On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
EDIT2: ahh, found it: "Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade." source
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Almost always these claims are a result of slippery slope reasoning. Similar to how the Romney campaign claims that Obama got rid of the welfare work requirement when they really just allowed for temporary relief vouchers through a different part of the bill. Basically it is something that will never happen but could be possible through a massive conspiracy.
What I am curious about, is what makes certain issues into issues that are debated at the state-level, and some issues debated at the national level. It seems to me that the lowest possible instance is always the best solution, keeping government as close to the people it affects as possible. Not saying that any party is particularly stronger in this area, Im just curious what in american politics causes an issue to be raised to a national level?
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
On September 03 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
On September 03 2012 08:41 farvacola wrote: [quote] It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Its actually not a myth. Based purely on voting record the most conservative republicans of 30 years ago would be considered moderates today (if you doubt this look at Reagan).
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
The scope of protected rights is not nearly as malleable as you are making it out to be, and your continued insistence that protecting certain rights opens up the possibility of slippery slope government regulation of employment practice is unfounded. Race, sexual orientation and gender are not equitable with personal fitness, aptitude, or work ethic.
On September 03 2012 08:49 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
I'm not a lawyer by any means, and my understanding of medical procedures is unsurprisingly limited, but it seems to me that Article (c) has dangerous implications pertaining to the rights of doctors performing abortions.
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
So this, combined with the definition of "live child" from Article (b), brings to mind cases where an abortion is induced, and there is, for instance, "pulsation of the umbilical cord". Further action in standard abortive procedure may constitute euthanasia at best, despite the child's chance for survival (in whatever capacity).
Point being, it's complicated, and legislation here undermines the authority of persons involved in performing the procedures in the first place. This creates a clause where it's legal to perform the abortion, until something unexpected happens during it, and then at least two people become guilty of murder.
Of course, it's easier just to make things black and white.
(Sorry for responding to "old" posts now, this thread moves fast.)
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
To give you an example, plenty of states (see here for BC in Canada, for example) require the employer to give written notice and/or a compensation to an employee he decides to fire. It works fine and provides a "cushion" that has a positive impact on the lives of employees, regardless of whether they actually one day get fired or not - it makes the sword of Damocles that is being fired less of a cause of stress.
You're trying to phrase the argument to make it sound as bad as possible. "Oh look, the government now has the right to force someone to accept someone else's money!". Sounds terrible, right? Oops, you might not like the contents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then.
edit: by the way, looking at your other replies on this page, you might want to stop using the slippery slope fallacy. It's a fallacy for a reason.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
On September 04 2012 07:22 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:12 HunterX11 wrote:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
EPT
My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EkA4O.jpg)
