Where am I politically?

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ibram

It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.

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.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Ibram

It wasn't exactly a joke, but a usually-accurate dig at republicans. That's simply the way the party works. Gay marriage bans, abortion bans, flag-burning bans... everything set on legislating morality is a republican push. There may be more to it than that, but socially speaking, the republicans are solely interested in legislating their own versions of morality.

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.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by yesman065

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

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

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

Personally, I respect your right in America to burn our flag, but I also will kick your ass for doing it.

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.

They have no concept of fighting for freedom, because it has been handed to them on a silver plate.

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.

[Ibby]

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.

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

They seem to think that war is some stupid game that men go into for "fun".

"They" - as in Bush and Cheney.

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.

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

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

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

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Toymented

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

Ok, then.

Originally Posted by Toymented

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

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)

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Radar

Personally, I don't see the relevance of your religion on your political views. They should remain entirely apart. If you are a "literalist Christian" as you claim, you should take the words of Jesus of Nazareth literally when he says judgment is reserved for god.

Did I somehow imply that I don't?

Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.

Can you provide scripture references for this please?

If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.

..scroll up..

Originally Posted by onyxcougar

BUT I truly believe in free will, and (from a legal standpoint) I don't want to ban abortion or force my religious belief (or moral code) on people.

These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them.

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.)

This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things. After all, who are you or anyone else to force your own religious morality down the throats of others through legislation?

"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.

And make no mistake, force IS involved. If you do these things, men with guns show up and tell you to stop or they'll take away your freedom.

Clearly libertarianism is not for you, but you do seem to support some small government. This means the Republican and Democratic parties are also not for you. These parties are responsible for our moving so far away from the Constitution in the first place, and both grow government at faster and faster rates while violating our rights.

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.

If anything, I'd say you fit into the Constitution/American Independent Party.

You should take a moment to check them out.

Here is their platform in PDF format.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/doc...CPPlatform.pdf

Or you can just visit their website...

http://www.constitutionparty.com

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Radar

Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and keep your religion and politics completely separate and work to keep government out of church and church out of government.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Can you provide scripture references for this please?

Try here.

Christ addressed the issue directly in Matt. 22:21.Though this passage neither delineates the specific duties nor defines the relationship between the realms, it identifies Christians as citizens of two distinct kingdoms who fulfil separate obligations in each one. ...

This contrast between church and state is sharpened by the New Testament description of Christ's character and the apolitical nature of his inaugurated kingdom. Jesus said his followers were not of this world,(5) and they were to focus on his kingdom,(6) which also is not of this world.(7) His reign is spiritual and eternal: he rules the human heart, not a temporal, earthly domain,(8) and not an ethnic Jewish state.(9) He rebuked his disciples for desiring positions of authority like the Gentiles,(10) and he chastised them for asking him to restore the kingdom of Israel.(11) .... He refused to sit as a judge in secular matters,(13) resisted the temptation to seize worldly power, and fled from those who would crown him king.(14) ... In retrospect, the message was clear: he thoroughly opposed the use of magisterial power to build his kingdom.

Footnotes:

5 John 17:16
6 Matt. 6:33.
7John 18:36.
8 Luke 17:21; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 15:50.
9 Matt. 8:11-12.
10 Luke 22:24-30.
11 Acts 1:6-7.

13 Luke 12:14.
14 Matt. 4:8-11; John 6:15.

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

What's this good indication?

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

Originally Posted by grant

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.

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).

Originally Posted by grant

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...Both Republicans and Democrats push their agenda on others, it just depends on what side you face that determines which side will be pushing you. Though, as unbias as possible, I have to say the Republicans are a bit more pushy than the Democrats right now.
...

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".

[Undertoad]