The truth about the GOP and abortion
Before I begin, I must clarify that I personally am against forced death, both abortion and the death penalty. I personallly feel that it is disengenuous for me to say you can't kill babies, but it's fine to kill them later. However, I do not believe that we will ever legislate this issue. It has to be addressed one person at a time, without being judgemental.
That being said, a lot of our recent posters have used the abortion issue as a wedge to say that's why they can't support Obama.
One thing that all people need to do is wake up to the fact that the GOP has no interest in stopping abortion, illegal or otherwise. "But, they said......" Right. The current GOP uses that one issue to demonize the other party and "keep the right in the fold." McCain demonstrated that by hinting that he might choose a pro-choice VP. Id the GOP ever succeeds in legislating abortion out of existence, then they are no longer needed as a firewall. They are using the religious right, and are laughing at you behind your back.
As much as I wish the GOP would return to its true Conservative roots, for those who are one issue voters, please look at what our party has done and ask yourself, "Which party would Jesus belong to? Which party is trying to improve the lives of the downtrodden?"
Exactly! And to the same
Exactly!
And to the same point, some of the views expressed here in the blogs drive home that point... abortion being used to "keep the right in the fold."
If you'll notice when the issue comes up here, it is only after the anti-Obama crowd have exhausted their points on taxes or economics, each intelligently disbuted, that they resort to the "baby killer" paradigm, as if to say "well but, well but.... but it's all about abortion!"
Wrong Lyra - you cannot
Wrong Lyra - you cannot successfully argue Obama and taxes nor economics. Obama's record on abortion is cleary and unmistakeable. He does support late term abortions regardless if the mother's health is in danger or not. To not support it would put a hole in his proabortion stance.
He is the one that commented he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby.
If you guys claim to be republican then why you are you looking to the gov't to solve problems. You should know they create more than they solve.
Where has personal responsibility gone? I was laid off from my job but got another went back to school got another graduate degree and have managed to double my income in the past 8 years. It's called living within my means and not spending more than I bring in.
We definitely have gone away from this concept in gov't and sadly enough as a nation too.
"If you guys claim to be
"If you guys claim to be republican then why you are you looking to the gov't to solve problems. You should know they create more than they solve. "
Let me explain something to you in plain English:
For the past (nearly) 8 years we've had the most intrusive gov't in American history. I've heard our dear leaders accurately referred to as the Bush Crime Family. My personal rights to privacy have been docked by the gov't and it has pissed away my tax dollars on a war whose premise that gov't lied about.
If you think for one bloody second that I'm trying to bend over and grab my ankles again for the present day senile, negative Bush carbon-copy and war monger, think again.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
On the contrary, I think
On the contrary, I think I've quite successfully argued, let's say debated, Obama's positions on taxes and the economy. I guess we could leave that up to a community vote but I seem to keep coming out the winner.
As for Obama's daughter, the statement was made in relation to sex education - not abortion. He was advocating comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control. The "mistake" was choosing to have sex at an inapproriate age especially if you are ignorant on how to protect one self from pregnancy or STDs. It had nothing to do with abortion.
Let's have it in context shall we? I'll insert the () meaning in case you don't get it.
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, (don't have sex) but if they make a mistake, (have sex anyway) I don't want them punished with a baby.(because she didn't know about birth control) I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, (because she didn't know about condoms that might have protected her) so it doesn't make sense to not give them information." (comprehensive education rather than abstinence only)
So let me ask you this. Would it be a joyous occassion if your 12 year old got pregnant?
Punished with a baby? A
Punished with a baby? A baby is not a punishment.
Sorry there is no way you can argue taxes and economy and come out on top. Maybe only in your world. The rest of us know better.
But it goes along with your selective reasoning on your other posts like partial birth abortion and your statistics to make you feel better that it is mainly used for abnormalities.
Partial Birth Abortion FAQ's
ARE THE BABIES ALIVE DURING THE ABORTION?
Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.”
IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION RARE?
When this type of procedure first became public knowledge, those defending it said it was only done a few hundred times a year. Then Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on ABC’s “Nightline” (11/95) that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. The reality is, this gruesome method of killing partially born babies is done many thousands of times a year. Abortionist, Dr. McMahon, admitted in 1995 to performing over 2000 partial birth abortions.
ARE THEY PERFORMED ONLY ON SEVERELY DEFORMED BABIES?
That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”
IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION EVER DONE ON THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES?
Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!
As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed. Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/faq.asp
You can spout whatever you will to make yourself happy. Of course there are medically necessary instances that this needs to occur but beyond that it to elect to do this is just plain murder.
This is also the same man that prefers to send his own children to 20k/yr private schools but doesn't support the option of vouchers for those not able to afford and stuck in a failing school system.
At my advanced age, a baby
At my advanced age, a baby would be a punishment, not a blessing thank you very much!
As for PBA, you DO understand that the ban is on a type of procedure, it does not prevent an abortion, it just defines how it is done.
Roe v. Wade itself is little understood, so it might be worthwhile to examine what Roe v Wade allows. Roe v Wade states that abortion during the first trimester is legal and must be left to the judgment of the woman and her doctor. These account for 90% of all abortions.
Beginning with the second trimester and up to viability, a State may place restrictions on the type of procedures used in performing abortions. Only a fraction occur between 20 and 24 weeks.
At the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th to 28th week of gestation, the State may place restrictions on any type of abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the health or life of the mother.
All states have exercised their right to regulate abortions within the parameters allowed. Most so called “pro life” legislation that is generated by anti-abortion interest groups is redundant to pre-existing State laws and is therefore hyperbole.
Abe you have said yourself that you do not favor making all abortion illegal, which in fact is a position that places you with the vast majority of the population. Polls indicate that the general feelings about abortion remain consistent with the views that allowed Roe v Wade to be enacted. Obama’s views in fact reflect the mainstream, and once you strip the emotional rhetoric flying around, I wonder how different they really are from yours?
Roe V Wade language:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
In summary:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
In his own words: Q: In
In his own words:
Q: In talking about your own daughters and talking about sex education and contraception, you made the jarring comment that you would not want your daughter "punished with a baby" if she made a mistake. Could you explain what you meant?
A: Keep in mind, on that same day, I said children are miracles. What I was saying was that my daughters are 9 & 6. And so if, at the age of 12 or 13, they made what I would consider to be a mistake, in having unprotected sex, and ended up getting pregnant. And so all I meant was we want to prevent teen pregnancies. And what we don't want to do is to be blind to the possibility that kids will screw up, just like, surprisingly enough, we as adults screw up sometimes. We want to make sure that, even as we are teaching responsible sexuality and we are teaching abstinence to children, that we are also making sure that they've got enough understanding about contraception that they don't end up having much more severe problems because of a dumb mistake.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008Lesley M.First, for the
Lesley M.
First, for the record... I am against abortion. I have two amazing little boys and I truly adore them.
However, the above mentioned statments made by Obama that Lyra is referencing have nothing at all to do with abortion.
Let's think about a teenager getting pregnant. Most 15/16 year old girls I know are in NO way ready to be mothers, period. So let's just say, these young teens make a stupid mistake and have unprotected sex and ultimately do get pregnant. Is this a good thing for either the teenage mother, or for the baby???? I have to say... HELL NO.
What typically ends up happening? Well, from what I've seen... either the teenager's parents end up with the responsibility of raising their grandchild. OR, the teenager TRIES to raise the child, which more often than not resuts in the teenager dropping out of school, and being on every kind of governmental assistance that can be found. Both the teenager and the baby end up suffering and usually they end us stuck in a vicious cycle of no education, so no job, no job no money to support both mother and baby, so staying on governmental aid, still no education, so no job, no job no money to support mother and child...and it goes on and on. Who ends up paying for all of that governmental assistance??? We, the taxpayers, do.
And, let's be honest here... a lot of teenage dads DO NOT step up and take responsibility either, so the teenage mother is left to handle the situation alone. Occasionally, some teenage moms are able to pull themselves out of this life... but that is the exception, not the norm.
So, having said all of that... I will take the same position as Obama. It's best to educate our children about the dangers (ALL of the dangers) of falling into this lifestyle of teenagers and unprotected sex. A lot of parents just chose to ignore this topic with their children for various assorted reasons... but it is something that MUST be taught to our children.
A question though for the people that think Obama's stance on this is wrong... is it better to continue to sit back and watch the number of teenage pregnancies rise? Or would it be better to do what we can to stop this cycle?? Is it better for these teenage girls to continue to have children that they are in NO WAY ready to take care of??? Again, I have to answer no.
Let's educate our teenagers and give them AND their unborn children a fighting chance...
I am SO voting for Obama!
How refreshing to hear this
Lesley M.Awesome post
Lesley M.
Awesome post PCMEDIC!!!
I had never thought of the GOP's and one issue voter's dependency on each other. You have hit the nail on the head with that one.
Don't get me wrong, I do not support abortion either, however, there are other issues that need to be dealt with as well. Such as the growing poverty epidemic going on right here in our country.
You said, ""Which party would Jesus belong to? Which party is trying to improve the lives of the downtrodden?" ... I love that you said that! I think of things in a similar manner as well. It seems to me that Obama's approach is more in line with the way we should all treat each other and handle problems.
Simple-minded and idealistic? Perhaps. The right way to go? Absolutely. I keep hoping that common sense will breed common sense.
I am standing up and applauding your post!!!
I also find it ironic that
yeah, that's one of the
yeah, that's one of the things I said in my too-long post. If we care about unborn children because they're God's creations, shouldn't we care about the six-year-old creation living in poverty a few blocks away?
But the crux of the argument
But the crux of the argument is that is it a gov't concern or private? I think we call agree that gov't solutions are frought with mismanagement. Would private charities not be the ideal place to begin?
I'm new to this site,
I'm new to this site, curious as to how Republicans might claim to support Senator Obama.
"What party would Jesus belong to?" Well, neither. Rather, Jesus asked if we might be on His side. Jesus heavily criticized the political power of the day, resisted all attempts to make him be a political leader, and said that His kingdom was not of this earth. Besides, I thought there was supposed to be separation of church and state?
Jesus would not be a Democrat. Democrats want to force some people to pay for other peoples' problems. Jesus asks us individually to give, to help, to serve.
Government compassion is not compassion at all. Only individuals, moved in their hearts, can be compassionate.
"I also find it ironic that our party who makes a big deal about the evils of abortion, don't seem to care once they are born and living in poverty with little to eat." Empty rhetoric with no basis in fact. There are perhaps thousands of private charities all over the US, funded solely by the individual generosity of millions of people from every walk of life, whose mission is to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and meet the needs of those who cannot help themselves. Most are religiously-oriented, conservative, Bible-believing organizations.
The "Religious Right" (if there is such a thing) is generous to the point of sacrifice, and upholds Jesus' teaching better than any government could.
Mountain Man, you are more
Mountain Man, you are more than welcome here, but I have no idea where to even start with your comments. Most of us here are not exactly fans of the religious right. Our point is that a platform built primarily on two planks - ending abortion and preventing gay marriage - is not effective policy. And I doubt anyone here would with a straight face suggest that Jesus of Nazareth would belong to either party - in fact, on of the roles he played was to turn things upside down and challenge the way people were thinking about their society.
I am no fan of the
I am no fan of the "Religious Right," either, but I don't think there is such a thing.
Perhaps you could start by responding sequentially to the points I made. Or take one or two and write a response to them.
It's your last point that
It's your last point that gets me. I honestly have never even heard anyone try to make that assertion. I don't even know how to dissemble it because there's not much in the way of supporting argument. The religous right represents true Christianity? How? By focussing all its efforts on preventing gay marriage?
I'm honestly not certain a discussion will be fruitful, because I think we're just so far removed that we will never see eye-to-eye on this.
You will note that I put
You will note that I put "Religious Right" in quotes. The "Religious Right" is a caricature promulgated by those who wish to categorize and dismiss people with whom they disagree.
Those who do so are guilty of stereotyping people based on the perceived shared characteristics of those people. It is akin to racism, in that its root is anti-intellectual, its purpose is to marginalize and demean, and its effect is to disempower. And like all stereotypes, this one is completely inaccurate.
Judging by your last sentence, it appears that you are only interested in dialoguing with those who agree with you. If indeed we are far removed, it is only because we have a diveristy of opinion. Diversity is good, isn't it?
Mountain man, your
Mountain man, your characterization of me couldn't be further from the truth, and those that have watched me interact with posters from across the political spectrum over the last twenty months will likely back me up on this one.
The term religious right is not, as far as I know, used as a derogatory phrase. It is primarily used to try to classify a certain group of voters with a certain set of priorities. Th term is useful in political discourse, because the voters the phrase refers to are significant in both their numbers and their influence.
My characterization? Again,
Are you saying that you never use the term "Religious Right" in a derogatory manner, or that no one does to your knowledge? You did say, "Most of us here are not exactly fans of the religious right." So, here's your opportunity to explain.
I have noted that in my short time here that your every response thus far has been a bob-and-weave. I wouldn't want to cast aspersions, but if your position is good enough to have a website and all that, why not step up to the plate and answer some questions?
Okay, Mountain Man, kindly
Okay, Mountain Man, kindly drop the attitude in your last sentence.
I have been here for TWENTY MONTHS answering ever single question that's come my way, with civility, (I like to think) intelligence, and with cited facts. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, like the other visitors we've had lately, you didn't look around to see that most of your questions have already been answered many times.
If you will ask a straightforward question I will be happy to answer you as time allows. This is not a paid position for me. And I have obligations that at times keep me from responding as promptly as I'd like.
You will have to grant me some allowances with my patience, as we've been inundated with trolls this week (and I'm not implying that you are one), and I'm tired of trying to maintain some semblance of civil discourse on the board.
Here's a response from
Here's a response from yesterday, if you want some background info:
ttp://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/1635#comment-15265
I read the provided thread.
I read the provided thread. To me, "Look how bad the Republicans are" is not a presentation of what you believe and why. But since I am not a Republican myself, I'm not really interested in talking about them or McCain.
I am interested in finding out why supposed Republicans are supporting Obama. In other words, what specific policies does Obama advocate that warms the hearts of RFOs?
One of the original points made in this thread is Republicans are pro-life only as a matter of expediency. Again, this tells us nothing about Obama or those of you who support him. What is Obama's position on abortion, and how does that jibe with RFOs?
Respectful discourse is wonderful. I noted the increasingly heated responses you have been giving, but I have simply been insisting that my points be responded to. Don't get frustrated!
Yes, I have become very
Yes, I have become very frustrated and fatigued over the last two days, after constant antagonism and name calling from a couple of posters.
There is no single answer to your broader question. Each Republican supporter of Obama has different reasons for doing so. I can only speak for myself.
On your question regarding abortion:
I believe that Roe-V-Wade will never be overturned. To focus one's efforts on that goal is short-sighted and fruitless. I believe the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to improve access to health care for underprivileged women. Improved health care is a priority for Obama.
But abortion is no longer the only issue for me as it was when I was younger.
What it really comes down to, MM, is that no candidate will ever perfectly espouse our own political ideals, so we have to rank our priorities and go from there. For me:
1. I want to curb deficit spending. McCain's plan is estimated increase deficit spending by almost $6 trillion. The consequences of the deficit spending have already been significant. Our currency has dropped 35% on the international market in seven years. I'm not willing to risk any further deflation of our country's net worth.
2. I want an administration with a conservative approach to foreign policy. One that will pursue military action only as a last resort, instead of as the first line of defense. Obama - in spite of widespread mockery by his opponent and by the conservative media - has said that diplomatic negotiation should be a priority in our foreign policy, and I agree.
3. I want an administration that will not equivocate on issues of personal privacy or human dignity in the name of a mythical perfect security. McCain, much to my dismay, after years of taking the hardline not only equivocated but finally actually cast votes indicated his support of invasive security tactics as well as enhanced interrogation techniques.
So those are the top three issues for me. I know that others have other priorities and will come to other conclusions. And I know I can't speak for other RFOs, who have other reasons for choosing Obama. But those are the top three reasons for me.
Thanks for the details. I
Thanks for the details. I appreciate it.
1) Deficit spending. I agree, the way government spends money is an outrage. What is your solution, cut back spending, or increase taxes?
2) I agree. We should not have entered Iraq. We don't need to be democracy-building. So, again, what should we do now?
3) I agree. A person is a sovereign entity, whose personal right to live peaceably and pursue his lawful self interest supercedes the needs of the state.
The first principle of this must be the right to keep the fruits of one's own labor. If my right to be paid for the work I do is subordinated to the needs of government, I no longer work for myself and my interest, but for government and its interests. This is a good working definition of slavery.
So again, what are your ideas?
MM:Ideally we'd have a
MM:
Ideally we'd have a candidate willing to reduce spending, but we don't.
1. There's been a false dichotomy set up for us. We can either vote for increased spending combined with decreased revenue, or increased spending combined with decreased revenue. The former is anticipated to raise deficit spending by trillions, and I'm not comfortable with that. Of course, I'm the kind of person who pays my credit card off every month, too.
2. I didn't mention Iraq. Bush already made that call. I'm talking about whatever "call" will have to be made next time around. I prefer a leader who will tend toward tough international diplomatic negotiotiation instead of toward Lone Rider military intervention.
3. Taxation. See #1. You seem to be forgetting that we're in charge. We put this government in place over the last two decades, and we need to take some responsibility for that. Now we have to pay for all the legislation that that government chose to enact. We can't just continue to say "but I don't wannnnnnnnna pay the bills," and pass the debt onto our kids. (Imagine if I had already inherited my parents' mortgage payments, which they had declined to pay while yet enjoying the comforts of the home, and now I'm going to take that mortgage debt, add it to my own mortgage debt, not pay down on either one and hope that my 9-year-old will take care of it when he's of age. That's the kind of fiscal policy we're operating on.)
Of course we have the right to the fruits of our labor, but society is based not only on rights; it's based on a balance of rights and responsibilities. Both in our own homes and in our society, we have the responsibility to pay for what we buy. If we want to keep more money at home, we should have supported policies that would have required less of our money over the last twenty years. There's no way we can change the past now. Buyer's remorse sucks and all, but we've gotta pay up. There's just no two ways around it.
"Government compassion is
"Government compassion is not compassion at all. Only individuals, moved in their hearts, can be compassionate."
It's an interesting point. It's something that makes me question the Dem party at times. It seems they sometimes seem too parental; condescending. As if charity/morality can be bought by "manditory donations" (taxes).
The whole idea of Affirmative Action, for ex., tends to rub me the wrong way because it defines and separates race, which at times leads to social/racial dissonance. Sometimes it seems like the premise of AA is that Blacks are weaker than "we" (Whites) are, suggesting that Blacks don't have what it takes to be politically equal with other citizens, w/out White Uncle Sam offering handouts. It can create an attitude of entitlement and dependence for some Blacks, at the same stripping some of the pride of getting out of a hole on their own. Maybe it's true that we Blacks have to start valuing academia more than sports, etc. too (leaving the benefits of AA behind) ... actually I think many of us are doing so these days. Other minority groups have gained increasing stability and power by pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and engaging in the rigors of education. Asians came here w no clear advantage educationally, also with "funny looks", but saw this point of emphasizing educational prowess. Same with White minorities like Jews, who started off as nomads with little resources.
"The "Religious Right" (if there is such a thing) is generous to the point of sacrifice, and upholds Jesus' teaching better than any government could."
Not always. Being poor and White does help though.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
I don't necessarily question
I don't necessarily question the motives of the Democratic party (at least the rank-and-file). I appreciate it that people want to help people. There is nobility in that.
But I am pursuaded that using the government as a tool of compassion is misguided at best, and a manifest failure at worst. It isn't people on the Right don't help people and those on the Left do; no thinking person would seriously argue such a thing. It's a question of the method of help.
Your last comment suggests that the Right only helps whites. Please cite your data.
"Your last comment suggests
"Your last comment suggests that the Right only helps whites. Please cite your data."
I think you misunderstand. Not saying the Right only helps Whites. That's extreme. I'm saying - for example - that it'd likely be harder for someone who wants to see Blacks marginalized in society (racist) to slip under the radar as a Pub because Dems have programs like Affirmative Action and are about creating gov't programs that benefit minorities and the poor. I think more racists would be turned off by the Dem agenda/s and therefore more likely to choose the GOP.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
Oh, I see. My apologies.Let
Oh, I see. My apologies.
Let me offer this: After decades of anti-poverty programs and affirmative action, is it even possible for minorities to be more marginalized than they are now? Consider the state of the inner cities, black illegitimacy, black graduation rates. I mean, if I wanted to destroy the black race, how could there be better results than these?
I submit that it is those who oppose wealth redistribution and hiring preferences are the true friend of minorities.
Hey, no need for apology MM,
Hey, no need for apology MM, but thanks! I see now how that might have come across.
My thought is that some who oppose wealth redistribution and hiring preferences are friends of minorities, and then some just want "those darkies" kept under and will support the party that offers them no help.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
There is a historic reason
There is a historic reason for Affirmative Action. The United States grew financially largely on the back of free labor (slaves), so comparing the situation with the Asian community is a bit misguided. Though I am in favour of modifying it to an economic justice platform that would also help poor whites.
We can keep dismantling government and claim that it 'restrains' a persons ability to shape his/her life.
But don't complain about rising healthcare cost or a crumbling economy and expect an effective government.
As a Dem i believe government can be a force for good and that it is there to protect the people for internal and external threat. An internal threat is a loss of jobs and basic social security needs.
A thoughtful response,
A thoughtful response, Warsame.
A couple of points:
1) Please list the parts of government that have been dismantled.
2) Please list the government programs (that have been a force for good) that have achieved their objectives.
I understand the concept
I understand the concept behind reparation. My comparison is still sound as it regards people who are apparently disenfranchised and need to decide whether or not to accept gov't help or mostly go at it w/out gov't help.
I don't expect the gov't to set up socialized medicine, etc. to solve rising healthcare costs, BTW. I think one of the worst things that could happen is we give the gov't control of health care. Look at the mess it's made out of welfare, etc.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
<There are perhaps thousands
<There are perhaps thousands of private charities all over the US, funded solely by the individual generosity of millions of people from every walk of life, whose mission is to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and meet the needs of those who cannot help themselves. Most are religiously-oriented, conservative, Bible-believing organizations. >
To say that these organizations, and the people who support them, can alleviate poverty is like saying that Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity can cure poverty in India. No matter how good charities are, there is not enough to go around. Your saying that the "religious right" gives to the point of sacrifice is very misleading. I agree that the everyday people,(small r ) in their churches, give generously. But have you taken a look at the lifestyles of many (not all) of the well known leaders of the "Religious Right"? It is these leaders who are calling the shots for the RR hijacking of the Republican Party. I could expound on this, but I'm sure you get my drift.
It is time that we, as a nation, step up to the plate, and offer our poor not only "charity" but a way to help themselves out of the cycle of poverty and charity. Enter Obama....he wants to give the poor a hand up, not a hand out, with education being the primary force. In return, he will require community service, to teach them that giving back is necessary.
You see, the Democratic party has long held the poor hostage for votes. They give them just enough to make them dependent. At the other extreme, the Republican party demands that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, not realizing that the poor don't have the necessary tools to do so. Obama falls in neither camp. He sees a different way of doing things, one that will finally begin to make a chage.
"To say that these
"To say that these organizations, and the people who support them, can alleviate poverty is like saying that Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity can cure poverty in India." Actually, they can. Charities and individual compassion were all there was before the advent of government poverty programs. But now that government has usurped the individual's role in charity, what are the results? Where is the success? Can you point to one government social program that has achieved its goal and is no longer needed?
"But have you taken a look at the lifestyles of many (not all) of the well known leaders of the "Religious Right"?" Who cares? What difference does it make to anyone how someone else lives? Should I care how Ted Kennedy lives? Or Al Gore? Or George Clooney? They all are leftists, and richer than I will ever be. Let them.
"At the other extreme, the Republican party demands that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, not realizing that the poor don't have the necessary tools to do so." Again, I am not a Republican, but I have never heard any Republican say such a thing. And you arebeing condescending to the poor. Are they substandard in your view?
Are you deliberately obtuse,
Are you deliberately obtuse, or does it just come naturally?
If you read the part of my post refering to the fact that the give away programs have made the poor dependent, you would understand why it hasn't worked. Obama has a different plan, which is easy to find out about with a click of your mouse.
By the lifestyles of the "Religious Right" I was clearly refering to the religious leaders, who have become wealthy and powerful by the well-intended generosity of the every day people. Who cares? I do. The money was never intended for their personal use. (I won't touch the part about the leftists who are wealthy, because that statement is merely a result of your misunderstanding me.)
And if you have never heard the Republicans idea that the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, then you just haven't been paying attention.
As for your accusing me of being condescending to the poor, I fail to see any validity in that statement. But I do see that you are content to allow them to subsist on hand-me-downs and charitable acts that rob them of their dignity. In my opinion, you are the one that sees them as less than full human being and therefore substandard. I honestly don't like your attitude.
If your intent is to de
If your intent is to de disrespectful as an excuse to not engage in the issue, then you are succeeding. You know nothing about me, yet you seem to feel free to toss about accusations.
How does accepting charity from compassionate individuals and charities rob someone of dignity in any substantial different way than accepting the same from government?
If it is being disrespectful
If it is being disrespectful to toss your own words back at you, then so be it.
You missed my whole point. Constantly having to accept charity, genreation after generation, robs one of self respect, no matter what the source. IMO, the Dem party has been guilty of this. We need to put into place a plan to help those stuck in that cycle to help themselves. Obama has a plan to do that, and he requires that they give something back, which is actually empowering.
Let me share a little experiment with you, that I have shared here before (a shortened version):
A teacher in classroom told all of the students to make a picture of a rainbow. Half of the class was situated in the well-appointed classroom, filled with various types of paints, crayons etc, and art paper. The other half was sent into a dimly lit hallway, and only given scraps of paper, or the use of wrinkled or previously used paper that they could use the backs of. They were only given grey crayons.
Which half of the class do you think was able to complete the assignment, and produce a beautiful rainbow?
When people are given only grey crayons and old paper, they cannot make a rainbow, even though they can clearly envision is.
Do you understand what I am saying here? Let's make sure every child has the tools to create their own rainbow. If that is condescending, I fail to see it.
If asking questions is being
If asking questions is being disrespectful, I'm all there.
You did not make the point that any source of charity was demeaning. You specifically called out private charities and individuals. If you want to move the goalposts, fine, but I'm not going to chase you all over the football field just to find that you are actually agreeing with me that welfare is bad.
Rainbows are wonderful. Every child should be able to draw one. I'm in favor of rainbows.
OK, I see now that it's
OK, I see now that it's deliberate. If you failed to see that I was also talking about welfare, which as I stated has held the poor hostage, then I can't help you.
I'm glad you're in favor of rainbows....they are very important.
An articulate troll is still a troll.
"Can you point to one
"Can you point to one government social program that has achieved its goal and is no longer needed?"
Not the best argument. There will likely always be poverty, sickness, etc., if we're informed by past trends. It'd be hard to find an agency that sanely expects to totally overcome/cure its target problem. So success is measure in shades, over time.
Generally these agencies do not have a singular goal, and have mixed success as it regards various parameters. It's hard to argue that such agencies don't make a positive difference. It can be difficult to be exacting as it re: that positive difference. Arguable, some agencies have helped droves of people to wellness, if you use a full spectrum scale to measure "wellness".
It's impact of all that red tape that I think is a big issue.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
"Not the best argument?"
"Not the best argument?" C'mon. It speaks right to the point. We are spending billions to fight poverty. If there is no actual intent to solve the problem, then why do we through all that money away, except to have an issue to demonstrate how much we "care?"
The poverty rate has hovered at around 12% ever since welfare was installed. No one is being helped, and based on the crime rate, graduation rate, and illegitimacy rate found in poor communities, we are making the problem worse.
Yeah, thanks for the post PC
Yeah, thanks for the post PC ... thoughtful.
Don't consider myself a member to any party (can't fit neatly into any one), but do think it's time for the Republican party to drop the rigidity as it regard abortion. At the very least, sometimes abortions are needed to save the woman's life, lest both the mother die having given birth to a stillborn baby.
McCain Deathwatch, July 10 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 35% chance of winning the election.
pcmedic said: One thing that
One thing that all people need to do is wake up to the fact that the GOP has no interest in stopping abortion, illegal or otherwise. "But, they said......" Right. The current GOP uses that one issue to demonize the other party and "keep the right in the fold." McCain demonstrated that by hinting that he might choose a pro-choice VP. Id the GOP ever succeeds in legislating abortion out of existence, then they are no longer needed as a firewall. They are using the religious right, and are laughing at you behind your back.
I've thought this exact thing for a long time pcmedic! They aren't about to kill the goose that lays golden eggs are they? Anyway, abortion is never going away as long as women find themselves with unwanted pregnancies.
I've skimmed through some of
I've skimmed through some of the posts here that have deviated from the topic as most of our discussions do, and I see MountainMan demanding that his comments be addressed, all, or nearly all, having been previously discussed in some cases countless times.
I would therefore like to suggest that we have an understanding that no one is entitiled to have their statements addressed.
Indeed I would suggest further that some comments are best left alone altogether.
^^ What she said.To
^^ What she said.
To further those suggestions, I would like to add a little info on a tactic originated by Golf and me, that we used in the earlier days at RFO, and I think should be reinstituted here now, and it works to the end that you are suggesting.
As all views and opinions are welcome here, we gladly discuss any issue. But after that is done, and the opposing poster refuses to let it go, Golf once announced that the poster was DOA. I caught was he meant, and concured, announcing that no attempts at resussitation should be made. ;-) It started as a joking way to get a message out, and became a good tool to use when the trolls became too intrusive. Remember, all trolls aren't ignorant. An articulate troll is still a troll.
So, I suggest that we, as "real" RFO members, reinstate the use of DOA as a tool to remind each other when we have reached that limit.
I further suggest that we we now declare Mountain Man and Abe DOA.
Well, MM hasn't been around
Well, MM hasn't been around much, and Abe was starting to show signs that she just wants to engage in honest discourse about our nation's politics.
But yes, in the past when a poster has shown himself to be too unreasonable, eventually that poster has found that his posts no longer elicit any responses, as our members grow tired of going round in circles.
I agree that there is no
like I said, Abe is welcome
like I said, Abe is welcome to stay as long as she likes. I think it's a good idea to start some new threads for your discussion, as a couple of these have become unwieldy.