We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Quo Vaditis?

12th November 2012

Read it.

Do Democrats engage in soul-searching after they lose an election? Maybe I miss it because I’m not a Democrat, but it doesn’t seem that they do. After John Kerry lost in 2004, did Democrats agonize over whether they should stop opposing the war in Iraq, or become pro-abortion? When Democrats were “shellacked,” as President Obama put it, in 2010, did they debate whether they should come up with a coherent plan to deal with the debt and start adopting budgets? Not that I recall.

The problem is that there aren’t any DINOs to correspond to all the RINOs out there — a fundamental imbalance.

3 Responses to “Quo Vaditis?”

  1. Whitehawk Says:


  2. Whitehawk Says:

    Woe, woe, woe…

    Not exactly. Just read the rest of the article.

    “I have always been opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Frankly, however, my opinion isn’t very relevant since the Supreme Court has held that there is a constitutional right to abortion.”

    Three very important points here.

    1. The moral question of abortion is as big or BIGGER than the moral question of slavery. i.e. one person having ultimate control over another’s life.

    2. So once the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, they are absolutely right and it is settled for eternity? WHAT? THAT smells like a monkey’s underpants!!!

    3. If the question of its (abortion’s) legality had been settled in the legislature where matters of public policy are constitutionally supposed to be determined, there would be MUCH less controversy and the majority of people who disagree with it would have recourse. Electing congress members who are pro-life is essential to guiding public policy than CAN preserve life such as in the case of infanticide that Obama supported. This writer IS saying what the spineless repubs and conservatives are saying only indirectly.

    “Abortion and gay marriage are moral, largely religious issues, and are less amenable to public policy debate. They are, for reasons that are entirely understandable, governed more by emotion than by empirical data. A great many people are heartily sick of these issues and wish they would go away, while others view them as matters of moral duty that are key to the ultimate survival of our civilization.”

    Come on man! Over 50 million children aborted is pretty empirical data! EVERY law is based in morality. Every individual’s morality is formed from their basic beliefs (religion). It’s guys like this that are causing us to lose ground. He contradicts himself in the above statement, he says we should minimized our stance on abortion then says some believe it to be “key to the ultimate survival of our civilization.” This guys sounds like a mouth full of sand to me.

    If it is wrong to kill children, it is wrong to kill children. It does not matter what side of the cervix they are on!!! Pass through the cervix…WHAM you magically a human now with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    And if young people are trending away from abortion how are we losing the argument? We are WINNING the argument because we are RIGHT. Lives are hanging in the balance.

    “It is true that the family is in crisis and our civilization may well be going down the drain, but not because of gay marriage; rather, because close to half of all American children are now born to unmarried women.”

    And redefining marriage will not affect the family? This guy has lost his way. So he is saying we should be Democrat-lite? Then there is no serious reason why the Republican Party should continue to exist. It has been on the right side of all major moral issues in our history (with empirical data to support it). Is this where It gets off after Slavery and Civil Rights, Obamacare???

    “It is beyond me why any voter should care about what a candidate for the House or the Senate, or for governor or a state legislature, thinks about abortion. It is equally hard to understand why such candidates would make support for abortion, or opposition to it, a significant part of their platforms.”

    Not electing primarily pro-life public officials? This guys is part of the problem. A rabidly pro-abortion Senator from Illinois was elected president and now I have to pay for abortions on demand. Yes, Obamacare will require my tax dollars pay for something I believe is as bad or worse than slavery.

    In every case of public policy based on poor morality it costs us all something. Economic consequences follow policy based on poor morality.

    I am not familiar with this writer but other than his initial premise, he is all wet. I encourage him to change his party alignment.

  3. Dennis Nagle Says:

    “So once the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, they are absolutely right and it is settled for eternity?”
    When the Supreme Court rules on an issue, it is not on whether something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather whether something confomrs to the Constituion or does not. Please stop muddling the two; they are not congruent, nor were ever meant to be.
    And the Court’s rulings are not settled for ‘all eternity’; they can be–and have been–overturned by later Court rulings. See: Dredd Scott.
    But until they are overturned, they are the law of the land–by which you and all of us have agreed to abide.
    Don’t like the system? Go start your own country.

    “If it is wrong to kill children, it is wrong to kill children.” Correct. But a fetus is not a child until it is viable outside the womb. Until then it is only an ‘incipient’ child, a symbiote (if you are feeling kind) or a parasite (if you are feeling unkind).

    “Every individual’s morality is formed from their basic beliefs (religion).”
    I have no religion, yet I have both morality and basic beliefs. According to your cosmology, I shouldn’t exist. But I do. Which says something in your basic premise is flawed. Perhaps you should look at it to see where the mistake occurred.

    “And redefining marriage will not affect the family?”
    Two fallacies here:
    1) Allowing gays to marry will not redefine the institution. Who is allowed to partake of the institution is not a part of that definition. “Driving a car” as a procedure doesn’t change at all whether you restrict driving participation to those over 30 or allow those under 12. The driving process doesn’t change, just as the civil contract we call ‘marriage’ won’t change.
    2) Redefining marriage does not affect the family in the context of children being born out of wedlock, which is what the article discusses. You are attempting to divert the discussion onto another subject; that is a Red Herring.

    “A rabidly pro-abortion Senator from Illinois was elected president and now I have to pay for abortions on demand.
    The first description is unsupported. But then, any support for abortion is ‘rabid’ in your view, so let it stand.
    The second assertion is undemonstrated. Nowhere in the ACA does it say that abortions will now be paid for with tax dollars. Mere hysterical hyperbole.

    Really, Whitehawk, the author makes more sense than you do. Take an aspirin and lie down.