Not just here, but everyone seems to have something to say about who's running the show. The conservatives criticize Obama just like back when Bush was the president, the liberals criticized him.

I think we're all intelegent people, so I ask, rather than finger pointing...

You're the president...

You know the problems...

How would you fix them.. one by one? And no one line answers, and no answers like "send all the illegals back home" and "end the war" period... I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room... no put some thought in it...

What would YOU ALL do different?

Great question. I don't have a solution yet but let me think on this. I hope you get many quality replies.

Great question. I don't have a solution yet but let me think on this. I hope you get many quality replies.

I plan to answer my own question too. But I need a day to think it over... it is after all, a loaded question... I've very curious and hopeful to hear from tomder and excon on this one...

Be specific . I have offered many of my ideas here on a variety of issues.You mention health care . Instinctively I know that spending and initial "investment " of $1.5 trillion to provide "free health care " is not a solution ;is not free ,nor will driving private insurers out of the market place reduce the costs.

Now we have had more than one lengthy and running threds specifically on health care where I have argued that fixing the gaps in the current system would preserve what is unarguably the best health care system in the world without completely dismantling it. But there are others who point to different nation's models as one they want to pursue.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/socialized-medicine-calling-all-canadians-western-europeans-324812.html

The problem now is that the President is doing essentially what you say we should not do... he intends to bum rush massive reforms into the general budget ;not only in health care ,but also energy ,environment , education, along with other pet projects he doesn't want debated .

If the opposition introduces alternatives he and some of the Dems like Pelosi and Reid plan to shut down debate and pass the budget with a parlamentary procedure called " budget reconciliation"... even though some major Democrat law makers opposed to the move.

“I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget 'reconciliation' process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.”SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV)

“Well, look, I have said for weeks, I don't think it would be wise to use the reconciliation process to write major legislation, reform legislation. That's not what reconciliation was designed for. It was designed for purely deficit reduction.”SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND):

“It unnecessarily short circuits Congress' ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.”SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

So when you say :I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room.....that is indeed exactly what he intends to essentially do unless members of his own party prevent it.

If the opposition introduces alternatives he and some of the Dems like Pelosi and Reid plan to shut down debate and pass the budget with a parlamentary procedure called " budget reconciliation" ....even though some major Democrat law makers opposed to the move. Hello andrew:

Maybe we'll be able to get on to other issues, but THIS one has to be dealt with NOW.

You'll notice that tom reminds you that there are Democrats who oppose this process. It's red herring.. What he doesn't want you to know is that the dufus passed the biggest tax cuts in history for the wealthiest of individuals using THIS process...

WHY did the dufus do that?? Because there were Republicans who opposed the tax cuts and wouldn't vote for them.

It IS interesting that Obama is going to use the SAME procedure to fix the problems, that CAUSED them in the first place. Ironic isn't it?

excon

At least Bush did it to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, not rob them blind.

At least Bush did it to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, not rob them blind.Hello Steve:

I don't know when taxing the people to pay the country's bills became robbery. I guess when it comes out of YOUR pocket, it's robbery.

Plus, I would have thought Republicans were the responsible ones among us... But, nahhhh. They put on TWO wars, and decided to BORROW the money to pay for 'em instead of taxing the people... Maybe they thought the bill wouldn't ever come due... Maybe they were smoking good stuff too.

You don't really want to listen to people like that, do you?? People who think we can borrow our way to prosperity??

excon

The process was not being abused by the Congressional Republicans when they introduced tax cuts... but it would be if new programs are added to the budget .

I refer you to the 1st paragraph of the rule :

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.
THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm)

It was designed to restrain Congressional spending not to expand it.

Andrew,
Maybe we should put in a few more conditions for solutions.
1. No rehashing of what had been done in the past and how wrong it was.
2. No sarcastic quips
3. No complaining about how wrong you believe things are being handled now.

Don't complain, EXPLAIN
Explain how you would fix the problems. Don't tell us what you would not do, tell us what you would do.

From Tom...
be specific . I have offered many of my ideas here on a variety of issues.You mention health care . Instinctively I know that spending and initial "investment " of $1.5 trillion to provide "free health care " is not a solution ;is not free ,nor will driving private insurers out of the market place reduce the costs.

Refresh us on your many ideas. In this post you just said what was NOT a solution. Give us your solutions.

I have argued that fixing the gaps in the current system would preserve what is unarguably the best health care system in the world without completely dismantling it.


Let's hear yours referee

Hello Steve:

I don't know when taxing the people to pay the country's bills became robbery. I guess when it comes out of YOUR pocket, it's robbery.

Plus, I would have thought Republicans were the responsible ones among us... But, nahhhh. They put on TWO wars, and decided to BORROW the money to pay for 'em instead of taxing the people... Maybe they thought the bill wouldn't ever come due... Maybe they were smoking good stuff too.

The free spending GOP problem has already been acknowledged. So why make it worse?


You don't really want to listen to people like that, do you?? People who think we can borrow our way to prosperity??

Um, not really. With these numbers (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/now-time-something-completely-different-332917-3.html#post1627136) I don't see how that's possible without soaking every taxpayer, which by the way, Obama has already acknowledged his much vaunted - nay, make that the centerpiece of hopenchange - tax cut for 95 percent of Americans is already out the window (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1). Note how the media is still treating his "Making Work Pay" credit as a tax "cut" instead of a spending program (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2240.cfm).

Refresh us on your many ideas.

In the posting I linked I made the following comment



The problem the way I see it is that my employer is the gatekeeper. If insurance companies had to compete for my business then if I was unhappy with their coverage I would have a choice . I bet that if they had to compete they would find ways to reduce costs . as an example... they are allowed by the gvt. To write up administrative costs that they don't incure and they take advantage of it.



I also made this reply :


Skell ,I began doing my research on your system. Like you said it is a two tiered unequal system. The people with the means have the option to supplement their health care and about a third of the people do so. Our system has it at 1/3 of the people already receiving public run medical care... so ours is already 2 tiered giving massive gvt. Help to select demographics.
I guess it is a matter of debate which system is better . Both are flawed .


Since I have never lived in a system that is run under a free market and consumer choice method ,then all I can advance is theory . The flaws of socialized and semi-socialized methods have already been demonstrated.

We've had this discussion before recently and I'll say basically the same thing I said then, I don't have the answers but Obama's plan is not it. Meanwhile, the GOP is rolling their alternative budget plan with the gloves off (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20509.html). I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?

Steve nice avatar

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:hdNmmfRSWYtPkM:http://rlv.zcache.com/climate_change_happens_hat-p148286889073807931tdto_210.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/climate_change_happens_hat-p148286889073807931tdto_210.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/environmental%2Bslogans%2Bgifts&usg=__KDvthZ3OJ3_I3Y-IBU6KoZp2ksY=&h=210&w=210&sz=10&hl=en&start=15&um=1&tbnid=hdNmmfRSWYtPkM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclimate%2Bchange%2Bhappens%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)

I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?Hello Steve:

You're not going to hear it from me. I listened. I even read. Here's some stuff from your link:

The principles in the Republican budget will sound familiar: “limits the federal budget from growing faster than the family budget,. provides universal access to health care and secures entitlements,. lowers taxes,. keeps energy and fuel costs low,. ends the bailouts and reforms the financial system,. keep the cost of living low.”

I considered the Republican plan. I digested it fully. It's a nice plan. It's familiar, like Politico said it would be.

This is what I think about it: Those ideas caused the present problem in the first place, and they don't fix anything that's broken. Therefore, nobody should listen further...

The Democrats should have their way with them.

excon

We've had this discussion before recently and I'll say basically the same thing I said then, I don't have the answers but Obama's plan is not it. Meanwhile, the GOP is rolling their alternative budget plan with the gloves off (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20509.html). I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?

Seems no one has the answers. To say what is NOT the answer doesn't help. I don't have any grand plans myself, just some common sense observations.

The words "bonus, golden parachute, and raise," should never be used in the same breath as lay offs, or bail out for troubled companies.

When I worked for big corporations I saw the top tier get richer and richer while the bottom tier, the worker bees get less and less. Layoffs for some and top mgmt. bonuses for others were going on at the same time. Of course it was all about making profits for the board of directors no matter what the cost to the "little people".
If layoffs are in order, maybe they could be prevented if the big wigs actually forsake their ridiculously high bonuses and divided it among the hard working bottom tier that are usually the first to go.

I also say that a salary reduction across the board should be emplemented before any one employee should be let go.

Less unemployment, less welfare.

So far, this is all I've come up with, but I'll continue brainstorming. I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.

This is what I think about it: Those ideas caused the present problem in the first place, and they don't fix anything that's broken. Therefore, nobody should listen further....

The Democrats should have their way with them.

Well, all I read were the highlights in the article, so unlike you I can't judge it on its merits yet.

Steve nice avatar

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:hdNmmfRSWYtPkM:http://rlv.zcache.com/climate_change_happens_hat-p148286889073807931tdto_210.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/climate_change_happens_hat-p148286889073807931tdto_210.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/environmental%2Bslogans%2Bgifts&usg=__KDvthZ3OJ3_I3Y-IBU6KoZp2ksY=&h=210&w=210&sz=10&hl=en&start=15&um=1&tbnid=hdNmmfRSWYtPkM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclimate%2Bchange%2Bhappens%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)

Thanks, I should order the T-shirt but around here it would get more cheers than jeers. What's the point in showing it off if you can't annoy a liberal? :D

I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.


And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs....Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself...he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land.... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.
Socrates from Plato Republic

Okay Tom. Please translate into plain English.


And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs... Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself... he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.

Okay Tom. Please translate into plain English.


And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs... Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself... he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.Hello c:

I'll take a stab at it. Although, I'm sure tom will have a different view. It's his clip, after all.

It's Republican scare tactics, plain and simple. There's nothing new about them. They tried to scare you before the election, and they're trying to scare you now. Yesterday Obama was a socialist. Today he's a tyrant. Who knows what they'll call him tomorrow?

Be scared they say... Really scared..

Excon

On the ILLEGAL alien problem:

Enforce the laws already on the books.
We apparently need some workers from Mexico, especially at harvest time. I remember a time when those workers came here on a limited work permit. They were DOCUMENTED and could be kept track of.

Now the question becomes, do we REALLY want to send the ILLEGALS back or not? If we do, then that is not hard to do.

The Federal government does not have to know where they are.

We start by having a good information base available to state and local governments. When a person found to be in this country illegaly is arrested for ANYTHING, even if it's jaywalking, he should be immediately be sent back to his home country.

Then the feds get out of the way and allow communities to restrict housing to ONLY legal US citizens, or those here on valid visas.

Then, firms that knowingly hire illegals should pay fines high enough to discourage the practice.

Those from other countries desiring seasonal work could do as was done in years past.

This might not be a total solution, but it would go a long way toward it.

It seems though, that both liberals and big businesses want the illegals here.

The liberals want them to bolster their voter base, and the businesses want cheap labor.

Who knows what they'll call him tomorrow?

Why wait until tomorrow? Try authoritarian (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Expanded-Americorps-has-stench-of-authoritarianism-41869152.html). :D

Not just here, but everyone seems to have something to say about who's running the show. The conservatives critisize Obama just like back when Bush was the president, the liberals critisized him.

I think we're all intelegent people, so I ask, rather than finger pointing...

You're the president....

You know the problems....

How would you fix them.. one by one? And no one line answers, and no answers like "send all the illegals back home" and "end the war" period... I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room... no put some thought in it...

What would YOU ALL do different?

The first thing to do is to set an agenda of priorities.

Here's my agenda.

1) Economy
2) National security
3) Social policy.

In terms of the economy, we are faces with several different problems:
a) Decline in housing values,
b) Tightening of capital markets and credit
c) Massive loss of jobs in many sectors
d) Loss of consumer confidence
e) The possibility of massive inflation at the same time we are experiencing a recession (stagflation).
f) The continued existence of the factors that caused these problems.

All of these issues are tied to each other, and solving one helps solve the others.

I would allow companies that are failing, regardless of how big they are, go through a bankruptcy process. There are those who say that allowing such a thing to occur with companies like AIG or GM will destroy the economy. Not true.

Bankruptcy gives troubled companies a fighting chance to survive. It also makes sure that creditors get SOMETHING to at least partially repay their loans, rather than nothing. Companies withbad assets on their books will be allowed to restructure so that the bad assets can be properly valuated and sold in the market FOR WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR. That is a true "mark to market" and it is absolutely essential to getting past the mistrust that currently exists in the marketplace. Bankruptcy would allow companies that have bad contract agreements to renegotiate those agreements on more favorable terms. It would allow companies that are poorly run to be taken over by better management teams. In short, bankruptcy PROTECTS and HELPS the companies that are in trouble. It is, in fact, a bailout that does not rely on tax dollars to accomplish the goal of helping the companies.

I would lower taxes at all levels, both corporate and personal. I would put money back into the hands of people and companies. This would act (as it always has in the past) to stimulate retail sales, which in turn stimulates production and employment. It also increases the amount of taxes the government collects, because with more people working and businesses earning more from increased sales, more taxes are paid to the government, even though the rate at which people and businesses are taxes is lower than it was before.

I would attempt to implement the Fair Tax, which is a consumption tax. You pay taxes on what you use, not on what you earn, which is fairer than an income tax.

One thing I would stop doing is giving bailouts to companies. At this point we have too much debt, the government is printing money to cover the cost of the bailouts, and there's no end in sight. The bailouts have to stop. We must also decrease government spending to the barest minimums. Any spending on anything other than military, police, fire departments, courts, basic infrastructure, and the simple costs of running the government must be pared down. It is not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth via welfare programs. It is not the government's responsibility to provide for higher education, which is a luxury item. It is not the government's job to provide health insurance. It is not the government's job to save the trees or the whales or the three-headed Mongolian newt. It is not the job of the government to make sure that everyone, no matter how poor, has a home or a TV. It is not the job of the government to pay for studies of grass, chipmuncks, toads, and goldfish. It is not the job of government to fix the problems of people who make bad decisions. The government's job is to provide a safe environment and opportunities in which to live and conduct business. It's job is to maintain an infrastructure so that we have freedom of movement, clean water, and electricity... although I believe that electricity is the responsibility of private providers. In short, anything that is not directly the government's responsibility should be cut to bare minimums.

I would also eliminate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act. If not for these institutions, whose entire purpose was to create an environment in which bad loans were made under threat of penalty if the lenders didn't make these loans, there never would have been a housing crisis, which is where this entire problem started.

So that would be my goals with regard to the economy.

On the issue of National Security, which to me includes border control and protection from military threats, here's what I would do. I would increase the military budget back up to the levels immediately after 9/11. I would fund programs that allow the military to recruit the brightest and the best, and arm them with the newest and the best gear. The Future Warrior program would be fully funded and fast-tracked to allow our ground troops to have the equipment and training they need to project the greatest amount of military force with the least effort and risk. I would also increase studies into psycho-analytics of war... what makes a good soldier great, what gives him the best advantages in terms of mental-preparedness, the psychological force-multipliers of war, what can we do to help the soldier who has been through the trauma of combat cope with a return to civilian life, etc. The psychology of war is essential to having the best and most prepared military in the world.

I would work to increase the pay for cops and firefighters. With lower government spending, we can afford to pay them better. (Teachers too, but I'll get to that later.) I wuld increase the standards and training for cops and law enforcement at all levels. We have no right to complain about cops doing what they are taught to do when they shoot someone "unnecessarily" in reaction to the events on the ground. If we want the cops to be better at their jobs, we need to train them better and give them better equipment to do their jobs, and we need to pay a salary that will draw the cream of the crop to be police officers. Ditto for firefighters.

I would work on civilian awareness programs. In Israel, the reason that most terrorism attempts fail (about 97% fail, but you only hear about the ones that succeed) is that soldiers, cops and civilians work together to prevent terrorism. Civilians are always aware of their surroundings, and many of them are armed. If they see something suspicious, they take action, either by sounding the alarm and informing the authorities or by taking direct action themselves. Civilian awareness of the threats around them is high, and so everybody keeps their eyes open. I believe that Americans should be the same way. It is hard for law enforcement and military to stop the threats this country faces every day. It is all the harder because sillyvilians either get in the way or actively act against law enforcement. I believe a nation-wide education campaign regarding methods that civillians can use to help law enforcement and military officials stop terrorism or other threats to safety, would be helpful in a global effort to stop terroris. NY City has a campaign called "If you see something, say something." The name pretty much says it all. I would increase that campaign to a nationwide level, but I would also include education on what people should be looking for... unguarded luggage, strange vehicles, strange people acting strangley, clothing that is not appropriate to the weather, etc. Such a campaign would be invaluable in creating a society that helps protect itself.

In terms of a social agenda, I would act in a conservative manner. I am pro-life, and that would be part of my agenda. I am pro-gun, and I would act to protect the 2nd Amendment. I would appoint conservative originalists to the courts and eliminate judicial fiat to the best of my abilities. I am pro-school voucher and pro-charter-schools. I would allow the creation of charter schools, initiate a nationwide school-voucher program, and increase choice and opportunities in education through high school. I would increase teacher pay. The good teachers have some of the hardest jobs on earth and they get paid bupkis. (I would fire the bad teachers.) However, I would eliminate tenure in the public school systems. Tenure is an excuse for mediocre teachers to get lifetime positions for which they are not suited and are unqualified. It is a system that breeds abuse, and I would work hard to end it. I would expand the education savings accounts to help parents pay for their kids' higher education (but I would not allow the government to pay for it themselves). I would initiate a nationwide personal health savings account program to help pay for direct medical costs and the costs of health insurance, and I would keep the government out of the medical system (with the exception of the VA system, which I would work to improve in terms of standards of care).

So that would be my agenda, give or take a few things. I've put a lot of thought into these ideas, and I think that every one of them would be an improvement over what we currently have, in terms of national growth and personal independence and responsibility. I've had a long time to think about this stuff.

Galveston, I am with you all the way with the alien situation.

My daughter is married to a Canadian and she is jumping through all kinds of hoops to get her "permanent resident" status approved. Until then, she can not work, can not take part in the socialized medicine, and I don't know what all else. This is the way it should be.

I don't understand how or why they get free medical. That is easy enough to fix. No card, no medical care. Go back home for it or go through the proper channels, or do without. Babies born in the US to illegal aliens should not automatically become US Citizens.

Are you trying to tell me that Illegal immigrants are voting??
How do they get a voters registration card?
Why do you believe the liberals are easy on them to get their vote? Please explain.

ETWolf, Lots of good ideas there. I agree with most of it. This statement bothers me though...


[QUOTE]or by taking direct action themselves.

I don't mind training citizens on how to be good observers and to report what they observe. Taking direct action themselves is a very slippery slope. What if you are wrong. You going to shoot first and ask questions later. I say report what you see and let the professionals handle it.

The only other thing I disagree with is the prolife stance. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion but it isn't anyone's decision but mine. I think it is ironic that conservatives that rant about keeping the gov out of our lives, fight to keep the gov in a woman's body. I say, if you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one.

Guns, okay have your guns, but don't complain about regulations. They are put in place to protect you. For people who qualify, there is no problem. If a person doesn't qualify, then they have no business getting a gun.

I agree with ET


On the economic issues, especially the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans for Fair Taxation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer).

I do think the government's role in providing for the general welfare could expand in the area of basic science and research.

The reason I say this is that a dollar spent in education is worth much more than a dollar in healthcare. Also it is in technology and advancements that new jobs are created. Rather than bailing out failing businesses like GM, the government could fund research into things not yet here. For example, the internet - who would have thought of it being so pervasive back in the 1970s. Look how many jobs there are in information technology etc... We cannot compete on the world market with $1/hour jobs in such industries such as textiles. The jobs will come from the creation and applications of new or more advanced technology.





G&P

I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.

Explain to me why that isn't tyranny.
As far as my Socrates comment goes it was amply demonstrated when the gvt. Whipped up populist anger over AIG execs. To the point that email boxes were flooded with death threats and their brownshirts in ACORN organized a bus of protesters to intimidate AIG workers Connecticut Working Families | Vote your values. Vote Working Families. (http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/t/4020/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=551)

explain to me why that isn't tyranny.Hello tom:

Ok. If the Bush trampling of the 4th Amendment along with the 1st, 5th and 6th, wasn't tryanny, then this isn't even close.

excon

Elliot is right about taxes. The overall size of gvt is too big so I would make provisions for every Dept in the executive branch to be subject to periodic review by Congress to evaluate it's utility . The goal would be the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy with targeted goals of job elimination in the Federal Civil service system.

I would go back to the principle that education is a local responsibility . One of the 1st Federal Depts to be eliminated would be the Dept. of Education. I would use anti-trust laws if necessary to force competition into the school systems and to break the teacher's unions. I agree with Elliot in elimination of tenure ;paying teachers their value .

The balance of power has been warped by the judiciary. It can be fixed by elimination of lifetime appointments to the bench ;and a legislative 2/3 majority veto on judicial decisions. That would require a Constitutional amendment but it would be well worth it to go back to the concept of letting the people be the final arbiter .

Hello again, andrew:

If you listen to the righty's here, you'll hear politics as usual...

The PROBLEM is that we're facing an economic meltdown, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression. These guys don't understand it, so they IGNORE it.

Oh, righty's UNDERSTAND the threat when a gun is aimed at us... Yup, they get that all right...

But, they don't quite get it when the enemy is the economy, and when they themselves are responsible for breaking it...

Talking about fixing a flat tire when the engine is blown up, doesn't work for cars, and it doesn't work for our country.

excon

Andrew you will also I'm sure note that this is response #33 ;that the "righties" have offered specific answers as you have requested .But you see none from the rest

But you see none from the rest
Hello again,

It's true. That tom guy really keeps us on the straight and narrow... Here we go:

(1) Fix the economy.
a. reform health care
1. throw the insurance companies OUT, and make the gov the single payer.

b. reform energy
1. make it green, and make it an alternate to fossil fuel.

c. reform entitlements
1. They are growing faster than we can pay for them... We either need to raise SS and Medicare taxes, or lower services.

d. re-regulate
1. We must end the market tilt toward the rich.

(2) End the drug war.
1. That'll save JILLIONS, and go a long way toward making peace in the world.

(3) Rebuild the infrastructure.
1. We need roads and bridges to work.

(4) End the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
1. Duh!
2. It'll help make peace.

(5) Reform immigration.
1. We should stop trying to keep ourselves WHITE.

That'll be quite enough for a first term.

excon

Ex there is a fundamental problem with 1.(d)

The regulations are already in place. The regulators are the problem. There was a putsch conducted by banking interests that melded into the government at all levels in a revolving door method... and created the regulatory environment to favor themselves interests . Regulations were never relaxed ,they were created and expanded with the intent to be manipulated .

Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, Treasury secretary under Clinton, and later chairman of Citigroup's executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs became Treasury secretary John Snow, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity firm that also Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco,the biggest player in international bond markets. Jon Corzine, former Senator and now the governor of New Jersey was also a Goldman Sachs big wig .Boy wonder Tim Geithner protégé of Lawrence Summers,Robert Rubin and various Fed managers ,as well as the world bank is guarding the hen house now... so their interests are safe. GS is getting their fill of bailout money filtered through AIG .

They staffed the regulatory depts ;and with donations to lawmakers, created the regulations that the industry was ruled under ,and managed the oversight.

The narrative is wrong.It wasn't deregulation ;it was too much regulation created by an oligarchy of people who had the most to gain.

The regulations are already in place. The regulators are the problem....... The narrative is wrong. It wasn't deregulation ;it was too much regulation created by an oligarchy of people who had the most to gain.Hello again, tom:

That would be YOUR take. Mine, not surprisingly, is different. Ever hear the phrase "too big to fail"?? Do you want to know how that happened??

It could be said, and I'm saying it, that Senator Phil Gramm, Republican from Texas, started the deregulation that wound up causing this mess, when he authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services under brands including Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation. This combination would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies.

Bank of America and AIG are other examples of these abominations.

excon

Re : Glass-Steagall

The funny thing is that Countrywide , Washington Mutual, and IndyMac, all manage to have toxic mortgages without even having security business.
GS and Morgan Stanley had no banking divisions and yet they also got into trouble . None of their problems had anything to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall .

You may not know this but Sen Carter Glass himself moved to repeal Glass-Steagall shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

The fact is that the repeal of GSA rules had nothing to do with either the sub-prime fiasco or credit default swaps. GSA would not have prevented the creation of derivitives or their popularity as an investment... and of course the loosening of lending standards was due to regulatory MANDATE .

ETWolf, Lots of good ideas there. I agree with most of it. This statement bothers me though...

I don't mind training citizens on how to be good observers and to report what they observe. Taking direct action themselves is a very slippery slope. What if you are wrong. You going to shoot first and ask questions later. I say report what you see and let the professionals handle it.

I understand your point. However, the fact is that community crime watch groups that are organized, trained, and have the ability to make citizens arrests are a great tool for stopping crime. Take a look at the Guardian Angels for example. Law enforcement in fourty-something states and 20-something countries work well with the Guardian Angels, who are trained as citizen watch groups and are well organized. They are also well-liked by the public.

Furthermore, there's an old saying: "When seconds count, the police are there in minutes." Cops CANNOT be everywhere. That's not a criticism, it's just a simple fact of logistics. There are x number of cops to cover y amount of territory, and the numbers never add up. A citizenry trained to take care of itself in self-defense is absolutely necessary to stop crime and terrorism. For example, the Salt Lake City Mall shooting (February 2007) resulted in 5 innocents being killed before the shooter was brought down by an armed off-duty police officer who happened to be shopping there. If not for that off-duty cop, (essentially, for the purpose of this post, an armed civillian) the shootings would have been much worse and resulted in many more deaths. An aware, well-trained and privately armed civilian population has a better chance at stopping crime and terrorism than a poorly armed, untrained, oblivious population.


The only other thing I disagree with is the prolife stance. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion but it isn't anyone's decision but mine. I think it is ironic that conservatives that rant about keeping the gov out of our lives, fight to keep the gov in a woman's body. I say, if you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one.

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

And turning your argument back on itself, I find it interesting that those who claim to be "pro-choice" are only pro-choice on abortion. They never seem to be pro-choice on whether other people should own a gun, other people should keep the money they earn, which schools other people's children should go to, what prayers can be said in public, and what forms of art can be exhibitted in public buildings. "Stay out of my bedroom", apparently doesn't apply to "Stay out of my wallet" or "Stay out of my gun-rack".

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live. It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?


Guns, okay have your guns, but don't complain about regulations. They are put in place to protect you. For people who qualify, there is no problem. If a person doesn't qualify, then they have no business getting a gun.

I have no problem with background checks. It's just smart to do background checks. However, the government has gone way beyond background checks, and is working very hard to make ALL guns illegal. They have labeled any long-gun that has a pistol-grip as an assault weapon, regardless of what the weapon itself is capable of. They have listed any weapon that can load 10 or more rounds as an assault weapon. There is a new bill in the works that says that any weapon that has ever been used by the military is automatically a "military weapon" and the fact that a weapon has a sport application doesn't mean that it is a "sport weapon". This is a catch-all rule that can be used to make ANY weapon illegal, and is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Interestingly enough, there is something of a history to the 2nd Amendment. Below are the various draft versions of the 2nd Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (FINAL VERSION)

For those who argue that the right to bear arms applies only to a militia group or someone serving in the military, the progression above makes it clear that that was NOT the intention of the Framers. They clearly intended the right to bear arms as a PERSONAL right regardless of military service, and that this personal right will have no law whatsoever that limits it. This includes, lecensure laws, purchase limitations, waiting periods, or limitations based on the weapons' "purpose". "Shall not be infringed" is a very clear statement.

Elliot

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live. It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?Hello again, El:

When it comes to issues you don't believe in, you dismiss the relevance the Constitution has on those issues, and you call decisions to uphold the Constitution laws by fiat. But, when it comes to Constitutional rights you support, then you know the Constitution pretty good.

Constitutional rights cannot be taken away. They can't be left to the states to decide. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says so. According to Roe v Wade, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a Constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court said so, and no Supreme Court since has said otherwise.

Like it or not, fetus's don't have Constitutional rights. Convicted murders and rapists do.

Unlike yourself, I support the ENTIRE Constitution. I don't cherry pick. Yes, you're absolutely right about your Second Amendment rights.. It's just a shame you aren't an ardent supporter of the rest of them.

excon

Hello again, tom:

That would be YOUR take. Mine, not surprisingly, is different. Ever hear the phrase "too big to fail"?? Do you want to know how that happened??

That's a BS statement that means "The unions or the executives give me big money donations, so I don't want them to fail". There is no such thing as too big to fail.


It could be said, and I'm saying it, that Senator Phil Gramm, Republican from Texas, started the deregulation that wound up causing this mess, when he authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services under brands including Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation. This combination would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies.

Bank of America and AIG are other examples of these abominations.

Excon

Let's assume that Glass Steagall were still in place. So instead of JP Morgan Chase bundling mortgages and then selling derivatives based on those mortgages, Chase would have bundled the mortgages, and JP Morgan would have sold derivatives based on the mortgages. Either way, the product would still have existed, would still have failed and would still have caused the same problem. Glass-Steagall didn't prevent that from happening in the slightest. Ditto for AIG, Citigroup, B of A and any other financial conglomerate you can think of.

Just out of curiosity, how, exactly, did the repeal of Glass-Steagall cause the failure of GM, which is supposedly also too big to fail?

Come on, ex. You know that this argument is complete BS. There is no such thing as "too big to fail". This is a concept that the government came up with to justify sweeping regulatory change and control of industry. It's pure baloney.

The cause of this entire problem is sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime mortgages would not exist except for the interference of the US government in forcing the banks to make those mortgage loans. Eliminate the regulation, and you eliminate the sub-prime mortgages. Eliminate the sub-prime mortgages, and you eliminate the problem at its root.

It's a simple fix. But it wouldn't allow the government all the control over our lives and businesses that it wants, so it won't even be considered. And we're just going to go through all this again in a few years, regardless of any regulations the government puts in place to try to stop it.

There's no such thing as "child proof" because children are too clever. There's no such thing as "idiot proof" because idiots are too smart.
And there's no such thing as "greed proof" because greedy people have lawyers that find loopholes in regulations designed to keep their greed "in check". Ergo, regulation doesn't work, and can't work to prevent this problem, because it can't eliminate the environment in which the problem is created.

But elimination of Fannie, Freddie and CRA eliminates the environment in which the problem exists, and thus the problem itself. DEREGULATION is the answer, not increased regulation that always causes unintended (or sometimes intended) consequences.

Excon,

Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The due process clause, listed in Section 1, does not mention a right to privacy. Nor does any other part of the 14th Amendment. Or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. Due process does not indicate some right to privacy. What due process protects is the sanctity of PRIVATE CONTRACTS. But nowhere is there an enumeration of a right to privacy.

Furthermore, you seem to emphasize the "due process" clause of section 1, but you clearly ignore the "Citizenship" clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

This clearly states that due process rights do NOT apply to illegal aliens or foreign-born enemies of there USA. Such rights are guaranteed ONLY to US citizens, whether natural born or naturalized. Yet you want us to extend due process rights to those sitting in Gitmo and to illegal aliens.

To use your own wording against you,


When it comes to issues you don't believe in, you dismiss the relevance the Constitution has on those issues... But, when it comes to Constitutional rights you support, then you know the Constitution pretty good.

And it is especially egregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.

BTW, John Kerry SHOULD have been elliminated as a candidate for President on the basis of Section 3. He is a former military officer who has acted in rebellion against the military and the government of the USA, met with and gave comfort to enemies of the USA, and participated in civil unrest against the USA. Ergo, he should never have been allowed to be elected to the Senate, much less run for President.

(One might argue the same about Barack Obama, who has met with and given aid and comfort to Bill Ayers and Burnadette Dorn, avowed enemies of the US government and known terrorist leaders of the Weatherman Underground. But I won't go there.)

Elliot

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.


I still say it is not a Fed or State issue. It is an individual issue. NO gov is supposed to have a say on this issue.



And turning your argument back on itself, I find it interesting that those who claim to be "pro-choice" are only pro-choice on abortion.

Not true, a blanket statement. And before you turn my argument back on me, address my original argument.


They never seem to be pro-choice on whether other people should own a gun, other people should keep the money they earn, which schools other people's children should go to, what prayers can be said in public, and what forms of art can be exhibitted in public buildings.

I am a pro-choice when it comes to abortion.
I am also pro-choice on all these issues you listed. It's not to say that some of the more dangerous choices (guns) should not be heavely regulated. I am extremely pro-choice when it comes to who you marry. That is another area, the gov has no business being.


"Stay out of my bedroom", apparently doesn't apply to "Stay out of my wallet" or "Stay out of my gun-rack".

Not sure what you mean by this.


And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live.

Again, not true. Blanket statement.


It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?



This is the sarcasm I was referring too earlier. It doesn't help your case. It's just your warped view.

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

Are you going to address any other issues? Like why in the world should the state have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or if someone marries a same sex partner.

Hello again, c:

You got him nailed! He's a keep the government out of your wallet kind of guy. But, when it comes to your bedroom, government SHOULD have a say.

excon

The founders believed in the concept of a civil society . I have heard the defense often that although someone is a libertarian that they are not anarchists .

That civil society did not just emerge but was the product of generations of human experience and reasoning . A moral order was vital for a civil society to function. That was an integral part of what establishes a cultural identity . Thus there is a balance between unfettered individual rights and government authority.

Madison put it this way in Federalist #51
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The Preamble of the Constitution states it's broad goal is preserving a right to life. That presumes an imperitive to defending of a life over the abstract women's right to choice .

But they also set up a Federal system where conflicting social issues were to be decided at the local State level ;by the people ;not an oligarchy in black robes. Anyone pleased with the Roe decision should be aware that the Supreme Court has changed it's mind before and will do so again on issues that they have no real business being in anyway.

In fact ,the founders again made it clear in Federalist 45 the relevant constitutional principle :
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. ..... ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Issues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

That is why it was wrong for the Court to rule on Roe;and it was right that the people of California had a right to decide issues of gay marriage.

[

I
ssues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

How does same sex marriage concern your life liberty or property?

See my last sentence... it is a State issue... even the gay rights people understand that .

see my last sentence ...it is a State issue .......even the gay rights people understand that .

I got that part. I just don't see how that becomes a state issue. It does not take away the rights, well being, etc. of the states citizens. It should not even be up for debate. How does it inflict harm of any kind?

The question is not if the state has the right to either allow or deny same sex marriage but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right. My opinion is that it is not unalienable that marriage is a right at all.

but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right. Hello again, tom:

If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does.

So no, you can't decide who has a right and who doesn't.

excon

I think that reforms to entitlement programs like social security and welfare are needed to help get out of the deficit. A national sales tax of about 7% would not be popular, but I think it is necessary to get the U.S. out of debt. Canada was hopelessly in debt until the Good and Services tax was introduced in 1991. Soon after the tax was introduced, Canada was one of the few countries in the world to have budget surpluses until the financial crisis started.

And it is especially aggregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.Hello again, El:

I can't help it if the Supreme Court didn't know where to find the right of privacy. It's in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth... But, it IS in there.

excon

Without rehashing the whole debate again . You are wrong . Marriage is a not a right that has to be equally applied. There are specific guildelines established that qualifies people for the institution... always were ,always will be . Just ask the Mormons if you don't believe me. The fact is ;and I explained it in another thred ,that marriage is a religious institution as well as state sanctioned .My religion does not think heterosexual and same sex marriages are equal and the state sanctioning same sex marriage would force my church to violate that premise and be open to violations of it's 1st amendment rights.

You think I'm wrong ? The church finds itself already in similar circumstances in issues of administering health care and charitible services. As an example ,the archdiocese of Boston eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt. A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.

A wedding photographer in New Mexico was found guilty of discrimination by the state's Human Rights Commission and ordered to pay $6,000 because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

State laws that protect gays from discrimination include some religious exemptions for reasons such as this. But treating the "marriages" as equal removes the exemptions under the guise of "equal rights" .

If you tell me that you think the state should get out of the marriage business I'd probably be willing to make compromises . If you tell me that there are various benefits associated with the contractual union of people that are denied same sex unions now including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights I would not disagree . But these issues of equal distribution of benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

The debate over this issue itself has evolved and civil society will reach this compromise that protects religious freedom and the civil rights of the gays eventually if the courts stay out of it .

The institutions of civil society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia.. most likely predating established governments . The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal recognition and codification of what society had already established.

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional ?

That is one of the reasons I mentioned that the courts are out of control and need to be reigned in.

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional?
If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does. Hello again, tom:

I know you think there should be special rights for heterosexuals, but the Constitution says otherwise. I know it's getting old, but...

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...

Now, I know that you think "equal" means that heterosexual people are more "equal" than homosexuals. I got it... I suggest, however, that the words in the Constitution are crystal clear.

Excon

Hello again,

It's true. That tom guy really keeps us on the straight and narrow... Here we go:

(1) Fix the economy.
a. reform health care
1. throw the insurance companies OUT, and make the gov the single payer.

They tried that in Canada and their Supreme Court in 2005 allowed private pay, because "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court

Featured Article - WSJ.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813).

I do think if it is done right - i would be in favor

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_of_the_physicians_working_group_for_singl epayer_national_health_insurance.php)

But if it done like this

Health care hinges on Senate insiders - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20040.html)

The senators in the room include Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, Hatch and Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).


i would be very very scared :eek: None are doctors or nurses or epidemiologists or have MPH. Notice that, that AIG screw up, Dodd is on the short list !




b. reform energy
1. make it green, and make it an alternate to fossil fuel.


More rhetoric? Where is the beef?
Clean coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, offshore drilling

How about this :)

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/729639.html

Lose weight, keep healthy and reduce your utilities while being green.





c. reform entitlements
1. They are growing faster than we can pay for them... We either need to raise SS and Medicare taxes, or lower services.



or raise the age, cut out fraud.




d. re-regulate
1. We must end the market tilt toward the rich.



As ET has mentioned - FAIR TAX

Fair Tax Reform (http://fairtaxreform.blogspot.com/)

"Democrats scream on one hand about the wealthy but they don't pay their fair share of tax at all. Tehresa Heinz Kerry and her Husband( John Kerry) paid a net 12% on their tax returns shared during the last Presidential race.
Millions in investment income and wages and they pay only 12%. On investment income they paid ZERO toward supporting Social Security and Medicare. Why? There is no payroll tax on investment income"







(3) Rebuild the infrastructure.
1. We need roads and bridges to work.


I would go further and make the entire country free wireless acess :)




(3) Reform immigration.
1. We should stop trying to keep ourselves WHITE.



I agree, open the doors, no quota.
BUT : background, medical check ups first. Also fingerprint, dna, and national ID.
Now that may seem like alot but we already have soc sec #s so I don't think National ID # is any big deal.



excon



I'm glad someone other than us righty's have some ideas ;)







G&P

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...


If that were the case then there would've been no need for the 19th Amendment since equal protection would've meant women couldn't be denied the equal right to vote.

Ex
Your interpretation of the 14th is flawed. Are you now saying that there is nothing to stop a future court from declaring there is no “compelling state interest for equal protection purposes” in banning polygamy,or incestuous marriages ? Under you're version of equal protection all laws restricting those marriages must also be struck .

John A. Bingham ;the author of the 14th said that the 14th “takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.” Well defining marriage has been a State right since the beginning of the nation... and states still reserve that right after the 14th passed.

I will remind you that both Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy ;who both voted in the majority in the Lawrence v Texas decision said they would've voted the other side if the law had applied to marriage.

Baker v. Nelson ;a same sex marriage law suit that made it to SCOTUS was thrown out because the court deamed it a state issue. In other words THERE IS NO COMPELLING FEDERAL QUESTION in marriage.

Hello again, tom:

I'd sure love a chance to argue this WITH YOU before the Supremes... I'd kick your butt.

excon

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born?

As I posted earlier, and no one challenged my statement, that is a perfect human life needing ONLY a few weeks time to breathe on its own.

Where are the advocates for these US Citizens?

Why is a mother allowed to hire an assassin to kill her baby?

Don't say that this does not pertain to the OP because it DOES. More taxpayers will certainly help the economy in the future. You DO think we have a future, don't you?

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born? Where are the advocates for these US Citizens? Hello gal:

Look, I'd like the law to allow me to smoke pot anywhere I choose. But, no matter what I'd like, the law says otherwise...

Same with you. In fact, being from the law and order party, you should be an advocate for LAW, instead of wishing the law was different.

You ask where the Constitutional protection for the unborn is? I don't know. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's where these rights come from - the ONLY place.

Wishing the law were different doesn't cut it.

excon

Ex
That would be fun. Would that be the Supremes before or after they invented penumbras, formed by emanations ?

Ex
that would be fun. Would that be the Supremes before or after they invented penumbras, formed by emanations ?

So often, I have no idea what you are talking about. Now, let me get my dictionary.:D

I have no idea what that means either . But that was the language in a court decision(Griswold v Connecticut ) that greatly expanded the meaning of all amendment and provision in the Constitution beyond what was intended . It has been an essential tool of those who believe in an evolving Constitution ;or as they call it a "living ,breathing " Constitution.

Lawyers across America had to pull out their dictionaries when reading Griswold for the first time also so you are not alone . A" penumbra" is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot... and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the decision that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

Hello again,

It means simply, that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy embodied in the Constitution even though it wasn't enumerated.

They found it in the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I think it's in the Fourth Amendment where they say a citizen shall be "secure in his papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure".

excon

Are you going to address any other issues? Like why in the world should the state have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or if someone marries a same sex partner.

I'll address abortion, since that was the topic of our conversation:

The purpose of government... any government... is to protect the innocent. That is, in fact, the only real purpose of the government, from a sociological perspective. The fact that governments do other things besides protecting the innocent doesn't change the fact that this is government's true purpose. There is no other purpose to government. Otherwise, why form a government (or society, for that matter) in the first place?

That said, who is more innocent and in need of protection than an unborn child?

Therefore, the government has a responsibility, a duty, to protect innocent unborn children. THAT is what gives them the right to address the issue of abortion.

Elliot

I got that part. I just don't see how that becomes a state issue. It does not take away the rights, well being, etc. of the states citizens. It should not even be up for debate. How does it inflict harm of any kind?

What it does is create a new set of "rights" that have never existed before, for the purpose of a specific group of people. Never before in history has there been a "right" of men to marry men or women to marry women. It is being created now specifically for the Gay community. That technically makes it a violation of the Constitution's "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, it must be addressed by the government. Furthermore, since it is not an issue enumerated by the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government, it becomes a states rights issue.

The creation of a new set of rights for a specific group is by its nature a danger. Any time a specific group gets special rights it is a danger.

Furthermore, any time that rules are changed it creates issues of unintended consequences, which are usually dangerous and detrimental, specifically because they ARE unintended.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I can't help it if the Supreme Court didn't know where to find the right of privacy. It's in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth... But, it IS in there.

excon

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th Amendment protects against search and seizure except with probable cause and warrant. It does NOT guarantee "privacy".

It is being created now specifically for the Gay community. That technically makes it a violation of the Constitution's "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Any time a specific group gets special rights it is a danger. Hello again, El:

There's NO creation here. Nobody is MAKING new law. There are NO proposals on the table. Nobody is creating ANYTHING.

The "creation" of the conflict, if there is one, started when citizens attempted to secure their RIGHTS under the Constitution, and they were denied by the state... THAT'S what created this problem...

Saying that there's a new set of rights, is like saying we created a new set of rights for black people when we passed the Equal Rights Amendment... We didn't do that...

Gay marriage wouldn't be a new set of rights either... It would be simply letting one group of American citizens share in the rights that the OTHER group of citizens has always had.

excon

Excon, I disagree.

Until now, any man had the right to marry any woman he wished to marry. Until now any woman had the right to marry any man she wished to marry. There was NO LEGAL RIGHT FOR A MAN TO MARRY A MAN OR A WOMAN TO MARRY A WOMAN. In fact, most state constitutions specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. No man was permitted to marry another man, and no woman was permitted to marry another woman. PERIOD.

NOW we are creating a new set of rules wherein man is permitted to marry man and woman is permitted to marry woman. This IS A NEW SET OF LAWS AND RULES THAT HAVE NEVER EXISTED IN OUR HISTORY. That fact cannot be denied. This is a new set of rules, a new set of "rights" that did not exist before. By trying to redefine marriage, they are trying to create a new set of rights that do not exist and never have before.

In fact, most state constitutions specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. No man was permitted to marry another man, and no woman was permitted to marry another woman. PERIOD.Hello again, El:

And, I disagree with you. You're wrong. Most state constitutions didn't define marriage as between a man and a woman. Those that do, did it specifically to deny homosexuals the rights they themselves enjoy.

That, in and of itself, is abhorrent, as was prop 8 in California. But, I have no fear. My wonderful country, although slow to do so, has always included the unpopular into the political mainstream. I have no doubt that this is going to happen here in spite of religious zealots like yourself.

What a wonderful country we live in... Women now have rights who didn't usta... Black people have rights they didn't usta... Pretty soon, gay people will have rights they didn't usta have either. God bless the USA.

excon

Hello gal:

Look, I'd like the law to allow me to smoke pot anywhere I choose. But, no matter what I'd like, the law says otherwise...

Same with you. In fact, being from the law and order party, you should be an advocate for LAW, instead of wishing the law was different.

You ask where the Constitutional protection for the unborn is? I dunno. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's where these rights come from - the ONLY place.

Wishing the law were different doesn't cut it.

excon

I'll tell you where the not yet born are protected in the Constitution. It is where the Constution says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as punishment for crime.

The obstinate, unscientific attitude that denys the personhood of that baby is in violation of the constirution. And it is based on totally SELFISH motives, with only a very few exceptions.

All we need are legislators that will write laws defining the personhood of the baby.

Hello again, gal:

The problem is when abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. I was around when that was the norm.
I did time in prison with guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends, because their girlfriends couldn't get a legal abortion... I did time with abortionists who killed women with dirty coat hangers because women couldn't get a legal abortion... And, the woman's prison across the way was filled to the top with women who sought illegal means to end their pregnancies.

I don't disagree with you about the baby, but the bad old days were worse. There is no easy answer.

excon

Ex, surely you're not going to tell us that illegal abortions ran into the millions are you?

You say you do not disagree with me about the babies, so that means you recognize that they are being murdered, and that is against the law everywhere.

The difference now is that we let the murderers go free along with those who hired them.

I did intend to show the connection between abortion and the OP, but apologize that the subject has turned so drastically.

Ex, surely you're not gonna tell us that illegal abortions ran into the millions are you?Hello again, gal:

No, not then... But they would today if we outlawed them.
You say you do not disagree with me about the babies, so that means you recognize that they are being murdered, and that is against the law everywhereMurder is a legal term. Legally, a fetus isn't a person, and isn't capable of being murdered. I don't disagree that a fetus is killed, but "killing", per se, isn't against the law.

It's NOT a good argument. There is NO good argument for either side.

excon

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person. An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.
I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.

These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

Hello again, gal:

The problem is when abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. I was around when that was the norm.

Yeah... and there were a lot fewer of them than there are now. Clearly this was a case where illegalization DID work.


I did time in prison with guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends, because their girlfriends couldn't get a legal abortion...

Boo hoo. Sorry, but I can't get all worked up about guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends. They knew the law, they broke the law. They aren't innocent victims.


I did time with abortionists who killed women with dirty coat hangers because women couldn't get a legal abortion... And, the woman's prison across the way was filled to the top with women who sought illegal means to end their pregnancies.

Again, boo hoo. I have no great sadness for the murderers who killed the women. Nor can I work up huge sympathy for the women who decided to murder their unborn babies in order to erase their own screw-ups. We're not talking about rape cases here, for which the women should not have to bear the consequences of the rapists actions. Nor are we talking about incest cases, where again, the woman should not bear the consequences of others who take advantage of her. But in cases where the woman and man decided to have sex, and then regretted it afterward, why should I condone their breaking the law? They KNEW the consequences of their actions. They knew what would happen. They chose to do it anyway and they got pregnant. They got scared, and instead of dealing with it, they decided to abort. They took their mistake out on an innocent baby and murdered it. Which just proves that they were too immature to have made the decision in the first place.

I've got no regrets over those people being in jail. They weren't some innocent flowers with no other options. They had choices every step of the way. They could have chosen not to have sex. They could have chosen to use a condom or some other birth control. They could have chosen not to have an abortion. They could have chosen to bring the child to term and raise it themselves. They could have chosen to put the child up for adoption. They CHOSE their actions. They weren't forced. You do the crime, you do the crime.



I don't disagree with you about the baby, but the bad old days were worse. There is no easy answer.

Excon

Define worse.

According to Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions in the USA in 1973 was 744,600. In 2004, that number was 1,293,000. According to Right to Life, the number of abortions in the USA since legalization in 1973 is approximately 49,552,000. The teen pregnancy rate has increased from 49.4 per 1,000 to 99.2 per 1,000. The abortion rate has increased from 19.9 per 1,000 to 43.8 per 1,000.

These statistics seem MUCH worse to me than in 1972. Legalizing abortion hasn't made things better. It's made them worse. It took away the stigma of teen pregnancy, and has resulted in an increase in teen pregnancy, and a resultant increase in teen abortion. You can't take away the consequences of bad behavior and expect that it will result in better behavior. Especially when it results in the deaths of innocents.

Elliot

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person. An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.
I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.

These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

Are you saying that when the child can feel pain, respond to sound and light, move around it is not a person?

I ain't buying it.

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person.

Who created that standard?

Most babies are not self aware for the first several months of life. According to some journals I have read, self-awareness develops at 15-20 months. By your definition, abortion would be legal until the baby is 1 1/4 to almost 2 years old.

Dogs and cats are not self-aware. They have no cognition as we understand it. They are animals. If I attempted to kill your pet dog or cat, however, I am pretty sure you would be against that fact.

Life, in science, is defined by having all or most of the following:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. This is true of a fetus.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. As you have said, this is true of a fetus as well.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. A fetus absorbs energy from its mother's placenta and converts it to energy.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. A fetus grows.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Feti change in response to their environment.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis. This has been proven to exist in a fetus by any mother who has talked to their unborn baby or played music, or had to walk around the room to get the baby to go to sleep and stop kicking mommy.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. This occurs later in life upon achieving puberty, but it does occur.

Others seem to include ambulation in that list... the ability to move. I again point to the kicking and turning of the fetus in the womb.

The fetus is alive by any scientific definition.


An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.

That's an important perception. However, please keep in mind that many of those cells are the neurological system of the baby.

I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.[/quote]

How do you know?

Leaving the scientific jargon aside for a moment, there is an Orthodox Jewish beliefe that a baby spends the entire time in the womb learning the Torah from an Angel. Upon exiting the womb, the Angel touches the upper lip of the baby and makes it forget (this is the Jewish explanation of why our upper lips have an indentation). If this story is to be believed, then the baby certainly has senmtience, awareness, and would be rather disappointed to never be born. I doubt that the story is true in the literal sense... but who knows. Just as I don't know what happens after death because I have never experienced it, I don't know what happens before birth because I forgot it. I don't know what we can feel, think or do inside the womb, and neither do you.


These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

Then why are there pictures of unborn babies sucking their thumbs? Sucking is a comforting action performed by babies. If the baby isn't uncomfortable, why is it sucking its thumb?

Also, when my wife went into labor with my son, we had to go through an emergency cesarean section because of a prolapsed chord. I was watching the fetal heart monitor, and it is very clear that the baby was experiencing distress during the pregnancy. My daughter was born in a natural pregnancy. I watched her fetal monitor as well, and she too showed signs of activity. Unborn babies clearly have feelings of some sort and seem to react to stimuli. I think you are very wrong about this.


I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

I disagree. I think it's very cut and dry, and not open to interpretation at all.


I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

Not horrified. Just a bit disappointed that something so obvious to me as the existence of life is so easy for you to miss.

Elliot

Are you saying that when the child can feel pain, respond to sound and light, move around it is not a person?

I ain't buying it.

I'm saying it is not a child . It is a cluster of cells. It's no more a child than the live cells in your big toe. WE are the ones that name it a child. It's not a child yet.

I would not agree with abortions being done at full term or near it. At this point it is no longer an embryo but a full fledged human being. But at the beginning of a pregnancy, for pro-life folks to say, "you are murdering innocent babies" is just wrong. They use that inflammatory phrase to shore up their position on abortion. They should put half of that energy and uproar into protecting babies that have already been born, to stupid abusive people that should never have had a child in the first place. Where are the marchers for that?

Believe me, I've witnessed these poor children born to these kinds of parents. Many times mom and dad aren't married. There are drugs, violence, abuse, mom and dad having knock down drag outs in front of these kids and leaving them feeling scared, anxious, lonely, and unsafe. It is a shame that just any old idiot can bear children.

There are a lot of things that are worse than never being born in the first place. Ask the fly swatting children in starving countries with their bloated bellies. Ask Lisa Steinberg I don't say this to diminish the value of her life but to speak of the horror that was her life. Thank God her spirit is at peace now.

I say, if you are going to raise cane about the abortion of cell clusters, save a little of that energy for the actual children that are victims of their unfortunate circumstances.

Oh boy, here it comes.


[QUOTE=ETWolverine;1637135]Who created that standard?

What standard?


Most babies are not self aware for the first several months of life. According to some journals I have read, self-awareness develops at 15-20 months. By your definition, abortion would be legal until the baby is 1 1/4 to almost 2 years old.


I see what you are trying to say, but you know good and well this is way off base.
I don't condone killing babies that have been born into this world. I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb. When I speak of abortion, I'm speaking of early term when cells are just dividing, dividing again, and again.


Dogs and cats are not self-aware. They have no cognition as we understand it. They are animals. If I attempted to kill your pet dog or cat, however, I am pretty sure you would be against that fact.

You are way off base again. These are living creatures in this world. They are totally aware. I think you know what I mean and keep throwing out ridiculous things for lack of a better argument.



Life, in science, is defined by having all or most of the following:

I'm not going to quote all the stuff you copied from somewhere because after reading the first few statements, it just became bla, bla, bla.


Leaving the scientific jargon aside for a moment, there is an Orthodox Jewish beliefe that a baby spends the entire time in the womb learning the Torah from an Angel. Upon exiting the womb, the Angel touches the upper lip of the baby and makes it forget (this is the Jewish explanation of why our upper lips have an indentation). If this story is to be believed, then the baby certainly has senmtience, awareness, and would be rather disappointed to never be born. I doubt that the story is true in the literal sense... but who knows. Just as I don't know what happens after death because I have never experienced it, I don't know what happens before birth because I forgot it. I don't know what we can feel, think or do inside the womb, and neither do you.

You are right about that, none of us knows. I think we can make a pretty practical assumption though that clusters of cells don't have emotional feelings, feel physical pain or experience traumatic memories.


Then why are there pictures of unborn babies sucking their thumbs? Sucking is a comforting action performed by babies. If the baby isn't uncomfortable, why is it sucking its thumb?

Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.


Also, when my wife went into labor with my son, we had to go through an emergency cesarean section because of a prolapsed chord. I was watching the fetal heart monitor, and it is very clear that the baby was experiencing distress during the pregnancy. My daughter was born in a natural pregnancy. I watched her fetal monitor as well, and she too showed signs of activity. Unborn babies clearly have feelings of some sort and seem to react to stimuli. I think you are very wrong about this.



I've had a couple of children myself so I have some experience in this arena. Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies. I'm talking about early term abortions.

You would have to abort really early to kill a baby that does not show recognizable human parts. By the 3rd week of pregnancy ;when perhaps the 1st menstral cycle is missed the child already is developing it's human parts and is no longer cells ...just dividing, dividing again, and again.

What standard?

The standard that "life" begins with "awareness of self"? The standard that YOU cited as the meaning of life.



I see what you are trying to say, but you know good and well this is way off base.
I don't condone killing babies that have been born into this world. I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb. When I speak of abortion, I'm speaking of early term when cells are just dividing, dividing again, and again.

So what is the cut off point? Please tell me EXACTLY when a baby is considered viable, and when it is not. Define viability. No baby is viable without outside care. I have seen babies born in the fifth month at just over an ounce in weight live to become happy children (my best friend's daughter was born in that condition and spent several months in an incubator).


You are way off base again. These are living creatures in this world. They are totally aware.

How do you know. Ever have a conversation about a dog regarding self awareness? I doubt the conversation would get very far.


I think you know what I mean and keep throwing out ridiculous things for lack of a better argument.

I the arguments I am making are not ridiculous at all. I am pointing out the logical falacies and weaknesses in your argument.



I'm not going to quote all the stuff you copied from somewhere because after reading the first few statements, it just became bla, bla, bla.

These are the scientific definitions of life. The problem with the pro-choice movement is and always has been that science is NOT on their side in this argument. There is no scientific basis for arguing that a fetus is not a living creature at this point but is a living creature at the next point. There is no scientific cutoff between when a fetus is "just a bunch of cells" and when it becomes a living creature. That is why it is so easy for some in the pro-choice movement to argue in favor of late-term and even partial-birth abortion. I am not saying that you support such things. WHat I am saying is that you are creating an artificial, randomly created cutoff of when "life" begins that has no basis in science in order to say abortion is allowed now but not later. If you have no scientific basis to say "life begins at this point", then you have no moral right to say that before that point, there is no life. Because you may very well be wrong and may be killing a living creature that IS alive, even by your definition.


You are right about that, none of us knows. I think we can make a pretty practical assumption though that clusters of cells don't have emotional feelings, feel physical pain or experience traumatic memories.

You are again making assumptions that are not based on factual information. You simply don't know. The most PRACTICAL and SAFEST assumption from the point of view of the suffering of the baby is to ASSUME that life begins at conception. That way, there is no way that you can possibly be violating that babies rights or causing it suffering. If you don't know when a baby's life begins, you have to make the assumption that it begins at the first moment of existence. Otherwise you are taking a risk of being wrong.


Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.

Again, when does that instinct and reflex begin? I don't know and neither do you.


I've had a couple of children myself so I have some experience in this arena. Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies. I'm talking about early term abortions.

How about unformed babies... I have a friend who's sister-in-law suffers from spina-bifida. Her spine never fully formed. I have read cases where children were born without skulls, without rib cages, etc. but lived, albeit with medical and mechanical assistance. These babies were never "fully formed". Do they count as living by your definition?

Again, you have changed your definition. Your original definition was



One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person.


Then it became



I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb.


It changed again to



Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.



And finally it became



Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies.


Your definition of "life" is a moving target that changes every time it is challenged. My questions aren't ridiculous at all. They directly challenge how you define life, and at what point abortion becomes morally wrong in your way of thinking. And every time I have done so, you have changed your definition. And that is my point.

Those who support late-term and even partial-birth abortions disagree with your definitions and say that life doesn't begin until after birth is complete. And there is a super-radical group of pro-choicers who say that if an abortion is botched and the baby is born anyway, the ALREADY BORN BABY should be allowed to die. Obama supported this position both in the US Senate and in the Illinois State Senate (he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act twice). These people clearly do not support your definitions of life (awareness, viability, instinct/reflex and fully formed). So who is right? You or them?

The only way to avoid ANY question of when life begins is to define it as beginning at the beginning... with conception. Anything else is a moral hazard that risks being wrong about the definition of when life begins and committing murder.

Elliot