Mike Pence's lady problem

[HoughMade]

Us gun folks could learn a thing or two from the pro-abortion and homosexual activists. I think if us gun owners could muster this level of "activism", we'd have constitutional carry, school carry, etc. done a long time ago.

I don't know that shooting everyone we find the least inconvenient at the moment would help our cause.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know that shooting everyone we find the least inconvenient at the moment would help our cause.

Heh!

 

[Jludo]

Ya know... In my lifetime I have now seen the election of the first black president, the social support of gay marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana by several states.

While I do agree that today my party has some work to do, I believe that in my hopeful lifetime the above statement will be turned on its head.

More and more people are showing massive frustration with their own parties as evidenced by the Trump and Sanders supporters. I believe there is hope for us, if not today then in a few tomorrows.

Regards,

Doug

PS - On the political note there are Libertarians that are both prochoice and prolife. However, we ALL agree that there should be no government funding for abortion overall.

One thing Bill Clinton said that I found interesting.

“I’d give anything to be 20 again — I’d give up having been president and gamble on my chances in the future. Just so I could live another 80 or 90 years and see what happens.”

 

[jamil]

Us gun folks could learn a thing or two from the pro-abortion and homosexual activists. I think if us gun owners could muster this level of "activism", we'd have constitutional carry, school carry, etc. done a long time ago.

I don't know that shooting everyone we find the least inconvenient at the moment would help our cause.

Most of us are too polite to execute the rules for radicals. So we just complain about it at the dinner table, to our friends and family and on social media. Sometimes we write our congressmen and then complain when they blow us off.

 

[Lowe0]

Most of us are too polite to execute the rules for radicals. So we just complain about it at the dinner table, to our friends and family and on social media. Sometimes we write our congressmen and then complain when they blow us off.

You're kidding, right? The rules are very much in use on the other side of the fence:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Hence the comparisons of Obama to Putin (I'm guessing you'll find the shirtless Putin vs bike helmeted Obama in the pictures thread), discussion of Obama's "mom jeans", Caitlyn Jenner image macros, and all the other crap that clutters political discussion on Facebook.

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Sounds like the RFRA and abortion bills to me.

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Have you stocked up yet for when Hillary comes for your guns? And don't forget how Christianity will soon become illegal, any day now. Or that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
"Hitlery"

There's a reason why both sides use Rules for Radicals: when you have a divided nation, they work (that is, they keep the people using them in power; whether those people actually accomplish anything is a separate discussion).

 

[Twangbanger]

Us gun folks could learn a thing or two from the pro-abortion and homosexual activists. I think if us gun owners could muster this level of "activism", we'd have constitutional carry, school carry, etc. done a long time ago.

But there is the rub: both items you mentioned are SETTLED LAW, per the Supreme Court (referring to gay marriage and abortion).

So I think the point of the thread is: why are people like Pence wasting political capital on things that are already irreversibly resolved against us by the highest Earthly authority? When they could be spending that finite capital expanding and extending our victories on things that are nominally resolved in our favor, and where further efforts could produce measurable gains?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Morality as it relates to your relationship to others. Can't hurt anyone else, steal from them, etc. Murder is immoral as it negatively effects someone else. The difficult part about abortion is the debate over when a person becomes a person. That's what it all boils down to and I don't see that ever being resolved.

Things like gay marriage, drug legalization etc. are examples of morality that cannot and should not be legislated.

We are largely in agreement, although it seems to me that, as demonstrated by the vocal rejection of civil unions, the problem with homosexual marriage was the word marriage so far as one side was demanding not equal rights but rather legislated acceptance of their personal choices and by extension legislatively-granted social acceptance, to which no one can claim any right. Further, as I have addressed at great length in the past, we have the unintended consequences of permitting government to redefine language.

Pence has been a big disappointment. Between this unenforcible abortion law and the whole RFRA mess Pence has shown he doesn't know how to pick a battle let alone win one.

On the contrary, he won the RFRA fight. He may have made himself look like a complete ass in the process, but the bottom line is that the state GOP's owners wanted protected class status for homosexuals, which RFRA 2.0 brought us. Unfortunately for the GOP, the only way to get that done without having the base show up with pitchforks was to open with RFRA 1.0 and the sh*tstorm it started in order to implement what they really wanted under the guise of being backed into a corner.

I was told at the BoD meeting in Greenwood by someone who is in the loop in Indianapolis (Chamber of Commerce, right country club, right alumni club, right neighborhood, inter alia) that Constitutional Carry was not pushed as Bosma "wanted to avoid the controversy".

Well, now, how's that plan working out for him?

They needed us and they threw us away and set themselves on fire, yet again.

Everytime we trust the Republicans with the small government car keys, we always find them steaming up the windows in the back of the car with the minister.

It would seem to me that reinforcing this point in November may instill a small modicum of humility, at least enough to stop being treated like owned property rather than voting constituents. I would say that four years of Captain Mustache and a less than supermajority would be a good trade in order to get this done.

But there is the rub: both items you mentioned are SETTLED LAW, per the Supreme Court (referring to gay marriage and abortion).

So I think the point of the thread is: why are people like Pence wasting political capital on things that are already irreversibly resolved against us by the highest Earthly authority? When they could be spending that finite capital expanding and extending our victories on things that are nominally resolved in our favor, and where further efforts could produce measurable gains?

First, I would like to know how it is that once the SC swings left, it is 'settled law' but anything operating under conservative decisions is wide open to debate (not directed at you, but general treatment of the subject). I would argue that the only reason that these things are 'irreversibly resolved' is that we are buying into the crap the liberal talking heads feed us that we should simply give up in the face of an unfavorable ruling while the left never stops hammering away no matter how many times they get the door slammed in their collective face.

Second, I will agree completely that there is no point in spending fantastic amounts of political capital on feel-good BS while walking right past excellent opportunities to actually make useful accomplishments.

 

[historian]

But there is the rub: both items you mentioned are SETTLED LAW, per the Supreme Court (referring to gay marriage and abortion).

Dred Scot. Sorry dude, it's settled law, time to move on.

 

[HoughMade]

Dred Scot. Sorry dude, it's settled law, time to move on.

Also, the bill at issue here is hardly settled law. The "settled law" allows restrictions on abortion on a sliding scale depending upon trimester. What restrictions are allowed and which are not is hardly "well settled".

As for gay marriage, the decision says nothing about what private businesses must do.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But there is the rub: both items you mentioned are SETTLED LAW, per the Supreme Court (referring to gay marriage and abortion).

So I think the point of the thread is: why are people like Pence wasting political capital on things that are already irreversibly resolved against us by the highest Earthly authority? When they could be spending that finite capital expanding and extending our victories on things that are nominally resolved in our favor, and where further efforts could produce measurable gains?

Dred Scot. Sorry dude, it's settled law, time to move on.

Also, the bill at issue here is hardly settled law. The "settled law" allows restrictions on abortion on a sliding scale depending upon trimester. What restrictions are allowed and which are not is hardly "well settled".

As for gay marriage, the decision says nothing about what private businesses must do.

Both of these. Besides, the Supreme Court is not the highest earthly authority. We, the people are.

 

[oldpink]

You're kidding, right? The rules are very much in use on the other side of the fence:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Hence the comparisons of Obama to Putin (I'm guessing you'll find the shirtless Putin vs bike helmeted Obama in the pictures thread), discussion of Obama's "mom jeans", Caitlyn Jenner image macros, and all the other crap that clutters political discussion on Facebook.

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Sounds like the RFRA and abortion bills to me.

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
Have you stocked up yet for when Hillary comes for your guns? And don't forget how Christianity will soon become illegal, any day now. Or that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
"Hitlery"

There's a reason why both sides use Rules for Radicals: when you have a divided nation, they work (that is, they keep the people using them in power; whether those people actually accomplish anything is a separate discussion).

It's endlessly amusing seeing you claim that the right has anything even approaching the orchestrated (nearly all of the entertainment and news media giving a huge assist) Alinskyite tactics of the left.
Hell, both Obama and Hillary were Alinsky scholars in college, for crying out loud.

 

[jamil]

Both of these. Besides, the Supreme Court is not the highest earthly authority. We, the people are.

Theoretically. I haven't seen much evidence of it in practice.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Theoretically. I haven't seen much evidence of it in practice.

I can't argue with that.

 

[BugI02]

...
First, I would like to know how it is that once the SC swings left, it is 'settled law' but anything operating under conservative decisions is wide open to debate (not directed at you, but general treatment of the subject). I would argue that the only reason that these things are 'irreversibly resolved' is that we are buying into the crap the liberal talking heads feed us that we should simply give up in the face of an unfavorable ruling while the left never stops hammering away no matter how many times they get the door slammed in their collective face...

"ay, there's the rub" It's so much easier to change the ideological bent of a nine person 'committee' than it is to change the trajectory of the electorate. It is why the SCOTUS has become such a battleground and so much effort is put into pushing the makeup of the court either to the left or right. I don't know how to get there but we desperately need to return to the days - if they ever existed (thinking here that this is not a strictly modern phenomenon - see Roosevelt and 'court packing') - when laws were made by the people's elected representatives and then the courts ruled on cases, brought by people with judicial standing, to determine whether statutory overreach existed. When judges skip all the inbuilt checks and balances to legislate from the bench the entire process comes off the rails.

The left 'never stops hammering away' because we have to win every time, they only have to win once [insert Jefferson quote about the price of freedom]

 

[Lowe0]

It's endlessly amusing seeing you claim that the right has anything even approaching the orchestrated (nearly all of the entertainment and news media giving a huge assist) Alinskyite tactics of the left.
Hell, both Obama and Hillary were Alinsky scholars in college, for crying out loud.

Are you saying that one side doesn't put the rules into practice (despite examples to the contrary), or just whining because the other side happens to be better at it?

 

[jamil]

"ay, there's the rub" It's so much easier to change the ideological bent of a nine person 'committee' than it is to change the trajectory of the electorate. It is why the SCOTUS has become such a battleground and so much effort is put into pushing the makeup of the court either to the left or right. I don't know how to get there but we desperately need to return to the days - if they ever existed (thinking here that this is not a strictly modern phenomenon - see Roosevelt and 'court packing') - when laws were made by the people's elected representatives and then the courts ruled on cases, brought by people with judicial standing, to determine whether statutory overreach existed. When judges skip all the inbuilt checks and balances to legislate from the bench the entire process comes off the rails.

The left 'never stops hammering away' because we have to win every time, they only have to win once [insert Jefferson quote about the price of freedom]

Even when we win we lose. Federal judges still disregard Heller.

 

[IndyDave1776]

"ay, there's the rub" It's so much easier to change the ideological bent of a nine person 'committee' than it is to change the trajectory of the electorate. It is why the SCOTUS has become such a battleground and so much effort is put into pushing the makeup of the court either to the left or right. I don't know how to get there but we desperately need to return to the days - if they ever existed (thinking here that this is not a strictly modern phenomenon - see Roosevelt and 'court packing') - when laws were made by the people's elected representatives and then the courts ruled on cases, brought by people with judicial standing, to determine whether statutory overreach existed. When judges skip all the inbuilt checks and balances to legislate from the bench the entire process comes off the rails.

The left 'never stops hammering away' because we have to win every time, they only have to win once [insert Jefferson quote about the price of freedom]

I understand and agree with all the above. My question is strictly that of why if the court swings left, it is 'settled law' never to be questioned again, ever, but if the court swings right, tomorrow is a new day and the war is still on as if the ruling never happened or is temporary, and somehow most everyone accepts this nonsensical notion of right and proper.

 

[oldpink]

Are you saying that one side doesn't put the rules into practice (despite examples to the contrary), or just whining because the other side happens to be better at it?

The point is that one side is nearly always the aggressor, while the other side is the defender.
Of course, you think that it's the left who's nearly always the defender here, a delusion.

 

[Lowe0]

The point is that one side is nearly always the aggressor, while the other side is the defender.
Of course, you think that it's the left who's nearly always the defender here, a delusion.

No, I think they're both the aggressor and neither is the defender. I've asked you this before, but I'll say it again: do you actually read these posts before replying, or just imagine what you think I said and reply to that?

 

[BugI02]

I understand and agree with all the above. My question is strictly that of why if the court swings left, it is 'settled law' never to be questioned again, ever, but if the court swings right, tomorrow is a new day and the war is still on as if the ruling never happened or is temporary, and somehow most everyone accepts this nonsensical notion of right and proper.

Because 'settled law' really means a decision the left agrees with and other rulings are open to re-interpretation because they were 'wrongly decided' by a court that was 'too conservative'. The important point being that this mindset leads them to attempt to change the (perceived) idealogical makeup of the court as the most expeditious solution to right the perceived wrong. I really feel that those of us to the conservative side of the spectrum have a more law-abiding bedrock nature and tend to believe most opinions decided by courts, whether we agree with the decision, to be the law. The major exception being when temporal law conflicts with higher law.

I fear, although we are late to the proper mindset, that conservatives will need to adopt the trench warfare mindset of the left in order to prevent further errosion of liberty by judicial activism and to have any chance of rolling back the most egregious overreach. I foresee a state of endless war in public policy, much like neo-con foreign policy, when most of us would just like to settle down and live our lives. If Libertarianism can ever gain critical traction I would foresee a rich pool of possible adherents on both sides of the middle path. I see the GOP as too fatally flawed to maintain its appeal, at least for people like me, except in the breech.