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: [quote]
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.
I will not lament the death of the right for employers to discriminate against prospective employees for their sexual orientation.
On September 04 2012 08:06 Savio wrote: 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.
The government should have a say in whether or not you hiring or firing someone is a breach of contract. The government has no say in where you shop because you haven't entered into any legal agreement to shop at either of these places.
Nor did the government even suggest that a place like Chik-fil-A would be banned from opening in anyone's city. A representative of a particular, particularly gay-friendly place may have hinted that it would be difficult, though.
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
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
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: [quote]
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.
You're thinking of it in the wrong context. A worker/employer relationship is a contract for compensation and work. The terms of the contract are supposed to be strictly within those grounds. The government enforces the contract to be limited to that. In the same way, you can't get out of debt obligations without penalty.
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote: [quote]
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
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
It's just another way to criticize Obama (or any politician) for considering the implications of supporting something.
As an example, this kind of thinking didn't really "click" for me until the SOPA thread, when that was buzzing. Someone there suggested that similar legislation might come to pass later by piggybacking on something that no politician would disagree with, just because the opposition would use it as ammunition later.
"Obama voted three times to protect the right of convicted pedophiles to retain kiddie porn" completely disregards the part of that law that sets a precedent for ISPs to block access to sites that have been spammed by sites that, ten links later, connect to someone found to be a member of an underground child pornography ring.
Then people like Gingrich can throw accusations out there without regarding the technicalities that earned the opposition.
Politics!
EDIT: I wish the thread's resident lawyer would chime in here with support or criticism. Not getting my hopes up, though.
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: [quote]
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.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
On September 03 2012 08:55 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote: [quote]
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
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
The controversy comes with the timing of the legislation, as it is remarkably obvious that in the case of Pennsylvania particular voter demographics will be affected disproportionately in the coming election. I am all in favor of voter ID laws, given the proper distance from an election and the availability of free identification, given the cost would effectively be a poll tax.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
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: [quote]
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.
You're thinking of it in the wrong context. A worker/employer relationship is a contract for compensation and work. The terms of the contract are supposed to be strictly within those grounds. The government enforces the contract to be limited to that. In the same way, you can't get out of debt obligations without penalty.
Are you suggesting that ever business owner promises in contract that they will only be able to fire you under certain circumstances? I think that many if not most contracts simply state that this arrangement shall continue as long as: 1. I am willing to keep paying you and 2. You are willing to continue working for me.
People should be free to make whatever contracts they want and if they decide to make a contract that you can't fire based on sexual orientation or whatever, then more power to them and in THAT case you would not be able to fire them for those reasons.
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote: [quote]
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
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I don't understand the merit of that argument. How does being a parasite (or not) factor into the debate?
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
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: [quote]
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.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. oes the type of the minority make a difference? If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
There is no reason to not get one. It prevents voting fraud, which is big issue. The time&resorces commitment required to get an ID is neglictable. If the ability to vote many times is not a problem, how come the inability to vote is a huge problem?
Ok, you`re drunk, you brain doesn`t function properly(so you`re a thing without a functioning brain), enyone is free to kill you, right?
Even more interesting, you do not prove any contradiction to my words. the functioning brain, is not conected to birth.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
The reason to have them get an ID is to disenfranchise as many people who would vote incorrectly as possible.
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote: [quote] 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
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
On September 04 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote: [quote] Good to know the benchmark is the 1860's.
[quote] 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.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
I don't really see how Romney being rich has anything to do with anything.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
Obama has failed at this miserably and another 4 years isn't going to make any differences. Even if it's not Romney; it just needs to be someone not Obama. Fixing our economic problems should be a priority, not tweeting, not giving shout-outs to Jay-Z, not publishing Final Four brackets, etc.
I also don't see how our Presidents' foreign policy makes any differences. Whether the rest of the world likes us or not, I don't give a single fuck. As long as our leader takes care of us, I'll be happy.
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)
