Aren't we all Americans?

[Caveman]

I read a lot of the political "discussions" on here and I find a disturbing trend.  It seems all we do in politics today is demonize the opposing political party.  I've heard the word "Pinko" thrown around quite a bit (Sorry Doc), "liberal" has become a form of insult.  And conservatives get the same thing from the left side.  Politics has become a Yankee's-Redsox playoff game, you can cut the tension with a knife.  Aren't we all Americans first and foremost?  Can't two people disagree on something without one being called a Nazi, and the other a communist.  This is why I stopped associating myself with political parties.  George Washington warned us against the formation of political parties and although that's not a feasible goal, I bet he never dreamed it would get this bad.  Looks like he was right after all

 

[nyantler]

Yes he did dream it would get this bad.. thats why he said it... and the liberal progressive mentality wants to take away the american label and move towards being globalists... one world/ one people... that is why its important to fight back hard for the original conservative values our fore-fathers fought and died for... the more we have allowed liberalism into society (since the 60's) the farther we have gotten from what this country originally stood for almost 250 years ago

[phishwithfly]

Yes, we are all Americans in that we live in America - a country which was founded by the pursuit of Liberty and has a government whose authorities are clearly established and limited by the Constitution.  When government over steps its bounds and, for example, requires us to purchase something that we may or may not choose to purchase or requires that we enter into a contract with another private individual or corporation, that is beyond the authority granted to our government and is a reflection of tyranny, not liberty.  Despite all the rhetoric about cooling the rhetoric, our government is still trying to jam a load of crap down our throats.  Said politely or otherwise.  Cant we all just get along?  Yes, if some would only abide by the constitution and stop stealing and redistributing our hard-earned money.   

[nuynai]

I'm totally against globalism.  Run the country by the US Constitution, not what France, Germany, etc. do.  This nonsense about allowing Shariah Law in our courts is a back door way of getting us to accept it. 

[Caveman]

Here's my take.  Neither party; Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, has it completely correct.  All of us can learn from the other side.  If this country was run exactly the way any one person or group wants it, it would fail.  I am in favor of running this country in accordance with the constitution.  However, the idea that the constitution is dead as justice Scalia (whom I respect and admire) put it, is nonsense. 

I don't want to give my hard earned money to anyone who didn't earn it any more than the next person as the liberals/democrats would have me do.  However at the same time I don't want to deny any group or person their constitutional rights as the conservatives would have us do. 

This is what I mean when I say I don't like political parties.  Both groups have certain things right, and both have things wrong.  No one has the complete answer but people get so caught up in the competition between left and right that they forget that at the end of the day we're all still Americans and that needs to be the strongest group alliance of all.

[nuynai]

What I disagree with is, that the Constitution is a "Living, Growing Document".  Bravo Sierra.  It is what it is and that's what made our country so great, not what the rest of the world does.  If that's the case, why did the Founding Fathers put in the Supreme Court, as a source to make the final decision on matters.

[Dave]

Just think about all the people in out country who are not Americans. But it seems they have more rights than the hard working Americans. Now we have a new type of justice called social justice to benefit the illegals in our country. Is there any wording in the constitution about social justice? No, our forefathers wanted us to make it on out own, work hard and enjoy your hard earned fruits of your labor. Where did it say redistribution of our wealth? They take our money for every liberal agenda and tax us to death in life and in death. So what can we do? Vote the bastards out before it's too late. There was a thread put up yesterday I think it was called the future, read it.

Dave

[Mr VJP]

We all live in America, but not all who live here have America's best interests at heart.  It's not the political parties that are the problem, it's the agenda they adopt and try to force upon the rest of us against our will.  Some of us like Freedom and some like Socialism.  I don't see how you can ever expect those two ideals to ever get along.

The Constitution is the law that is supposed to guide our law makers.  But many of them don't know it or understand it.  Many laws are implemented that take decades to overturn in the SCOTUS.  A lot of people are getting very tired of the constant assault on America by people who want to "Change" it.  We like it the way it is and want it to stay that way.

The conflict in America is between people who want to save America and people who want to change it into something that can only be called "The country formally know as America!"

If you don't like something, don't do it.  But if you try to stop someone else from doing something perfectly legal that they like to do, you are not an American, you are anti-American.

I could go on, but I'll sum it up here.  I am angry with anti-Americans and have no tolerance for stupidity.

[phishwithfly]

Not a joke or a trick question - I consider myelf a conservative and, to my knowldege, make no effort to deny anyone of their constitutional rights.  Wildcats160, can you tell me what you meant by that? 

[Caveman]

Not a joke or a trick question - I consider myelf a conservative and, to my knowldege, make no effort to deny anyone of their constitutional rights.  Wildcats160, can you tell me what you meant by that?

Generally speaking a conservative is against gay marriage, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and a separation of church and state.  (Last one's not a constitutional right but rather a Supreme Ct. interpretation of the first amendment)  i suppose that is what I meant.

[Caveman]

We all live in America, but not all who live here have America's best interests at heart.  It's not the political parties that are the problem, it's the agenda they adopt and try to force upon the rest of us against our will.  Some of us like Freedom and some like Socialism.  I don't see how you can ever expect those two ideals to ever get along.

The Constitution is the law that is supposed to guide our law makers.  But many of them don't know it or understand it.  Many laws are implemented that take decades to overturn in the SCOTUS.  A lot of people are getting very tired of the constant assault on America by people who want to "Change" it.  We like it the way it is and want it to stay that way.

The conflict in America is between people who want to save America and people who want to change it into something that can only be called "The country formally know as America!"

If you don't like something, don't do it.  But if you try to stop someone else from doing something perfectly legal that they like to do, you are not an American, you are anti-American.

I could go on, but I'll sum it up here.  I am angry with anti-Americans and have no tolerance for stupidity.

Does a conservative really want freedom though? In my experience, a conservative wants everyone to adopt his values and live in accordance with them.  If people were interested in true FREEDOM they'd be libertarians. 

As for the idea of change.  I'll agree that there is value in respecting tradition, however the world is changing and whether we like it or not globalization is happening all over the world.  If we choose  to remain stuck in the past this country will be left behind.  Change (not radical change but some change) is something we need to embrace if we want to remain a world power. 

[Caveman]

What I disagree with is, that the Constitution is a "Living, Growing Document".  Bravo Sierra.  It is what it is and that's what made our country so great, not what the rest of the world does.  If that's the case, why did the Founding Fathers put in the Supreme Court, as a source to make the final decision on matters.

The problem with that reasoning is that the founding fathers could not have ever predicted the problems our society is faced with in today's age and therefore could not have incorporated solutions into the document.

If you want to read everything literally then our conversation here should be subject to government censorship since the 1st amendment makes no mention of internet dealings.  And the emails you send to people should be subject to warrantless seizure since people only have a right to be secure in their homes and places of business.  See where I'm going with this?

[erussell]

Does a conservative really want freedom though? In my experience, a conservative wants everyone to adopt his values and live in accordance with them.  If people were interested in true FREEDOM they'd be libertarians. 

Does a Demorat really want freedom though? In my experience, a Democrat wants to force everyone to adopt his values and live in accordance with them through government funded brainwashing called public education and College Education. Libertarians are a misguided group. What they call freedom is actually Anarchy and  thier wanting to open the boarders is lunacy. That is why our fore fathers set up an constitional Republic under the rule of law and not a true Democracy. A True Democracy could never really work and is a real pipe dream.

[Caveman]

erussel, I agree a true democracy would not be feasible.  I'm not a Democrat.  I am a libertarian, but I disagree that they advocate anarchy.  Anarchy is the belief that society can function without government.  We believe that government is necessary but in as small a role as possible.  I don't see what's misguided about believing that each man should be free to live his own life in whatever way he pleases provided it does not infringe on another man's rights. 

And I'm not sure how one could argue that education is a bad thing.  Mind explaining that one?

[Mr VJP]

What conservatives object to is government or society promoting liberalism and lifestyles that will infringe on our taxes.  This country has, for too long, misused tax money to provide for lifestyles and programs that have no ability to sustain themselves.  Therefore they are infringing on the freedoms of the rest of America's citizens. 

That is not smaller government, that is government mandating and forcing it's will on it's subjects.  The list of forced spending runs from abortion to welfare.  It is not sustainable, even in a socialist society, and will ruin the country.  The fantasy vision can not stand up to factual reality.

[Caveman]

Where in the Libertarian platform do they advocate for welfare? Quite the opposite, they are opposed to it, and opposed to taxation in much the same way that a conservative would be.  Take a trip to LP.org, even through a skeptic's eyes you might be surprised what you didn't know. 

And would you mind telling me how abortion effects you?  (Serious question)

[Mr VJP]

Never mention Libertarians at all.  Just explaining the conservative view.

Abortions are funded with tax dollars.  That effects all American's taxes and forces them to pay for something they may be morally opposed to.

[nyantler]

Not a joke or a trick question - I consider myelf a conservative and, to my knowldege, make no effort to deny anyone of their constitutional rights.  Wildcats160, can you tell me what you meant by that?

Generally speaking a conservative is against gay marriage, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and a separation of church and state.  (Last one's not a constitutional right but rather a Supreme Ct. interpretation of the first amendment)  i suppose that is what I meant.

I don't know any conservative that is against freedom of religion... freedom of choice means electing to kill a baby or not.... and there is no such law of separation of church and state.. the law just says that the government will not impose a religion upon the people.. which has nothing to do with individuals wanting to have prayer groups in schools and the like... and there is nothing in the constitution that says gays can marry or not marry

You sound like a young man by your stance on liberal and conservative views.. most young people thinks that riding the fence is the politically correct thing to do when it comes to politics... riding the fence with no political conviction leaves the door open for all of the crap that has gotten us where we are today..

The constitution is pretty clear... thats why liberals feel threatened by it and want to change it.

[Caveman]

NY Antler, the separation of church and state has been incorporated into the 1st amendment by the supreme court of the united states, a respected institution.  And prayer has no place in public schools because a public school is a secular establishment.  If a group of students want to form a prayer group after school that's fine, starting the day with Christian prayers is another story.  Freedom to choose is does mean terminating an unwanted pregnancy, you're correct.  However ask yourself, "would the children be better off being born into the life they are set up for?"  Believe it or not abortion has actually benefited us by lowering the number of people living in poverty. 

The constitution makes no mention of gay marriage?  Not word for word.  However, the 14th amendment does state, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since when are gays not born and naturalized in the united states?  That's the only instance that they may e denied the privileges and rights you all hold so dear.

And just to set the record straight I don't ride the fence at all, I'm a libertarian. 

[Dave]

Just remember that the more the government gives you the more it can take it away. The Democrats use their positions to get votes by promising everyone that the govt will be their savior. Social programs, amnesty for illegal's, Free College educations for people who are here  illegal . Welfare and who pays we do. Vote the bastards out of office. We have to worry about social security and the illegals don't have to worry about their benefits. Political correctness will be the demise of this country.

Dave

[nyantler]

NY Antler, the separation of church and state has been incorporated into the 1st amendment by the supreme court of the united states, a respected institution.  And prayer has no place in public schools because a public school is a secular establishment.  If a group of students want to form a prayer group after school that's fine, starting the day with Christian prayers is another story.  Freedom to choose is does mean terminating an unwanted pregnancy, you're correct.  However ask yourself, "would the children be better off being born into the life they are set up for?"  Believe it or not abortion has actually benefited us by lowering the number of people living in poverty. 

The constitution makes no mention of gay marriage?  Not word for word.  However, the 14th amendment does state, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since when are gays not born and naturalized in the united states?  That's the only instance that they may e denied the privileges and rights you all hold so dear.

And just to set the record straight I don't ride the fence at all, I'm a libertarian.

So, you just gave me your interpretation on the constitution.. another liberal move...and your take on abortion is just sick... so far the courts have had the chance to legalize gay marraige and have decided in most cases not to... usually because of pressure from referendum results by a majority of the people... the other reason is because we have laws in place against it.. just like we have laws against pedifiles..who are american citizens and pursue happiness by preying on little kids... using your defence would say that poligamy should be legal... that if a citizen gets a kick out of farm animals he should be able to purue his happiness by marrying a goat.. and even though the goat is not a citizen the man should be entitles to that liberty... the key to that amendment is "due process of law".. the law is at this point in time for most place.. NO GAY MARRAIGE. and even if it wasn't.. can't stop a persons opinion on the subject.

[Caveman]

NY Antler, the separation of church and state has been incorporated into the 1st amendment by the supreme court of the united states, a respected institution.  And prayer has no place in public schools because a public school is a secular establishment.  If a group of students want to form a prayer group after school that's fine, starting the day with Christian prayers is another story.  Freedom to choose is does mean terminating an unwanted pregnancy, you're correct.  However ask yourself, "would the children be better off being born into the life they are set up for?"  Believe it or not abortion has actually benefited us by lowering the number of people living in poverty. 

The constitution makes no mention of gay marriage?  Not word for word.  However, the 14th amendment does state, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since when are gays not born and naturalized in the united states?  That's the only instance that they may e denied the privileges and rights you all hold so dear.

And just to set the record straight I don't ride the fence at all, I'm a libertarian.

So, you just gave me your interpretation on the constitution.. another liberal move...and your take on abortion is just sick... so far the courts have had the chance to legalize gay marraige and have decided in most cases not to... usually because of pressure from referendum results by a majority of the people... the other reason is because we have laws in place against it.. just like we have laws against pedifiles..who are american citizens and pursue happiness by preying on little kids... using your defence would say that poligamy should be legal... that if a citizen gets a kick out of farm animals he should be able to purue his happiness by marrying a goat.. and even though the goat is not a citizen the man should be entitles to that liberty... the key to that amendment is "due process of law".. the law is at this point in time for most place.. NO GAY MARRAIGE. and even if it wasn't.. can't stop a persons opinion on the subject.

Your analogy between a gay person and a pedophile is misguided and frankly wrong.  The crucial difference is the presence of a second consenting adult.  In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 the Supreme court struck down a statute in Texas which criminalized sodomy, both homo and heterosexual) even in the privacy of one's home.  Now to take a strict originalist point of view you would make the argument that people should not be allowed to engage in the sexual conduct of their choice.  That includes you and your wife not just gays.  Is that your opinion? The government can tell you what kind of sex to have.  Why should the government have any say in the private lives of citizens.  Who decided your views on morality are correct and everyone should behave accordingly? 

As for due process of law, that has been violated the entire time.  Using the level of review known as strict scrutiny the government must demonstrate, when violating a constitutional right, that they have an overriding interest which trumps civil liberty, that the scope of their infraction on your rights is narrow, and that the means they employ is the least invasive means to do so.  Where has the government ever demonstrated an overriding state interest which justifies the denial of rights and privileges to gays and lesbians?  If anti gay marriage legislation was brought before a court with an interest in upholding the laws of the US it would be repealed. 

As for abortion, most abortions are selected by the young and the poor.  So to outlaw it is to tell a person your child must be born into poverty.  That child will most lieky never make anything of himself because of the disparity in public education between the rich and poor, and that child will grow up feeding off your tax dollars.  Or a teenager gets pregnant.  You tell her no abortion.  You have now set her up for a life of poverty as getting an education with a child is not an easy feat.  Now not only have you condemned the mother to a lesser standard of living you have also condemned the child. Obviously this is not all cases but an overwhelming number of cases.   

[Mr VJP]

"Why should the government have any say in the private lives of citizens?"

In case you didn't know, Marriage is a legal institution in the public domain, not an individuals private life.  Sex is private, but marriage is not.

"As for due process of law, that has been violated the entire time.  Using the level of review known as strict scrutiny the government must  demonstrate, when violating a constitutional right, that they have an  overriding interest which trumps civil liberty, that the scope of their  infraction on your rights is narrow, and that the means they employ is  the least invasive means to do so."

Here is the misinterpretation of a constitutional right.  All folks in America have an equal right to marry, even gays.  But the equality comes into play with the stipulation that the spouse must be a member of the opposite sex.  Asking to marry a member of the same sex is not equality, it is a special interest and by definition, unequal.

On abortion:  "That child will most likely never make anything of himself because of  the disparity in public education between the rich and poor, and that  child will grow up feeding off your tax dollars. "

That is quite a presumptuous statement.  You also condemn the child for the sins of the parent.  The child is the innocent one here.  It has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, just as any other American under the promise of the Declaration of Independence.

And this:  "Or a teenager gets pregnant.  You tell her no abortion.  You have now  set her up for a life of poverty as getting an education with a child  is not an easy feat."

When did we outlaw adoption?

[Caveman]

"Why should the government have any say in the private lives of citizens?"

In case you didn't know, Marriage is a legal institution in the public domain, not an individuals private life.  Sex is private, but marriage is not.

"As for due process of law, that has been violated the entire time.  Using the level of review known as strict scrutiny the government must  demonstrate, when violating a constitutional right, that they have an  overriding interest which trumps civil liberty, that the scope of their  infraction on your rights is narrow, and that the means they employ is  the least invasive means to do so."

Here is the misinterpretation of a constitutional right.  All folks in America have an equal right to marry, even gays.  But the equality comes into play with the stipulation that the spouse must be a member of the opposite sex.  Asking to marry a member of the same sex is not equality, it is a special interest and by definition, unequal.

On abortion:  "That child will most likely never make anything of himself because of  the disparity in public education between the rich and poor, and that  child will grow up feeding off your tax dollars. "

That is quite a presumptuous statement.  You also condemn the child for the sins of the parent.  The child is the innocent one here.  It has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, just as any other American under the promise of the Declaration of Independence.

And this:  "Or a teenager gets pregnant.  You tell her no abortion.  You have now  set her up for a life of poverty as getting an education with a child  is not an easy feat."

When did we outlaw adoption?

We never outlawed adoption.  However if you've ever talked to a woman who carried a baby to term and contemplated adoption then you would know it is no easy feat. 

Yes the child is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That's great in theory but with the far from stellar conditions the child is born into in this situation, the odds of them succeeding stacked against them from the beginning. 

As for gay marriage, true, I suppose a homophobic person could make the argument that a person has the right to marry another of the opposite sex and that makes them equal, that's like saying you have  right to own a gun, just not the one you want.  You may own a single shot rifle but no pistols (see how I threw your misguided "don't tell me what guns I can own" statement at you?).  What does an opponent of gay marriage have against a gay or lesbian (American citizens mind you) pursuing happiness on their own terms?  After all, you just made the argument that a 2 celled embryo has that right. 

[Mr VJP]

Not homophobic, just stating the facts on the law and equality.  Progressives can try to twist it any way they like, but they will be proven wrong in the end.