So you vote for lip service rather than self interest. Tres bizarre! No President will change abortion as we know it. Abortion is a non-issue.
You're aware that we still have the fillibuster, right? In all seriousness, how do you see federal judges modifying the outcome on anything? At what point in time does a federal judge overrule Roe v Wade? And as far as Supreme Court nominees, that alludes to a post earlier in which I squelched my query about the history of the Court... the breakdown of Roe v. Wade itself; not to mention the inevitable issue w/ Presidents nominating someone that doesn't represent their views on these points. More pointedly, the President, the person that you voted for, asked the court to ignore a hot-topic abortion case just this past session. He has already betrayed your point of view. And it is apparently the only real reason why you voted for him.
even the most liberal professor i ever had...who told me that a fetus was really more like a tumor than a living being...acknowledged that eventually abortion will be a states rights decision. that roe v. wade won't stand forever. given the changes in opinion polls on that topic and the ever-increasing knowledge about the development of the fetus in the womb (and the technology to see it happening) there will ultimately be change from the roe v. wade days. it's not the only reason i voted for this particular president..i think you're reading way too much into my post. when asked to choose between gore and bush, i vote bush...and there were lots of reasons for that. lots. as for nominations...it may not always work out the way you would think...but i think souter is exactly what clinton hoped for...and one vote on a 9 person panel, is very significant...i'd say thomas is exactly what bush hoped for. yes, there are exceptions...and yes, they are ultimately an independent judiciary. but when a president gets elected, he has the right to make those appointments. if both sides are going to filibuster the other's appointments every time, then we have some very deep foundation problems with the way we go about business. one more thought...even if i'm fighting a losing battle on the abortion front...it doesn't matter to me. it's a matter of principle...i'm assuming you would think less of me if i turned a blind eye to what i deem to be murder. i think you should think less of me if i did that, given my belief.
Well, in effect, I turn a blind eye to what I deem to be murder. I have complete contempt for abortion, but I have a larger contempt for the elements of convenience that dot both parties' platforms. The mpg in your car (unions and democrats; oil and republicans), abortion (democrats), preemptive wars/oil and the Carter Doctrine (democrats and republicans), my contempt for malpractice in the health care debate (demos) is only balanced by my concerns for the corporate whores (repubs) that I have to deal w/ otherwise. In the end, I brush aside abortion b/c the population seems to approve of it, and I doubt either party would really touch it. So I go back to my general intuition that the govt can do some things correctly (ie mass transit) even when I've nearly become republican when volunteering for the BLM.
Uh, you skipped over the fact that many middle and lower income people will still have to vote for Bush. You can't win with just money, despite what Democrats keeps saying. BTW, why vote for Democrats? So they can raise taxes, increase regulation, and spend more on the countless projects they have for special interest groups (environmentalists, minorities, teachers unions, labor unions) and ignore foreign policy? I still haven't heard their position on dealing with Iraq and terrorism, just attacks on Bush.
There's a long dicussion we could get into, but the bottom line in America is money wins most elections. Influencing voters of all incomes through effective usage of TV, radio, and print rules the day. If the Bushies can fool most Americans into believing we've already found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam and Bin Ladin were in cahoots on 9/11, just shows anything possible with spin and the money to put it everywhere.
there are some who feel super-passionate about particular issues you just mentioned...for me, it's abortion. i can't sweep it under the rug. it doesn't matter what will come of it in my view...i can't simply go, "oh, well..." i just can't...not on that issue.
Um, Souter was appointed by Bush in 1990. And don't forget, Earl Warren (the ultimate liberal judge) was appointed by Eisenhower. I understand your passion on the abortion issue, but I think it's dangerous to choose political allegiances based on a single issue (even one as controversial as abortion). Many would argue that while the Republicans pro-life stance could save lives, their economic policies actually cause more harm and suffering. While I understand your passion on the issue, do you really feel abortion trumps all other issues? I guess what I'm asking is whether you've made a snap judgment based on a single issue or whether you've actually made some kind of utilitarian-based decision (i.e. abortion is more important that all other issues combined).
1. you're absolutely right...my mistake entirely...ginsburg and breyer were the clinton appointments. 2. yes..i believe you're right that warren was appointed by eisenhower...i agree that many times there are exceptions...but i don't see any democrat appointing a guy like thomas or scalia. to act as if it's all one big crap-shoot is just inaccurate. Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon...Scalia by Reagan...Thomas by Bush..Breyer and Ginsburg by Clinton. There are very real connections there that can't be explained away be the exceptions to the rule. 3. it's an absolutely passionate issue...there is no utilitarian thought to it at all...in my view, babies are being killed...deliberately...and our government is sanctioning it and supporting it. i would put that on par with some of the greatest crimes in humanity. when there are issues of that kind of import, others take a backseat. and, no...it's not a snap judgment...i work with and support a crisis pregnancy center...i've studied the issue pretty intensively, i'd say. i find it to be horrible all the way around.
In case you were implying that it was me that voted for Bush only because of abortion, that is not the case. Every issue with me has a certain amount of weight to it. However, due to the nature of abortion being murder, it is more important to who I vote for. The possibility that a Democrat might not do anything in regards to abortion is what makes me think I might be able to vote for them. It'll all depend on who the actual candidate is and what their specific views are.
goophers -- i don't know if you feel this way...but it's not merely that i believe a dem president would do nothing regarding the issue...it's that we hear them trumpet support for the other side of this argument so vigorously. that offends me.
I agree. That's why I said that I would only be able to vote Dem if they weren't rabidly pro-choice. If they only tolerated the pro-choice platform because of their party affiliation, that would be ok with me. I think there's a fair amount of people (Dems and Reps) that are pro-life, anti-death penalty and hopefully a viable candidate will emerge that has those views. I haven't researched the Dem candidates yet to see who I could possibly support, so there may not even be a possibility of any of them having these types of views. I'm not saying I'm going to vote Dem next time, in fact there's a big chance that the next time I'll be voting independent. The elections don't start for a while yet, so I'll just see what happens in the meantime.
I love how republicans want to end abortion, are so passionate about these babies..about protecting them.. but after they are born......they dont want to put the money into the social programs that these kids need....
the money comes from taxpayers like you and me. If you can't afford to have a kid, don't have one. Why should the Federal govt. be responsible for the care and well-being of children? I think as a parent I can do that just fine thank you. These kids don't need these social programs at all. Remember "free lunch?" If those kids really need it, why aren't they getting a free lunch pilfered from my wallet in the summer time? I don't see a bunch of starving kids running around. Apparently they get fed.
I put a great deal of time and effort into just those sort of programs and find that the vast majority of the other volunteers I work with are republicans. Which organizations, in particular, are republicans not contributing their time and money to?
Your post completely distorts the Republican position. What we disagree with are programs which give the wrong incentives to people and actually make things WORSE. Take welfare for example- it bred a culture of dependency and poverty which children then were born into and learned. IMO, private organizations like Churches can do a much better job than bureaucrats.
You need to change your moniker to reallyIgnorant. Edit: Others have already made comments that give reasons why.
1) So you are suggesting that the kids should suffer for the parents having the gaul to breed above their income level? 2) You don't think that there are starving children in the U.S? I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure someone does, but there are plenty of people in America struggling just to eat...and the sub poverty level demographic is growing.
