Posted on 02/28/2007 4:50:41 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
What I believe is irrelevant. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court never said abortion was or wasn't murder.
Abortion was an issue of privacy to the court and whether or not the U.S. Constitution protected an individual's right to privacy. They concluded (in a very convoluted manner) that it did.
Now, to overturn Roe v Wade, the court must either conclude that abortion is indeed murder (there goes the states rights argument) or that the right to privacy is not protected by the constitution.
Do you see a third choice? I don't.
I wish I'd even heard of the Libertarian Party back in '88. I wasted my vote on the "no new taxes" President.
Integrity is like that.
"cut and run" on a poorly planned, terrorist supporting action in Iraq.
vs
"cut and RUIN" job the present bunch of Republicans have done slashing up and obliterating the constitution.
Decisions.... decisions
Your post is a dated view.
Please read the current platform:
IV.1 Immigration
The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
You lie. No other way to put it.
Even Pres Bush defines it as sectarian violence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Did an Iraqi bomb the 'golden mosque' of Samarra? NO! It was a Tunisian terrorist? Was Zarqawi Iraqi? NO! He was a Jordanian AQ in Iraq leader. There are literally thousands of foreign fighters who have come into Iraq. Chechen snipers, etc.
So they do this without the aid of Iraqis? Even Pres Bush describes the ongoing violence as sectarian.
The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror. The terrorists have decided they needed to fight on this ground and undermine the govt and coalition there.
Indeed, there are many foreign terrorists in Iraq. However the majority are citizens of Iraq directly and/or indirectly involved. Even Pres Bush admits the violence is sectarian.
(Our mission now): Securing Iraq's democracy so it doesnt fall into the type of anarchy that will make it host to extremist terrorist groups.
Iraq is currently a host to terrorists. You have stated so yourself. Those foreign terrorists couldn't survive there without the support of Iraqi terrorists. Some terrorists are even members of the Iraqi parliament. That information has been provided via link to you and others on this thread. Why do insist upon wearing those blinders?
It was Al Qaeda's goal to *create* civil war. Do you know why? To prevent the success of democracy. Why does AQ hate democracy in Iraq? For the simple reason that successful democratic Governance would end the hope for extremism and a 'true caliphate' in those lands. So, yes, if we are to succeed, the civil strife needs to end.
I mostly tend to agree. What you are failing to admit is that by far the vast majority of violence is sectarian. Muslims will argue it the fault of America. America will argue it the fault of extremists infiltrating Iraq. Of course that is partly true. Also true is the forgeign terrorists are invited and protected guests of local Iraqi extremists. And the extremists in Iraq are both Shia and Sunni. Otherwise, couldn't we take out one or the other faction to end the sectarian violence?
Remarkably the operation in Baghdad is doing quite well so far.
Really? I see no diffence. What I see is SSDD. Car-bomb blast kills 10 at Baghdad market
Not all muslims will. The Islamofascists will... More importantly, if and when we succeed in Iraq, when Iraq's democracy, which will imho be durable, is fully secure ... then the muslims will feel a real victory, that will become our victory as well.
You're correct, that is your opinion.
False. Indonesia and Turkey seeks and have democracy. ...
Not in civic and human rights. Which is at the core of democracy. No cigar here.
That is the key test. It is probably correct to say Sharia is not compatible with modern democratic Government. The extreme case is the Taliban. But as I mentioned some muslim countries have been successful democracies.
Agree as to the first. Disagree as to the latter.
Iraq today has the most liberal pro-freedom constitution and Government in the Arab middle east. It is also the most democratic of Arab middle eastern countries. Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel may be more advanced, but Iraq is not ahed of Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Pakistan.
Now that's as classicly confused and conflicted as it gets.
We will not win the war on terror aka war against Islamic extremism, without destroying the source of extremist energy ... and that is the lack of political democracy in Arab countries.
A noble cause indeed. Likelihood? Improbable if not impossible.
THE #1 WAY TO DEAL WITH IRAN IS TO MAKE IRAQ A SUCCESFULL DEMOCRATIC GOVT!
I think the number one way is to line up our troops, planes, and ships on borders of Iran. Demand it's leader, like we did Iraq's, to stand down. If not, we're coming in to remove their nukes.
#1. Iran is a big victor. Their govt remains secure and goes nuclear.
If we do not engage Iran, it will go nuclear inspite of what happens in Iraq.
#2. Propaganda boost for our enemies.
The largest and most dangerous boost for our enemies is when one of them, say like Iran, has nukes.
#3. AQ will fill the vacuum and have safe houses, etc. Use it as local training camps for future attacks on us.
Where is Bin Laden? Kill the head of the snake and every one that takes his place.
#4. Message sent is that America has no real endurance. that means that *EVERY SINGLE INTERVENTION* we have for decades will be a test of our endurance, since our enemies will assume we lack the will to win.
We won the war. Saddam is no longer. Sure, this little fact may be denied by our enemies. But we should not be in the business of denying our success in removing an evil dictator in Iraq.
How many lives will America waste building back the credibility we will lose by abandoning Iraq? It could well dwarf the cost of lives in Iraq today.
Pure speculation not based on any viable conclusions.
It is called "historical theology" and was the view of the church before Charles Darby in 1850 or so. Weird as it may sound to today's phenomenally ignorant fundamentalists, there is more to eschatology than Tim LaHaye.
Of course. ROE said that because of a "penumbrae" of unarticulated and unenumerated "rights" (defined by Blackmun as a "right to privacy," that unarticulated and unenumerated "right" was so strong as to provided basis for the overthrow of all 50 States laws on abortion. ROE is bad not because it is bad constitutional law, but because it is NOT constitutional law, and makes no pretense of being such. It was, in the words of Byron White "raw judicial activism."
Whether you are pro life or not, ROE should be overturned. This would send the issue back to the states, where it belonged from the beginning of the republic. ROE also stated that the court "could not make the determination" whether the unborn is a "person" worthy of protection under the constitution. This has implications for the discussion re: murder, but does not demand that the court define abortion as murder. They would simply reverse their incorrect decision that arbitrarily stripped "personhood" from a group they found it uncomfortable to protect....., kind of like stripping the constitutional protection of "person" from blacks in Dredd Scott. The simply admitted they erred and then the congress amended the constitution to prevent them "erring" again.
On what grounds?
bttt
Paul only gets a 56% from National Right to Life. Probably because of his NO vote on the Child Protection Act (Transporting children accross state lines)
Here's Paul's most recent Issue Positions from VoteSmart.org:
Note* they are 10 years old...but his ProLife stance is stated strongly here.
because it is not a ruling on the constitution at all, but on the sociological trends and whims of the day. There is almost nothing in the ruling that deals with the constitution. I am surprised that you would ask such a question. Have you ever READ the ruling? The justices themselves snickered among themselves in reading it, calling it "Harry's Abortion."
You mean that he supports government so big that it doesn't actually do anything? Now THAT'S big government. It's huge government. Paying representatives to give their opinion? Government doesn't get any bigger than that.
One could only WISH!
That question doesn't even ping zero on the snark level. It is just dumb.
You are reaching here. REALLY reaching.
What is more to examine? Paul is first and foremost a constitutionalist and states righter. He is pro-life but he wants the states to handle it, hence the vote against the expansive use of the Interstate Commerce clause you apparently find problematic. Most critics of Roe say that they are states righters too but, unfortunately, unlike Paul, the vast majority of them don't really mean it when push comes to shove.
He is right, you know. I will put my track record on Pro Life support and activity up against ANY person. I studied with Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop and Jim Hurley back when few protestants were even aware of the issue, led protests, organized local RTL committees, helped form both Metro Area Right to Life orgs and crisis pregnancy clinics. All that said, I believe it is a STATES issue and not a federal issue (that is, unless Congress and the states amend the constitution in the same manner as they did to overturn Dredd Scott with the 14th). Morals and law... morals and law... morals and law. The two intersect, but are NOT coterminous.
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.