I'm not really for abortion... there should be no need for it (incest and rape are the very few circumstances I would maybe accept). Sorry that's my view. But we should be teaching our young adults (14 and up) about protection against deseases and unwanted pregnancies. Contreception and preemptive solutions are way better than after the fact 'solutions'.
Yeah, liberals showed a lot of respect for judges like Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and now <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001845"; target="_blank">Charles Pickering</a>. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I have no respect for Clarence Thomas because he hasn't had an independent thought since he was appointed to the Supreme Court. If Antonin Scalia didn't think of it or write it, Thomas wants nothing to do with it. The man is a sheep.
I´m not for abortion and i know noone who is. But it is one area where I can´t interfere with other peoples dispositions. I think we should offer all the support for the mother we can (support not pressure) and make clear that adoption is a possibility. But in the end its not my (read the societies) decision.
BTW: If you (not you Outsider. A general "you") are of the opinion that it is a person with same rights as born persons I can´t understand why you would accept abortion when the person carrying the child was raped. Is her feelings more important than the life of an innocent person?
I'm not pro-abortion or pro life. I am VERY against partial birth abortions. I am for fetal tissue research. There is no problem with terminating a congenital defective fetus if it means a life of suffering.
I am VERY pro death penalty since I had my sister-in-law murdered and watched the justice system fail.
I am for environmental preservation over industrial expansion. I have an endangered species as a pet. Well, Roxy's species wasn't at the time I got her. Its a shame we are allowing the destruction of such magnificent creatures at cost of "doing business".
I am for alternitive fuels but oil ain't going away.
I am for limiting immigration.
I want NAFTA repealed to force the companies back to the US. It devastated my town.
I am against Gun Control. There are many unenforced laws on the books as it is. Dust them off and apply them.
Well, I have no respect for Clarence Thomas because he hasn't had an independent thought since he was appointed to the Supreme Court. If Antonin Scalia didn't think of it or write it, Thomas wants nothing to do with it. The man is a sheep.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you came to this conclusion based on an independent analysis of his opinions or because someone else told you so?
Well, I tried to read his opinions while writing a report for an American Government class, but there was a lack of his own written decisions... </strong><hr></blockquote>
And on all of those, he was influenced by Scalia. Thomas is on the same side of a decision with Scalia at a higher percentage than any other justice is with another, something like 90%. Additionally, I think his decisions that he writes on his own are crap. That's just my personal opinion. The rest is factual.
Actually roger_ramjet had a valid point. If you are going to say that someone on the Supreme Court is not issuing valifd judgements based on the fact that he has no mind of his own you really should back that up rather thanjsut thorwing it out as fact.
And on all of those, he was influenced by Scalia. Thomas is on the same side of a decision with Scalia at a higher percentage than any other justice is with another, something like 90%. Additionally, I think his decisions that he writes on his own are crap. That's just my personal opinion. The rest is factual.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both very conservative in their approach to the law so yes, they more often agree than not. (The liberals on the court often agree with each other too.) But to say that Thomas essentially latched onto Scalia even when he was writing for the court is simply obtuse. That's not the way it works.
One more thing: what makes you so sure that when Scalia and Thomas were on the same side of a decision it was Thomas agreeing with Scalia and not the other way around?
I'll grant you that he has written a number of decisions now. I guess it now comes to my personal opinion in disagreeing with them. Oh well, I've learned something new, and that's what these discussion boards are for.
<strong>But it obviously doesn't involve protecting the weakest of all - the unborn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you want to call that an exception, OK. I'm sure there are others - individual issues like abortion always involve many different competing principles, like philosophies of gov't intervention and religious beliefs.
But are you willing to argue that conservatives as a rule stand up for the less fortunate, compared to liberals? I'd like to see you try that.
[quote]In other words, more power should reside in the most insulated branch of government rather than those branches most accountable to the people.<hr></blockquote>Yes. At least, they should be strong enough to provide the guarantee. You've seen the polls that the people would repeal the Bill of Rights when they hear it read to them.
And unfortunately, "accountable to the people" usually means "accountable to the rich and powerful." The people who need gov't help the least, and who complain about gov't the most, seem to have the most influence over it.
You know, I started this thread because I was wondering if a consensus could actually be raised around the word Liberal. I mean it's an often demonized term and whether you consider yourself one, or you consider yourself diametrically opposed to one you should probably know what it means if you are going to feel so strongly. No?
I guess since I started this thread I should actually state what I think the term means or even more actually beleive in.
Some ideas I'd like to see pass:
Campaign finance reform. No matter what side of the isle you are on, I can't for the life of me see how you could be against this. I haven't heard the perfect soulution to this problem yet, but I don't think we can really have progress from the morass of self serving interest groups untill we get past this problem.
Drug legalization. The illegality of drugs and the consequences to the illegality of drugs are so assinine to me that I just don't get it.
A well regulated capitalistic economy. Anyone who thinks that a Laissez Faire economy is the way to go is pretty ignorant of human nature. Conversely anyone who thinks that a Communist/Socialist economy are the way to go is also ignorant of human nature.
Seperation of church and state. I think this one we already have, but it's being attacked and weakened on a fairly regular basis.
Lastly I'll leave you with a mind bender. How about we impose a 100% inheritance tax and distribute the proceeds so that everyone can have the best education and with whatever is left over how about we distribute it equally at say the age of 21 to invest as the individual see fit? Just an idea. Maybe not a good one, but maybe it'll make us think and spur us on in a different direction.
Campaign finance reform. No matter what side of the isle you are on, I can't for the life of me see how you could be against this. I haven't heard the perfect soulution to this problem yet, but I don't think we can really have progress from the morass of self serving interest groups untill we get past this problem.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When the founders wrote the First Amendment they weren't worrying that the free speech of pornographers would someday need to be protected. Their primary concern was that political speech not be abridged. There's a reason why the ACLU is against the various "reforms" that have been floated. They violate the First Amendment.
I agree with much that you said Roger, but I still think something needs to be done. There has got to be a better system than we have now. I cut the checks for a PAC for five years and was acquaintences with a a couple of lobbyists at that time. Definitely seemed to me that there was an awful lot of deals made.
Liberal and conservative are both labels. Nothing more. We should come up with some alpha-numeric scale that shows how 'liberal' we really are. 3 criteria: political (0-9 or N for neutral); environmental/energy (G=very green on all aspects, M=moderate on environmental issues, A=aggressive on getting energy) social (0-9 0=extremely pro-life/anti-gay rights/etc. 9=extremely pro-choice/super pro-gay rights/etc.)
The answer is that they both involve a skepticism of government power. Pro-choice because we don't want the government forcing pregnant women to give birth, and anti-death penalty because we don't trust the gov't with such a powerful weapon as execution
Eh? What? Thats the worst argument Ive ever heard towards either case.
Im not going to argue, but all in all of most people Ive talked to, their reasons for being pro-choice (why dont we just call it pro/anti abortion?)and anti-death penalty (hell, wouldnt that make them pro-life? ) are more centered around the mothers right to choose, and the ideals of the justice system.
I my self, as Im sure you all am aware is VERY left (Im actually toying with the ideas of a commu-facist government, which I think would work VERY well, but the problem is the whole blue pill bit, would people want to know the truth, even if it makes them unhappy).
My stance:
Pro-choice
anti-capital punishment
anti-big buisness
pro-welfare
pro-any helping the underclasses aslong as it doesnt infringe on the rights of other underclasses
anti-current state of government
Im somewhere between reform liberal and communist.
Most of you "middle of the road" people are classical liberals, which are usually considered slightly left, but when you look at the results of a classical liberal government tend to lean more right than anything else.
Of course grouping people like that doesnt REALLY work, but fir these purposes its not a bad genrealization.
I think most people are pro-welfare as long as it'snot abused. While on welfare the person should be sent to an employment office that will do more than just catch up with you to see if you got a job. they should help you pro-actively help you search for a job to be less dependant on government assistance. The welfare program should cover 4 basic needs equally: give you money for your daily needs; help you get a job; supply training and free classes to get some skills; and provide child day care when you DO get a job. In the long run it's less $$ out of tax payers pockets.
[quote]Lastly I'll leave you with a mind bender. How about we impose a 100% inheritance tax and distribute the proceeds so that everyone can have the best education and with whatever is left over how about we distribute it equally at say the age of 21 to invest as the individual see fit? Just an idea. Maybe not a good one, but maybe it'll make us think and spur us on in a different direction.
t.fall<hr></blockquote>
Your idea points to the link between money and education. Problem is, not everyone can have the "best education."* Since this country doesn't have hereditary titles, the easiest way to pass social status from parent to children is via the fabled "good school." Give everyone more money, and the fable will just get more expensive.
Other people will point out there may be less incentive to amass a fortune if you can't keep it in the family afterwards. Plus, you can imagine the ways such a rule would be evaded: setting up trusts and so forth. It probably cannot be done with current property laws and traditions.
Comments
<strong>
Yeah, liberals showed a lot of respect for judges like Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and now <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001845"; target="_blank">Charles Pickering</a>.
Well, I have no respect for Clarence Thomas because he hasn't had an independent thought since he was appointed to the Supreme Court. If Antonin Scalia didn't think of it or write it, Thomas wants nothing to do with it. The man is a sheep.
BTW: If you (not you Outsider. A general "you") are of the opinion that it is a person with same rights as born persons I can´t understand why you would accept abortion when the person carrying the child was raped. Is her feelings more important than the life of an innocent person?
I am VERY pro death penalty since I had my sister-in-law murdered and watched the justice system fail.
I am for environmental preservation over industrial expansion. I have an endangered species as a pet. Well, Roxy's species wasn't at the time I got her. Its a shame we are allowing the destruction of such magnificent creatures at cost of "doing business".
I am for alternitive fuels but oil ain't going away.
I am for limiting immigration.
I want NAFTA repealed to force the companies back to the US. It devastated my town.
I am against Gun Control. There are many unenforced laws on the books as it is. Dust them off and apply them.
I am against the legalization of Pot.
I'll think of more soon.
<strong>
Well, I have no respect for Clarence Thomas because he hasn't had an independent thought since he was appointed to the Supreme Court. If Antonin Scalia didn't think of it or write it, Thomas wants nothing to do with it. The man is a sheep.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you came to this conclusion based on an independent analysis of his opinions or because someone else told you so?
<strong>
And you came to this conclusion based on an independent analysis of his opinions or because someone else told you so?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I tried to read his opinions while writing a report for an American Government class, but there was a lack of his own written decisions. He tended merely to latch on to Scalia's own decisions. Read for yourself: <a href="http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html"; target="_blank">http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</a>;
(your blatant attempt to mock me has failed. Thanks for playing.)
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
<strong>
Well, I tried to read his opinions while writing a report for an American Government class, but there was a lack of his own written decisions... </strong><hr></blockquote>
No <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/php/zauthor.php3?thomas"; target="_blank">there isn't</a>. Do some research and then get back to us.
<strong>
No <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/php/zauthor.php3?thomas"; target="_blank">there isn't</a>. Do some research and then get back to us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And on all of those, he was influenced by Scalia. Thomas is on the same side of a decision with Scalia at a higher percentage than any other justice is with another, something like 90%. Additionally, I think his decisions that he writes on his own are crap. That's just my personal opinion. The rest is factual.
<strong>
Well, I tried to read his opinions while writing a report for an American Government class, but there was a lack of his own written decisions. He tended merely to latch on to Scalia's own decisions. Read for yourself: <a href="http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html"; target="_blank">http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</a>;
(your blatant attempt to mock me has failed. Thanks for playing.)
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually roger_ramjet had a valid point. If you are going to say that someone on the Supreme Court is not issuing valifd judgements based on the fact that he has no mind of his own you really should back that up rather thanjsut thorwing it out as fact.
<strong>
And on all of those, he was influenced by Scalia. Thomas is on the same side of a decision with Scalia at a higher percentage than any other justice is with another, something like 90%. Additionally, I think his decisions that he writes on his own are crap. That's just my personal opinion. The rest is factual.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both very conservative in their approach to the law so yes, they more often agree than not. (The liberals on the court often agree with each other too.) But to say that Thomas essentially latched onto Scalia even when he was writing for the court is simply obtuse. That's not the way it works.
One more thing: what makes you so sure that when Scalia and Thomas were on the same side of a decision it was Thomas agreeing with Scalia and not the other way around?
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>But it obviously doesn't involve protecting the weakest of all - the unborn.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you want to call that an exception, OK. I'm sure there are others - individual issues like abortion always involve many different competing principles, like philosophies of gov't intervention and religious beliefs.
But are you willing to argue that conservatives as a rule stand up for the less fortunate, compared to liberals? I'd like to see you try that.
[quote]In other words, more power should reside in the most insulated branch of government rather than those branches most accountable to the people.<hr></blockquote>Yes. At least, they should be strong enough to provide the guarantee. You've seen the polls that the people would repeal the Bill of Rights when they hear it read to them.
And unfortunately, "accountable to the people" usually means "accountable to the rich and powerful." The people who need gov't help the least, and who complain about gov't the most, seem to have the most influence over it.
I guess since I started this thread I should actually state what I think the term means or even more actually beleive in.
Some ideas I'd like to see pass:
Campaign finance reform. No matter what side of the isle you are on, I can't for the life of me see how you could be against this. I haven't heard the perfect soulution to this problem yet, but I don't think we can really have progress from the morass of self serving interest groups untill we get past this problem.
Drug legalization. The illegality of drugs and the consequences to the illegality of drugs are so assinine to me that I just don't get it.
A well regulated capitalistic economy. Anyone who thinks that a Laissez Faire economy is the way to go is pretty ignorant of human nature. Conversely anyone who thinks that a Communist/Socialist economy are the way to go is also ignorant of human nature.
Seperation of church and state. I think this one we already have, but it's being attacked and weakened on a fairly regular basis.
Lastly I'll leave you with a mind bender. How about we impose a 100% inheritance tax and distribute the proceeds so that everyone can have the best education and with whatever is left over how about we distribute it equally at say the age of 21 to invest as the individual see fit? Just an idea. Maybe not a good one, but maybe it'll make us think and spur us on in a different direction.
t.fall
<strong>
Some ideas I'd like to see pass:
Campaign finance reform. No matter what side of the isle you are on, I can't for the life of me see how you could be against this. I haven't heard the perfect soulution to this problem yet, but I don't think we can really have progress from the morass of self serving interest groups untill we get past this problem.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When the founders wrote the First Amendment they weren't worrying that the free speech of pornographers would someday need to be protected. Their primary concern was that political speech not be abridged. There's a reason why the ACLU is against the various "reforms" that have been floated. They violate the First Amendment.
My rating would be 5G5.
Eh? What? Thats the worst argument Ive ever heard towards either case.
Im not going to argue, but all in all of most people Ive talked to, their reasons for being pro-choice (why dont we just call it pro/anti abortion?)and anti-death penalty (hell, wouldnt that make them pro-life?
I my self, as Im sure you all am aware is VERY left (Im actually toying with the ideas of a commu-facist government, which I think would work VERY well, but the problem is the whole blue pill bit, would people want to know the truth, even if it makes them unhappy).
My stance:
Pro-choice
anti-capital punishment
anti-big buisness
pro-welfare
pro-any helping the underclasses aslong as it doesnt infringe on the rights of other underclasses
anti-current state of government
Im somewhere between reform liberal and communist.
Most of you "middle of the road" people are classical liberals, which are usually considered slightly left, but when you look at the results of a classical liberal government tend to lean more right than anything else.
Of course grouping people like that doesnt REALLY work, but fir these purposes its not a bad genrealization.
t.fall<hr></blockquote>
Your idea points to the link between money and education. Problem is, not everyone can have the "best education."* Since this country doesn't have hereditary titles, the easiest way to pass social status from parent to children is via the fabled "good school." Give everyone more money, and the fable will just get more expensive.
Other people will point out there may be less incentive to amass a fortune if you can't keep it in the family afterwards. Plus, you can imagine the ways such a rule would be evaded: setting up trusts and so forth. It probably cannot be done with current property laws and traditions.
*unless we redefine what "best education" means.