicanism in that they place the very party before core convictions.

I am a moderate Republican. Some on the far right call me a commie. Some on the far left call me a neo-con. Why? Because I put my core convictions on the line instead of toeing the party line. Hmmm. I'm glad they're able to so quickly lump everything into a tight little package.

I believe in smaller, more efficient government. A government that spends less on special interests and more on protecting the country from adversity. Adversity like illegal immigration, the spread of disease, growing threats from within and abroad. I believe with less bureucracy we're able to tackle some more complex social issues like; unemployment, disaster aid, and helping the handicapped and helping those who serve our country. I believe this is in line with what many call traditional values, family values, and compassion in general. I believe we can make a positive difference in also easing adversity abroad to spread democracy, create more allies, and reap trade and financial benefit. I believe in the power of the over-achiever and believe it's they who have driven success in this country. I believe if someone shows signs of over-achievement, but face social conditions that hinder them from attaining real success we should do everything we can to help them become contributing members of society. Allowing conditions to fester because it doesn't directly affect us only disseminates the problem to more and more people and eventually ends up in the laps of our own children. I believe it is dangerous to rely on the government, but I also believe there isn't enough charity to cover need. I believe government can be a catylist for a better life, not the sole provider of it. I believe in getting the mentally ill into facilities and off the streets. I believe in tax breaks for institutions that provide aid locally. While I believe my taxes are too high, I'd have no problem giving it up if I knew it were being spent wisely. I don't believe it has. Examples;
- More than 80_percent of a $221,200 grant allocated to build a museum honoring civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and labor organizer Cesar Chavez is unaccounted for, said state Controller Steve Westly._ Westly began his investigation after it was reported that one group received $500,000 for a community center in San Francisco that was never built. Why do this anyway, let alone where the heck the money went???
- A General Accounting Office report released reveals that bureaucrats in the Veterans Health Administration have been using cards issued by Citibank to charge movie and baseball tickets, children's clothing, country club outings, expensive meals and even cases of beer to the taxpayers.
- How 'bout $175 million dollars given to the National Endowment of the Arts during the Clinton administration that rendered such works as the Virgin Mary covered in elephant crap and "Piss Christ". No thanks. I guess I'm a commie because I'd rather that money had gone to help fund an over-achiever's way into college or a mentally ill person off the streets, or a handicapped person find success over adversity.
- or the National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity, a $4_million project funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities in which we get to hear "activists" tell us they couldn't care less about us and how damaging we are to the world.
- American taxpayers pay over $16_million for the "Army of One" sponsorship on a Winston Cup stock_car.
- Most of the homeland security money Congress has appropriated since Sept._11, 2001, has failed to reach the local governments that need it most, while much of the funding has gone to places that face only a minimal threat from terrorism. How about tighter border control???
- How 'bout NPR? I couldn't care less for them. Money poorly spent.

These are just the tip of the waste iceberg. This is money that can be used for real good, not BS. I guess this makes me a commie, because I don't see my party really doing anything about it. Many of the above secure votes and anything for the party line right?

[Dakar]

In my opinion, you aren't so much moderate as true to the classic ideals of being a republican.

I consider this to be a fairly large difference.

[iLikebeer]

to both of you.
Hopefully we'll have a middle party one day or at least the parties will listen to those of us that toe the line and not just the people they need the votes from.

[mitchell_pgh]

I consider myself a moderate republican.

I'm rather neutral on many social issues [gay marriage, abortion etc.] and republican on financial/governmental decisions. As a republican, I don't really like the "religious" moniker that my party has taken since G. W. Bush has taken office. I think of it more as "pro responsibility"... hard on crime, big military, small government, big business... even though I do feel like our parties are basically the same now in many areas.

[Mac Guru]

Political Orientation Quiz

This is me:


I was surprised at how many of my 'moderate republican' friends, fell solidly in the Libertarian party lines.

Mac Guru

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Some adhere to a more staunch ideal of Republicanism in that they place the very party before core convictions.

I am a moderate Republican. Some on the far right call me a commie. Some on the far left call me a neo-con. Why? Because I put my core convictions on the line instead of toeing the party line. Hmmm. I'm glad they're able to so quickly lump everything into a tight little package.

I believe in smaller, more efficient government.

It's quite telling when you have to be a "moderate" Republican if you believe in smaller, more efficient gov't.

But it doesn't really seem like what you're talking about is moderate vs. extreme or moderate vs. conservative. On the one hand, I just think you have a bad leader right now, who doesn't seem to give a crap about being responsible with government.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, the Republican party has never been the party of fiscal responsibility. They talk like they are, or at least they used to under Reagan, but even under Reagan spending massively increased because, although he was making small cuts in social programs, he was dramatically increasing military spending. Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible then Republicans. In that sense, Bush is just being a true Republican.

[Secret__Police]

Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate Republican in this day and age.

[ebuddy]

originally posted by BRussell; Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible then Republicans. In that sense, Bush is just being a true Republican

First of all, this is the same blindness I'm talking about in the first place, only in reverse. It's not Bush alone, it wasn't Clinton alone while spending the $175million to the NEA for worthless 'cultural' pieces while his administration was in office. It's BOTH of them and MOST of them. I get these little leaflets and things from Compassion International talking about what .60 cents a day can provide for a family in oppressive conditions while my government throws my money around like it was getting paid for every dollar it can't account for.

Take one 12 oz. glass of water, line up 10 people. The 10th person is the intended recipient of your money. Take the water and pour it into the cupped hands of the first person, have them pour thier water into the cupped hands of the next one and so on...then measure how much water makes it to your intended recipient. This is what is happening today. Now, imagine if you could cut the 10 people down to 6 and had each of them cup their hands with more focus on how thier hands were cupped. I think you'll find a much better result for the intended recipient. In fact, you may be able to eventually add a 7th back in, then an 8th. I have no problem helping the homeless, or the jobless, or the minority who wants to succeed, because I know there is not enough charitible giving to cover this need. When I see that the United Way is wasting money, I can tell them by holding back funds. I can't do this with the Federal Government. What I have a problem with is the fact that the money is not getting to them or being used responsibly in getting to them. Then, money is just being spent on things that have no reasonable benefit to our sovereignty and the well-being of our country. In fact, I've seen in some cases our funding of matters that actually damage these aspects of our nation. It's bothersome to me. Many believe this is why you want smaller government, that they will always spend indiscriminate amounts of our money and to that I agree. I also think that smaller governments can tackle more complex social ills if we dedicated a "focused, more trimmed down effort" on doing so and not blowing unbelievable amounts of money on exterior posturing and pandering.

In truth, much of this thread was dedicated to a poster by the name of Twilley Spree who was quick to call me a commie, a liberal, and even a *gasp DEMOCRAT () for espousing this kind of reason. It's moderates like me that put our Republican President into office and elected a predominantly Republican House and Senate. NOW, I'd like a little more representation. I'm not asking the party to become what it is not, I'm asking it to return to what it really is. Or, what it claims to be.

One last thing, I don't believe the Republican party should abandon it's strong religious sect. This is one of the last bastions of hope for the party. I'm not talking about what some view as suppressing the rights of the homosexual (while I lean to a federal government that doesn't concern itself in such matters, Americans in almost every State of our Union have spoken on how they feel about special legislation for gays and I believe we should leave complex "ideals" to the State. Afterall, a representative government will more adequately represent the people when legislation is left to those within the community in question), I believe if the Republican Party begins to divorce itself from God, we will see a watered down RepubliCrat Party. What do I mean by divorcing itself from God? Passing bills that fund special interests that do not benefit the less fortunate in favor of looking good to groups that never have and never will reciprocate the gratuity. I believe we can do MORE with LESS. Period.

[BRussell]

ebuddy,

I just always scratch my head when people say they want smaller government, or say they're fiscal conservatives, but then vote Republican. I guess Republicans use that rhetoric more than Democrats, but the facts sure don't fit. The Republican coalition just amazes me. They have people who say they believe in small, weak government, but they also have social conservatives and "strict constructionists" who want to make their values the law. Often the same people hold both sets of beliefs. Of course they get them both because Democrats have no clear philosophical stand on either issue.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by BRussell:
ebuddy,

I just always scratch my head when people say they want smaller government, or say they're fiscal conservatives, but then vote Republican. I guess Republicans use that rhetoric more than Democrats, but the facts sure don't fit. The Republican coalition just amazes me. They have people who say they believe in small, weak government, but they also have social conservatives and "strict constructionists" who want to make their values the law. Often the same people hold both sets of beliefs. Of course they get them both because Democrats have no clear philosophical stand on either issue.

I would think they're main argument would stem from the fact that Democrats will tax the hell out of you. Nevermind the fiscal responsibility part.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible then Republicans. In that sense, Bush is just being a true Republican.

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Democrats have never been about fiscal responsibility, for the government or for the people. Republicans aren't about it anymore either, of course; it just happens that the current set of excesses is so great that even the Democrats have found cause for alarm.

Truth be told, there is no party out there right now which is about responsibility. The Libertarians come closest, but fail at the point where they drop our current responsibilities on the floor rather than resolving and leaving them in a state where they can sustain themselves without governmental interference; this will inevitably end in an anti-libertarian backlash, leaving us in an even less fiscally-responsible position than before.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Democrats have never been about fiscal responsibility, for the government or for the people. Republicans aren't about it anymore either, of course; it just happens that the current set of excesses is so great that even the Democrats have found cause for alarm.

Truth be told, there is no party out there right now which is about responsibility. The Libertarians come closest, but fail at the point where they drop our current responsibilities on the floor rather than resolving and leaving them in a state where they can sustain themselves without governmental interference; this will inevitably end in an anti-libertarian backlash, leaving us in an even less fiscally-responsible position than before.

No party (or person) is perfect. But there is a difference, and it's not in the direction the rhetoric suggests.

Here's an article with a bunch of statistics about the last 55 years or so:

The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans).

And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent).

That's from a liberal writer (Kinsley), but if you want similar criticisms from the other side, check out this page from the Cato Institute.

Republicans don't believe in small government when it comes to social issues. And they don't in foreign policy either. But if you look at the facts, they don't believe in small government on the economic side either. Is there anything left? Values? Bush kinda smirks the way I like politicians to smirk? Liberals make fun of us too much? What the hell is it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

BRussel: what about the candidates the Democrats ran who were rejected at the polls? That's where a lot of the perception of Democrats as irresponsible comes from. It's not just the moderate ones you managed to get elected. It's the larger numbers of liberals you ran, but the country turned down. People like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis had no credible claim to be fiscal conservatives.

It also goes back to presidents like LBJ, who tops all those charts on the Cato site you point to (and by the way, Reagan seems to do about the best). Another factor is that who is left and who is right chages over time. Kennedy was in modern terms more economically conservative than Nixon. And the only real budget cutter those Cato charts show was Reagan.

That of course brings me to the role of Congress. A lot of the spending that took place was because of Congress, not just the president, and the Democrats' long control of Congress has an awful lot to do with public perceptions of Democrats as eager to tax and spend. Conversely, the restraint under Clinton had a lot to do with the GOP taking control after 1994. Not that I wouldn't agree that they haven't since lost that discipline now they have the same party in the White House.

I think in sum you are presenting a simplistic picture while denying something that has been obvious to all since FDR's day: Democrats are associated with big, expensive, taxpayer-funded domestic programs for good reasons: they created most of the ones we have. The public stereotype on that isn't entirely wrong.

[mitchell_pgh]

No surprise...

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by BRussell:
also have social conservatives and "strict constructionists" who want to make their values the law.

I just want to add that both parties want to make their values the law. Values is what every nation forces upon their people. Values, like making slavery and racism illegal. These are values. They are no different then forcing people to allow homosexuals to marry, and no different forcing people to care for their children.

The whole concept of civil liberties is based on values. Our constitution is based on values. If you wish not to have values pressed upon people, then there is not a government available that will ever suit you.

Some people choose values based on their religion, this is not new. Abolitionists were highly religious, saying that God would not approve of slavery. They wish to enact an ethical law based on moral reasoning; there is nothing wrong with that.

The major problem with people in America today, is when someone does this now, they take their position as being religious based. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quick example.

Some people say that outlawing embryonic stem cell research is using religion to control the state, while this assumption is false. Whether or not to give liberties to embryos is not based on religion, but on ethics. It is based on the idea if it is acceptable to conceive human organisms in captivity for the sole purpose of harvesting their internal organs. Some people use their theist believes to make a decision, but it is no difference then using atheist beliefs to make a decision either (as both are based on unfounded assumptions). It is still based on ethics, which hold no religious values. The last party to not be held by ethical boundaries was the Nazis, which believed that Natural Selection was the true way for humanity to advance.

So, both parties are forcing ethical values on everyone. That is what domestic policy is all about, forcing values.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
I just want to add that both parties want to make their values the law. Values is what every nation forces upon their people. Values, like making slavery and racism illegal. These are values. They are no different then forcing people to allow homosexuals to marry, and no different forcing people to care for their children.

I agree that it's about values, but I disagree that both sides of an issue always involve forcing values onto others. Take the case of sodomy laws. One side says they want laws against other people's bedroom behavior. The other side says they don't want laws telling people where to put their penises. The former involves an imposition of values on others, the latter does not. You can go through any issue, and it's often the same: one side wants to use government to control what other people can do, and the other side wants more freedom from government control, whether it's abortion or gay marriage or whatever the social issue a la mode. I mean du jour.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by BRussell:
gay marriage or whatever the social issue a la mode.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree that it's about values, but I disagree that both sides of an issue always involve forcing values onto others. Take the case of sodomy laws. One side says they want laws against other people's bedroom behavior. The other side says they don't want laws telling people where to put their penises. The former involves an imposition of values on others, the latter does not. You can go through any issue, and it's often the same: one side wants to use government to control what other people can do, and the other side wants more freedom from government control, whether it's abortion or gay marriage or whatever the social issue a la mode. I mean du jour.

The problem with your comment is that it fails to take into account groups.

For example, the ACLU is forcing the Boy Scouts to allow homosexual leaders and replace their traditional scout oath, when one can say a tolerant person would just not care what the Boy Scouts do �do not like them, start your own group�. This is similar to, �do not like homosexual-marriage, do not marry a homosexual�. Both are the same position. As the Boy Scouts are not forcing another group to not allow homosexuals, it is intolerant for the ACLU to care about what the Boy Scouts do and to delve into their privet matters. It is similar to saying "hey you, marry a homosexual".

Liberals more then often seem to force their values upon groups. While conservatives more then often force their values upon individuals. Both sides are fundamentally intolerant to an equal degree, just in different ways. One is what I like to call the �whaaa whaaa, you do not want to be my friend, whaaa whaaa, I am going to sue you until you become my friend now� syndrome and the other �whaaa whaaa, you do not want to be like me, whaaa whaaa, I am going to sue you until you become like me� syndrome.

Liberals are no more tolerant then Conservatives, Democrats no more tolerant then Republicans. There are just intolerant in a different manner, unless you believe that a group has no people in it.

Also, keep in mind that the primary purpose of groups is to exclude people. If a group allowed everyone in, then it would not be a group anymore, right? I really do not care how people act, unless it harms another person. Along with that, I do not care how groups act, unless they also harm people. I believe that groups can exclude ideas however they see fit, just as you as a person can exclude what ever ideas you see fit, unless of course, it harms other people.

Forcing a group to �see it your way� is no different then forcing an individual to �see it your way�. Each way, people are being told to �see it your way�.

Liberals are just as intolerant as Conservatives. Just in a different way. One side has 100 dimes in 50 cups, one just has 100 dimes in one bucket. People just find it easier to label the bucket, I guess just because it is bigger or something.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Liberals more then often seem to force their values upon groups.

though i don't personally consider myself a liberal, i would certainly have to disagree with you here.

most liberal causes i have heard of are about individual liberties that don't harm others (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, right to associate, right to freedom from persecution etc.)

conservativism otoh to me always tries to enforce some kind of moral or societal standards either by force of law or societal blackmail (wich has become the ultimate tool of choice for conservativism)

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
though i don't personally consider myself a liberal, i would certainly have to disagree with you here.

most liberal causes i have heard of are about individual liberties that don't harm others (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, right to associate, right to freedom from persecution etc.)

conservativism otoh to me always tries to enforce some kind of moral or societal standards either by force of law or societal blackmail (wich has become the ultimate tool of choice for conservativism)

I must disagree.

Whether or not abortion harms another person is still up to debate. You could assume that abortion an embryo harms no one, but seeing how a fetus feels pain, you will have a hard time convincing me that partial-birth-abortion harms no one. If a fetus is a human being (scientifically seems like it), then indeed, the democrat (and liberals) are grossly infringing on the civil liberties of another human being.

Keep in mind (this may seem hard to understand) but women have nothing to do with a decision about abortion. If a fetus is a human being, then abortion is wrong, if a fetus is not a human being, then abortion is okay. Civil liberties would demand that if a fetus is a human being, that he/she should never be killed without discretion for any reason. Assuming that a fetus is not a human being by emotionalizing women, is a logical fallacy that democrats have routinely embellished. Seeing how a premature baby is afforded constitutional rights, logically it seems the democrats have taken quite the "ill-tolerant stance".

Liberals are also known to persecute others, as I said with them persecuting groups.

You need to better your "right to associate" for me, so that I know how to respond however.

[ebuddy]

Cohiba. Well put regarding the hypocracy of those intolerant people so quick to call another person intolerant. This drives me crazy. This is something I've been griping about for a long time.

Xenophobes calling people xenophobic.
Homophobes calling people homophobic
Racists calling people racist
...but it seems there's a new phobia in town and this one is beginning to dwarf most others in the level of intolerance; Christianophobia.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
The problem with your comment is that it fails to take into account groups.

For example, the ACLU is forcing the Boy Scouts to allow homosexual leaders and replace their traditional scout oath, when one can say a tolerant person would just not care what the Boy Scouts do �do not like them, start your own group�. This is similar to, �do not like homosexual-marriage, do not marry a homosexual�. Both are the same position. As the Boy Scouts are not forcing another group to not allow homosexuals, it is intolerant for the ACLU to care about what the Boy Scouts do and to delve into their privet matters. It is similar to saying "hey you, marry a homosexual".

Good point, but I think the issue there is the extent to which the Boy Scouts are a public group, with ties to public (government) institutions like the schools where they might have their meetings. If they really are private, they can discriminate however they want, but if they want to use public accommodations they need to follow the rules.

I also think we can make a distinction between freedoms that involve denying other people rights or accommodations and those that are truly individual rights. Some freedoms have zero effect on other people, like overturning those sodomy laws, and others involve the "freedom" to discriminate against others. For example, conservatives in the South made a states' rights argument against civil rights laws (not to mention slavery). They said it would reduce their freedom if they had to ensure the freedom of blacks.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I also think we can make a distinction between freedoms that involve denying other people rights or accommodations and those that are truly individual rights. Some freedoms have zero effect on other people, like overturning those sodomy laws, and others involve the "freedom" to discriminate against others. For example, conservatives in the South made a states' rights argument against civil rights laws (not to mention slavery). They said it would reduce their freedom if they had to ensure the freedom of blacks.

Yes. However abortion rights would appear to fall under this category as well (from a pro-life perspective): freedom to deny rights of a fetus.
So I would put:
* freedom to discriminate against blacks and minorities
* freedom to discriminate against women (remember those golf country club scandals of a couple of years ago?)
* freedom to discriminate against gays and lesbians
* and freedom to deny personhood to fetuses

in the same boat.
I just happen to think that fetuses are *not* persons, until 25 weeks or so.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Yes. However abortion rights would appear to fall under this category as well (from a pro-life perspective): freedom to deny rights of a fetus.

That's an excellent point Mithras, as usual! But I'd appreciate it if in the future you didn't throw wrenches into my tidy little philosophies. Thanks in advance.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Good point, but I think the issue there is the extent to which the Boy Scouts are a public group, with ties to public (government) institutions like the schools where they might have their meetings. If they really are private, they can discriminate however they want, but if they want to use public accommodations they need to follow the rules.

I also think we can make a distinction between freedoms that involve denying other people rights or accommodations and those that are truly individual rights. Some freedoms have zero effect on other people, like overturning those sodomy laws, and others involve the "freedom" to discriminate against others. For example, conservatives in the South made a states' rights argument against civil rights laws (not to mention slavery). They said it would reduce their freedom if they had to ensure the freedom of blacks.

Ahh, but public funds can be used for such. For example, I have no problems placing public funds into facilities that are used by privet organizations. I currently place tax moolah into Tokyo parks. I have no problems with any non-violent organization using these parks to assemble for any reason. They can have their groups assemble into them, and even if I do not agree with their stance, I place my tax money to that facility so that they can use them.

A large problem for people today, is that they do not accept that religion and laws enforcing religious theocracy is a different concept. The Boy Scouts are not a creating legislation; they only require that you affirm onto a set of religious beliefs. The constitution only says a separation of religious laws and state, not a separation of religion and state. A quick quote�

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This just means that no public laws will be made based upon religious theocracy. Likewise, this amendment states that congress shale not infringe upon their religious rules, unless they spread onto the public sector. The Boy Scouts do not apply to either.

Because of this, the constitution is being used in a way that it is not supposed to be used, both in context and in plain English, so the ACLU is being intolerant of the Boy Scouts right to their lifestyle, which is not hurting anyone else, by making the 1st amendment mean something it does not mean. All it means is that no laws will be made based on religious dogma, and that they will be no church of America. Saying that means organizations that use the word God are to be cut from government spending, is like saying priests do not deserve social program benefits.

So, while religious conservatives are wrong in using the government to ban homosexual marriage, the ACLU is wrong to use the government to dissolve the Boy Scouts because they do not "line up with their views". It is in this capacity that the ACLU is intolerant, and that the Boy Scouts are being persecuted.

It all comes down if you believe that groups of people have rights too (which seeing how groups consist of people, only makes logical sense), to choose their private lifestyle just as much as individual people have the right to choose their private lifestyle. Just as someone who is highly religious deserves social benefits, so does a group who is highly religious deserve social benefits. Until the "values" of the person, or the "values" of the group infringe on the first amendment, forcing either people, or groups to "see it your way", is intolerant.

Just as it would be wrong to tell a family on welfare (do not say God, or you get no welfare), it equally wrong to say to the Boy Scouts (do not say God, or you get no government subsidization).

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Yes. However abortion rights would appear to fall under this category as well (from a pro-life perspective): freedom to deny rights of a fetus.
So I would put:
* freedom to discriminate against blacks and minorities
* freedom to discriminate against women (remember those golf country club scandals of a couple of years ago?)
* freedom to discriminate against gays and lesbians
* and freedom to deny personhood to fetuses

in the same boat.
I just happen to think that fetuses are *not* persons, until 25 weeks or so.

There is a difference. One is denying a person to be part of a private group, one is denying a person constitutional rights (which would be denying a person to be an American). The constitution allows private groups to discriminate against people, but does not allow groups or people to remove a persons constitutional rights, which none involve the right to join any privet group.

By your example, I could remove your rights to live, thinking only those who have lived in Soel Korea for 1 1/2 years have the right of life. Nope, cannot do that. But, by American law, I can create a privet club which you must have at least spend 1 1/2 years in Soel Korea to join.

[BRussell]

Cohiba, I'm willing to agree with you on the Boy Scouts issue. If I were on the board of the Boy Scouts, I would vote not to discriminate, but as long as they're not intertwined too heavily with government they can discriminate if that's what they want to do. And from what I understand, the courts have consistently ruled against the ACLU on that issue.

But here's where I don't get you:

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Just as it would be wrong to tell a family on welfare (do not say God, or you get no welfare), it equally wrong to say to the Boy Scouts (do not say God, or you get no government subsidization).

Doesn't that undermine your point rather than support it? You're saying that government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, like in the case of welfare. But to the extent that the Boy Scouts act on behalf of the government (like if they get a lot of gov't subsidization or use public accommodations), you're saying it's OK for them to discriminate against others. It's not about the Boy Scouts "saying God," it's about the Boy Scouts getting gov't support and then telling members that they have to "say God." It's the same issue with these faith-based charities getting gov't support. The sticking point is that Bush wants them to get gov't support and yet continue to require that their members or the recipients of their charity follow their religion.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Cohiba, I'm willing to agree with you on the Boy Scouts issue. If I were on the board of the Boy Scouts, I would vote not to discriminate, but as long as they're not intertwined too heavily with government they can discriminate if that's what they want to do. And from what I understand, the courts have consistently ruled against the ACLU on that issue.

But here's where I don't get you:

Doesn't that undermine your point rather than support it? You're saying that government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, like in the case of welfare. But to the extent that the Boy Scouts act on behalf of the government (like if they get a lot of gov't subsidization or use public accommodations), you're saying it's OK for them to discriminate against others. It's not about the Boy Scouts "saying God," it's about the Boy Scouts getting gov't support and then telling members that they have to "say God." It's the same issue with these faith-based charities getting gov't support. The sticking point is that Bush wants them to get gov't support and yet continue to require that their members or the recipients of their charity follow their religion.

A tad bit different. You see, when it comes to social programs, the government can place money into anything, faith based, non faith based, so on and ect� The reason is that the government cannot discriminate based on anything. So, for example, a privet university can allow certain people based on what ever reasons they want. They can take a "no women" policy if they want to. The Boy Scouts only allow certain people in. Government law does not say anything about discrimination based upon religion. Just as Catholic colleges require you to intermingle in religion, so can any private organization. Both are allowed to get money from the state, as neither can be discriminated upon.

Similar for example. The Girl Scouts can discriminate based on sex, and still get government money. As an organization, they can discriminate however they want when it comes to recruitment, but the government cannot discriminate them based on that. Just as there is the Negro College Fund, they get tax breaks, but they also discriminate. All these privet organizations are just that, privet, so they can discriminate however they see fit. The Girl Scouts cannot act on a position that robs others of their American civil liberties (e.g. men suck and are technically not people so we can kill them) as then you are forcing them out of a completely different group, called America, which has already taken these people. One group can choose who gets into their personal group. But, the Girl Scouts cannot say, do not join this group. They can kick you out of their group, but cannot kick you out of another group, let alone America (only American can kick you out of America).

Any non-profit privet organization can receive government moolah, no matter what their beliefs are (unless they break the law). As the government cannot discriminate, they must be blind to any of this. Saying the government can discriminate groups based on their beliefs, is no different then saying the government can discriminate people based on their beliefs. Just forcing groups to follow a set of rules, is no less tyrannical then forcing an individual to follow a set of rules, unless listed in the laws of the land.

Imagine being told who to date, who to have as friends, who to be room mates with? It is no different then telling a group who to let in, and who to allow to lead you.

As rat-basterdly as it may sound, it is your right to not want to be friends with a homosexual, just as it is the right of a group to not want to be friendly with a homosexual.

I also agree with you, I do not mind homosexuals in scouting, but again the master scout chief is like 80 years old, hopefully this will change.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
A tad bit different. You see, when it comes to social programs, the government can place money into anything, faith based, non faith based, so on and ect� The reason is that the government cannot discriminate based on anything. So, for example, a privet university can allow certain people based on what ever reasons they want. They can take a "no women" policy if they want to. The Boy Scouts only allow certain people in. Government law does not say anything about discrimination based upon religion. Just as Catholic colleges require you to intermingle in religion, so can any private organization. Both are allowed to get money from the state, as neither can be discriminated upon.

I'm not sure if I understand your post. You may prefer a system in which the government can subsidize an institution, and that institution would still be free to discriminate as if it were private, but it's not the current state of the law in the US.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm not sure if I understand your post. You may prefer a system in which the government can subsidize an institution, and that institution would still be free to discriminate as if it were private, but it's not the current state of the law in the US.

Slightly, for example, churches receive tax benefits, along with every other type of non-profit group. These non-profit groups can discriminate how they wish, as these groups are privet groups. All the law states is that government organizations cannot discriminate based on race and sex. Seeing how a privet non-profit organization is not a government organization, they can discriminate however they wish.

The reason why the law is this way is to ensure that people (both individuals and groups of individuals) can choose their lifestyle. Think of the Boy Scouts as one person. Mr. Boy Scout can dislike homosexuals, but can still receive welfare. Mr. Boy Scout has the right to only be friends with those who believe in God. Mr. Boy Scout cannot beat other people up, nor can he stop, say Mrs. Girl Scout from being friends with Mrs. ACLU. But at the same time, it is wrong for Mrs. ACLU to force Mr. Boy Scout to be friends with, say, Mr. NAACP.

Groups have, (and hopefully always will) be offered the same rights as people because they consist of people. Just as no person has the right to kill you, neither does any group has the right to kill you, but just as you have the right to not associate with anyone, and still receive government care (welfare, financial aid, etc), just any group you belong to has the same rights to not associate with anyone and still receive government care (tax breaks, and subsidization).

Even if I do not agree with what the group stands for, they still have the right to discriminate how they wish, and with any form of welfare government (which we are) they still have the right to government help, just as people, no matter their beliefs, have the right to government help.

Forcing a group to believe how you wish or restricting government care, is the exact thing as forcing individual people to believe how you wish or restricting government care, because groups consist of people.

[Lefterer Guy]

Hooray! A discussion that hasn't resorted to mindless name calling and idiocy!

I think the best thing we could do to solve all these problems would be to create a new code of completely utilitarian, secular ethics, establish it as a constitutional amendment, and create laws from there. To do something like this would be no small undertaking but I think the result would be good for our society. With ethics pulled away from any particular religion, it would cool down discussions of new laws or stop new laws that could not be justified by the set of ethics. This is what I've been thinking of:

Our purpose as human beings is unknown. Therefore, we must let everyone take whatever actions they wish.

Your job as a person should be to do whatever you want to do, as long as that does not interfere with what others would like to do. When conflicts occur, activities should be prioritized amongst people in the order of life and liberty.

Life - Literally life. To live.

Liberty - The right to think or do whatever you want, provided it doesn't kill anyone or take away someone else's ability to think or do whatever they want.

In conflicts of the same level, then the law will favor the person losing their right. If both parties stand to gain and move towards a personal goal, neither will win.

You do not have the liberty to kill someone because their right to life is more important.

You do not have the liberty to steal because that action is taking away another person's pre-existing liberty to posses.

It's not perfect but with thousands of brilliant minds, I'm certain we could come up with a set of laws roughly like we have now, only completely traceable back to their original logic, based on a lowest common denominator of rights, in order to help resolve conflicts.

Or maybe I'm just insane.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Whether or not abortion harms another person is still up to debate.

no, actually it is not. i (and others here) have pointed out often enough that a fetus (in it's early stage) is nothing like an 'aware' human being. late term abortion might be a different issue all-together, but abortions 'in general' cannot in any way be viewed as something that intentionally harms a person.

and EVEN if it would (which it doesn't), i think it would do less harm, than to force pregnant women to a) give up control over their bodies b) have abortions performed in environments which are uncontrolled and potentially dangerous to one's health.

because whether you like it or not, abortions are going to happen. in the end it's just a matter of whether they can be conducted by a professional in a clinic, or in some back room with a coat-hanger. this is what a lot of conservatives, unfortunately, don't understand.

[Lefterer Guy]

I think the decision to abort should be the mother's for the first half of the pregnancy or so and the doctor's from then on. Never, ever should it be in the hands of politicians. If the mother doesn't want her baby after the second half and it looks to cause no health problems for her, she should give birth and give the child up for adoption. Newborns have a pretty good chance of getting a nice home.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
no, actually it is not. i (and others here) have pointed out often enough that a fetus (in it's early stage) is nothing like an 'aware' human being. late term abortion might be a different issue all-together, but abortions 'in general' cannot in any way be viewed as something that intentionally harms a person.

and EVEN if it would (which it doesn't), i think it would do less harm, than to force pregnant women to a) give up control over their bodies b) have abortions performed in environments which are uncontrolled and potentially dangerous to one's health.

because whether you like it or not, abortions are going to happen. in the end it's just a matter of whether they can be conducted by a professional in a clinic, or in some back room with a coat-hanger. this is what a lot of conservatives, unfortunately, don't understand.

First point. By your argument, if a woman is unconscious, then sawing her up is not harming another person, as she is not �aware� (which a fetus is far from unconscious, they sleep a lot but are not unconscious). By the way, abortion covers all stages of human gestation, so then late term abortion (when it is proven that a fetus feels pain, and learns) is indeed causing pain to a human. By your argument, a fetus deserves more of a right to live then a woman in a coma.

Second point. When it comes to more harm, if a fetus truly is a human being, then indeed it cause less harm to force a women to be pregnant, then to force a human being to be sawed up against their consent. Current laws force parents to care for their children as it is, restricting abortion would just still force parents to care for their children. Pregnancy is temporary, being sawed up is permanent. When it comes to civil liberties, balancing is necessary, and if a fetus is a human being, then targeting a human being for death when no crime has been done is never acceptable, even if it puts another human being in serious inconvenience. Also, keep in mind, minus rape, that women choose the activity which makes them pregnant. A fetus does not choose his/her mother.

Third point. Murder is illegal too, but it still happens. Theft is illegal too, but it still happens. Human trafficking is illegal, but it still happens. Should we make these things legal? Indeed, if all abortion was illegal it would happen too, but less often, and those who do it can be brought to justice. Also, more programs can be set up to help women, instead of leading them to an abortionist. But, when it finally comes down to it, if a fetus is a human being, then any civilized group of people who believe in the fundamental tenet of human rights, would believe that all must be done to help him/her from not being murdered, for any reason what so ever (the whole rights to LIFE, liberty, etc. thing). Quick lesson, it is never acceptable to sacrifice another humans life for your liberty, even that of your own body.

Not accepting scientific evidence that shows the sentience of a fetus, and showing no compassion to a sect of human life is not a problem with liberals, but a problem with irresponsible incompetents (as I know many liberals who agree with me).

Now, whether or not an embryo (conception until the 8th week) is a human being is up to debate, and I can respect your decision that abortion of an embryo is acceptable. But a fetus, no. There is a reason why a fetus is not an embryo; I suggest you educate yourself why. This civil liberties thing swings both ways, something hard for people to understand.

By the way, starting 20 weeks of gestation, there is no need for abortion anyway, we have incubators now. Extracting the child is okay, killing him/her to save money is not.

P.S. This thread has now gotten very much off topic. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, I ask that you make a new thread. As such, this post can be moved at will.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
By your argument, a fetus deserves more of a right to live then a woman in a coma.

with 'aware' i didn't mean 'temporarily'. i meant a 'conscious' human (living) being. an embryo (early stage fetus), just like a cancer cell, is not. a women in a coma is quite different in that respect as well.

Originally posted by Cohiba:
When it comes to civil liberties, balancing is necessary, and if a fetus is a human being, then targeting a human being for death when no crime has been done is never acceptable, even if it puts another human being in serious inconvenience.

that depends on the definition of 'human being'. mine doesn't include 'embryo'.

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Also, keep in mind, minus rape, that women choose the activity which makes them pregnant.

besides the point.

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Quick lesson, it is never acceptable to sacrifice another humans life for your liberty, even that of your own body.

errrmmm. if i was enslaved i don't think i'd have any problem with 'sacrificing another human's life' for my liberty.

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Now, whether or not an embryo (conception until the 8th week) is a human being is up to debate, and I can respect your decision that abortion of an embryo is acceptable. But a fetus, no.

isn't 'late-term' abortion illegal? (i'm not sure as i don't live in the us)

Originally posted by Cohiba:
By the way, starting 20 weeks of gestation, there is no need for abortion anyway, we have incubators now. Extracting the child is okay...

interesting. never even thought about it. of course it should not be a matter of (financial) privilege to be able to chose such action.

Originally posted by Cohiba:
P.S. This thread has now gotten very much off topic. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, I ask that you make a new thread. As such, this post can be moved at will.

agreed. just had to set a couple of things straight.

[Cohiba]

with 'aware' i didn't mean 'temporarily'. i meant a 'conscious' human (living) being. an embryo (early stage fetus), just like a cancer cell, is not. a women in a coma is quite different in that respect as well.


Nope, an embryo is not a cancer cell, or you, yourself would be nothing but cancer. But, I can respect your opinions that an embryo is not a person.

that depends on the definition of 'human being'. mine doesn't include 'embryo'.

And I can respect that.

errrmmm. if i was enslaved i don't think i'd have any problem with 'sacrificing another human's life' for my liberty.

Would you kill someone that is innocent of enslaving you for freedom? I can understand killing those who have enslaved you, but to target and kill an innocent person for your freedom sounds pretty goddamn selfish to me.

isn't 'late-term' abortion illegal? (i'm not sure as i don't live in the us)

Nope, it is legal to get a late-term abortion in America. Although in Japan (where I live) they have post-viability laws, Partial Birth Abortion is illegal here too. I wish America would catch up.

interesting. never even thought about it. of course it should not be a matter of (financial) privilege to be able to chose such action.

Yes, health care for viable need should be given to all people, including the unborn.

agreed. just had to set a couple of things straight.

Sorry, I am breaking my own rule, I just had to get some things straight too.

[roberto blanco]

another ot thought that just came to my mind when discussion the abortion issue is this whole thing about women choosing to 'have sex' (this is, of course, the actual agenda for conservatives) and their 'responsibility' (the tool of choice for social coersion, now that giving people a 'bad conscience' doesn't seem to work any longer) to deal with the situation they got themselves in.

if abortion was completely illegal in the us, what would conservatives here think about those who would be able afford to catch a plane to holland and get a 'legal' abortion there? nobody would ever find out.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
another ot thought that just came to my mind when discussion the abortion issue is this whole thing about women choosing to 'have sex' (this is, of course, the actual agenda for conservatives) and their 'responsibility' (the tool of choice for social coersion, now that giving people a 'bad conscience' doesn't seem to work any longer) to deal with the situation they got themselves in.

if abortion was completely illegal in the us, what would conservatives here think about those who would be able afford to catch a plane to holland and get a 'legal' abortion there? nobody would ever find out.

You can fly to Thailand and buy a 7 year old boy to have sex with him.

While there, you can also buy a 4 month old child, have her killed, cooked, and served to you for less then $90.

In China, you can buy slaves.

If you really want to kill you wife/husband, it is actually really easy. Take him/her to a country with really corrupt police, (some go as cheap as $20 each) kill her/him in front of them, and they will draft you up a official report that he/she was killed by gangs.

In other countries around the world, there are many things that you can do. But, just because you can do them in these countries, does not mean I want it to be done in my country.

About the responsibility, it holds good weight. Responsibility is never doing anything unless you can accept all repercussions that can come from it. Sex makes women pregnant, so if you are a responsible man, you would not have sex unless you can accept being a father, and a women to be a mother. If you cannot afford the steak and lobster, get the salad. If you cannot afford a child, give/get head.

If you believe that asking people to be responsible is coercion, then I actually pity you. Next you will be telling me the idea of tolerance is coercion too!

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
You can fly to Thailand...

are any of these things legal in those countries? i doubt it! hell, you could probably get the same 'services' in the us if you tried hard enough. actually this just adds to my point. what good would it do to make abortion illegal? it would just effect those who aren't in a position to do what they see fit...while causing potentially dangerous situations at the same time (incidentally, this is how i feel about drugs as well).

Originally posted by Cohiba:
In other countries around the world, there are many things that you can do. But, just because you can do them in these countries, does not mean I want it to be done in my country.

again, they are and WILL be done. it's all about if you want to create safe environments or situations of persecution. (and just in case this would be your reply, - no, i'm not suggesting to make murder and other things that cause real harm to others legal as well.)

Originally posted by Cohiba:
About the responsibility, it holds good weight. Responsibility is never doing anything unless you can accept all repercussions that can come from it.

...or you can buy yourself out of whatever it is you would have to pay for 'otherswise' (i.e. if you were poor etc.) that's why corruption is, and always has been such a big issue. you'd have to be either really naive or willfully ignorant to actually believe that a system of 'strict responsibility' effects everybody the same way. it might be a bit better in the us and western europe than in places like haiti or thailand and other countries. but it still happens...a lot!

[Lefterer Guy]

Back on topic: I'd like to address this

How 'bout NPR? I couldn't care less for them. Money poorly spent.

People say they're liberally biased but other than a bit of social liberalism, I don't think you could tell. What I think we need to do is throw a lot MORE money into a project like NPR. I would love an organization like the BBC in the US.

[typoon]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I consider myself a moderate republican.

I'm rather neutral on many social issues [gay marriage, abortion etc.] and republican on financial/governmental decisions. As a republican, I don't really like the "religious" moniker that my party has taken since G. W. Bush has taken office. I think of it more as "pro responsibility"... hard on crime, big military, small government, big business... even though I do feel like our parties are basically the same now in many areas.

I agree with you on this. I'm of the same thinking in many ways.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
Back on topic: I'd like to address this

How 'bout NPR? I couldn't care less for them. Money poorly spent.

People say they're liberally biased but other than a bit of social liberalism, I don't think you could tell. What I think we need to do is throw a lot MORE money into a project like NPR. I would love an organization like the BBC in the US.

National Public Radio gets most of it's funding from the federal government. A few years ago only grassroots efforts prevented Congress from eliminating it's funding, completely.

I believe NPR is more sensitive now to it's mandate to present a more balanced view of things after being (rightfully) criticized for leaning too far left. (That may be why Congress was going to cut their purse-strings/lifeline.) Yes, they will always be liberal, but they offer a voice which exists no where else.

I value NPR and listen to their news and news shows regularly.

If there were no NPR someone should invent one. NO ONE else does what they do nor fills that same niche in the US broadcast landscape.

From classical music to jazz, to "Prairie Home Companion," gavel to gavel coverage of the RNC & DNC, in depth news stories on "All Things Considered," "Car Talk," "Marketplace," in-depth interviews on "Fresh Air with Terry Gross."

Take away the commercial network's sensationalism and profit motive and tone down the BS and give them a bit more intelligence and heart and you have NPR.

They often make liberals seem like fair, decent, intelligent people. I appreciate that constant reminder.

I guess you'd say I'm an NPR fan.

[Cohiba]

Just a quick retort:

are any of these things legal in those countries?

You would be surprised. In some countries, it is legal to mutilate women, in parts of the Middle East, you can burn women to death, I can see you have not been around much of the world (not a flame, but said in respect).

...or you can buy yourself out of whatever it is you would have to pay for 'otherswise' (i.e. if you were poor etc.) that's why corruption is

Exactly, corruption. I understand you cannot stop everyone, but you said it best.

no, I'm not suggesting to make murder and other things that cause real harm to others legal as well.

So if abortion is murder, then someone can take their 4 month old to Thailand, and do the same thing as an abortion on Holland. Corruption will take place, yes, but that does not mean you fail to make laws based on it.

Good conversation, but I think this topic is not long in the tooth.

[Lefterer Guy]

I'd love to bring up a civilized discussion of abortion, centering on the heart of the issue (what makes a person a person) but I'm afraid of getting shot. Any advice?