Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 21 : 22 : <23> : 24
Fo, you ignorant slut:
We are living the downside my friend.
You are defending top down democracy, instead of representational democracy. Its fine if the top shares your view of politics. Sucks if it doesn't.
The persuasiveness of the supreme court decision is precicely at issue here. Its not persuasive at all, as most conservatives and some moderates are telling you with their voting history.
And your conclusion is a bit o head in the sand. You keep fighting for southern women's right to chose at your own expense. And at the expense of every other issue you find important. Every time a red state votes, it votes republican...and thereby, against the issues you find important. And yet, your politics enables them to keep electing presidents who don't give a shit about you, or your issues...you care about their rights? Well they don't give a shit about your political priorities. Why martyr your priorities to them?
Interesting tiddle bittles from wikipedia:
Some academics also criticized the decision. In his 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, "The Wages of Crying Wolf," Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as Massachusetts congressman John F. Tierney and editorial writer Michael Kinsley, have criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Hmmm...that's an interesting idea...where have I heard that before...oh, I know...that was my own GD point.
And then there is this;
In a 5-4 decision in 1989's Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, but did uphold several abortion restrictions and substantially modified the Roe trimester framework. In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor pointedly refused to reconsider Roe. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a concurring opinion, refused to join the plurality's opinion because it refused to overrule Roe, and criticized O'Connor's ambiguous position on the matter. Justice Harry Blackmun, by now a passionate defender of his Roe opinion, dissented angrily, arguing that the plurality opinion signaled doom for the abortion right.
A squeeker. Barely consensus at all there fo. Read the bolded part again.
Like I quoted on the other page:
Meanwhile, Roe gives pro-life politicians a free pass. A large majority of voters reject the hard-line anti-abortion stance: in Gallup polling since 1975, for example, about 80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent). Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life." Yet because the Court has removed the abortion question from the legislative realm, conservative politicians are free to cater to pro-lifers by proposing policies that, if ever actually implemented, would render those politicians quite unpopular.
In short, Roe puts liberals in the position of defending a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply while freeing those conservatives from any obligation to articulate a responsible policy that might command majority support.
Read the article. I assure you fo, there is a democratic movement that will build support for women's right to chose coming to red states when roe dies. Quit worrying your pretty little head.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 12:15:08 PM
Too lazy to go back a page? Okay:
Still, if Roe ever does die, I won't attend its funeral. Nor would I lift a finger to prevent a conservative president from nominating justices who might bury it once and for all.
Are you a pro-lifer?
Not at all. I generally favor permissive abortion laws. And despite my lack of enthusiasm for Roe, I wouldn't favor overturning the decision as a jurisprudential matter. A generation of women has grown up thinking of reproductive freedom as a constitutional right, and the Court should not casually take away rights that it has determined the Constitution guarantees. Stability in law—particularly constitutional law—is critically important; the Supreme Court would do well to remember that. Still, the liberal commitment to Roe has been deeply unhealthy—for American democracy, for liberalism, and even for the cause of abortion rights itself. All would benefit if abortion-rights proponents were forced to make their arguments in the policy arena (rather than during Supreme Court nomination hearings), and if pro-lifers were actually accountable to the electorate for their deeply unpopular policy prescriptions.
That's absurd. How can you say that liberalism and abortion rights would benefit if their supporters gave up on the decision that protects reproductive freedom?
By removing the issue from the policy arena, the Supreme Court has prevented abortion-rights supporters from winning a debate in which public opinion favors them.
Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion. Conservatives who fulminate that the Court made up the right to abortion, which appears explicitly nowhere in the Constitution, are being simplistic—but they're not entirely wrong. In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky; abortion policy is a question that the Constitution—even broadly construed—cannot convincingly be read to resolve.
Believe me boys, if Karl rove was on our side, he'd be nodding his head...the death of roe is the end of national conservative politics.
"Unwanted" can mean a lot of things. Unwanted children? ABORT. In the Netherlands they are now killing children BORN with mental retardation and for other ailments. They are also killing the elderly. In this me me society I can see this spyraling (sp?) out of control, "Should we keep grandpa alive? He doesnt do much for me, and if we keep him alive much longer there won't be much money left to go around, let's knock him off." I can't even begin to imagine what would or could happen in the future. This society lacks simple values of life itself. It is much easier for a quick "fix" than to deal with it. Accountability is very much lacking in our society as well. We ARE a socialist country, and we cannot improve through intuition and creativity if the masses know that the government is always there to spoonfeed and wipe ass.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 12:45:17 PM
@JJ
Am I at the point in a Stink arguement where I should quip incoherently? Let me give it a shot:
Choosey losey as the water runs up hill and butterflies fight the wind. O'Conner wears red lingerie beneath her robe.
Was that good? Or should I just ignore him?
@Stink
I'm stuck and can't shake the worry, self-defeating as it may be. What provides your confidence in "a democratic movement that will build support for women's right to chose coming to red states when roe dies." I ain't seeing it.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 2:02:11 PM
Lol. Brings back ol times.
What gives me confidence?
This:
A generation of women has grown up thinking of reproductive freedom as a constitutional right, and the Court should not casually take away rights that it has determined the Constitution guarantees.
And this:
A large majority of voters reject the hard-line anti-abortion stance: in Gallup polling since 1975, for example, about 80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent). Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life.
And this: despite the fanfare empowered zealots have received (christian right) america seems to have become increasingly more open minded with respect to race, women's rights, and homosexuality. Queers are all over tv, radio, movies, print media and so are portrayals of powerful women and minorities in positions of power. America today bears little resemblance to how it was over thirty years ago. There are established democratic ogranizations ready to pounce, and there is a system of on line activists poised to strike as well...wanna see a shit storm? Wait till alabama tells its women folks that they can't make a decision about their reproductive destiny. That aint gonna go over too well and the politicians who enact that legislation can count on a sudden fatal drainage of support, signifying their demise...
Other news: pro war/administration hack, judy miller reads writing on the walls and retires.
One more bonuse of letting roe die and letting red states outlaw abortion: red state politicians will be seen as regressive mysogynists and will never get elected to national positions again. And purple states will swing to blue tipping the balance of power to the dems.
And the repubs know this. Which is why they really really need roe.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 2:39:50 PM
: :
Edit comment:
Red staters: cause for alarm. Roe dies - you get your way and outlaw abortion in your state? You get to look forward to long nasty fights at the thanksgiving table when your fruity aunt helen and your nieces who go to college read you the riot act and give you your come-uppance on equality and respect...male dominance, yada, yada, yada. I don't want to be in your place. Nothing, nothing will get accomplished....you'll be drawn into this fight in every realm. And speaking of ladies...look for the brain drain as your educated women folk beat a hasy retreat for bluer climes (education levels being the biggest predictor of whether or not an american favors abortion rights).
Yall'l be stuck with the stupid ones while we yanks entertain your best and brightest...i'll be all, "mind if we dance wif yo dates?"
Flea: huh? Too cryptic...too...JJ.
There is no mention of abortion in the constitution as the two desenting voices of roe pointed out. The best they could do was link abortion to the right to privacy.
Byron White, joined by William Rehnquist, vigorously dissented, calling the Court's decision "an exercise of raw judicial power." He wrote, "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.
Wikipedia
Privacy and abortion? Bit of a stretch aint it? Especially given the ramifications.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 3:15:00 PM
Still ain't adding up for me.
And the repubs know this. Which is why they really really need roe.
Have Roberts and Alito headfaked Dobson and winked at Rove? Or is Rove ignorant?
I bet neither.
Roe gets flipped. Fundies have field days in lots of states. Restrictive laws get passed.
You then make a big bet on the upside and give general public a lot more credit than they deserve.
I don't think we should roll those dice. I don't think we need to.
Oh...ok...lets just keep getting our ass kicked.
Like we ever since roe passed. Worked out pretty well so far.
GONG!
No...i'm just f@#king with you. You may be right. Looky here:
Too bad our republican moufpieces dun run oft...i'd like to rub their noses in this.
Let me clarify a bit Stink. First read the majority opinion of the Supreme Court on Roe, and if you want, take a few side trips in understanding the basis of our right to privacy. There is little doubt that the framers of our constitution did not want to abridge fundamental rights just because they were not specifically spelled out in the constitution. The majority of the Supremes sited the 9th to 14th amendments in their decision. To narrow it down to "just a right to privacy" is to ignore the reasoning behind the decision. As an example;
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
Would it be just a simple mater of privacy if your state legislature enacted a law stating that all males living within the state must submit DNA examples so they can be more easily tracked down for childcare payments once Roe was overturned? You play you gotta pay.
Now about those crazy Dutch. They seem to be brewing up rules where it will be OK to whack a kid when they are terminally ill with no prospect of recovery and suffering great pain. Parents permitting of course.
Eh, personally if I'm in that condition I'd just as soon be pumped up with heroin and LSD. Not everyones cup of tea grant you, and totally illegal with our current bunch of nitwits in office.
And yet while we cast aspersions upon the Dutch we find in above posts links to the Reps wanting to cut funding for food and medicine for the poor and elderly. And at the same time Bush flatly refuses to hear anything about a windfall tax on big oil and wants to give the masters even bigger tax cuts. We might not agree with the Dutch about euthanasia but we seem to have no problem letting our poor and seniors choose between starving, dying for lack of medicine, or freezing this winter.
Quite a leader that W. Let's do some more honoring.
FB/Medicated for your safety.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 10:28:47 PM
Have we been left to argue amongst ourselves? And, is that a win?
Next topic:
How liberal is too liberal?
I'm outta town for a bit. You two duke it out. I'll settle when I return next week.
Last edited: Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 4:22:19 AM
^ We're NOT arguing.
Stink you need to use ;) and :) a bit more so as to not confuse fo fo :)
fo fo, keep up; LOL. You didn't think Stink was really turning into JJ did you?
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Giggle :)
Flea, that was an excellent post. Ima leave it at that. And I really liked this bit:
We might not agree with the Dutch about euthanasia but we seem to have no problem letting our poor and seniors choose between starving, dying for lack of medicine, or freezing this winter.
Spot on.
Ok, so it seems that the righties are feeling vanquished. To be fair, it isn't likely that they feel we vanquished them. JJ isn't capable of that much self reflection, and chief wouldn't want to admit it either. Like I said before, their entire ideology has been left to rot out all on its own, in full public view, unrestrained, unchallenged, in its purest form, in bush co policies. The guy is a collosal failure of historic proportions. A dumbass for the ages.
So, while we may not have vanquished the twin evils of jj and chief, we should take a moment to pat ourselves on the back for getting this one right. We told you so! We warned you not to vote for that moron. We said this would happen. You didn't listen...so own this failure. Anyone who voted for bush needs to own up to it. You owe it to yourselves and your children and the 49% that saw this coming, to pull your head outta your butts before you vote next time. ;)
Here's a question: will the democrats win enough seats in 2006 to take back the senate and the house? And if so, can we then make an honest attempt to impeach bush and cheney for lying us into war? And if so, is that the end on the neocons forever?
(chief/JJ bait)
Ah screw it, this pig is roasted.
Check this out from page 2 its pre-out a here stinkspeak from,I dunno? May? April?:
Many people, not just democrats, regard bush's economic policies with deep suspicion. While they trust him to keep the terrorists at bay, they remain skeptical with regard to his economic stewardship, and rightly so. I don't think we'll see any change in SS anytime soon. Too politicized and far too polarized right now. You aren't allowed to get your panties in a wad over this. You guys have run roughshod over every other aspect of foreign and domestic policy without the slightest concession to the minority party. This apartheid, single minded, one sided, ideological horseshit is coming to an end...and we're all going to be better for it. Bush's appointment of wolfowitz as president of the world bank confirms his over-reach...hard times are coming his way.
Liberals may be learing to play ball after all. Have you seen some of the discussion on giving up support on roe v wade? I love it! We get our wheels turning again, and you fellers are sunk! All you'll have is 8 years of corruption, attacks on civil liberties, record deficits, environmental rollbacks, abysmal education policies, greater concentration of wealth in fewer hands, more hungry children in america, and international contempt to speak your case.
That's the best thing we have going: for years the right has orchestrated this whining about big government and liberal largess. They've criticized and demonized. Made "liberal" a dirty word. Suddenly, they've got no one to scape goat anymore. They control every branch of government. They bring us even bigger government and greater largess -- albeit to corporations. And shit is hitting the fan. Yes, that is shit. No one to blame but themselves. Now cowboy bush can't swagger around and berate "washington" with homespun horse-sense. He is to blame for "washington." his economic policies have hocked us to the east (no ben, I'm not making that up either): they own us. They're going to be influencing american economic policy soon...
How long can you live on credit? What happens when you keep charging it? They've been spending more than they've been taking in for three years now. We all know that this doesn't work, that such policies are unsustainable. Even that toady greenspan has garned up enough testicular momentum to feebly whisper that to congress.
I'm completely off topic. Chief wanted to blame the democrats for something I believe. These days, that's harder and harder to do, no? And yet the shit keeps hitting the fan. More and more shit...
This is back when JJ and chief thought that the heft under their jackets was muscle. It turned out to be flabby ol ideology...leaving them...deflated I guess. One by one republican shillers fell silent. The collosal, never ending failures of bush co made living in their alternate reality no longer possible. Avoiding reality in the reality based world was no longer possible, try as they might. Forget the spin. So much for the grand narrative. This story is really about incompetence, cronyism, belligerence, arrogance, classism, xenophobia, greed and fear. Not what you thought you were buying. But that's what you bought....bought us all. Thanks democrats? Jesus, how ironic that title is now eh chief? So, imagine I'm a fat lady, I've just served up waffles -- tally, 44, flea and I are having strawberries with ours...you guys get a side of crow. Lets say I just sang my little song.
I pronounce this pig cooked, lipstick and all.
Eat some crow, enjoy some waffle...reflect, eat some more crow...
Last edited: Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 3:04:56 PM
<--------reading the 40 posts from the last 4 days.
LOL
You guys are a trip.
Last edited: Friday, November 11, 2005 at 10:38:07 AM
http://www.hackettforohio.com/2005/11/paul_hackett_fi.php
vote for santos.
Just remembered something.
You've been hearing the republican big oil, ANWR drilling, government gutting, tax break for the rich apologists argue against any windfall taxes on big oil for their recent record profits.
Do you remember when Vice invited this same group into the white house for a secret summit on what energy legislation to pass? Christ, they got to write their own ticket.
Thanks reps for another chance for us all to bend over. BTW, if you think gas isn't going to be $4.00 a gallon this time next year you probably believe we're winning in Iraq too.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Saturday, November 12, 2005 at 2:02:56 PM
Oh Tally, you know you can't trust content on that web page. They obviously hired look-alikes for David Shuster, W, and Vice then cleverly copied Hardball and added the MS NBC logo. You know you can't believe what you see and hear. Get a grip lefty.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
I know its over...but...i like to rub salt in wounds...a new gallup poll:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve 37 (41)
Disapprove 60 (56)
# Two-thirds of independents and 91% of Democrats disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Even among Republicans, who have solidly backed Bush in the past, 19% express disapproval -- a new high.
# For the first time -- albeit by a narrow 49%-48% -- a plurality disapprove of the way Bush is handling the issue of terrorism. Six in 10 disapprove of the way he's handling foreign affairs, the economy, Iraq and immigration, and 71% disapprove of him on controlling federal spending.
# A 53% majority say they trust what Bush says less than they trusted previous presidents while they were in office. In a specific comparison with President Clinton, those surveyed by 48%-36% say they trust Bush less.
# A record high 60% say going to war in Iraq was "not worth it." In a finding consistent with previous polls, 54% say it was "a mistake" to send troops there.
Fewer than one in 10 adults say they would prefer a congressional candidate who is a Republican and who agrees with Bush on most major issues, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Even among Republicans, seven of 10 are most likely to back a candidate who has at least some disagreements with the president.
LoL...
Run republicans Run.
Its funny to see how the RATS
run and hide when the light is
illuminating their path of lies.
PEACE
Yes, a trip, Chief.
We suggest to them that they fill in the blanks below, then say "ditto" often?
"_____ lied because ______ is a lying liar, and lying liars lie."
Much easier to read.
Last edited: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 12:20:37 PM
See ya chief. Take care...sorry your team turned out to be so...lame.
And ^ hack (JJ); I guess that entry helps to graph your free-fall descent into the abyss of pure irrelevance. With that inanity, you finally drop to the level of rush (ironically) and o'reilly. Except of course on a much smaller scale. In infinitesimally smaller scale: witless administration hack on a forum devoted to cartoon tanks. The rest of us? Hell, at least we converse...you? You just shill/restate GOP talking points ad nauseum. Even that^ remark, that gross simplification, belies a complete paucity of intellectual development.
What a waste...take your solitude here for a sign of the failure of your "contributions" to convince anyone...other than yourself. But you seem to be born to believe. Far better suited to the notion of "belief" than you are to reason. Do yourself a favor...take your act to a prayer meeting, a gun show, or a red state county fair goat wrestle. You'd likely find some truer followers there...one's whoes ears, through patient subservience to rush et al, are open to your brand of rumsfeldian poetry. And sing, pasty one! Sing!
Sing of war, of torture, of true patriotism! Sing of tax breaks and deficits, of swift boats and liberal media; pray sir! Do sing of intelligent design and the culture of life and federal indictments! CIA failures, WMD, terri schiavo! Regale them with your voice sir! Enthrall them with your tune of incompetence, cronyism, greed and corruption! Lift your voice in the defense of the powerful! Of the rights of the powerful few over the interests of the many! Such sweet poetry...
And make sure you hit that note: your consistent, continued theme...that the rich and powerful can do no harm, regardless of the devastation they spread, so long as they are american exceptionalist, christian, free-market ideolgues...like you.
Don't worry, they can't smell a hypocrite either. You should do fine. Good luck, and good riddance.
Last edited: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 3:08:17 PM
^You sound nutty buddy. Put down your big fat thesarus and throw out some facts. ;)
There's a time for fact throwing, and a time for conclusion reaching. I am only reiterating a conclusion based on observation and interactions that go back nearly two years...
So, throw out your own damn facts!
^^^ that's some piece of writing! How long was that waiting to be expressed?
So... Tell us what you really think.... %)
Er...about three minutes, actually.
Beating a dead horse:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House document shows oil executives met with Vice President
Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force which critics say secretly formed energy policy favorable to the industry, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The document, obtained this week by the newspaper, shows that officials from four major oil companies met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were formulating the Bush administration's energy policy, the report said.
The newspaper said the document shows that officials from Exxon MobilCorp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. And BP America Inc. Met with the Cheney aides.
The White House refused to divulge information about the task force.
Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment on the document but told the newspaper that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The
Sierra Club environmental group and the watchdog group Judicial Watch sued unsuccessfully to find out the names and positions of the task force members and to learn about their contacts with industry executives.
They claimed that Cheney, the former chief executive of energy and construction company Halliburton Co., drafted a policy that favored the industry by consulting oil industry executives.
The task force produced a policy paper calling for more oil and gas drilling and a revived nuclear power program.
According to The Washington Post, a person familiar with the task force's work said the document obtained by the paper was based on records kept by the
Secret Service. The source requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, the Post said.
During a Senate hearing last week, chief executives of the major oil companies either denied that their firms participated in the task force or that they did not know, the newspaper said.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the
Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that gave recommendations to the task force, the Post reported.
According to the person familiar with the task force's work, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive. That meeting is not noted in the document, the newspaper said. Yahoo news.
I wish I could say I'm surprized...
I will credit the GDub administration of making me more cynical, though.
So now I'm caught up. Lots of stuff going on here, that's for sure. I wish I could have been here when the topics were a little hotter, but I'm sure to say something to get things stirred up again. ;)
I appreciate what's been said about abortion, especially since the party lines are so clearly drawn and I do tend to feel I have to decide on a candidate almost exclusively on that issue (or one like it). I am glad that my governor, Joe Manchin, bucked the party and came out as pro-life. Of course, the state's Dems didn't like it one bit and criticized him for speaking at a pro-life rally, but he felt he had to stick by what he believes and I like that. I also think the debate and the response to polls depends greatly on how the question is presented. I don't think its all that simple and I don't think its only a woman's issue either. But I am willing to compromise and I sure would support RU-486 over third trimester abortions. I can also see this as a distracting issue, kinda like gay marriage is. Sure, its an easy way to get Christians all riled up, but is it really our mission to engage these issues on the political scene? I was once shared at a church my thoughts on this, that opposing gay marriage was off the mark, since "we" weren't opposing divorcees and adulterers getting married either. The response? <crickets chirping> . I think only one guy got me. Our mission as Christians (IMHO), is to meet people on their level, to meet their needs and help them to come to know a vibrant, loving God. If we were following Christ's directives to achieve this, then change in individuals would facilitate fundamental change in the culture. Instead we've traded our Great Commission for PACs and I don't think that's where we're supposed to be.
My take on taxes and such is I would prefer a flat tax, scaled by income if you wish, and leave it at that. I don't think its fair to ask people who make more money to pay more money (at least through charging them at a higher percentage rate) just because they can afford it. I would also like to see a lot of crap removed from the budget and see the Feds provide fewer services. I think they're involved in too much stuff and that they should only provide what states and individual organizations can't, kinda get back to the purity of the original ideas of why we have a Federal Government in the first place.
Along those lines, there is something I've been wanting to share concerning "big business". Over the summer I attended a conference for history teachers. One of the topics was the industrial revolution and they focused on the life of Dale Carnegie. In a nutshell, he started off poor and did what was necessary to make it to the top. Along the way, he picked up on the idea of social evolution, the strong survive and prosper. Not being a religious man (he donated more church organs than he built libraries in order to cut down on the preacher's time with music), this was a good philosophy for him to take, especially since he was living proof that it worked. He felt that anyone could do the same as he. His contemporaries pretty much held to the same view and I'm sure that's been passed down through the boardrooms until today. So while it might be nice if businesses gave/cared/loved more, but I don't think its in their nature or philosophy. To legislate it into existance IS a form of legislating morality (only in this case, no one minds since we're hoping to get some money out of the bastages), but the idea does seem to go against the grain of those who oppose such ideas as legal morality.
As far as ID, I tend to think its a compromise and I have to PROTEST what the Pope is laying down concerning evolution. There are differing views on how to read Genesis, that's true, but there are some of us who still think "And there was evening and there was morning," has a very simple meaning. Also, Genesis is the bedrock of the Bible and therefore the Christian faith. If it gets too metaphorical or subjected to science's interpretation of the data, then to me the whole thing starts to crumble (which in my opinion, is the objective of some). Basically, if you can't trust some of the Bible, you can't trust any of it. Surely even stink can at least appreciate the necessity for consistancy of thought, even if he disagrees with the conclusions.
I received this link in a newsletter I received today. Basically an expose' on staged Palestian conflicts for newsmedia video bites. (be patient, its 18mins).
Surely even stink can at least appreciate the necessity for consistancy of thought...
I'm a bit tired and will examine my thoughts about your post more thoroughly later. But you have an interesting quote supporting the scientific method there. Unless you are saying consistency of "conclusion" despite provable facts to the contrary. That would sound like someone a bit daft to me. You concur?
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
@ Stink: I just thought you were a bit ( WAY) over the top for feeling so confident about your views. I actually chuckled when I read it.
For the record (AGAIN), I am an independent. I could care less for republicans or democrats, OR as Nader calls 'em Republicrats. They are so much alike how could you take for either side. They are 90% crooks and am sick of it all. Don't take me out of context.. Maybe more XD are in order.
Pass the salt!!! :P
^ while you're at it, someone pass the lock too. ;)
@ Flea - What I'm trying to convey is that its important to be consistant in our thinking. Depending on how someone looks at Genesis, one can determine how they view the authority/accuracy of the rest of the Bible. I think that someone like stink for example, seems a game of mental gymnastics going on with someone who believes in evolution, but still holds to other "truths" in the Bible while he may think I'm a loon, at least I'm a consistant loon. ;)
In other news, stink seems to be writing for Fox News.
Federalism May Offer Abortion Solution
Last edited: Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 8:55:10 AM
Must be off to work but,
Basically, if you can't trust some of the Bible...
I'd say one must examine the basis of the "trust" and where it belongs in your personal life. Is one taking it as an instrument of interpretation or literally? To me, the Christian world often forgets there was life, culture, and empires building in China and other parts of the world. Coincidentally they were also recording their history during "biblical" times. Somehow they were all at work during the "flood" and totally missed it :)
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Actually, I've heard that there are several flood stories to be found in the past. I did a quick Google search and found this link.
Flood Stories — Can They Be Ignored?
Basically, world flood or "deluge" stories aren't unique to ancient Hebrew culture, but has widespread references (though the details vary).
Hey rabbit. Good posts. I do think it's important to try and be consistent in one's thinking. But like I said somewhere above, I don't see evolution and the concept of god to be incompatible, and neither does the vatican. I guess however, a literal interpretation of the bible is incompatible, but then again, a literal interpretation of the bible is pretty much incompatible with existence in the 21st century. We've talked about this before: how many biblical prohibitions or exhortations have you already dismissed as archaic or just plain dated? I'm sure you can think of specific examples. You know, the ones about fabrics, or the origin of bats; when is it ok to stone your wife to death and so on. If you were truly living you life according to scripture in modern america...i think you'd eventually be locked away in jail, or sent to a nervous hospital...or something. Know what I mean?
Killy: yeah, I got a bit exuberant when I did my little jig on the grave of JJ/Chief's dead polemics....but you see, we've been at that fight for a while. Their arguments were proven to be extraordinarily weak and finally perished, not because of what any of us said, but because the principles of their arguments collapsed when bush policy collapsed. They couldn't be convinced by our arguments, reason, or facts...but the complete failure of their ideology in real world application was too much even for a mindless spinner like the hack jj. They fell into the traps 51% of americans fell into. If it wasn't for their...personal shortcomings...we wouldn't have three more years of these moronic criminals at the helm.
Go figure. So we won the argument, but we're still stuck with their horrible mistake. Great. Thanks, republicans...
Last edited: Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 12:36:32 PM
@All - Yah know, I commented on a lot more than just creation. ;)
@ fink: twist & shout (et al) - There's something you've GOT to do for me, OK? Understand that there are basically two covenants in the Bible, which are basically dealt with in the Old and New testaments. Simply put, the legalized lifestyle of works in the first were designed by God to bring us into the second one based on grace. Butt loads of codes were designed to weigh us down to the point of us saying, "I can't do it! Have mercy on me!"
And to answer that other question. I like science, but I don't think it can be used to prove/disprove history, much less miracles. Now I realize there are historical sciences and such, but its based on a whole different set of criteria when it comes to determining what happened way back when. I would have problems a plenty if I were going to prove what I did last week, not to mention when I was 16. Basically the history of my teen years would be based on the recollection of friends, family and other witnesses, perhaps some items that I still have at my home and other locations and some things I made back then. The difficulty comes in when I claim something that's perhaps beyond the scope for your ability to believe me. If I say, I once drank 12 or so beers in one night (and lived to tell about it), you might think it was something, but not implausable. If I say I once saw a ghost (on a different night ;) ), then you might have a problem with that. But your acceptance of either statement reveals how you look at things, your experiences and so forth, not the reality of what I experienced. I think the same can be said of miracles and God in general. If I were only chugging along on a religion, I would've dropped out long ago.
you have to read Zecharia Sitchin.(http://www.sitchin.com/)
Like science, but I don't think it can be used to prove/disprove history, much less miracles. Now I realize there are historical sciences and such, but its based on a whole different set of criteria when it comes to determining what happened way back when.
Which is exactly why my as-yet-to-be-born kid will never hear about that ID garbage in a science classroom. Pff... Honestly, grow up.
Did somebody order a drop-kick to the elephant private sector?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/17.html#a5913
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/17.html#a5911
It's time for the neocon project to swing.
@Stinky: You couldn't have responded better. I voted for Bush-hog and day by day I'm regretting it more and more. I dont want to carry this any further. Thanks for your kind replies on that issue.
I use to be more politcally "up to par" before getting married and having three children. I also work six days a week to help make ends meet and pay for my $750 monthly health insurance premiums for the fam. Gas prices killing me too. Wife just got a part time job to help out, but after she drives 30min each way for the pay she's getting I don't know if it's worth it. Big Oil is pissing me off. Im done ranting. :S
Killy: if yer sore at big oil right now...watch this.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-Big-Oil-lying.wmv
It's kinda unbelievable...but not really. GD SOBs! No GD decency at all!
Hmmm.... :o
Awful quiet in here. Looks like JJ found an open door.
That was so funny. It's great when life provides its own little punchlines...
Just wanted to take a moment to wish our conservative friends Happy Holidays and a wonderful Winter Solstice! Peace on earth!
Last edited: Saturday, December 03, 2005 at 4:08:58 AM
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?