I like Huckabee's view. Sign into law any law that is constitutional as the issue is now viewed. GW signed into effect the partial birth abortion law that Clinton had vetoed twice.

 

Also, to continue to appoint judges that might have a different view on abortion rights from a Constitutional perspective.

 

I also think the President can be a leading voice in changing the mindset that abortion is not a birth control measure.

 

I think any law is going to be viewed by the Supreme Court and most likely struck down. The partial birth abortion may stand only because there is no legitimate medical reason to have the practice done.

 

I also think that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned under our currenct situtation. I think dramatic medical breakthroughs or discoveries are going to accompany an abortion ban, which I think will transcend conservative or liberal courts.

 

I am against abortion, but I don't think I can factor it in so heavily in my voting decisions.

I think any law is going to be viewed by the Supreme Court and most likely struck down. The partial birth abortion may stand only because there is no legitimate medical reason to have the practice done.

 

I also think that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned under our currenct situtation. I think dramatic medical breakthroughs or discoveries are going to accompany an abortion ban, which I think will transcend conservative or liberal courts.

 

I am against abortion, but I don't think I can factor it in so heavily in my voting decisions.

I know this will not come across as I mean it but part of my decisions is my view of Judgement Day. The Bible tells us that we will all fall to our names, confess Jesus for whom He is and be held responsible for our actions. Some Jesus will step forward and say that he has paid the debt of those actions for me and others that confessed him as Savior. But after that, I believe that Christians will have another judgement for rewards in Heaven and wonder if God will not ask those in the 1800's what they did to help stop slavery. I wonder if those Christians in Germany during WWII will be asked what they did to stop the slaughter of Jews. I wonder if those Christians in the South will be asked what they did to stop the lynching of blacks. I wonder if Christians today will be asked what they have done to help those people starving as well as what they did on the abortion issue.

 

So, I do some things in regards to how I will be answering that question, IF IT HAPPENS, and don't see how I could look Jesus in the eye and say well I supported candidates that felt it was right for our country to continue to allow this to happen.

 

That is just me and how I view it. The great thing about the Christian faith and this country is it is each OUR OWN CHOICE and we will ONLY be held accountable for OUR CHOICES.

You know something - the truth of the matter is that EVERY form of taxation, regardless of how the funds are used, is a form of socialism. If the government levies taxes to build the interstate highway system, that is (effectively) a form of socialism.

 

Wouldn't any government, no matter how liberal, be a form of socialism?

You know something - the truth of the matter is that EVERY form of taxation, regardless of how the funds are used, is a form of socialism. If the government levies taxes to build the interstate highway system, that is (effectively) a form of socialism.

I disagree. Taxation is a means to pay for services for the good of the general public. Infrastructure, military, government facilities, public education, police and fire protection, etc.

 

When you start talking about nationalizing a private industry like healthcare, thats socialism. Nationalizing industry has historically had bad results. Amtrak was a disaster. Advancements in healthcare in other socialized medicne countries almost grinds to a halt, because there is no incentive to make advancements. Current technology also becomes limited because the government rations expensive equipment.

 

The government is the worst organizaton to run an industry where technological advances are essential. The one exception would be NASA in the 1960's. In that case, they had a space race and a deadline to meet.

Wouldn't any government, no matter how liberal, be a form of socialism?

 

As Francis defines socialism, yes. However, defining socialism to be so broad as to encompass monarchies, oligarchies, democracies, republics, communist states, and tribal governments (which have all been known to collect taxes) is inconsistent with the generally accepted definition of socialism. Most people don't equate socialism as being anything done for the benefit of society in general. Socialism is typically defined with much more specificity and therefore wouldn't encompass all forms of government known to man.

 

One characteristic of a Socialistic government is that the government controls the means of production and in a univerisal healthcare system, the government would control the means that healthcare is produced (i.e. provided).

I disagree. Taxation is a means to pay for services for the good of the general public. Infrastructure, military, government facilities, public education, police and fire protection, etc. [/Quote] If EVERYONE paid exactly the same amount in the pursuit of building the infrastructure, then I would agree with your point. In truth, however, people pay a differing amount, based on their tax rate. Although it is a more obscure route, that is still money being taken out of someone else's pocket that the lower taxed group of people will benefit from. That is socialism.

 

 

The government is the worst organizaton to run an industry where technological advances are essential. The one exception would be NASA in the 1960's. In that case, they had a space race and a deadline to meet.

I would submit that even NASA would be better run in the private sector, where competition would punish inefficiency. Personally, I see no instance where a governmental beuracracy is superior to running an industry than privatization would be.

 

Having said that, I think the military is unique, in that private industry could not ever find enough people that would be willing to sacrifice what our military does, regardless of price.

 

 

Frances

As Francis defines socialism, yes. However, defining socialism to be so broad as to encompass monarchies, oligarchies, democracies, republics, communist states, and tribal governments (which have all been known to collect taxes) is inconsistent with the generally accepted definition of socialism.....

 

My point in defining socialism so broadly is to bring attention to the practice of many conservatives in using rhetoric to intentionally mislabel many programs that are considered by the Democratic party during legislative sessions.

 

In this particular instance, we have a Republican President espousing a system of universal healthcare, which, if offered by the Democrats in government would immediately be attacked as socialism.

 

The entire exercise is merely to highlight the fact that governments, by design, MUST (to one degree or another) raise money to operate on, and it will NEVER be a truly level playing field when generating those monies.

 

 

Frances

If EVERYONE paid exactly the same amount in the pursuit of building the infrastructure, then I would agree with your point. In truth, however, people pay a differing amount, based on their tax rate. Although it is a more obscure route, that is still money being taken out of someone else's pocket that the lower taxed group of people will benefit from. That is socialism.

Socialism is the nationalization and government ownership of normally private sectors.

 

What you're talking about is the redistribuiton of wealth, or communism.

... What you're talking about is the redistribuiton of wealth, or communism.

 

Exactly. Just as it is often intentionally misused by conservatives to denounce a plan that they find unpopular.

 

 

Frances

Exactly. Just as it is often intentionally misused by conservatives to denounce a plan that they find unpopular.

 

 

Frances

What's your point Frances?

What's your point Frances?

 

LOL - do I have to have one?

 

 

Frances

LOL - do I have to have one?

 

 

Frances

As we get closer and closer to November 2008, this will become truer for all of us. :lol:

Nationalized health care is socialism. If you want to make health care worse in this country, than nationalizing it is the way to go(see France, England, Canada). Why do people from these countries come here for surgeries? Because we have the best doctors in the world. Why do we have the best doctors in the world? Because there is great monetary incentive to become a great doctor. If you decrease the amount of money these great doctors can make, the field will increasingly attract doctors of lesser ability. Money for research for pharmaceutical companies will be curtailed, because the risk of spending large $'s on possibly the next great drug, will outweigh the reward.

 

Having said all of that, there is much room for improvement and the health insurance and pharmaceutical area and both are frought with red tape and wasteful spending. But that is 400 fold better having the government in control of health care or windfall taxes on big pharma companies. The free marketplace is by far the best arbiter of determining price and value of service. The more government involvement you have, the less efficient the process is. I for one, do not trust either side of the aisle when it comes to managing money, because they do not have any financial incentive to do so and both have proven that they are amongst the worst money managers around. Most members of congress are only able to look very short term because they will have to get elected again in a few years. They can not afford the political capital to look much further down the road like a company does and has to in order to survive. A corporation has a financial incentive to manage their money wisely or they will cease to exist. Which is why capitalism works and socialism does not.