What if the Liberals Win in November?

You hit the nail on the head! More should have been done in certain areas and with some backbone possibly could have. However much has been done and they have stood up for many a right cause.


Without causing resentment for a few on this board. If the Republicans would shut down the border immediately their popularity would go up drastically!! I do believe we should allow a work force to enter but all should be LEGALLY done/managed!

Just to note however, Congress recently approved an intitial 1.2 billion in building a 700 mile fence. Guess which Party affiliation was overwhelmingly against this measure in securing our Border and voted nay on it? You got it, Democrats!:BangHead:

The Republicans are stupid in that they are doing a poor job of getting their or these messages across to the voters.


Take care, See ya.:wavey:

 

I think a fence is a waste of time. If we are serious then the only way is to make the costs of crossing too high or the incentives too low. Unless we are going to put armed guards with a shoot on sight order on that fence, the only other real option is to promote the Mexican economy and societal reform.

 

And the reason is? Some work harder and smarter than others. Some take more risks. Some are more savvy. And yes some (legitimately according to the Bible) inherit wealth from their parents.

Our economic status in America has alot more to do with the risks we take, the work we put out, and the sacrifices we make than any kind of injustice that should be rectified by gov't intervention. The Soviets tried this for 70 years and the best they could produce is an equal level of misery in about 90% of their population.

My mom worked part of the time and was home part of the time. We lived in a house less than a third of the size of my home and several years older. My parents made a garden and put up food. They owned three Impalas during my upbringing. We usually had a beat up pick-up too. The first one they replaced when I was 3 or 4 and had been owned for 8+ years. They owned the second one for 8+ years... and then a third one. We didn't have cable tv, microwave, PC, internet, air conditioning, or anything but wood heat for any/most of my time at home. We didn't wear designer clothes or shoes nor did we spend extravagantly on recreation. We took one away-from-home vacation in 18 years.

My parents ingrained in me the need to educate myself and go further than they did. Very nose to the grindstone type of southern people. My wife has held a full-time job only for the first 6 months of our almost 18 year marriage. We made sacrifices especially early on but God has blessed and we have a nice standard of living now. We have much nicer things than I grew up with.

I say all that to say this. People could live with less and keep wives at home. They would still be better off on average than their parents were. People could make the choice to buy houses they could afford rather than overextending themselves. It would have a positive effect on both their situation and the market as a whole... with some short term, acute pain in the housing industry.

Everybody? That isn't realistic no matter who runs the gov't or how intrusive they are. Booming economies provide opportunity... one has to be smart as well as a hard worker to take advantage.

I'm not necessarily a capitalist. I see capitalism as just one more means of centralizing power and controlling the masses of people while denying their God given rights. I am a free marketeer. Capitalism is at best a necessary evil... though I am not so sure how necessary it is.

As for Exxon and oil profits, just another example of how "capitalism" makes collusion between big gov't and big business more profitable to both.

 

Scott J,

Trust me, you and I want the same things out of our elected officials. (Including: Not intruding into the matters that should be left to a free-market)

That does not mean that I can not be dissatisfied with the Republicans (in general) who are currently "serving" in the House and Senate. Sure, they have tossed us a cookie here and there, BIG DEAL, I AIN'T BUYING IT, GET SOMETHING DONE!!!

If you are happy with the performance, good for you, ignorance is bliss they say.

 

Twenty Million Christians (20,000,000) didn't vote in the 2004 election.

 

It goes quite a bit deeper than the republicans failed to get their message across to the voters. The fact is they failed to lead. They act like democrats. It is time for two new parties.

 

Ralph,

Terri Schiavo died the day she collapsed in her home in 1990, suffering from heart failure that led to severe brain damage because of lack of oxygen.

Her body was maintained for years later through machines, but she died many years before that. She was not starved to death as you put it. You want to make it seem like she was killed, when in fact she had died a long time ago.

Her Autopsy Report showed she suffered from irreversible brain damage. The damage was permanent and she was incapable of any cognitive thought.

So, becasue I feel, and the medical facts show as much, that she was dead many years before the feeding tube was pulled, I don't agree with your statement that she was starved to death.

Question for you.. Do you believe God has the power of life and death, or does a machine, that can keep us "alive" forever have the power?

I feel really sorry for Terri's husband and her family.

I don't think something like this should have been in the public spot light to begin with.

I also believe God is the only giver of life and a machine keeping someone "alive" isn't life. When there is evdenice to show that someone is in a persistent vegetative state which Terri was in, I don't think having a machine keep you alive means you're alive.

Also, if it hadn't been her time to die, she wouldn't have died. God is in complete control of life and death, no matter how advanced our doctors get. They answer to a higher power.

Terri didn't starve to death. She die many many years ago.

 

I'm with you there!

 

Jamie I appreciate your post but it is just not accurate. Try feeding much of that to any Doctor and they would in most likelihood not bother responding. I grew up around a hospital and nursing home, as family worked in both including myself part time when younger. In an essence, you just advocated putting to death many hundreds of thousands of terminally ill, retarded, and elderly people etc. Many of whom are alive simply because of the machines they rely on.


Terry Shiavo was on a feeding tube not a life support machine! Which can breath, create and clean a blood flow for it's patients. With people who would die within minutes of being removed from such machinery.

It took Terry Shiavo weeks to die and such occurred simply because her body was deprived of nutrition. There is no debating that. So your description only attempts to justify and/or make it seem less meaningful, as she was brain dead?! Part of the debate with Terri Shiavo was her parents attempts to feed her naturally. They were denied any such attempts along with using advanced technology in determining more accurately her condition.

I had a friend who's child was born severely retarded. Who was only capable of groaning and walked around with his hands up, like a puppy. They loved the child no different than their others. Do you realize many people would advocate having the right to kill that child? (I speak in past tense as this was from decades ago and no longer in touch)


In addition, your reasoning would have allowed putting to death the young lady Kate Adamson. Who was also diagnosed to be in a Persistent Vegetative State(PVS). Just as Terri Shiavo. Only she made a remarkable recovery and was actually conscious of what was happening to her. Though they thought she was in a PVS having collapsed from a devastating stroke.



ANYHOW TO POINT. Yes such is a terrible tragedy. If you want to say she died many many years earlier and immediately after her accident; such would be highly debatable. I personally do not believe in Life-Support though many have recovered to go on and live normal lives.

The point was where the lines were drawn with the two parties and as especially reflected in the Abortion issue. I took issue with a poster who misrepresented how such actually played out with Shiavo. I don't take issue with your saying she was in a hopeless state. Though she in fact died as I described. Her body was starved to death as nutrition was not allowed. Whether she had gone on to the Lord earlier, nobody but God knows!

I am not saying you are advocating any of those situations which I spoke of. I agree it was a terrible situation for all people involved. Yes the Lord has the final say regardless.

Take care, Ralph

 

How many of you really think that the Democrats will regain power in either the House or the Senate? The Republican Party OWNS the Religious Right. Look at the articles about how many leaders in the Religious Right are mobilizing the troops to show up en masse to the polls. They will do as they are told, and they will turn out to save the country from the homosexuals and the abortion clinics.

If you think that the GOP is simply going to let the Democrats take control of Congress, then you have grossly misunderestimated them.

Then sit back and watch what will happen during the next two years.

Carpro, don't worry - your wish will be granted. Just be careful of that for which you wish........

Regards,
BiR

 

What really is amazing is that you really believe there is a difference between democrats and republicans Whichever wins, the normal corrupt two party system still is in 100% control of power with all their self indulgent programs intact.

 

Abortion continues under Republican rule. They have all three branches of government under their control, and still we have abortion. Bush has said that he thinks it's OK to abort when the baby is conceived by incest or rape, so you can expect no help from him or his party.

Abortion is just another flag they wave to get you to vote for them, after which they laugh at how stupid and unsophisticated you are.

 

Where do the Democrats stand on abortion..., nevermind, we already know.

 

Well, we know what they say anyway. Despite the hatred of abortion over at the GOP, they really haven't done anything to illegalize it, have they? Remember: they control all three branches of the federal government....

Love your user name, by the way!
:laugh:

Regards,
BiR

 

They may need to get one more "Strict Constructionist" on the Supreme Court. It is difficult to pass legislation that will be overturned as "unconstitutional" by a liberal court.

Do you think maybe the Democrats are lying about their support of abortion rights? Maybe if we elect them they will suprise us by actually being anti-abortion?

:laugh:

 

It's not just risks, work, sacrifices, etc. (the well off's own supposed virtues), but also the strings they can pull as well. (Raising prices, lowering quality, buying out others, selling out, etc). It is like a law of the jungle, straight out of Darwin, subject to factors of opportunity, advantage and good fortune (talent/skill, being in the right place at the right time, etc) that are not shared by everyone else. Hence, the acknowledgement that capitalism as just one more means to centralizing power. Years ago, it seems this would not be admitted, as Christians have sometimes gotten too much into defending this as if it were God's kingdom, and attack only liberals, as if they are the whole problem.

 

Blammo, they are simply leading you around by the nose. Bush is pro-abortion, with some reservations. Most of the GOP congresspeople vote for it, when they think it's safe.

They've been running things for years. When they want something, they do it. They don't want to make the majority of Americans (who want abortion for at least some reasons) mad at them. So they throw you a bone from time to time, and laugh abouit how easy it is to fool you.

That's the way it works. They're playing you for a sucker. And you're letting them do it. There are parties out there who do oppose abortion. But you won't vote for them, because you keep hoping the GOP will do it for you.

<edited for personal attack - LE>

 

Please explain what a "Strict Constructionist" is to you.

A point worth noting is that a majority of the Justices were appointed by Republicans. Despite this control over all three branches of government, there has been nothing done to overturn Roe v. Wade. IMO, it will never happen.

No, it is not the Democratic Party that is lying........

Regards,
BiR

 

What an idiotic statement Galatian! You could easily be called a propagandist! In addition, have you read any of the earlier posts in this thread?


Bush and the GOP pushed for and finally got a bill passed banning partial birth abortion. With 95% plus of Republicans voting for it. 85% or so Democrats voting against it. The Republicans tried twice under Clinton but such was vetoed.

Bush and the GOP pushed for parental notification with abortion. Again with 90% plus% Republicans voting for it. Again with 85% plus Democrats voting against it. This bill failed for lack of 3 votes.

The Parties are clear on where they stand. The Democrats "PROUDLY" proclaim abortion to be a "LIBERTY". You can call people stupid all you like but there is always the TRUTH. On the other hand, some could ask why you apparently support such as the Democratic Party advocates?

Another idiotic rant. Sorry, no other way to put it.
A) Bush is not pro-abortion. He in fact is more at odds with his party in that he wants stricter measures on abortion. So you got that wrong also.
B) You say most Americans want abortion in some form. This is true but for rarer cases such as life of mother, rape or incest. However, then you attack Bush and the GOP for making these rare allowances?! You cannot have it both ways chief. Seems like you just want to spew an attack upon Bush and the GOP. I note your post was edited due to a personal attack in addition.
C) Please name the Party your are referring to, which you say truly opposes abortion.
D) The Democratic Party is effective in blocking such legislation as introduced by Republicans in changing abortion laws. They do so with 85-90% unity.


Are you in favor of abortion rights or opposed to it. Again please name your Party which has a stated platform against abortion.


In Christ, Ralph

 

Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law.

(copied from wikipedia)

Like David Souter? You don't think Souter is a disappointment? I do.
I also believe that, if we stay on the right track, Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned. (Call me an optimist)

That's my point, (thank you), you know where the Democratic Party stands on abortion. If you support abortion rights with no limitations, vote for the Democrats.

Even though a few of the Republicans (mostly in the Senate) may be on the wrong side of the fence, you can count on the GOP to be the party to attempt to rid this country of legal infanticide.