Confused

[Texan2]

yeah, I'm gonna have a problem with that, because that IS a crime against nature that they're now putting on public display.

Where are these laws?
the government that outlaws homosexuality could easily be the government that outlaws your guns....oh wait we already had that, it was Nazi Germany

 

[smschulz]

I am new to the forums and I wanted to to say hello. I enjoy a good spirited debate on issues. I am not into "name-calling" or that kind of thing, just honest discussions with people who are not "thin skinned."

I have often wondered why people who consider themselves "Republican" feel so strongly about big government infringing on their personal rights and such when the party tends to want to "force" their religious and moral beliefs on others especially through legislation? Why would they not support the Libertarian Party who truly believe in personal freedoms instead of a party that has a small percentage of religious conservatives who control(or has controlled) the platform of the party? It's kind of hypocritical for a party to say no big government to tell me how to live my life "except when it comes to abortion or what happens in my bedroom! Then its ok!"

Thoughts?

I think you are confused.
What exactly is a "personal right"?
I was unaware of anyone (regardless of party) telling anyone to have an abortion or telling them what to do in the bedroom.
I guess I am confused now too.

 

[MiTX]

I used to consider myself a Republican.
Not any more.
What I am is disenfranchised, which scares the bejabbers out of me. I do not feel that ANY of the three parties represent me.
The Dems? Fuggedaboutit!
The RINOs? Nope.
The Libertarians come close, but there are too many people pulling in too many directions and they end up appearing like squabbling children, not to be taken seriously. That and the Truther movement affiliation turned me off completely.
I am deeply concerned as to the direction this country has taken and we are quickly spiraling down the drain.
What will it take to stop the death spiral?
BTW... Rico... welcome

 

[Clockwork]

Green Party?

 

[ohhrico1969]

I think you are confused.
What exactly is a "personal right"?
I was unaware of anyone (regardless of party) telling anyone to have an abortion or telling them what to do in the bedroom.
I guess I am confused now too.

Let me clarify...There may not be "anyone in any party telling anyone to HAVE an abortion" but there are many people in one particular party telling people they CAN'T! And in regards to telling them what to do in the bedroom there are many laws even here in the great state of Texas that dictate what you can and can't do in the bedroom. You don't have to believe me. Do the research yourself. They exist. Perhaps I should not have used the term "personal rights"-if i used the term "Individual rights" would that be better? That term is used through out this forum by us like-minded individuals and all over the NRA's website so I hope that you can relate to it better.

My confusion stems from the ready acceptance us conservatives to stay with a party that: based on their own website

"believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all."-except if your gay
"believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals."-unless your rights or views don't fall in line with the GOP (ie abortion, gay rights,

I am just saying that an individual who truly believes in these things would be a Libertarian not a Republican. It seems those of us who have conservative viewpoints and beliefs in personal liberties would not discount a party which has that platform. I would like to see America, not just "go with the flow" anymore. We the people make the change not some suits in Washington who look down their nose and tell us what's good for us!

 

[Clockwork]

Just to piggyback off of what ohhrico was saying, the GOP seems to want to do anything within their power or anything they can get away with to harm individual liberties. The Patriot Act and a whole lot of domestic spying went down under the watch of the GOP and under their direct orders. It's funny that after almost ten years following 9/11 I am more wary of what my own government may have planned for me than what any terrorist group does.

 

[MiTX]

green party?

gaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Dear heavens... have you SEEN that Cynthia McKinney is now a big favorite with the greenies.

 

[SiscoKid]

Yeah, that nasty Patriot Act that came about due to the evil Bush and Cheney... They used it to listen in to all our phone calls.

I am so glad that this honest administration has done away with it.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Where are these laws?
the government that outlaws homosexuality could easily be the government that outlaws your guns....oh wait we already had that, it was Nazi Germany

No sir....when nature allows the result of the coupling of two homo sapiens to result in the birth of a child with no outside manipulation, the it'll be with the laws of nature.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Just to piggyback off of what ohhrico was saying, the GOP seems to want to do anything within their power or anything they can get away with to harm individual liberties. The Patriot Act and a whole lot of domestic spying went down under the watch of the GOP and under their direct orders. It's funny that after almost ten years following 9/11 I am more wary of what my own government may have planned for me than what any terrorist group does.

Really? Who passed the Sedition Act?

 

[Clockwork]

I'm not saying that any party is more innocent than any other.

They both suck in my book.

 

[Texas42]

Morality is relative. Society as a whole makes determination on what is moral and immoral. Morality in itself is based on religious doctrine. Laws are what society dictates. In some states its legal to have sexual relations with a 16 year old with her consent. If you did what you be within the moral immoral argument? Even if it was legal? I can have an opinion that it should be illegal to wear parachute pants on Tuesdays. I am entiteled to that opinion. It doesn't mean it should be against the law, because the next guy may see no problem with it. I may be clouding the issue, I just feel that there is a reason for separation of church and state. The Catholic church proved how dangerous that can be during the middle ages. Allowing the religious right to mandate policy and legislation should not be what we encourage. I think they do more harm to the Republican party than the Libertarians do.

If we look at what the LP stands for; personal freedoms and liberties, TRUE small government, etc. then the way we "fix it" is we "the people" vote for the best candidate and not the best party. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to have a government chosen from the Republicans or Democrats. Now I am not trying to convince everyone to become Libertarians. I am only asking why as a country we need to choose the lesser of two evils like someone said earlier. If we truly believe in smaller government, and freedom to live our lives in a way that is respectful of others, and that the government needs to be thrifty with our tax dollars why would we not consider another party? Obviously these two have been doing poorly and they BOTH have had plenty of time to get it right. BTW here is a link for those of you unfamiliar with the LP.

Platform | Libertarian Party

I disagree with the whole, "right and wrong is completely realative." Yes, there is shades of grey on some issues, but I'm going to say that on most things, this is a right and a wrong thing to do. I don't want to say anything about it.

The "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with the Catholic church. The Catholic church used to be much more wealthy and powerful than most countries. It's secular wing wielded all kinds of political power, but that had nothing to do with actual Christianity. State founded and required religions is where the term comes from. The term has been mis-used and abused by people who are ignorant and by people who hate God.

Making abortion illegal isn't forcing regiousity on anyone, it is merely defending the rights of the unborn child.

 

[Texas42]

If Libertarians hurt the Rebublicans enough, one of two things will happen, Repubs will start doing things correctly or the Liberatarians will become a more dominant party. Time for the conservative movement to take their medicine. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

I don't disagree with you, though this is a bad time. We still have SS, medicare, and medicaid. Those programs are too ingrained to get rid of. I'm not saying that republicans don't need some harsh lession, I'm just unhappy that it is going to cost so much. I think it would be a good thing for the US if some 3rd party candidates made some substantial seats in the House and Senate, but I just don't think it is likely unless one party really falls apart.

 

[wrtanker]

I'm a conservative. There is a lot about the Republicans that I don't like and some about the Liberatarians that I do like. I'm also realistic. The majority of support for Libs comes from Repubs. Remeber what happened when George Wallace pulled away from the Dems and ran on a third party ticket? The Dems splintered and gave it all to the Repubs. The same thing happened when Ross Perot pulled out of the Repubs and ran on a third party ticket, the Repubs splintered and gave it to the Dems.

Most of what the Dems want for this country I don't want. Much of what the Repubs want I also don't want. But, of the two I see the Repub path as the lesser of two evils. If I throw my support to the Libs then I get two weak, more-or-less conservative parties that can't overcome the one stronger liberal party. My fear of what the Dems want to do to this country overshadows my frustration at some of what the Repubs want to do. For this reason I generally support the Repub candidate that most closely aligns with my beliefs.

 

[Clockwork]

Making abortion illegal isn't forcing regiousity on anyone, it is merely defending the rights of the unborn child.

But by labeling an unborn fetus a child you are saying that it has a soul, which is a religious concept and cannot be proven through science. A bundle of cells is not a human being and the argument to be made is: At what point does the religious right believe that this bundle of cells magically has a soul? There has never been a discussion of the legality of abortion that religion did not influence, and making it illegal would only be done to appease the religious right.

 

[ohhrico1969]

I'm a conservative. There is a lot about the Republicans that I don't like and some about the Liberatarians that I do like. I'm also realistic. The majority of support for Libs comes from Repubs. Remeber what happened when George Wallace pulled away from the Dems and ran on a third party ticket? The Dems splintered and gave it all to the Repubs. The same thing happened when Ross Perot pulled out of the Repubs and ran on a third party ticket, the Repubs splintered and gave it to the Dems.

Most of what the Dems want for this country I don't want. Much of what the Repubs want I also don't want. But, of the two I see the Repub path as the lesser of two evils. If I throw my support to the Libs then I get two weak, more-or-less conservative parties that can't overcome the one stronger liberal party. My fear of what the Dems want to do to this country overshadows my frustration at some of what the Repubs want to do. For this reason I generally support the Repub candidate that most closely aligns with my beliefs.

You have a very good point. What your saying makes sense. I just hate having to be forced to take the "lesser of two evils." This is a good reason why we have such apathy about politics in our young people today.

 

[ohhrico1969]

I disagree with the whole, "right and wrong is completely realative." Yes, there is shades of grey on some issues, but I'm going to say that on most things, this is a right and a wrong thing to do. I don't want to say anything about it.

The "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with the Catholic church. The Catholic church used to be much more wealthy and powerful than most countries. It's secular wing wielded all kinds of political power, but that had nothing to do with actual Christianity. State founded and required religions is where the term comes from. The term has been mis-used and abused by people who are ignorant and by people who hate God.

Making abortion illegal isn't forcing regiousity on anyone, it is merely defending the rights of the unborn child.

Your right Texas42 we could definitely go around and around on what is moral and what is not. The Romans did a TON of things we may feel is immoral but in that society and during that time it was completely acceptable.

But onto what I would prefer to spend time rebutting; "

the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation"[4] between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

Here is a link to the actual text of the letter:
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
In summary it states that religion is essential a relationship between man and his god of choice, and that the government should not be influenced by that. Now if you would like, I could site numerous accountings of when the Catholic church DID get involved in the governance of a country and used their influence to make legislation/laws! I can't believe you would even say that they haven't! BTW the Catholic Church is STILL more wealthy and powerful than 50 percent of the world's countries today! Now way back I agree when these things did happen, you are right they had nothing to do with being a Christian however they did these things in the name of Christianity.

Let's just say for argument's sake that you are right and abortion is a sin against god as I am supposing that you are saying. isn't that just your opinion? What if the person who is having the abortion is a atheist? or a Hindu? should we impart our Christian doctrines on them,? you see its not just a matter of defending the rights of an unborn child. It ain't that simple. thats just what "people who are ignorant and religious zealots" want everyone to believe.

Ask John McCain how influential the evangelical right is in politics!

 

[ohhrico1969]

Thank You

BTW the way I want to thank all of the contributers to this forum topic for their insightful and respectful comments. We may not all agree on all issues but i think we all want what's best for this AMAZING country we live in. I have actually learned some things here as well that allows me to understand some things i didn't understand before.That is the benefit of having open and honest dialogue on subjects.

 

[M. Sage]

No sir....when nature allows the result of the coupling of two homo sapiens to result in the birth of a child with no outside manipulation, the it'll be with the laws of nature.

So.. old people can't have sex? If a guy gets a vasectomy or a woman gets her tubes tied? Someone who's just naturally sterile? Couples who are infertile for some reason? What about married couples who choose not to have children?

The net you're casting is awful wide.

 

[TexasRedneck]

So.. old people can't have sex? If a guy gets a vasectomy or a woman gets her tubes tied? Someone who's just naturally sterile? Couples who are infertile for some reason? What about married couples who choose not to have children?
The net you're casting is awful wide.

Sorry - but it's you who are attempting to spread the net. You know quite well the intent of my words - which is always another challenge - those who wish to twist what is said in an attempt to make their own point.