Progressivism

Originally posted by sh76
That is not entirely accurate.

The Hyde Amendment limited which abortions can be funded with federal dollars. It did not eliminate all federal funding of all abortions.

States also have some discretion to cover some abortions not required under federal law.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/index.html

Fine, let's have a political fight about funding for victims of rape, incest or cases where the women's life is in danger.

Yes, states can provide funding for abortion if they choose to. Whatever happened to right wing support for "states' rights".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Fine, let's have a political fight about funding for victims of rape, incest or cases where the women's life is in danger.

Yes, states can provide funding for abortion if they choose to. Whatever happened to right wing support for "states' rights".

Indeed. You are very careful to say the federal government instead of the state financing abortion, however, either way it is tax payer money so whats the difference? It is still a political issue. How disingenuous of you. But then again, I suppose your legal training has led you to behave in such fashion in order to win arguements.

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. You are very careful to say the federal government instead of the state financing abortion, however, either way it is tax payer money so whats the difference? It is still a political issue. How disingenuous of you. But then again, I suppose your legal training has led you to behave in such fashion in order to win arguements.

Pathetic. We both know you anti-choicers want to completely eliminate a women's right to choose an abortion; public funding isn't a serious issue. If every single state eliminated funding for every single abortion, you and your ilk would still be fighting for a complete ban. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise; whether a long term commitment of gays is called "marriage" or not makes no fiscal difference, but right wingers are fighting it tooth and nail.

Tell the truth for a change.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pathetic. We both know you anti-choicers want to completely eliminate a women's right to choose an abortion; public funding isn't a serious issue. If every single state eliminated funding for every single abortion, you and your ilk would still be fighting for a complete ban. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise; whether a long term commitment of gays is ...[text shortened]... ut right wingers are fighting it tooth and nail.

Tell the truth for a change.

there is no compelling state interest to legislate or regulate or prohibit a woman's decision regarding abortion -- it is a medical matter, first, and a private moral matter second.

Further, it is simply no one else's business but the woman, whose body it is, her doctor, her family, and her choice of others on whom she may wish to rely -- such as clergy. But it is up to her, first and foremost. Period. Full stop.

government should keep out of making law on the subject; it should also keep out of the moral aspect altogether. Any government funding should involve medical care only -- and leave the decisions there to physicians and their patients.

in short, butt out and shut up about it already.

but conservatives don't really want to win the issue anyway -- they need it to mobilize the religious fruitcake base. what would they do if that issue goes away?

is there another social wedge issue as historically successful for political organizing?

can't think of one that succeeds as well in obscuring the true core political issues that are economic in nature -- the fight against privilege and in favor of true equality of opportunity.

not equality of conditions, just opportunity.

conservatives don't want that any more than they want the abortion issue to go away.

Originally posted by Scriabin
there is no compelling state interest to legislate or regulate or prohibit a woman's decision regarding abortion -- it is a medical matter, first, and a private moral matter second.

Further, it is simply no one else's business but the woman, whose body it is, her doctor, her family, and her choice of others on whom she may wish to rely -- such as clergy. ...[text shortened]... ty.

conservatives don't want that any more than they want the abortion issue to go away.

I am certainly not one to say someone is immoral for having an abortion. Just don't like the idea of tax money being used for it. Those that consider it wrong shouldn't have to pay. The conservatives like you say, do not want the issue to go away.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
First of all, Glenn Beck is an idiot.

That being said it was "small government" Conservatives like Reagan and W. Bush who grew our government to unprecedented levels.

Catch phrases like "socialism" make for great sound bites but they are at odds with the actual definition of Socialism, which is when the state owns the means of production an ...[text shortened]... n principles. IMO their ideas look great on paper but in the real world they don't work.

"The Libertarian platform truely is one of individualist ideology. But unfortunately for them there is not one, single example of a modern, successful country who has governed by Libertarian principles. IMO their ideas look great on paper but in the real world they don't work."

The problem is that political parties are competing for government power. Republicans advocate less government than Democrats, and libertarians even less than Republicans. The less government you advocated, the less government friendly you are. When people vote for who governs, they generally vote for who promises the most government goodies.

Libertarians are at a significant disadvantage because they just say, "Do it yourself."

Originally posted by normbenign
"The Libertarian platform truely is one of individualist ideology. But unfortunately for them there is not one, single example of a modern, successful country who has governed by Libertarian principles. IMO their ideas look great on paper but in the real world they don't work."

The problem is that political parties are competing for government power. ...[text shortened]...

Libertarians are at a significant disadvantage because they just say, "Do it yourself."

From a political standpoint Libertarians have even bigger problems to deal with, as does any 3rd party becoming viable.

But I was speaking from the standpoint of what really works. There is not one, single country who's government functions based on Libertarian phylosophy. And the tid-bits of examples end up with horrible results. When you start to look at countries where the government has a "hands off" approach to business practices (like China) they end up with horrible working conditions, quality of life and deep divide between the poor and wealthy.

Edit: And I haven't even brought up environmental problems they face and health-saftey problems with the products they produce.

Originally posted by whodey
So you can honestly say that the 21st century will be more "civil" than the 20th century which was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind? My friend, you have some gonades. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanerpes