Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[dairygirl4u2c]

how do liberals say that schools are for indoctrination?
well, i guess there are some who say gay's are equal should be taught.
but, i think the same could be said against conservatives. eg. God for evolution arguments, contraception etc.
really, both sides think their arguments are perfectly natural and the other side is indoctrination.
kinda like how both sides accuse the other of hindering free speech and such. some one both sides do, and it depends on how you define free speech etc.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='XIX' post='1419721' date='Nov 15 2007, 09:24 AM']Isn't "the Government has to stay out of my business" also an argument for keeping abortion legal?

I'm a quasi-Republican, but it has nothing to do with big vs. small government, or economic reasons, or the war, or the border. Those are all "throw-in" issues. Abortion is the make or break issue is practically every case. I'd [b]happily[/b] vote for Hilary if she was adamantly opposed to abortion. I realize this is a very hypothetical situation here, but I think it's a hypothetical situation worth mentioning for the sake of argument.[/quote]
Précisément! It's not a question of "big" government or "small" government, or that government spends too much or supports too many programs. It's whether or not government is "big" in the ways [i]I[/i] want it to be big, and "small" in the ways [i]I[/i] want it to be small, and that it spends money only on the programs [i]I[/i] support. Hence, [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-13-bush-bill_N.htm"]President Bush can veto an education and healthcare bill for $606B because it spends "too much" but on the same day approve a defense bill for $471B[/url]. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

As I noted in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74654"]this thread[/url], US bishops have noted that "... Catholic teaching [makes] it difficult for parishioners to feel fully comfortable with either the Democrats or Republicans."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Why is Daddy a Republican?

Republicans keep us safe, just like daddy does.
Republicans help us learn how to use money wisely, just like daddy does.
Republicans make sure we all give God His due, just like daddy does.
Republicans respect the dignity of women and the right to life, just like daddy does.
When we're whining to mommy (Democrats) and asking her (them) to kiss our boo-boos, Republicans tell us to smell of elderberries it up, just like daddy does.*




*this is not an attack on Democrats, but rather a satire on those who take advantage of the Democratic party to try to make it all about comfort and fuzzy-feelings.

[RandomProddy]

Pretty pictures!!

(I really should lay off the caffiene in the mornings...)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1419743' date='Nov 15 2007, 11:24 AM']Précisément! It's not a question of "big" government or "small" government, or that government spends too much or supports too many programs. It's whether or not government is "big" in the ways [i]I[/i] want it to be big, and "small" in the ways [i]I[/i] want it to be small, and that it spends money only on the programs [i]I[/i] support. Hence, [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-13-bush-bill_N.htm"]President Bush can veto an education and healthcare bill for $606B because it spends "too much" but on the same day approve a defense bill for $471B[/url]. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

As I noted in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74654"]this thread[/url], US bishops have noted that "... Catholic teaching [makes] it difficult for parishioners to feel fully comfortable with either the Democrats or Republicans."[/quote]
For the republicans, yeah, they have really strayed from their path and the question for them really is "is the government big the way I want it to be big, small the way I want it to be small?"; as Ron Paul aptly pointed out in the debates, they have become the party of big spending, big government, they've adopted all the old democrat policies on these things.

but for Catholics, the power is supposed to be in the hands of the smaller local governments, with the larger distant governments only doing those things which can only be done by a larger distant government.

the issue of abortion is a political football, it's a joke in american politics. you could get the most pro-life person in office that you want, but the only way they're actually going to change anything is if they believe in small federal government. so long as the federal government is large and powerful, no one, republican or democrat, will ever illegalize abortion. you need someone who is going to give the states the power to illegalize it, that's the only way anything is ever going to be done. otherwise, you're just going to keep voting in candidates who will take baby steps one way or the other to appease you, all the while millions of babies will continue to die. I am thoroughly convinced that the only way to make a huge stride towards illegalizing abortion is to find someone with a consistent ideology against big government. it's big government that has forced the legalization of abortion, and it'll only be the shrinking of the federal government that will ever stop it.

almost every state, given the chance, would illegalize abortion.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1419785' date='Nov 15 2007, 12:53 PM']For the republicans, yeah, they have really strayed from their path and the question for them really is "is the government big the way I want it to be big, small the way I want it to be small?"; as Ron Paul aptly pointed out in the debates, they have become the party of big spending, big government, they've adopted all the old democrat policies on these things.

but for Catholics, the power is supposed to be in the hands of the smaller local governments, with the larger distant governments only doing those things which can only be done by a larger distant government.

the issue of abortion is a political football, it's a joke in american politics. you could get the most pro-life person in office that you want, but the only way they're actually going to change anything is if they believe in small federal government. so long as the federal government is large and powerful, no one, republican or democrat, will ever illegalize abortion. you need someone who is going to give the states the power to illegalize it, that's the only way anything is ever going to be done. otherwise, you're just going to keep voting in candidates who will take baby steps one way or the other to appease you, all the while millions of babies will continue to die. I am thoroughly convinced that the only way to make a huge stride towards illegalizing abortion is to find someone with a consistent ideology against big government. it's big government that has forced the legalization of abortion, and it'll only be the shrinking of the federal government that will ever stop it.

almost every state, given the chance, would illegalize abortion.[/quote]
Hi, Aloysius, as discussed in other threads you've brought me around to your thinking on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. as many things being done at the lowest level of government possible.

In the case of state-by-state rulings on abortion, however, as I have posited in another thread, this would result in "Abortion States" and "Non-abortion States," analogous to the "Free States" and "Slave States" situation prior to the Civil War. In that case, "Free States" were required to recognize the legality of slaves from "Slave States" being owned as property, as determined in the infamous Dred Scott Decision. In short, sending the decision back to the states won't end abortion in the US but simply create a patchwork of states where abortion is available, and states where it isn't.

[dairygirl4u2c]

and in the non abortion states, the people might just leave to go to the abortion states.

though, that might be against the privileges and immunities clause or dormant commerse clause of the constitution, as ruled by the USSC once on this issue. so the states law banning abortion might not be allowed.
i don't know enough details of this, but there is a case on this.
it's much more complicated then the prolifers want you to believe.

[Sammy Blaze]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1419785' date='Nov 15 2007, 12:53 PM']the issue of abortion is a political football, it's a joke in american politics. you could get the most pro-life person in office that you want, but the only way they're actually going to change anything is if they believe in small federal government. so long as the federal government is large and powerful, no one, republican or democrat, will ever illegalize abortion. you need someone who is going to give the states the power to illegalize it, that's the only way anything is ever going to be done. otherwise, you're just going to keep voting in candidates who will take baby steps one way or the other to appease you, all the while millions of babies will continue to die.[/quote]

I agree to an extent Aloysius, good post,

In honesty, a faithful Catholic will have to reconcile and justify almost any choice in the ridiculous bi-partisan system we have set up in American politics, this may come as a suprise to some, but you can't be a faithful Catholic and Pro-choice, just as much as you can't be a faithful Catholic and tried and true Republican

To end abortion, we need more than just placing a pro-life figurehead in office, as if we have accomplished our duty promoting a Culture of Life. We'd make a larger impact on our society if those who ferverently support pro-life candidates and causes, took the same amount of zeal, and placed it into social service and social justice, and by promoting a culture of life in day to day actions, by moral instruction etc.

I'm personally tired of hearing the political arguments surrounding abortion, it's a moral issue that demands a change in American culture. If we were ideally answering our calls to promote the Culture of Life, the rates of abortions in the US would decrease significantly and it would make no difference whether or not abortion was legal...

anyways, sorry, this was mostly a rant,
haha I should stay out of the debate table,
AMDG!
~S.

[Aloysius]

I'm not saying that the ideal situation is that any state be allowed to keep abortion legal. after the successful resurection of the state's rights to decide the legality of abortion, the federal government should intervene by making it a crime to travel to a state where abortion is legal in order to have an abortion (that's an inter-state issue which is justly the realm of the federal government to legislate) so that the abortion clinics would need proof of state citizenship in order to offer someone an abortion. Ideally, the federal government would then put pressure onn the state to illegalize abortion itself.

But there is no one who is actually going to get a big federal government to become pro-life. Big government was the system which established the legality of abortion, it's the thing that needs to be dismantled if we want any hope of change in the country. dems and repubs are just gonna continue being two sides of the same coin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='XIX' post='1419721' date='Nov 15 2007, 09:24 AM']Isn't "the Government has to stay out of my business" also an argument for keeping abortion legal?

I'm a quasi-Republican, but it has nothing to do with big vs. small government, or economic reasons, or the war, or the border. Those are all "throw-in" issues. Abortion is the make or break issue is practically every case. I'd [b]happily[/b] vote for Hilary if she was adamantly opposed to abortion. I realize this is a very hypothetical situation here, but I think it's a hypothetical situation worth mentioning for the sake of argument.[/quote]
I'm a conservative, not an anarchist. (And yes kids, there is a distinction.)

As I've said on here many a time, if the law does not protect innocent human life at its most vulnerable, it is worthless.

It is the place of law and government to keep innocent people from being murdered, robbed, raped, and tortured.
(And yes, abortion is a form of murder, much as people try to make it to be something morally insignificant.)

It is [b]not[/b] the place of government to make sure we all "share our toys" and "are always safe" (other than legitimate national defense.)

American citizens are not helpless dependent little children in need of constant "mothering" by the government.
Whatever happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

While I believe abortion is a paramount issue, and takes precedence over others, it is hardly the only issue I disagree with the liberal Dems on. I would only vote for your hypothetical "pro-life Hillary," if the opposition were pro-abortion, or otherwise more liberal and socialist than herself, and then only as the lesser evil.

[faithfulrock3r]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1419446' date='Nov 14 2007, 06:10 PM']From the book:

"Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does."
"Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does."
"Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does."

On the cutting room floor:

"Democrats make sure that Mommy can kill her unborn children."
"Democrats make sure that Mommy and Daddy can get an easy divorce, because sometimes 'family' is a hassle."
"Democrats make sure public schools are for indoctrination and emotional self-reflection, not actual learning."[/quote]
hahahahahaha very good

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1419785' date='Nov 15 2007, 12:53 PM']almost every state, given the chance, would illegalize abortion.[/quote]
Sadly, there's really no evidence in reality to support that statement.
Even South Dakota, the first state to make a challenge to Roe v. Wade, had its proposal to outlaw most abortions voted down in that state.
And that's in a conservative, religious state. With liberal states such as California, the chances of getting any pro-life legislation passed at all are vitually null.

I'm not arguing against "smaller" government here, but just pointing out that reversing Roe v. Wade, and handing power to the states would not be the end of the battle, but only the beginning.

I do think that at a practical level, it'll be more likely to turn power back to the states, than to ban abortion nationally. However, this will only be accomplished when there is a solid majority in the U.S. Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe. And that will not happen so long as liberal Dems are in power, either in the Presidency, or in Congress.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Whatever happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?[/quote]

here is probably one reason that might be different, one reason maybe shouldn't insist on clinging to these wild west, rugged individualist notions of conservatism.
back in the day, people had guaranteed opportunity, what is all the land out there. sure, people would fail and that's life, and not government, but they had vast spances of land and opportuinty.

now, i posit that not everyone has that opportunity. sure, they have a theoretical possibility of being able to make it, to land upon a fortune circumstance through chance, but not always or usually. everyone has to

i'm not against freedom to fail, or personal responsibility. these concepts should be built into our system. in fact, at least as far as my politics, i always revert back to those basic land of the free etc principles to establish how our system should be based. but, i'm not naive enough to think things haven't changed, or that taken to extreme it can be artificial.

imagine people being set on a peice of land, then running around claiming it all, squatting on it wihtout really needing or owning it, and then denying others who come along. that's what happened in the US. sure, they worked risked and sacraficed and it's mostly all theirs. but, not to the extent that someone can't get a basic cut. i'm not pure advocating socialism or communism here.

Edited November 16, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Spamity Calamity]

The "Mommy State" run by Mama Hillary she knows whats best for you!

It seems like this book is praising Democratic mothers for doing basic things like protecting their children from harm and teaching them charity. Way to go!

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1420367' date='Nov 16 2007, 12:54 PM']here is probably one reason that might be different, one reason maybe shouldn't insist on clinging to these wild west, rugged individualist notions of conservatism.
back in the day, people had guaranteed opportunity, what is all the land out there. sure, people would fail and that's life, and not government, but they had vast spances of land and opportuinty.

now, i posit that not everyone has that opportunity. sure, they have a theoretical possibility of being able to make it, to land upon a fortune circumstance through chance, but not always or usually. everyone has to

i'm not against freedom to fail, or personal responsibility. these concepts should be built into our system. in fact, at least as far as my politics, i always revert back to those basic land of the free etc principles to establish how our system should be based. but, i'm not naive enough to think things haven't changed, or that taken to extreme it can be artificial.

imagine people being set on a peice of land, then running around claiming it all, squatting on it wihtout really needing or owning it, and then denying others who come along. that's what happened in the US. sure, they worked risked and sacraficed and it's mostly all theirs. but, not to the extent that someone can't get a basic cut. i'm not pure advocating socialism or communism here.[/quote]
I can't follow what this post is trying to say at all (as is typical of most of your posts). What's different today that people don't have opportunity (other than the excessive government red tape that's grown up)? Who are these people squatting on land they don't own or need?
What [i]are[/i] you advocating?

To say that Americans today have it harder than our ancestors in times past, and thus need more help from the government, is total and complete nonsense.
If Americans from the frontier days, or wild west days, could see present-day Americans sitting around in their air-conditioned rooms, typing on their computers about how tough people have it nowadays, they would laugh in their faces!

Things were [i]much[/i] tougher back in the "old days"! Not everyone was rich, inequality of wealth existed back then too, and the poor overall were much poorer! Not everyone "made it." Even in the frontier days, with land available for cheap, people obtaining that land had to work it themselves, growing their own crops, and building their own log cabins to live in. Failure in 19th century America could mean one's family starving to death, or being killed by Indians. Most people spent their lives either in hard farm labor, or slaving away in factories.

I'm not saying that everything in the old days was perfect, or shouldn't have changed, but my point is that it is utterly absurd to say that things are so much harder today that we now need a vast "nanny state" or "mommy state" micromanaging our lives.

What is different today, is that rather than a nation of hardy pioneers, we have become a nation of fat, lazy, spoiled brats, who think we are all entitled to a big house, a couple new cars, and a big flatscreen hdtv, and if anyone lacks these necessities, it is up to the government to fix the "injustice."

And more than any particular policy, I was speaking of this change in attitude: our loss of our traditional love for freedom and rugged individualism, and our growing softness, love of comfort and "security," and sense of entitlement.

We are becoming a nation of self-indulgent, petulant whiners who think we are entitled to easy wealth and comforts. I'm afraid that will be our eventual undoing.