Posted on 11/14/2006 1:51:18 PM PST by DCBandita
The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.
Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.
"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Firstly, I was commenting generally on the election, not exclusively to the abortion issue.
Ok... I'll agree for the sake of discussion, but it is hardly decisive. Lots of races were really, really tight (I'm speaking very generally here, the defeat is admitted).
IMHO, there hasn't been anything decisive in a while. Reagan was decisive, our 1994 takeover was decisive. Since then it has been waffling back and forth, with a definite lean to the right, but everything turning breathlessly on key races.
I tend to see the "majority middle" (center/leaning) as thin and conflicted. The bases on both sides are really highly motivated. It is the declared moderates (between hardleft and DINO, between hardright and RINO) that both sides have to motivate.
Why not settle the issue legislatively once and for all? I think your answer is the same as mine would be.
I take it you are refering to abortion. I think it is wrong, as per my previous post to you.
Regarding Roe v. Wade, That too is wrong, as the SC does not have the power of legislation. The decision is poor law and represents a decree by fiat (as does the recent eminent domain decision). Both should be overturned.
Regarding Federal legislation preventing abortion- I would be mildly for this, simply to stop the killing and turn off the "sexual revolution". a referendum with allowance for special circumstance would almost certainly pass.
But it makes me uncomfortable- It should not be in the hands of the federal gvt. It is enumerated to the state, and that's where I would like to fix it.
Unfortunately, since the socialists decreed it at the federal level, the only way to fix it is a federal law, or overturning RvW.
Bruce
Well we tentatively agree here. I believe the war was necessary and I don't think we are giving our troops enough time to finish their mission. Especially with their hands tied.
You have a closed mind. It originally appeared you came over to discuss issues, but I believe you are only here to trumpet your views. You remind me of a 16 year old who will not listen.
We need to declare Anbar Province (and maybe Baghdad itself) in revolt and turn the B-52s loose for a week or two. Then methinks the locals might be a little more sedate.
Unfortunately, the abortion issue is not "up in the air". It is resolved wrongly. Leaving the issue alone is against every moral precept we have ever stood for in this land. It is not freedom, it is sin (there is a difference).
The gay marriage will not stay "up in the air", as it involves transactions between states and between state and federal:
If a state recognises a gay marriage performed within that state, and the federal gvt recognises that same marriage (even passively by recognizing the "spouse" for tax or retirement benefits), and then that "couple" moves to a non-accepting state...
Does the non-accepting state have the right to withhold, or must it recognize the marriage? Betcha I can tell ya which way the courts will rule on that one!
The NE Liberal Repubs can go hang. I'm done with RINOS. There is no profit in them... If they were just warming thier seats I might not be so upset with them, but they actively vote against us, and prevent conservative ideals.
Libertarians are a different thing. we'd have to beat eachother up a bit, but I don't think gay marriage is a dealbreaker provided we are fiscally conservative and promoting smaller government.
abortion would be a dealbreaker if performed on a federal level on principle (enumeration of powers), but I don't think they'd have a problem at the state level.
Bruce
My problems with the background checks and waiting period are as follows:
1) I don't believe the federal government has the constitutional authority (then again, I don't think 75% of what they do is constitutional, as I tend to be somewhat libertarian in this regard).
2) How many guns used in crimes are legally obtained in the first place? I would bet very few.
3) If we're going to do it, shouldn't we be arresting the people who are illegally trying to obtain the guns? If they are turned down and walk away, they'll steal them, or buy them on the black market, or use some other weapon.
Furthermore, the waiting period can be detrimental to public safety in the event of societal breakdown. I'll cite the LA riots and Katrina as examples. If the sh!t hits the fan and your property and possibly your life are being threatened, a law abiding citizen like you or I will honor the restrictions and be at a disadvantage to the thugs, who will just loot them from someplace.
Keep in mind getting these things overturned or repealed is very low on my list of priorities, they're something I'd be happy to use as a compromise for other things, and and they probably won't make much difference in crime either way. I just worry about the slippery slope we seem headed down with things like this. I know you personally don't wish to disarm the populace, but there are many who do.
I'm sure I haven't changed your mind, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
You are either B. Boxer, a democrat operative, or just a plain old fashioned liar ... that same story has been repeated ad nausium. It has been told as if a personal story by so many, ten thousand such abortions would have to have been done to this sad child. I suspect you're just a run of the mill liar.
So does God. After all, he commanded "Thou shalt not steal."
There's also "Thou shalt not murder." That's an absolute also.
Thanks therut for your explanation. That's what I always thought, but since I have zip medical experience, and was still able to figure some of that out for myself I thought I may have overlooked something beyond my knowledge since no one else seemed to be voicing the same conclusions. I just never heard anyone from "our side" publicly voicing the same concerns.
These people could be helped very cheaply. Give them and their children a free bus ticket out of the Big City. Yea these people are in big cities. There is no reason someone should work three jobs to support her kids unless she lives in a big city which she can not afford. Send them the Arkansas. She can work for Tysons and down here she can own a home and some property. The problem is living in a place you can not afford and not having the sense to get out of the rain. Quit building shelters and buy a free bus ticket. She is caught in a liberal web. Flee.
It's interesting that people blame the Religious Right for being so intransigent. They seem to forget that what the 'social conservatives' are fighting for is simply the right to vote themselves, and make the determination on social decisions. Most people in this country have never had the opportunity to vote either up or down on abortion, and they resent the decision being made by a majority of men in black robes who disregarded the information available to them about the development of human beings, and decided to change the law themselves. The pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices had already met with pro-abortion activists and told them that they would be willing to strike down abortion laws, if the activists would send them the right case. Sarah Weddington, in Texas, found Norma McCorvey, and proceeded to make history.
Because many in the media was FOR the striking down of all abortion laws, there proceeded to be 25 years of uninterrupted cheerleading for 'choice' in the form of tv shows, movies, opinion pieces in the newspapers, etc. Just because religious people were willing to be the ones to publicly take a stand against the media, they were labelled woman haters, misogynists, and anti-choice, and people who just want to control women's bodies But religious people were trying to make the point that a woman DOES have a choice NOT to get pregnant in the first place, and that even if she does get pregnant, the baby is NOT her body, it is a human being with it's own DNA, and personal charactistics, and as such, should be protected by law. That is why so many were pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to protect them.
The pro-abortion juggernaut rolled on until Operation Rescue began to get press because of their large demonstrations. All of a sudden, on the nightly news, Americans began to see people who looked just like them being arrested and dragged away by the police for their civil disobedience in front of abortion clinics. Until then, it was presumed by many that anyone who was anti-abortion must be some flaming lunatic, and almost probably male, because, after all, all they wanted was to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Instead they were seeing men AND women, young and old, black and white demonstration against what they believed was murder of an innocent child, and against the fact that this murder was sanctioned by law without any citizen ever having had a say in the matter.
What the Religious Right has been fighting against is the fact that many of the values for which they, and most people in this country stood for for years has been swept away by judicial edict for the last 30 years, and they are simply trying to restore some balance in the equation. Why should their voices NOT be heard?
Don't agree, particularly wrt what you wrote about "choice."
It's allowing murder w/no consequence. That's wrong, religious or not. If you allow that, you can make the argument to make euthanasia legal, to make retroactive abortion up to the age of 18 legal. Very slippery moral slope.
And yes, I want abortion illegal NOW (except in case of life of the mother).
Position within the party.
Yes, hauling out the garbage!!!!!!
Aw. Actually, it makes me sad to think you're dejected (truly), because whether or not I agree with specific points you have made, I don't doubt your sincerity or your commitment.
If it's any consolation, one of the things I've noticed most strikingly is that the struggles I sense within the conservative right-wing blogosphere (e.g., FR) is also occurring (and has been occurring) within the progressive left-wing blogosphere (e.g., Daily Kos). There doesn't seem to be universal widespread happiness within either community, though the Democrats are feeling somewhat buoyed by last week's elections. Having said that, though, there is a concerted and constant discussion on the other side about the "pull to the center" vs. the "track harder left". Personally, I think the point is moot. The Democratic party has pulled to the center, and has done so solely on the influence and dominanace (until last week) of the conservative right.
Perhaps the policies you dread won't be as bad as you're expecting... But only time will tell.
I see a lot of the opposite, but that could be because of the demographic differences in where we live, respectively. I live in a HUGE suburb and while I also don't see people giving up, I am seeing them become overwhelmed in many respects. These people work full-time jobs, and many have second "side" jobs. They have children, and are totally at a loss as to how they can send them to college not because they're deadbeats, but because they simply can't eke out enough extra $$ on a monthly basis to put aside. I don't see them asking for handouts, but I seem them quite frustrated and sliding somewhat towards despair.
Whether or not you agree with this, I believe the unemployment rate is virtually useless as it is enumerated today. First, it counts only those in the unemployment pool who are collecting unemployment. If a worker goes off unemployment they are not included in the unemployment rate. Second, it completely doesn't account for UNDERemployment. An example would be a manufacturing worker (say working for Maytag) who was laid off when their plant closed and who found employment at Wal-Mart for half (or less) of their previous wage. Thus, the implied "employed" percentage contains some components of workers that is living at or below the poverty rate for compensation where they were able to purchase goods and save money prior to becoming underemployed.
I would be happier if the numbers gave the complete picture. Today they don't. That portion of American workers who are employed but employed either part time or at a substantially reduced rate prior to being laid off is an important measure of how we are (or are not) growing economically in a meaningful sense.
Wikipedia has a good jumping off point on the issue of underemployment and its lack of inclusion in the US unemployment rate.
Productivity is misleading because it is reported by Corporations. So, for example, General Motors is an American Corporation which has moved some of its manufacturing to other countries to seucre cheaper labor. So (and I'm making these numbers up), perhaps prior to the move, the average GM laborer in the US made $20 an hour and produced X cars. When the manufacturing moved to a cheaper labor source, X cars are still manufactured but the laborere to produce it costs $10 an hour. Immediately the productivity number goes up while the benefit to the American worker has decreased. This explains how wages can remain flat despite the seemingly low unemployment rate and gains in productivity.
You can ask for sources, but honestly, this is just pure economics. Many think that enumerating underemployment is unnecessary. Many think that productivity is what it is (it's a straight calculation) and shows the health of a Corporation (which I think it does). Yet to use these as a measure of economic well-being doesn't go far enough to provide a true picture.
Sorry to butt in Newland,
Hi again DC,
Your "under-employment" example is hardly fair. Corporate outsourcing is a direct reaction to the cost of labor here due to unions.
No one in thier right mind can suppose that ANY corporation can support almost two generations in retirement and one actual working generation. Ridiculously high wages matched with health packages and retirement packages have nearly driven meaningful large corps under.
The Auto Big3 are a splendiferous example. Why is it that Toyota is making big money in the South and the Big 3 are dying in Detroit? Take a guess.
The big unions have been living a fairy tale. They've damn near killed the goose that lays the golden egg. Add in restrictive environmental regulations and OSHA and your kerplunkt. Welcome to the real world.
In my business (no longer due to illness) I bid on contracts. We loved to get in on Gvt jobs because we had to bid using Davis-Bacon wages/rates (determined by current union scale)... This results in my bid totaling THREE TIMES what it would be under normal circumstances. That means, a job I normally do for $50k costs $150k.
Now, under normal circumstances, how can the union shop possibly compete with me? They couldn't keep up w/ me on quality or performance and I was 1/3 the money.
PS, I am not off-shore, but I was one of those businesses things were getting out-sourced to, and I paid my boys better than most... in the top 5% in my industry/area.
Bruce
You still haven't quoted real data. Your assumptions about people who have gone unemployed beyond the ability to collect unemployment are miniscule in the big picture to be sure, and equally balanced by unprecendented numbers of people who have gone into early retirement that have earned lots of $$$ from stocks or options or sale of their small business.
Wikipedia is a publicly built data base of info that is interesting to learn static facts about many things, but is totally subject to unregulated opinion, and thus is not a factual source for data driven info on things like unemployment. Under-employment is opinion and theory.
No matter ow you slice it, more people are working than ever before, less people are unemployed on a percentage basis than in decades, more people own homes than ever before, etc. We have a healthy, prosperous, growing economy. Most families are doing better than ever. This is not a socialist country, although Democrats have been trying to get us to that point for 60+ years.
On a side note, funny how during the Clinton admin, there was no talk of artificial unemployment figures...everything was just peachy then, right?
You are not correct about productivity. Corporations report on manufacturing figures based on regional data on a worldwide basis. The numers for a Singapore manufacturing site are not co-mingled with the numbers for a US site.
I don't consider EPI a non-partisan site. Reading through their articles, it is loaded with opinion, assumptions, and political positions.
If its not murder, what makes it anything less than "great"?
Ann Coulter is right, its just a means for women to have sex with men who they don't want as a father to their child. But then there's those pesky "morals" again. They're hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.