But you can give the same argument for democrats because of welfare, enviormental regulations, and increase in minimum wage. It all depends on which view you take.

Wrong. This is only the way Karl Rove decided Bush would build his power base knowing full well they'd have to find a different angle for the next candidate. After eight years even the staunch fundies would figure out they'd been had.

Don't forget the first time bush ran, there was no war, there was no terrorist threat. What other Republican President, or even candidate for President carrying their banner, has run on this morality bullshit?

The traditional Republican unfulfilled campaign promise is lower taxes/smaller government. That's been their basic battle cry forever, the main plank in every platform, the big lie in every election. :2cents:

So we should just let everyone do whatever they want Ibram?

Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it. That flag represents a lot of my family members who gave their fuckin lives so that you can live within the freedoms you have. Your generation has NO CONCEPT of what sacrifices went into creating and preserving the rights you have.

It seems to be a world-wide problem. The younger generations think the same down here, and I also in Europe. They did not have fathers, grandfathers, uncles etc who fought for our safety. To them it was an eon ago. They are simply not interested. They seem to think that war is some stupid game that men go into for "fun". They have no concept of fighting for freedom, because it has been handed to them on a silver plate.

Anarchy is the perfect human society but like every perfect society (communism), it is unrealistic due to norms and humans nature.

It depends on why you are burning the flag. If you are doing it out of hatred or you are a "rebel" (stress the "quotes") teenager and think your tough, I will agree that they should get their ass kicked. But, if they are doing it to prove a point about America's wrong doings (major), then it is justified by all means.

This scares me the most. I am of this generation and whenever I speak out about an issue, people just reply that they don't care about politics. They don't care if you take away your freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to bear arms, it's quite pathetic and I am ashamed of my generation in this, and many other ways.

I don't care what the republicans will be, were, should be, can be... What they ARE, right now, in this era, in this country, in this regime, are the morality police. The society that the republicans, at least the most vocal ones, the ones in power, want to create, is in my eyes no better, or at least not much, than the sharia law in afghanistan and saudi arabia. Not every republican is like that, but the ones that arent would be better off leaving the party or kicking the ones that are like that out.

"They" - as in Bush and Cheney.

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

I agree completely. And it's all powered by the fundamentalist Christian "business."

Ok, then.

I have a couple questions since the above is still escaping me to some degree.

What's this good indication?

So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.

And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."

I'm really confused now, which is why I stay out of these threads. It's good to be confused from time to time, but this is one of those questions that's out of my philosophical depth and interest.

(pardon any brain-slips, my blood sugar is in the negative numbers post-gym)

Did I somehow imply that I don't?

Can you provide scripture references for this please?

..scroll up..
The unborn child didn't asked to be made, nor is it "willing" to be killed via acid, saw or knife. This is where my fundamental views and yours differ. (Nor do I wish to start an abortion debate here.)

"We the people" are the ones that make laws. Or, excuse me, that's how it's supposed to work. "We the people" DON'T make laws anymore, nor do our elected representatives vote on laws according to their constituency's majority view, nor does the Electoral College vote the way the people in their states do.

The majority view is supposed to be the prevailing view, and STATE legislation is supposed to support this.

I don't think Libertarianism is "not for me", I think that like the rest of the parties perviously discussed, there are some things I like, and fewer things I don't.
Thanks, I'll look into that.


edit: after reading in a few pages, I'm so far agreeing with most of this Contitution Party Platform. :) Thanks, radar!

Points of disagreement: that women connot be in combat.

Try here.

Footnotes:

I meant it as a sign or evidence (of suitability, in this case).

What “problems” do you see?

I used “advance” to mean “nurture and raise” as I was focused on the individual organism. Hopefully, there is more interest from mom than a “let it live” attitude, although, this may be sufficient if arrangements have been made for post-birth nurture (for example, through adoption).

I agree that life is more interesting than death. And it is best when well managed, beginning to end. Management requires choice. No “shoulds” there.

Typically, the Democratic agenda is *permissive* where the repubican agenda is *restrictive*. It's hard to think of Democrats as pushing their values on people when their agenda is more "sure you should be able to marry someone of the same sex if you want" and "sure you can have an abortion if you want". This is where MaggieL will point out the atypical Democratic position "sure you shouldn't have a handgun to shoot people with".