Shot From Guns says: worst-case scenario if Pubs are in charge is LGBT people jailed, all women denied birth control, public stocks to be erected in each town’s main square for shaming of miscreants, and caning to be approved judicial punishments for kissing in public. Worst-case for Dems in charge: a significant part of your income involuntarily diverted to social programs, some of which may benefit you; homeless kittens are adopted immediately instead of euthanized; PBS telethons a thing of the past as government provides full funding to public TV.
I say: ahoy, there, ol’ chum, seems to me you’ve slightly favored one side there with your “worst-case” analysis.
Diogenes jumps in with: Santorum says LGBT should be jailed, sure 'nough!
I say: No, gentle Diogenes, you mistake the man’s intent. A lawyer himself, he’s arguing for the Supreme Court to make the right decision about the plenary police power of a state; he says nothing about jailing anyone.
You, elucidator, chime in now with: oh yeah, he did so, and what’s it to ya?
Hopefully the foregoing summary has helped you to remember how we got here and why we’re discussing what we’re discussing.
Santorum did more than just say it wasn’t a Constitional right. He expressed a personal opinion that homosexual sex should be a crime. It’s correct to note that he did not say what he thought the penalty should be, but is that really a hair worth splitting?
So, if Santorum argues that it is legitimate for the State to forbid sodomy, that’s not saying that LGBT people should be imprisoned because he does not advocate any actual penalty?
I hate to hector over definitions, but sometimes arguing with you is like trying to pick up a greased ball bearing with rubber chopsticks.
We started this mini-thread with my complaint that the idea of “worst-case scenario” for Pubs in charge being “LGBT people jailed, all women denied birth control, and the Ten Commandments enshrined in the Constitution,” and the worst-case scenario for Dems being in charge is “a significant part of your income involuntarily diverted to social programs, some of which may benefit you” is fundamentally unfair.
So before I answer you, you answer me: were the two “worst-case scenarios” a fundamentally fair description of each side?
I like that! If you offer arguments on a side topic, but find yourself losing, you can simply declare the side issue temporarily “on hold” and return to an argument wherein you feel yourself on firmer ground?
Can I do that too, or is that a privilege unique to lawyers?
Oh, please. Bricker certainly needs no help with you two, but what he is doing is helpful in debate. He’s reminding you of what the actual point of contention is, as much as you and Dio might want to speed by it an attempt to win (doubtfully) some tiny tangential issue. He’s restating it so the discussion can remain on track. Which you don’t want because you’re not doing well. Film at eleven. :rolleyes:
It was a fair description of the Democratic side. Whether it was a fair description of the Republican side is debatable (and it was not my contention anyway), but I was providing a data point to support a willingness by Republicans to criminalize homosexual sex.
I think if the more theocratic tendencies of the Republican party were allowed to run wild, it’s not an implausible leap to surmise that they would want bring back the criminalization of homosexual sex that was actively enforced well within living memory.
We have seen efforts to make birth control more difficult for women to access, if not outright banned, especially with regards to emergency contraception, but also with support for pharmacies refusing to privide it and insurance companies refusing to pay for it.
The Ten Commandments enshrined in the Constitution? No, just in courtrooms. They need to quit trying to say that the Constitution is based on Christian principles, though.
It wasn’t a *cheap *shot. It was a *retarded *one. There’s a difference.
You know, it’s funny. I give “worst-case” scenarios of Republican social policies and Democrat economic ones, pulling from the further reaches of either party (and really, I’m stretching a lot farther on the Democratic side than on the Republican one). You tell me how “unfair” they are… but then you can’t come up with a single, reasonable alternative to the Democratic “worst case” that’s actually rooted in espoused beliefs and agendas of actual, um, Democrats. The best you could come up with so far is something that happened decades ago in another country.
The criminalization of homosexuality; the restriction of access to birth control, especially anything viewed as abortofacient, regardless of whether it fits the clinical definition of the term (e.g. the “morning after” pill); the enshrining of the Ten Commandments in public government areas: these have all been actual Republican agendas. People have *campaigned *on these issues. Can you show me one Democrat elected to a major office (you can even dig for a tiny one, if you want) who’s campaigned on the promise of huge tax increases to finance massive state programs?
But, as the quip goes: the truth has a liberal bias.
Even granting that, which I donot,there’s a gulf between criminalization and imprisnment.
Hey, have you seen any goalposts? They used to be standing right here, next to birth control. Now you’ve included abortofacients in the definition, and gone from “remove all access to birth control of any kind” to “restrict access.”
Damn. Those pesky goalposts have gone roving again! We’re slipped from “enshrined in the Constitution” to “enshrined (aka posed) in government space.”
I can show you plenty of Democrats who have proposed massive state programs. It’s true that they don’t traipse about the country bragging about their huge tax hikes, because they know their grasping ways are not loved. The Renewable Energy Portfolio proposed in 2007 as HR 6 (110th Congress) of 15% was massively expensive, for example – not directlyin tax dollars, but in forcing energy companies to make expensive modifications and pay higher costs to generate energy.
But I’m guessing that doesn’t count for some reason?
I concede that point, the *application *of the law was more geared to homosexuals.
Bricker’s already done it, but it is clear that Santorum is not for locking people up, but rather the constitutionality of the right to privacy that Lawrence was tryoing to enshrine, not only with regards to homosexual acts, but bigamy, incest and adultery.
You’re confused. It’s about the constitutionality of bum sex. Do keep up.
Cold you define what you mean by “fair share”? Person A makes 25k, Person B 100k, person C 250k. How much should each one pay to be “fair”. Hell, I can see them all paying $1,000 as being fair. Or even of they each paid 18%. Or 30% What do you think?
I don’t think that was fair. Neither did JFK. Do you? And rather than play some game, why not just answer the question? I gave you numbers. Why don’t you provide some?
A committee to draft the Eleventh Amendment as the last part of the Bill of Rights was scheduled to address such issues. But Tommy Jefferson passed around some post cards that Franklin had sent him from France, and everyone on the committee suddenly needed to rush home and consult with their wives… At the next scheduled meeting, members exchanged post cards they’d seen for ones they hadn’t, and the Amendment was tabled. The serving wench was not tabled, but barely, by dint of being virtuous, nimble, and fleet of foot.
