I figured out what we need to do. (Democrats)

[BlackShanglan]

there is absolutely no way you can make a legitimate parallel between a human being who's owned by another, and a fetus who is still connected to, and part of, the mother.

Go on. I dare ya.

(Sorry, edited the above while you were responding )

At any rate, this is actually my point. You're defining the fetus as non-human. Thus, your position fits together perfectly rationally. I'm not arguing with your definition, only saying that it's the definition that is the center of this debate. Unless everyone happens to agree with your definition, the debate will continue.

The only parallel I wished to draw was legal standing. That is, they have this in common: in either case, if we define it as a human, it has rights. If we don't, it doesn't.

So there's my parallel

 

[KarenAM]

I think in this we must remember the political history and nature of Christianity. Since the time of Constantine there has always been a significant branch of Christianity that feels that it is the duty of government to support and dictate an orthodox version of Christianity. This attitude by no means includes all Christians (note the Quakers, for example), but in America today many fundamentalist churches want a state religion, and they have gotten into bed with the Republican party to do it. GWB is these folks' pride and joy.

As evidence, note the efforts, so far unsuccessful, to amend the Constitution making Christianity the state religion, and to change the freedom of religion to the freedom to choose which Christian denomination one wishes to belong to. Here's an example:

Christian America Ammendment

These movements haven't caught on widely so far, but they do have an influence on policy as religion becomes more and more a political feature of American life.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Good point. I think I recall Newman's "Liberalism" taking quite a specific stance against seperation of church and state. Personally, I prefer seperation. Churchmen make bad politicians, and the church suffers as much as the government. If absolute power corrupts absolutely - and I rather think it does - there's no way we need corporeal and spiritual power wrapped up in a neat little package.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Personally, I prefer seperation. Churchmen make bad politicians, and the church suffers as much as the government. If absolute power corrupts absolutely - and I rather think it does - there's no way we need corporeal and spiritual power wrapped up in a neat little package.

Yeah. Chruch and State really need a barrier separating them from one another. We'll end up more like the middle-east than anyone should be if we let our religious beliefs divide us any more than we already are.

I have to think that Wildcard has made the best point here. Even the liberals are split among themselves. I wasn't a Kerry supporter at all (and I'm done arguing it, damnit!), but that doesn't mean I'm a conservative Republican. I'm about as Liberal as anyone else. But liberals can't be grouped together the way conservatives can be. They all feel pretty much the same on the major issues. Abortion is wrong; gay marriage is wrong; school-led prayeris the only right; most of you will rot in hell for disagreeing with us... It just isn't something that I can see and agree with.

But I can't agree with all the things many liberals are tossing out there either, preaching as though it were the bible as well. Most of the country is in between the issues. I am not religious (atheist, actually, though i do believe in "faith " as its own sort of entity which can't really be defined--go ahead, make heads or tails out of that. lol; I lean more toward existentialist), but I am anti-abortion (a stance I won't defend, but I do sfeel strongly about). I am pro-gay marriage, and think that prayer shouldn't be in schools at all; though I'll settle for the student-led bit, if it's done in the right manner. I have a blend of agreeances and disagreements with the Liberal platform, and so do most Americans, I think. Most of us are liberal, but don't want to dedicate to the extreme that Joe mentioned earlier. Realism has to play a part, and often, with people whoare passionate about anythng, it just doesn't.
There's no real unity behind the Liberals and democrats, whereas the Conservative Republicans all seems to have similar beliefs. A good example of what I'm trying to say is in the Abortion debate we've already touched down on here. I don't agree with it, but I'm not a Pro-Lifer. From what I've seen, they're mostly driven by religious ideals. So, as a Pro-Lifer, I'm immediately an outcast, like a lot of people who hear the Libeal leaders make statements on similar issues, two and three at a time, who only agree with them in part.
It gets tough to back someone who doesn't really represent you.

A lot of words with probably more confusion than anything behind them (And I'm not re-writing... )

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

A lot of words with probably more confusion than anything behind them (And I'm not re-writing... )

Q_C

Actually, I think your comments quite profound. The disconnection between "liberal" and "Democrat" is a really interesting way of looking at this, and while it had not previously occurred to me, it certainly makes sense. There are some cracks in the right - I get Rush Limbaugh and NPR as my only radio stations in the car, so I give the Evil One a listen now and then - and Bush's perceived economical disloyalty to the conservative agenda of small government is drawing him some fire from within his own party. But on the whole I think you're right, Cool.

Sometimes I think that the biggest divide between liberals and conservatives is gut level. Some people like hard and fast rules and authorities, and some don't. If that was true - and not the gross simplfiication it no doubt is - it would explain a bit of that phenomena Cool describes. People who like hard and fast rules and want to stick to them as they've existed in the past *will* tend to be a lot alike. People who prefer to view things as a series of inidividual judgement calls will by nature be a less cohesive group - no?

 

[carsonshepherd]

. People who like hard and fast rules and want to stick to them as they've existed in the past *will* tend to be a lot alike. People who prefer to view things as a series of inidividual judgement calls will by nature be a less cohesive group - no?

Very, um, what's that thing you do? Perceptive, that's the word.

 

[Weird Harold]

...That is 15% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...17% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...26% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...8% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...9% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...19% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

Now, does that look like something that the religious right won on their own?

There is a big flaw in your logic here. You're assuming that everyone who voted for GWB also voted for the Gay Marriage Bans, and that's simply NOT true.

Ther is no exit poll analysis I kow of the directly compares votes for Gay Marriage Bans and Presidential votes -- If there were, I would expect that much higher percentges of Kerry voters than you claim voted for the Bans and far fewer voted for both GWB and the bans; in fact I'd expect the numbers of each candidates supporters to match the overall percentages for the marriage ban votes -- eg roughly 75% of each candidates supporters voted for the gay marriage bans; possibly with a slight shift to GWB voters.

The vast majority of voters aren't extremists and didn't support either candidate completely on every point of their platforms. Personally, I would have voted against a gay marriage ban but I still would also have voted against John Kerry.

I don't think I'm all that unusual among those who voted for GWB, despite all of the "conservative christians elected GWB" hysteria from the Liberals.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Very, um, what's that thing you do? Perceptive, that's the word.

Why thank you, Most Perceptive and Enlightened Fedaain. I shall attempt it more often.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wildcard Ky
...That is 15% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...17% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...26% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...8% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...11% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...10% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...9% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

...19% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

Now, does that look like something that the religious right won on their own?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is a big flaw in your logic here.

There's a bigger flaw in the maths, although admittedly in Wild's favor. An example:

In the state of Kentucky. Bush won this state 60%-40%. The amendment passed by 75%. That is 15% of the Kerry voters voted for the amendment.

Actually, the correct conclusion is that 15% of the total voting populace voted for Kerry and for the amendment (assuming, possibly wrongly as Harold points out, that all Bush voters voted for it). Given that Kerry won 40% of the state, the percentage of Kerry voters voting for the amendment - the wording of the original statement - would be 15 as a percentage of 40, or actually nearly 40%.

But who wants to trust statistics that make mathematics errors like that?

Shanglan

 

[sweetnpetite]

There is a big flaw in your logic here. You're assuming that everyone who voted for GWB also voted for the Gay Marriage Bans, and that's simply NOT true.

Ther is no exit poll analysis I kow of the directly compares votes for Gay Marriage Bans and Presidential votes -- If there were, I would expect that much higher percentges of Kerry voters than you claim voted for the Bans and far fewer voted for both GWB and the bans; in fact I'd expect the numbers of each candidates supporters to match the overall percentages for the marriage ban votes -- eg roughly 75% of each candidates supporters voted for the gay marriage bans; possibly with a slight shift to GWB voters.

The vast majority of voters aren't extremists and didn't support either candidate completely on every point of their platforms. Personally, I would have voted against a gay marriage ban but I still would also have voted against John Kerry.

I don't think I'm all that unusual among those who voted for GWB, despite all of the "conservative christians elected GWB" hysteria from the Liberals.

I think that the reason that the gay marriage amendment probably passed was because most poeple who *aren't* agianst gay marriage just don't really care enough to vote on the issue,- a lot of people wouldn't personally ban it, but don't feel particularly 'activist' about it- whereas those who are against it *are* pretty activist, or were led to believe that gay marriage would personaly threaten them in some way, so they think it's really important to vote. Those who feel that gay marriage really doesn't effect them, and who aren't activists probably didin't even bother to vote on it. I figured this going in, and it was why I figured it would probably pass and why I made more of a point to get to the poles to vote it down than I did to vote GWB out. Not that it helped either way.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think she has demonstrated she has more than a clue. While her position is quite partisan, it is well thought out and supported. The passage you quoted was obviously a joke. To make a statement on it such as you did, was at the very least uncalled for and more than likely just mean spirited.

I think it says a lot more about you than it does about her.

-Colly

Thanks Colly,

Of course it was only partly a joke If the law is that the majority rules, and all of the liberals and/or democrats (I *know* they are not the same) either go to Canada or have 0-1 kids while the Christians/Republican's/Conservities (and I know *they* are also not all the same) escew birthcontol or abortion and thus have 5-12 kids a peace, plus adopting, it's pretty obvious who is going to be the majority.

I think said poster is just a Conservative Fundamentalist Christian Republican who doensn't think that liberals/democrats/seculars should breed regardless. And doens't have a sence of humour.

(PS- that wasn't mean spirited of me was it? couse that was not my intent. I'm a good girl I am!)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks Colly,

Of course it was only partly a joke If the law is that the majority rules, and all of the liberals and/or democrats (I *know* they are not the same) either go to Canada or have 0-1 kids while the Christians/Republican's/Conservities (and I know *they* are also not all the same) escew birthcontol or abortion and thus have 5-12 kids a peace, plus adopting, it's pretty obvious who is going to be the majority.

Only if we assume that political alignment is genetically transmitted. Having spent some time in the South, I'd argue that in many cases, nothing breeds a violently atheistic libertarian like 20 years of blue laws and Baptism.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Only if we assume that political alignment is genetically transmitted. Having spent some time in the South, I'd argue that in many cases, nothing breeds a violently atheistic libertarian like 20 years of blue laws and Baptism.

LOL!

I wasn't relying soly on 'breeding'- We gotta train em up right- er, I mean left!

 

[Couture]

I think you're on to something with these think tank names. However, what about the names of right wing groups that didn't make it, like Families Against Gays, fer instance?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think you're on to something with these think tank names. However, what about the names of right wing groups that didn't make it, like Families Against Gays, fer instance?

*laugh*

Cultural Unification through National Trust!

Come and join us

 

[Weird Harold]

*laugh*

Cultural Unification through National Trust!

Come and join us

I think tht organization should work together with Patriots Resisting Insidious Conserative Kabals

 

[Weird Harold]

I think that the reason that the gay marriage amendment probably passed was because most poeple who *aren't* agianst gay marriage just don't really care enough to vote on the issue...

I don't think there is any interpretation of the numbers that cn support that conclusion -- in the one state I've looked at voter numbers on a per-issue/candidate basis the vote totals were higher on those issues than on any other; including the presidential race.

On an admittedly small sampling, it looks to me like if someone voted at all, they voted on that issue one way or another. It seems to be the one issue everyone had an opinion on.

Incidently, the two states I looke at the total election results for, I noticed that not one issue or race equaled the total number of voters -- although neither list explicity listed abstentions or "undervotes" for any given race the total turnout was given.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't think there is any interpretation of the numbers that cn support that conclusion -- in the one state I've looked at voter numbers on a per-issue/candidate basis the vote totals were higher on those issues than on any other; including the presidential race.

On an admittedly small sampling, it looks to me like if someone voted at all, they voted on that issue one way or another. It seems to be the one issue everyone had an opinion on.

Incidently, the two states I looke at the total election results for, I noticed that not one issue or race equaled the total number of voters -- although neither list explicity listed abstentions or "undervotes" for any given race the total turnout was given.

Think it's down to voter error - marking 2 candidates, things like that?