The spin-off of Serious from the "fun" thread..

[moosetracker]

Brewmeister said this:

 

I think the better question to ask is what those in the current ruling majority are going to do to reach out to those in the current minority. You know, the whole big tent thing. Because one thing we know for certain based on past comments, 51% is by no means a mandate, right? Time for the democrats to really reach out across the aisle...find out what aggrieves those who are behind these secession petitions so much...do some consensus building.

 

I said this:

Brewmeister - BOTH parties must find compromise.. If you are still trying to say that compromise is when the Democratic party does things the way the Republicans want, you are in for a long wait..

 

Frankly, Republicans do not have to accept how Democrates do things to fit under our big tent. They just need to understand, the meaning of compromise.. And wake up to the reality of the world they live in.

 

We need a two party system.. So, I don't think Democrats want to welcome you into our tent so we are one big happy family. What they are looking for is for you to modernize for todays world and be less cruel to anyone who is not a white male.. Basically you need to find a better Fiscally conservative program, and go back to not trying to force social conform through government.. You want to be a party of small government? Well with you social agenda you are far from small government..

Small government doesn't :

1) put up brick walls to what an individual can do..

2) It doesn't make up laws to restrict the rights of others in voting.

3) It is not like Michigans Republican Govenor who created some sort of Emergancy take over program that allows the Republican govenor to choose any city he wishes (usually with Democratic local government) and bring in a dictator that can thow all the elected official out, fire anyone they choose, sell off any assets of the town they wish, and force the town to pay them some exorbant salary for all this help.

4) It is not Virgina's Governor Ultrasound..

5) It is not Arizona's tough immigrations laws..

6) If you want to stay out of buisness, then why are republicans getting involved in breaking up unions? If Government should stay out of buisness, they shouldn't take sides and try to create laws to favor their side.. That goes for laws targeted specifically to make it impossible for a specific buisness you don't like to function (Planned Parenthood)..

 

If you want to champion small government, then doen't be such an oppressive and cruel and dictating government.. Figure out what small government truely means and revamp your program.

 

As for Fiscally conservative.. Sorry, spending more with less tax revenue, just does not compute.. It returns you to the Bush's failed economy.. Find a new smart workable fiscal program..

 

Republicans need to wake up, and become a party with new ideas.. Listen to people you recently rejected.. Jon Huntsman was on an interveiw the other day, he sounded rational.. Listen to small pool of younger people in your party.. The daughter of John McCain also sounded like she had an inkling of what is wrong with your party..

 

Your party has hope, if it seeks out the knowledge of those in it who acknowldge you need to change, and you start to listen to them.

 

Forget a civil war with the USA, work on not having a civil war within your own party, by listening to each other and finding a new message and new solutions for todays world.

 

Perdidochas said this

 

Moose,

 

A couple of things. You have misinterpreted a lot of Republican ideas.

 

Moosetracker wrote:

1) put up brick walls to what an individual can do..

2) It doesn't make up laws to restrict the rights of others in voting.

3) It is not like Michigans Republican Govenor who created some sort of Emergancy take over program that allows the Republican govenor to choose any city he wishes (usually with Democratic local government) and bring in a dictator that can thow all the elected official out, fire anyone they choose, sell off any assets of the town they wish, and force the town to pay them some exorbant salary for all this help.

4) It is not Virgina's Governor Ultrasound..

5) It is not Arizona's tough immigrations laws..

6) If you want to stay out of buisness, then why are republicans getting involved in breaking up unions? If Government should stay out of buisness, they shouldn't take sides and try to create laws to favor their side.. That goes for laws targeted specifically to make it impossible for a specific buisness you don't like to function (Planned Parenthood)..

 

 

 

1. What walls are being erected by Republicans on individuals?

2. Foreign observers marvel that we don't require voter ID in most states. How is requiring proof of ID restricting other people's voting rights?

3. Unsure what you are talking about.

4. Agreed on that one, it is too intrusive, although I do think the antis are exaggerating about the exact procedure required. I've never heard of the ultrasound mentioned by pro-choicers until this argument.

5. AZ's laws just enforce federal law. It is illegal for undocumented people to work in the United States. That is not a AZ law.

6. The only unions the Republicans are against in terms of law are for public worker unions, which until fairly recently in history were considered to be unnecessary, due to the high amount of benefits we give civil service workers. Other than that, they are eliminating laws which require union membership for employment, which is pro-worker. Planned Parenthood is not a business, it is a federally subsidized non-profit. The main thing the Republicans want to do is to stop subsidizing it, which is smaller government.

 

 

 

 

Koolaidman said this:

 

Hate discussing politics, but I've been wondering what the hubub is about number 4.

 

My wife goes to the OB/GYN says doc I think I'm pregnant. He says "What makes you think you're pregnant?", We'll I haven't had my period and the test from the drug store came back positive". He says "Well the best way to tell is" and breaks out his ultrasound wand.

 

Seems if we seeking an abortion, he'd make sure she was pregnant in the same fashion (because can you imagine the lawsuit stemming from performing an abortion on someone who isn't pregnant?).

 

So, if its going to be used anyway, how is it intrusive?

 

It's an honest question. Not taking a stance here...

 

 

Calicopen said this:

 

"Well, apparently 48% of people don't share the "majority" viewpoint. Thats not exactly an overwelming mandate."

 

In 2004, the politicians and the media redefined the parameters of what constitutes a mandate. Winning with 286 electoral college votes, and just a 3.3 million popular vote difference, the Bush administration, supported by the media, declared a mandate. I think there is no reason that the Obama administration and the media couldn't make a case that Obama received a mandate.

 

But more importantly, I question the whole idea that 48% of people don't share the majority viewpoint. I'd say that 48% don't share the some of the majorities viewpoints, at least not enough to sway theur votes. I believe that the majority of Americans share viewpoints the majority of the time - where we mostly differ is "how we get there". Start breaking down the broad picture things and Americans are in agreement on things far more than they aren't. It's what helps explains Americans being opposed to "Obamacare" but supportive of just about everything that is in "Obamacare" when asked about the separate provisions.

 

"6. The only unions the Republicans are against in terms of law are for public worker unions, which until fairly recently in history were considered to be unnecessary, due to the high amount of benefits we give civil service workers. Other than that, they are eliminating laws which require union membership for employment, which is pro-worker. Planned Parenthood is not a business, it is a federally subsidized non-profit. The main thing the Republicans want to do is to stop subsidizing it, which is smaller government."

 

The impression I get from Republicans is that they are opposed to ALL unions - but the politicians can have a far greater impact on public-unions than on non-public unions. And you're kidding yourelf if you think so-called "right to work" laws are pro-worker. They aren't - they're pro-business. Any law which eliminates protections from gained by collective bargaining is always going to favor the company over the worker. As for planned parenthood, it is a women's health service that provides services that the federal government happens to help fund. As such, they should be playing on the same level playing field as any other organization that provides women's health services. They should not be specifically excluded from applying for grants and funding because some folks don't like them. Before you answer that you see no problem with preventing Planned Parenhood from being eligible, let me remind folks that this is the exact same argument that is given in defense of the BSA being eligible for grants and funds - thet they should be allowed to compete on the same playing field as everyone else, regardless of policies that some folks don't like.

 

 

 

Koolaid - your question on number 4 - the reason its intrusive is the laws that were proposed/passed specify a specific ultrasound technique called a trans-vaginal probe. We aren't talking about the ultrasound wands you see on television where they wave/rub it over a womans belly which aren't physically intrusive (they still intrude on a women's right to privacy, though). No, the probes that are required by the law have to be inserted into the woman's body - a medically unneccessary and physically intrusive procedure. That's the problem with #4.

 

koolaidman said this:

 

Calico-

 

Yes, that is what I was talking about when I said "wand".

Please correct me if technology has changed, the doctor said that up to a certain point (we saw the dr. at 5 weeks) you could only see the ovum with the probe, you had to be further along for the belly transducer (my own scientific description) to work.

 

That's why I have the question..

 

 

 

Ok guys continue in this thread! I will join you when I have time..

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

agree, Bush did not have a mandate either, something about winning an election makes some feel so powerful and not bothering to check on the losers, or in PC terms "they who did not win".

 

Anyway, to be technical the thing used to acquire an Ultrssound, or Sonographic image is a transducer and for OB-Gyn they may be used either transabdominally or transvaginally. The transvaginal transducer is more sensitive so it will detect a new life much earlier than the abdominal approach

 

I thought that which was most objectionable was the requirement of the Sonographer to show the abortion minded patient a picture of the baby she is contemplating killing. I do understand that would be indeed traumatic

[packsaddle]

As I understand it, the objection is to the fact that the 'state' would force a woman who has already made her decision undergo this invasive procedure against her will...if she wants to terminate the pregnancy. That absence of choice thing qualifies it as a form of rape in some persons' minds, including mine.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

 

"Terminate the pregnancy"

 

another euphemism for murder, but ok

 

 

[koolaidman]

OGE,

 

I understand the tramatic argument. I just trying to wrap my head around the "medically unneccessary" argument.

 

At some point (in the early phase) of pregnancy, the Dr. will need to verify for an abortion or prenatal care.

 

I do stipulate, that if confirmed pregnant via transvaginal probe on day one, then on day 15 the woman decides to get an abortion, it would be unnessesary to do it again, but...

 

As we found out after 2 miscarriages, the doctor will want to double-check before performing a D and C. I imagine the same would happen for an abortion (so they could call it a D and C, instead of abortion). The double-check was performed via transvaginal wand.

 

Based on my personal experiences, I have a hard time with the unneccessary argument.

 

I beleive it is invasive, but also neccessary.

Whether or not to show the picture to the mother?

I indeed understand that argument.

[moosetracker]

Things change over time, but I have been pregnant and never was required to do a transvaginal ultra-sound. There were several ways the pregnancy could be verified without it.. That was 22 years back, but since I see no reason why they would suddenly have a need to force a more invasive way to prove pregnancy, I will take their word that it is invasive and medically unnecessary. Another reason I take believe this is that if it was a required medical procedure, Governor Ultrasound did not have to stick his nose in it, and force it to be done by legislature..

 

Michigan..

with this link read the story, don't watch the video.. the article I think is a fair analysis of both sides of the arguement..

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121106/POLITICS01/211060427

 

Restricting the rights of others to vote was not just the ID law.. I have written a book on this before in other threads, I do not care to rewrite the book, just say that it is not the ID law per say, it is the way it was rolled out which gave little time or opportunity to obtain one before implementation.. Plus limiting voting hours, making the ballot ridiculously long (8 to 11 pages) limiting voting places, purging voting registration lists without checking, throwing out new registrations.. On & On.. The Results showed up in the long, long lines in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona and elsewhere.. Florida con games backfired to where they couldnt call the Presidential race until Saturday.. Arizona may have called the Presidential race earlier, but they are still counting ballots for a specific county that had a large new registration of people who wanted to throw out their local Republican government.. They are still counting, and the one Republican Senate victory in Arizona, is now in question.. It may flip to the Democrat candidate being the winner when all is counted..