fiscal vs social conservatives Cancel The title field is required!

1. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   3/20/2012 9:03 AM

   Is there a differentiation down there between fiscal and social conservatives? Like, if you are not both, then you are a liberal? Can you be a Republican with a social conscience?
   Just wondering after reading the following (which I find to be one of the most bizarre laws I have ever heard of)
   
   The Life Defense Act of 2012, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro), mandates that the Tennessee Department of Health make detailed demographic information about every woman who has an abortion available to the public, including her age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. Each report would also have to include the name of the doctor who performed the procedure.

   
   
   
   
2. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   3/20/2012 9:03 AM

   The location of the procedure should be a no-brainer.

   
   
   
   
3. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   3/20/2012 10:03 AM

   You right ! Never thought of that

   
   
   
   
4. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   3/21/2012 5:03 AM

   What if the same woman goes to the same doctor every three months to have an abortion?
   
   See that changes your thinking a little. i dont totally agree with that law. It shouldn't be public, but it should be recorded and available to the health providers and probably their insurance companies as well. It should also state that if it is a reoccuring procedure, the patient should have to go through some social counseling to learn her other avenues of birth control. it could also let officials know if a doctor is abusing the practice with the same patient

   
   
   
   
5. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   3/21/2012 7:03 AM

   I guess maybe, but for a nation that professes to be all about personal freedoms and individuality, putting private medical records on public display seems to me to be irrational. I wonder how guys would feel about their private medical information about erectile dysfunction and penile enlargement being put out on the record.
   
   It seems like the conservatives who claim to be protecting the "American Way" are the first in line to take it away when it differs from their viewpoint

   
   
   
   
6. Ronald Conard

   

   4 posts
   
   3/21/2012 8:03 AM

   Larry Allan said:
   It seems like the conservatives who claim to be protecting the "American Way" are the first in line to take it away when it differs from their viewpoint

   
   
   Red,
   
   That's been my observation. The Constitution is cherry picked based on what a person's viewpoint and preferences are. For example, its pretty common to find those that would seemingly die for their right to bear arms, because it's protected under the Constitution and yet have no problem forcing welfare recipients to submitted to drug testing even though this would be an unreasonable search and seizure issue.

   
   
   
   
7. Sandy Clark

   

   0 posts
   
   3/21/2012 9:03 AM

   Did this stupid thing pass or is it just a bill? I can't believe this type of legislation would ever go through. Larry, I am pretty conservative but I don't have a clue where anyone fits with all these labels we have. Personal beliefs vary so much that it is pretty hard to truly define any conservative as one or the other. Conservative should be the description and leave all the labels out of it. Same holds for liberals. You either are or you are not.

   
   
   
   
8. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   3/22/2012 5:03 AM

   Ronald Conard, CGCS said:

   Larry Allan said:
   It seems like the conservatives who claim to be protecting the "American Way" are the first in line to take it away when it differs from their viewpoint

   
   
   Red,
   
   That's been my observation. The Constitution is cherry picked based on what a person's viewpoint and preferences are. For example, its pretty common to find those that would seemingly die for their right to bear arms, because it's protected under the Constitution and yet have no problem forcing welfare recipients to submitted to drug testing even though this would be an unreasonable search and seizure issue.

   
   
   But a welfare recipient is receiving assistance from the people of this country. Nothing wrong with a policy that says if you want assistance you need to stay clean and if you cant, then your assistance will be used to pay for a rehab clinic. No different than asking someone to blow into a breathilizer when they are driving. By your thinking that would be unreasonable search and seizure

   
   
   
   
9. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/22/2012 7:03 AM

   I totally agree with Dennis. If your on public assistance you at least have some conditions that go along with getting that aid. Nothings free. Interesting article I read a while ago that Japan passed a law (2010) that if your a permanent foreign resident you are not eligible for any aid. .

   
   
   
   
10. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    3/22/2012 9:03 AM

    I may be reading it wrong but it reads to me somewhat racist. It also reads to me as though this is not just for people on public assistance but even for rich white folk who chose to have an abortion, which I suppose makes it somewhat more fair
    Medical records should be confidential for everyone. It becomes just a step away from every personal item for all put into the public domain. I bet you guys would be screaming if your personal finances were made public on a data base.
    
    Land of the free may become a thing of the past

    
    
    
    
11. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/22/2012 9:03 AM

    Larry Allan said: I may be reading it wrong but it reads to me somewhat racist.

    
    
    It is of course, not racist, but is of course, the way the left would hope you read it.

    
    
    
    
12. Ronald Conard

    

    4 posts
    
    3/22/2012 9:03 AM

    Dennis Cook said:

    Ronald Conard, CGCS said:

    Larry Allan said:
    It seems like the conservatives who claim to be protecting the "American Way" are the first in line to take it away when it differs from their viewpoint

    
    
    Red,
    
    That's been my observation. The Constitution is cherry picked based on what a person's viewpoint and preferences are. For example, its pretty common to find those that would seemingly die for their right to bear arms, because it's protected under the Constitution and yet have no problem forcing welfare recipients to submitted to drug testing even though this would be an unreasonable search and seizure issue.

    
    
    But a welfare recipient is receiving assistance from the people of this country. Nothing wrong with a policy that says if you want assistance you need to stay clean and if you cant, then your assistance will be used to pay for a rehab clinic. No different than asking someone to blow into a breathilizer when they are driving. By your thinking that would be unreasonable search and seizure

    
    
    First of all that's not what the courts have said about the issue as Michigan found out in the late 1990's.
    
    Secondly, a breathilizer is administered after probable cause has been established. Driving while intoxicated is also considered a public safety issue and as such the courts have been more "liberal" with the search and seizure issue.
    
    Also, by extension, all members of our country who receive government assistance or even entitlements, retirements, pensions, etc. should be subject to submitting bodily fluids to the[u"> STATE[/u"> in order to prove, without any probable cause, that they are not on drugs. As a "get government out of our lives" advocate, this concept doesn't bother you? This question highlights my original point; that many people believe the Constitution can be trampled under foot based on an individual's biases and preferences. Which is a slippery slope because in the future how will we know who's biases and preferences are in power?

    
    
    
    
13. McCallum David K

    
    3/22/2012 10:03 AM

    I tend to side with Ron on this issue. I am far more interested in personal freedoms (my own in particular) than if some druggie is getting some public assistance (don't like it one bit but will give that to keep my freedom). Every day they are taking a little more, bit by bit. One only has to fly and realize the total absurdity of the TSA as well as their incompetency. I don't like the fact that some drug or alcohol abuser is getting taxpayer money to further his habit but so be it. Perhaps at some point some taxpaying citizen may pop a cap in one of these individuals trying to rob or burglarize them and remove them permanently from the public dole.............
    
    Just read the Obamacare bill and see the personal freedoms we will soon lose (and you guys on the left thought the Patriot Act was the end of the world) and you'll find out how intrusive the government is really going to be.

    
    
    
    
14. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    3/22/2012 12:03 PM

    Social conservatives v. fiscal conservatives... no new taxers v. deficit reducers/ balanced budgeters... Tea Party'ers v. Traditionalists. These are some of the basic divides that in previous years the Republican party has been able to keep under one roof. Now it looks like the roof is collapsing and the party is about to fragment. I consider myself a Traditional style republican, perfectly comfortable with the vanilla Romney. To many others, he's nowhere near conservative enough.
    
    I too find it ironic that for a party that has traditionally railed against 'the nanny state,' a good percentage of conservatives aren't necessarily unhappy with the nanny state, they just want the mean, b--chy British nanny on TV instead of Mary Poppins.

    
    
    
    
15. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/22/2012 2:03 PM

    David McCallum said: Just read the Obamacare bill and see the personal freedoms we will soon lose (and you guys on the left thought the Patriot Act was the end of the world) and you'll find out how intrusive the government is really going to be.

    
    
    Specific examples, pages and lines, I have a copy too and have no idea what you are referring to here.

    
    
    
    
16. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    3/22/2012 2:03 PM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:

    Larry Allan said: I may be reading it wrong but it reads to me somewhat racist.

    
    
    It is of course, not racist, but is of course, the way the left would hope you read it.

    
    
    Petey, why then would the "race" have any importance in the issue? Is an abortion any different if it's a white or black? I don't think it "left" to state that requiring the "race" to be identified is racist. What possible function could that be used for other than to make a race issue

    
    
    
    
17. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    3/22/2012 4:03 PM

    Same reasoning I suppose, as why it's on college applications, the US census, etc.: statistics?

    
    
    
    
18. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 5:03 AM

    Larry Allan said: I may be reading it wrong but it reads to me somewhat racist. It also reads to me as though this is not just for people on public assistance but even for rich white folk who chose to have an abortion, which I suppose makes it somewhat more fair
    Medical records should be confidential for everyone. It becomes just a step away from every personal item for all put into the public domain. I bet you guys would be screaming if your personal finances were made public on a data base.
    
    Land of the free may become a thing of the past

    
    Larry, our personal finances are kept in a database, its called a credit report. So public that an employer can get it before they hire you to see if you pay your bills.
    
    David had a good point about Freedom, but where is the Freedom for that child who is going to be killed. I dont like how this law is written, but I understand that it is trying to reduce numbers of abortions. Supposedly the left thinks abortion is OK, as long as no one knows about. A little hypocritical

    
    
    
    
19. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    3/23/2012 6:03 AM

    Supposedly the left thinks abortion is OK, as long as no one knows about. A little hypocritical
    
    I would be likely considered left, and I don't think abortion is OK. The reality is that it has occurred, does occur, and will continue to occur regardless of any laws put into place. No different than drug use.
    
    Sean and I agree on very little but he once mentioned a program he is involved in that tries to offer an alternative to those seeking an abortion. I might disagree with the religious overtones in that type of program but it is the only realistic way of dealing with this issue.
    
    hopefully the days of back alley coat hanger operations are behind us.

    
    
    
    
20. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 12:03 PM

    Larry Allan said: Supposedly the left thinks abortion is OK, as long as no one knows about. A little hypocritical
    
    I would be likely considered left, and I don't think abortion is OK. The reality is that it has occurred, does occur, and will continue to occur regardless of any laws put into place. No different than drug use.
    
    Sean and I agree on very little but he once mentioned a program he is involved in that tries to offer an alternative to those seeking an abortion. I might disagree with the religious overtones in that type of program but it is the only realistic way of dealing with this issue.
    
    hopefully the days of back alley coat hanger operations are behind us.

    
    
    Ok Larry, I give you that, not all the left thinks its ok, but for the most part it is their holy grail. Any way to reduce the number of abortions should be looked at and valid ideas should be considered

    
    
    
    
21. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM

    Dennis Cook said:
    
    Ok Larry, I give you that, not all the left thinks its ok, but for the most part it is their holy grail. Any way to reduce the number of abortions should be looked at and valid ideas should be considered

    
    
    I seriously doubt any woman who has had an abortion has left the doctors office has jumped for joy proclaiming "Ive done it! Ive reached the holy grail! my life is complete!". I doubt you could find any sane person who would argue that reducing the number of abortions would be bad. The issue is the means by which it is accomplished.

    
    
    
    
22. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM

    James Schmid said:

    Dennis Cook said:
    
    Ok Larry, I give you that, not all the left thinks its ok, but for the most part it is their holy grail. Any way to reduce the number of abortions should be looked at and valid ideas should be considered

    
    
    I seriously doubt any woman who has had an abortion has left the doctors office has jumped for joy proclaiming "Ive done it! Ive reached the holy grail! my life is complete!". I doubt you could find any sane person who would argue that reducing the number of abortions would be bad. The issue is the means by which it is accomplished.

    
    
    I know; we could pay for the women to take the babies to term then adopt them to gay married couples! But don't get me started on baby making, you guys cannot handle it.