The Grand New Party

[firstdown]

Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.

I found this poll interesting.
National (US) Poll * April 30, 2009 * Gays In The Military Should Be - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

I found this poll interesting.
National (US) Poll * April 30, 2009 * Gays In The Military Should Be - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

I found it interesting as well:"American voters reject 50 - 44 percent the argument that ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s. Black voters say 45 - 44 percent it is as important, while whites say 51 - 43 percent it is not.

Voters support 50 - 44 percent the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but say 54 - 39 percent that the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to same-sex partners should be repealed.

Society is paying too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 49 percent of voters say, while 21 percent say there's too little attention and 22 percent say it's "about right."

I'd say this falls right in-line with CRedskins' point.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.

But what does it mean to be "pro-life" ??

That same poll says that even though 51% of people define themselves that way, 22% say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 53% say that it should be legal in some cases -- meaning that 75% still say that abortion should not be completely outlawed.

If any Republican attempts to run on a national platform of making abortion illegal, then that candidate will lose and the party is going absolutely nowhere.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

But what does it mean to be "pro-life" ??

That same poll says that even though 51% of people define themselves that way, 22% say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 53% say that it should be legal in some cases -- meaning that 75% still say that abortion should not be completely outlawed.

If any Republican attempts to run on a national platform of making abortion illegal, then that candidate will lose and the party is going absolutely nowhere.

Well some cases could be rape or the health of the mother so that number is hard to grasp. I just really posted this because I have seen several people here say that on abortion the Rep. party does not have a clue but this poll may suggest something different. I don't think anyone would have any traction with either oarty if they took the far left or far right stance on the abortion issue. It seem now that both parties are some where in the middle.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well some cases could be rape or the health of the mother so that number is hard to grasp. I just really posted this because I have seen several people here say that on abortion the Rep. party does not have a clue but this poll may suggest something different. I don't think anyone would have any traction with either oarty if they took the far left or far right stance on the abortion issue. It seem now that both parties are some where in the middle.

I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.

I agree with your assessment. It really is a grey area and not as black and white, at least not in every instance, as some would like to make it. That being said, there's a reasonable argument to made on both sides of the issue.

I find it intriguing how nothing will get people up in arms like the topic of abortion and a woman's right to choose. This debate isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.

Your assuming that the Rep. party is totaly suported by people who believe that any abortion is bad no matter what the case is and I'd say thats a very small % and the party knows that. Its the same thing as thinking that all people who are pro choice think that having an abortion anytime is a womens right. See the far right of the rep. party actually have a means to get their point out through their own net works so we hear more from them. The far left is really only heard from when they are out protesting and busting up stuff.

[CRedskinsRule]

Sadly the new party simply bickers like the old parties. Global Climate Change/No Global Climate Change, I have my opinion, But why should a new party whose goal is limited government be in the pot arguing this?

If any scientists of note are arguing that in the course of my generation/my children's generation the world is going to suddenly and catastrophically cool, they are most likely speaking hogwash. Maybe our actions cause it, maybe not. Let private citizens groups collect private funds, study it, and say yea or nay, but a limited resource Federal Government need not stamp it's approval/disapproval on it. I am sure the car companies will fund research against it, and I am sure men/women of great wealth and concern for the longterm future of our species, like Saden, can fund the pro group. But don't create a federal dept of global catastrophic and possibly unchangeable events, or a bureau of great handwringing.

The goal of a limited government party should not be to side with one or another political agenda, but to say ENOUGH, we are here to provide a framework for citizens, and localities to grow and prosper, and not fear external armed or economic attack. How each locality chooses to set it's standards, within our constitutional framework, is THEIR choice and freedom.

Again see the 10th amendment.

[Trample the Elderly]

I thought that plants liked Co2?

[TheSmurfs22]

I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again. Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

There are always going to be cycles in politics. The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by TheSmurfs22

I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again. Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

There are always going to be cycles in politics. The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Good post, unfortunately we're closer to the former than the later.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheSmurfs22

I think it is time we start limiting the Congress's term limits. What is happening now is that we have elected officials who are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is best for the people in their states. Many years ago in Virginia senators were appointed by the governor, maybe it is time to look at that again. Doubt it will ever happen, government is getting bigger and more powerful and they aren't going to give that up anytime soon.

What conservatives need to get to is a more pragmatic approach and I would say the GOP does too. I am conservative before I am a Republican. Obama will more than likely be a two term president unless he really screws up, but even then he has enough allies in the media that they will not let him fail, at least not yet.

There are always going to be cycles in politics. The Democratic party has start stepping up to the plate and they too are dealing with the divide between the far left faction of their party and their more moderate members.

" A people who fear its government is a tyranny. A government who fears its people is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

For the first bolded point, that is how the Constitution originally established the Senate, but a Constitutional Amendment in the early 1900's changed the Election of the Senate to pure voting. At the time it probably made sense, however in hindsight, I think it has simply diluted the Senate, and created a second House of Representatives. There was a clear and purposeful split in the roles of the two bodies, that now is more or less simply window dressing.

As to the 2nd. Politics is NOT cyclical, this is either a myth, or a misconception. If it was cyclical, we would be looking at slavery coming back into fashion, or other outdated, and illogical ideas. Politics is moreso a creeping ivy. It may curve to the left, or to the right, but it never stops expanding its reach, unless the gardener prunes it.

I would use seatbelts as an example. In the 80's in Md, when seatbelt laws were first introduced, there was a lot of outrage, but it was accepted, just not as a primary cause for a ticket. The ivy was planted. Later the State law was changed, now it could be a primary cause, but still the nobility of the purpose was to prevent harm to yourself, and reduce insurance rates (I am so glad that happened). Now this year's National Click It or Ticket commercial actually de-emphasizes the risk of injury and says, basically, do it or else get a ticket. The specific commercial I am referring to talks of a guy's friend who got a seatbelt ticket, and was an idiot because now he has to pay the fine instead of going to a concert. The point is that it was not a cycle, but an ever increasing, and overreaching intrusion into states' rights and individual liberties.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

For the first bolded point, that is how the Constitution originally established the Senate, but a Constitutional Amendment in the early 1900's changed the Election of the Senate to pure voting. At the time it probably made sense, however in hindsight, I think it has simply diluted the Senate, and created a second House of Representatives. There was a clear and purposeful split in the roles of the two bodies, that now is more or less simply window dressing.

As to the 2nd. Politics is NOT cyclical, this is either a myth, or a misconception. If it was cyclical, we would be looking at slavery coming back into fashion, or other outdated, and illogical ideas. Politics is moreso a creeping ivy. It may curve to the left, or to the right, but it never stops expanding its reach, unless the gardener prunes it.

I would use seatbelts as an example. In the 80's in Md, when seatbelt laws were first introduced, there was a lot of outrage, but it was accepted, just not as a primary cause for a ticket. The ivy was planted. Later the State law was changed, now it could be a primary cause, but still the nobility of the purpose was to prevent harm to yourself, and reduce insurance rates (I am so glad that happened). Now this year's National Click It or Ticket commercial actually de-emphasizes the risk of injury and says, basically, do it or else get a ticket. The specific commercial I am referring to talks of a guy's friend who got a seatbelt ticket, and was an idiot because now he has to pay the fine instead of going to a concert. The point is that it was not a cycle, but an ever increasing, and overreaching intrusion into states' rights and individual liberties.

Seatbelt laws are by state and VA just passed that law just a few years back.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Seatbelt laws are by state and VA just passed that law just a few years back.

Yes they are, but why do you think VA passed it, if you check i believe you will find Federal Funding attached.

My point on the seatbelt law was more that government does not cycle, it grows and weaves, altering course but rarely repealing intrusive laws (an exception being if they make an overt and overreaching prohibition such as Prohibition).