Teleprompter goof causes Obama to thank himself for White House party

[Andy]

Yes, of course you call them wrong. You call them wrong, and do what?

Chelle came up with a plan to discourage abortion. There may be some problems with it, to be sure, but at least she's thinking in the right direction.

Andy says abortion is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I can respect that, of course, as it is consistent. If that's the philosophy, then harsh punishments have to be exacted for abortionists and their patients. That, of course, still wouldn't stop abortion.

But, whether it is right or wrong, whether or not the government has a right to decide when it's OK, what should be done to discourage it? Surely, no one is going to argue that making it illegal, or putting restrictions on it (allowing the government to decide, in other words) is going to put an end to abortion.

So, how best to discourage abortion?

Putting restrictions and harsh punishment, hasn't ended rape either. That doesn't mean we don't make it illegal, or continue to use harsh punishments.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Yes, of course you call them wrong. You call them wrong, and do what?

Chelle came up with a plan to discourage abortion. There may be some problems with it, to be sure, but at least she's thinking in the right direction.

Andy says abortion is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I can respect that, of course, as it is consistent. If that's the philosophy, then harsh punishments have to be exacted for abortionists and their patients. That, of course, still wouldn't stop abortion.

But, whether it is right or wrong, whether or not the government has a right to decide when it's OK, what should be done to discourage it? Surely, no one is going to argue that making it illegal, or putting restrictions on it (allowing the government to decide, in other words) is going to put an end to abortion.

So, how best to discourage abortion?

I love how you say let government decide. That shows how far you are from where this country came from. The government shouldn't be deciding anything, rather the government should be 100% reflective of what it's constituency is wanting. As far as abortion it should be put on a ballot, and the people of each state should vote. The final decision should be up held in each state. I agree with Andy, rape hasn't been completely stopped, murder hasn't been completely stopped, but they are still wrong, they are still illegal!

 

[PLC1]

I love how you say let government decide. That shows how far you are from where this country came from. The government shouldn't be deciding anything, rather the government should be 100% reflective of what it's constituency is wanting. As far as abortion it should be put on a ballot, and the people of each state should vote. The final decision should be up held in each state. I agree with Andy, rape hasn't been completely stopped, murder hasn't been completely stopped, but they are still wrong, they are still illegal!

You would have the issue of abortion decided by a referendum, then? What other issues would you have decided by referendum? Shall we have one on legalization of marijuana? How about on continuing the bailouts? I'm not so sure that a pure democracy like that would work very well, but maybe it would. Just how far do you think we should go in that direction?

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

You would have the issue of abortion decided by a referendum, then? What other issues would you have decided by referendum? Shall we have one on legalization of marijuana? How about on continuing the bailouts? I'm not so sure that a pure democracy like that would work very well, but maybe it would. Just how far do you think we should go in that direction?

My point is this, If government officials aren't going to reflect what the majority of their constituency want, then let the people vote on it. Because they have no representation reflecting their desires. I will tell you how far we should go.....We should go back to the way this country was founded, to the way the founding fathers set it up. Then there would be no reason for this conversation. You realize that if the majority of the leadership would have listened to their constituency, their would be no omnibus, or stimulus bill.

 

[PLC1]

My point is this, If government officials aren't going to reflect what the majority of their constituency want, then let the people vote on it. Because they have no representation reflecting their desires. I will tell you how far we should go.....We should go back to the way this country was founded, to the way the founding fathers set it up. Then there would be no reason for this conversation. You realize that if the majority of the leadership would have listened to their constituency, their would be no omnibus, or stimulus bill.

I think you're right about the stimulus bill. How about abortion? How many people really favor outlawing abortion completely, as Andy suggests? How many favor outlawing it except in the case of rape or incest, or perhaps to protect the health of the mother? How many would leave the decision up to the mother and her doctor?

Here is a gallup poll on the subject. A referendum on abortion might have some interesting consequences, but I doubt it would come out in favor of outlawing abortion.

 

[Andy]

I think you're right about the stimulus bill. How about abortion? How many people really favor outlawing abortion completely, as Andy suggests? How many favor outlawing it except in the case of rape or incest, or perhaps to protect the health of the mother? How many would leave the decision up to the mother and her doctor?

Here is a gallup poll on the subject. A referendum on abortion might have some interesting consequences, but I doubt it would come out in favor of outlawing abortion.

The difference is, most can disagree on policies without being a violation of morals or of right and wrong. For example, I am completely against the stimulus bill, but we can disagree without it being a violation of moral law, or of life, or the breaking of civil law.

That's not so with abortion. Can you prove that it's not a human being that you are killing? Want to split the cost of a DNA test to see if it's human? Want to argue over it being alive? Or that we're killing it? Of course not, all of those are nuts to argue over. So obviously, it is murder.

Is there any time that premeditated murder is not really wrong? Should every murder be put up to a public vote to see if we really disagree or agree with it?

 

[PLC1]

The difference is, most can disagree on policies without being a violation of morals or of right and wrong. For example, I am completely against the stimulus bill, but we can disagree without it being a violation of moral law, or of life, or the breaking of civil law.

That's not so with abortion. Can you prove that it's not a human being that you are killing? Want to split the cost of a DNA test to see if it's human? Want to argue over it being alive? Or that we're killing it? Of course not, all of those are nuts to argue over. So obviously, it is murder.

Is there any time that premeditated murder is not really wrong? Should every murder be put up to a public vote to see if we really disagree or agree with it?

Once again, it is not whether or not you or I consider abortion to be immoral, but whether we are willing to allow the government the power to impose our morality on the rest of the nation.

Imposing one's moral code by force of law is the ultimate of authoritarianism. How would you like to live under a real authoritarian government, say, like Kim Jung Il's big brother regime, or perhaps the Taliban? How about a milder authoritarian regime, say the People's Republic of China?

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Once again, it is not whether or not you or I consider abortion to be immoral, but whether we are willing to allow the government the power to impose our morality on the rest of the nation.

Imposing one's moral code by force of law is the ultimate of authoritarianism. How would you like to live under a real authoritarian government, say, like Kim Jung Il's big brother regime, or perhaps the Taliban? How about a milder authoritarian regime, say the People's Republic of China?

If its the majority of the country then it's not one's moral code. It would be the majority's moral code.

 

[GenSeneca]

Once again, it is not whether or not you or I consider abortion to be immoral, but whether we are willing to allow the government the power to impose our morality on the rest of the nation.

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the Radical Left and get people to bend to our will through the use of taxation, regulation and subsidies. For example... They decided I should not have the CHOICE to smoke and they taxed the product outside of my ability to RESPONSIBLY continue smoking. They want our gas to cost at least $4 a gallon, so everyone will be forced to buy crappy cars that can't tow a boat or take me anywhere worth camping.

Lets not "ban" things we disagree with, lets just do as the "Progressive" Left does and levy huge taxes on behavior we disagree with... $1000 tax on every abortion and change the regulation so that government no longer subsidizes the procedure. Then... $5 tax on each condom and an equivilent tax on every other form of birth control. We will use that money to subsidize abstinance only education and private schools.

There are no more Liberals on the Left... Liberals are open minded, tolerant and have a live and let live attitude. The Left has been hijacked by Radicals who call themselves "Progressives"... they are cruel, narrow minded, completely intolerant and have a live as we tell you to live attitude. To further clarify, "Progressives" are the equivilent of V.I.K.I, the heartless super computer, from the movie I-Robot, the one who felt the only way to protect those it was entrusted with protecting was to eliminate their freedoms.

There is a reason the "Progressives" don't talk about the importance of the Constitution, the wisdom of the founding fathers, the concept of individual liberty being at the center of everything that has made this nation what it is today... they don't support those things because those things go directly against what the "Progressives" are trying to accomplish - Complete control.

 

[Andy]

Once again, it is not whether or not you or I consider abortion to be immoral, but whether we are willing to allow the government the power to impose our morality on the rest of the nation.

Murder is immoral. Should we not allow government to impose that on the public either?

Imposing one's moral code by force of law is the ultimate of authoritarianism. How would you like to live under a real authoritarian government, say, like Kim Jung Il's big brother regime, or perhaps the Taliban? How about a milder authoritarian regime, say the People's Republic of China?

But everyone lives under one moral code or another. The only way to not have that problem, would be to either live on an isolated desert island, or to have complete anarchy. Human rights, are in fact nothing more than someones arbitrary moral code. What right do we have to say muslims stoning their women is wrong? Unless we believe in a moral code they do not. Yes or no?

 

[Dr.Who]

Once again, it is not whether or not you or I consider abortion to be immoral, but whether we are willing to allow the government the power to impose our morality on the rest of the nation.

Imposing one's moral code by force of law is the ultimate of authoritarianism. How would you like to live under a real authoritarian government, say, like Kim Jung Il's big brother regime, or perhaps the Taliban? How about a milder authoritarian regime, say the People's Republic of China?

I agree. Which is why when congress imposes its will on the people they better have a constitutionally valid reason for doing so. Now if they had some reason to believe that a fetus were alive then it would have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

On the other hand moving money from one citizen to another because it is charitable is not justified in the constitution. Limiting pay for people who make lots of money is also unconstitutional. As would be taxing some people at a high rate and taxing other people at a low rate.

But the abuses of authoritarianism have become so common that today people don't even realize that they have lost rights.

 

[PLC1]

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the Radical Left and get people to bend to our will through the use of taxation, regulation and subsidies. For example... They decided I should not have the CHOICE to smoke and they taxed the product outside of my ability to RESPONSIBLY continue smoking. They want our gas to cost at least $4 a gallon, so everyone will be forced to buy crappy cars that can't tow a boat or take me anywhere worth camping.

Lets not "ban" things we disagree with, lets just do as the "Progressive" Left does and levy huge taxes on behavior we disagree with... $1000 tax on every abortion and change the regulation so that government no longer subsidizes the procedure. Then... $5 tax on each condom and an equivilent tax on every other form of birth control. We will use that money to subsidize abstinance only education and private schools.

So, impose a huge tax on abortion. Hmm.. that might discourage it, all right. Taxing condoms might just have the opposite effect, though, of creating more unwanted pregnancies.

The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy.

There are no more Liberals on the Left... Liberals are open minded, tolerant and have a live and let live attitude. The Left has been hijacked by Radicals who call themselves "Progressives"... they are cruel, narrow minded, completely intolerant and have a live as we tell you to live attitude. To further clarify, "Progressives" are the equivilent of V.I.K.I, the heartless super computer, from the movie I-Robot, the one who felt the only way to protect those it was entrusted with protecting was to eliminate their freedoms.

OK, meanwhile, the Right, if there is such a thing, seems to have been hijacked by big government statists who are different from the Lefitsts you describe, how again?

There is a reason the "Progressives" don't talk about the importance of the Constitution, the wisdom of the founding fathers, the concept of individual liberty being at the center of everything that has made this nation what it is today... they don't support those things because those things go directly against what the "Progressives" are trying to accomplish - Complete control.

So, the only party left that is in favor of individual liberty is the Libertarian Party? Sounds about right.

I don't see a left vs right fight. What we have is a limited government to powerful government continuum, with most pols way on the strong government side. There is a second continuum of libertarian to authoritarian, with most of those in power from both "sides of the aisle" being strongly authoritarian. There is a third continuum, pragmatic to ideological, where the one wants to do what works, the other what fits best with their view of the world.

We have not had a truly conservative (small government) libertarian leaning, and pragmatic government in a very long time. A lot of what is being propounded as "conservative" is really authoritarian, as are the "progressives" you describe.

 

[GenSeneca]

The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy.

My point was just that... those who use taxation to manipulate behavior are destroyers, doesn't matter which party. The 150% increase on tobacco taxes is just the latest example of the "Live as we tell you to live" Progressive mindset in Washington (which exists with Republicans and Democrats). Where's the outrage? There is none... People like yourself are trying to lecture me about hypocrisy when you already know full well I never approved of the Republicans doing any such thing when they tried it... Perhaps they'll target a minority that you're a part of next, then maybe you'll start to wake up.

You already know I agree the Republicans have been hijacked... Conservatives recognize that and have been pushing back to retake the party. I would think its in your best interest, as a Libertarian, to help Conservatives in their effort. Perhaps you're holding out for the pipe dream that Libertarians will ever be a viable third party... truth is, the only people who believe in Libertarian tenets are Conservatives and by the two groups being split between parties, the Republicans will continue to SUCK and the Libertarians will remain irrelevent. Unite or watch our nation die.

At least Libertarians and Conservatives have shared principles... Democrats have no principles, no values, no morals and no ethics, the only thing they can agree on is the hatred they have for those who oppose them. You'll never hear a Democrat voter say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't force our crap down their throats because we don't like it when they try to do that to us.." Instead, they cheer each other on to see who can cram more down the throats of those they oppose. Watch them as they swell with pride over the sheer brutality of their gangs ability to trample the constitutional rights of others.

Why is that? Why are there no Liberals on the Left and if there are some still there, why are they silently going along with the Progressives in their all out war on individual liberty?

 

[Pidgey]

Might be a different answer to that, ya' know... might just be that the (government) is just desperately looking for money. Tax receipts and revenues ARE going to be less this year by as much as 15 to 25% (won't know for sure until the elfinly-challenged diva sings) and The Treasury is having an increasingly difficult time when due-dates are shopping for renewals, which is why The Fed has recently committed to buying Treasuries. IF the "gummint" starts reducing payouts to entitled beneficiaries (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), then next voting season would be catastrophic to seasoned politicians...

 

[Dr.Who]

The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy.

It is indeed a dangerous power. Best to be very careful about who holds that power. Agreed?

OK, meanwhile, the Right, if there is such a thing, seems to have been hijacked by big government statists who are different from the Lefitsts you describe, how again?

I agree with you there.

Do you agree that statists by whatever name are to be feared?

I don't see a left vs right fight. What we have is a limited government to powerful government continuum, with most pols way on the strong government side. There is a second continuum of libertarian to authoritarian, with most of those in power from both "sides of the aisle" being strongly authoritarian. There is a third continuum, pragmatic to ideological, where the one wants to do what works, the other what fits best with their view of the world.

So all of our politicians are statists, authoritarian, pragmatic. Sounds about right to me.

In other words, a big government that will do whatever works to make decisions for you. I can think of little else that should be feared more.