Now we know what f*****s does in her spare time

[foxpaws]

The abortion debate is a very contentious issue within the Libertarian Party.
But the platform statement is vague.

It doesn't elaborate on how the issue should be resolved politically. It can be presumed that this would be at the state level. A Libertarian may then vote in support of such access, but it's still resolved at the state level.

And they are quite clear that they oppose any funding of abortions with public money.

Presumed Cal? Vague Cal? It very clearly says that government (not just federal, not just state, government in its entirety) should be left out of the debate.

It says exactly how it should be resolved politically -

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Is there something that is implied here? Some underlying, stealth meaning..

Nope - none... The Libertarian Party is very clear on where it stands on abortion... No government intervention - note it doesn't say that the federal government should be kept out of the matter leaving the question for the states to decide. It very clearly states that it should be left to the individual to decide.

So where in that statement would you even imagine that they think it is a state level 'government' issue?

 

[fossten]

Presumed Cal? Vague Cal? It very clearly says that government (not just federal, not just state, government in its entirety) should be left out of the debate.

It says exactly how it should be resolved politically -

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Is there something that is implied here? Some underlying, stealth meaning..

Nope - none... The Libertarian Party is very clear on where it stands on abortion... No government intervention - note it doesn't say that the federal government should be kept out of the matter leaving the question for the states to decide. It very clearly states that it should be left to the individual to decide.

So where in that statement would you even imagine that they think it is a state level 'government' issue?

Still chasing side topics, eh fox...I guess you've given up on smearing the Tea Parties...

 

[foxpaws]

Still chasing side topics, eh fox...I guess you've given up on smearing the Tea Parties...

still got nothing Foss on my alleged statement that Obamacare would cause insurance rates to go down for most people? Heck, mine will go up. I think you can go to politico and find out that they say that health care insurance costs will not decrease for most people, it should stay about the same. That it will reduce the cost for needy families when the subsidies kick in.

bump baby bump...

so, what is newest with the tea party...

Okla. tea parties and lawmakers envision militia
By SEAN MURPHY and TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writers

OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
<snip>​

You should move to Oklahoma Foss....

 

[fossten]

still got nothing Foss on my alleged statement that Obamacare would cause insurance rates to go down for most people? Heck, mine will go up. I think you can go to politico and find out that they say that health care insurance costs will not decrease for most people, it should stay about the same. That it will reduce the cost for needy families when the subsidies kick in.

bump baby bump...

Fox, I can prove that you made the claim, but I don't need to. You just did it again.

4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.

All you have to do is scroll down the first page of threads and you'll find the thread. Politico's OP-ED is wrong.

Don't be lazy - it's not all about you.

 

[Calabrio]

Presumed Cal? Vague Cal? It very clearly says that government (not just federal, not just state, government in its entirety) should be left out of the debate.

And how is that achieved?
Judicial fiat or political process.

But it's cute how you ask a question seemingly for the purpose clarification and then, foolishly and arrogantly, try to tell me why my answer is wrong.

So where in that statement would you even imagine that they think it is a state level 'government' issue?

The 10th amendment of the Constitution.
I know it's not a particularly popular document in your circles, but it's a pretty big f'in deal.

 

[foxpaws]

And how is that achieved?
Judicial fiat or political process.

But it's cute how you ask a question seemingly for the purpose clarification and then, foolishly and arrogantly, try to tell me why my answer is wrong.


The 10th amendment of the Constitution.
I know it's not a particularly popular document in your circles, but it's a pretty big f'in deal.

But it isn't in the statement from the Libertarian platform... there is nothing in their statement that indicates that they would look to states to define the issue. In fact it would appear they would balk at government interference at any level.

A pretty good libertarian who passed away a few years ago wrote...

In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.

This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.

To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.

To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.

 

[Calabrio]

But it isn't in the statement from the Libertarian platform... there is nothing in their statement that indicates that they would look to states to define the issue. In fact it would appear they would balk at government interference at any level.

Do they dictate it from the alter of the judiciary?
Are they authoritarians who will just declare this if they were to become President?

Are you really so out of touch with the concept of limited government, the constitution, and states rights that you can't comprehend this?

If the Libertarians Party thinks that government should have no say in it, THEY are exercising their political influence to argue that government has no say in it. This is a POLITICAL PROCESS.

One they feel is NOT left to the Judiciary (according to the national party platform).

So if it's not a constitutionally protected issue, and it's not a power authorized to the federal government to decide, that means it goes to the STATES to resolve in a POLITICAL way, by the people.

But, using your dizzying insight, how does the party feel about late-term abortions? Partial-birth abortions? Or abortions where the fetus survives?

You might have noticed, that's not in there.
They will be address in the political process to be resolved or compromised at the state level.


What else is there?
Libertarians and conservatives aren't authoritarians like you, foxpaws.

 

[foxpaws]

So if it's not a constitutionally protected issue, and it's not a power authorized to the federal government to decide, that means it goes to the STATES to resolve in a POLITICAL way, by the people.

So, you allow the people of the state of Florida to dictate the abortion issue -

what part of...

we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration

don't you understand Cal...

It isn't a 'people' issue, it isn't a 'government' issue, it is a 'person' issue...

 

[Calabrio]

So, you allow the people of the state of Florida to dictate the abortion issue -

what part of...

we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration

don't you understand Cal...

It isn't a 'people' issue, it isn't a 'government' issue, it is a 'person' issue...

Is it a constitutionally protected activity?
No, abortion really is not and Libertarians will argue that as well.
Is it something that the constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate?
No, it does not.
So this means it's something that is to be resolved at the state or local level.

And a Libertarian who supports that plank of the platform may ARGUE that the government should have no involvement in the issue and vote accordingly.

 

[foxpaws]

check your state libertarian party cal - if it is like colorado, they defer to the national platform on abortion - there isn't any 'resolve on a state or local level'.

they want to keep government, at all levels, out of the issue.

it is a person (one person, not many people as in government, or elections) issue.

Personal responsibility, personal conscientious consideration cal - libertarians are pretty big on the concept.

 

[foxpaws]

double post