Which Direction?

[MSUDuo]

Sadly, I think you're right again, mj. While the GOP should be decoupling themselves from the religious right I fear they will, instead, strengthen that marriage to the ultimate detriment of the party.

The time is now ripe for a TRUE Libertarian to come out of the closet so-to-speak........they could make some in-roads leading up to 2016. Whoever they may be, they absolutely need to denounce the Republican platform on social issues.......and the nannyism of the Democratic Party. Need to emphasize doing and spending for the USA rather than foreign lands.

I nominate MaineJeff for President in 2016! Go for it

[Chizzang]

Good GOD man...who are you, and what have you done with mj???

[dbackjon]

The time is now ripe for a TRUE Libertarian to come out of the closet so-to-speak........they could make some in-roads leading up to 2016. Whoever they may be, they absolutely need to denounce the Republican platform on social issues.......and the nannyism of the Democratic Party. Need to emphasize doing and spending for the USA rather than foreign lands.

Good GOD man...who are you, and what have you done with mj???

That is actually pretty consistant with his views since Day 1 (you know, before he come out of the closet)

[Gil Dobie]

Like I said on another thread on another day, the Reps will not win the presidency as long as they keep their current social views. A majority of Women and today's youth are not buying their bs. The world is passing them by.

[griz37]

Sadly, I think you're right again, mj. While the GOP should be decoupling themselves from the religious right I fear they will, instead, strengthen that marriage to the ultimate detriment of the party.

The time is now ripe for a TRUE Libertarian to come out of the closet so-to-speak........they could make some in-roads leading up to 2016. Whoever they may be, they absolutely need to denounce the Republican platform on social issues.......and the nannyism of the Democratic Party. Need to emphasize doing and spending for the USA rather than foreign lands.

Seems to me that is exactly what Gary Johnson was selling this year but it was damn near impossible for him to get an audience.

[UNI88]

Translation: The "greatest generation" is f&%#ng us all.

That's the shocking thing right now that the younger generation doesn't seem to understand yet. Old people are flat out sticking it to the youth right now - look at all the cuts in education spending at the local levels (increased class sizes, cutting programs, jacking up fees, etc). Meanwhile things like Medicare, which again, work fantastic for those people who are in those programs, keep increasing costs at a record rate. And young people are getting doubly screwed in that college costs are skyrocketing even more (due in a decent amount to the fact that we've put so much government money into tuition loans that colleges, smartly, have jacked up tuitions in order to in essence, take possession of that government largesse). So for young people, they're saddled with student debt, their nation is racking up incredible debt while funding programs we can't ever possibly raise enough revenue to cover, and they can't find jobs to cover the debt they're going to be responsible for. Meanwhile the aged of the population cost a fortune since they pay very little and they'll be mostly gone in 10-20 years leaving the youth with the bill. What a system.

Spot on!

[houndawg]

Translation: The "greatest generation" is f&%#ng us all.

That's the shocking thing right now that the younger generation doesn't seem to understand yet. Old people are flat out sticking it to the youth right now - look at all the cuts in education spending at the local levels (increased class sizes, cutting programs, jacking up fees, etc). Meanwhile things like Medicare, which again, work fantastic for those people who are in those programs, keep increasing costs at a record rate. And young people are getting doubly screwed in that college costs are skyrocketing even more (due in a decent amount to the fact that we've put so much government money into tuition loans that colleges, smartly, have jacked up tuitions in order to in essence, take possession of that government largesse). So for young people, they're saddled with student debt, their nation is racking up incredible debt while funding programs we can't ever possibly raise enough revenue to cover, and they can't find jobs to cover the debt they're going to be responsible for. Meanwhile the aged of the population cost a fortune since they pay very little and they'll be mostly gone in 10-20 years leaving the youth with the bill. What a system.

Old folk been paying all their lives.

[GannonFan]

That's the shocking thing right now that the younger generation doesn't seem to understand yet. Old people are flat out sticking it to the youth right now - look at all the cuts in education spending at the local levels (increased class sizes, cutting programs, jacking up fees, etc). Meanwhile things like Medicare, which again, work fantastic for those people who are in those programs, keep increasing costs at a record rate. And young people are getting doubly screwed in that college costs are skyrocketing even more (due in a decent amount to the fact that we've put so much government money into tuition loans that colleges, smartly, have jacked up tuitions in order to in essence, take possession of that government largesse). So for young people, they're saddled with student debt, their nation is racking up incredible debt while funding programs we can't ever possibly raise enough revenue to cover, and they can't find jobs to cover the debt they're going to be responsible for. Meanwhile the aged of the population cost a fortune since they pay very little and they'll be mostly gone in 10-20 years leaving the youth with the bill. What a system.

Old folk been paying all their lives.

Except what they paid versus what they are now costing do not match up - the latter is far greater in terms of just sheer amount. But that's par for the course of the generation who says "I don't have any kids in school, why should I pay a school tax". Yay old people.

[DSUrocks07]

Social Security = Ponzi scheme

I thought we threw people in jail for that?

[Gil Dobie]

Old folk been paying all their lives.

Except what they paid versus what they are now costing do not match up - the latter is far greater in terms of just sheer amount. But that's par for the course of the generation who says "I don't have any kids in school, why should I pay a school tax". Yay old people.

That's a might wide generalization that all old people are like that. There are many that are fine with paying the tax for schools. Others would like more responsibility with the money going to schools. Not many old people can live on the social security, as it is barely enough to live on. Cost and prices have been going up forever and always will. When you are in the situation, someone will be generalizing about what you paid in.

[89Hen]

Only to a pro-choice person. That's because you can't really get past that point successfully. Bury your head in the sand further. We can stop now because we are not changing each others minds on this, you and I both know that.

Cripes......you just don't get it.

No wonder your party is f'd.

What don't I get Jeff? That there's a disconnect on the abortion issue and the two sides aren't even arguing the same point?

[DSUrocks07]

Cripes......you just don't get it.

No wonder your party is f'd.

What don't I get Jeff? That there's a disconnect on the abortion issue and the two sides aren't even arguing the same point?

You're right about that. Liberals see it as a social issue. Conservatives see it as a moral one.

[AZGrizFan]

Except what they paid versus what they are now costing do not match up - the latter is far greater in terms of just sheer amount. But that's par for the course of the generation who says "I don't have any kids in school, why should I pay a school tax". Yay old people.

That's a might wide generalization that all old people are like that. There are many that are fine with paying the tax for schools. Others would like more responsibility with the money going to schools. Not many old people can live on the social security, as it is barely enough to live on. Cost and prices have been going up forever and always will. When you are in the situation, someone will be generalizing about what you paid in.

Social security was never meant to be able to "live" on.

[89Hen]

What don't I get Jeff? That there's a disconnect on the abortion issue and the two sides aren't even arguing the same point?

You're right about that. Liberals see it as a social issue. Conservatives see it as a moral one.

Not it.

[DSUrocks07]

You're right about that. Liberals see it as a social issue. Conservatives see it as a moral one.

Not it.

Maybe not exactly the point you were getting at. But that exists as well. And weighs heavily in the political realm.

[89Hen]

Not it.

Maybe not exactly the point you were getting at. But that exists as well. And weighs heavily in the political realm.

Aren't most social issues moral issues? Again, that's not the disconnect.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe not exactly the point you were getting at. But that exists as well. And weighs heavily in the political realm.

Aren't most social issues moral issues? Again, that's not the disconnect.

Instead of making him guess, why don't you just clarify?

[DSUrocks07]

Maybe not exactly the point you were getting at. But that exists as well. And weighs heavily in the political realm.

Aren't most social issues moral issues? Again, that's not the disconnect.

I digress then.

[Pwns]

Like I said on another thread on another day, the Reps will not win the presidency as long as they keep their current social views. A majority of Women and today's youth are not buying their bs. The world is passing them by.

If you do a google search, I think you will find there are polls showing Gen. Y is generally more pro-life than their parents generation.

The problem are the whackadoodles that raise a stink about birth control availability "encouraging promiscuity". Contrary to what dumb liberal feminazis say, many women don't see abortion as being some kind of a vital sacrament and generally think abortion is a hideous thing.

[Ibanez]

Sadly, I think you're right again, mj. While the GOP should be decoupling themselves from the religious right I fear they will, instead, strengthen that marriage to the ultimate detriment of the party.

The time is now ripe for a TRUE Libertarian to come out of the closet so-to-speak........they could make some in-roads leading up to 2016. Whoever they may be, they absolutely need to denounce the Republican platform on social issues.......and the nannyism of the Democratic Party. Need to emphasize doing and spending for the USA rather than foreign lands.

MaineJeff, you lover Julio has hacked into your account.

[89Hen]

Aren't most social issues moral issues? Again, that's not the disconnect.

Instead of making him guess, why don't you just clarify?

The issue pro-choice won't argue is when life begins. It's not that I think I have the answer. I freely admit I have no idea, but that in fact is the problem. I know very few people that think very late term abortions are OK and even fewer that think partial birth abortions are OK. If you are in either camp, how can you be for abortion at any point? How can somebody say at day 119 it's OK, but at 120 it's not? Every child grows at different rates. We HAVE to err on the side of caution.

The pro-choice side likes to skip this arguement or use hyperbole and start making cracks about pro-life folks killing sperm. Their only other option is to say "it's up to each woman to decide for herself." That's bullshit. We have laws that a woman can't keep her child in a cellar with limited food and water. We don't leave that up to the individual parent(s).

To be logical and consistent, the pro-choice side MUST be pro-choice all the way through the date of birth. Viability is not an option because that is limited by science and changes all the time. We can't even agree on a definition of viability. A newborn can hardly survive on it's own.

It's an issue that won't be solved any time soon, but it would seem more people are starting to understand the dilemna that pro-choice people have put themselves in. When I said to Cleets earlier "bury your head further in the sand" I was referencing that pro-choice is a cop out. It's the easy option. It's the option that passes the buck and allows people to not have to answer the really difficult questions.

My position on abortion is non-waivering and has zippy to do with my religion. I am happy that my religion agrees with my position, but it does not dictate it. The fact that I'm pro-birth control should prove that beyond a doubt.

It's not a tumor folks.

[Gil Dobie]

Like I said on another thread on another day, the Reps will not win the presidency as long as they keep their current social views. A majority of Women and today's youth are not buying their bs. The world is passing them by.

If you do a google search, I think you will find there are polls showing Gen. Y is generally more pro-life than their parents generation.

The problem are the whackadoodles that raise a stink about birth control availability "encouraging promiscuity". Contrary to what dumb liberal feminazis say, many women don't see abortion as being some kind of a vital sacrament and generally think abortion is a hideous thing.

I was thinking more on the lines of Gay Marriage and Legalized pot when I typed my statement.

[Gil Dobie]

Instead of making him guess, why don't you just clarify?

The issue pro-choice won't argue is when life begins. It's not that I think I have the answer. I freely admit I have no idea, but that in fact is the problem. I know very few people that think very late term abortions are OK and even fewer that think partial birth abortions are OK. If you are in either camp, how can you be for abortion at any point? How can somebody say at day 119 it's OK, but at 120 it's not? Every child grows at different rates. We HAVE to err on the side of caution.

The pro-choice side likes to skip this arguement or use hyperbole and start making cracks about pro-life folks killing sperm. Their only other option is to say "it's up to each woman to decide for herself." That's bullshit. We have laws that a woman can't keep her child in a cellar with limited food and water. We don't leave that up to the individual parent(s).

To be logical and consistent, the pro-choice side MUST be pro-choice all the way through the date of birth. Viability is not an option because that is limited by science and changes all the time. We can't even agree on a definition of viability. A newborn can hardly survive on it's own.

It's an issue that won't be solved any time soon, but it would seem more people are starting to understand the dilemna that pro-choice people have put themselves in. When I said to Cleets earlier "bury your head further in the sand" I was referencing that pro-choice is a cop out. It's the easy option. It's the option that passes the buck and allows people to not have to answer the really difficult questions.

My position on abortion is non-waivering and has zippy to do with my religion. I am happy that my religion agrees with my position, but it does not dictate it. The fact that I'm pro-birth control should prove that beyond a doubt.

It's not a tumor folks.

I guess I'm pro-choice. Life begins at conception and abortion is killing human life, per my undergrad days in Zoology. I don't believe in abortion outside of rape/incest/health type situations. People should not be punished for participating in an abortion and it should be a decision between a women and her Dr and in some cases the father.

[Grizalltheway]

Instead of making him guess, why don't you just clarify?

The issue pro-choice won't argue is when life begins. It's not that I think I have the answer. I freely admit I have no idea, but that in fact is the problem. I know very few people that think very late term abortions are OK and even fewer that think partial birth abortions are OK. If you are in either camp, how can you be for abortion at any point? How can somebody say at day 119 it's OK, but at 120 it's not? Every child grows at different rates. We HAVE to err on the side of caution.

The pro-choice side likes to skip this arguement or use hyperbole and start making cracks about pro-life folks killing sperm. Their only other option is to say "it's up to each woman to decide for herself." That's bullshit. We have laws that a woman can't keep her child in a cellar with limited food and water. We don't leave that up to the individual parent(s).

To be logical and consistent, the pro-choice side MUST be pro-choice all the way through the date of birth. Viability is not an option because that is limited by science and changes all the time. We can't even agree on a definition of viability. A newborn can hardly survive on it's own.

It's an issue that won't be solved any time soon, but it would seem more people are starting to understand the dilemna that pro-choice people have put themselves in. When I said to Cleets earlier "bury your head further in the sand" I was referencing that pro-choice is a cop out. It's the easy option. It's the option that passes the buck and allows people to not have to answer the really difficult questions.

My position on abortion is non-waivering and has zippy to do with my religion. I am happy that my religion agrees with my position, but it does not dictate it. The fact that I'm pro-birth control should prove that beyond a doubt.

It's not a tumor folks.

Well, since you're anti choice, I'm going to demand that you be completely consistent with that view. Should we start prosecuting abortions, even early-term ones, as murder? What about if the mother's life is in danger? Is it morally acceptable to you to end the life of a fetus to save the mother's?

[GannonFan]

Instead of making him guess, why don't you just clarify?

The issue pro-choice won't argue is when life begins. It's not that I think I have the answer. I freely admit I have no idea, but that in fact is the problem. I know very few people that think very late term abortions are OK and even fewer that think partial birth abortions are OK. If you are in either camp, how can you be for abortion at any point? How can somebody say at day 119 it's OK, but at 120 it's not? Every child grows at different rates. We HAVE to err on the side of caution.

The pro-choice side likes to skip this arguement or use hyperbole and start making cracks about pro-life folks killing sperm. Their only other option is to say "it's up to each woman to decide for herself." That's bullshit. We have laws that a woman can't keep her child in a cellar with limited food and water. We don't leave that up to the individual parent(s).

To be logical and consistent, the pro-choice side MUST be pro-choice all the way through the date of birth. Viability is not an option because that is limited by science and changes all the time. We can't even agree on a definition of viability. A newborn can hardly survive on it's own.

It's an issue that won't be solved any time soon, but it would seem more people are starting to understand the dilemna that pro-choice people have put themselves in. When I said to Cleets earlier "bury your head further in the sand" I was referencing that pro-choice is a cop out. It's the easy option. It's the option that passes the buck and allows people to not have to answer the really difficult questions.

My position on abortion is non-waivering and has zippy to do with my religion. I am happy that my religion agrees with my position, but it does not dictate it. The fact that I'm pro-birth control should prove that beyond a doubt.

It's not a tumor folks.

I'm in 89's camp on this one. I'm all pro-birth control in really almost every form of it. But once conception occurs and the egg's in the uterus, it's living - the life process has started. Granted, it may stop or fail on its own, but it's started. At some point science is going to keep improving and the viability outside of the womb will get closer and closer to conception - just like science has improved where viability once was at birth now it's at something like 20 weeks. If we do get viability outside the womb to be right at conception, how would abortion be viewed or considered?