The Conservative and Republican Thread

College Confidential Community
121

<p>Did Olivia graduate last year, because if so, then yes I know her.</p>

<p>I am actually opposite to all of your views...i am vehemently pro choice. I believe (probably because I am an atheist..I did try religion, had a bar mitzvah and the realized it wasn't right for me) that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body at all times. I believe that 3rd trimester abortions are a lot more heinous and that is where I am not clear on my position. If the mother has a good reason at that point, I think it is alright, but otherwise the life has already began cognizant thought and is therefore a life. I also believe that life starts when the brain can think and not at conception. Once again, lets discuss.</p>

122

<p>no no, she's in our grade..i think she went to oakwood for jr high... and then she went to canada, and then she came to my school sophomore year. </p>

<p>abortion is an issue i'm extremely passionate about, i will write my thoughts down later ...for the moment ih ave to do some art history homework.</p>

123

<p>I totally agree with tlaktan--unless the woman was unwillingly raped (which was not her fault!) and/or having the baby would threaten her life, I would agree an abortion would not be suitable. People talk about pro-choice for women. Pro-choice about what? Killing your child?!?!! I mean, this is a child's life you're talking about!!! How can you make such a decision?!!?! Like teenage moms who get abortions because: they can't afford to raise it (put it up for adoption!!), their futures will be destroyed (what the hell were you doing messing around and being stupid in the first place?!?!!), they will have to face total humiliation at school (OMG, are you serious!?! you're willing to do something stupid but not be brave enough to face your consequences?? you have got to be kidding me!!) and maybe some more. I mean, it's not like putting a baby up for adoption is an easy idea--oh no!! but it's a life. what gives you the authority to determine a soul's life?!?!!! life!!!!</p>

124

<p>This is what happens when you have a moron as president (like most americans) -</p>

<p>Welcome to Nazi America!
Almost Half of Americans Favor Restrictions on Muslims' Rights</p>

<p>The Associated Press</p>

<p>12/17/04 (AP) -- - Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans, according to a nationwide poll.</p>

<p>The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims’ civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.</p>

<p>'Disturbing news'
Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim-Americans.</p>

<p>“It’s sad news. It’s disturbing news. But it’s not unpredictable,” said Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society. “The nation is at war, even if it’s not a traditional war. We just have to remain vigilant and continue to interface.”</p>

<p>The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. Forty-eight percent said liberties should not be restricted in any way.</p>

<p>The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim-Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.</p>

<p>Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points.</p>

<p>37 percent believe terrorist attack likely
James Shanahan, an associate professor of communications who helped organize the survey, said the results indicate “the need for continued dialogue about issues of civil liberties” in a time of war.</p>

<p>While researchers said they were not surprised by the overall level of support for curtailing civil liberties, they were startled by the correlation with religion and exposure to television news.</p>

<p>“We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding,” Shanahan said.</p>

<p>According to the survey, 37 percent believe a terrorist attack in the United States is still likely within the next 12 months. In a similar poll conducted by Cornell in November 2002, that number stood at 90 percent.</p>

125

<p>Abortion rights are fundamental. Hey, I'm a little confused, isnt it conservative sthat dont like big government? So then why do they put al these regulations on abortion and other social issues like the abstinence program. Hmm, A little hypocritical arent we????????????/</p>

126

<p>not even to mention the millions of dollars BU$hy is putting on abstinence-only programs! LMFAO! </p>

<p>That's like saying to learn how to drive without a seatbelt.</p>

<p>STUPID RELIGIOUS ****ERS</p>

127

<p>I actually have to agree with sempitern. Again, not meant to inflame, I just agree with his position.</p>

<p>Also, the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is when the life of a baby becomes "a life." I think many would believe it happens at conception and others, such as myself, believe it happens after two trimesters when the baby can make cognizant thought. This issue isn't actually solvable due to people's radical diversity and opinions on the subject. The law can't actually specify when a life actually becomes a life and even if it did, people would still violate the law. </p>

<p>Still, it is an interesting topic to debate.</p>

128

<p>Once again, there are fundamental issues that some of us don't wholly agree with the President on.</p>

<p>As for the government regulation thing and the whole conservatism thing.. Yes, according to classical conservative doctrine, we do not like to advocate big-government. However, as much as I would like to adhere to classical conservatism, I am not a classical conservative. Here's a brief description:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the U.S. context, the classical conservative position has been for there to be strict limits on the expansion of the powers of the federal government at the expense of those of the states. U.S. conservatism is rooted in the idea that the federal government has traditionally been the proponent of rapid change and states have tended to be more conservative, and also and perhaps even more importantly in the idea of "originalism", that is, that the United States Constitution should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of the original intent and meaning of the Framers, which is both inherently conservative in that it looks back to a period over two centuries ago for its authority and that this school of interpretation almost invariably leads to the maximization of state power and strict limits on federal power. This derives from an inherent scepticism of the Framers toward a centralized, unitary state such as the United Kingdom which they had just fought to remove themselves from under.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's from Wikipedia.</p>

<p>There are several variants of conservatism. Of which, I am a social and economic conservative, but not a classical one. (As much as I would like to claim to be one, I'm.. not)</p>

<p>Although at times, we would like to adhere to the standards of CC (classical conservatism), there are times when our social conservative beliefs drive us to break from the standards of CC and move for a change -- to exercise the power of government in order to ensure that our right to social conservatism is .. hrmm.. "fulfilled" -- not the right word I'm looking for, but it's 12:14am. I'm writing an AP Comp. Gov't paper, gimme a break. :P</p>

<p>Again, the same with economic conservatism. If a liberal economic standpoint is implemented as the mainstream in U.S. government, then we will break free from the chains of classical conservatism in order to ensure that our economic voices are heard (on the matter, I mean).</p>

<p>Obviously, to take action to invoke economically conservative beliefs will require non-classical conservative action... but... as Burke once said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...*t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's quite an odd thing to see that economic conservatism was created from classical liberalism. Quite fascinating, indeed.</p>

<p>Blah. I'll explain more later.</p>

129

<p>I completely agree with you tlaktan. It seems as if the top conservatives of today act like the neo-liberals of the late 80's and early 90's with the free trade policies. It is nice to know that someone on the other side (and my gathering from this thread is that there are more) understand some of the basic issues this country has and are willing to solve them along side democrats. This is a positive thing for our generation.</p>

130

<p>
[quote]
Also, the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is when the life of a baby becomes "a life." I think many would believe it happens at conception and others, such as myself, believe it happens after two trimesters when the baby can make cognizant thought. This issue isn't actually solvable due to people's radical diversity and opinions on the subject. The law can't actually specify when a life actually becomes a life and even if it did, people would still violate the law.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is the deprivation of life that is considered the most horrid to me. I know I have very fervent beliefs, but bear with me.</p>

<p>A healthy fetus does eventually grow up to become a child -- then a person. If a sixteen year old girl consensually has sex and decides to abort when she finds she is pregnant -- she is willingly dumping a healthy fetus, and thus, dumping away the possibility of new life. She is depriving the fetus of its opportunity to grow and become a child -- thus, a person. She is willingly depriving its right to live. From the irresponsible mistake of one, a life should not be deprived of the opportunity to live. You interfere in a domain that is not your own anymore -- once the possibility exists, it is not your choice whether or not that possibility shall be deprived. As common Framer theory states, [hu]mankind cannot be deprived the right to "** life ** (liberty, pursuit of happiness, yaddie yaddie yaddah" </p>

<p>Now, if the child is infected with a vicious disease from the fetal stage, then I can possibly understand. If it is determined that the child will die from birth or a few days after birth, then you are inflicting unnecessary suffering. </p>

<p>(will continue later).. still have to describe beliefs on rights of the mother and rights of victims of forced conception.</p>

131

<p>Interestingly enough..</p>

<p>
[quote]
I completely agree with you tlaktan. It seems as if the top conservatives of today act like the neo-liberals of the late 80's and early 90's with the free trade policies. It is nice to know that someone on the other side (and my gathering from this thread is that there are more) understand some of the basic issues this country has and are willing to solve them along side democrats. This is a positive thing for our generation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Free market theory was supported by both classical liberals and classical conservatives. Practically, laissez-faire economics ideologically are an extent of the classical "smaller government with accountability" theory, but both classical liberals and classical conservatives vouch for the validity of the free market theory.</p>

<p>The classical liberals are suspicious of authority, and prefers the right of individual choice (I'm talking about people like Ayn Rand here). Conservatives like the free market theory based on the fact that it's simply efficient -- and expedient, as well. </p>

<p>That does not mean the free market does not need regulation -- it needs to be accountable for what goes on within the market.</p>

132

<p>all ih ave to say is: this liberal feminist speaks some sense!</p>

<p>Abortion and War: Euphemism Kills</p>

<p>As a pacifist in the great tradition of American feminism - from the anti-war suffragists of the World War I era to Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement - I oppose abortion because I know it is wrong to take human life with weapons. If it is wrong to kill with guns, bombs, or poison, with the electric chair or the noose, it is most tragically wrong to kill with the physician's tools.</p>

<p>American culture, as we all know, promotes and glamorizes violence: our entertainment industry produces the most violent films in the world. Our right to own guns is considered sacred, while the homicide rate continues to soar. Capital punishment is on the increase, althought its lack of deterrent value has been proven many times. And blatant militarism has once again become chic. As H. Rap Brown said in 1966, "Violence is as American as cherry pie," and it always has been. It is little wonder that the violence of abortion is so easily acceptable to many.</p>

<p>The analogy between abortion and war is all too real. In each case, the violent society takes refuge in euphemism to legitimize its evil, to pretend that either the killing isn't killing or the people aren't people. The 1991 Persian Gulf war, so quickly forgotten, didn't have body counts or even "casualties"; it had "collateral damage." The people on the receiving end of our "smart bombs" were not killed; they were "taken out," as we "softened their positions" by means of "surgical strikes." Likewise, we pretend that abortion does not kill babies. It "removes pregnancy tissue" or "corrects contraceptive failure." And if even the word "abortion" is too candid, we have the "D & C" or "the procedure." In a saline abortion, the woman does not give birth to a dead infant, she "passes the fetus."</p>

<p>It does not matter whether we dehumanize the enemy by killing hundreds of unseen civilians with remote-control bombers, or by aborting a parade of nameless infants on a clinic assembly line. Whatever we may pretend in order to hide from the slaughter, the killing is killing and the people are people. Against all the apologies for death, we must stand in undeceived resistance. Euphemism kills.</p>

<p>Sadly, once we have accepted an ideology that legitimizes violence, whether it is the rhetoric of "victory" or of "choice," our hearts are hardened and we begin to not see the realities that lurk behind those noble-sounding names. At the same time, we become all too ready to glorify the technology that seems to promise a quick fix for difficult human problems. We should know by now that war never settles political or ethnic or economic conflicts; it leaves only an ever- increasing legacy of bitterness and destruction. Abortion, too, only seems to "solve a problem." Its legacy also is oppression and trauma -- not only for the aborted infants, but also for women. It is tragic to see how this act, which is actually a symptom of social conflict, has been successfully sold to the public as a solution for it.</p>

<p>The feminist pro-life position recognizes that abortion is a matter not only of individual, but also of social choice. As Faye Kunce of the Seamless Garment Network has said, we are called upon not so much to make abortion illegal as to "create a world where abortion is unthinkable." To achieve this goal, we must look beyond individuals and their rights toward the creation of a new community, in which all of us collectively take responsibility for the weakest among us -- the profoundly disabled and chronically ill, the abandoned elderly, the mentally handicapped, and children of all races, as well as the unborn. According to pediatrician Consuelo Sague, while abortion is now protected as a constitutional right, "no one in this country can even claim a constitutional right to prenatal care - or even a roof over an infant's head."</p>

<p>What does this horrid truth reveal about our national priorities? Surely pro-life and pro-choice advocates should be able to unite in demanding a public policy that promotes better health care, prenatal counseling, primary education, and day care alternatives for children and parents of every social class. Until we turn from our ethic of violence and pay more than lip service to these humane goals, the scourge of abortion will continue whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or not.</p>

<p>Barbara Newman
Reprinted from The American Feminist, Summer 1994</p>

133

<p>soem other really cool feminists from history</p>

<p>"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library</p>

<p>The first female presidential candidate (Victoria Woodhull) was a strong opponent of abortion:</p>

<pre><code>"The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus."
Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870

"Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth."
Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875
</code></pre>

<p>"Women becoming, consequently, weaker...than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."~ Mary Wollstonecraft</p>

134

<p>Alice Paul
The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) opposed the later trend of linking the E.R.A. with abortion. A colleague recalls her saying:</p>

<pre><code>"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."
</code></pre>

<p>Perhaps there will come a time when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with."~ Sarah Norton</p>

135

<p><a href="http://www.feministsforlife.com/who/aboutus.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.feministsforlife.com/who/aboutus.htm&lt;/a> </p>

<p>gotta love some of these feminists! especially the founding-mothers. </p>

<p>i can't wait to read this book i got for Christmas called "Who stole feminism?"</p>

136

<p><a href="http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The truth about Margaret Sanger ^^</p>

<p>And here's the Planned Parenthood site, with the BS about Margaret Sanger:
<a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I luv how instead of being honest about her racism and support for Eugenics and Nazism, they make her out to be some sort of saint! </p>

<p>i am psycho passionate about this issue, im' really sorry...but the one thing that bothers me is when people associate abortion with protecting women...when really it's just proof that society's failed women to an extent.</p>

137

<p>Personally, i must say that i am of the same opinion of tlak and paris that abortion should be illegal except for special cases.</p>

<p>A few thoughts on the issue that i have come up with. When people argue for
abortion, they quite frequently throw out the issue of rape victims and the possiblity of harm to the mother. However when a law is put into place, it is based on the norm, not the extremes.</p>

<p>Also, it seems that the issue of abortion often revolves around when the baby is a human being and when it is just a fetus. This goes from conception all the way to right before the baby leaves the woman, and if i recall correctly, some even don't hold it until the 1st year of life. A major focus is what is the critical point in the process which could seem to indicate life. If this could be decided on, the debate would be a lot easier for both sides.</p>

<p>Personally i hold conception to be that point. At no other point in the process does there occur such a large jump in the progression. Before this point, it is just DNA swimming around. But at the point of combination, there is the possiblity that it will develop into a more humanesqe form from then on. Sure, it may not implant or might even die off later on, but there is still the possiblity that it could happen which i believe should not be artificial stopped under normal circumstances. </p>

<p>Sure, i understand why it would make sense upon reception of a positive mental signature based on the definition of death because a dead brain has no capacity to revive itself. However, an embryo does have the inherent capacity to produce brain waves. In other words, the embryo seems to be like a patient whose EEG has temporarily flat-lined.</p>

138

<p>Let's go Republicans!</p>

139

<p>Hey people I'm back...bigjake587...i cant believe some stupid administrator banned me for defending myself...if you're the person who banned me and you see this message i'd like a word...talk about free speech...</p>

<p>Anyway...yeah...i agree with the republicans...when you have an abortion, you're killing a member of the future generation. Not only are you killing something that will grow into a child, you're depriving society of valuable resources (who knows what that child could have accomplished?) I don't see why the right to kill your children is so important....of all things, THIS right represents freedom? It seems like liberals are just trying to prove a point without caring about the consequences. Once again, conservatives feel that people are responsible for themselves. If you're an idiot and you go have sex without protection or without using your brain and you get pregnant, its your fault. My tax dollars are not supposed to cover for your stupidity. If you don't want the baby, put him in a shelter. I hate people who tell me, "Oh well is it better for a baby to grow up in a shelter without family?" Better than being dead? YES. Every person deserves a chance at least. </p>

<p>Furthermore, everyone is suddenly so hyped up about a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. Then why is prostitution not legal? Why is suicide not legal? Before you dismiss me as being stupid like liberals like to do, think about it. Aren't my rights to do with my body as i wish being violated here? </p>

<p>That's all i got to say on this subject. I'm not a staunch pro-life activist. I really don't care if it goes either way as long as foreign policy goes the way i want it to. But to whoever said that once a law is created (Roe v. Wade), it shouldn't be overruled...that pretty much goes against what our country was built on. Law and society evolves, so laws can be overturned. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and women still wouldn't be able to vote. I know those are childish arguments, but its the best way to prove the point here.</p>

140

<p>I don't care too much about the issue, not enough to type a few paragraphs at any rate. But for what it's worth I'll agree with jaug and sempitern.</p>