GOP Primary Megathread!

[grumbler]

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound. 

You neglected to mention that a vaginal ultrasound is not required before undergoing heart surgery, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an abortion.

[Jacob]

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

Why should he mention it? It's irrelevant.

[Viking]

Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want.

Did I say that? 

You seemed to suggest that.

The constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.

Depends on what you're talking about, but we do have a 10th Amendment, which is supposed to grant powers to the states that are not defined as being federal powers.

Yes, powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, but the rights of the citizen vis a vis the state are the same as their rights vis a vis the federal government.

- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

Yes, but the abortion is procedure desired by the patient, the vaginal ultrasound is a procedure desired by the government. I'm baffled that you can't understand the difference here.

[derspiess]

Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate:  if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it.  If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).

Good for you.  But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.

Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.

I would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things.  It is a legal fiction.  Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit.  Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.

I don't care. 

[Viking]

Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate:  if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it.  If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).

Good for you.  But the distinction is that laws passed in another state don't directly affect me, and within certain boundaries the people & lawmakers in other states can pass whatever laws they want, and deal with whatever consequences.

Federal laws, like Obamacare, do affect me.

I see, forcing you to buy your own health insurance is bad. BTW, do you have health insurance. In which case Obamacare saves you money.

I would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things.  It is a legal fiction.  Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit.  Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.

I don't care.

I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.

This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.

The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.

[Berkut]

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?

Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?

The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.

You're spoiling to go crusading today, aren't you?  I said I don't care that much about the issue, and I was only addressing Viking's objection, which used vague/misleading language.

That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina. That says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.

Viking used perfectly accurate terms, and divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.

The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.

[derspiess]

I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.

I don't care.  If it were Ohio legislation, I'd probably get off my ass & form an opinion.

This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.

You cool with libertarians, then?

The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.

I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government.  Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it.  Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.

[derspiess]

That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina.

Isn't something being shoved up there in the abortion procedure anyway?

That says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.

Fortunately, you don't get to define conservatism.

Viking used perfectly accurate terms,

Sure he did.  But technically accurate terms can be misleading if you choose to omit certain details.

and divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.

The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.

My apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?

[Jacob]

My apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?

Real subtle.

[Berkut]

That is the point - you "don't care much" about an issue that amounts to the state forcing women to allow someone to shove something up their vagina.

Isn't something being shoved up there in the abortion procedure anyway?

During an abortion, sure. But just because some woman agrees to letting someone shove something up their vagina at some point does not mean the state has carte blanche to shove other things up there against their objections otherwise.

I am amazed that you would actually try to defend this.

That says a lot about your "conservative" values, and how much principle is actually behind them.

Fortunately, you don't get to define conservatism.

I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.

Viking used perfectly accurate terms,

Sure he did.  But technically accurate terms can be misleading if you choose to omit certain details.

In this case, it was not misleading at all however.

and divorcing the terms from the particulars was, I imagine, entirely the point. The only reason this isn't seen as simply beyond the pale is that it is in service to the holy grail of supposedly "conservative "politics - abortion.

The fact that you find it misleading to talk about this in the general sense says just how insane it is that anyone would support this - or even not be much bothered by it. You *should* be much bothered by it, because it is utterly counter to anything an actual "conservative" should find as acceptable activity of the state.

My apathy really pisses you off, doesn't it?

Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.

[Razgovory]

I see, forcing a woman to pay for and suffer an involuntary medical procedure is irrellevant.

This is the core of my frustration with the people who call themselves conservative constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives. They only dislike big government when the government does things they don't like. They love big government when the government does what they do like.

The massive expansions of government during regan and bush II with nary a peep of criticism from fiscal conservatives and nasty restrictions of civil rights (if the government wants to) from conservative constitutionalists just shows this.

You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief.  It's not.  Never has been.  It's a fall back position.  You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally.  Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit.  Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."

[derspiess]

I suppose not, but then, neither do you. You can make it clear that your values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means however, as defined by the actual definition of the word.

Well, here's the thing.  I'm a conservative and you're not.  I don't get to define conservatism, per se, but I can define the type of conservative I am.

Now tell me how my "values have nothing to do with what actual conservatism means."

Not really - nor do I think you are actually apathetic at all. Anymore than DG. What you are also certainly not is principled. You are ok (or "just don't care") about this because your tribe is all for it, and you are all for your tribe. There is nothing principled about your stance, or lack of a stance at all.

I really haven't given it enough thought to properly form an opinion.  If this were an Ohio law, I'd give it more thought, and it's entirely possible that I'd oppose (or support) such a law.

[derspiess]

You are mistaking the desire for local control as an actual political belief.  It's not.  Never has been.  It's a fall back position.  You claim "States Rights" or local control when you don't have the votes nationally.  Nobody says to themselves, "Gee, I like my conceal and carry laws, but I want the people in the next state over to come up laws that conflict with mine so when I visit there I have to get a different permit.  Because things that are true here and that I believe in aren't true 50 miles away from me."

What do you think my position is on that?

[DGuller]

I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government.  Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it.  Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.

  Yeah, they did, when the new guy took over.  That's like forming a partisan group to fight the Germans, in 1946.

[Jacob]

I voiced my opinions about Bush's spending & expansion of government.  Quite a few on the right were/are pissed off about it.  Some of them even started the Tea Party thing.

  Yeah, they did, when the new guy took over.  That's like forming a parisan group to fight the Germans, in 1946.