The American people have spoken...

[mlzoiss]

A few thoughts.

The country is still split 50-50. No one has 60%. While the evangelicals are about 20% (60 million), they need to plant churches in the northeast if they ever want influence. And most values voters (conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals) have been marginalized by the establishment politicians.

It was clear in 2008 that Obama was allowing people to write their expectations on him. With great expectations comes great disappointment. By 2016 Obama will be more hated than George Bush, especially by democrats. In fact he may well destroy the democrats as a party.

We are going to be weaker as a nation. Our tax rate will go up (wonder if it will be as high as it was in the 1960s when it was 98%). Energy is going to cost more. We may see it unprofitable to use trucks to haul goods. Factories will continue to shut down. And we will see a very smaller military. If we can justify disbanding the military then it is justified that there is no need for private firearms.

I wonder if the grandchildren of the Babyboomers will curse them for the destruction that they have created.

Yes, This ^^^^ But instead as viewing it as 50% rebuke, they will see it as overwhelming support.

So that means that is ok to do goddess worship to include sacrificing infants to the goddess? Or using abortion as a sacriment?

What about all of those religious things banned like murder, rape, theft, lying? Should those laws be gotten rid of as well due to their religious nature?

And This ^^^^

That "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one routine," is so antiquated, now that science has defined that life begins at conception, someone in this country needs to defend the right to life of the most vulnerable among us. Each time a woman has an abortion, so does her baby – and it seems quite unlikely that the baby would choose abortion.

Would you ever say, “If you don’t like child abuse, don’t abuse your child, but if someone else wants to do it, let them?”

That's fine. Can we have some moderation? Aborting a baby that has already been partially born and is completely viable is not abortion in my book. You can call that a moral judgement if you choose. Although I personally do not like abortion I understand that I should not force that opinion on others. So couldn't we meet in the middle somewhere? Does it have to be all abortions all the time?

I personally am against incest, but I don't see why I should force everyone else to be against it as well.

 

[MbMinx]

Never mind. I forget where I am posting. I should expect this. Of COURSE the developing cluster of cells should have more right to existence than I do.

I still believe the country needs more moderates to balance out the extremists.

 

[indytechnerd]

The American people have spoken....

and we sound like this:

 

[Jakob]

get ready to give up the second amendment!

 

[ATM]

...Of COURSE the developing cluster of cells should have more right to existence than I do.

If you don't want a developing cluster of cells to exist, don't fertilize them.

Not that that has much to do with the topic of this thread, but I suppose it goes along with what the American people have spoken: politicians should regulate nearly every aspect of our lives via the same coin toss process by which they rule us.

 

[Mark 1911]

I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion privately as they see fit. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their religious beliefs onto anyone else.
There's no need for suppression or execution. Go to church if you want. Worship at home. Commune in the park. That's fine. But don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs. Contraception against your belief? Don't use it. But don't try to keep it from me. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry a gay man? Then don't. Personal choice. Not religiously based laws.

That sort of thinking is as one-sided as its own false perception of religion is, in that it allows freedom to one side only - your side! That is not what America is about. You imply that its OK for religious people to be religious only in private, while also implying that only non-religious people should create laws or have public influence. That is not what America is about. Religious people have the same right, and the same duty, to influence culture and society as anyone else. That is what America is about. Freedom!!

You say "don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs". I say the the same thing, that I should not be forced to finance your lifestyle and your beliefs. You say "Worship at home. Commune in the park." I say that thinking barely hides an extremely intolerant attitude. I don't expect you to hang your beliefs at the door of the courthouse or town hall, don't expect me to it either. I will not be denied my own freedom of religion even if it means nothing to you. You will have to kill me first, and I suppose that day is not far off. I will worship in public, and I will publicly influence society to the greatest extent that I can whether you like it or not. If someone who condones abortion should have the right to legislate in favor of abortion, then those who do not condone it have the right to legislate against it.

We are at an ideological impasse in this country, it is a fight about truth, about what is right and what is wrong, and the fight will not end just because one side wants the other side to shut up and disappear. It is a battle that we can not avoid, we have opened the doors to it decades ago, and it has been escalating ever since. This is the same battle of ideologies that has cost millions and millions of lives already in history, in other countries like Russia, and China, and Cambodia, and Germany. We are already claiming the right to murder our own children at will. It is a monster let out of the cage, and it won't be long until our own family members are fired, arrested, and executed, simply because they would not agree to keep their religion a secret as you say they should. Maybe we will see the massacre in our own lifetime? Maybe not. But it will happen here. After all, we have already killed off millions and millions of our own children for no reason other than being conceived. Not because they were a danger to the life of their mother, not because they were a child of rape, but simply millions and millions of "inconveniences".

You say I should not raise my voice against it? You say I must keep my beliefs private? Then I say I obviously have a lot of work to do publicly while I still can.

 

[s&wluvr]

I'd love to see a re-birth of the centrists and the moderates. Extremism in most any form is ugly to me. I believe in personal responsibility AND government responsibility. I don't support communism and I don't believe that a "truly free market" will solve all our problems. I believe I have the right to bear arms AND make decisions about my own body. I believe in separation of church and state and that I do not have the right to force anyone else to live by my religious beliefs. I think that both parties in the two-party system are partially right and partially wrong, and that third (or more)-parties could help bridge the gaps between.

I wish that everyone in Washington (and the state-house) could put party-line ideology aside long enough to say "hey, that's not a bad idea! What do you think about this?"

I could not have stated this better. +1 to you.

 

[Tsigos]

Obviously, Mitt Romney was too moderate and the GOP must move further to the extreme right and exclude more people from their party.

 

[s&wluvr]

Now that I have had a chance to read the rest of the posts past MbMinx's original post, I think that many have misconstrued his meaning here. I understood it to be a restoration of moderate thinking and compromise. There seems to be very little of that from our politicians today. I feel that most politicians today are there for their own edification, the money and the power. Just MHO.

 

[GBuck]

That sort of thinking is as one-sided as its own false perception of religion is, in that it allows freedom to one side only - your side! That is not what America is about. You imply that its OK for religious people to be religious only in private, while also implying that only non-religious people should create laws or have public influence. That is not what America is about. Religious people have the same right, and the same duty, to influence culture and society as anyone else. That is what America is about. Freedom!!

You say "don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs". I say the the same thing, that I should not be forced to finance your lifestyle and your beliefs. You say "Worship at home. Commune in the park." I say that thinking barely hides an extremely intolerant attitude. I don't expect you to hang your beliefs at the door of the courthouse or town hall, don't expect me to it either. I will not be denied my own freedom of religion even if it means nothing to you. You will have to kill me first, and I suppose that day is not far off. I will worship in public, and I will publicly influence society to the greatest extent that I can whether you like it or not. If someone who condones abortion should have the right to legislate in favor of abortion, then those who do not condone it have the right to legislate against it.

We are at an ideological impasse in this country, it is a fight about truth, about what is right and what is wrong, and the fight will not end just because one side wants the other side to shut up and disappear. It is a battle that we can not avoid, we have opened the doors to it decades ago, and it has been escalating ever since. This is the same battle of ideologies that has cost millions and millions of lives already in history, in other countries like Russia, and China, and Cambodia, and Germany. We are already claiming the right to murder our own children at will. It is a monster let out of the cage, and it won't be long until our own family members are fired, arrested, and executed, simply because they would not agree to keep their religion a secret as you say they should. Maybe we will see the massacre in our own lifetime? Maybe not. But it will happen here. After all, we have already killed off millions and millions of our own children for no reason other than being conceived. Not because they were a danger to the life of their mother, not because they were a child of rape, but simply millions and millions of "inconveniences".

You say I should not raise my voice against it? You say I must keep my beliefs private? Then I say I obviously have a lot of work to do publicly while I still can.

Ahem, Where the heck did he say keep your religion private? Pretty sure by "commune in the park" he was saying he didn't care if you did it in open public. Perhaps a re-reading of his post is in order?

He DID say he doesn't care what religion others follow, as long as they're not forcing him to follow theirs. That seems completely reasonable in a free country.

 

[GBuck]

That "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one routine," is so antiquated, now that science has defined that life begins at conception,

 

[Titanium_Frost]

In moderation, the decision is primarily left up to the woman, her doctor and her spiritual advisor. That said, I don't agree with aborting viable (capable of life outside the womb) fetuses in most cases. I don't disagree with some restrictions. But I find myself swinging further and further to the fringe in reaction to the other fringe, which tells me that I should never have the option to abort for any reason at all.

Maybe that's why I don't like extremism. It pushes me toward extremism as a reaction and that's not really true to my real beliefs.

I don't know if I have ever seen so many "I's" and "Me's" in a series of posts before. One way to tun this country around is to not be so concerned about "me" but "us."

Back on topic: I see that the party who promises the most- regardless of delivery- wins. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that more and more empty campaign promises will be made with the goal of delivering enough of someone else's money to the majority of people. Since there are fewer upper class people than lower class people we will steal from the rich and give to the poor just like we were taught in school.

The middle class will just have to suffer with fewer jobs available since corporations that employ middle class blue collar workers are rich and probably pollute and therefore evil and must be punished. More government regulations on the environment regardless of actual data will be enforced and more and more companies will move over seas or drasitcally reduce their workforce or wages to compete.

With fewer workers with even less disposable income we will revert back to pre-industrial revolution economic standards until we collapse from dept we are unable to pay back.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

get ready to give up the second amendment!

Not going to happen in our lifetimes. It takes too long to erode a freedom that there are still many of us willing to die for.

 

[GBuck]

It cracks me up how many people are "willing to die" for THEIR freedom, meaning the one that is important to them, but not willing to fight for the rights of their countrymen just because it doesn't apply to them. (T_F, this is not directed at you. Your post just popped it into my head)

 

[mrjarrell]

Obviously, Mitt Romney was too moderate and the GOP must move further to the extreme right and exclude more people from their party.

Sadly, there are all too many people who think that. Despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mustang380gal]

I believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion privately as they see fit. I do not believe that anyone has the right to force their religious beliefs onto anyone else.
There's no need for suppression or execution. Go to church if you want. Worship at home. Commune in the park. That's fine. But don't create laws that make ME follow YOUR beliefs. Contraception against your belief? Don't use it. But don't try to keep it from me. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry a gay man? Then don't. Personal choice. Not religiously based laws.

But why should I take the fruit of my labor to pay for someone else's "thing" when I believe it to be wrong?

If you want it, pay for it yourself.

In some cases, this is exactly what is being required of us. We should have the right to the reward of our own labor.

 

[Tsigos]

I don't know if I have ever seen so many "I's" and "Me's" in a series of posts before. One way to tun this country around is to not be so concerned about "me" but "us."

Back on topic: I see that the party who promises the most- regardless of delivery- wins. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that more and more empty campaign promises will be made with the goal of delivering enough of someone else's money to the majority of people. Since there are fewer upper class people than lower class people we will steal from the rich and give to the poor just like we were taught in school.

The middle class will just have to suffer with fewer jobs available since corporations that employ middle class blue collar workers are rich and probably pollute and therefore evil and must be punished. More government regulations on the environment regardless of actual data will be enforced and more and more companies will move over seas or drasitcally reduce their workforce or wages to compete.

With fewer workers with even less disposable income we will revert back to pre-industrial revolution economic standards until we collapse from dept we are unable to pay back.

I think there is a middle-ground to be reached on regulations, taxes etc. the problem is that the Southern elite that currently run the GOP have convinced their supporters that everything is all or nothing, apocalypse or paradise, my way or the highway, black or white, etc. The strategy of the south (attract businesses away from the northern states by creating a class of people with little choice but to accept low wage jobs and cut regulations for businesses) will not work on a national scale as they believe. In fact, it is hard to say that it was successful even for the South.

In a global economy, America should not participate in the race to the bottom. We should set our own standards and expectations. We can do this so long as we are a force in the market. If you want access to our market, you play by our rules and we will not accept anything less. Yes, regulation can go too far and be counterproductive but the blind calls for deregulation over-simplifies the issue. We should not be modeling our economy on those of the free-market economies of the third-world.

The power in our economy has always been the fact that we have a large middle class. We need to do things that grow the middle class and not things that weaken it. If we adopt the unregulated free-market economies of the third-world, I can only expect we will soon find ourselves a third-world nation.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It cracks me up how many people are "willing to die" for THEIR freedom, meaning the one that is important to them, but not willing to fight for the rights of their countrymen just because it doesn't apply to them. (T_F, this is not directed at you. Your post just popped it into my head)

I know you said it wasn't directed at me, but then what does it mean? If anyone is trying to take away our freedoms- any of them- I will fight.

I think there is a middle-ground to be reached on regulations, taxes etc. the problem is that the Southern elite that currently run the GOP have convinced their supporters that everything is all or nothing, apocalypse or paradise, my way or the highway, black or white, etc. The strategy of the south (attract businesses away from the northern states by creating a class of people with little choice but to accept low wage jobs and cut regulations for businesses) will not work on a national scale as they believe. In fact, it is hard to say that it was successful even for the South.

In a global economy, America should not participate in the race to the bottom. We should set our own standards and expectations. We can do this so long as we are a force in the market. If you want access to our market, you play by our rules and we will not accept anything less. Yes, regulation can go too far and be counterproductive but the blind calls for deregulation over-simplifies the issue. We should not be modeling our economy on those of the free-market economies of the third-world.

The power in our economy has always been the fact that we have a large middle class. We need to do things that grow the middle class and not things that weaken it. If we adopt the unregulated free-market economies of the third-world, I can only expect we will soon find ourselves a third-world nation.

This is incorrect since when we started this country, there was no such thing as a "middle class."

We have prospered because we utilize our significant resources, both natural and manpower. We are a large nation with a low population density per capita and we HAD the "pioneer" spirit of giving up everything and traveling to a land of opportunity to WORK for a better life.

 

[GBuck]

I know you said it wasn't directed at me, but then what does it mean? If anyone is trying to take away our freedoms- any of them- I will fight.

It means that there are many people on here and elsewhere that b**** about freedom, but would do nothing to protect it if it didn't serve their purposes. Again, I wasn't saying you. Your comment just made me think about it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It means that there are many people on here and elsewhere that b**** about freedom, but would do nothing to protect it if it didn't serve their purposes. Again, I wasn't saying you. Your comment just made me think about it.

Gotcha. I wasn't taking it personally I just didn't know what my post had to do with it. Now I understand AND agree. Scary.