It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others. John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there (one such only recently reported by Karl Rove though it escaped mention in any of Senator McCain's books). But as Swindle said, this is a "desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing."
In a press release today (in response to a claim by the Obama campaign that John McCain my not have abided by the rules of a debate), John McCain released the following:
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
This isn't the first time that John McCain has used D&D playing as an insult, he has repeatedly accused his critics of "playing Dungeons and Dragons in their mother's basement." Personally, I don't even think D&D players Lean left, and most of us of voting age do not play in our mother's basement (although I have many fond memories of playing D&D in Parents house as a child). Anyway I thought I'd pass this on.
Y'know, if I were WotC, I'd seriously be considering sueing him for slander. Or something.
Well, actually I'd staple him to the wall by his lower intersines and then Maximised Disintegrate him, (since I have a very low tolerance for complete frak-tards who have a go at other people's hobbies), but that's just me...
I haven't been paying much attention to the US elections; but now I'm rooting for the other guy...
...Pesky details.
Maybe I'm wrong in my comment.. I dunno, I'm kind of left speachless right now.
...John McCain released the following...
If you follow the link you will see that the D&D comment was written by Michael Goldfarb, not McCain.
If you follow the link you will see that the D&D comment was written by Michael Goldfarb, not McCain.
Doesn't really matter. If McCain wants to be a leader then he is responsible for the actions of the people who work for him (within reasonable expectations). Since this is located at McCain's website, then it is not unreasonable to assume that McCain approves of this statement. I doubt that he is unaware that it was made.
If you follow the link you will see that the D&D comment was written by Michael Goldfarb, not McCain.
Mr. Goldfarb, Mr. McCain, your Pinochle table is waiting...
I doubt that he is unaware that it was made.
That line of reasoning is why I have not purchased Nike products in years as, in a hiking magazine, one of their ad agencies released an ad that belittled the disabled.
This is actually - IMO - a great example of what's wrong with us in general. Why worry about, I dunno, actual issues and the candidates' stances when some guy workin' for another guy insulted your hobby? Forget the small stuff. Look at what matters. This - on no level whatsoever - qualifies as an issue of import.
Y'know, if I were WotC, I'd seriously be considering sueing him for slander. Or something.
Well, actually I'd staple him to the wall by his lower intersines and then Maximised Disintegrate him, (since I have a very low tolerance for complete frak-tards who have a go at other people's hobbies), but that's just me...
I haven't been paying much attention to the US elections; but now I'm rooting for the other guy...
Why? It is a joke. Suing over it, would just be even more bad press for D&D. It is like those groups protesting Tropic Thunder because they use the word "retarded" as an insult. Come on, we are gamers. Lots of us are nerdy. Too many of us get what we know about the real world (and Science!) from fantasy and science fiction novels.
Uhh. Am I the only one that feels this means absolutely nothing? C'mon guys, there's waaay more important stuff to concern ourselves with regarding the upcoming election. Seriously. There's, like, a war or something going on and I heard the economy might not be doin' so good. And I'm fairly certain there's some other junk goin' on an' stuff. ;)
This is actually - IMO - a great example of what's wrong with us in general. Why worry about, I dunno, actual issues and the candidates' stances when some guy workin' for another guy insulted your hobby? Forget the small stuff. Look at what matters. This - on no level whatsoever - qualifies as an issue of import.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, who fraking cares what some dude who has never rolled a d20 thinks about D&D? Not exactly a 'deal breaking' topic. At least it shouldn't be. If you are choosing who you vote for on their opinion of a game... you have bigger issues to look after.
Well to me it is a warning sign. It illustrates how hopelessly out of touch they are if they consider "plays D&D" an insult, not to mention ignoring the fact that the largest single-occupation group of D&D players is the military.
Quite.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, who fraking cares what some dude who has never rolled a d20 thinks about D&D? Not exactly a 'deal breaking' topic. At least it shouldn't be. If you are choosing who you vote for on their opinion of a game... you have bigger issues to look after.
As I said above, it helps to illustrate how out of touch he is. I would prefer a president that is aware of what has happened in the world in the past 30 years.
As I said above, it helps to illustrate how out of touch he is. I would prefer a president that is aware of what has happened in the world in the past 30 years.
I'm just sayin, I think that D&D is a pretty small blip on the radar of world events and no where near what I consider as important in a presidential campaign.
I don't, however, get a say in the US presidency anymore than last time1. Doesn't mean it doesn't worry me as much as Bush did/does.
1Pending permission to set the whole planet to fire and sword from my Aotrs superiors, of course. I live yet in hope...
As I said above, it helps to illustrate how out of touch he is. I would prefer a president that is aware of what has happened in the world in the past 30 years.
It proves that the author of that statement may be out of touch. Not McCain. Though it certainly doesn't help him any. Still, this is so small a thing that if people focus on it as a deciding factor in their choice for the next pres, I will have even less faith in the citizens of my country than I do now. I used to think the Electoral College was a dangerous waste. The more I see of what people actually think like, however, I feel it may still be needed.
I'm just sayin, I think that D&D is a pretty small blip on the radar of world events and no where near what I consider as important in a presidential campaign.
Again, it is not in and of itself an issue so much as illustrative of how out of touch the candidate is. He's one step away from ranting about hippies and Woodstock.
It proves that the author of that statement may be out of touch. Not McCain.
The writer speaks for McCain.
Again, it is not in and of itself an issue so much as illustrative of how out of touch the candidate is. He's one step away from ranting about hippies and Woodstock.
He did that during the primaries. It's old news now. ;)
The writer speaks for McCain.
Yep, that's what campaign staff and surrogates do.
I do find it jarring that he's decrying the hobby of a pretty large chunk of our country's military men and women, while at the same time trying to position himself as being the one who's in touch with them and their needs.
Well to me it is a warning sign. It illustrates how hopelessly out of touch they are if they consider "plays D&D" an insult, not to mention ignoring the fact that the largest single-occupation group of D&D players is the military.
You really think a candidates opinion of a niche hobby (even among military people) reveals how in or out of touch he is? Okay.
I think this is about as valuable a measure of a candidates abilities as how well they can chug a beer or play basketball.
And for the general population, "plays D&D" is an insult. If anything it shows how in touch he is. We might not like it. BUt for years "plays D&D", "Watches Star Trek", "reads sci-fi and fantasy" have all been insults. And it is because the people who game and do those things are usually a little less on the ball socially than the rest of the population. I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.
What would he say about World of Darkness (by White Wolf publishing)?
I doubt he even knows what it is.
But lets be realistic, what is more important, the mainstream vote, or the geek and emo vote?
Just toss out anything to try and desperately score some kind of political points. This is merely the latest in a series of WTF ads and comments:
June: Karl Rove says Obama is the arrogant guy at the country club with the cigarette and hot date.
(Decode: arrogant, smoker, ?????)
(WTF Factor: 4)
July: McCain ads calling Obama a celebrity and comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
(Decode: shallow, flighty, irresponsible, drunk?, pantyless?)
(WTF Factor: 5)
July: McCain ad calling Obama 'the Chosen One', sarcastically comparing him with Moses (and possibly Neo?)
(Decode: arrogant, entitled, scary, Left Behind anti-christ imagery, pandering to religious right)
(WTF Factor: 7.5)
August: McCain aide comment calling Obama supporters basement-dwelling D&D players
(Decode: socially inept, nerdy, out of touch, satanists?)
(WTF Factor: 8)
It's a pattern, and I think it says something about the politician who approves this method of campaigning. So I think it's a valid reason to vote against someone.
What this illustrates is the McCain/NeoCon camp will just throw anything at Obama, even if it makes absolutely no sense.
Just toss out anything to try and desperately score some kind of political points. This is merely the latest in a series of WTF ads and comments:.
I honestly think any politician will say what it takes to win. Including throwing anything at the other guy. I don't think McCain has been particularly underhanded at all...and I am voting for Obama!
June: Karl Rove says Obama is the arrogant guy at the country club with the cigarette and hot date.
(Decode: arrogant, smoker, ?????)
(WTF Factor: 4):.
If dems cannot understand why this is scoring political points, they will keep on losing. This is exactly the kind of guy 60% of the country doesn't like. It was done to show that he is out of touch (arrogant=North East Liberal who doesn't understand the heartland).
July: McCain ads calling Obama a celebrity and comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
(Decode: shallow, flighty, irresponsible, drunk?, pantyless?)
(WTF Factor: 5)):.
This was also effective, because it explained Obama's popularity away.
July: McCain ad calling Obama 'the Chosen One', comparing him with Moses (and possibly Neo?)
(Decode: arrogant, entitled, scary, Left Behind anti-christ imagery, pandering to religious right)
(WTF Factor: 7.5))):.
This was meant to show hubris on the part of Obama, reinforce the arrogant tag, and perhaps show that he is creeping into a dangerous area. The religious right votes in large numbers. If dems continue to ignore, they will continue to lose elections. Actually as a Dem, this is the one I thought was spot on. His campaign is getting a little messianic.
August: McCain aide comment calling Obama supporters basement-dwelling D&D players
(Decode: socially inept, nerdy, out of touch)
(WTF Factor: 8)))):.
It is funny. Get a sense of humor and don't take it so seriously. Have you been to your local gaming store lately? Didn't you notice that most gamers are a little on the socially inept and out of touch side?
It's a pattern, and I think it says something about the politician who approves this method of campaigning. So I think it's a valid reason to vote against someone.
No it isn't a valid reason. Every politician does it. It improved their chances of winning.
Well to me it is a warning sign. It illustrates how hopelessly out of touch they are if they consider "plays D&D" an insult, not to mention ignoring the fact that the largest single-occupation group of D&D players is the military.
Where did you get that statistic?
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like to know the source.
I would not take a campaign worker's words as being the same as the person he represents either way because frankly, campaign runners just say what they think will get their candidate elected.
This guy failed at his attempt. Epic fail.
I used to like McCain, and still do to an extent (voting for Obama) but occasionally he says something or something happens that cheeses me off.
First he voted yes on the Iraq war, then he went and stated that most of the troops in Iraq believe in the cause (a fact I don't believe. I have met more than one troop who is cheesed off that he has to go to Iraq and risk his life for unclear reasons. Of course he still does it.), and then one of McCain's support staff shoves this nugget on us?
Shame. But "Pro-Obama D&D players" .....hmmm.
Obama/Arneson in 08!
The writer speaks for McCain.
The writer still speaks in his own voice. There have also been plenty of examples in this campaign so far that indicate that those reporting to the candidate do not always speak with approval. Several staffers and aides have been let go for saying something that does not jibe with the candidate's own thoughts (or does but was something said candidate tries to keep low-key). I truly feel that this is still so small an issue it would be a waste of time to address it. It's meaningless. Spending time on "image-control" because some guy happened to use a dated insult would be, IMO, far more telling than the "slight" itself. So it makes McCain appear to be out of touch. Would it be better if he were to address this and waste all sorts of time on something that, overall, means very little? I don't think so.
Yep, that's what campaign staff and surrogates do.
Again, not always with the candidate's thinking in mind. Remember those that lost their jobs for their commentary.
I do find it jarring that he's decrying the hobby of a pretty large chunk of our country's military men and women, while at the same time trying to position himself as being the one who's in touch with them and their needs.
The hobbies enjoyed by the military men and women don't mean jack. So he doesn't understand that the GIs need more d20s and some loose-leaf paper. Who cares? He still understands that they need more men, supplies, etc. He still knows what it was like to be in the military. A hobby is a small part of what we are. Ask a Marine D&D player who he is. Do you think he'll tell you he's a D&D player? Nope. He's a Marine. The hobby is divorced from the occupation. And knowledge of a hobby that is meaningless to the performance of the armed forces and has absolutely nothing to do with their needs is equally meaningless when compared to knowledge of what they actually do need. Does your (general) boss know you play D&D? If he doesn't (mine doesn't), does he somehow treat you unfairly because of it? If he does, does this somehow impact you at review time because of some dated "D&D = Dorks and the Devil" opinion? I hope it doesn't.
Not understanding the hobbies of a soldier does not mean that he (though it wasn't even his own comment) doesn't understand the soldier. The two are not irreconcilably entwined.
**Note: I am not trying to campaign for McCain here. I'm just trying to point out how silly it is to use something completely unrelated to his qualifications as a deciding factor in your vote. This makes about as much sense as not voting for Obama because of what his pastor said.
Obama/Arneson in 08!
lulz. Campaign slogan: Roll Initiative!
"Uh, no, Senator McCain--that's a d12...you want the d20..."
See, I'm not offended by the implication...more confused. What the hell does D&D have to do with Barack Obama? And moreover, does this spokesman realize that D&D is a commercial product, produced by a game corporation? It's not as if it were just a bunch of nerds that just made it up, it's an industry.
Way to go, McCain. You've offended industry.
I'm just trying to point out how silly it is to use something completely unrelated to his qualifications as a deciding factor in your vote.
Don't worry, my vote was decided a very long time ago. ;)
Mostly, I find this whole thing ridiculous. It's just another example of the McCain campaign flailing madly at everyone and everything who isn't on their payroll. If it weren't so disgraceful it would be humorous.
I'm going to laugh my ass off if WotC does something to support Obama after this.
See, I'm not offended by the implication...more confused. What the hell does D&D have to do with Barack Obama? And moreover, does this spokesman realize that D&D is a commercial product, produced by a game corporation? It's not as if it were just a bunch of nerds that just made it up, it's an industry.
Way to go, McCain. You've offended industry.
Well, that is a big stretch.
I thought it was a funny criticism. He is saying they are out of touch with reality and the facts on the ground. That they are lost in a world of theory.
It is like when martial artists call a people larpers. Same concept.
My words are strong on these forums, but damned if only words would come from me towards this putz in person!
I think Hillary just got a few more votes.....
Don't worry, my vote was decided a very long time ago. ;)
Mostly, I find this whole thing ridiculous. It's just another example of the McCain campaign flailing madly at everyone and everything who isn't on their payroll. If it weren't so disgraceful it would be humorous.
Well, he is a politician running for the highest office he can. ;) They all suck. All of 'em. McCain, Hil-dog, Obama - all of 'em. Well, it's just another fact of life that South Park nailed pretty well. We get to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Every time.
It's goofy as hell to trash Obama supporters as D&D nerds. Equally dumb is marginalizing his popularity by comparing it to Paris Hilton's celebrity. Stupid. But, IMO, it's also kinda dumb to think Obama would actually change anything. Especially when that's all he tells you. He's for hope and change. Ok. Now what, exactly, will you do to make these changes that will validate our hope in you? He, like any politician, can't answer that. So, to me at least, they're both running on the same old crap that everyone tries. Whenever a politician tells you what he's gonna do to "fix" everything, it's about as reliable as getting a palm reading. They just don't know what to do and have no idea whatsoever of what they'll actually be able to pull off. The point to this rambling nonsense? I dunno. They all suck. They always will. There is no "hope". Pick the lesser of two let-downs and watch them be as useless as the last guy. Or abstain and earn the right to complain about it. That's what Carlin would've done. ;)
I'd actually like to see an election where we, as a people, would all refuse to vote. For anyone. Maybe then we could force the politicians to find people that don't suck. As it is, we're just getting recycled policies in new-ish packages. And we wonder why it's all going down the crapper.
I think Hillary just got a few more votes.....
Putting her up to 4.
But, IMO, it's also kinda dumb to think Obama would actually change anything. Especially when that's all he tells you. He's for hope and change. Ok. Now what, exactly, will you do to make these changes that will validate our hope in you?
If nothing else, he's not a white guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
If that's all we change with this election, it's still a good step. ;)
Putting her up to 4.
Votes, or place?
You really think a candidates opinion of a niche hobby (even among military people) reveals how in or out of touch he is? Okay.
No, it is that fact that his opinion of it reflects three decade old stereotypes.
I think this is about as valuable a measure of a candidates abilities as how well they can chug a beer or play basketball.
That you fail to grasp the point is not surprising to me in the slightest.
And for the general population, "plays D&D" is an insult. If anything it shows how in touch he is. We might not like it. BUt for years "plays D&D", "Watches Star Trek", "reads sci-fi and fantasy" have all been insults.
Maybe where you live, but I have the good fortune of residing in a far more open-minded and enlightened society.
And it is because the people who game and do those things are usually a little less on the ball socially than the rest of the population.
Speak for yourself.
I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.
And I said I was "worried" where, exactly?
Where did you get that statistic?
It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like to know the source.
I honestly couldn't tell you at this point, it has long since simply become part of my overall body of knowledge. I do recall having seen information in this regard several different times, though, including first-hand anecdotal reports from two cousins in the military.
If nothing else, he's not a white guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
If that's all we change with this election, it's still a good step. ;)
Race and wealth really shouldn't factor into this at all. Unless all white guys from rich families are the same, of course. What? They're not? Ahh. Yep. This means little. :P
The change we need isn't a party, race, gender or economic status change. We need to change the broken system that these people are elected to run. Stick anyone in as President and you'll get pretty similar results. Everyone in politics is concerned more with insulating themselves and their sweet gig more than the people they allegedly represent. Until the government as a whole is fixed, it will remain this way. I'm gonna get off my soap-box now lest someone ask me how I'd go about doing that - cuz I don't know. Though it might be a good platform to seek office with. ;)
I honestly think any politician will say what it takes to win. Including throwing anything at the other guy. I don't think McCain has been particularly underhanded at all...and I am voting for Obama!
I don't think every politician does it. For example, Obama hasn't talked about Keating 5. He hasn't talked about McCain's age. He hasn't talked about McCain's broken first marriage. He hasn't talked about McCain's legendary temper. He hasn't talked about McCain's health problems. He hasn't talked about McCain's affair that led to his first divorce (even though it's so easy to with Edwards' problems). He hasn't attacked Cindy McCain as a rich heiress or McCain as a gold-digger opportunist.
Nope, those kinds of tactics are generally the domain of GOP operatives, for whatever reasons. I was
If dems cannot understand why this is scoring political points, they will keep on losing. This is exactly the kind of guy 60% of the country doesn't like. It was done to show that he is out of touch (arrogant=North East Liberal who doesn't understand the heartland).
I'm not saying it wouldn't work. I'm saying it's low and underhanded. Obama was too busy organizing out-of-work steel workers in south Chicago to spend all his time in the country club. And 40 years ago, Obama would have been kicked out of the country club, by the very same people who support McCain. It makes no sense that Karl Rove is accusing Obama of being an arrogant rich good ol' boy. But people still buy the argument because some people don't need things to make a lot of sense.
This was also effective, because it explained Obama's popularity away.
I think this one was a mixed bag. It also made McCain look like a whiney child, complaining about sour grapes. But I'm sure among some people it was effective. Still doesn't make it right. Effective != right. And McCain's brand is doing the right thing, being an independent, standing up to his party.
If nothing else, he's not a white guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
If that's all we change with this election, it's still a good step. ;)
Are you saying you don't like white people? What does color have to do with anything? As for the topic, who cares it's been widely known for years that people who play D&D are not exactly considered cool or in touch with the real world, not that this is true but that's generally been the perception, one that I wish role playing companies would do their best at changing.
No, it is that fact that his opinion of it reflects three decade old stereotypes.?
The stereotypes also happen to be valid generalizations. Perhaps you don't see it because you fit the stereotype?
That you fail to grasp the point is not surprising to me in the slightest..?
Ad hom all you want. Basically because I disagree with you on a lot, my opinions have no validity.
Maybe where you live, but I have the good fortune of residing in a far more open-minded and enlightened society...?
It doesn't change the fact that European gamers are just as nerdy and socially akward as American ones. I have been to Europe and gamed with Italians and Germans. I witnessed the same "asperger-like" mentality that dominates so much of the American gaming community.
I would also add that I think it is time to get over yourself and your superior civilization.
Speak for yourself. ...?
I think most people would agree with the statement.
And I said I was "worried" where, exactly?
Worried in this context simply means concerned. Since you paid attention to the his statement, I would say your concern is self-evident.
If nothing else, he's not a white guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
If that's all we change with this election, it's still a good step. ;)
Right. He's a black guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
Damn, that is change... :P
I don't think every politician does it. For example, Obama hasn't talked about Keating 5. He hasn't talked about McCain's age. He hasn't talked about McCain's broken first marriage. He hasn't talked about McCain's legendary temper. He hasn't talked about McCain's health problems. He hasn't talked about McCain's affair that led to his first divorce (even though it's so easy to with Edwards' problems). He hasn't attacked Cindy McCain as a rich heiress or McCain as a gold-digger opportunist. .
That is because McCain has the good fortune of being off-limits when it comes to character. I am not saying he doesn't have character flaws, but Obama has to be more subtle, largely because of his own lack of experience and identity in the American Political arena, when attacking McCain in this way. And while he hasn't made direct criticisms himself, his staff certainly hasn't been above it.
Nope, those kinds of tactics are generally the domain of GOP operatives, for whatever reasons. I was .
I don't think so. I am a dem, but you would have to be blind not to see that both parties do this sort of thing. It is politics after all.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work. I'm saying it's low and underhanded. Obama was too busy organizing out-of-work steel workers in south Chicago to spend all his time in the country club. And 40 years ago, Obama would have been kicked out of the country club, by the very same people who support McCain. It makes no sense that Karl Rove is accusing Obama of being an arrogant rich good ol' boy. But people still buy the argument because some people don't need things to make a lot of sense..
A literal country club has little to do with it. They are trying to paint the Obama, and the left in general, as North East elitists. And while the dems are crying foul, the other side is doing a pretty darn good job os succeeding.
I think this one was a mixed bag. It also made McCain look like a whiney child, complaining about sour grapes. But I'm sure among some people it was effective. Still doesn't make it right. Effective != right. And McCain's brand is doing the right thing, being an independent, standing up to his party.
No. But effective is what both sides will use. It is like sports. Both sides will use steroids if it helps them win. They are both doing it, and in this instant one just got caught.
Right. He's a black guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
Damn, that is change... :P
Well actually, Obama wasn't technically from a rich family. He lived with his mother at his grandparents' downtown apartment in Honolulu. His father was from a poor village in Kenya.
And I doubt he had much of a sense of entitlement. After all, 8 months ago, every pundit predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. He's been out campaigning every day (except a short vacation here and there) for over a year. McCain's the one who takes weekends off, as if he doesn't need to work hard to prove that he's the best candidate.
I'd be careful repeating soundbites. You know, like the pro-Obama D&D crowd.
No. But effective is what both sides will use. It is like sports. Both sides will use steroids if it helps them win. They are both doing it, and in this instant one just got caught.
I just don't agree with your basic premise that the Obama campaign uses the same attacks as the McCain campaign. I agree with you that the Huffington Post and MoveOn and Daily Kos won't shy away from negative attacks, but I don't see it within the campaign like the McCain camp has.
But Obama doesn't have the equivalent of a Rick Davis or a Michael Goldfarb on his campaign. It's not the Clinton campaign where Mark Penn aggressively pursued negative ads. Sure the Obama campaign attacks McCain, but they've been very good at sticking to the issues.
I think it is very smart to stay positive and it will pay off in the end. Any attack on McCain's character, war record, age, etc will backfire badly. This is why the Democrats should be grateful Obama (and not Clinton) is the nominee. The Obama campaign is much cleaner, smarter, and more nimble than the Clinton machine. Obama's people stay on-message and don't make the major gaffes the Clinton and McCain people made. Obama's worst problems came from people outside the campaign who he knew in Chicago before he started his campaign: Wright, Rezko.
My problem with negative ads is the candidate has to be very careful or they ruin their brand. Bush can use negative ads bc his brand is cowboy politics and strong-arm conservatism. McCain on the other hand is supposed to be a maverick, an independent, a non-Bush. The more he hires Bush's cohorts to make negative attacks on Obama, the harder it is to distance himself. I think he's beginning to tarnish his brand, and he needs to be very careful or in a month he will be too easy to paint as a Bush clone. Perhaps less liberal voters in battleground states will see it differently.
And I agree that the north-east liberal McGovern label is a crippling attack on a democrat, but I think Obama has done a really good job in countering it beneath the radar. His ads all show him as pro-family, folksy, blue shirt with sleeves rolled up, talking about his WW2 vet grandpa and such. These will be more effective than the internet news attacks McCain is pushing. But of course he still will need to work hard and smart to make sure he avoids the Kerry windsurfing and Dukakis tank helmet imagery.
All in all, I think Obama runs a smarter, better campaign. His surrogates and aides aren't totally off-message talking about D&D. In the end I think this will pay in greater dividends than a negative character-attack campaign ever would.
First, I'm gonna say that I respect McCain's career in the senate. I actually hoped he would win the republican nomination. But I am disappointed at the turn his campaign has taken after Rick Davis, Michael Goldfarb and Ken Mehlman hijacked the Straight Talk Express. This isn't the McCain of McCain Feingold or McCain Kennedy.
Not me he's not a conservative as the republican party is supposed to be known for, he's a liberal.
I don't think every politician does it. For example, Obama hasn't talked about Keating 5. He hasn't talked about McCain's age. He hasn't talked about McCain's broken first marriage. He hasn't talked about McCain's legendary temper. He hasn't talked about McCain's health problems. He hasn't talked about McCain's affair that led to his first divorce (even though it's so easy to with Edwards' problems). He hasn't attacked Cindy McCain as a rich heiress or McCain as a gold-digger opportunist.
Nope, those kinds of tactics are generally the domain of GOP operatives, for whatever reasons. I was
Obama has the press with people like Olbermann, and Mathews a s well as supporters to do it for him. So it's not that cut and dry. Not that I'm saying McCain supporters are not the same but let's be realistic.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work. I'm saying it's low and underhanded. Obama was too busy organizing out-of-work steel workers in south Chicago to spend all his time in the country club. And 40 years ago, Obama would have been kicked out of the country club, by the very same people who support McCain. It makes no sense that Karl Rove is accusing Obama of being an arrogant rich good ol' boy. But people still buy the argument because some people don't need things to make a lot of sense.
I think your facts are inaccurate, the problem with Obama is we have no clue about him. That rhetoric about helping out-of -work steel workers is great but what else was he doing? And as the facts come out about his life he looks less and less like a saint and more like another cheap politician.
And McCain's brand is doing the right thing, being an independent, standing up to his party.
Which is why his own party actually does not like him, he is for many things conservatives are against including NAFTA, and Illegal immigration.
Well actually, Obama wasn't technically from a rich family. He lived with his mother at his grandparents' downtown apartment in Honolulu. His father was from a poor village in Kenya.
And I doubt he had much of a sense of entitlement. After all, 8 months ago, every pundit predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. He's been out campaigning every day (except a short vacation here and there) for over a year. McCain's the one who takes weekends off, as if he doesn't need to work hard to prove that he's the best candidate.
I'd be careful repeating soundbites. You know, like the pro-Obama D&D crowd.
Wow. It was a joke. A play on the phrase. I could care less where Obama got his money. The point was, there is very little difference between the two, besides the color of their skin. Joke. J. O. K. E.
Why are there so few who see this whole topic as just plain silly?
And as for 'soundbites' not a clue what you mean. That was all Darkwolf original. ;)
And I agree that the north-east liberal McGovern label is a crippling attack on a democrat, but I think Obama has done a really good job in countering it beneath the radar. His ads all show him as pro-family, folksy, blue shirt with sleeves rolled up, talking about his WW2 vet grandpa and such. These will be more effective than the internet news attacks McCain is pushing. But of course he still will need to work hard and smart to make sure he avoids the Kerry windsurfing and Dukakis tank helmet imagery.
All in all, I think Obama runs a smarter, better campaign. His surrogates and aides aren't totally off-message talking about D&D. In the end I think this will pay in greater dividends than a negative character-attack campaign ever would.
I have seen people from Obama's campaign make attacks on John McCain's character and repeat stuff from the Huffington Post. Just because it isn't coming out of Obama's mouth doesn't mean there isn't a negative aspect to his campaign. That said, most of the official stuff jives with his image as a "uniter". But I do think it is a little naive to say that Obama isn't trying to have it both ways.
I agree that here in the north east he has done a good job of it. Lol. But my family out west has some strong opinions about Obama's "Arogance", "elitism",(which I don't agree with). I think most people in the heartland have pegged him as lying about his image...they don't buy the his ads.
I don't know, McCain has been catching up. He went from not having a chance, to possibly being able to win this thing. We will have to see of course.
Wow. It was a joke. A play on the phrase. I could care less where Obama got his money. The point was, there is very little difference between the two, besides the color of their skin. Joke. J. O. K. E.
Why are there so few who see this whole topic as just plain silly?
And as for 'soundbites' not a clue what you mean. That was all Darkwolf original. ;)
Sure the whole "pro-Obama D&D crowd" comment is silly. It's ridiculous. It's insane. It makes no sense. It's an example of McCain's Chewbacca Defense.
But I disagree (joking or otherwise) that there's no difference between the two.
I think there's a world of difference -- one is intellectual, the other reacts from gut feelings; one is diplomatic, the other is aggressive; one is liberal, the other is conservative; one is nuanced the other is blunt; one made his career in social services and education, the other in the military. Big differences.
Right. He's a black guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
Damn, that is change... :P
That "black guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement." becoming president of the United States?
Yeah that is change.
Right. He's a black guy from a rich family with an overgrown sense of entitlement.
Damn, that is change... :P
Actually, he's a bi-racial guy from a working class single-parent family. You can think what you want about him acting "entitled," but his background couldn't be more different from the "typical" president's without him being an alien (and I'm sure there's an email circulating out there that says exactly that).
Well, that is a big stretch.
I thought it was a funny criticism. He is saying they are out of touch with reality and the facts on the ground. That they are lost in a world of theory.
It is like when martial artists call a people larpers. Same concept.
What's a stretch, that by insulting a commercial product McCain has offended a company and, by extension, industry? Doesn't that seem an odd thing from a so-called free-market capitalist, as Neocons invariably claim to be?
Actually, he's a bi-racial guy from a working class single-parent family. You can think what you want about him acting "entitled," but his background couldn't be more different from the "typical" president's without him being an alien (and I'm sure there's an email circulating out there that says exactly that).
*sigh...
@arjomanes
I don't know that I would say one is conservative. Just 'less liberal'.
*sigh...
@arjomanes
I don't know that I would say one is conservative. Just 'less liberal'.
Well true. After all McCain wasn't pro-torture. Though I'm not quite sure when that became 'conservative'.
And by some definitions, some conservatives think that campaign finance reform impinges on first amendment rights, since they think that giving money to a candidate somehow is a form of speech. I think they're off their rockers, but then I'm a liberal so I think they're crazy anyways.
*sigh...
Yes?
Can you see why this might be a problem?
Gamer_Zer0, put on your snarky hat and go pay this schmuck a visit and give him a piece of my mind.
I tried at Gen Con, but wasn't able to find any politicians or staff there to interview.
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement
While I admit to not having had the opportunity to game as much with the pro-Obama D&D crowd as I might like, it has not been my experience that they typically disparage anyone's memories from the comfort of their mom's basement. Of course, your milage may vary.
Can you see why this might be a problem?
The bigger problem is that one of these two jokers is going to be sitting in the oval office come January, and it's going to be a disaster either way.
Uhh. Am I the only one that feels this means absolutely nothing? C'mon guys, there's waaay more important stuff to concern ourselves with regarding the upcoming election. Seriously. There's, like, a war or something going on and I heard the economy might not be doin' so good. And I'm fairly certain there's some other junk goin' on an' stuff.
This is actually - IMO - a great example of what's wrong with us in general. Why worry about, I dunno, actual issues and the candidates' stances when some guy workin' for another guy insulted your hobby? Forget the small stuff. Look at what matters. This - on no level whatsoever - qualifies as an issue of import.
It tells us a great deal about the candidate. For instance, it tells us he's a typical Republican.
Its a smear, and its completely random and is an appeal to crazy right-wingers who believe that D&D is equivalent to worshipping Satan still. Its an appeal to emotion.
In short, it shows that McCain isn't someone you want to be president.
I actually sent an email to customer service about this a while ago (as in, the first time they did this). If you feel that its important, perhaps you should do the same.
The bigger problem is that one of these two jokers is going to be sitting in the oval office come January, and it's going to be a disaster either way.
Well admittedly, I am without a doubt voting for the guy I think won't poop the bed, just pee in it a little. Its still a mess but one that we can clean up more easily.
What are ya gonna do?
It tells us a great deal about the candidate. For instance, it tells us he's a typical Republican.
Its a smear, and its completely random and is an appeal to crazy right-wingers who believe that D&D is equivalent to worshipping Satan still. Its an appeal to emotion.
In short, it shows that McCain isn't someone you want to be president.
I actually sent an email to customer service about this a while ago (as in, the first time they did this). If you feel that its important, perhaps you should do the same.
He didn't say it. If we can infer this about McCain from what someone else said, we can then look at Obama and Wright and make the same assumptions. If it didn't come out of his mouth directly, it cannot be attributed to him. And it's hardly a big deal. But what can I say? If someone is gonna base their opinion about a man on something another man said - and something that is quite harmless and, really, pointless - there's really no talking to them. Using this as some sort of justification to villify McCain is just as idiotic as the "insult" itself. And it's just more "I hate Republicans" piling on. Which is why I hate politics. No one actually listens to each other. It's just another form of e-peen posturing. Each side accuses the other of using "talking points" while doing the same in defense of their chosen candidate. Disgusting.
Umm. I'm not accusing you of any of that ranty stuff. I got a bit carried away. None of that was directed at anyone specifically. Just venting, I guess.
He didn't say it. If we can infer this about McCain from what someone else said, we can then look at Obama and Wright and make the same assumptions. If it didn't come out of his mouth directly, it cannot be attributed to him. And it's hardly a big deal. But what can I say? If someone is gonna base their opinion about a man on something another man said - and something that is quite harmless and, really, pointless - there's really no talking to them. Using this as some sort of justification to villify McCain is just as idiotic as the "insult" itself. And it's just more "I hate Republicans" piling on. Which is why I hate politics. No one actually listens to each other. It's just another form of e-peen posturing. Each side accuses the other of using "talking points" while doing the same in defense of their chosen candidate. Disgusting.
Umm. I'm not accusing you of any of that ranty stuff. I got a bit carried away. None of that was directed at anyone specifically. Just venting, I guess.
When members of your campaign staff say something, that is very different from someone you know saying something.
If someone in your campaign says something, they're saying it on your behalf.
You can disavow this, but if you keep them in your campaign, it says that no, they really did say it on your behalf.
You cannot have it both ways. If your campaign says something, ultimately, you're responsible for it, and unless you deal with it, then you put it forward, as the campaign is run by you in the end.
McCain is using his campaign to do this stuff. It is McCain who is in charge of his campaign, ultimately, so ultimately the actions of his campaign lie at his feet.
When members of your campaign staff say something, that is very different from someone you know saying something.
If someone in your campaign says something, they're saying it on your behalf.
You can disavow this, but if you keep them in your campaign, it says that no, they really did say it on your behalf.
You cannot have it both ways. If your campaign says something, ultimately, you're responsible for it, and unless you deal with it, then you put it forward, as the campaign is run by you in the end.
McCain is using his campaign to do this stuff. It is McCain who is in charge of his campaign, ultimately, so ultimately the actions of his campaign lie at his feet.
Agreed.
Not only did Michael Goldfarb say this, he posted it TWICE, on the johnmccain.com site -- once on August 1 and then yesterday.
And yeah, if Goldfarb sounds familiar it's bc he's the same neocon buddy of Karl Rove who pushed us into the war with Iraq in the first place. He's one of those New American Century warmongers who's been pressing for a war with Iraq since 1990.
So apparently he doesn't like fantasy roleplaying games, but he'll gleefully play games with American lives. And he'll play them poorly.
So yeah, you can let McCain and Goldfarb roll another saving throw for America. Just hope they don't roll another 1; they've got a long history of bad rolls.
If we can infer this about McCain from what someone else said, we can then look at Obama and Wright and make the same assumptions.
Campaign staff and personal acquaintances are very different things. One is being paid to represent you and your campaign to the people, the other is just someone you know.
Paid campaign staff said this. That staff member was either speaking on behalf of the campaign or will be fired and publically denounced for saying what they did. Let's wait and see what happens. ;)
When members of your campaign staff say something, that is very different from someone you know saying something.
If someone in your campaign says something, they're saying it on your behalf.
You can disavow this, but if you keep them in your campaign, it says that no, they really did say it on your behalf.
You cannot have it both ways. If your campaign says something, ultimately, you're responsible for it, and unless you deal with it, then you put it forward, as the campaign is run by you in the end.
McCain is using his campaign to do this stuff. It is McCain who is in charge of his campaign, ultimately, so ultimately the actions of his campaign lie at his feet.
Right. But who's more important to the ideology of a candidate? His staffer - an employee - or his pastor - a religious and spiritual guide? If McCain can be held accountable for what an employee said, Obama should be looked at closely because he may espouse the beliefs of his spiritual guide, no? Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should. And neither should McCain. But what's getting lost here is that Obama's pastor had some pretty outrageous and offensive ideas. McCain's stooge merely referenced a dated stereotype about a much smaller group of people. It's nowhere near the same sort of thing. D&D players, on the whole, are not very important. They may be important as people, but not as people who play games. It's a silly, stupid reason to justify any opinion of McCain. And, to be honest, it appears to me to be grasping at straws to discredit him. Seriously, someone that works for him said something not too great about D&D and that's why there's a problem? Find a real issue - they are there - and stick with it. There's no need to inflate this to mean anything more than what it is - a moron (and peon) talking out of his ass when the boss wasn't looking. Hillary had 'em. Obama had 'em. Why is it so outrageous that McCain does too?
There's no need to inflate this to mean anything more than what it is - a moron (and peon) talking out of his ass when the boss wasn't looking. Hillary had 'em. Obama had 'em. Why is it so outrageous that McCain does too?
It's a moron who has said this same thing at least twice now, and posted it on the McCain campaign website.
Yet he still works there.
In politics, particularly in national politics, you stay on message or you're out. This guy has given the same message twice; D&D = Liberal = Obama = Bad. If the campaign disagreed with him, he would have been out the first time. If he's doing it repeatedly and he's not losing his job over it, he's staying on message.
I understand that political sniping is stupid, I deal with it for a living. But in this case, it's pretty obvious that McCain either a) agrees, b) thinks demonizing gamers will win votes or c) doesn't think that labeling and trivializing a cross-section of the population is a big enough issue to deal with. Any of those 3 options is an issue, in my eyes.
McCain's stooge merely referenced a dated stereotype about a much smaller group of people. It's nowhere near the same sort of thing. D&D players, on the whole, are not very important. They may be important as people, but not as people who play games. It's a silly, stupid reason to justify any opinion of McCain. And, to be honest, it appears to me to be grasping at straws to discredit him. Seriously, someone that works for him said something not too great about D&D and that's why there's a problem? Find a real issue - they are there - and stick with it. There's no need to inflate this to mean anything more than what it is - a moron (and peon) talking out of his ass when the boss wasn't looking.
Except the guy has twice done this, and posted it on the JohnMcCain.com site. It's an intentional message they're trying to communicate: "Obama's supporters are just a bunch of D&D gamers", and it's meant as a slur. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that D&D is a slur.
I have all kinds of reasons not to vote for McCain (war with Iraq, war with Iran, war with Russia), but making fun of my hobby is still annoying.
His staffer - an employee - or his pastor - a religious and spiritual guide?
His staffer. Most people really don't know their pastors well at all, and vice-versa. However, you typically know the people you work with.
If McCain can be held accountable for what an employee said, Obama should be looked at closely because he may espouse the beliefs of his spiritual guide, no?
Not really, no, especially given that Obama isn't really a Christian. He uses the African-American religious fervor to get people on his side and manipulate them, but he isn't really a part of it. Not that this is really ADMIRABLE, but there it is.
More to the point, he has explicitly denied that he shares Reverand Wright's beliefs regarding race, and Reverand Wright wasn't putting HIS beliefs forward as the beliefs of the Obama campaign, from what I understand of it.
I haven't seen McCain explicitly denying it.
Except the guy has twice done this, and posted it on the JohnMcCain.com site. It's an intentional message they're trying to communicate: "Obama's supporters are just a bunch of D&D gamers", and it's meant as a slur. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that D&D is a slur.
Quite right.
It's a moron who has said this same thing at least twice now, and posted it on the McCain campaign website.
Yet he still works there.
In politics, particularly in national politics, you stay on message or you're out. This guy has given the same message twice; D&D = Liberal = Obama = Bad. If the campaign disagreed with him, he would have been out the first time. If he's doing it repeatedly and he's not losing his job over it, he's staying on message.
I understand that political sniping is stupid, I deal with it for a living. But in this case, it's pretty obvious that McCain either a) agrees, b) thinks demonizing gamers will win votes or c) doesn't think that labeling and trivializing a cross-section of the population is a big enough issue to deal with. Any of those 3 options is an issue, in my eyes.
Calling them D&D players is hardly something worthy of being fired over. I think it's stupid, of course, and repeated blatant stupidity is grounds for termination, IMO. Still, it's not racist, sexist or even classist. In short, it doesn't mean anything and - as there has been no public outcry that I am aware of other than here - I think it's fair to assume that they just don't care enough about this non-issue. You can see it whatever way you want, of course, but I think it's pretty meaningless and I believe McCain probably feels the same way. No one cares about D&D players. And that's fine. I really don't take myself all that seriously (see forum handle) and I take this particular hobby of mine even less so.
Except the guy has twice done this, and posted it on the JohnMcCain.com site. It's an intentional message they're trying to communicate: "Obama's supporters are just a bunch of D&D gamers", and it's meant as a slur. I'm sorry, but I don't accept that D&D is a slur.
I have all kinds of reasons not to vote for McCain (war with Iraq, war with Iran, war with Russia), but making fun of my hobby is still annoying.
Finding it an annoyance makes sense. Taking it to be some sort of scathing indictment of McCain is forcing negativity onto his campaign because you already happen to dislike him. And that's silly. Really, he should have picked WoW for his moronic assertion. Most people at least know what that is and feel it's still relevant. Really, it doesn't mean much. And that's why there's been no censure of the dude writing the crap. It's not meaningful enough to even address. But, you feel otherwise. And that's cool. Since this is somewhat politics related, I'm calling for a truce. You ain't changin' my mind and I've got less than a snowball's chance of changing yours. Let's all move on.
Calling them D&D players is hardly something worthy of being fired over. I think it's stupid, of course, and repeated blatant stupidity is grounds for termination, IMO. Still, it's not racist, sexist or even classist. In short, it doesn't mean anything and - as there has been no public outcry that I am aware of other than here - I think it's fair to assume that they just don't care enough about this non-issue. You can see it whatever way you want, of course, but I think it's pretty meaningless and I believe McCain probably feels the same way. No one cares about D&D players. And that's fine. I really don't take myself all that seriously (see forum handle) and I take this particular hobby of mine even less so.
Like I said, this isn't some "dammit, that's the last straw" moment. McCain's got a bunch of dickweeds for advisors and staffers, I knew that before this whole thing. I've said repeatedly that for the man to have a snowball's chance he's got to fire them all and bring back the ones who were there when he was broke and going nowhere. At least they projected some class, which is kind of what he built his brand on.
I just find it annoying that had this statement been made about hockey players, needlepoint enthusiasts or even something like the dog show crowd this guy would have gotten laughed off the internet and dropped by the campaign. The fact that it was about D&D, however, just elicits chuckles and nothing else. That's the part that gets me.
His staffer. Most people really don't know their pastors well at all, and vice-versa. However, you typically know the people you work with.
Obama and Wright were very close friends. He dumped that friend as soon as his idiotic rhetoric became a detriment to his campaign. Rightly so. And he did give Wright a chance to rectify the situation. But I tend to feel that a lifelong church goer would find the word of god spewing friend a bit more of a confidant than a staffer.
Not really, no, especially given that Obama isn't really a Christian. He uses the African-American religious fervor to get people on his side and manipulate them, but he isn't really a part of it. Not that this is really ADMIRABLE, but there it is.
More to the point, he has explicitly denied that he shares Reverand Wright's beliefs regarding race, and Reverand Wright wasn't putting HIS beliefs forward as the beliefs of the Obama campaign, from what I understand of it.
I haven't seen McCain explicitly denying it.
Because racist themes carry a bit more weight with the people than, I dunno, dork bashing does. If McCain wasted the time to publicly deny his feeling the same way about this instance, he'd be crucified for wasting the time on a non-issue. People go to the streets to march and protest racial intolerance. Gamers don't. So this won't play on CNN. So there's no advantage addressing it. It's stupid. But that's about it. We don't learn anything about McCain from this. Like I said, pick a real issue. This is not one. If he said WoW, otoh, I'm sure it would be.
Look, like I said to other posters, we ain't gonna come to terms here. Let's stop wasting our time on this silly topic. Well, I think it's silly and you don't. That's not gonna change, so let's just drop it, move on and talk about something else.
1)British and EU gamers are generally politically to the left of US ones (however, generally, the Uk and EU are to the left of the US, so that may be just part of that trend)
2)There seems to be spectrum of gamers political views that tallies to the game. from right to left, generally, it seems to go
Palladium - D&D - White-Wolf - Strange independant games - Unknown Armies.
two special cases
GURPS - GURPS players seem to cover the whole political spectrum, fairly evenly spread. however there is a large proportion of GURPs players with really bizzare politcal views.
Ars Magica - this isn't a game, it's a way of life.
Like I said, this isn't some "dammit, that's the last straw" moment. McCain's got a bunch of dickweeds for advisors and staffers, I knew that before this whole thing. I've said repeatedly that for the man to have a snowball's chance he's got to fire them all and bring back the ones who were there when he was broke and going nowhere. At least they projected some class, which is kind of what he built his brand on.
I just find it annoying that had this statement been made about hockey players, needlepoint enthusiasts or even something like the dog show crowd this guy would have gotten laughed off the internet and dropped by the campaign. The fact that it was about D&D, however, just elicits chuckles and nothing else. That's the part that gets me.
Well that's hardly his fault. D&D just isn't as relevant as the other stuff. That's why there's no outcry anywhere but here and why I find it silly to the extreme. He's at fault for writing it, but society is also at fault for relegating the D&D nerd to the bottomless depths of irrelevance. Like I said, if he chose WoW instead, it would have made some noise. As it is, it's pathetic and, IMO, nothing more. I'm just happy that the people I'm hashing this out with here actually have real reasons to dislike him. I was a bit worried there for a moment. ;) :P
Because racist themes carry a bit more weight with the people than, I dunno, dork bashing does. If McCain wasted the time to publicly deny his feeling the same way about this instance, he'd be crucified for wasting the time on a non-issue. People go to the streets to march and protest racial intolerance. Gamers don't. So this won't play on CNN. So there's no advantage addressing it. It's stupid. But that's about it. We don't learn anything about McCain from this. Like I said, pick a real issue. This is not one. If he said WoW, otoh, I'm sure it would be.
It isn't "not a real issue" because it isn't on CNN.
Its garbage, and people who propagate such garbage aren't fit to be commander in chief. The fact that it is an appeal to crazies makes it all the worse.
I tried at Gen Con, but wasn't able to find any politicians or staff there to interview.
Did you find ANY D&D players that were pro-Obama?
Maybe as a Community Liaison of sorts, or Solice, should right McCain a nice, not my nice but Solice nice; letter telling him the D&D community from the official D&D forums, think his comment was way out of line and want a formal apology, on air, and not by one of his representatives, but from him.
On air could mean in your video booth, or wherever you do them, and lets see just how big his mouth is versus the snarky hat to see just how many votes he thinks he will get with that kind of lip*.
That would be a video I WOULD watch!
*Which I would prefer to make fat up one side and down the other for a month of Sundays!
It isn't "not a real issue" because it isn't on CNN.
Its garbage, and people who propagate such garbage aren't fit to be commander in chief. The fact that it is an appeal to crazies makes it all the worse.
That's not what I said. I said it's not a real issue so it won't make it on CNN. Think whatever it is you'd like to about it. I find assigning this sort of weight to it to be, as I previosly stated, grasping at straws. It's small - to me. I respect that you feel differently and am no longer attempting to help anyone see it that way. It's my opinion. Nothing more. Let's both just let each other's opinions be what they are. This stuff leaves little possibility of changing minds.
I'm not a big fan of any of the politicians currently campaigning or currently in office, but witout another choice, I guess we're stuck choosing from what we do have.
Does it bother me that such an inflammatory statement appeared on his website? I can't say yes or no. We're gamers, if you worry too much that McCain's campaign called Obama's followers geeks by referencing gamers, you probably haven't accepted your geekdom. Remember that in this republic, your voice is also heard. Vote as you will. Although please find some other reason than just this to vote for someone.
Well admittedly, I am without a doubt voting for the guy I think won't poop the bed, just pee in it a little. Its still a mess but one that we can clean up more easily.
What are ya gonna do?
To steal a play from the statists' careworn book of canards, "If everyone who said that did something..."
Nearly every last one of you here can easily be found attacking McCain, christians, Republicans, whites, males, etc.. somewhere on these very forums.
And, let's face it, there's an awful lot of gamers out there who are exactly the sort of stereotype that McCain addressed here. Granted, I considered it an unfortunate and unfairly negative statement, but I'll be damned if many people here don't drive the point home with their posts on this very forum - and even this very thread.
Because racist themes carry a bit more weight with the people than, I dunno, dork bashing does. If McCain wasted the time to publicly deny his feeling the same way about this instance, he'd be crucified for wasting the time on a non-issue. People go to the streets to march and protest racial intolerance. Gamers don't. So this won't play on CNN. So there's no advantage addressing it. It's stupid. But that's about it. We don't learn anything about McCain from this. Like I said, pick a real issue. This is not one. If he said WoW, otoh, I'm sure it would be.
Actually it got a tiny amount of play on CNN -- it was posted on the political ticker blog, but it won't get much mainstream play.
"If you support Obama, you are a D&D playing nerd" Is that the message we are getting here?
I do find it offensive. I'm a professional who has nearly completed my third degree (EdSpec) and I plan to continue onto my doctorate. I scored in the top third of the GRE. I completed certification for teaching in two states for teaching and principal certification. I'm a smart, discerning guy who has a hobby that is way cooler than watching football. My vote counts, and I know where I will be placing it (hint: it won't be John McCain.)
It doesn't matter if it came from a staffer. A president (or any higher level administrator) is not just one person, they are the sum of their respective supporters including their staff. If he still works for McCain, he's part of him.
Most of all, I the gist of the article is that someone should not question John McCain's POW experience and that, unless you play D&D, you don't. I understand and appreciate John McCain's POW experience. I spent a couple of years in Jr. High wearing an embroidered jacket that said "Vietnam Remembered" John McCain is a great American that sacrificed for his country. That doesn't make him a good president. If he is going to try to belittle D&D players like a Jr. High bully, he certainly doesn't need to be president. We've had more than enough of bullies for the last eight years.
Of course, you could argue that Dick Cheney has been playing Dungeon Master with the country all that time too, in the motherland's basement. Who is the delusional D&D player now Mr. McCain?
That says that the people of the campaign are more important to releasing the campaign narrative than the candidate is. So the fact that a campaign surrogate has announced that Obama supporters = D&D playing nerds is on message from the campaign.
Frankly, I just hope that some of our less politically aware fellow gamers are now taking notice and actually use this as a springboard to really learning the differences between Obama and McCain. Then they should actually go and vote.
d
I don't think every politician does it. For example, Obama hasn't talked about Keating 5. He hasn't talked about McCain's age. He hasn't talked about McCain's broken first marriage. He hasn't talked about McCain's legendary temper. He hasn't talked about McCain's health problems. He hasn't talked about McCain's affair that led to his first divorce (even though it's so easy to with Edwards' problems). He hasn't attacked Cindy McCain as a rich heiress or McCain as a gold-digger opportunist.
Nope, those kinds of tactics are generally the domain of GOP operatives, for whatever reasons.
This is one of the reasons the Dem's are going to lose.
Flashback to the '04 presidential campaign. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran runs for president against an incumbent whose biggest contribution to military service has been partying in the Air National Guard. Yet through the
proxy attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth the Republicans successfully undermined confidence in his military record. Think about that for a minute: post September 11, when anyone who could show he served in the military could get a beer bought for them in any bar in the US, a decorated former member of the military had his war record smeared.
The Republican campaign is generally dedicated, inventive and unafraid to do anything in order to win. The Democratic party is disorganized (Hilary Clinton STILL might have her name on the ballot at the DNC? really?) and too timid to wade in with fists flying and get muddy and bloody.
If the Dem should have taken anything from the Swift Boat fiasco, it is this: The GOP pulls no punches. Learn.
"This is how many americans bought the latest edition books, and we're still selling them like hotcakes (not american. what is a hotcake, is that a pikelet or something?). That is to say that this is how many people that nonissue statement annoyed. Care to rephrase?
Oh btw, if we had any donations to your party coffers, such as a rather large corporation like ours may have had, that's gone now, all because of this little piece of slander. Have a nice day!"
Which roleplaying game is pro-McCain?
So, if I play Dungeons & Dragons, then I have to support and vote for Obama?
Which roleplaying game is pro-McCain?
*looks over McCain and his medical records*
All Flesh Must Be Eaten.
I'm just waiting for WotC to politely send McCain a letter saying something along the lines of
"This is how many americans bought the latest edition books, and we're still selling them like hotcakes (not american. what is a hotcake, is that a pikelet or something?). That is to say that this is how many people that nonissue statement annoyed. Care to rephrase?
Oh btw, if we had any donations to your party coffers, such as a rather large corporation like ours may have had, that's gone now, all because of this little piece of slander. Have a nice day!"
Hotcake
Pancake
Thick crepe
Waffle but no pattern and slightly different taste.
If the Dem should have taken anything from the Swift Boat fiasco, it is this: The GOP pulls no punches. Learn.
Right, because the Democrats know nothing about negative campaigning and opposition research, especially the Clintons. Maybe they should have nominated Barbara Boxer.
Uhh. Am I the only one that feels this means absolutely nothing? C'mon guys, there's waaay more important stuff to concern ourselves with regarding the upcoming election. Seriously. There's, like, a war or something going on and I heard the economy might not be doin' so good. And I'm fairly certain there's some other junk goin' on an' stuff. ;)
This is actually - IMO - a great example of what's wrong with us in general. Why worry about, I dunno, actual issues and the candidates' stances when some guy workin' for another guy insulted your hobby? Forget the small stuff. Look at what matters. This - on no level whatsoever - qualifies as an issue of import.
It's not that he marginalized gamers; it's that he marginalizes Americans. It doesn't matter what hobby he picked. In this case he was making a distinct stereotypical statement basically saying that if you support Obama then you are a worthless nerd undeserving of anything other than bullying. It's one of the reasons I simply will not be giving my vote to any candidate that uses these tactics. Name calling is childish especially for someone in his seventies.
Not the first time
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003834625
The New York Times editors that attack McCain are described by Goldfarb as bloggers who "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons."
I did a little research in my back notes. It turns out I played with Goldfarb back in '87. He was always trying to roll and then pick up the dice if they were bad and say another number. It was a problem. His fighter didn't get healed and died. Obviously, the guy is still bitter. Jeesh, roll up another character already dude.
From the prior statement:
“John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there (one such only recently reported by Karl Rove though it escaped mention in any of Senator McCain's books). But as Swindle said, this is a ‘desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing.’”
I would like to say I have witnessed 10d00 acts of bravery too, all around the gaming table of course. :D
Race and wealth really shouldn't factor into this at all. Unless all white guys from rich families are the same, of course. What? They're not? Ahh. Yep. This means little. :P
The change we need isn't a party, race, gender or economic status change. We need to change the broken system that these people are elected to run. Stick anyone in as President and you'll get pretty similar results. Everyone in politics is concerned more with insulating themselves and their sweet gig more than the people they allegedly represent. Until the government as a whole is fixed, it will remain this way. I'm gonna get off my soap-box now lest someone ask me how I'd go about doing that - cuz I don't know. Though it might be a good platform to seek office with. ;)
The first step is to somehow destroy the two-party system.
The reason American politics is in such disrepair is because of the polarizing two-party system we have in effect. Fixing that won't fix everything, but it's a damned good start.
I already disliked the man even before his lackey made the comment. As a well adjusted, social, good hygiened D&D player, I am offended when people just assume I'm some virgin basement dweller who lives with his mom. I think we as D&D players have a right to be ****** when he disparages our hobby. Do you think he would've gotten away with it if he called them "the Pro-Obama dreidel spinning crowd" or "the Pro-Obama butt sex crowd"? Hell no! They would've publicly eviscerated him.
So basically your argument is that we're a minority. :P
*looks over McCain and his medical records*
All Flesh Must Be Eaten.
*orders AFMBE online .... overnight shipping*
More on McCain
Not the first time
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003834625
The New York Times editors that attack McCain are described by Goldfarb as bloggers who "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons."
Eww. I don't want to associate myself with New York Times editors.
The first step is to somehow destroy the two-party system.
The reason American politics is in such disrepair is because of the polarizing two-party system we have in effect. Fixing that won't fix everything, but it's a damned good start.
I have no problem with a two party system as long as the candidates stay true to what that party is about, for instance The Democratic party are now socialists. Obama’s a radical socialist so he fits in the norm for his party. McCain on the other hand is a liberal and not a real conservative making it difficult for him to rally his bases which are die hard conservatives in the Republican party.
It's not that he marginalized gamers; it's that he marginalizes Americans. It doesn't matter what hobby he picked. In this case he was making a distinct stereotypical statement basically saying that if you support Obama then you are a worthless nerd undeserving of anything other than bullying. It's one of the reasons I simply will not be giving my vote to any candidate that uses these tactics. Name calling is childish especially for someone in his seventies.
So would you feel the same way if Obama's campaigners used that same quote? Like someone pointed out Obama's belonged to a racist church for years of which one of it's preachers Jermiah Wright said :“I do not in any way disagree with James Cone. Jim is a personal friend of mine.” Who is James Cone? “The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.” Cone makes this point without ambiguity: “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,” Cone has written. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Small wonder that some critics have condemned black liberation theology as “racist idolatry” and “Afro-Nazism.”
Furthermore, according to Cone, “black values” are superior to American values. Sure enough, the “About Us” statement on Trinity’s web page includes the following Cone-inspired declaration: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
It is troubling that Barack Obama’s closest friends and allies subscribe to an explicitly racist doctrine. Even more worrying is that the main exponent of Black Liberation Theology sees Obama as a kindred spirit. In the wake of the controversy surrounding Obama’s pastor and Church, Cone said: “I’ve read both of Barack Obama’s books, and I heard the speech [on race]. I don’t see anything in the books or in the speech that contradicts black liberation theology.”
- Jeremiah Wright Praises Black Liberation Theology At The National Press Club
By Rob on April 28, 2008 at 06:33 am @sayanythingblog.com.
“Sen. Barack Obama has been a proud member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, and he happily signed the Black Values System in order to join.
When he announced his presidential race, it was Rev. Wright in the basement he was praying with beforehand? How can he deny the widely-quoted statements between Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama acknowledging before his campaign started that Rev. Wright's sermons would hurt the Obama campaign?” -The Natural Truth by Michael Graham
So if you are that upset over the use of D&D as a negative adjective by one of McCains Campaigners then what do you say about Obama’s affiliation with Rev. Wright?
McCain on the other hand is a liberal and not a real conservative making it difficult for him to rally his bases which are die hard conservatives in the Republican party.
Which is why I have no sympathy for the Dems this time--they win either way. Soon as McCain takes the oath, he goes right back to being...the same guy he's been for the last 25 years. Not like he'll run for re-election so why would should he care? He'll be cozying up to Reed and Pelosi by then, and all this pandering will go down the memory hole.
Sooooo...once again, whenever someone points out McCain's shortcomings, the knee-jerk response is "Reverend Wright."
Fail.
Sooooo...once again, whenever someone points out McCain's shortcomings, the knee-jerk response is "Reverend Wright."
Fail.
knee jerk response? I also pointed out McCains shortcomings, not with how his staffer used D&D but the fact that the majority of his party does not like him. Funny how you cannot answer the question and instead deflect by saying it's a knee jerk response.
BUt for years "plays D&D", "Watches Star Trek", "reads sci-fi and fantasy" have all been insults. And it is because the people who game and do those things are usually a little less on the ball socially than the rest of the population. I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.
Yeah I tend to think of those people as bullies. Would you elect a bully for your next president? Isn't that what America did in 2000 and 2004? Isn't it time your country changed its ways?
There have also been plenty of examples in this campaign so far that indicate that those reporting to the candidate do not always speak with approval. Several staffers and aides have been let go for saying something that does not jibe with the candidate's own thoughts (or does but was something said candidate tries to keep low-key).
Have these people being let go usually been after the media picked up the story and spun it in a negative light?
And knowledge of a hobby that is meaningless to the performance of the armed forces and has absolutely nothing to do with their needs is equally meaningless when compared to knowledge of what they actually do need.
Don't need to know what a d20 is. It'd be nice if he didn't hire bullies who disparage those in the armed forces. If he's doing this on the campaign trail, what will he do when he's in the whitehouse with all that power at his fingertips?
If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.
Apparently he apolagized, but it seems more of an insult than an apology.
Apparently he apolagized, but it seems more of an insult than an apology.
Source? If that's real, it's friggin' awesome. ;)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/john-mccain-cam.html
omg he looks like Andy Rooney in that photo...
So would you feel the same way if Obama's campaigners used that same quote?
I would feel the same way. Personal attacks on the character of voters by any member of a campaign is completely uncalled for and childish. I want to vote for someone who is not only at least 35 years old physically; I want to vote for someone who is at least 35 years old emotionally as well. The presidency is a very difficult position to hold and if someone is too weak to handle the campaign process for a few months how can I trust him to handle his actual job once he gets there?
Like someone pointed out Obama's belonged to a racist church for years of which one of it's preachers Jermiah Wright said :“I do not in any way disagree with James Cone. Jim is a personal friend of mine.” Who is James Cone? “The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.” Cone makes this point without ambiguity: “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,” Cone has written. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Small wonder that some critics have condemned black liberation theology as “racist idolatry” and “Afro-Nazism.”
Furthermore, according to Cone, “black values” are superior to American values. Sure enough, the “About Us” statement on Trinity’s web page includes the following Cone-inspired declaration: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
None of this matters in this case. No one you mention is part of Obama's campaign staff. They can say and do whatever they please. Obama does not need to agree with everything or anything they say or do. If they were on his staff making these statements and pushing this agenda then he would be responsible.
It is troubling that Barack Obama’s closest friends and allies subscribe to an explicitly racist doctrine. Even more worrying is that the main exponent of Black Liberation Theology sees Obama as a kindred spirit. In the wake of the controversy surrounding Obama’s pastor and Church, Cone said: “I’ve read both of Barack Obama’s books, and I heard the speech [on race]. I don’t see anything in the books or in the speech that contradicts black liberation theology.”
- Jeremiah Wright Praises Black Liberation Theology At The National Press Club
By Rob on April 28, 2008 at 06:33 am @sayanythingblog.com.
“Sen. Barack Obama has been a proud member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, and he happily signed the Black Values System in order to join.
When he announced his presidential race, it was Rev. Wright in the basement he was praying with beforehand? How can he deny the widely-quoted statements between Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama acknowledging before his campaign started that Rev. Wright's sermons would hurt the Obama campaign?” -The Natural Truth by Michael Graham
So you've found a select few people that Obama knows very well that have some horrible things to say. This certainly does not mean that Obama shares these same views. Looking at his past and how he carries himself now, I don't believe that Obama shares those views at all.
Also, there is nothing in the Black Values System that is negative. Have you read it? Here it is. I would probably sign it since it is meant to bring people up but not at the expense of others.
So if you are that upset over the use of D&D as a negative adjective by one of McCains Campaigners then what do you say about Obama’s affiliation with Rev. Wright?
As others have said and I will reiterate, Rev. Wright is not an Obama spokesman so his views are irrelevant. If one of Obama's staffers had made that statement I would have the same point of view. You'll note that I haven't said anything about any of McCain's religious supporters. The reason is because it doesn't matter.
Note that I am not upset about D&D being used, I'm upset because it was meant as a personal attack on Obama's supporters. It's childish and uncalled for especially for someone running for the presidency who's in his seventies. It also shows that he either agrees with the statement or he can't control the people who work for him. In either case his leadership should be called into question.
Yeah I tend to think of those people as bullies. Would you elect a bully for your next president? Isn't that what America did in 2000 and 2004? Isn't it time your country changed its ways?
I tend to think of those people as miss informed, bullies pick on people because they can and because they know no one else will fight back. So no I don't see McCains staffer or George Bush as a bully.
Have these people being let go usually been after the media picked up the story and spun it in a negative light?
Your going to have to be more specific, for example :
Another Obama Staffer Let Go
14 March, 2008 in news, politics
On Keith Boykin’s new website The Daily Voice it has been reported that Senator Obama has let go of another staffer because of public remarks made against Senator Clinton.
In an email sent out by LGBT Leadership Council staffer Maxim Thorne he accused Clinton of lying and called her a disaster.
In response to her 3am tv commercial he questions, “At 3am, Hillary said she and Bill were in bed and she knows of all the calls a President gets at different times of the day and night. Really? So much involvement - so much togetherness. Where was she when Monica was having sex with Bill?”
He also writes, “35 years of experience? When he was intimidating Katherine Wiley and Paula Jones? Where was the judgment on the cattle futures and white water. Do we forget Mark and Denise Rich? This was an impeached President who lost his licence [sic] to practice law. He committed perjury. They settled with Paula Jones for the full amount of her lawsuit. I haven’t forgotten and none of us should.”
(insert cat growl, claws exposed)
I say we put Obama’s staff and H. Clinton’s staff on American Gladiator and let them go at each other. But props to Obama for dispatching the staffer quickly instead of waiting for people to demand it.
Don't need to know what a d20 is. It'd be nice if he didn't hire bullies who disparage those in the armed forces. If he's doing this on the campaign trail, what will he do when he's in the whitehouse with all that power at his fingertips?
I don't know what you are talking about here could you please clarify?
Source? If that's real, it's friggin' awesome. ;)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall
Thanks. Personally I have no problem with the apology. It's just as silly as the "insult" that caused a "need" for it. But that may be just me.
Which is why I have no sympathy for the Dems this time--they win either way. Soon as McCain takes the oath, he goes right back to being...the same guy he's been for the last 25 years. Not like he'll run for re-election so why would should he care? He'll be cozying up to Reed and Pelosi by then, and all this pandering will go down the memory hole.
McCain is most definitely not a Democrat. He's not even a moderate Republican. He's a neocon with a light frosting of paleocon, and affectations of theoconism.
He'll spend his time in office (should he win) villifying non-christians, gays, women, poor people, environmentalists, etc. He'll sign legislation giving corporations greater power over the human rights of their employees and the environment. He'll cut taxes for the rich even further and shift more of the ever-growing deficit burden onto the working class and poor. He'll tear down the infrastructure of the country to the point where we have no ability to dig our way out of natural disasters and he'll get in more wars and spend even more of the public's money killing people who don't look like him.
In other words, he'd be another Republican president.
To steal a play from the statists' careworn book of canards, "If everyone who said that did something..."
You'd have a whole bunch of people screwing things up!
In other words, he'd be another Republican president.
Perfect end comment.
So would you feel the same way if Obama's campaigners used that same quote? /QUOTE]
I would feel the same way. Personal attacks on the character of voters by any member of a campaign is completely uncalled for and childish. I want to vote for someone who is not only at least 35 years old physically; I want to vote for someone who is at least 35 years old emotionally as well. The presidency is a very difficult position to hold and if someone is too weak to handle the campaign process for a few months how can I trust him to handle his actual job once he gets there? .
Then your problem is with the staffer not John McCain. He’s not going to fire someone over that inane comment nor would Obama.None of this matters in this case. No one you mention is part of Obama's campaign staff. They can say and do whatever they please. .
Your right he wasn’t on his staff, just his spiritual and moral adviser that he had to denounce.Obama does not need to agree with everything they say or do. .
Just like McCain.If they were on his staff making these statements and pushing this agenda then he would be responsible.
Only if the comment were truly hurt full which in this case it was not, at least not to the general populace. Overreacting is also the sign of a bad President.So you've found a select few people that Obama knows very well that have some horrible things to say. .
Actually I found the obvious ones, I’m sure there are more.This certainly does not mean that Obama shares these same views. Looking at his past and how he carries himself now, I don't believe that Obama shares those views at all.
Looking at his past is like trying to see the bottom of a muddy pool, and no one in there right mind running for President at this day and age is going to actively promote racism no matter how they may truly feel. So here’s another question for you if he was white and went to a racist church would you feel the same way?Also, there is nothing in the Black Values System that is negative. Have you read it? Here it is. I would probably sign it since it is meant to bring people up but not at the expense of others.
I have and no I would not sign it since it is inherently racist and class biased, so I’m not sure how you got your interpretation.As others have said and I will reiterate, Rev. Wright is not an Obama spokesman so his views are irrelevant. If one of Obama's staffers had made that statement I would have the same point of view. You'll note that I haven't said anything about any of McCain's religious supporters. The reason is because it doesn't matter.
McCain never endorsed or went to a racist church and I know about McCain religious supporters which actually is irrelevant. And again you are correct Rev. Wright is not Obama’s spokesman just his spiritual and moral adviser, which shouldn’t matter to anyone.Note that I am not upset about D&D being used, I'm upset because it was meant as a personal attack on Obama's supporters. It's childish and uncalled for especially for someone running for the presidency who's in his seventies. It also shows that he either agrees with the statement or he can't control the people who work for him. In either case his leadership should be called into question.
My personal belief is that the only reason that you are writing so negatively about it is because you endorse Obama. I’m sure you would have a problem with anyone saying it but it gives Obama supporters another reason to take a stab at McCain.
McCain is most definitely not a Democrat. He's not even a moderate Republican. He's a neocon with a light frosting of paleocon, and affectations of theoconism.
Paleocon? McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, vetoing the GWB tax cuts, punishing Big Tobacco... why, he's practically the next Ayn Rand!
Paleocon? McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, vetoing the GWB tax cuts, punishing Big Tobacco... why, he's practically the next Ayn Rand!
He's a paleocon in that his policies are based on the idea that we were all better off in some ill-defined, nebulous earlier time. His positions on social issues (especially of late) are very paleocon, from his stance on gay adoption (depending on the day of the week) to his position on "reforming" social security with a bullet to the head.
He's 70% neocon, 20% paleocon, 5% pretend theocon and 5% whatever else Rove tells him will help this week.
He's come back around on those same tax cuts (he's now in favor of them, it's about as much economic policy as he's stating at this point outside of "victory in Iraq!!1!!"), btw.
Right, this is known as pandering for turnout. He was a "maverick" and an "elder statesman" and otherwise a darling of the left before the Dems started sharpening their knives for the '08.
He was seen as a "moderate" until he shifted policies in the runup to his election bid.
Policy reversals on abortion, immigration, taxation, energy, gay rights and torture have a tendency of souring the view of those who care about those issues.
It's partially the fact that he's the republican candidate that is alienating him from dems, but it's at least as much his changes in stance on some very core issues. Pandering cuts both ways; you pander towards and you pander away. Either way, I see no indication that he's going to be anything but another wasteful, intrusive republican president if elected.
Either way, I see no indication that he's going to be anything but another wasteful, intrusive republican president if elected.
...and Obama will be a wasteful, intrusive democratic president if elected.
McCain is most definitely not a Democrat. He's not even a moderate Republican. He's a neocon with a light frosting of paleocon, and affectations of theoconism.
Are you talking about John McCain? Because that in no way sound like the liberal Maverick McCain.
...and Obama will be a wasteful, intrusive democratic president if elected.
Well, to each their own, I guess.
I honestly can't see Obama as being in any way worse than the last 7 years of Bush, which McCain has all but promised to continue. Between domestic spying, spending trillions of dollars on a horribly mismanaged war, the systematic shredding of the constitution and a general lack of government competence, I'll go with the new guy, thanks.
Are you talking about John McCain? Because that in no way sound like the liberal Maverick McCain.
"Maverick" is a myth. He's a conservative republican, who has voted with Bush 90+% of the time.
I'll go with the new guy, thanks.
My state's going for the new guy, too, so I guess that means I am as well.
My state's going for the new guy, too, so I guess that means I am as well.
Yeah, the electoral college is a crock. Yet another problem we need to fix with the fouled up system.
Yeah, the electoral college is a crock. Yet another problem we need to fix with the fouled up system.
I used to think so, too, but the general populace is loaded with morons. ;) And all this really does is take this overblown popularity contest and refine it to a smaller number of voters. Though it certainly needs to be thrown out, there's so much that no longer works losing it probably wouldn't change anything. We need to destroy the entire system and start over. It's just too far gone, IMO.
It certainly would be nice to actually have my vote matter, of course, but so many people vote for absolutely cripplingly stupid reasons a little "help" may still be needed. How many have basically said they're voting for Obama because he's black? And how many are voting for McCain because he's not (though they'd never say it - funny, that)? Or Hillary supporters supporting her because she's, well, a her? Then we get into specifics. Hil blatantly lied to the world about her "dangerous voyage" and people still supported her. They bought that "I just misspoke" BS without a thought! We have Obama and McCain flip-flopping more than a spring break beach and no one that supports them bats an eye - yet they're all too quick to point it out when the opposition does it. Hmm. After thinking about this a touch more, it's not the system that's a disaster, it's us. We truly suck as a whole and deserve whatever the eventual winning d-bag will give us. Cuz we'll just sit back and let him.
Yeah, the electoral college is a crock. Yet another problem we need to fix with the fouled up system.
Oh, the system is fracked, to be sure, yet a house divided cannot stand.
Oh, the system is fracked, to be sure, yet a house divided cannot stand.
Yeah, but if that house pretends to be a democracy it should at least be giving everyone an equal say. Republicans in Massachusetts and Democrats in Indiana just aren't getting heard, and that's not how it should work.
Of course, the electoral college is just item number one on the list of things that need burnt to the ground in order to make us into a true democracy.
"Maverick" is a myth. He's a conservative republican, who has voted with Bush 90+% of the time.
Paleocon? McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, vetoing the GWB tax cuts, punishing Big Tobacco... why, he's practically the next Ayn Rand!
Need anyone say more? I think your hatred for the Republican Party has obscured your vision.
Need anyone say more? I think your hatred for the Republican Party has obscured your vision.
Pro-war, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping Americans, pro-oil companies, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union, anti-social security.
Republican.
I wonder if he knows about all the men and women who have served in the armed forces who also have played Dungeons & Dragons in the past and present?
Maybe I'm wrong in my comment.. I dunno, I'm kind of left speachless right now.
No, you're right. Many of the best gamers I know have or had carriers in the millitary, ranging from the army, navy, and the national guard.
Many people in the armed forces play D&D. Its a gmae that requires thinking tactically, and creatively. You use both sides of your brain, playing D&D int an insult, its a compliment!
Yeah, but if that house pretends to be a democracy it should at least be giving everyone an equal say. Republicans in Massachusetts and Democrats in Indiana just aren't getting heard, and that's not how it should work..
Actually it is how it's supposed to work. There is no electoral college for voting for the Congress or Senate. If the majority of the State are Dem's so be it and vise versus. It would be no different if you and your friends were voting for toppings on a Pizza. If everyone voted for sausage and you wanted pepperoni you are going to get sausage every time. Everyone that chooses to vote gets to be heard and it's decided by a majority. And kudos to Zombie_Babies.
Pro-war, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping Americans, pro-oil companies, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union, anti-social security.
Republican.
That's an interesting assesment. I'm not anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union or anti-social security - just to address the easiest topics as far as my beliefs are concerned. And I'm a Republican. Well, that's what I registered as IIRC. This is actually a huge problem that we face, IMO. I'm a Republican. I'm a Democrat. So I vote like a Rep/Dem should. Stupid. Painfully so. Find the candidate that makes the most sense to you and your ideology and vote for him. Never vote for a party. Until we stop this stuff (and all of the labels and assumptions that go along with it) we'll never make any sort of progress.
Actually it is how it's supposed to work. There is no electoral college for voting for the Congress or Senate. If the majority of the State are Dem's so be it and vise versus. It would be no different if you and your friends were voting for toppings on a Pizza. If everyone voted for sausage and you wanted pepperoni you are going to get sausage every time. Everyone that chooses to vote gets to be heard and it's decided by a majority. And kudos to Zombie_Babies.
You can defend the electoral college until you're blue in the face, but it still comes down to one fact; under that system, some votes are counting for more than others. That's not how Democracies are supposed to be run.
A direct democracy would be simpler, more fair and less prone to tampering.
That's an interesting assesment. I'm not anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union or anti-social security - just to address the easiest topics as far as my beliefs are concerned. And I'm a Republican. Well, that's what I registered as IIRC. This is actually a huge problem that we face, IMO. I'm a Republican. I'm a Democrat. So I vote like a Rep/Dem should. Stupid. Painfully so. Find the candidate that makes the most sense to you and your ideology and vote for him. Never vote for a party. Until we stop this stuff (and all of the labels and assumptions that go along with it) we'll never make any sort of progress.
I'm a registered Democrat because in the course of my time on this planet I have yet to see a Republican do anything to make it a better place.
I'm a Socialist/Libertarian (or Libertarian/Socialist depending on the day). I think that governments exist to help their citizenry through rough patches, but they have absolutely no place in telling them what to do with their lives. As such, I gravitate towards the party which supports human rights, freedom of speech, universal access to health care and which doesn't legislate their version of morality.
It's one thing to say "vote your conscience" when there isn't an obvious culprit behind the major issues of the day, but that's not the case here. 7 years of Republican rule has put us in a recession, has us in a war that no one can define "winning" for in terms that don't involve fairy tales and we've got people across the country dropping dead from stuff they would be getting treatment for in any civilized nation on the planet.
It's meaningless and designed to curry favor w/ the majority...cuz' most people don't game. They work 9-5, see an occaisional movie, drink on the weekends, and watch sports regularly. Gamers are seen as socially inept, rabid net afficiandos, hygenically challeneged, and often obnoxious. There is truth in that though having just come from Gencon again, I've seen it over and over, but it is not a maxim for the entire demographic to be sure.
I guess it's sad that the dishevled, socially stagnant ones are the gamers making the most fuss and getting the most attention, thusly perpetuating the stereotype. The loudest noise most often comes from the least credible, appropriate source. Otherwise, most folks that game (and shower, have a partner, a home, friends outside of gaming) realize there are bigger problems in the political sphere of interest and this is a feeble attempt to clutch at straws. Don't let this get to you. It's small potatos truly...
As for the current election/state of affairs: The real problems.
-McCain is more qualified as a Cmnd in Chief, the president's 1st & most important duty considering the arsenal/power he wields. I'm of the OPINION that if you are going to control the most powerful military, you should have some military XP behind you. And dodgy Air National Guard doesn't count GW, ahem...
Gonna' ride a bike, best to know how beforehand.
Obama might be good, who knows. He's got a high Cha mod in game terms and is well spoken, that's pretty much all I know.
Military wise though, it's not likely to matter as we're so entrenched in 2 sandboxes. Our assets are so tied up both will be resigned to accounting basically, not much else. We couldn't even effectively intervene for the Georgians who love us. Some political big talk, food aid, little else. Nice...
Iraq should've been delayed at the very least. Crush the Taliban first, then, wait and see...And what did we learn about a war on 2 fronts? Bremmer and Rumsfeld totally f'ed up;
-Dissolving the Iraqi army? Brilliant. Nothing like a bunch of angry, unemployed men w/ guns now w/ an axe to grind against the new foreigners and insurgents willing to pay for intel & ability. This was a major payday for Haliburton, Blackwater and the like. They get to pick up the slack for mass $.
-Rumsfeld's "light footprint" war motif was a joke. This only allowed insurgents to consolidate their forces & made us impotent police. This was one of the reasons he was outed and C. Rice hated him. It didn't work. Her "Clear, Hold, and Rebuild" motif (which he hated) was greenlighted and worked much much better.
Still, the whole thing stinks overall. Obama wants to withdrawl straightaway (he won't be able, Congress has sway too), McCain wants to push on, neither sit well w/ me. And Russia is sabre rattling too now, a way more credible threat. We're stretched far too thin. Our standards are crap now too.
-Health Care: another joke. Longest lived ppl on earth are the Japanese (NPR, July '08) w/ incredibly affordable insurance programs. An MRI in Kyoto might be around $98, here, possibly $1,200. Wtf? Insurance companies are vampires despite ppl defrauding them alot. More ppl pay into them now than ever, and rates keep going up. How about some f'ing incentives? Lower premiums for safer drivers and more reasonable autos, apply the same motif for health insurance. They only penalize smokers. Reward low chlorestorol. Reward frequent check ups, etc. It's simple. A longer-lived customer keeps paying you in the long term...and having kids that in turn will pay you.
-Economy: new drilling rights for oil won't matter for 8 yrs. We have tons, we're just lazy and used to foreign oil. Even Iran has tons of oil, but they have to import alot of their own gas cuz' they can't refine all their oil. Weird. Meanwhile, everyone is bi-ching, but doing very little; still see G-ride SUVs racing up to the red light, no one car pools often, AC on in even mild days, contant speeding despite it only really shaving off a 1 minute at best.
Tax breaks for oil companies. Wtf? Exxon made more $ than any public trade U.S. company in history this year...and last year. Disgusting.
We had electric cars in the 80's...which were bought up quickly by car industries so they couldn't compete later. Just like Microsoft & competitors.
God, the list goes on and so does a likely wall of text...
Sorry, I just get pi$$ed when I see ppl complaining over things like the perceieved D&D sleight that has little to no impact in the big scheme. I could totally see something like DMZ ([comix, brian wood, recommended btw] 21st cen American civil war) happening here if this cancer keeps growing.
I'm a registered Democrat because in the course of my time on this planet I have yet to see a Republican do anything to make it a better place.
I'm a Socialist/Libertarian (or Libertarian/Socialist depending on the day). I think that governments exist to help their citizenry through rough patches, but they have absolutely no place in telling them what to do with their lives. As such, I gravitate towards the party which supports human rights, freedom of speech, universal access to health care and which doesn't legislate their version of morality.
It's one thing to say "vote your conscience" when there isn't an obvious culprit behind the major issues of the day, but that's not the case here. 7 years of Republican rule has put us in a recession, has us in a war that no one can define "winning" for in terms that don't involve fairy tales and we've got people across the country dropping dead from stuff they would be getting treatment for in any civilized nation on the planet.
I've never seen a Democrat do anything to help, either. ;) The economy is not solely the resposibility of the Bush administration. Billy did a number with trade agreements that don't exactly help us at all. Unless you're Boeing or Microsoft, of course. Capitalism itself is at no small fault either. We outsource jobs and wonder why there's unemployment. We reward companies from other countries with tax abatement while we tax our own - homegrown - industries into oblivion. Holding one political party and it's members at fault is irresponsible at best. The reality is no matter what party wins this election - or the next, or the one after that, etc - nothing is really going to change. The system and the country as a whole are the problems. Not Republicans or Democrats.
I'm a registered Democrat because in the course of my time on this planet I have yet to see a Republican do anything to make it a better place.
I'm a Socialist/Libertarian (or Libertarian/Socialist depending on the day). I think that governments exist to help their citizenry through rough patches, but they have absolutely no place in telling them what to do with their lives. As such, I gravitate towards the party which supports human rights, freedom of speech, universal access to health care and which doesn't legislate their version of morality.
Then you should vote for the Libertarian candidate! I actually look at ALL of the candidates stances and weigh them against my own and vote for the candidate that most closely matches my views. It doesn't matter what party he or she is with. As a nation we need to break this two-party gridlock. I tired of the "You're wasting your vote!" rally cry of the sheeple that inhabit this country. I am not wasting my vote, I am voting for the person I believe will uphold my ideals. And I pray that one of these times enough people will wake up and vote for the person they really want instead of one of the two pre-set choices the media feeds us. Even a strong blip would give a third party the credibility to make a real run in a future election. The Libertarian party has started to make in-roads in local and state government. And I think there are alot more people out there that would like their government to stay out of their lives and stop throwing money at problems they have either created or have no business in in the first place.
I know voting for another party is a scary prospect. You feel like the greater evil of the two choices the media has presented with will win if you don't vote for the lesser. But stop voting for the lesser evil, vote for the greater good.
Billy did a number with trade agreements that don't exactly help us at all.
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in my lifetime. ;) He signed bad trade deals, killed universal healthcare (ok, that was Hillary, but still), perpetuated government discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.
He did build a budget surplus, which is something we should all aim for. Even if it just means the next prez has more money to launch vanity wars with...
I agree that the problem isn't just on one side of the fence, but it's very slanted one way. The Abramoff scandals, oil lobbiests, corporate candidates. They're all Republicans. Democrats are either incompetent, weak-willed or just plain useless, but at least they generally mean well. Given that I disagree with virtually every part of the Republican party platform, even a "good" repub is a bad legislator.
I know voting for another party is a scary prospect. You feel like the greater evil of the two choices the media has presented with will win if you don't vote for the lesser. But stop voting for the lesser evil, vote for the greater good.
I should have restated that. I'm a libertarian (little l) not a Libertarian. "Libertarian" at this point basically means standing for deregulation and corporate ownership, kind of a republican concentrate. I'm not going to vote for that, sorry.
Right, because the Democrats know nothing about negative campaigning and opposition research....
Looking at last presidential campaign and the way this one is presently shaping up, that statement appears to be bang on the money.
I should have restated that. I'm a libertarian (little l) not a Libertarian. "Libertarian" at this point basically means standing for deregulation and corporate ownership, kind of a republican concentrate. I'm not going to vote for that, sorry.
I used Libertarian as my example, but my point still stands. Everyone should vote for the candidate that espouses their beliefs, no matter what party they are with. Too many people vote for one party out of loyalty, or even their family's loyalty. We all need to broaden our spectrum and not be afraid to vote for the candidate we like instead of voting against the candidate we dislike the most.
I used Libertarian as my example, but my point still stands. Everyone should vote for the candidate that espouses their beliefs, no matter what party they are with. Too many people vote for one party out of loyalty, or even their family's loyalty. We all need to broaden our spectrum and not be afraid to vote for the candidate we like instead of voting against the candidate we dislike the most.
Believe me, my not voting for a third party has nothing to do with party loyalty.
It has everything, however, to do with the fact that the person still in the race that I think would do the best job as President happens to be a major party candidate.
If the third parties want my vote, they should run someone worth voting for and have platforms that are more than two issues long.
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in my lifetime. ;) He signed bad trade deals, killed universal healthcare (ok, that was Hillary, but still), perpetuated government discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.
He did build a budget surplus, which is something we should all aim for. Even if it just means the next prez has more money to launch vanity wars with...
I agree that the problem isn't just on one side of the fence, but it's very slanted one way. The Abramoff scandals, oil lobbiests, corporate candidates. They're all Republicans. Democrats are either incompetent, weak-willed or just plain useless, but at least they generally mean well. Given that I disagree with virtually every part of the Republican party platform, even a "good" repub is a bad legislator.
I happen to think they all suck equally. :D Still, you have looked at what's gone on, drawn your own educated conclusions and have made a decision based on them. Now how am I supposed to argue with that? :D Not that I was arguing anything, really. I've drawn different - and admittedly darker - conclusions from what I've seen. No biggie. But it does serve to sort of confirm that we're in a hell of a mess. If, with things as bad as they are today, we cannot agree on what the next step should be, how the hell will we ever be able to take it?
There are no red & blue states. There are alot of dumbasses that vote 1 party over the other and are heavilly influenced by tradition, name recognition, and so forth. Still, the party system, though a mess, isn't the culprit so much as the system that perpetuates it.
Hate to quote commies, but, "Reform is the enemy of revolution." And things, though slowing down in China (finally) are dangerously powerful.
Divorcing campaigns from 3rd party (sponsors) is almost impossible too; you're getting help ($) from someone, you're kind of expected to "pay it back" a bit. Everyone is in bed w/ everyone else. It's like a bad Fox program, only w/ trillions of dollars and 300 million people is all.
Libertarian ideals are probably closest to the American evolutionary spirit...but, they're not necessarilly the ones to play ball w/ popular media and industry who's terrific influence can demonize even Mother Theresa. This is why I love(d) T. Jefferson. Totally competant, very effective leader. State's rights. Can't stand big govt. It's wasteful and infringing on the public. Seriously, it's getting more and more fascist if you examine the 14 points of fascism.
Why the Hell can't we get another Jefferson or Washington? He was offered a lifelong reign as king of America and turned it down...why isn't there someone w/ that kind of integrity now? Probably too sad to even get involved in modern politics...
You can defend the electoral college until you're blue in the face, but it still comes down to one fact; under that system, some votes are counting for more than others. That's not how Democracies are supposed to be run.
A direct democracy would be simpler, more fair and less prone to tampering.
I never defended the electoral college, but like others have said it's unfortunately needed to not put Donald Duck in office, litterally.Also A Republican does not equal a conservative just like a Democrat does not equal a liberal. The parties may lean that way but it's members can choose which way they want in the end.
Hate to quote commies, but, "Reform is the enemy of revolution."
The reason you are not and will not see a revolution, at least within our lifetimes, is our genteel culture. I've posited that the gulf between the neo-conservatives and the gramscians which govern the two parties is insurmountable, and like two birds with their legs strung together, cannot fly in either direction.
We must endure and be self-reliant.
I never defended the electoral college, but like others have said it's unfortunately needed to not put Donald Duck in office, litterally.
It is insulting to think that anyone could use this defense of the electoral college. But I'm sure many elitist snobs with power think those of us in "the masses" are stupid enough to vote a cartoon character into office. Nevermind that a simple fix would be to limit valid votes to registered candidates and uphold our current rules governing who can register themselves as a candidate would suffice to eliminate Bugs Bunny or Arnold Schwarzenegger from attaining office.
What they truly fear is that a "common person" backed by a citizens group that refuses to play ball and put more money in the pockets of the rich will gain control and put a stop to their robbery of the middle class. That's what the electoral college is truly there to prevent. They could sway a relatively small number of electorates with promises of wealth and power, but even they do not have the funds to sway an entire mass of citizens involved in a popular vote.
What they truly fear is that a "common person" backed by a citizens group that refuses to play ball and put more money in the pockets of the rich will gain control and put a stop to their robbery of the middle class.
QFT
Here in this web
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
When you put the icon of mouse on Dungeons & Dragons crowd it gives you a new web which says:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall
Goldfarb keeps experience points
Michael Goldfarb's shot at "the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd" today drew some raised eyebrows among readers, my cousin Jacob, and other members of the unexpectedly vocal Dungeons & Dragons community.
But fear not: Goldfarb, in fact, has pre-emptively apologized, in the form of his response to the (narrow, but intense) outrage last time he did this, earlier this month:
[INDENT]If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.[/INDENT]
http://ace.new.mu.nu/apology_from_mccains_campaign_blogger
Apology?
But it does serve to sort of confirm that we're in a hell of a mess. If, with things as bad as they are today, we cannot agree on what the next step should be, how the hell will we ever be able to take it?
This is the question that democracy always ultimately comes down to. The ideal is that the majority of the people all vote in their own best interest, and that provides the outlet for change. With the way we approach politics in this country, though, that hasn't really been something that has happened in my lifetime.
Maybe this time will be different.
I never defended the electoral college, but like others have said it's unfortunately needed to not put Donald Duck in office, litterally.
Those pesky commoners, with their desire to self-rule. We should definitely institute checks over their ability to elect the leaders they want, after all, they're just commoners. What do they know about what they need out of government.
Also A Republican does not equal a conservative just like a Democrat does not equal a liberal. The parties may lean that way but it's members can choose which way they want in the end.
Parties have platforms. In order to be a Republican, you have to ascribe to a number of principles that fall very much to the right of center. Ergo, Republicans are conservative. It's pretty cut and dry. "Liberal" Republicans are actually more like "moderate" human beings than their party mates. They aren't actually liberals, though.
"Liberal" Republicans are actually more like "moderate" human beings than their party mates. They aren't actually liberals, though.
Pretty much. It's like saying you're playing a tall dwarf. You may not be a short as the other dwarf in the party, but you're still short.
This is the question that democracy always ultimately comes down to. The ideal is that the majority of the people all vote in their own best interest, and that provides the outlet for change. With the way we approach politics in this country, though, that hasn't really been something that has happened in my lifetime.
Maybe this time will be different.
Yep. We'll see, I guess. Hopefully it is but I don't have much faith. I truly believe we are on a decline. A big one. And perhaps the last. Not that whoever is elected will be presiding over our country's final years, of course, but I just don't know if anyone can save us now.
Yep. We'll see, I guess. Hopefully it is but I don't have much faith. I truly believe we are on a decline. A big one. And perhaps the last. Not that whoever is elected will be presiding over our country's final years, of course, but I just don't know if anyone can save us now.
Well, I've seen it in decline since I've been old enough to grasp the situation. The most we can do is try to make the right decisions to stop the slide. I'll keep fighting to make it work, that's what I do (for a living, actually). I don't really know of anything more that can be done.
Well, I've seen it in decline since I've been old enough to grasp the situation. The most we can do is try to make the right decisions to stop the slide. I'll keep fighting to make it work, that's what I do (for a living, actually). I don't really know of anything more that can be done.
Not much. Pray, if you believe in it. ;) Hopefully whoever wins can at least give us a glimpse of progress. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
Well, I've seen it in decline since I've been old enough to grasp the situation. The most we can do is try to make the right decisions to stop the slide. I'll keep fighting to make it work, that's what I do (for a living, actually). I don't really know of anything more that can be done.
I'd really like to know who you work for.
Keep up the fight. Your writing on this topic in these forums has been even better than the stuff you've put out in defense of 4e. I've enjoyed reading it.
I just hope that the lies and innuendo do not win the day this election. Somehow I feel the we'll owe an apology to the world and future generations if it does.
d
I'd really like to know who you work for.
Check your inbox for a hint. ;)
Keep up the fight. Your writing on this topic in these forums has been even better than the stuff you've put out in defense of 4e. I've enjoyed reading it.
Fighting for my beliefs is really the only thing I know how to do very well at all. I don't expect to be stopping anytime soon. ;)
To paraphrase the classics, the voters in the US will choose who they will and the rest of the world will bear what it must.
Hasbro is owner WotC. Hasbro are the creators of G.I.Joe: Real American Hero. If I was Hasbro... I would talk with McCain.
Here in this web
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
When you put the icon of mouse on Dungeons & Dragons crowd it gives you a new web which says:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Goldfarb_keeps_experience_points.html?showall
Goldfarb keeps experience points
Michael Goldfarb's shot at "the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd" today drew some raised eyebrows among readers, my cousin Jacob, and other members of the unexpectedly vocal Dungeons & Dragons community.
But fear not: Goldfarb, in fact, has pre-emptively apologized, in the form of his response to the (narrow, but intense) outrage last time he did this, earlier this month:
[INDENT]If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.[/INDENT]
http://ace.new.mu.nu/apology_from_mccains_campaign_blogger
Apology?
That depends. Is he also submitting a letter of resignation as member of McCain's campaign staff?
And a t-shirt.
*****
So if you are that upset over the use of D&D as a negative adjective by one of McCains Campaigners then what do you say about Obama’s affiliation with Rev. Wright?
I for one am not overly concerned about McCain’s comments regarding gamers. It just shows how closed minded the staff writer in question was that wrote it and how closed minded McCain is for thinking it was okay to repeat.
Regarding Obama and Rev. Wright. Obama has never repeated what Rev. Wright has said or expressed consent with it like John McCain did with the DnD comment. In fact, Obama has repeatedly denounced Rev. Wright’s comments several times look on the internet and under keys like Oh, “Obama denounces Rev. Wright” and you will find plenty of links. Obama has also several times talked about his philosophy on race and how all Americans need to work together etc, in fact he has even been attacked by some African Americans for not being Black enough and supported Black causes. This was publicized several times. I find it hard to believe you didn’t see it. Here I’ll even throw on in a link for you featuring an article where Obama denounces Wright:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/obama_denounces_wright.php
What I find more interesting is why you and the press for that matter aren’t talking about how John McCain is courting the religious right. Since you mentioned James Cones I think is fair to mention the father of the religious right movement and the beginning of Mr. R.J. Rushdoony. His book The Institutes of Biblical Law published in 1973 is widely considered to be the most important book to the Dominist/Religious right movement (other than the Bible). Mr. Rushdoony’s book is a treatise on how “true” Christians should push for an America ruled by Biblical law including Old Testament Biblical law and support candidates who have radical wing religious values. Mr. Rushdoony blatantly states in his book that under the his ideal America the deal penalty would be carried out not only for crimes like ****, kidnapping, and murder but also for things like the practice of Astrology, a child hitting a parent, abortion, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, and in the case of women “unchastity before marriage.” Mr. Rushdoony along with Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are part of a group called the Council for National Policy, which was formed by Dominionist along with Right Wing Industrialist as a committee to promote Dominionist idealogy in America that is the idealogy of a totalitarian Christian state, in which those who don’t prescribe to Mr. Rushdoony and Pat Robertson’s version of Christianity will be punished in the harshest way including death, but then again Pat Robertson did make that infamous assassination comment on the 700 Club.
Furthermore in terms of McCain and religion McCain did openly seek out the endorsement of several far right ministers, including those with doctrines of intolerability oincluding John Hagee. Although, McCain did later distance himself from Hagee like Obama did with Rev. Wright. We could go deeper into Christian Rights philosophy like how many universities founded by right wing ministers don’t allow interracial dating at all (dating within race is allowed although you may have to be chaperoned etc, or very recently just started allowing it like Bob Jones university. We could talk about how religious leader and former Louisiana lawmaker Chris Perkins may quote Dr. King now, but how in 1996 he gave a check for over $80,000 dollars to the head of the Ku Klux Klan (David Duke) to acquire his phone bank list to rally support against Woody Jenkins, or how Mr. Perkins as late as 2001 gave a public speech at a fundraiser for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that has called African Americans "A retrograde species of humanity." Viewed from this perspective, and considering the history of Christianity being used to justify the Trans Atlantic slave trade via the "Hamidic curse" (this was a philosopy espoused by early American slavers that stated Blacks were the descendants of Ham and since Ham was cursed to bear the burdens of his brothers and work for them Blacks were designed by God to be slaves), and the pillaging oAmerica from the Indians (via drawing parallels to the Hebrews invading the land of Canaan and taking the land away from the Canaanites because they were unrighteous idolaters) I can at least understand the rationale behind Black Liberation Theology as wanting to give Black Christians a means of espousing their faith without endorsing slavery upon themselves. This is not, however to say that I endorse or condone Black Liberation theology or Racism in any form from Blacks, Whites, or whomever. Even James Cones himself seems to have moved beyond his original radical manifestos stating that being "black" has nothing to do with Race but rather with state of mind of being a dispossessed person therefore it is possible for a White person to be Black. Since you mentioned Mr. Cones I looked him up and pulled up some of his other quotes besides the ones you listed:
"I think the time has come for black theologians and church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world...For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups." (James Cones)
"Being black in America has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are." (James, Cones, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 151)
Still, Black Liberation theology is not something I endorse nor is it something a prejudicial candidate ensorse. That being said the religious intolerance and overall bigotry present in the Religious Right should not be sought and endorsed by candidates either. Under the Neocon movement the Republican party has turned away from the ideals that were present under Republicans like Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Reagan, and even George Bush Sr, and has become dominated by the Religious Right Wing. If you are going to deride Obama for attending a church by reverend Wright despite the fact that he has never openly stated he agrees with Rev. Wright’s philosophies on Race, has never repeated any of Rev. Wrights crazy ass comments, and in fact has openly denounced Rev. Wright then you should also denounce McCain who actively sought out the more extreme members of the Christian Right Wing like Rev. John Hagee. The Christian Religious Right, which has become a bedrock of the Neo-Con movement has attributes which at least equal if not exceeds "Afro-Nazism" as you dubbed it. Lastly, I should mention or rather clarify that when I refer to the Christian Right I am not referring to Conservative Christians Evangelicals in general but the group like R. J. Rushdoony, Falwell, James Dobson, Perkins, Pat Robertson and other who are Dominionist and seek to actively exert their religious Doctrine upon the body politic as opposed to traditional Christian Evangelicals like Billy Graham who while deeply devout shied away from politics (especially after he got burned via vouching for Nixon's integrity).
http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/16/1368990-john-mccain-courts-the-radical-right-religious-vote
Which is why his own party actually does not like him, he is for many things conservatives are against including NAFTA, and Illegal immigration.
John McCain is for a many things that the pro-religious/Christian Right Republican is against. George W. Bush courted this group heavily and since his administration they have become the cornerstone of the Neocons, even though George Bush
doesn’t really fully go along with everything they believe in. John McCain is a more traditional pre-Bush big business Republican. Big business or more corporate minded Republicans see no problem with Nafta or for that matter illegal immigration since illegal immigration essentially means cheap labor. The fact is
Nafta was signed into law by Clinton at the behest and constant urging of a predominately Republican Congress. Just like a majority Republican Congress expanded NAFTA via passing CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) into law in 2005 with a full signature and endorsement by George W. Bush.
Peace,
Fallstorm
P.S. I also looked up this diabolical Black Values System you mentioned Barak Obama subscribing to. I found a copy of them in the Illinois Review. They are as follows:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System
Heres the link to the IR:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2006/12/obamas_black_va.html
I for one am not overly concerned about McCain’s comments regarding gamers. It just shows how closed minded the staff writer in question was that wrote it and how closed minded McCain is for thinking it was okay to repeat.
Regarding Obama and Rev. Wright. Obama has never repeated what Rev. Wright has said or expressed consent with it like John McCain did by with the DnD comment.
Do you have a link to McCain's repitition of Goldfarb's D&D comments? I keep seeing these comments linked to McCain directly.
People are apt to make this mistake. Radio talk show hosts often get lambasted for things guests or even other cast members say on their show. No matter what proof is offered that they themselves did not say what people are objecting to.
The same is occurring here. McCain, for all I can tell, did not make these comments and did not endorse them. Not denouncing != endorsing. As many others pointed out it would make McCain look silly to come out and denounce inconsequential comments such as Goldfarb's, if he even knows what was said.
I'm no McCain supporter, but I believe in being fair when attributing such things to the proper person.
I don't know what you are talking about here could you please clarify?
This thread is about it. Try to keep up.
I'm of the OPINION that if you are going to control the most powerful military, you should have some military XP behind you.
Wow. So you believe the only people who can be president are soldiers? That's ****ing scary for the rest of the world.
Do you have a link to McCain's repitition of Goldfarb's D&D comments? I keep seeing these comments linked to McCain directly.
People are apt to make this mistake. Radio talk show hosts often get lambasted for things guests or even other cast members say on their show. No matter what proof is offered that they themselves did not say what people are objecting to.
The same is occurring here. McCain, for all I can tell, did not make these comments and did not endorse them. Not denouncing != endorsing. As many others pointed out it would make McCain look silly to come out and denounce inconsequential comments such as Goldfarb's, if he even knows what was said.
I'm no McCain supporter, but I believe in being fair when attributing such things to the proper person.
After looking I can't find anything that McCain said directly reciprocating what was stated by his writer, although the comment is posted on McCains website. I was wrong in making the statement about McCain repeating what his aide said, unless someone can presents something that actually shows McCain repeating these comments, which I have been unable to find. As, I stated previously as a gamer I wasn't offended by the comment I was however, put off by this diatribe of rhetoric that came down about Barak Obama this and Rev. Wright that, and I stand fully behind everything else I said in my previous post including everything I stated about the Religious Right and the courtship of the Christian Right/Dominionist by political (predominately Republican candidates). I will say this however, John McCain has this comment by Goldfarb posted on his Presidential Campaign website
http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
So, if that isn't a kind of endorsement I don't know what is. You best believe Barak Obama doesn't have any of Rev. Wrights comments posted on his website. If McCain doesn't endorse this comment then why doesn't he remove it from the website? Still I'll digress on this issue.
Of course, what is scary is that Barak Obama may end up attempting to court these groups and while I can understand reaching out to religious voters, reaching out to the far religious right is a waste of time. It doesn't matter that the Dems do this is one group that it is a waste of time to try and sway to more left or even center cause. The only way to sway them is to completely kow-tow to their idealogy.
Peace,
Fallstorm
I tend to think of those people as miss informed, bullies pick on people because they can and because they know no one else will fight back. So no I don't see McCains staffer or George Bush as a bully.
George Bush is a bully:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/08/14/author.terror.list/index.html
http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2007/08/19/80000-paid-for-anti-bush-t-shirts/
http://http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/5/denver_man_sues_secret_service_for
I think the Secret Service arresting the dad and leaving his eight year old behind has got to take the cake.
That little list represents all of five minutes of searching, BTW.
Well written apology, honestly, but I'm hot now. Apologies from bullys are so the bully can reform his behavior. They'll have to take care of that issue before McCain runs again, damage is done.
I want to do a fund raiser. Someone did a simple shirt that says "Pro-Obama Dungeons and Dragons Crowd" that has no real graphics. I'm sure a cooler shirt can be made. I'm picturing a D&D party with Obama as a paladin, Hilary as a rogue, and Al Gore as a wizard, Jimmy Carter as a cleric. Something like that.
I'd also like to see a shirt with Dick Cheney behind a DM screen surrounded by dice and a mini that looks like Bush with "Dick Cheney, World's Worst DM" emblazoned on it.
Pro-war, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping Americans, pro-oil companies, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union, anti-social security.
Republican.
You know, there are plenty of strong philosophical arguments against abortion. This is the one part of the Democratic party platform that bothers me. Just like it is somewhat insonsistent for republicans to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. It is equally inconsistent for the Democrats to be against capital punishment but for abortion.
You know, there are plenty of strong philosophical arguments against abortion. This is the one part of the Democratic party platform that bothers me. Just like it is somewhat insonsistent for republicans to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. It is equally inconsistent for the Democrats to be against capital punishment but for abortion.
That part of the Democratic Party platform is not about promoting abortion. It is about allowing women to have the freedom to decide, with their own advisers, what they do with their own bodies. That is why this side uses the term pro-Choice. It is about the right for women to make their own reproductive choices.
Before Roe v Wade, rich women who wanted to end a pregnancy did just that. They would travel to a state or country where abortion was not illegal and get one. Poor women were left without a choice if they happened to live in a place where the laws insisted that they could not make their own decision. It was not only sexist in that it was mostly men making these laws, it was classist as it denied equal opportunity based on social and economic class.
BTW, poll after poll since Roe v Wade was decided have indicated that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose.
d
I have no problem with a two party system as long as the candidates stay true to what that party is about, for instance The Democratic party are now socialists. Obama’s a radical socialist so he fits in the norm for his party. McCain on the other hand is a liberal and not a real conservative making it difficult for him to rally his bases which are die hard conservatives in the Republican party.
You don't have a problem with a two-party system?? That limits your choice to one of only two candidates. What if both candidates are crap? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well?" Is that what you want? Don't you want to be able to meaningfully vote for a candidate you like, rather than choosing between the lesser of two evils (as is often the case when choosing a candidate from the Republicrats)?
And WHAT??? Obama a radical socialist?? HAHAHAHA. Compared to me, Obama is extremelly conservative. He's a capitalist through and through, he's not even close to being a socialist. He's maybe half a centimeter closer than McCain. And that is the norm for the Dems, because the Democratic party is not, in any sense of the word, a socialist party. Not even close.
Do you know what socialism is?
McCain is a conservative, not a liberal. Granted, he's not as right-leaning as many Republicans, but he is still very much right-leaning; he doesn't even come close to center.
What makes you think McCain is liberal??
Wow. So you believe the only people who can be president are soldiers? That's ****ing scary for the rest of the world.
Unless you count most of your average people who enlist for only one term, get sick of all the crap, and get out. The lifers are the ones you have to worry about. Many of the biggest hippies I've known have served a term or two in the military.
It is equally inconsistent for the Democrats to be against capital punishment but for abortion.
No it isn't. A fertilized egg isn't a human being at conception. If you disagree that's fine, but Democrats don't agree with you.
You know, there are plenty of strong philosophical arguments against abortion. This is the one part of the Democratic party platform that bothers me. Just like it is somewhat insonsistent for republicans to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. It is equally inconsistent for the Democrats to be against capital punishment but for abortion.
It's not inconsistent at all. Democrats aren't pro-abortion in the sense that Republicans are pro-killing convicted criminals. Democrats simply feel that it's something that should always be an option.
Nobody's going around handing out pills and telling mothers they should be killing every fetus. But if abortion isn't an option in the cases where it's needed, then we as a society have failed.
"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." - Bill Clinton.
Dems aren't actively pushing for more abortions, they're just trying to maintain a woman's right to be more than an ovary with legs. They should have control over whether they should have a child. Period.
I have no problem with a two party system as long as the candidates stay true to what that party is about, for instance The Democratic party are now socialists. Obama’s a radical socialist so he fits in the norm for his party. McCain on the other hand is a liberal and not a real conservative making it difficult for him to rally his bases which are die hard conservatives in the Republican party.
The Democratic party is hardly socialist. Yes, some individuals in the Democratic party may support doing a few things like offering healthcare to people who can’t afford it (and I for one hope this happens so maybe we can move out of being number 36th in terms of healthcare quality but number one in expensiveness and join the rest of the industrial world via having a socialized medicine program), but overall they both are very much a part of the capitalist corporate system along with the Republicans. Corporate interests influence both groups (Republicans more so than Democrats). Both groups owe fealty to the corporations that fund them and often promote the interest of their financial backers above the interests of their constituents.
John McCain is a Republican. As I stated in my previous post #161 he is what used to be thought of as a traditional corporate Republican before the Republican party got hijacked by right wing Christian Dominionist and became the cornerstone of the party. The Christian Right become the forefront of the Republican Party in around 2000 as George W. Bush heavily courted this group and relied on them to gain help gain his election. Prior to this the big business Corporate Republican ala John McCain, Romney, Dick Cheney, etc was what people usually thought of when they thought about Republicans.
If the Democrats were smart they would exploit this rift in the hopes of picking up votes as many more traditional Republicans are feeling very disenfranchised about their party and what the neo-cons have allowed it to become. Many Republicans especially those who respect the party for what used to be its fiscal views on spending, its wariness of big government (in the old days the Republicans would have been among the 1st protesting things like the “Patriot Act” and government intrusion into private living), and less concerned about promoting a theocracy. As a friend of mine who has a degree in physics stated, “My party went from being the Republican party I knew to this new entity comprised of Right Wing religious fanatics who have no regard for science, reason, or any social consciousness whatsoever outside of their regard for fetuses and stem cells. At least your party hasn’t changed that much.”
I didn’t say anything in response to him at the time but he was right. Where does a man whose educated, believes in what was the traditionally Republican views on foreign policy and fiscal spending, but has a degree in science and believes in evolution, believes in not having things like “intelligent design” promoted in schools, believes in the government staying out of private moral affairs, etc what party does this person go to now to have a voice? I mean yeah, I know the Libertarian party is out there, but lets be real people want their votes to count. This is the same reason I don't vote Green even though I as a Left Winger often agree more with their party platforms than I do that of the Democrats. I don’t think he believes in complete corporate deregulation like the Libertarians (which would do nothing but create a worker’s hell) so again where do the traditional Goldwater Republicans go now?
Peace,
Fallstorm
I will say this however, John McCain has this comment by Goldfarb posted on his Presidential Campaign website
http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
So, if that isn't a kind of endorsement I don't know what is. You best believe Barak Obama doesn't have any of Rev. Wrights comments posted on his website. If McCain doesn't endorse this comment then why doesn't he remove it from the website? Still I'll digress on this issue.
Goldfarb's role on the campaign team basically boils down to Internet Troll Blogger. They chose him to be in control of the website blogging aspect. And like many bloggers, alot of incoherant garage passes from his mind onto the page. His comments are rediculous and mean little in the grand scheme of things. He was brought on to show that the McCain campaign is with the times and is blogging with the masses. I doubt McCain has kept tabs personally over what is being said in the blogs.
If Goldfarb started making comments in his blogs of the severity of Rev. Wright, I'm sure a campaign aide would point out this behavior and Goldfarb would be yanked from the campaign if his posts amounted to anything more than being an Internet Tough Guy.
I too thought it was terrible how Obama was linked with Rev. Wright's comments. And that damage was done by Hillary! Then we discover she has a link to the same church. I really think the Dems were intentionally trying to shoot their own party's chances down.
I want to do a fund raiser. Someone did a simple shirt that says "Pro-Obama Dungeons and Dragons Crowd" that has no real graphics. I'm sure a cooler shirt can be made. I'm picturing a D&D party with Obama as a paladin, Hilary as a rogue, and Al Gore as a wizard, Jimmy Carter as a cleric. Something like that.
You get me a poster of this, and I'll hang it on my wall at work. ;)
so again where do the traditional Goldwater Republicans go now?
I believe the correct answer is that we fade into the sunset, never to return again. At least that would be the hopes of the radical neo-con party that the Grand old Party has become.
The real irony is that the old fashioned Republicans aren't welcome in the Democratic party either. Take a look at people like Wes Clark. A distinguished general, a man who gave the years of his life to his country. A lifelong republican, he changed his party affiliation after his time of service ended. He is effectively a man without a voice in the Democratic party now, because of his years as a registered Republican. Other former Republicans are welcomed warmly though. Hillary was one back when Goldwater ran. I guess she was young enough when she switched sides that is was ok.
On the topic of socialized medicine, I find it terribly amusing that the senators and the congress can't figure it out. If any of them find themselves in need of medical care, all they need to do is drive over to Bethesda and they can get some of the best medical care in the world. Sure, not all military hospitals are the best, but the ones that I have seen in my years were pretty good. If they want to truly socialize medicine, nothing would be easier. Sure, Military pay isn't as good as private practice. Sure it isn't as glorious as what you see on the medical dramas on TV. But have you ever met a military doctor that's struggling to pay off the last of his school loans? Insurance companies are the real demons on this topic. You can bet our esteemed leaders have never had their doctors argue with an HMO over whether the doctor or the insurance company knew the best way to treat them.
Mr McCain was once an honorable man, in my opinion. But in the past few years, his reputation as a maverick of the party has slipped. More and more I see him seeking the approval of the neo-cons, rather than seeking the good of the republic. They'll trot him out, the old wardog and say "look, a hero". And people will vote for him based on his military record, even though it wasn't that great. I am sorry to say, being a POW doesn't qualify him for anything other than a healthy pension and the thanks of a greatful nation. Being a fighter pilot earned him a flag on his casket and possibly a drink in a bar if we met out there in the real world, although I'd still call him an Airdale. His party will call him "Elder Statesman" as they ramp up the campaign machine, but in the end, they know this one is probably just for show. I feel sorry for the man. In his younger days I might have actually cast my lot for him, but today I can see the taint of the years in government on him.
I know the world is full of selfish, scheming people with their envying eyes turned towards the halls of power. It's somewhat disheartening that a freshman representative makes ten times what most of his constituency earns in a year. I understand the realities of the situation though. The people we have in office were the ones that could afford to make their name come to the front of your mind when you stared at that ballot on the second Tuesday in November. Money can and does buy votes, just not directly.
I was a republican until March of 2008. After 17* years I changed my party affiliation to Libertarian because they can actually have that listed on their voter registration here in Iowa, if they maintain enough members. It is in the best interest of the republic that we have more than two choices. I haven't ever voted Libertarian and I probably won't, but I'll maintain that registration because it's something that's needed. Just for the record, I voted Clinton twice and Nader twice. I'm not certain where I'll cast my lot this time, but I'm quite certain the right honorable Mr McCain won't be receiving my endorsement.
* I received my first voter registration card while I was in the gulf of Aden. So I understand fully the sacrifice Mr McCain made for his country. I stood shoulder to shoulder with men as well. Does it make me better than anyone else? Does it make me qualified to lead this nation? Does it mean my voice is any more important than anyone else's? The answer to all those questions is "no". I am one vote. I am one person. I am one American. I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Take a look at people like Wes Clark. A distinguished general, a man who gave the years of his life to his country. A lifelong republican, he changed his party affiliation after his time of service ended. He is effectively a man without a voice in the Democratic party now, because of his years as a registered Republican.
Not to reduce your points here (because you made some great ones), but I'd have to disagree here.
Wes Clark is one of the names being thrown around for VP, and he's been the "military" face of the Democratic party for the last couple of cycles. He's highly respected in the majority of Democratic circles (they even love him on DailyKos, which is typically a very rough reception for former Republicans) and he's the go-to Dem for foreign policy discussions. He doesn't have a huge hand in shaping domestic policy within the party, but he's also not an elected official which hamstrings his ability to set agendas.
I do agree that those with Goldwater leanings really don't have a major party to call their own anymore. The Republicans really can't claim fiscal responsibility or effective foreign policy as trademarks anymore. They GOP's attempt to wrap up the fundie vote is backfiring at this point; they're writing policy now.
He's highly respected in the majority of Democratic circles (they even love him on DailyKos, which is typically a very rough reception for former Republicans) and he's the go-to Dem for foreign policy discussions.
Actually, Biden is generally the foreign policy choice. Although Clark is king when it comes to military issues, because he's seen them up close and personal. Believe me, those two are a ticket I would endorse without reservation.
Actually, Biden is generally the foreign policy choice. Although Clark is king when it comes to military issues, because he's seen them up close and personal. Believe me, those two are a ticket I would endorse without reservation.
Biden has committee tenure, but he doesn't have "General" before his name when he goes on television. In this country, that title swings a lot of cred.
Unfortunately for Biden, he's got a lot of baggage that just make running for Prez unrealistic. He's a strong progressive senator, not afraid to tell it like it is (the "That's ********!" comment being a perfect example), but he's gotten tied up in some stuff that unfortunately will keep him out of the big chair.
Then your problem is with the staffer not John McCain. He’s not going to fire someone over that inane comment nor would Obama.
I never made the call to have him fired. I think that it's something I should keep in mind when I cast my vote though.Your right he wasn’t on his staff, just his spiritual and moral adviser that he had to denounce.
Obama didn't follow everything Rev Wright taught. I know many people who disagree with their pastors on spiritual matters. I don't see why Obama should be compared to Rev Wright. The two men are very different from each other.Only if the comment were truly hurt full which in this case it was not, at least not to the general populace. Overreacting is also the sign of a bad President.
It doesn't matter if the statement hurt the general populace or not. The fact that they feel it's ok to insult any of the voting public shows me that they do not feel that we are all equal. How can I vote for a president that doesn't want to treat everyone the same? Why should I vote for a president that makes disparaging comments about the very people he is supposed to lead? This isn't the first or even second time the McCain camp has made these types of statements. It's been reported that McCain said "People who make under $80,000 are too stupid to understand taxes anyway."Actually I found the obvious ones, I’m sure there are more.
None of them are actually Obama's views though. Those quotes aren't even from his staff members.Looking at his past is like trying to see the bottom of a muddy pool, and no one in there right mind running for President at this day and age is going to actively promote racism no matter how they may truly feel. So here’s another question for you if he was white and went to a racist church would you feel the same way?
I am not convinced that Obama went to a racist church. From what I can tell the media selectively showed clips that made it look like there was racism. I'm sure there is quite a bit of black pride but I don't think that this is the Black Panthers' younger brother. If the person running for president was racist then I would feel the same way. I look at the individual as much as possible.I have and no I would not sign it since it is inherently racist and class biased, so I’m not sure how you got your interpretation.
I got that interpretation because there is nothing racist in there at all. Not a single thing. The fact that it mentions blacks instead of everyone is only a sign that the church was predominately black and supports the black community. Nothing in there even hints that rights of non-blacks were going to be taken away.McCain never endorsed or went to a racist church and I know about McCain religious supporters which actually is irrelevant. And again you are correct Rev. Wright is not Obama’s spokesman just his spiritual and moral adviser, which shouldn’t matter to anyone.
Then there is no need to comment on it anymore.My personal belief is that the only reason that you are writing so negatively about it is because you endorse Obama. I’m sure you would have a problem with anyone saying it but it gives Obama supporters another reason to take a stab at McCain.
I support Obama because I think he'd be a better president than McCain. I find McCain to be a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality. He can't stay on topic and has no intention on discussing issues. Instead he intentionally lies and takes remarks out of context. He seems to think that being a POW somehow qualifies him to be President.
Obama has taken a few plays out of McCain's book. Recently Obama made a jab ot how McCain looks down when he's talking about drilling for oil. It's a stupid remark that avoids the issue and takes a stab at the individual. Obama is far from perfect. I just think McCain is farther.
I would be writing about it the same way if it was someone in Obama's camp that posted the same thing on Obama's site.
Unfortunately for Biden, he's got a lot of baggage that just make running for Prez unrealistic. He's a strong progressive senator, not afraid to tell it like it is (the "That's ********!" comment being a perfect example), but he's gotten tied up in some stuff that unfortunately will keep him out of the big chair.
I loved that comment. The worst thing he ever did in my eyes was apologize for saying it. I would've stood up on the soapbox and made sure every American within earshot of a TV heard about it and exactly what it was about*.
Sadly, Biden knows he's an excellent voice in the Senate and he'll probably choose to stay there where he can actually do the best he can for the country. But that in itself is what makes him such a good choice for the big chair.
* I watched the speech, by the way. It was the first time I ever was truly ashamed of something an American president said to a foreign legislature. Taking a political side when speaking before the Knesset is bad enough, mentioning the nazis might be ok in the right context, but to compare your party's opponents to nazi sympathizers was too much to bear. If you think Biden's comments were bad, you certainly didn't want to be in the room with me. I let fly a stream of obscenities that would curdle milk.
That's an interesting assesment. I'm not anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union or anti-social security - just to address the easiest topics as far as my beliefs are concerned. And I'm a Republican. Well, that's what I registered as IIRC. This is actually a huge problem that we face, IMO. I'm a Republican. I'm a Democrat. So I vote like a Rep/Dem should. Stupid. Painfully so. Find the candidate that makes the most sense to you and your ideology and vote for him. Never vote for a party. Until we stop this stuff (and all of the labels and assumptions that go along with it) we'll never make any sort of progress.
I am not registered with either party and won't. I do vote based on the individual's ability to lead us to where I think is best. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I tend to vote for Democrats because I find the views of those individual candidates to be closer to what I want. For example, I tend to agree with Kucinich. I won't vote for him in presidential primaries but I would definitely vote for him if he ran for Congress in my state. I also used to really like McCain until he decided that torture was acceptable. That was a deal breaker for me. He has only gone down hill since then. However, if he was going up against Pelosi I would vote for McCain in a heart beat. Pelosi is such a horrid leader that she should be thrown out of office with a catapult.
I agree with you 100% that people should not vote along party lines. They should use their brains and vote for the best candidate instead. Anyone who votes along party lines is a fool and deserves the suffering that comes with a win like that.
I loved that comment. The worst thing he ever did in my eyes was apologize for saying it. I would've stood up on the soapbox and made sure every American within earshot of a TV heard about it and exactly what it was about.
I'm soooo tired of people telling the truth and then apologizing for it later. I was really disappointed in him for retracting it. The fact that he said it in the first place was great, though.
Sadly, Biden knows he's an excellent voice in the Senate and he'll probably choose to stay there where he can actually do the best he can for the country. But that in itself is what makes him such a good choice for the big chair.
That's the way the game's played, unfortunately. He's got tenure, he can get any committee seat he wants, he can help drive policy. He's better for the country as a senator than as the President, no matter how good he'd be at it. If he moved up to the big chair, his voice in the senate would be lost.
That's the way the game's played, unfortunately. He's got tenure, he can get any committee seat he wants, he can help drive policy. He's better for the country as a senator than as the President, no matter how good he'd be at it. If he moved up to the big chair, his voice in the senate would be lost.
I feel the same way about Hillary. She is a good senator. She is very devisive as a Presidential candidate. I have no doubts that she would be a much better President that McCain (or Bush), but I really think she needs to be up for Senate leadership positions.
There's been a lot of talk about putting her on the Supreme Court, which might be nice for the social issues, but she does have many corporate ties (WalMart is a big one) that could lead her to agree with a lot of the corporation protections coming from the court these days.
Personally, as a Dem, I like Wes Clark for VP. If only Obama and the party hadn't thrown him under the bus when he spoke the truth about McCain's POW experience not qualifying him for the office of President. McCain was a mediocre military man at best and those in the military that made a career of it during the time McCain was around know it.
d
Find the candidate that makes the most sense to you and your ideology and vote for him. Never vote for a party. Until we stop this stuff (and all of the labels and assumptions that go along with it) we'll never make any sort of progress.
That's strange
, in my country, many people vote for a party instead of a candidate (literally, we put our X after the name of the party, instead of the name of a candidate). My dad is even morally opposed to voting for a single candidate, because it can too easily become a popularity contest. He feels that the people who spend time on a party, and really work for it (the members, who choose the candidates of their party), are much better qualified to decide who to represent their ideals than some outsider who just happens to agree. He did have some doubts about a candidate who was one of the strongest EU-sceptics in her party, but I think he decided to stick to his principles and not vote directly for her. Of course, we have more parties, usually 10-11, with about 7 (8 at the moment) of them getting into the parliament each election. I guess it's different when parties become as big as the American.I feel the same way about Hillary. She is a good senator. She is very devisive as a Presidential candidate. I have no doubts that she would be a much better President that McCain (or Bush), but I really think she needs to be up for Senate leadership positions.
I think she's a good Senator, but I don't know that I'd ever want to see her as President. She'll do a lot of good if she's willing to resign herself (how many people get that chance?) to being a high profile senator.
I'm hoping rather fervently that we get to break down the other wall sometime in the next few decades (female president), but I don't really think Clinton was the right one to do it. She'd always have an asterix next to her name as the wife of a former Prez. Better it be someone like Napolitino, Boxer or Sebilius.
There's been a lot of talk about putting her on the Supreme Court, which might be nice for the social issues, but she does have many corporate ties (WalMart is a big one) that could lead her to agree with a lot of the corporation protections coming from the court these days.
Her corporatism would be a strike against her here, to be sure. She IS a good manipulator, though, and at the Supreme Court level that's what you need to be if you've got an agenda.
Personally, as a Dem, I like Wes Clark for VP. If only Obama and the party hadn't thrown him under the bus when he spoke the truth about McCain's POW experience not qualifying him for the office of President. McCain was a mediocre military man at best and those in the military that made a career of it during the time McCain was around know it.
d
I cheered when I saw the clip of him on Morning Joe. I don't watch the show (Joe Scarborough's self-righteous voice makes me throw up in my mouth a little), but the Dems they trot out don't always play nice. That, I like. ;)
That's strange
Well, to be honest, the snippet you quoted was more of an attempt to encourage people stuck within their party of choice to look outside a bit. With American politics, that means looking at the other guy. Cuz there's only one other guy, really. So you still vote for a party, to be sure, but hopefully you choose that party because the individual speaking for it happens to jive with what you think. The sad reality is that no matter what you think the candidate is going to do, he'll still do it within the confines of what his party allows. If he doesn't, he's commiting career suicide. So no matter what non-partisan rhetoric they spew, they're still too in bed with the party. Even those on the way out (2nd term pres election, for example) or McCain (realistically only one term no matter his popularity or success due to age and the stress of the job) will still bend to the party's will because they do not want to hurt the next slob's chances. It's pathetic. So you pick a few issues that actually can be worked on (gun control (or rights), abortion) and go that route. It would be nice if the heavy stuff mattered, too, but it just doesn't. I don't care who gets put into office. We ain't gonna see socialized health care and we ain't gonna see any real energy progress. We also ain't gonna be outta Iraq lickety-split. These topics have too much baggage and too much realistic difficulty for one man to change. Ever.
It's also painfully sad that our political races are popularity contests. That's it. Sure, some people are knowledgeable of the issues and the candidates. Others have no friggin' clue what's going on. At all. That's why we get d-bags that are gonna vote for Obama because he's black. Or for McCain because he isn't. People voted for Hillary because she is a she. Or against for the same reason. People will vote for Obama because he has included the words "hope" and "change" into his platform. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Hope? Seriously? People will vote for McCain because he represents staying the course. An old white dude with cash. Some may vote for him simply because he was a POW. Those aren't enough. But for some, they're all that's needed. Others actually buy the hype their candidates toss out to them. Equally disgusting. "He said he'll change everything! Yay!" Nevermind the "how" or the fact that he can't really do anything without approval. "He said we'll win in Iraq if we stay and we'll find enough oil for everyone if we drill! Yay!" Again, nevermind the "how" or the fact that he needs approval. So, it is all BS. All of it. Find the guy who tells you what you want to hear and go with it. That's about the best you can hope for.
The two party system forces us to choose between two extremes. They need to be different enough to garner support from specific groups. This means that they're friggin' nuts. There's no happy medium to be found. In their quest to differentiate themselves, they have alienated themselves from certain parts of the country completely. Which means that no matter who wins, too many people lose. When your only choices come from hard-lined, unflexible parties, you haven't a chance. There's no compromise here. There's no thought to maybe work together to make the country better. They want to win and to ensure that they keep winning. They don't want to help us. The government has been separated from the people for a long time now. And the parties are what did it. They certainly keep their eyes on the prize. That prize isn't what it should be - a better America for everyone - but simply the office that's being contested. And that's why this country is screwed.
Umm. Guess I went a little further than intended. Sorry 'bout that. ;)
Try to keep up.
I guess the irony is that we're talking about politics and diplomacy and it's quickly breaking down into inslults, grandstanding, and the same old policy of stuffed shirts in positions of leadership...kind of like our current political structure.
Anyway, more flies w/ honey than vinegar and all that...;)
Wow. So you believe the only people who can be president are soldiers? That's ****ing scary for the rest of the world.
"Try and keep up" was it? Food for thought it all I'm saying. At least consider more critically/quote more accurately before hitting REPLY.
I said, "I am of the OPINION", not BELIEF. People kill for beliefs and do foolish things like prematurely jump to conclusions w/out proper analysis, further questioning, or really any investigative action. Perhaps if I was more politically active, ie)had the stomach for it, I might have said belief, but for now, I will exercise my thoughts under the aegis of freedom of speech...well, that and the CoC here anyway ;) . Always a compromise, yes?
My allusion was that if you have this awesome power (US military), I think it wise to have some experience in its (ab)use before you implement it. ie)Men/women that have prior military experience are not often so apt to throw American lives in the harm's way having been there themselves. A better understanding of the tool at your disposal often insures it is more responsibly used.
-It's easy to declare war when you've never experienced it first hand (note current Cmnd in Chief & his spotty military record). We were advised to finish our front in Afghanistan first then move on, not commit to 2 fronts of intense partisan combat.
From my own neck of the woods;
-Anyone remember the Cincinnati rep (Schmidt) telling a Marine Democrat (Murra ) that, "Heroes don't cut and run", or something to that effect? Yeah, classy move, but my city is known for completely retarded politics. This military figure was for more careful applications and not the traditional Republican warhawk most ppl believe. Truly, most Republicans push for further Defense, but times they are a'changin'.
A rather high degree of ex-military are Democrat, but party affiliation is irrelevant in this respect. Simply put, have you experienced the rigors of military life or the horrors of war? When you have it might be more likely that you would take better stock of your nation's diplomacy before committing its combat resources or have a better understanding of the machinations involved and not blindly differ to your Dept. of Defense (Rumsfeld anyone?).
I think it bears reasoning that there is an incredibly high turnover rate in terms of current staff administration and military command since the occupation of Iraq began. We're now police, not a military IMO...
I do not think (not believe) this would be the case if we had a responsible command in chief that had some actual XP in a military sphere of influence or at least the intelligence community.
This was the case in the 1st Gulf War; Bush Senior (CIA background), not a great president, but effectivley handled the Kuwaiti situation and we were dubbed heroes on the world stage...but that was long ago. No longer.
Still, he knew he couldn't jump in guns blazing right away though many argued we should have as Kuwaiti banks, oils fields (largest environmental fiasco ever), and so forth were totally raped and pillaged while we waited for the world community to say, "Ok, now you can go."
And this was the 4th largest army in the world (Iraq) coming off a horribly nasty war w/ Iran ('80-'88) where they did in fact use chemical weapons on the Kurds, many Shitte, and their own ppl to drive out occupying Iranian forces (see Karbala, VX Nerve Gas [cyanide] 5,000 civilian deaths in addition to military casualties). It only took 2 yrs for Saddam to gear up again and attack, just like he did before...
WMDs or no, doesn't matter. Saddam is why the Saudis actually agreed to let us station troops there as a jump point for Desert Storm; they were afraid he'd invade just like he did to 2 of his (oil rich) neighbors. Normally, the seat of Islam would never ever allow this...but for some reason ;) , they did. Staying there afterward at the request of the monarchy is what did it...Bin Laden & most 9-11 attackers were (are) Saudi btw. Love/hate relationship.
Still, most oil flows down the Saudi Pennisula, hence Saudi Arabia & Kuwait's fantastic wealth and Saddam's military ambition. Those countries wanted to keep it and we love their oil, so there you have it.
I'm glad he's gone, I'm just pi$$ed at the way it was handled THIS TIME. We didn't need a WMD pretext or anything. Jordan, Iran, the Saudis all wanted him gone too. Oh, sure, the French and Russians were pi$$ed...namely cuz' they had huge military contracts w/ Iraq. We just did what most Middle Eastern countries wanted and now have to suffer the slings and arrows of the fallout of poor planning and execution.
IMO, if we had a competant Cmnd in Chief w/ decent military XP or a cabinet that knew how to run the world's best military, this "quaqmire" (the current buzzword for Iraqi fallout) wouldn't have happened this way.
It's a business now too...
-I'd like to note the famous "military industrial complex" speech in a certain president's fond farewell. This, coming poppin' fresh from a rather nasty war. Perplexing to say the least, and few took note seeing it odd being a military figure himself. He knew the check was in the mail and nobody took it seriously. Having been around the block, militarilly speaking, it was totally on point...and now look these days. Why is it the American economy propsers so much from war?
I always found it funny that my grandfather ground out warplanes (WWII) for GE here in Cincy and that $ helped put my mom through nurse's school only to have her at Christ Hospital later treating busted G.I.'s from Viet Nam later.
Coincidental, I know, but still...
Consider Haliburton; the means to create war, fuel it, and it's reconstruction. They have the trifecta of warfare covered and an ace in the hole (current political powers) to cover no bid contracts and secure their own growth despite some incredibly sketchy operations. Truman "would not be down" as they say. You don't start wars for profit, you start them for territorial expansion, ideology, thigns like that traditionally.
It is, afterall, (this, is my BELIEF) "the ultimate in human expression" and should not be taken lightly. Poor economies, health care, etc, pale in comparison when you're taking lives, right? Prioritize.
Maybe not the Pres, perhaps the VP, but a modicum of military background if often the gateway to proper military protocol.
The same can be said of other platforms; Clinton, fairly savvy economically speaking, helped the economy; lowered welfare levels lower than 30+ yrs prior and helped get a budget surplus (a rare treat). Not a bad speaker either, a snake in the grass to be sure (most politicians are), but overall, well liked.
Militarilly though, a joke; having ignored his intelligence advisors concerning Bin Laden and a growing insurgency (Tim McVay, Khobar Airbase, USS Cole, Taliban growth, etc), Mogadishu was a disaster, Serbia/Croatia, and cutting all college benefits for army kids...not to smooth.
Still, you can wish and 1 hand and sh-t in the other...
It's not inconsistent at all. Democrats aren't pro-abortion in the sense that Republicans are pro-killing convicted criminals. Democrats simply feel that it's something that should always be an option.
Nobody's going around handing out pills and telling mothers they should be killing every fetus. But if abortion isn't an option in the cases where it's needed, then we as a society have failed.
"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." - Bill Clinton.
Dems aren't actively pushing for more abortions, they're just trying to maintain a woman's right to be more than an ovary with legs. They should have control over whether they should have a child. Period.
That part of the Democratic Party platform is not about promoting abortion. It is about allowing women to have the freedom to decide, with their own advisers, what they do with their own bodies. That is why this side uses the term pro-Choice. It is about the right for women to make their own reproductive choices.
Before Roe v Wade, rich women who wanted to end a pregnancy did just that. They would travel to a state or country where abortion was not illegal and get one. Poor women were left without a choice if they happened to live in a place where the laws insisted that they could not make their own decision. It was not only sexist in that it was mostly men making these laws, it was classist as it denied equal opportunity based on social and economic class.
BTW, poll after poll since Roe v Wade was decided have indicated that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose.
It is being pro-abortion, in that they believe it isn't wrong. If they believed abortions were morally wrong, they wouldn't support having the option of abortion except int he most extreme cases. If they believe that abortion is wrong and still are pro-choice, then they are even more conflicted than thte poster suggested.
It isn't sexist. It is a question about morality, not about equal rights. Just as many women are against abortion as are men. Framing it as a women's rights issue, is a very bad idea for a number of reasons. Abortion is either morally acceptable or morally bad. Regardless of who is making the laws, at the end of the day, the decision to have an abortion is eitehr right or wrong. If it is right, then that should be your basis for allowing it. If it is wrong that should be your basis for dissallowing it.
Why have we failed, if we encourage people to take responsibility for their actions, and do the right thing? If 25% of abortions are performed because women want to hold off on having kids, isn't it then largely being used as another form of birth control. And isn't that wrong? Would you at least accept that in those cases it shouldn't be allowed. That there should be some criteria for having an abortion other than the age of the fetus. Isn't it better to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. Sure it is an inconvenience, but people shouldn't destroy life because it interferes with their own happiness. They should have thought about that before getting pregnant. If the pregnancy is a result of **** or incest then that is of course a different situation entirely.
Double Homicides are rare as well. Being rare and safe doesn’t make something right. This dodges the root concern: is abortion destruction of life?
But is it rare. World Wide the number of abortions is 42 million per year. In the US the number is between 800,000 to 900,000 per year. That is an awful lot of aborted fetuses if you consider them human beings.
It is life. A fertilized egg meets the biological criteria for life. There is simply no escaping this. What can be discussed is whether “an ovary with legs” constitutes a person. And at what point does it become a person?
When does a fetus obtain personhood, and the right not to be aborted? Is it when it is viable (as most pro-choice people state), at approx 7 months into the pregnancy? Should being able to survive out of the womb really be the deciding factor? And what about the day before the fetus was viable? The day before that? Why the arbitrary cut off point?
Should a woman even have “the right to choose”? Where does this right come from? If it is a life, which we have established that it is, why is it okay for her to destroy it, simply because it is inside of her body? Would you feel any different if men carried the fetus? Why are we even framing it as a choice and privacy issue? It is ultimately a moral question of whether the fetus is a life and or person. If you answer that it is a living human being, then how can you give a person the right to decide if it should live or die?
Reasons for abortion. Lots of pro-life people agree that in instances of incest, ****, and where the mother’s health is threatened, abortion should be an option. But what about the majority of abortions that take place. They are mostly done simply for practical reasons (25% are done to postpone childbearing, 21% cannot afford a baby, 14% partner does not want pregnancy). In all of these cases wouldn’t adoption be a more ethical choice? No one is saying the mother must keep the baby? What is so wrong about forcing someone to carry the baby to term, if it means saving a potential life?
By the way, I am a Democrat, and I am voting for Obama. But this part of the Democratic party platform does bother me. It seems to me that a party so concerned with equality, with the fair treatment of prisoners, with the right of even our most evil citizens to live, should also protect the right of our unborn.
Double Homicides are rare as well. Being rare and safe doesn’t make something right. This dodges the root concern: is abortion destruction of life?
Double homicides are neither legal, nor safe. This is a false comparison.
And as to whether it's the destruction of a human life, consider this; popping a zit kills more human cells than an abortion. It's not a very fun way of giving a visual, but that's what we're talking about here. A handful of cells do not a human make.
What is so wrong about forcing someone to carry the baby to term, if it means saving a potential life?
FORCING. That's what's wrong. Forcing anyone to do anything, particularly something as intrusive and life-altering as pregnancy, is morally wrong and something that can't legally be done in this country based on the Constitution.
Anything that would take away the mother's right to end an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy is tantamount to taking away her human rights. Suddenly, she becomes nothing but a walking uterus that is required to carry the child to term. Anything less and she's a criminal.
I've heard all the philosophical arguments against abortion, believe me. But that's all they ever are; philosophical. If you've got a philosophical problem with something, you've got one real course of action; don't do it.
Philosophically opposed to eating meat? Don't eat it.
Philosophically opposed to the consumption of alchohol? Don't drink.
Philosophically opposed to abortion? Don't get one.
Anti-abortion legislation is basic moralizing; "I don't like it, so I don't want other people to do it." That's an incredibly childish way to write laws. If it's something you don't like, don't do it. None of us have any right to tell other people what to do with their lives unless we ourselves are directly harmed by their actions. Abortion harms no one but the mother, so it's none of our business.
First;
Double homicides are neither legal, nor safe. This is a false comparison.
And as to whether it's the destruction of a human life, consider this; popping a zit kills more human cells than an abortion. It's not a very fun way of giving a visual, but that's what we're talking about here. A handful of cells do not a human make.
FORCING. That's what's wrong. Forcing anyone to do anything, particularly something as intrusive and life-altering as pregnancy, is morally wrong and something that can't legally be done in this country based on the Constitution.
Anything that would take away the mother's right to end an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy is tantamount to taking away her human rights. Suddenly, she becomes nothing but a walking uterus that is required to carry the child to term. Anything less and she's a criminal.
I've heard all the philosophical arguments against abortion, believe me. But that's all they ever are; philosophical. If you've got a philosophical problem with something, you've got one real course of action; don't do it.
Philosophically opposed to eating meat? Don't eat it.
Philosophically opposed to the consumption of alchohol? Don't drink.
Philosophically opposed to abortion? Don't get one.
Anti-abortion legislation is basic moralizing; "I don't like it, so I don't want other people to do it." That's an incredibly childish way to write laws. If it's something you don't like, don't do it. None of us have any right to tell other people what to do with their lives unless we ourselves are directly harmed by their actions. Abortion harms no one but the mother, so it's none of our business.
Personhood is the key concept here. All ethicists pretty much agree a fetus is a life. This is impossible to dispute using the standard definition of life. What they question is whether it has personhood.
It isn't just the number of cells you are killing. It is the nature of the cells you are killing. I am not absolutely opposed to abortion in the very, very early stages. But by the 11th week you have something that is very much a person. All of the human organs (heart, lungs, brain etc) are present at this point. Even before that, it is a fetus at 9 weeks. Even by six weeks you have something that is starting to look very much like a human being.
We force people not do commit murder all the time. Is that also wrong? I think in instances where one persons right infringes on anothers then you can force them not to do it. That is not unconstitution. It is the state protecting the natural rights of the fetus.
But laws are based on morality all the time as well. Is it childish to dissallow ****, murder, theft and vandalism because we don't like them? It is not moralizing. It is a fundamental disagreement over when life begins, and when it should be protected. But if you did accept the premises of the pro-life position (that a fetus is a human life and a person, and all human life deserves legal protection), then wouldn't you also feel it should be against the law? How would that be moraliziing?
The consitution does not give us the right to infringe on other peoples' lives. If a fetus is a human life, which it is
I never said abortion shouldn't be allowed if it threatens the woman's life. But you are mixing in two concepts. A pregnancy the mother simply doesn't want and one that is dangerous. Of course it should be allowed if it threatens the mother's physical health. But if she simply would rather not have a baby, I say she should have to carry it and put it up for adoption.
Abortion harms the fetus. The fetus is not the mother's life. It is the fetuses life.
Again. I am a Democrat. I will be voting for Obama. I have been a Democrat my whole life, and know all the party arguments in favor of the "pro-choice" position. I just think they are wrong on this one. And I think as the baby boomer generation dies out, you will see this become a less important part of the party platform. I am also reasonable and would happily allow for abortions in certain circumstances. My grounds for being pro-life are not religious at all.
It's also painfully sad that our political races are popularity contests. That's it.
We have popularity contests too, some people just hope that voting for ideologies rather than personalities will keep it down. Though we don't have campaign-videos like you do
The two party system forces us to choose between two extremes. They need to be different enough to garner support from specific groups. This means that they're friggin' nuts. There's no happy medium to be found.
Actually, it seems to me (from the outside) that your candidates are very alike. We have the same problem with some of the larger parties, they're all competing for the (officially) Christian white middle class, so they move their politics closer and closer. But there are still other parties that they have to work with to get a majority, and those parties are much more diverse.
At one time, we had an ultra-nationalist party – taxes down to zero, immigrants out (statements like “they're only here to infiltrate our country and then wipe us out” were actually used) etc. – in the parliament at the same time as a socialist party who was created as a fusion of three smaller parties, two of them communist. That's diversity. Actually, the socialist/communist party is still in, and the other party lost their seats to a party composed mostly of it's former members (and the “they're only here to kill us”-arguments still show up among a few of them).
Maybe it's because American politics is so foreign that it all looks the same from the outside, but it seems your candidates all (both) try to reach the middle, or at least only try to reach out to the extremes without alienating the middle. You lack (serious) candidates who can say something, knowing full well that 2/3 of the population will vehemently disagree. So you don't have the opportunity to vote extreme (well, normal American is probably Danish extreme and vice versa, but I'm talking American extreme) when you want to shake things up and push them in another direction. I'm sure there are people who don't vote because they feel they have to chose between two extremes, but I think there are just as many who feel they don't really have a choice.
Actually, it seems to me (from the outside) that your candidates are very alike. We have the same problem with some of the larger parties, they're all competing for the (officially) Christian white middle class, so they move their politics closer and closer. But there are still other parties that they have to work with to get a majority, and those parties are much more diverse.
At one time, we had an ultra-nationalist party – taxes down to zero, immigrants out (statements like “they're only here to infiltrate our country and then wipe us out” were actually used) etc. – in the parliament at the same time as a socialist party who was created as a fusion of three smaller parties, two of them communist. That's diversity. Actually, the socialist/communist party is still in, and the other party lost their seats to a party composed mostly of it's former members (and the “they're only here to kill us”-arguments still show up among a few of them).
Maybe it's because American politics is so foreign that it all looks the same from the outside, but it seems your candidates all (both) try to reach the middle, or at least reach out to the extremes without alienating the middle. You lack (serious) candidates who can say something, knowing full well that 2/3 of the population will vehemently disagree. So you can't vote extreme (well, normal American is probably Danish extreme and vice versa, but I'm talking American extreme) when you want to shake things up and push things in another direction. I'm sure there are people who don't vote because they feel they have to chose between two extremes, but I think there are just as many who feel they don't really have a choice.
That's actually pretty close. In a lot of ways they are the same. They do differ on certain issues and those differences define the parties. Abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, etc. That's the stuff that you have to pick a side to be on to get into the show. The truth is that it doesn't matter, of course, because our government is pretty crippled. It doesn't do anything. Well, that's not fair. It does supply jobs to blowhard d-bags that would be useless anywhere else. And it keeps 'em outta prison, too. ;) It's certainly an odd situation. They are extremes because there are only two and in order to stand out they need to be. They are also the same on a lot of things because the goal, as stated earlier, is not to help but to win. They choose certain topics to go "all-in" with to differentiate themselves (parties) and others that are damned near the same. The best proof is that we've made no real progress with anything over the past few, I dunno, decades - if not longer. The biggest problem with the two party system is that it prevents any sort of political innovation. Without innovation, we cannot progress. We're falling off the world map. Because we only have two choices that are both pretty terrible.
That's actually pretty close. In a lot of ways they are the same. They do differ on certain issues and those differences define the parties. Abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, etc. That's the stuff that you have to pick a side to be on to get into the show. The truth is that it doesn't matter, of course, because our government is pretty crippled. It doesn't do anything. Well, that's not fair. It does supply jobs to blowhard d-bags that would be useless anywhere else. And it keeps 'em outta prison, too. ;) It's certainly an odd situation. They are extremes because there are only two and in order to stand out they need to be. They are also the same on a lot of things because the goal, as stated earlier, is not to help but to win. They choose certain topics to go "all-in" with to differentiate themselves (parties) and others that are damned near the same. The best proof is that we've made no real progress with anything over the past few, I dunno, decades - if not longer. The biggest problem with the two party system is that it prevents any sort of political innovation. Without innovation, we cannot progress. We're falling off the world map. Because we only have two choices that are both pretty terrible.
Actually since the republicans have been in power (which they recently lost, and will hopefully lose completely in the next presidential election), I have noticed lots of changes. They have certainly advanced their agenda. They have removed lots of regulations, they have softened the divide between church and state, they have forstalled universal healthcare, they have led us into two very significant wars...I would say despite the narrowness of a two party system, we still choose between two very different political paths when we go to the voting booth.
Umm. This stuff is fun and all, but maybe we should drop the abortion debate. Politics is bad enough to discuss here. Abortion is worse (incorporates politics and religion). And even less relevant. So drop it. You're not going to change anyone's mind about abortion so it's going to devolve into a repetetive argument. Let this one go, guys.
I agree entirely. This isn't a debate that's going to end well. We all know the sides here, hashing it out needlessly on a D&D forum of all places isn't going to accomplish anything.
One thing, though;
And I think as the baby boomer generation dies out, you will see this become a less important part of the party platform.
I don't think you could be more wrong about this. Less baby boomers means less original dixiecrats and more Dems from the younger generation. Opposing abortion isn't something that the younger generation is really in on, unless they have fundamentalist upbringing or events that change that. As more and more of they Gen Y and younger take center stage in the party, the pro-choice stance is going to solidify, and in the Republican party the stance against abortion (which is purely a product of the last 15 or so years) is going to get weaker and weaker. Changing times.
I don't think you could be more wrong about this. Less baby boomers means less original dixiecrats and more Dems from the younger generation. Opposing abortion isn't something that the younger generation is really in on, unless they have fundamentalist upbringing or events that change that. As more and more of they Gen Y and younger take center stage in the party, the pro-choice stance is going to solidify, and in the Republican party the stance against abortion (which is purely a product of the last 15 or so years) is going to get weaker and weaker. Changing times.
I think Byrd is the only surviving dixie-crat at this point. All the others switched over to the republican party a long time ago.
The younger generation (particularly those who came of age post 9/11) are considerably less supportive of the feminist movement. In the North East, I think you are right. But if you have spent any time in the south, the midwest, or south west, you will see that the younger generation is still deeply conservative on many fronts. But the most important piece is that the emotion that was behind so much of the pro-choice movement which came out of the 60s is fading. Most younger people don't really come down as hard on the pro-choice side, even when they are pro-choice. I could be wrong. But I suspect when the boomers are gone, you will see a democratic party that is more Hawkish, less connected to the civil rights movement (possible casuality might be affirmative action), more at ease with Catholics and other socially conservative Christian groups, and considerably less influenced by marxism and soft socialism. Now I am not saying any of these things are good or bad. But I have noticed a shift in the way younger people view these issues.
Also, if the dems want to start winning elections, they need to bring in groups that agree with them on many fiscal issues: social conservatives who support social programs.
The younger generation (particularly those who came of age post 9/11) are considerably less supportive of the feminist movement. In the North East, I think you are right. But if you have spent any time in the south, the midwest, or south west, you will see that the younger generation is still deeply conservative on many fronts. But the most important piece is that the emotion that was behind so much of the pro-choice movement which came out of the 60s is fading. Most younger people don't really come down as hard on the pro-choice side, even when they are pro-choice. I could be wrong. But I suspect when the boomers are gone, you will see a democratic party that is more Hawkish, less connected to the civil rights movement (possible casuality might be affirmative action), more at ease with Catholics and other socially conservative Christian groups, and considerably less influenced by marxism and soft socialism. Now I am not saying any of these things are good or bad. But I have noticed a shift in the way younger people view these issues.
Well, being from Kansas, I have to disagree with your assessment of that area of the country at the very least. Reproductive rights are very much an issue in the minds of the young people in those areas.
I think the American people have had enough of hawkish foreign policy and wealth imbalances, so the party tilting in that direction doesn't make any sense. There's also a huge contingent of Democrats that are african american, so the civil rights issues probably aren't going away anytime soon.
The primary was, to me, a good indication of where the party is heading. On one hand, we had a hawkish, heavily corporatized candidate, and on the other we had an outspoken critic of the war who was supported via grassroots fundraising. Being that the latter won with a lot of help from the youth vote, I'd have a hard time seeing the party skewing more towards the former in the future.
It is being pro-abortion, in that they believe it isn't wrong. If they believed abortions were morally wrong, they wouldn't support having the option of abortion except int he most extreme cases. If they believe that abortion is wrong and still are pro-choice, then they are even more conflicted than thte poster suggested.
Abortion isn't a matter of morally right or wrong. It is a matter of saving lives. The incidence of abortion doesn't change when it is outlawed.
See Guttmacher Institute study: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100402.html
Outlawing abortion murders women.
Education, access to birth control and equality of power within relationships decrease abortion, outlawing it does not.
And as to whether it's the destruction of a human life, consider this; popping a zit kills more human cells than an abortion. A handful of cells do not a human make.
...depending on how far along things are in utero.
That is to say, I tend to go w/ the scientific empirical data; 2 weeks or so, and it's just a mass of cells, no brain tissue, probably not sentient. Beyond that though, things change. Like cancer, "Early detection is the key," IMO. It's just stupid couples don't pay attention to a woman's cycle, despite thousands of years of static biology that says, "this is how 'x' works".
Once a brain stem is in play, I'd like to think of it as a creature, and all creatures, even amoeba, have self-preservation as an instinct. So, like most things I guess, it comes down to education.
I'm for Day After Pills, specifically when it's, you know, the day after. What I can't abide is stupid ppl breeding foolishly...and of course, the responsible ones having to shoulder the responsibility, ie) $ of social programs to support them.
But irresponsibility is American as mom and apple pie...
And don't get me started on D&X abortions (3rd trimester), that is totally barbaric. And you can have more than 1 child in China, they just tax the Hell out of you and enlist "block mothers" to convince you otherwise...something we're not hearing too much about during the Beijing Olympics btw.
FORCING. That's what's wrong. Forcing anyone to do anything, particularly something as intrusive and life-altering as pregnancy, is morally wrong and something that can't legally be done in this country based on the Constitution.
Well said, it's just this isn't a matter of propietary ownership or something so b/w. I mean, it takes 2 to tango, yes? And yet, the father, or 50% of the fetus, has no legal rights. Wtf? This pi$$es me off to no end. He can't say yes or no, but must pay support regardless if it's carried to term.
Anything that would take away the mother's right to end an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy is tantamount to taking away her human rights. Suddenly, she becomes nothing but a walking uterus that is required to carry the child to term. Anything less and she's a criminal.
Perhaps and oversimplification, but I see where you're coming from.
It is your biological right to pass on your DNA, Hell, your instincts force you into that mindset really, it's just reason and responsiblity tell us otherwise, namely in our checkbooks, careers, and housing situations.
You gotta' have a license to hunt, fish, drive a car, etc., but anyone can screw and have a kid. I know it's fascist, but after hearing all the horror stories of my bro's wife (planned parenthood), having been involved in an unplanned pregrancy and getting burned for it, and seeing all the human decay going on around me + paying for it, I think perhaps licensing might be a good idea. I mean, background checks for guns which can take life, why not the same to make one?
If you're fit, can afford it, and so on, why not. If you cannot, you may still elect to have said child, but you forfeit any aid rather than sticking your fellow citizens and the govt. w/ the $ to shoulder your swollen pride. And even then, you can adopt. It's a noble institution since ancient Rome and terribly in vogue...just ask Brangelina
. I know, but you can kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone if you can forgive the expression.I've heard all the philosophical arguments against abortion, believe me. But that's all they ever are; philosophical. If you've got a philosophical problem with something, you've got one real course of action; don't do it.
Philosophically opposed to eating meat? Don't eat it.
Philosophically opposed to the consumption of alchohol? Don't drink.
Philosophically opposed to abortion? Don't get one.
It isn't that simple IMO. It's not a vice law or commodity.
I don't like govt infringement at all and both parties these days are headed to more of it big time. But, we're talking about biology and putting all the say to the woman, admittedly, carrying the biggest burden, but the male has no rights. He should for certain. If he can suddenly get guardianship or custody, but only after birth, why not some, say, beforehand?
Where I stand: safe sex. Failing that, get the day after pill and actually account for your sexual history. If you cannot be trusted w/ the power of life & death, then you cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions for another life cuz' you're bungling your own. License it. This would actually make for accurate census taking, account for legal citizens vs. aliens, and facilitate the medical community (listed legal/genetic history helps the organ doning process, CDC, and social studies, etc).
****, incest, danger to mother, etc., yes, I believe that's valid. Beyond that, if you can't buy condoms, get a pill, a tubal, a vasectomy, whatever, then you should just be masturbating instead of ruining 3 lives instead of 1. Aborting due to inconvenience is a cop out. Take some responsiblity. Now, I know accidents can happen to which I understand (all too well), so I'm not saying making it illegal, but definetly refine it just like our health care, education, and a million other things that are malfunctioning here.
Oh, and if you must, at least consider stem cell research for God's sake. You might destroy 1 life, or a mass of cells, but some good can come from it. Just don't make harvesting factories for 'em is all. Curing cancer would be pretty sweet, right?
Anti-abortion legislation is basic moralizing; "I don't like it, so I don't want other people to do it." That's an incredibly childish way to write laws. If it's something you don't like, don't do it.
I can't, I'm a male...I have no rights here
, so I don't want to tell a woman what to do, but I'd like to have some say as it's 1/2 me, you know? I think he should have some say or consent at least, and if you don't know who's the "baby's daddy" in Maury Povich style, you shouldn't be having kids anyway. Sterilize or something until you can prove you are.Religiously, God, I don't know...Just do what your heart tells you, but at least consider what you and/or the father are doing. IMO, you'll be judged later for good or ill, it's just God wasn't at the last press conference to say what He/She/It thought about abortion. We got that whole free will thing going for us, which is pretty sweet. But we have the burden or morality and reason to guide it. Don't want to say, "If the shoe fits", but it's definetly messed up. I guess if I were a woman I'd have more to say on this and more right, but I'm not so I can't. My involvement is minimal and pitiful anyway.
None of us have any right to tell other people what to do with their lives unless we ourselves are directly harmed by their actions. Abortion harms no one but the mother, so it's none of our business.
But then that's the rub. When is it a life vs. a mass of cells? Isn't the father-to-be directly involved in the actions?
Abortion harms the mother; psychogically it's a terrible cross to bear on that poor woman, physically, it reduces her chances of a normal pregnancy later, financially, they're not cheap...just cheaper than diapers, insurance, etc.
The male, same thing, just not physically. Legally, it's paralyzing though. What can he do except bargain and hope for the best? His kid too...
I guess it's our business when it's "our business", ie) you and your partner. We can't, shouldn't IMO, make it so pro or con. It's not like Democrat OR Republican (another bad idea). Like the War on Drugs (failed) mentioned in "Traffic", this is our family and the people we love sometimes, how do you wage war on your family?
Sucks, no easy way out, but this is good dialogue and though we may not see eye to eye, this is how we get things done, so respect anyway.
Well, being from Kansas, I have to disagree with your assessment of that area of the country at the very least. Reproductive rights are very much an issue in the minds of the young people in those areas.
I think the American people have had enough of hawkish foreign policy and wealth imbalances, so the party tilting in that direction doesn't make any sense. There's also a huge contingent of Democrats that are african american, so the civil rights issues probably aren't going away anytime soon.
The primary was, to me, a good indication of where the party is heading. On one hand, we had a hawkish, heavily corporatized candidate, and on the other we had an outspoken critic of the war who was supported via grassroots fundraising. Being that the latter won with a lot of help from the youth vote, I'd have a hard time seeing the party skewing more towards the former in the future.
Having lived in Southern California, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma (as well as New York and Boston), I have to say I disagree based on what I saw.
I think your vision of where people are at is colored where you work (I believe you said you worked as part of a campaign or for the dems in some capacity. What you say is probably true of many of the young hardline dems you see every day. I think you are also discounting the number of young Catholic democrats out there.
People have had it with Bush and his approach to the war. But you shouldn't confuse that with people wanting to be less hawkish. By Hawkish, I don't mean invading sovereign nations at the drop of a hat. I mean young democrats do not view the world through the prism of Vietnam as their parents did. And a lot of young people have a much more positive view of the military, and a much more negative veiw of Islam these days. Everyone wants out of Iraq. But not everyone wants out of Afghanistan. I don't think the American people are tired of war, they are tired of a badly conceived war that had little if nothing to do with the threat we faced.
But African Americans tend to be very socially conservative. And I expect (not in the next ten years, but within the next thirty), the republicans will attract a lot more Black voters as the baby boomer generation dies out.
I don't think the primary revealed as much as you think. I am a supporter of Obama, but lets be honest, he didn't campaign as the anti-war candidate. He campaigned as the "not bush" candidate who could unite the American people. If anything. He toughened his stance on Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan during the primary.
See Guttmacher Institute study: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100402.html
Outlawing abortion murders women.
Education, access to birth control and equality of power within relationships decrease abortion, outlawing it does not.
Actually the number of abortions doesn't increase when it is illegal. The number of illegal and unsafe abortions increase.
No it doesn't. Women choosing to get illegal, unsafe abortions is what kills women.
I agree that birth control, education, advancing women's rights all would help reduce abortions and make the world a better place. But I also think that abortion itself is wrong, and that we should protect the rights of the unborn. Again, I have already stated that abortions within the first month or two are not as much of a problem for me. I can see how "an embryo with legs" isn't the same as a fetus with a brain. But once the brain develops, I really can't see any justification (aside from saving the life or physcial health of the mother) for abortion. It meets the criteria for personhood by then, and should be protected. Actually all I am proposing is a humane and rational compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice side.
Well said, it's just this isn't a matter of propietary ownership or something so b/w. I mean, it takes 2 to tango, yes? And yet, the father, or 50% of the fetus, has no legal rights. Wtf? This pi$$es me off to no end. He can't say yes or no, but must pay support regardless if it's carried to term.
The day they figure out a way for men to get pregnant, then we get a say. Until then, there's just no logical or legal way to swing it so that the man gets to say "keep the baby" without infringing upon the woman's rights. Period.
It's not a great situation for anyone, but there are steps that can be taken to prevent it, so that people don't have to go through it.
If we want to lower the number of abortions in this country, making it illegal is exactly the wrong way to go about doing it. If we make abortion a criminal act, the drugs for it are going to be sold right on the street like dope. Then we're just putting women at the mercy of drug dealers and bad smack rather than giving them a safe, clean place to do it.
Lowering abortion rates is a fairly simple proposition, all told. It starts with better sex education. Tell kids about sex, what it is, what it does, what the potential side effects are and how to avoid them. Teach them about condom use and birth control pills. Make sure they have the information to act on in the first place. Abstinence only sex ed has probably caused more abortions than anything else in this country since its inception.
The next step is making effective birth control not only widely available, but standard operating procedure. Get girls of childbearing age on the pill right away, and make sure every boy that's on the prowl has condoms on him. This is one thing the religious right in their anti-abortion fervor just don't get; if they don't get pregnant in the first place, they aren't going to have an abortion.
Then you have to vastly improve the pre and post-natal treatments and medical procedures available to the average woman. Good medical facilities, the assurance that the baby is going to turn out ok, etc are crucial. And we need better means of treating childhood diseases and identifying and treating defects in the womb.
After all that, we need to eradicate the stigma against getting and being pregnant, and we need to make sure that potential mothers have every right and privilege extended to them that they would have if they weren't pregnant. This is probably the hardest of the three, especially given that the fundie anti-abortion crowd loves to look down it's nose at pregnant teenagers.
We do all that, we cut the abortions in this country by 3 quarters. But we won't do it. We'll just keep trying to legislate a twisted morality that treats sex as evil and (unbelievably) uncommon, and which punishes people for having it. If we want to lower abortion rates, outlawing it isn't going to work. Fixing the underlying problems will, though, not that the people who typically push for that type of legislation really care. Abortion is too much of a wedge issue to actually fix, after all.
Sucks, no easy way out, but this is good dialogue and though we may not see eye to eye, this is how we get things done, so respect anyway.
There aren't any good answers, at least as long as people keep drawing lines in the sand. Like I've said before, no one goes out with the intention of getting pregnant and having an abortion. It's an experience that less women should have to go through, but which needs to be an option for those who need it. As long as people on one side of the issue keep trying to vilify the women who find themselves in the unenviable position of needing an abortion, we're not going to fix anything.
I agree that this is a good discussion, but I'm going to again have to state my feeling that this isn't a great venue for it. These talks have a way of turning very heated very fast.
Abortion harms the mother; psychogically it's a terrible cross to bear on that poor woman, physically, it reduces her chances of a normal pregnancy later, financially, they're not cheap...just cheaper than diapers, insurance, etc.
Could you please explain this comment?
Everything I have ever read says that abortion is safer that pregnancy both physically and psychologically.
Actually all I am proposing is a humane and rational compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice side.
Thanks, that's what I'm gunning for w/ all these marbles in my mouth equaling another wall of text. That's pretty much what our whole country is about, or supposed to be about right, compromise?
Moving on...
There hasn't been much talk of it, but assuming Obama wins for better or worse, his choice for VP becoming pres. brings to light the possibility of assassination. Alot of f'ed up ppl would wish him ill due to the racial, religious, or political tip and I think it's being avoided cuz' of the enormous fallout that it would cause.
Hell, and McCain is fairly old. I mean, he's no Regan, but his VP might step up due to more natural causes, so same thing, different party.
Thoughts, ideas?
Actually the number of abortions doesn't increase when it is illegal. The number of illegal and unsafe abortions increase.
Did I ever say they did? Did you read the study? The rate doesn't change if it is legal or not. All I am saying is that outlawing abortion will not change the number of abortions that happen in this country. Hence I fail to see what outlawing abortion will accomplish other than killing women.
Please explain to me what outlawing abortion will accomplish.
I'm for Day After Pills, specifically when it's, you know, the day after. What I can't abide is stupid ppl breeding foolishly...and of course, the responsible ones having to shoulder the responsibility, ie) $ of social programs to support them.
But irresponsibility is American as mom and apple pie...
Why only the day after? They are effective for 72 hours why shouldn't people use them for 72 hours? They are much more effective early on but does that mean they shouldn't be used for the full 72 hours?
Could you please explain this comment?
Everything I have ever read says that abortion is safer that pregnancy both physically and psychologically.
Uh, sorry.
Well, I thought it was pretty b/w, but I'll try and illustrate more clearly. You might have misinterpreted what I wrote so I'll attempt to tidy it up.
Psychologically; she's gotta' deal w/ the stigma society often brands upon her and the operation (or is it a "procedure"?). The guilt of "what-if" and the permanency of death and all. It's terribly stressful and can ruin lives depending on the support you may/may not get. Different strokes though...
Physically (this is what you wanted yes); it's painful and taxing. I've seen it done and I still can't get over watching the motion/obj. on the monitor, then seeing nothing immediately later. The scaring of the uterine wall can limit future possibility of conception or carrying a fetus to term later. ie)the more you get the procedure, the less likely you'll have natural conception and growth.
I don't know, the whole thing is so complex and jarring. It's not like the economy, the war on terror, education, and so on. Those are more quantifiable issues and more easilly solved. This, God, I don't even know what to call this these days...all I know is my girl and I took measures and that's about as far as I like to mess w/ that, me and mine, not anyone else's. All the rest are just opinions I've got, not maxims on "how things should be done" for abortion.
I think I'm more qualified to have mandates on defense, the interior, education, and foreign policy than this anyway. Still, that's just another hunch.
Uh, sorry.
Well, I thought it was pretty b/w, but I'll try and illustrate more clearly. You might have misinterpreted what I wrote so I'll attempt to tidy it up.
Psychologically; she's gotta' deal w/ the stigma society often brands upon her and the operation (or is it a "procedure"?). The guilt of "what-if" and the permanency of death and all. It's terribly stressful and can ruin lives depending on the support you may/may not get. Different strokes though...
Pregnancy is extremely taxing psychologically. The sudden drop in hormones associated with birth, abortion or miscarriage tends to mess with emotions, hence post-partum depression and psychosis.
Getting pregnant when you don't mean to is even more stressful. However, studies that compare women with unintended pregnancies who go on to give birth with women who have an abortion show no difference in psychological stress levels. It is the unintended pregnancy that causes the stress, not the abortion.
Here is one study: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3900607.pdf
Physically (this is what you wanted yes); it's painful and taxing. I've seen it done and I still can't get over watching the motion/obj. on the monitor, then seeing nothing immediately later. The scaring of the uterine wall can limit future possibility of conception or carrying a fetus to term later. ie)the more you get the procedure, the less likely you'll have natural conception and growth.
Yes that is what I was looking for. However, I think you are confused here. The interior lining of a woman's uterus goes through phases. Menstruation is the monthly sloughing of the lining that is built up. The earliest a surgical abortion can be done is 8 weeks due to changes in the cervix around that time. At that point the lining of the uterus is 3-4 times thicker than just before a normal menstruation. During a surgical abortion the doctor doesn't even remove all of that, hence the fact that most women bleed for about two weeks following a surgical abortion. The doctor needs to ****-up pretty badly to scar the uterus. In general women are provided with pain control, many clinics even use opioids. Pain shouldn't be an issue.
Again, pregnancy is stressful to the uterus. Getting pregnant means there is a risk to future pregnancy. However, delivery (c-section or ******l) is more risky to future pregnancy than abortion.
Overall I think you are confusing the effects of pregnancy with the effects of abortion.
I can't find all of the studies that I want. I will add them later.
EDIT: Here is a monograph with relevant data: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/05/04/AiWL.pdf
The day they figure out a way for men to get pregnant, then we get a say. Until then, there's just no logical or legal way to swing it so that the man gets to say "keep the baby" without infringing upon the woman's rights. Period.
.
Why? A fetus is an individual life with ties to both the mother and the father. To be sure the mother carries it, and should get some, if not more say, than the male. But it is terribly imbalanced to give the man no say.
Why? A fetus is an individual life with ties to both the mother and the father. To be sure the mother carries it, and should get some, if not more say, than the male. But it is terribly imbalanced to give the man no say.
Because giving anyone but the woman any say over her body is infringing upon her human rights. Anyone who can say to her "you have to keep the baby" has an unconstitutional level of control over her.
If it's a couple they obviously should be talking about it, but it's ultimately her decision to make.
Did I ever say they did? Did you read the study? The rate doesn't change if it is legal or not. All I am saying is that outlawing abortion will not change the number of abortions that happen in this country. Hence I fail to see what outlawing abortion will accomplish other than killing women.
Please explain to me what outlawing abortion will accomplish.?
This is not a women's rights issue. It is a human rights issue. If men got pregnant it wouldn't be a mens rights issue either. It is a question of when and if abortion is morally acceptable and doesn't violate the rights of the unborn.
I did.
Yes it will. It is impossible to quantify the number of back alley abortions when abortion is illegal. But it seems very unreasonable to assert that they would be higher than the number of legal abortions that occur if it is legal. If there is easier access, that is safer and more acceptable, you will have more abortions.
Outlawing abortion will lower the number of abortions. Especially if it is coupled with stronger birth control efforts, counseling for young pregnant women, and better sex education in the class room.
What people don't realize is that extremists exist on both sides of this issue, spreading fear and dissinformation. Pro-choice advocates are not unlike 2nd amendment advocates. In that they see any attempt to put in place reasonable controls, as an absolute attacks on their rights. There is nothing wrong with trying to place more humane restrictions on abortion, and there is nothing wrong with putting controls in place to prevent convicts from getting fire arms.
I would like to see a compromise. Make it permissable to have an abortion while it is still considered a matter of birth control (say within the first two-three weeks of pregnancy). After that it should be regarded as alive and a person, with its own rights. I would much rather see young couples turn to adoption when the pregnancy gets that much under way. And we should make sure there are resources available for them to do so.
Because giving anyone but the woman any say over her body is infringing upon her human rights. Anyone who can say to her "you have to keep the baby" has an unconstitutional level of control over her.
If it's a couple they obviously should be talking about it, but it's ultimately her decision to make.
But a fetus isn't her body. It simply requires her body to live. But it is its own individual self, and that is why it shoud'nt live or die entirely on the whim of the mother.
I don't think it should be. Both contributed to the creation of the child. How is it more hers than his? When it is born is it still more the mother's than the fathe's?
But let me ask you this, because we may agree on much, and just disagree on the gray areas. Do you believe that when a fetus has a brain that it can still be aborted just because the mother wants to wait to have children?
Again, I am calling for a compromise. Not an absolute ban on all abortions. But I do think that the pro-choice movement is radicalized because it comes out of the 60s feminist movement. A movement that appeals to mantras and emotion rather than reason and morality. I don't feel that way about the newer generation of feminists. But the hardline feminists (the one's who complained about Barrack Obama being an inadequat ***** man), do not deserve a part in our party's platform or thinking as far as I am concerned. It is high time we jetisonned the Mary Dalys and the democratic party.
But a fetus isn't her body. It simply requires her body to live. But it is its own individual self, and that is why it shoud'nt live or die entirely on the whim of the mother.
It's still her responsibility, and ultimately her call. The mother decides whether or not that fetus constitutes a human being, and acts accordingly. It's not anyone else's place to say.
I don't think it should be. Both contributed to the creation of the child. How is it more hers than his? When it is born is it still more the mother's than the fathe's?
It's a more direct impact on her life. It continuing to develop is completely dependent upon her. Like I said, if he could carry it it would be different. Mandating that she keep the baby when the entire thing is on her shoulders is a violation of her human rights. That's a decision she gets to make, because it's her body.
But let me ask you this, because we may agree on much, and just disagree on the gray areas. Do you believe that when a fetus has a brain that it can still be aborted just because the mother wants to wait to have children?
I think that's the mother's call. Placing arbitrary controls on what she can and can't do isn't the place of the government or anyone else. It's her fetus, her body, her choice. Anything else opens the door for human rights abuses.
Again, I am calling for a compromise. Not an absolute ban on all abortions. But I do think that the pro-choice movement is radicalized because it comes out of the 60s feminist movement. A movement that appeals to mantras and emotion rather than reason and morality.
We can't legislate morality, because everyone's view of what is "moral" is different. The purpose of legislation is to protect the rights of citizens. Once we overstep those bounds and moving into moralization, we start taking rights away.
It's still her responsibility, and ultimately her call. The mother decides whether or not that fetus constitutes a human being, and acts accordingly. It's not anyone else's place to say..
No she doesn't. It either is, or is not a person. If it isn't, then I agree it is the mother's call. But just because it is inside of her, that doesn't mean she can define what it is.
It's a more direct impact on her life. It continuing to develop is completely dependent upon her. Like I said, if he could carry it it would be different. Mandating that she keep the baby when the entire thing is on her shoulders is a violation of her human rights. That's a decision she gets to make, because it's her body...
No it isn't. No one is demanding she keep it. Just that she carry it to term. She can give it up for adoption when it is through. I am even saying she should be able to abort very, very early in the pregnancy. Once the fetus is a person, then it has rights as well.
Again baby does not equal mommies body.
I think that's the mother's call. Placing arbitrary controls on what she can and can't do isn't the place of the government or anyone else. It's her fetus, her body, her choice. Anything else opens the door for human rights abuses.
I think that is morally unsound. I can see if you are arguing that before a brain develops it is just a bundle of cells. But to say that something that has already developed a brain, doesn't have a right to remain alive, is inhumane. It is a fetus inside her body, and it is her baby, but it does not equal her body. The house I live in is mine, but I can't kill my family just because they live under my roof and rely on me to survive. Once something is a person, it has natural rights.
We can't legislate morality, because everyone's view of what is "moral" is different. The purpose of legislation is to protect the rights of citizens. Once we overstep those bounds and moving into moralization, we start taking rights away.
We legislate morality all the time. Especially on matters of life and death. Some people feel that **** is just another lifestyle that shouldn't be prohibited, and that legislating against it is just legislating morality. But we recognize that pedophiles violate the natural rights of children.
And this is a rights issue. I am suggesting that the fetus is a person with the rights of a citizen. Allowing the mother to abort the fetus any time she wants, is giving her permission to violate its natural rights. I am not making a religious argument at all. I am not even Christian. I am making a purely ethical argument, because I believe that the democratic party platform is flawed in this respect. I am not saying no abortions for anyone. I am really just saying limit it to the first month.
No she doesn't. It either is, or is not a person. If it isn't, then I agree it is the mother's call. But just because it is inside of her, that doesn't mean she can define what it is.
Legally, the government can't define it either. So where does that put it?
It's either in her control, or it's not. One of those two jives with international notions of human rights an the Constitution, the other doesn't.
No it isn't. No one is demanding she keep it. Just that she carry it to term. She can give it up for adoption when it is through. I am even saying she should be able to abort very, very early in the pregnancy. Once the fetus is a person, then it has rights as well.
Again baby does not equal mommies body.
"Once the fetus is a person" is completely subjective. The timing for that depends on who you talk to. That's no way to be defining anything.
Again, she either has control of her body and her life or she doesn't. There's no gray area here. One is good, the other is a human rights violation.
I think that is morally unsound.
Ah, the crux of the argument.
"I."
"Morally."
You can not legislate morality. I think it's morally wrong to be telling people what to do with their body, or whether or not they should be having children. My view of morality in this instance is obviously different than yours. If we legislate to your morality, mine is offended. This is why moral legislation isn't an option; it's not universal.
We have to maintain human rights. That's what the law, all the way back to the Constitution, is there to do. In this case, it's the woman's right to make decisions about her own reproduction. That's it, end of story.
We legislate morality all the time. Especially on matters of life and death. Some people feel that **** is just another lifestyle that shouldn't be prohibited, and that legislating against it is just legislating morality. But we recognize that pedophiles violate the natural rights of children.
**** harms children. That's the difference; it harms a person. Abortion, as much as you're going to protest otherwise, doesn't. It doesn't harm anything that can be legally recognized as a human being.
Legislating against abortion is like legislating against drinking alcohol or dancing on Sundays. It's people who are personally unaffected by the issue at hand taking it upon themselves to control the actions of others. In doing so, they inflict their view of the world on those they legislate against, and infringe upon their rights.
Like I said before, if you've got a philosophical issue with something, don't do it. It really is that simple.
And this is a rights issue. I am suggesting that the fetus is a person with the rights of a citizen. Allowing the mother to abort the fetus any time she wants, is giving her permission to violate its natural rights. I am not making a religious argument at all. I am not even Christian. I am making a purely ethical argument, because I believe that the democratic party platform is flawed in this respect. I am not saying no abortions for anyone. I am really just saying limit it to the first month.
And I'm saying this isn't your call. You want to impress your idea of morality on to others via legislation. That's not what the legislation is there for, and it leads down a very bad road. You're essentially calling for laws that take control of a woman's body and reproduction away from her. That's a violation of her human rights.
It's obvious that we're not going to agree here, so I'm just going to let you argue with the wall. I will, however, point you to the post that showed how outlawing abortion doesn't actually impact the number that take place. What good does it do to make something illegal if it's just going to keep happening in the same numbers? All you're doing is forcing women who need them underground and creating more potential problems.
Thus, I see abortion as a matter on which the woman or the couple should decide. I do not feel qualified to order them, in a sense - whether directly or by supporting a law that does so. If they decide that they can not support the fetus and would not have it, their rights are more relevant than any it may have as far as I am concerned.
Edit: on ****, I think the matter is slightly different. The state should imo legislate on matters with social impact, and relationships where one of the partners is under legal age - thus presumed inferior to the other in judgement and possibly even rights - is a matter with some social importance.
This is not a women's rights issue. It is a human rights issue. If men got pregnant it wouldn't be a mens rights issue either. It is a question of when and if abortion is morally acceptable and doesn't violate the rights of the unborn.
I did.
Yes it will. It is impossible to quantify the number of back alley abortions when abortion is illegal. But it seems very unreasonable to assert that they would be higher than the number of legal abortions that occur if it is legal. If there is easier access, that is safer and more acceptable, you will have more abortions.
I said that current evidence indicates that the same number of abortions happen, not more. Are you claiming that women lie and claim they have had abortions when they haven't?
I just don't see a role for law in this issue. Why bother with outlawing it? Why not just do the education and such?
Umm... I hope you mean two or three weeks from implantation? The general measure is weeks since LMP. This means that if you assume a 28 day cycle 2 weeks would be fertilization and three weeks would be implantation. So you are proposing that abortion would only be legal before the pregnancy starts? That is contraception, not abortion.
Weren't you the one that was talking about development of the brainstem as a measure of 'personhood'? Wouldn't that make neurulation a better marker of when to draw the line?
Legally, the government can't define it either. So where does that put it?.
In a dark place using your logic. There was a time when women were viewed as the property of their husbands (and there are still places where they are). Should the government have no right to step in and say, wait a second, a women belongs only to herself, not her husband? In fact, one of the primary functions of the US government is to protect the rights of all people in its borders...not just citizens, but anyone regarded as a person.
It's either in her control, or it's not. One of those two jives with international notions of human rights an the Constitution, the other doesn't.?.
Rights are not absolute. My right to fire a gun stops when I fire it at you. The question is still, when and if a fetus (or an embryo, a blastocyst or a zygote) is ocnsidered a person.
"Once the fetus is a person" is completely subjective. The timing for that depends on who you talk to. That's no way to be defining anything..?.
Opinions are subjective. But if we have a clear working definition of personhood, then anything that meets that definition is a person. I would argue that once the fetus develops (by the 9nth week) and has a brain it is absolutely a person. Before that things are much more murky.
"Again, she either has control of her body and her life or she doesn't. There's no gray area here. One is good, the other is a human rights violation...?.
I was referring to the gray area of when it is considered a human.
I agree that one of them is a human rights violation. When a woman aborts a fetus with a brain, I think that is a violation of the fetus' rights.
"You can not legislate morality. I think it's morally wrong to be telling people what to do with their body, or whether or not they should be having children. My view of morality in this instance is obviously different than yours. If we legislate to your morality, mine is offended. This is why moral legislation isn't an option; it's not universal.
We have to maintain human rights. That's what the law, all the way back to the Constitution, is there to do. In this case, it's the woman's right to make decisions about her own reproduction. That's it, end of story.
No it isn't. But we can use reason and ethics to formulate standards for protecting peoples' rights. We all agree that every human has innaliable rights. And this is a moral assertion. Should we then not back it up with legislation because other people might subscribe to different views on morality. THere are people who do not believe in natural rights. Defending human rights is the ultimate expression of morality. It comes out of ethics. The law is a product of our founding father's beliefs in natural rights.
Yes you can and should legislate morality. We both agree that it is moral to have laws that protect peoples' rights. Therefore we both believe in legislating morality. We just disagree on who is entitled to rights and protection.
**** harms children. That's the difference; it harms a person. Abortion, as much as you're going to protest otherwise, doesn't. It doesn't harm anything that can be legally recognized as a human being...
This is still being actively debated. Many, many people, including lots of democrats, believe that when a fetus has a brain it is a person. There are essentially 3 positions on the issue. The first two are extreme 1) Abortion is always wrong 2) abortion is never wrong. The third position is the moderate one 3) abortion is wrong if done at a time when the fetus could be considered a person.
Legislating against abortion is like legislating against drinking alcohol or dancing on Sundays. It's people who are personally unaffected by the issue at hand taking it upon themselves to control the actions of others. In doing so, they inflict their view of the world on those they legislate against, and infringe upon their rights..
This is incredibly arrogant to say. It is not like legislating against dancing because you are potentially preventing the killing of a human life. Whereas dancing is just a fun thing to do. Also, our aim is protect the natural rights of a person. And everyone is impacted by abortion. I would never say a women should never under any circumstance have one. But I do believe that once the fetus has a brain (at 9 weeks) it is certainly a human. And deserves protection.
Like I said before, if you've got a philosophical issue with something, don't do it. It really is that simple...
It isn't that simple. If one accepts the proposition that a fetus at 9 weeks that has brain, is a person. Then it has rights that must be protected. Your right to do what you want ends when it infringes on the rights of another.
And I'm saying this isn't your call. You want to impress your idea of morality on to others via legislation. That's not what the legislation is there for, and it leads down a very bad road. You're essentially calling for laws that take control of a woman's body and reproduction away from her. That's a violation of her human rights....
Yes it is. I am not advocating putting religion in schools or making people go to church on Sundays (I am not a Christian). I am advoating that the state protect the rights of 9 week old fetuses. You don't seem to understand that this is not a women's rights issue once you accept that a fetus with a brain is a person.
It's obvious that we're not going to agree here, so I'm just going to let you argue with the wall. I will, however, point you to the post that showed how outlawing abortion doesn't actually impact the number that take place. What good does it do to make something illegal if it's just going to keep happening in the same numbers? All you're doing is forcing women who need them underground and creating more potential problems.
Yes it does. That post was incorrect and taken from a bad study. There is plenty of data to suggest that outlawing abortions, especially if coupled with sex ed, birth control acces and counseling, decreased substantially the number of abortions.
Umm... I hope you mean two or three weeks from implantation? The general measure is weeks since LMP. This means that if you assume a 28 day cycle 2 weeks would be fertilization and three weeks would be implantation. So you are proposing that abortion would only be legal before the pregnancy starts? That is contraception, not abortion.
Weren't you the one that was talking about development of the brainstem as a measure of 'personhood'? Wouldn't that make neurulation a better marker of when to draw the line?
That is exactly what I am saying. I am concerned with embryos and fetuses. Not with zygotes and blastocysts. I find the abortion of an ambryo troubling. But I think it inhabits a gray area. So I would finally have to draw a line at 9 weeks when the fetus develops and has organs. At this point it is clear to me that teh fetus is a human (and at the very least a developing human) and entitled to its human rights.
To this:
That post was incorrect and taken from a bad study. There is plenty of data to suggest that outlawing abortions, especially if coupled with sex ed, birth control acces and counseling, decreased substantially the number of abortions.
Evidence was provided, you're handwaving it away. If you've got counter evidence, it falls to you to provide it. Otherwise you're just disagreeing, not disproving.
I said that current evidence indicates that the same number of abortions happen, not more. Are you claiming that women lie and claim they have had abortions when they haven't?
I just don't see a role for law in this issue. Why bother with outlawing it? Why not just do the education and such?
?
I am saying that the GPR is not a reliable source for unbiased information. They have an agenda and find data, like any organization with an agenda, to support it. This article does not match what I have read on the subject, and it does not jive with reason.
To all of the above: I disagree. That's basically the point we're at now. I've outlined my reasons and you've outlined yours. Obviously, I think mine make more sense. This conversation isn't going anywhere, and this isn't a good venue to be having it in.
To this:
Evidence was provided, you're handwaving it away. If you've got counter evidence, it falls to you to provide it. Otherwise you're just disagreeing, not disproving.
Evidence from a pro-abortion group was cited. And it still failed to address my main ojbection, which is the question of personhood. Not the question of how practical enforcement is.
I would only add that I am in fact advocating a very moderate position. One that would limit abortion to, at the very latest, 9 weeks. After that the fetus would be considered a person with rights and legal protections. This occupies the median position between the pro abortion extremists and the anti choice fanatics. It is one that still respects the natural rights of the mother, but also recognizes that once a fetus has a brain it also has natural rights that should be protected.
That is exactly what I am saying. I am concerned with embryos and fetuses. Not with zygotes and blastocysts. I find the abortion of an ambryo troubling. But I think it inhabits a gray area. So I would finally have to draw a line at 9 weeks when the fetus develops and has organs. At this point it is clear to me that teh fetus is a human (and at the very least a developing human) and entitled to its human rights.
9 weeks from implantation? 9 weeks from implantation? 9 weeks from LMP? I'm still not clear what you are referring to.
But I do believe that once the fetus has a brain (at 9 weeks) it is certainly a human. And deserves protection. ...
Yes it does. That post was incorrect and taken from a bad study. There is plenty of data to suggest that outlawing abortions, especially if coupled with sex ed, birth control acces and counseling, decreased substantially the number of abortions.
You are claiming that the Guttamacher study was bad? What makes them pro-abortion?
What is your standard for a good study? Could you please post links to studies that are more rigorous and show your point?
Umm... could you please also post references to your claim that 9 week old fetuses have a brain? Or define a brain.
Evidence from a pro-abortion group was cited. And it still failed to address my main ojbection, which is the question of personhood. Not the question of how practical enforcement is.
Personhood isn't definable in an objective sense. You think it's at 9 weeks, others think it's after birth, etc. The federal government doesn't really consider us full fledged human beings until we've signed up for the draft and started paying taxes, how about we use that as a baseline?
Your delineation of 9 weeks is just as arbitrary as any of those others. The only reason you feel different is because it fits your definition of morality.
I would only add that I am in fact advocating a very moderate position. One that would limit abortion to, at the very latest, 9 weeks. After that the fetus would be considered a person with rights and legal protections. This occupies the median position between the pro abortion extremists and the anti choice fanatics. It is one that still respects the natural rights of the mother, but also recognizes that once a fetus has a brain it also has natural rights that should be protected.
Restricting access to abortion AT ALL is only a moderate position if you're calling the complete illegalization of it a reasonable starting point. It's not.
A reasonable way of dealing with the issue is improving sex education, providing universal access to birth control and correcting the social, economic and medical issues that lead to issues that necessitate the procedure. Declaring it to be illegal without fixing any of those issues is just going to result in the women who get abortions doing so illegally. It won't actually stop them from getting the procedure.
9 weeks from implantation? 9 weeks from implantation? 9 weeks from LMP? I'm still not clear what you are referring to.
You are claiming that the Guttamacher study was bad? What is your standard? Could you please post links to studies that are more rigorous and show your point?
Umm... could you please also post references to your claim that 9 week old fetuses have a brain? Or define a brain.
9 weeks after conception.
Yes it was. As I said it is a biased organization.
This is the standard timeframe used for anyone who is active in the debate on either side (at least among ethicists):
Zygote: first through third day
Blastocyst: second day through second week
Embryo: Third week through the eighth week
Fetus: 9th week until birth
Quickening: 13th week-twentieth
Viability: About twenty fourth week
The major organs, including the brain begin to develop around week 8. The brain and lungs actually appear around week 5 though. The brain fully develops by week 14.
http://www.med.upenn.edu/meded/public/berp/overview/BV_1.html?22
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
To give you an idea, this is a 9 week fetus:
Personhood isn't definable in an objective sense. You think it's at 9 weeks, others think it's after birth, etc. The federal government doesn't really consider us full fledged human beings until we've signed up for the draft and started paying taxes, how about we use that as a baseline?
Your delineation of 9 weeks is just as arbitrary as any of those others. The only reason you feel different is because it fits your definition of morality..
Personhood is definable. What is debatable is when something meets the definition. If you don't have a definition of personhood, then you have no foundation to protect any human rights. All you are left with is one person's ability to exert his or her will on another. Any interference by the state would be a product of legislating morality and subjective views on right and wrong.
The broad definition of a person is: either an automomous being or a being who is a full fledged member of the moral community.
From there there is much debate.
9 Weeks is not arbitrary. It is when it transitions to the fetus stage, has a central nervous system, heart, lungs and a brain. There is going to be some arbitrariness to it, because not all fetuses develop at exactly the same rate, but this is an ideal cut off point if you want to both protect the rights of the fetus and protect the rights of the mother.
Restricting access to abortion AT ALL is only a moderate position if you're calling the complete illegalization of it a reasonable starting point. It's not..
Actually I am calling for abortions that take place after 9 weeks to be illegal, so long as the mothers physical health is not threatend by the pregnancy. This is the text book definition of the moderate veiw on abortion in any ethics class. The other two 1) All abortion okay 2) all abortion wrong, are considered the extremes of the debate.
A reasonable way of dealing with the issue is improving sex education, providing universal access to birth control and correcting the social, economic and medical issues that lead to issues that necessitate the procedure. Declaring it to be illegal without fixing any of those issues is just going to result in the women who get abortions doing so illegally. It won't actually stop them from getting the procedure.
I have said again and again that I want those core issues to be remedied. I want better sex education, better access to health care, less economic disparity, and improved access to birth control---this is why I am a democrat.
It will stop most of them. Just as the drug laws stop me from smoking pot. Deterence does work. Not only that, but the difficultty of gaining access to the black market, will reduce the number of abortions. Quite simply, it will be more difficult, but not impossible to obtain them. Therefore it will result in fewer abortions. The ones that do occur will be less safe and will be illegal. This is a problem. BUt that is a question of enforcment, not a question of whether abortion is right or wrong. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce and create negative consequences.
The federal government doesn't really consider us full fledged human beings until we've signed up for the draft and started paying taxes, how about we use that as a baseline?
.
I think this is a terrible baseline. It means that only adult males 18 or older will have their rights protected. Since women don't sign up for the draft. And most adolescents don't pay taxes. It would also deny illegal immigrants natural human rights as well. The consitution recognizes the rights of all people, not just citizens. It is a universal declaration of human rights. And it is a darn good thing.
We need to use a definition that is reasonable and humane. My suggestion that the presence of a brain in a developing fetus denotes a person, is fair, allows for abortions early in the pregnancy and respects life.
I would also just add that I still vote democrat despite my views on this issue, because I think they are correct about 90% of the issues.
9 weeks after conception.
Yes it was. As I said it is a biased organization.
This is the standard timeframe used for anyone who is active in the debate on either side (at least among ethicists):
Zygote: first through third day
Blastocyst: second day through second week
Embryo: Third week through the eighth week
Fetus: 9th week until birth
Quickening: 13th week-twentieth
Viability: About twenty fourth week
The major organs, including the brain begin to develop around week 8. The brain and lungs actually appear around week 5 though. The brain fully develops by week 14.
Your own links below disagree with your claim that the brain is fully developed by week 14. Maybe it would be clearer if you defined what "fully-developed" means when it comes to brains? How can they be fully developed at 14 weeks but still developing rapidly at 20 some weeks?
http://www.med.upenn.edu/meded/public/berp/overview/BV_1.html?22
This website hasn't been maintained since 2001. The new one is: http://www.pennhealth.com/newsletters/preg_parenting/000050.htm and doesn't have information that specific.
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
"Week Twenty-Two
* Your baby weighs close to a pound at this point!
* Your baby can now hear your conversations more clearly than before!. When you talk, read, or sing, expect her to hear you. Studies have found that newborns will suck more vigorously when read to from a book they heard frequently in utero.
* Eyelids and eyebrows are fully formed.
* Fingernails have grown to the end of the fingers.
* Be prepared for all those "Why" questions coming! Your baby's brain has entered a stage of rapid growth, especially in what's called the germinal matrix. This structure deep in the middle of the brain serves as a kind of factory for brain cells and disappears shortly before birth. But the brain's amazing expansion program continues until around the five birthday. "
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
"Weeks 25 to 28
* Rapid brain development
* Nervous system developed enough to control some body functions
* Eyelids open and close"
You are ignoring my basic question of why do you see the law as the best way to deal with this? Why not go with education and better forms of bc? What will the law do?
You still haven't provided any studies that show that outlawing abortion reduces the incidence. Reading through the guttmacher study I don't see any obvious flaws in their methodology. Please point them out or provide alternate references. Until I see evidence to the contrary it seems to me that outlawing abortion will only silence any meaningful debate over morality without affecting the actual rates of abortion. What is the value in that?
Your own links below disagree with your claim that the brain is fully developed by week 14. Maybe it would be clearer if you defined what "fully-developed" means when it comes to brains? How can they be fully developed at 14 weeks but still developing rapidly at 20 some weeks?
The period is 8 weeks when the brain is clearly present. But yes, it continues to develop up until well after the child is born. But by 14 there is no mistaking that you are dealing with a human brain. The fact is you have a brain between 8-9 weeks and that brain develops considerably by the 14th week.
You are ignoring my basic question of why do you see the law as the best way to deal with this? Why not go with education and better forms of bc? What will the law do? ?
No I am not. I have answered it already. Because you can both do education and outlaw abortion after the somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd month. This will allow access to abortions by those who need it, but not threaten the rights of the developing fetus.
You still haven't provided any studies that show that outlawing abortion reduces the incidence. Reading through the guttmacher study I don't see any obvious flaws in their methodology. Please point them out or provide alternate references. Until I see evidence to the contrary it seems to me that outlawing abortion will only silence any meaningful debate over morality without affecting the actual rates of abortion. What is the value in that?
Here is a study: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda07-01.cfm
Unfortunately, like your own it comes from a biased organization. Both are probably guilty of interpreting the data to suit their conclusion.
The problem with your study is that much of the data comes from other nations, many of them 3rd world countries. You simply can't compare enforcement of laws in such places (where corruption is often rampant) to the enforcement of laws in the US (where anyone who has traveled can tell you [and yes I have travelled considerably] we are relatively free of the corruption you find in 3rd world countries). But whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong has nothing to do with the issue of enforcmenet. Which is a seperate issue that we could also debate till the cows come home.
Actually you would probably find my position on the enforcement side much more agreeable.
Kistra, I don't think we disagree as much as you think.
I feel strongly that the law is not the appropriate means to deal with abortion. Therefore, it seems to me that we do disagree. For all you know I think all abortion is morally reprehensible but feel that the law is the wrong way to decrease abortions and think that many of the people that post incorrect information regarding pregnancy and abortion are on a slippery slope argument towards "women are being lied to, we need to protect them" which I find far more morally reprehensible than abortion.
How do we know when conception occurred? Ultrasound measurements are not perfect. LMP is not that precise. Temperature charts are, but only if the woman has them and also records exactly what time they were taken. None of these are issues if we look at it solely from a moral and educational standpoint and stay away from the law.
The guttmacher study compares 3rd world countries to other 3rd world countries. I find that more compelling than the study you linked to which left out data from 26 states including many states that neighbor the states they specifically mention as passing the most stringent parental consent laws. This is despite mentioning that there is anecdotal evidence that people were traveling out of state for abortions.
The guttmacher study compares 3rd world countries to other 3rd world countries. I find that more compelling than the study you linked to which left out data from 26 states including many states that neighbor the states they specifically mention as passing the most stringent parental consent laws. This is despite mentioning that there is anecdotal evidence that people were traveling out of state for abortions.
The problem with using studies of 3rd world countries is that enforcement is less effective in them. I have visited many 3rd world countries, and one thing I can tell you, is that laws are frequently broken in such places because they are difficult to enforce and corruption is the rule not the exception. Go to a 3rd world country and you will find that cops stop you and expect a bribe (or you will spend time in jail on trumped up drug charges). Every time I have been to South East Asia or Latin America, I have been stopped by police who told me there was "a problem". The "Problem" would always dissapear once I gave the police the right amount of currency. This has never, ever happened to me in all my years of living in the US. You are dealing with apples and oranges if you expect the effects of abortion laws on 3rd world countries to have any bearing on modern western nations. In a nation like the US, people are more likely to abide by laws if they are enforced. I am sure there will be a small number of people seeking illegal abortions, but I seriously doubt we would have anywhere near the number of illegal abortions that we already have for legal ones. Especially if enforcement focuses on prosecuting the abortino providers rather than the women who seek them.
I feel strongly that the law is not the appropriate means to deal with abortion. Therefore, it seems to me that we do disagree. For all you know I think all abortion is morally reprehensible but feel that the law is the wrong way to decrease abortions and think that many of the people that post incorrect information regarding pregnancy and abortion are on a slippery slope argument towards "women are being lied to, we need to protect them" which I find far more morally reprehensible than abortion.
How do we know when conception occurred? Ultrasound measurements are not perfect. LMP is not that precise. Temperature charts are, but only if the woman has them and also records exactly what time they were taken. None of these are issues if we look at it solely from a moral and educational standpoint and stay away from the law.
.
So you think I am posting incorrect information about pregnancy and abortion now? That is a little harsh. Especially since I posted 3 different links, and everything I said is pretty much accepted by both sides of the argument. If I was guilty of anything, it was being unclear and a little careless about my use of the word "development".
Why wouldn't the law be the right place for dealing with whether or not people should kill a developing human? Should we do the same with murder and theft? Maybe we should stop arresting theives then, and just hammer out a really solid, anti-burgulary education curiculum to implement at the highschool level? People are just going to steal anyways.
I never said they were precise. I also never argued there wasn't differences from one pregnancy to the next. But in general it is true that by the 8-9 week of pregnancy, there is a brain, lung, heart and central nervous system. That is also generally regarded as the fetal stage (thought some people do put the fetal stage a few weeks later). I am all for allowing a physician to make the final call, and not place an absolute time table on regulation of abortion. But I think some kind of limit should be put in place. As it is, I feel our abortion laws are simply too liberal and result in the deaths of tens of thousands of unborn babies.
I also never argued that women were being lied to. Just that the debate is being incorrectly framed as a women's rights issue. When it is in fact a human rights issue.
I'm sorry mate, Roe vs Wade was a matter decided by the supreme court long ago. I am male, so the issue of abortion will never be fully in my hands. And since it's impossible for me to have said procedure, the decision of it's legality is not and should not be mine to make.
If you have issue with the decision of the supreme court, take it up with them, but those photos were beyond the scope of human decency. You sir, managed to lose any respect I might have ever had for you by posting such obviously inflammatory pictures where small children might see them. You sir, have not helped your cause, but rather hurt it considerably by ensuring that I won't be seeing any further posts by you. I would report that post, but I imagine mine would not be the only complaint.
If you have issue with the decision of the supreme court, take it up with them, but those photos were beyond the scope of human decency. You sir, managed to lose any respect I might have ever had for you by posting such obviously inflammatory pictures where small children might see them. You sir, have not helped your cause, but rather hurt it considerably by ensuring that I won't be seeing any further posts by you. I would report that post, but I imagine mine would not be the only complaint.
They were meant to illustrate my point that this is a human rights issue. I am sorry you feel the need to be so closed minded. These were meant to contextualize what we were discussing. They are gruesome, but if we are prepared to so it is okay to have an abortion, we should be able to look at these images honestly. Despite these, and other images, I am still prepared to allow women to have abortions up until about the 9th week of pregnancy in order to protect the mothers natural rights.
I'm sorry mate, Roe vs Wade was a matter decided by the supreme court long ago. I am male, so the issue of abortion will never be fully in my hands. And since it's impossible for me to have said procedure, the decision of it's legality is not and should not be mine to make.
.
Yes it was. That doesn't make it moral. Slavery was once legal. As was beating your wife. I am contending that abortion after the fetus has full ontological status of personhood(and here I propose that the existence of a brain is the deciding factor), is morally wrong. Just because women are the only one's capable of giving birth and having an abortion doesn't make abortion right. It also doesn't make it right, just because it happens to be inside of them, if the fetus is a person.
So apparently he doesn't like fantasy roleplaying games, but he'll gleefully play games with American lives. And he'll play them poorly.
So yeah, you can let McCain and Goldfarb roll another saving throw for America. Just hope they don't roll another 1; they've got a long history of bad rolls.
You, sir, win the Internets for this.
Unless you count most of your average people who enlist for only one term, get sick of all the crap, and get out. The lifers are the ones you have to worry about. Many of the biggest hippies I've known have served a term or two in the military.
Truth. Speaking as ex-military myself, smart soldiers don't warmonger.
And personally, I don't respect McCain for his military service. He was pushed through the military by virtue of his father's rank, and nothing more. He was the Gomer Pile++ of his generation, constantly crashing planes, getting extremely failing ratings on pretty danged important stuff to do with training et al.
But the reason I don't respect him for his military service is essentially that he has such a weak character that he was willing to change his position on torture after supposedly being tortured himself, simply to appease his new neocon buddies. He is not a hero, and not deserving of any respect of mine, any American's, and especially not any former or current service member. Every politician we have that advocates torture gives our enemies (I'm not specifically talking about current supposed "enemies" but more people in an actual war, instead of the invasion currently on) reason to torture our service members. Thus advocating it is not only unethical in and of itself, but entirely despicable in that it will cause more of our own citizens to end up being tortured.
Also, I think the topic of this thread is amusing simply for the fact that I disparage McCain's hobby of eating babies and puppies XD
They were meant to illustrate my point that this is a human rights issue.
Illustrating a point or not, I don't think it is appropriate for this messageboard. I'm certain you may be cited for breaching some kind of board's CoC.
Mind you, this is not a public [property] forum, but privately-owned forum.
Last post: Abortion
Can you say "topic drift" boys & girls? I think you can.
...I am still prepared to allow women to have abortions up until about the 9th week of pregnancy in order to protect the mothers natural rights.
Emphasis mine.
The bold bit is the most telling statement in this derail and proves - beyond any shadow of doubt - that this derail should cease immediately. This is not a topic for this thread. More importantly, it's not appropriate for discussion here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gaming and nothing to do with the thread's original topic or intent.
To all parties involved: Please stop. Now.
There hasn't been much talk of it, but assuming Obama wins for better or worse, his choice for VP becoming pres. brings to light the possibility of assassination. Alot of f'ed up ppl would wish him ill due to the racial, religious, or political tip and I think it's being avoided cuz' of the enormous fallout that it would cause.
Hell, and McCain is fairly old. I mean, he's no Regan, but his VP might step up due to more natural causes, so same thing, different party.
Thoughts, ideas?
The possibility of assassination is always present. It's one of the dangers of being president. It's also one of the reasons why we should keep in mind who the VP is. I also remember the VP was mostly insignificant until recently. Yes he did a few things to support the president but Cheney changed how many people view the role of VP.
I personally think that Bush/Cheney have been horrible for the country as a whole. What they did do was show that the VP need not be a yes-man (or simply the butt of jokes for late-night shows) but can actually contribute to how the country is run. They showed that a strong VP can really advance the platform of the oval office. I hope that the next president has a strong VP as well as platforms that advance our country.
Every politician we have that advocates torture gives our enemies (I'm not specifically talking about current supposed "enemies" but more people in an actual war, instead of the invasion currently on) reason to torture our service members. Thus advocating it is not only unethical in and of itself, but entirely despicable in that it will cause more of our own citizens to end up being tortured.
Whenever I hear about the US government's position on torture I recall an editorial by Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald. It rattled on and on, but at the very end he said, "Take the high road, there's less traffic." The more I look at the world, the more I think he's right. Which is rather unusual, because normally I think he's a hypersensitive windbag.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Our friend the Fundie orphanage advocate forgets that his pictures that he posted here to shock people into a knee-jerk reaction could be, in a way, filed under the terrorism heading. He says abortions are horrific and terrible things. he even goes so far as to call them "murder", although I've never seen a doctor practice medicine with malice, I will take his word for it.
Assuming for a moment, they are murder, is it the high road for you to display the photos here or are you and your agenda profitting from the photos that result from the act you yourself call murder? Before you answer, think for a moment. Photgraphic evidence used in murder trials is very seldom released for publication. Newspapers don't publish pictures of dead bodies on a regular basis. You posted horrific images of fetuses that were developed enough that they had the similar shape of a fully formed baby. You sir, have used the so-called murder victims, the so-called innocent, to advance your political aim and terrorize those who are not sharing your views.
I ask again, do you feel justified in the acts of terror that you commit?
Before you answer, ponder this. I, sir, am pro-life (to use your terms), however, it is in the good of the republic that abortions remain legal, sanitary and therefore safe. I would rather see millions of fetuses aborted than have the republic forced to intervene and assume the care of millions of abused or neglected children. I offer terms to you, if it was possible to remove the spectre of abortion, would you agree to adopt the child of every woman in the country that is unfit to bear the mantle of motherhood? Oh, and if you agree to it, you have to sign a waiver that says you won't apply for any manner of financial assistance in raising them*.
*it isn't a benefit to the republic to put all those little mouths in your custody and then have to pony up the coin to pay for it. If you want your pro-life nation, you're going to have to shoulder the burden yourselves.
To all parties involved: Please stop. Now.
As you wish, Zombie, I have said my peace and find the topic annoying.
But I'm sure many elitist snobs with power think those of us in "the masses" are stupid enough to vote a cartoon character into office.
Also known as the founding fathers, of course they were not thinking of cartoon characters, more like people who would destroy America and the Constitution. You are looking at the world as if things in life were perfect. Guess what they are not.
You are looking at the world as if things in life were perfect. Guess what they are not.
And you are saying that the American people can't be trusted to pick their own leaders without the oversight of the elites.
Emphasis mine.
The bold bit is the most telling statement in this derail and proves - beyond any shadow of doubt - that this derail should cease immediately. This is not a topic for this thread. More importantly, it's not appropriate for discussion here. It has absolutely nothing to do with gaming and nothing to do with the thread's original topic or intent.
To all parties involved: Please stop. Now.
I meant no offense. I will no longer post on the subject abortion.
So you think I am posting incorrect information about pregnancy and abortion now? That is a little harsh. Especially since I posted 3 different links, and everything I said is pretty much accepted by both sides of the argument. If I was guilty of anything, it was being unclear and a little careless about my use of the word "development".
You completely missed my point.
I am willing to bet if you put 10 people in a room and asked them when is a fetus a "person", you would have some that agree with you about the brain, some that say something about a beating heart, some say something about movement, at least one that says fertilization and one that was like my ex and says "when they can talk".
My entire point all along has been that trying to create a law will only drive the discussion towards a long and drawn out battle about what is a person. Why not focus all that mental energy on preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place?
90% of abortions in this country are done before 10 weeks from LMP (8 weeks from conception). That means that even if everyone in the country magically agreed with you tomorrow, this law would only effect 10% of the abortion done in this country. Why focus so much time and energy on that last 10% when education can eliminate the need for a good portion of the other 90%?
I would also be willing to bet that a significant number of the maternal life at risk, ****, and other exceptions that you are willing to make fall in that last 10%. Which means that the debate is going to have even more problems. Can a woman only have an abortion if her rapist is convicted? What if 6 months after she has an abortion a court decides there isn't proof to show it was ****? Define maternal life in danger. 100% chance of death in 24 hours? 48? What about a 50% chance of death over 72 hours? 25% chance of death in the next 24 hours? Where is the line?
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to answer these questions, I am merely pointing out additional areas where there will be disagreement. Do you think spending months arguing about what constitutes someone's life being in danger will be productive? Do you think defining it will be productive? I'm sure you will say this is somewhere there should be wiggle room. However, from what I have seen, laws are not places where there is usually wiggle room.
The original discussion that I was trying to make a point in was the assertion that being pro-choice and not wanting to pass laws limiting abortion means that a person is pro-abortion. I was trying (and obviously failed, I'm sorry I wasn't clear) to point out why someone might be against abortion and still be against anti-abortion laws.
The incorrect information that was posted earlier by someone else is about the long term effects abortion has on a woman. None of the three links you posted showed any link between abortion and infertility or psychological harm like you originally claimed. I went back and looked through them some more just to be sure.
EDIT: sorry, I was a bit long looking up information for this post and the request for it to stop was put up in the mean time, I did try to tie it back into the original discussion of can people be both pro-choice and anti-abortion.
EDIT #2: You are right, it was someone else. Look at your post in 188 and someone else's post in 206 for what I was responding to. You are implying that things are much more clearcut than my embryology book explains it. The details I went into were just to support my position that a rational person can disagree with you.
And you are saying that the American people can't be trusted to pick their own leaders without the oversight of the elites.
No I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a safegaurd or checks and balances if you will also the electoral college only trumps the popular vote if it deems it's needed. This has not happened in over 200 years. Thus why Gore sued during the 2000 election to get the votes in Florida.
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to answer these questions, I am merely pointing out additional areas where there will be disagreement. Do you think spending months arguing about what constitutes someone's life being in danger will be productive? Do you think defining it will be productive? I'm sure you will say this is somewhere there should be wiggle room. However, from what I have seen, laws are not places where there is usually wiggle room..
I am sorry I cannot respond to these questions, but i already promised not to address the abortion subject any longer. I do think you have conducted yourself admirably here though. And respect your argument. I still disagree concerning the matter of law and enforcement. But, as I said, that is a whole other debate. Which we may want to to wait on, as the wounds from this one are clearly still fresh (see new thread on politics)
The original discussion that I was trying to make a point in was the assertion that being pro-choice and not wanting to pass laws limiting abortion means that a person is pro-abortion. I was trying (and obviously failed, I'm sorry I wasn't clear) to point out why someone might be against abortion and still be against anti-abortion laws..
Oh no. I saw what you were saying. And I agree. Someone can argue that abortion is morally wrong, but that it should be permitted on utilitarian grounds, or even on the grounds of natural rights. I was just making the argument that it was morally wrong and should be banned at certain stages.
The incorrect information you posted was earlier about the long term effects abortion has on a woman. None of the three links you posted showed any link between abortion and infertility or psychological harm like you originally claimed. I went back and looked through them some more just to be sure.
.
I never claimed a link between these things. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? I never said that abortion caused psychological harm or any such thing. I only posted very general info on the stages of the pregnancy so we would have common terms. So that 9 weeks would mean the same to both sides and 22 weeks would mean the same. So that Zygote and blastocyst were both understood. I was using my own medical text book in hardcopy, and I did notice that those sites used slightly different timelines from one another and my source. But the specifics were not that important. As long as we had general frames of reference, I wasn't too concerned about aniling down a specific week.
Parties have platforms. In order to be a Republican, you have to ascribe to a number of principles that fall very much to the right of center. Ergo, Republicans are conservative. It's pretty cut and dry. "Liberal" Republicans are actually more like "moderate" human beings than their party mates. They aren't actually liberals, though.
I wish it was thet cut and dry, it would make things a hell of alot easier but it's not that black and white and Liberal Republicans or Conservative Dems are both considered moderates in there parties also if you look through history Republicans were liberals and Dems were conservatives in their conception.
...It rattled on and on, but at the very end he said, "Take the high road, there's less traffic." The more I look at the world, the more I think he's right. Which is rather unusual, because normally I think he's a hypersensitive windbag.
Lot of that going on. World keeps turning though...
Normally, I would never condone torture, but everyone is doing it and everyone is going to keep doing it. Doesn't mean we should, however, there are times when it might be pivotal. If torturing 1 might save many more, well?
It sucks and is evil, but at times, IMO, it might be the lesser of 2 evils. Torturing uniformed military personel under the aegis of the Geneva Convention for simple intel like enemy muster, position, things like that, is draconian and wrong. Torturing a stateless enemy (terrorists) to provide clues to where, say, a suicide bombing might go off in a public commons is okay w/ me. You might save hundreds of civilians. As if flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing up buses & subways full of civilians, decapitations and the like are ok...double standards.
Extracting intel is a time sensitive endeavor and can mean the difference of saving more lives...or finding more enemy positions and taking their's. Apples and oranges. They may say "we don't torture", but everyone will and always will carry on in that way as it may be more efficient than waiting out a mettlesome enemy under lock and key. Our public face, and most of the world's too say, "No, we don't torture," but they all do, just discretely.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. It's when it becomes standard operating procedure, then we got problems...
And we're (US) really good at it too. For conventional warfare, police actions, etc., no, never torture IMO. There are rules for a reason.
Partisan fighting, ie) terrorists, possibly. Hiding among civilians for prot., their own torture & beheadings, etc., well, reciprocity is my mantra here in that we can't use human shields, fight in their unconventional (read, unethical style) and what not, but we have some truly gifted artistes in the CIA that can make 20 min seems like 3 hrs...
Our friend the Fundie orphanage advocate...
Omg, dick move...and then you open up like it's a telethon.
That was totally uncalled for, slanderous, and probably a violation of the CoC. It is enough to say, "I disagree", state your opinions/facts and move on. But no.
Zombie Babies...this derail should cease immediately...
To all parties involved: Please stop. Now.
That was posted well before the rant. Why the last word? Is it that important. I mean, at least you started to address the torture situation which is somewhat McCain related...but then you totally dropped the ball. Wtf?
I wish it was thet cut and dry, it would make things a hell of alot easier but it's not that black and white and Liberal Republicans or Conservative Dems are both considered moderates in there parties also if you look through history Republicans were liberals and Dems were conservatives in their conception.
This is the problem that many party hardliners don't understand (and then they wonder why they lose elections). The party platforms reflect a particular way of viewing the world, but not the only ways. One can easily accept some of their party's platform, while rejecting other aspects, and still be logically consistent.
No I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a safegaurd or checks and balances if you will also the electoral college only trumps the popular vote if it deems it's needed. This has not happened in over 200 years. Thus why Gore sued during the 2000 election to get the votes in Florida.
What complete and utter rot. The electors are chosen by the respective parties in the states and they're chosen because they won't alter their choice.
Gore's complaint in 2000 was because the absentee ballots weren't counted. When a political appointee, put in office by one candidate's brother throws out a chunk of the votes big enough to possibly make a difference, there should be considerably more scrutiny than there was. Personally, I think Gore didn't push the issue far enough. I'm certainly more of a firebrand than Mr Gore, but that arguement should have been heard in all the halls of government, not just the halls of Law.
No I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a safegaurd or checks and balances if you will also the electoral college only trumps the popular vote if it deems it's needed. This has not happened in over 200 years. Thus why Gore sued during the 2000 election to get the votes in Florida.
But the entire concept shows a distinct lack of faith in the masses to choose effective leaders, or it shows a desire to control the outcome if it turns out to be undesirable to those holding the leash.
Neither of those things is something we need in an inclusive democracy.
I wish it was thet cut and dry, it would make things a hell of alot easier but it's not that black and white and Liberal Republicans or Conservative Dems are both considered moderates in there parties also if you look through history Republicans were liberals and Dems were conservatives in their conception.
The terms 'liberal" and "conservative" have changed a lot over the years, as have the compositions of both parties.
For example, the Dems used to be dominated by populist baptists from southern states, the so-called "Dixiecrats." That alignment was very hard to classify as "liberal" in todays terms, given their stance on most social issues, but it was very forward thinking in terms of economic justice for the time. That chunk of the party shrunk due to the use of those wedge social issues by Republicans to claim the base, culminating in the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which basically stripped the Dixiecrats out of the party altogether. But those same Dixiecrats were considered to be "crazy liberals" not two decades prior.
Conservative Dems today are definitely not considered moderate Democrats, at least not that I've seen. Dems that are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-environment (yes, they do exist), etc are considered a fringe wing of the party, necessary for shoring up votes with seats in areas that traditional liberal values haven't gotten a foothold, but not in any way a moderate within the party itself.
No I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a safegaurd or checks and balances if you will also the electoral college only trumps the popular vote if it deems it's needed. This has not happened in over 200 years. Thus why Gore sued during the 2000 election to get the votes in Florida.
I think 200 years ago the electoral college was the only option that made sense. There were no telephones, no way to communicate in a speedy manner what votes were made far apart. Hence you vote locally, send one person to another location with others from around the country and they all vote in one room.
Now we have the technology to count every single vote in the country. I have to wonder if the technology today were available to the founding fathers would they have chosen the same method? I think it is at least worth discussing if it is time to move to a new system. Do you disagree?
Conservative Dems today are definitely not considered moderate Democrats, at least not that I've seen. Dems that are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-environment (yes, they do exist), etc are considered a fringe wing of the party, necessary for shoring up votes with seats in areas that traditional liberal values haven't gotten a foothold, but not in any way a moderate within the party itself.
What is a moderate democrat then? I would think someone who embraces half of the platform, but rejects the other half, could be considered moderate. What about people who are conservative on strictly social issues (just abortion, homosexuality, and family) but embrace everything else (the environment, national healthcare, gun control)?
most catholics I know, consider themselves democrats, dispite being socially conservative. Many young people I have met reject the progressive attitude toward sex that their parents had (on practical not religious grounds) but embrace the rest of their politics, making them socially conservative dems. And they seemed very moderate to me.
What do you consider the far left wing of the party? Far right wing? and the middle to be? Just curious, not trying to push you or force an answer.
Neither of those things is something we need in an inclusive democracy.
Umm, Batshido. We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. We send representatives to make our laws. We send representatives to vote for our president. We don't vote directly in our government, we have people we elect to do that for us, we are a republic.
Lot of that going on. World keeps turning though...
Normally, I would never condone torture, but everyone is doing it and everyone is going to keep doing it. Doesn't mean we should, however, there are times when it might be pivotal. If torturing 1 might save many more, well?
Sorry, no, this is just as despicable as McCain's changing his position to please his neocon bedmates. Torture DOES NOT provide reliable information, period. So no, it is NEVER acceptable, and not "everyone" is using it. The terrorists that run our country now use it, and their terrorist buddies use it (think Saudi Arabia, more than Iraq or Iran...they and Pakistan are more closely tied with global terrorism than Iraq or Iran ever have been). Countries that haven't blatently thrown out the Geneva Conventions don't use it.
Your definition of terrorist is also wrong. Yes, factually wrong. Terrorists are not "stateless enemies". Non-uniformed combatants are typically irregular militants, which does not inherently make them "terrorists" (a word which is increasingly taken over by neocons).
A terrorist is someone that uses fear to manipulate politics of nation or nations.
The US just happens to be run by terrorists (i.e., people that use fear for political gain/purposes) who also happen to torture.
Umm, Batshido. We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. We send representatives to make our laws. We send representatives to vote for our president. We don't vote directly in our government, we have people we elect to do that for us, we are a republic.
Yes, I know the definitions. They don't make it ok for there to be a system in place to overturn the popular vote, though.
Your definition of terrorist is also wrong. Yes, factually wrong. Terrorists are not "stateless enemies". Non-uniformed combatants are typically irregular militants, which does not inherently make them "terrorists" (a word which is increasingly taken over by neocons).
A terrorist is someone that uses fear to manipulate politics of nation or nations.
The US just happens to be run by terrorists (i.e., people that use fear for political gain/purposes) who also happen to torture.
That definition is way too broad. Using it you could argue that every nation is a terrorist group. I would add that "the deliberate targeting of civilians as a way of creating fear" to that definition. I would also recommend you read Bruce Hoffman's "Inside Terrorism". It covers all the standard definitions and proposes one itself. Another book is "Terrorism" by White.
That said, i think torture is wrong, and it loses us the moral high ground. It is also unconsititutional.
Yes, I know the definitions. They don't make it ok for there to be a system in place to overturn the popular vote, though.
It was originally to make electing a president easier. Each state would send it's electors to the Capitol to vote publicly for the president. They could debate if they wished but their whole purpose was to reduce the size of the population voting in presidential elections. The states sent electors as a surrogate, assuming that the people being sent were capable of making an informed decision on the part of the voters back home. It could easily be scrapped, but we hold archaic traditions like that sacred here in the US.
It was originally to make electing a president easier. Each state would send it's electors to the Capitol to vote publicly for the president. They could debate if they wished but their whole purpose was to reduce the size of the population voting in presidential elections. The states sent electors as a surrogate, assuming that the people being sent were capable of making an informed decision on the part of the voters back home. It could easily be scrapped, but we hold archaic traditions like that sacred here in the US.
It was also to protect the rights of underpopulated states. They were concerned about a "tyranny of the majority".
That definition is way too broad.
It's less broad than the dictionary definition, and seems to be the main usage of it by most prevalent large scale terrorist groups. However, I agree with your basic point. My point was to merely show that "terrorist" DOES NOT mean "irregular militiaman". That is merely the political definition that neocons have given it for their convenience.
Using it you could argue that every nation is a terrorist group.
If those nations use fear/targeting of civilians for political gain, I would argue that they are terrorist nations. The US has been guilty of this many many times throughout history, for instance.
I would add that "the deliberate targeting of civilians as a way of creating fear" to that definition.
I agree with this, I just forgot it.
I would also recommend you read Bruce Hoffman's "Inside Terrorism". It covers all the standard definitions and proposes one itself. Another book is "Terrorism" by White.
I'll add them to my wish lists, thanks.
That said, i think torture is wrong, and it loses us the moral high ground. It is also unconsititutional.
Indeed. People often forget that MANY were hung for using the same or less severe torture methods than Bush et al currently salivate over and apply to not only the few actual terrorists they've apprehended that exist at a high level in their respective organizations (they aren't pursuing any Saudi or Pakistani terror groups, which are heavily responsible for much of the international terrorism going on today), innocent people that were just in a bad place (i.e., lots of Iraqi civilians that have nothing to do with anything, but were lucky/unlucky not to have been bombed to death by us already...or murdered by government sponsored thug groups like Blackwater), and OUR OWN CITIZENS, most of which thus far have been found to be innocent, usually after several years of torture (due to the suspension of habeas corpus and the creation of the military farce tribunals).
It was originally to make electing a president easier. Each state would send it's electors to the Capitol to vote publicly for the president. They could debate if they wished but their whole purpose was to reduce the size of the population voting in presidential elections. The states sent electors as a surrogate, assuming that the people being sent were capable of making an informed decision on the part of the voters back home. It could easily be scrapped, but we hold archaic traditions like that sacred here in the US.
Yeah, I know the reason they always said the electoral college was there in the first place. It's extremely hard to accurately count votes and transmit that info over thousands of miles if you don't have modern technology. It would also be incredibly prone to fraud.
I just don't think it's a good system to be keeping around for the sake of tradition (I could draw parallels with Vancian casting, but that's a whole 'nother flame war. ;) ). We're effectively a representative democracy otherwise (with flavors of Republicism), but it seems like in this day and age we could do away with the unnecessary procedural checks.
Yes, I know the definitions. They don't make it ok for there to be a system in place to overturn the popular vote, though.
It's not like the Framers were sitting around one day thinking of ways to screw the ignorant rubes who elected someone they didn't like. They had plenty of other ways of doing that (poll taxes, literacy requirements, needed to be white, male and a landowner).
The entire Constitution was basically designed as a balance between the rights and duties of a federal government and the rights and duties of individual states. The thinking of the Framers at that time was that the people already had their say in the elections of their particular congressmen so there should be a system in place to ensure that the largest states didn't overwhelm half of the Legislature and the Executive Office. In return, the Constitution allows the individual states to determine their own system for choosing electors.
They had good reasons for implementing it then, and there continue to be good reasons for its continuance now. Whether those reasons outweigh the negatives of the system are debatable, but I think it's a good policy to have a system in place that doesn't rely entirely on campaigning in urban and other heavily populated areas.
Faelar
They had good reasons for implementing it then, and there continue to be good reasons for its continuance now. Whether those reasons outweigh the negatives of the system are debatable, but I think it's a good policy to have a system in place that doesn't rely entirely on campaigning in urban and other heavily populated areas.
Not that I disagree with your post in general, but I'm curious as to two things with this part specifically;
1) What are the positives the electoral college brings to the table in the information age?
and
2) How does it prevent campaigning specifically to the largest population centers one can (and thereby reaching the most people you can with your message), and if it does is that really a good thing?
I'm honestly just curious, not trying to start an argument.
Yeah, I know the reason they always said the electoral college was there in the first place. It's extremely hard to accurately count votes and transmit that info over thousands of miles if you don't have modern technology. It would also be incredibly prone to fraud.
I just don't think it's a good system to be keeping around for the sake of tradition (I could draw parallels with Vancian casting, but that's a whole 'nother flame war. ;) ). We're effectively a representative democracy otherwise (with flavors of Republicism), but it seems like in this day and age we could do away with the unnecessary procedural checks.
I personally think that technology has made it easier to cheat the vote. I have only circumstantial evidence, though.
I personally think that technology has made it easier to cheat the vote. I have only circumstantial evidence, though.
The potential is certainly there. The entire concept of electronic voting machines sends shivers up my spine.
I was referring more to the immediate confirmation of vote counts across the country. In the old days they had to send that information with individuals via slow transportation methods, and they might not come out the same on the other side.
I was referring more to the immediate confirmation of vote counts across the country. In the old days they had to send that information with individuals via slow transportation methods, and they might not come out the same on the other side.
That potential is still there. Even in the modern age, the possibility of highjacking an election is pretty good.
Before we go changing the system, it would be better to be able to make sure that it is completely fool-proof and can't be manipulated.
Sorry, no, this is just as despicable as McCain's changing his position to please his neocon bedmates.
Classy...nice to see you put your best foot forward.
Like they say, politicians start the wars, its the rest that handle them...
Party affiliation is irrelevant in a military matter such as this. It's only being used as a jump point cuz' of an election. We were torturing the Hell out of people for years, South/Central America, Iran, etc, no one said jack...But it's terribly fashionable now. Yes, we need to set an example, that much I'm with you on though.
This is not a pro-McCain post either. Initially, I was pro-Obama, but I have found them both to be lacking and unacceptable to me and mine. This is typically the case w/ most American elections. Lesser of 2 evils and all that...
And for the record, I never said torture was "right". It's evil, but so is knowing you could've prevented the needless deaths of many non-combatants w/ a judicious application of sleep deprivation or solitary confinement. Would you sacrifice 1 to save thousands?
In your fervor, and most peoples' esteem, they equate torture w/ the rack, waterboarding, thumbscres, electroshock, etc. There are a million ways to get results that are far more humane, but yes, they are often construed as torture. Hell, people even say their jobs are torture, but is doesn't make it so. It's relative depending on the chronology and culture.
Torture is wrong, it's evil, but like this election, it might be the lesser of 2 evils given the gaping scapegoating and horribly inefficient intelligence community. Basically, that's my position: improve national intelligence and you won't find yourself in ethical dilemmas like this as often (but they'll always exist to a degree).
If you can preempt the enemy w/ accurate intel, your hand won't necessarilly be forced in a "hurry up offense" (torture) to get the intel you should've had to begin w/. Good intel often means you don't have to roll out the big guns when a discrete removal will do better than an airstrike for example.
-We had plenty of evidence stipulating Bin Laden was up to something and an attack was imminent. It was ignored; 3,000+people, 50% loss of my 401k, crippling the airlines, and God knows what else later...here we are. This could've been prevented easilly if the powers-that-be actually did their job(s) instead of **** over the intelligence community for the sake of CYA.
-After 9/11 Microsoft and many others in a consultation capacity couldn't believe the terrible inefficiency of the Pentagon's network. Said it would take 10 years before things were "as they should be". I think it was enough that a non-military aircraft actually hit the nerve center of the most powerful military on the planet easilly enough. That should tell you something...
-Too much compartmentalization; don't need an ATF, DEA, Homeland Security. That used to be the province of the FBI & NSA. This only caused more waste, fostered competition, and bloated an already too large govt. Too many cooks ruin the soup...and the taxpayers have to pay for all these extra jobs and waste when it would've been more efficient & simpler to expand the current resources instead of inventing new ones...and staffing them, and equiping them, and training them, and bla bla bla.
-New administration blames the intelligence community (unjustly) for 9-11's fallout; they are powerless by the power of their office to protest or refute the executive branch. This results in massive brain drain as they say, senior level intelligence analysts basically said, "You're blaming us for your political (not military) fiasco? Fine, we quit." -> can make more $ in the private sector anyway. All that XP and know-how is suddenly gone when we need it most due to political ego and pride.
Then a new war is started under false pretense w/ a massively hamstrung intelligence community because the people at the helm (administration) didn't think things through or listen to their intelligence advisors, namely w/ advice like: consolidate your forces in Afghanistan 1st, worry about Iraq later, there aren't any WMDs (anymore) that we've found in Iraq, Iran is funding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, Taliban forces are pushing the Hell out of the opium crop, etc.
Anyway, this kind of indentured them to torture as one venue (of many) to get info. No, it isn't right, but it didn't have to be this way if things were done correctly. This did provide clues to Zarkhawi, other 9-11 planners and the like, so it isn't entirely w/out it's merits, it's just "in getting there" is all.
Torture DOES NOT provide reliable information, period. So no, it is NEVER acceptable, and not "everyone" is using it.
You've never been tortured, have you? It's easy to say what you've said when you're not drugged to the gills, given the good cop/bad cop routine, or fed misleading intel yourself to ellicit the info they want. Every man has a breaking point too regardless of pain threshold...it's just finding it.
Yes, some info isn't reliable, but this is an art that's been perfected for thousands of years. If it didn't work at all as you said, they wouldn't use it. Acceptability or not is irrelevant in terms of warfare which I am sad to say, I know, it sucks and all, but we're talking about practicality in terms of the prisoner to info relationship.
And most intelligence communities use/have used it; CIA & FBI, SAS, KGB & GRU, the Mossad, Fatah & Hammas, Hisbolah, The Stassi, etc. It worked for them even if it is bad. War is bad too, but it works. Politics also.
The fact is, we may say, "We won't torture prisoners anymore," but you know we're gonna' keep doing it, just more discretely and w/ less frequency.
The terrorists that run our country now use it, and their terrorist buddies use it (think Saudi Arabia, more than Iraq or Iran...they and Pakistan are more closely tied with global terrorism than Iraq or Iran ever have been). Countries that haven't blatently thrown out the Geneva Conventions don't use it.
Terrorists do not run this country so much as politically elected leaders that are oftentimes more inept than they appear. Even Hitler was voted into office by 1/3 of Germany.
Your definition of terrorist is also wrong. Yes, factually wrong. Terrorists are not "stateless enemies". Non-uniformed combatants are typically irregular militants, which does not inherently make them "terrorists" (a word which is increasingly taken over by neocons).
I never defined the term, do not ever imply that I did for the sake of simplicity or convenience of your argument. Totallly uncool.
Hisbollah is a terrorist organization (fact) and aren't technically "stateless" as they pretty much run Lebanon. Same thing w/ Hamas & Palestine.
A terrorist is someone that uses fear to manipulate politics of nation or nations.
That isn't what most world govt's, Webster's, or most ppl define them as. If that is the definition your subscribe to, so be it, but do not try and impress it upon others to sate your own agenda(s).
It's fairly self-explanatory anyway. The need to put a label on it and define it in its simplest terms isn't going to keep markets & subways from getting bombed, put Nick Berg's head back on his shoulders, or help Shitte & Sunnis from offing each other in record numbers. It is what it is.
The US just happens to be run by terrorists (i.e., people that use fear for political gain/purposes) who also happen to torture.
Everyone uses fear for their own gain, even wild animals. Your oversimplification isn't helping an otherwise very complex situation.
Sorry for the wall of text to everyone else. At least it's not abortion related, eh?
Not that I disagree with your post in general, but I'm curious as to two things with this part specifically;
1) What are the positives the electoral college brings to the table in the information age?
and
2) How does it prevent campaigning specifically to the largest population centers one can (and thereby reaching the most people you can with your message), and if it does is that really a good thing?
I'm honestly just curious, not trying to start an argument.
My perspective is that it gives everyone a voice. Not just the 10-15 biggest cities that have 51% of the population. After all, some entire states have less people than New York City. Personally, I wish that the electoral system was set up like The Congressional District Method (a.k.a., Maine-Nebraska Method). I'm a fan of everyone having some kind of voice. That was the whole point of the system in the first place, or at least part of it. We've already made Senators direct elections. Let's at least keep this. It's already frustrating enough to go vote; knowing I'll be drowned out by California and New York (yes, hyperbole) wouldn't help.
That's my big thing against direct popular vote.
At least it's not abortion related, eh?
It may as well have been. It's a polarizing topic as well. Sadly I don't think it's one that will matter one iota in the coming months. Change is in the wind, no matter which politician takes the oath of office.
It may as well have been. It's a polarizing topic as well. Sadly I don't think it's one that will matter one iota in the coming months. Change is in the wind, no matter which politician takes the oath of office.
Well, I suppose there's truth in that. I mean, torture is more b/w though whereas abortion has alot more unknown variables. Still, aborting a baby never told a bunch of guys in a Humvee they were about to get ambushed ;) .
As for the change, God, I would love to believe you, but I just don't know. I don't want to just be another gen 'x' f-ckwit that's too apathetic to vote, much less care, but that's all I see these days and w/ only 2 choices, well...
#1. Is very charismatic and well spoken, but terribly inexperienced and making flightly overtures of "change" but providing no schematic on how to change. His own party is unorganized and poorly managed. He's got really good rapport, but not much else. Makes me think of a black Kennedy in terms of status, not platform necessarilly.
I do like that he speaks plainly and what he represents is refreshingly new (for a change), but you don't base 4 yrs on a hunch (well, you shouldn't
)Hate to say it, but he'd be gold in this country if not for the muslim overtones and name recognition. Americans are foolishly fickle like that.
Notice most American presidents have really generic last names; washington, jefferson, kennedy, cliton, grant, adams. Meaningless, but it counts.
#2. Branded as some old coot that's in bed w/ corporate interests and having been tortured and then conceeding it was okay really woke me up (to him). Pushing for drilling rights that won't matter until after his 2nd term is over and other platitudes like Obama's don't impress me either...but they look great on camera, right?! ;)
I do like the fact that he wouldn't always vote party-line. Not sure if "maverick" is the correct term, but dissent is good. Party-line voters need to be stripped of their voting rights and earn them like privledges. I know, fascist, but screw it, I said it...
You've never been tortured, have you? It's easy to say what you've said when you're not drugged to the gills, given the good cop/bad cop routine, or fed misleading intel yourself to ellicit the info they want. Every man has a breaking point too regardless of pain threshold...it's just finding it.
Yes, some info isn't reliable, but this is an art that's been perfected for thousands of years. If it didn't work at all as you said, they wouldn't use it.
Yes, its been used for thousands of years, the most famous here was the witch trials. Countless of witches gave their testimony under torture, and you don't have to be a history major to know how that turned out. Torture could probably be effective in a “Jack Bauer/ticking bomb”-situation. That is, you know what you need to know, you have a way of testing it, and you also know what the victim doesn't know. Because if you don't know what the subject know, you'll torture someone until they give you the names of 3 accomplices and claim “That's all I know”, and then you'll torture them further to see if it's true, and (surprise, surprise) it turns out your victim knows even more people, and they give you 4 more names, so you continue, and in the end, you have 54 names and only 13 of them are real.
It's not about breaking people, it's about knowing when they lie or don't know any more, because they'll keep talking as long as you continue the torture, and in the end, they'll not even know what they say themselves. A girl accused of witchcraft was famous for how many people she got arrested. She was caught and tortured, and knowing that she had no way out, she kept making herself useful to her torturer by revealing more and more of her 'knowledge' of fellow witches, thereby keeping herself alive and diverting his attention. She convinced him she was totally in his power and got him more and more drunk on his own 'success', until she finally set him up, convincing him to go after a woman much too high up the social latter for that kind of thing. He made the mistake of following her 'reliable' information, and his career was ruined. She escaped, but some say she was burnt later. The point is that people will say whatever it takes under torture, so you have to know when they've said all they know, because any torture after that (and probably a lot of torture before that) will get you false information. In case of witches, it will get you nothing but false information.
Yes, its been used for thousands of years, the most famous here was the witch trials. Countless of witches gave their testimony under torture, and you don't have to be a history major to know how that turned out..
Then again, the number of witches did seem to decline following the witch trials. Perhaps they were more succesful than we give them credit for.
P.S. Before I get pegged as an extremist again, this is just a joke.
Classy...nice to see you put your best foot forward.
Well, I'm not the one here advocating torture, now am I?
Like they say, politicians start the wars, its the rest that handle them...
Party affiliation is irrelevant in a military matter such as this. It's only being used as a jump point cuz' of an election. We were torturing the Hell out of people for years, South/Central America, Iran, etc, no one said jack...But it's terribly fashionable now. Yes, we need to set an example, that much I'm with you on though.
I agree, that's all true. However, this particular administration has done more to allow the torture of its own citizens than any previous. Also, I seriously doubt that previous administrations had the Pres/VP/SecDef/SecState personally meet on torture programs and personally advocate many brutal forms of torture, as it's been shown that this administration has.
This is not a pro-McCain post either. Initially, I was pro-Obama, but I have found them both to be lacking and unacceptable to me and mine. This is typically the case w/ most American elections. Lesser of 2 evils and all that...
Obama is just a better front man than McCain, IMO. He voted for FISA, i.e., allowing the President to declare any entity exempt from all laws indefinitely.
And for the record, I never said torture was "right". It's evil, but so is knowing you could've prevented the needless deaths of many non-combatants w/ a judicious application of sleep deprivation or solitary confinement. Would you sacrifice 1 to save thousands?
This argument is disingenuous. Torture does not provide reliable information. It has been shown numerous times to be thus. You will admit to anything under torture, even if it isn't true, and probably won't even provide the real information if you have it, since it's easier to just agree with whatever your torturer is accusing you of.
In your fervor, and most peoples' esteem, they equate torture w/ the rack, waterboarding, thumbscres, electroshock, etc. There are a million ways to get results that are far more humane, but yes, they are often construed as torture. Hell, people even say their jobs are torture, but is doesn't make it so. It's relative depending on the chronology and culture.
Torture is torture is torture. The redefinition of certain forms of it for political purposes does not make it "not torture" despite what you might think. Keep in mind, people were hung (by the US gov) for much less than what they are currently using.
Torture is wrong, it's evil, but like this election, it might be the lesser of 2 evils given the gaping scapegoating and horribly inefficient intelligence community.
Less evil still equals evil. It is unethical to advocate this in any form, regardless.
Basically, that's my position: improve national intelligence and you won't find yourself in ethical dilemmas like this as often (but they'll always exist to a degree).
If you can preempt the enemy w/ accurate intel, your hand won't necessarilly be forced in a "hurry up offense" (torture) to get the intel you should've had to begin w/. Good intel often means you don't have to roll out the big guns when a discrete removal will do better than an airstrike for example.
Again with the specious argument that has been debunked countless times by intelligence officials themselves. Torture does not provide reliable intel. There are MUCH better ways of getting intel than torture.
-We had plenty of evidence stipulating Bin Laden was up to something and an attack was imminent. It was ignored; 3,000+people, 50% loss of my 401k, crippling the airlines, and God knows what else later...here we are. This could've been prevented easilly if the powers-that-be actually did their job(s) instead of **** over the intelligence community for the sake of CYA.
I agree. However, your implication that "Oh if they had just TORTURED MORE PEOPLE it never would have happened!" is also inherently flawed and (no offense) retarded. By your own admission, they already possessed the required intel and ignored it. Torturing someone would not have changed this fact.
-After 9/11 Microsoft and many others in a consultation capacity couldn't believe the terrible inefficiency of the Pentagon's network. Said it would take 10 years before things were "as they should be". I think it was enough that a non-military aircraft actually hit the nerve center of the most powerful military on the planet easilly enough. That should tell you something...
That torture is okay? Again, this makes no sense, though I agree with what you are saying.
-Too much compartmentalization; don't need an ATF, DEA, Homeland Security. That used to be the province of the FBI & NSA. This only caused more waste, fostered competition, and bloated an already too large govt. Too many cooks ruin the soup...and the taxpayers have to pay for all these extra jobs and waste when it would've been more efficient & simpler to expand the current resources instead of inventing new ones...and staffing them, and equiping them, and training them, and bla bla bla.
I agree with this. I guess you're trying to say torturing people would help dismantle frivolous government institutions?
-New administration blames the intelligence community (unjustly) for 9-11's fallout; they are powerless by the power of their office to protest or refute the executive branch. This results in massive brain drain as they say, senior level intelligence analysts basically said, "You're blaming us for your political (not military) fiasco? Fine, we quit." -> can make more $ in the private sector anyway. All that XP and know-how is suddenly gone when we need it most due to political ego and pride.
Maybe they should have made a habit of not ignoring the intel they received. Again, what does this have to do with your message of "YAY FOR TORTURE! TORTURE EVERYONE!"
Then a new war is started under false pretense w/ a massively hamstrung intelligence community because the people at the helm (administration) didn't think things through or listen to their intelligence advisors, namely w/ advice like: consolidate your forces in Afghanistan 1st, worry about Iraq later, there aren't any WMDs (anymore) that we've found in Iraq, Iran is funding Shiite insurgents in Iraq, Taliban forces are pushing the Hell out of the opium crop, etc.
They didn't get into the war because they ignored the intel community. They got in the war because it was the goal of most of the top level people in the administration since the early 1990s. See Project for a New American Century for more info.
Anyway, this kind of indentured them to torture as one venue (of many) to get info.
Again, your argument is specious. They already had the intel and decided to ignore it so they could start their pet war. This has nothing to do with torture, except the fact that Condi Rice/Cheney/Dubya apparently get off on it.
No, it isn't right, but it didn't have to be this way if things were done correctly. This did provide clues to Zarkhawi, other 9-11 planners and the like, so it isn't entirely w/out it's merits, it's just "in getting there" is all.
I'm not sure if Zarkhawi is the guy, but at least one of the supposed "high level" people they were torturing was shown by (either the FBI or CIA, I forget which, I think it was FBI) to be a complete LOON and to really have had nothing much to do with most inner workings of what was going on.
You've never been tortured, have you? It's easy to say what you've said when you're not drugged to the gills, given the good cop/bad cop routine, or fed misleading intel yourself to ellicit the info they want. Every man has a breaking point too regardless of pain threshold...it's just finding it.
I agree, and you apparently don't understand why the fact that this is merely a matter of "breaking" the person is a problem in terms of the intel that will be received. You torture someone, and they will tell you whatever you want to hear, not real info. If you torture some guy and tell him "We know you're the Queen of England" he's eventually going to agree to that and admit it. The same thing applies with "Tell us where the terrorists are!" or "We know you work with Al-Qaeda!" That doesn't mean his admission is factual.
Yes, some info isn't reliable, but this is an art that's been perfected for thousands of years. If it didn't work at all as you said, they wouldn't use it. Acceptability or not is irrelevant in terms of warfare which I am sad to say, I know, it sucks and all, but we're talking about practicality in terms of the prisoner to info relationship.
Seriously, go look it up. Our own agencies and the ones you mention below all note that they receive very little to NO reliable intel from torture. That should tell you something right there, to use your own phrase. The reason torture is being pushed by this administration (onto US citizens no less) has very little to do with intel and very much to do with their ideology and repressing dissent WITHIN the country.
And most intelligence communities use/have used it; CIA & FBI, SAS, KGB & GRU, the Mossad, Fatah & Hammas, Hisbolah, The Stassi, etc. It worked for them even if it is bad. War is bad too, but it works. Politics also.
See above.
The fact is, we may say, "We won't torture prisoners anymore," but you know we're gonna' keep doing it, just more discretely and w/ less frequency.
This is not acceptable. People doing this should receive the same punishments that their equivalents in WWII received.
I suppose since you agree with torture, you probably also agree with the concept of using civilians of the embattled country as "comfort women"? Because that's just as despicable as the position you're advocating.
Terrorists do not run this country so much as politically elected leaders that are oftentimes more inept than they appear. Even Hitler was voted into office by 1/3 of Germany.
On the contrary, I'd argue that any administration that is willing to kill untold thousands and bankrupt their own country definitely qualify as terrorists. Also, terrorists don't necessarily have to be usurpers.
I never defined the term, do not ever imply that I did for the sake of simplicity or convenience of your argument. Totallly uncool.
Hisbollah is a terrorist organization (fact) and aren't technically "stateless" as they pretty much run Lebanon. Same thing w/ Hamas & Palestine.
Oh, but according to the directly above, if they aren't "stateless" and were elected (like Hezbollah was) they can't be terrorists. Stop contradicting yourself.
Sorry for the wall of text to everyone else. At least it's not abortion related, eh?
Haha, I know right? XD
Well, I suppose there's truth in that. I mean, torture is more b/w though whereas abortion has alot more unknown variables. Still, aborting a baby never told a bunch of guys in a Humvee they were about to get ambushed ;) .
I'm sorry dude, but this is just stupid. Please do yourself a favor and actually educate yourself on this, instead of swallowing the government line of "Torture allows us to make the scary terrasts go away!"
No one being tortured ever prevented an ambush. Torturing does however mean that our military service members will be more likely to be tortured or killed than if we treated our own prisoners humanely. I guarantee that no true soldier, former or current, would rather be subject to possible torture by the enemy than have to deal with a possible ambush. I know plenty, since I was in fact in the military myself.
Yes, its been used for thousands of years, the most famous here was the witch trials. Countless of witches gave their testimony under torture, and you don't have to be a history major to know how that turned out.
Seriously, a completely heart felt thank you for actually knowing what you're talking about in relation to this, instead of just repeating the propaganda out there that "Torture means we catch the terrasts!! OMGZ!"
As for the change, God, I would love to believe you, but I just don't know. I don't want to just be another gen 'x' f-ckwit that's too apathetic to vote, much less care, but that's all I see these days and w/ only 2 choices, well...
You know, you are an implement of change. Revolution begins on the soapbox. And revolution doesn't have to be carried all the way to the ammunition box. If the ballot box affects change, every person willing to go and cast their vote becomes part of that "will of the people" thing everyone keeps talking about.
If you don't like two choices, find a third. if you can't find one, make one. If you can't find someone else to do it, run for office yourself. Start small and make it grow. Form your own political party. It's not like you can't find people that think like you. With the internet we have the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas over thousands of miles in an instant. Find people that share your ideas and opinions and begin making changes from within. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you.
If it didn't work at all as you said, they wouldn't use it.
I am not so sure this is true. Putting aside the invalidity of an argument from authority, most of the people who torture are not trying to extract relevant and valid information. They may be asserting authority, or looking for a scapegoat so they might appear successful, taking revenge, or furthering the spread of terror. But typically torture for intel is a Hollywood fiction. In point of fact, as long as the US has used torture, we can not point to a single instance as to where it has stopped any deaths at all.
Most spooks will tell you that the best way to get intel is to treat your sources like kings, infiltrate the group or get a source to idolize your cause. Torture does neither, furthermore if you are known to torture it greatly lessens your chances at developing good sources by effective means.
Besides, have you never heard the phrase 'if all your friends were jumping off a bridge would you do it too?' Torture is jumping off a bridge. :D
I am not so sure this is true. Putting aside the invalidity of an argument from authority, most of the people who torture are not trying to extract relevant and valid information. They may be asserting authority, or looking for a scapegoat so they might appear successful, taking revenge, or furthering the spread of terror. But typically torture for intel is a Hollywood fiction.
Truth.
Most spooks will tell you that the best way to get intel is to treat your sources like kings, infiltrate the group or get a source to idolize your cause. Torture does neither, furthermore if you are known to torture it greatly lessens your chances at developing good sources by effective means.
Also truth, especially the bit in bold. The primary sources of refutation for torture as a source of reliable intel are people extremely well experienced in the intelligence community.
Besides, have you never heard the phrase 'if all your friends were jumping off a bridge would you do it too?' Torture is jumping off a bridge. :D
I just wanted to point out that the reason that this particular administration has specifically enabled their torturers to go after US citizens are for reasons having nothing to do with "going after terrorists" or "preventing Humvee ambushes" or any other such nonsensical garbage. Go do some searches for how many journalists have been picked up or investigated by the DHS for something they published which got them put under suspicion via the "Homegrown Terrorism" laws. In 9/10 cases it was something that dissented against the current administration, having zilch to do with terrorism.
I just wanted to point out that the reason that this particular administration has specifically enabled their torturers to go after US citizens are for reasons having nothing to do with "going after terrorists" or "preventing Humvee ambushes" or any other such nonsensical garbage. Go do some searches for how many journalists have been picked up or investigated by the DHS for something they published which got them put under suspicion via the "Homegrown Terrorism" laws. In 9/10 cases it was something that dissented against the current administration, having zilch to do with terrorism.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, no journalists have been "picked up" or "investigated" by the DHS, especially for having written dissenting pieces on the administration. Drew Griffin, a CNN reporter, had trouble flying because his name appeared on the terrorist watch list, but so did every other person flying through the U.S. named Drew Griffin. In addition, I was unable to find any other journalists who had experienced this problem. Some other names that have appeared on the list are Sen. Ted Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Catherine Stevens (wife of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens), tons of infants and small children, a ton of men named Robert Johnson, etc, etc.
I'd say it has more to do with the method of collecting names for the list rather than a game of politically motivated "gotcha!" Yes, the watch list is most likely a huge waste of time and resources, but that doesn't mean it is a mechanism whereby the evil Bush administration punishes its political opponents.
Faelar
-__-
Who cares? Hell, I insult D&D players all the time, and I play D&D. There's alot of make fun of. If you can't laugh at yourself you're just pathetic.
I don't even like John McCain, but getting a butthurt cause he calls those he opposes basement dwellers? Comeon.. atleast he's acknowledging basement dwellers..
Goodluck affording your three hundred dollar D&D manuals when you're paying out the ass in taxes under Obama's presidency..
I'm voting for either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr. I was thinking Barr cause Barr's more socially liberal like me, but my girlfriend wants me to vote for Chuck, and I do whatever she tells me lol!
Not that I disagree with your post in general, but I'm curious as to two things with this part specifically;
1) What are the positives the electoral college brings to the table in the information age?
and
2) How does it prevent campaigning specifically to the largest population centers one can (and thereby reaching the most people you can with your message), and if it does is that really a good thing?
I'm honestly just curious, not trying to start an argument.
KnightsDisciple makes the salient point. New York City itself has a population that is larger than thirty-nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The ten smallest U.S. states combined equal the population of NYC. If you include the entire NYC metropolitan area you're looking at a population larger than the combined populations of the fifteen smallest states. Throw the L.A. and Chicago metropolitan areas into the mix and you're looking at a population greater than the population of half of the smallest U.S. states.
If you go to a direct voting system, then the importance of large cities increases dramatically, as the candidates can completely ignore campaigning in the smaller states in favor of targeting the large cities. Urban concerns would completely override exurban and rural concerns. The number of electoral votes in large states are already important enough without compounding that importance by focusing squarely on population.
Personally, I'd like to see proportional electoral distribution.
Faelar
Personally, I'd like to see proportional electoral distribution.
We have that already. Iowa slipped from eight (8) to seven (7) electoral college votes in the time since I've been able to vote.
We have that already. Iowa slipped from eight (8) to seven (7) electoral college votes in the time since I've been able to vote.
So did Oklahoma
.But I was referring to the system implemented in Maine and Nebraska(?) where EC votes are awarded based on the number of votes each candidate received. So if you're in a state that has 10 EC votes and a candidate wins 70% of the vote, he gets 7 EC votes and the opponent gets 3.
Faelar
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, no journalists have been "picked up" or "investigated" by the DHS, especially for having written dissenting pieces on the administration.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. I wish you weren't.
Here are some links (all include sources), that I picked up with only a couple of minutes of searching:
Journalists investigated. - (1)
I'm reluctant to post this one, since it's on DailyKos, but here it is, none the less(it does seem to provide lots of links, but I don't have time to ensure that all of them actually source the quotes this guy is making): NSA program to spy on journalists/whistleblowers. - (2)
Story about judges jailing journalists for protecting their sources: here. - (3)
Transcripts of some sort of congress critter committee on the DoJ prosecuting journalists for publishing information from whistleblowers: here. - (4)
Obviously, if they ware willing to prosecute some journalists for taking pictures of the administration's corporate masters' buildings(1), they have definitely done so in instances in which it didn't get published. Also, obviously, if said people are hauled off, they have no recourse (remember, no habeas corpus any more, and everything is tried at secret military tribunals) with which to publish their story after they are taken.
(Note for the habeas corpus and tribunal links, this stuff SHOULD be common knowledge, but I post the sources for people that are inevitably going to whine about how it's all some sort of "liberal conspiracy theory" since that's their easiest unthinking defense of such idiocy. The link for tribunals has a link to the text of the actual exec. order at the bottom.)
I seem to remember more stories about this in the past that I've seen, but I can't find them at the moment. The above is plenty of information on the subject though, which definitely shows a precedent for snuffing dissent.
Drew Griffin, a CNN reporter, had trouble flying because his name appeared on the terrorist watch list, but so did every other person flying through the U.S. named Drew Griffin. In addition, I was unable to find any other journalists who had experienced this problem. Some other names that have appeared on the list are Sen. Ted Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Catherine Stevens (wife of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens), tons of infants and small children, a ton of men named Robert Johnson, etc, etc.
I'd say it has more to do with the method of collecting names for the list rather than a game of politically motivated "gotcha!" Yes, the watch list is most likely a huge waste of time and resources, but that doesn't mean it is a mechanism whereby the evil Bush administration punishes its political opponents.
Faelar
I agree with this. Those lists are just ridiculous, but this isn't really what I was referring to when I made the comment. I never said the no-fly lists were used for snuffing dissent. See the above information in my post, which pretty much unequivocally shows you're incorrect about the fact that this stuff DOES take place. The above links are more in like with what I'm talking about.
But I was referring to the system implemented in Maine and Nebraska(?) where EC votes are awarded based on the number of votes each candidate received. So if you're in a state that has 10 EC votes and a candidate wins 70% of the vote, he gets 7 EC votes and the opponent gets 3.
Some states do that, others, not so much. Iowa is an all or nothing state.
KnightsDisciple makes the salient point. New York City itself has a population that is larger than thirty-nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The ten smallest U.S. states combined equal the population of NYC. If you include the entire NYC metropolitan area you're looking at a population larger than the combined populations of the fifteen smallest states. Throw the L.A. and Chicago metropolitan areas into the mix and you're looking at a population greater than the population of half of the smallest U.S. states.
If you go to a direct voting system, then the importance of large cities increases dramatically, as the candidates can completely ignore campaigning in the smaller states in favor of targeting the large cities. Urban concerns would completely override exurban and rural concerns. The number of electoral votes in large states are already important enough without compounding that importance by focusing squarely on population.
Personally, I'd like to see proportional electoral distribution.
Faelar
Ok, I could see that. The proportional weighting of the electoral college (due to the addition of Senators) means that more weight is put on rural populations than equal pops in urban areas, which ensures that they're going to be pandered to. That makes sense.
I guess my perspective, as developed as a registered Democrat in Kansas, is that one voter-one vote is a much more fair way of doing it. I could see concerns about underrepresentation of rural areas, though. My primary contention with the system as it stands is that it disenfranchises voters in slanted states (like Kansas) due to the fact that they won't actually change the outcome with their vote; the state's EVs will still go the same way regardless.
One thing that shows promise is the alliance of states pledging to split their EVs based on the in-state popular vote, should enough states sign up. They're well under the target number of EVs they were requiring for this to happen, but the movement (and it gaining ground at a state level in several places) is good to see.
Some states do that, others, not so much. Iowa is an all or nothing state.
So far it's just Maine and Nebraska, with a few others (New Jersey, New Hampshire I think, maybe Michigan) signed on to do so if a plurality of the electoral votes can be handed out that way. So far, they're pretty far short.
KnightsDisciple makes the salient point. New York City itself has a population that is larger than thirty-nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The ten smallest U.S. states combined equal the population of NYC. If you include the entire NYC metropolitan area you're looking at a population larger than the combined populations of the fifteen smallest states. Throw the L.A. and Chicago metropolitan areas into the mix and you're looking at a population greater than the population of half of the smallest U.S. states.
If you go to a direct voting system, then the importance of large cities increases dramatically, as the candidates can completely ignore campaigning in the smaller states in favor of targeting the large cities. Urban concerns would completely override exurban and rural concerns. The number of electoral votes in large states are already important enough without compounding that importance by focusing squarely on population.
Personally, I'd like to see proportional electoral distribution.
Faelar
I think moving to a proportional electoral distribution would be a a big step in making people feel like their vote matters. As it stands, I have lived in two states where I really didn't think my vote in the presidential election could possibly mean anything.
I do have a visceral reaction that direct voting would be neat and my vote would mean more since I would actually be voting for the president. But I can also see how the electoral college helps in that it gives the smaller states more say. I am a little bit torn and don't have a clear opinion on direct voting.
But African Americans tend to be very socially conservative. And I expect (not in the next ten years, but within the next thirty), the republicans will attract a lot more Black voters as the baby boomer generation dies out.
Well, as an early 30’s Generation X African American I will say that African Americans both are and aren’t socially conservative. African Americans are socially conservative to a degree, because our leadership and community mobilizing points have traditionally come from the Black Churches especially during the Civil Rights Movement. However, consider that African American music from Blues, to Jazz, to Funk, to Rap has always pushed the edges of what the larger society considers decent (with the exception of Black Gospel), and I suspect will continue to in the future despite the protest of some people both White and Black and that is hardly socially conservative. Also, even exempting the music a good number African Americans including the devoutly religious believe in a women’s choice when it comes to abortion and despite some Black Conservative pastors over the years calling for Blacks to make Abortion more of a hot button topic for them this has never happened, and even for most of the Blacks who oppose abortions it has failed to be a primary issue for the majority of them instead of being this holy cause that it is for mainline Religious Right. The last polls show most Blacks are anti-death penalty except for the most extreme cases like serial killers, and even in their religious views Blacks tend to focus more on the parts of the Bible that talk about helping the poor, the sick and the downtrodden, as opposed to punishing gays for example. These views run counter to Conservative thought. This is not to say that there aren't Black conservatives (10-11% of the Black population I believe) or that parts of the conservative agenda don't pervade the entire Black communtiy. Homophobia for example is very big in the Black community. homophobia doesn’t sadly I must openly admit that homophobia in the Black community is one area that we regrettably have in common with the Conservative onslaught. Still, unless the Conservative movement changes its punitive mindset (pushing for stricter laws like that punish people harshly for petty crimes and building more jails/prisons instead of schools), being focused more on abortion and to a lesser degree denying homosexuals marriage rights, instead of beign focused on helping the poor etc, the numbers of Blacks that the Conservative party attracts now and in the future will remain minimal.
Lastly, and just as a point of irony in my own personal experience I have found that Blacks who are deeply religious and socially conservative still vote democrat the majority of the time (both old and young), while my Blacks that aren't socially conservative tend to vote Republican or Libertarian being more focused on their economic and foreign policy philosophies.
Peace,
Fallstorm
Unfortunately, you're wrong. I wish you weren't.
Here are some links (all include sources), that I picked up with only a couple of minutes of searching:
Journalists investigated. - (1)
I'm reluctant to post this one, since it's on DailyKos, but here it is, none the less(it does seem to provide lots of links, but I don't have time to ensure that all of them actually source the quotes this guy is making): NSA program to spy on journalists/whistleblowers. - (2)
Story about judges jailing journalists for protecting their sources: here. - (3)
Transcripts of some sort of congress critter committee on the DoJ prosecuting journalists for publishing information from whistleblowers: here. - (4)
That's the only one you're hesitant to post? Listen, I'm not a Bush apologist by any means, but using Greg Palast as evidence of your assertion is just too much. The entire story is that Palast was filming displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina who were set up near an Exxon-Mobil refinery. He then claims that the DHS filed charges against him but later that day said that DHS had changed its mind on the charges because Exxon-Mobil had "called off the dogs".
Except for the 109th Congress transcript, every single one of those examples are posts by or posts referencing conspiracy theorists. Nothing came of any of these claims. As for the DoJ thing, that was a hearing regarding the proposed "shield law" that would protect reporters from prosecution when they were attempting to protect unnamed sources who had been involved in leaking classified information. Those journalists were prosecuted for contempt of court because they wouldn't reveal sources, which interfered with investigations. In every circumstance, the journalists would have faced no charges or jail time if they had revealed their sources. I'm not saying that journalists shouldn't have a shield law; I'm conflicted on the matter, but in no way are these cases related to the government suppressing dissent by journalists.
(Note for the habeas corpus and tribunal links, this stuff SHOULD be common knowledge, but I post the sources for people that are inevitably going to whine about how it's all some sort of "liberal conspiracy theory" since that's their easiest unthinking defense of such idiocy. The link for tribunals has a link to the text of the actual exec. order at the bottom.)
Ummm...so I guess it slipped your notice that both the habeus restrictions in the MCA and the military tribunal stuff only apply to non-U.S. citizens? Not to mention that the Supreme Court declared the habeus restrictions unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush just a couple of months ago.
These are conspiracy theories. I'm not saying that they are liberal conspiracy theories, but rather they are Bush-hater conspiracy theories. There is no proof for the claims that are made.
Faelar
Ummm...so I guess it slipped your notice that both the habeus restrictions in the MCA and the military tribunal stuff only apply to non-U.S. citizens?
Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. But you can drink the kool-ade all you like, my friend. *shrugs*
Not to mention that the Supreme Court declared the habeus restrictions unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush just a couple of months ago.
Have they been rescinded then? I find this doubtful. Also, you provide no sources. Edit: For the record, I think I already saw this, but I doubt it changes anything. Since when has the Bush administration cared what any other branch had to say about its governance?
As I also noted about skepticism.org (yeah wow, totally conspiracy theory right there, OMGZ) it has a link to the original text of the order. The other link is to Olberman, which is part of the MSM and he references the proper sources, so I also don't see how this is "conspiracy theory". So, your whining really has no basis.
Also, linking to Olberman about Bush is pretty much akin to linking to Chic Tracts about D&D...
Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. But you can drink the kool-ade all you like, my friend. *shrugs*
On Tuesday, November 13th, 2001, President Bush signed an executive order which allows the U.S. government to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism before a special military commission as opposed to trying them in civilian courts. Unfortunately, there is ample precedent for the use of secret and autonomous courts when claims of "national security" are made.
It's in the very first paragraph from your own source.
Have they been rescinded then? I find this doubtful. Also, you provide no sources.
Yes. The MCA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (i.e. the case name of the Supreme Court decision is my source) in a 5-4 majority decision.
As I also noted about SKEPTICAL.org (yeah wow, totally conspiracy theory right there, OMGZ) it has a link to the original text of the order. The other link is to Olberman, which is part of the MSM and he references the proper sources, so I also don't see how this is "conspiracy theory". So, your whining really has no basis.
Yeah, and the order specifies that this applies to non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Not to mention that Olbermann has a tendency to overexaggerate. It's not like they are hauling U.S. citizens off to military tribunals.
Faelar
And now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
And? That doesn't change the fact that he signed that order.... It didn't exclude US citizens either.
It was a good order to sign, and it does exclude US citizens by definiton. US citizens who are acting in such a matter already have laws on the books to deal with them - it's called 'treason and sedition', and most of THOSE laws go back to Wilson and Roosevelt.
So, you're wrong, and still wrong. 0 for 3. Wanna keep playing?
Ummm...so I guess it slipped your notice that both the habeus restrictions in the MCA and the military tribunal stuff only apply to non-U.S. citizens?
As a non-US citizen, I have to ask: Does it matter?
It was a good order to sign, and it does exclude US citizens by definiton. US citizens who are acting in such a matter already have laws on the books to deal with them - it's called 'treason and sedition', and most of THOSE laws go back to Wilson and Roosevelt.
So, you're wrong, and still wrong. 0 for 3. Wanna keep playing?
No, it doesn't. It specifically mentioned broad definitions that could include US citizens. You are arguing that because the definition of "enemy combatant" doesn't inherently include US citizens, that an order allowing the President to declare *anyone* an enemy combatant disallows him to do so for said citizens. The logic there doesn't follow.
As a non-US citizen, I have to ask: Does it matter?
Depends on what you were planning...
No, it doesn't. It specifically mentioned broad definitions that could include US citizens. You are arguing that because the definition of "enemy combatant" doesn't inherently include US citizens, that an order allowing the President to declare *anyone* an enemy combatant disallows him to do so for said citizens. The logic there doesn't follow.
The President's delcaration only applied within limits to his war powers, approved by congress, and deliniated by congress originally in 1941. As such, the terms may only apply to non US Citizens because US Citizens who act for the enemy are already defined under the war powers act.
So, 0 for 4.
The President's delcaration only applied within limits to his war powers, approved by congress, and deliniated by congress originally in 1941. As such, the terms may only apply to non US Citizens because US Citizens who act for the enemy are already defined under the war powers act.
So, 0 for 4.
4 for 0. Since you're assuming that said citizen would have in fact "act[ed] for the enemy", and not just have this order arbitrarily applied to them.
Raloc has become the most wrong person on the internet!
Who would have thought that the event would be here on our own WoTC forums?! Who would have believed that this rookie would rise to such prominence!
Ladies and gentlemen, a huge round of applause for Raloc!
Depends on what you were planning...
And it matters differently to Americans because........?
And it matters differently to Americans because........?
American citizens have different protections in United States law than non-citizens, particularly when we're discussing war powers. I don't know how much more clear I could possibly make this.
American citizens have different protections in United States law than non-citizens, particularly when we're discussing war powers. I don't know how much more clear I could possibly make this.
I know that, you've said it before. I'm asking, does it make any moral difference? Is a law (that doesn't involve getting kicked out of the country) somehow less unfair because it only targets foreigners? You're all acting like the “MCA and the military tribunal stuff ” is horribly wrong and unfair, but that it's defensible because you're protected from it. Since the world is watching, and trying to decide how to react when citizens from other countries disappear, return (sometimes years) later and report being kidnapped and tortured, it's pretty relevant (morally) how the US treats non-US citizens. It's obvious that you don't seem care, but for the tiny minority of people called 'non-US citizens' it would be good to know.
He's done it!
Raloc has become the most wrong person on the internet!
Who would have thought that the event would be here on our own WoTC forums?! Who would have believed that this rookie would rise to such prominence!
Ladies and gentlemen, a huge round of applause for Raloc!
Nah, I think you won that with your "Everyone but are idiots and should die" post in another thread, but meh. Whatever.
I think 200 years ago the electoral college was the only option that made sense. There were no telephones, no way to communicate in a speedy manner what votes were made far apart. Hence you vote locally, send one person to another location with others from around the country and they all vote in one room.
Now we have the technology to count every single vote in the country. I have to wonder if the technology today were available to the founding fathers would they have chosen the same method? I think it is at least worth discussing if it is time to move to a new system. Do you disagree?
Until we can get the voting machines to count correctly, I think we're stuck with the electoral college. I also think that anyone who works for a company that produces the machines cannot contribute funds to any candidate.
Nah, I think you won that with your "Everyone but are idiots and should die" post in another thread, but meh. Whatever.
I never said that.. never even got close. Nor would I.
Wow, are you trying to set a world's record for wrongness? You're the current champ.. do you need to compete with champs past too?
I know that, you've said it before. I'm asking, does it make any moral difference?
Yes. Particularly in a case where you're talking about foriegn enemies who use terrorism to advance their politics. It's a military matter if it's a nation (or military sub-nation) that we happen to be at war with.
If you're a civilian, I got news for you, a terrorist doesn't exactly face a 'nice hotel for life'...
And, lastly, I got news for you, our enemies have NEVER cared about how their own soldiers were treated, or how they treat ours, except for scoring political points.
KnightsDisciple makes the salient point. New York City itself has a population that is larger than thirty-nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The ten smallest U.S. states combined equal the population of NYC. If you include the entire NYC metropolitan area you're looking at a population larger than the combined populations of the fifteen smallest states. Throw the L.A. and Chicago metropolitan areas into the mix and you're looking at a population greater than the population of half of the smallest U.S. states.
If you go to a direct voting system, then the importance of large cities increases dramatically, as the candidates can completely ignore campaigning in the smaller states in favor of targeting the large cities. Urban concerns would completely override exurban and rural concerns. The number of electoral votes in large states are already important enough without compounding that importance by focusing squarely on population.
Personally, I'd like to see proportional electoral distribution.
Faelar
Also, this.
In my opinion, the Maine-Nebraska method would give more meaning to my vote than just a simple direct popular vote. *Shrugs*
Yes. Particularly in a case where you're talking about foriegn enemies who use terrorism to advance their politics.
What about domestic enemies that use terror tactics to advance their political agenda? We give them milk and cookies, right? Or are those the ones we bend over and spread 'em for?
Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
This isn't the first time that John McCain has used D&D playing as an insult, he has repeatedly accused his critics of "playing Dungeons and Dragons in their mother's basement."
That's fine, afterall, it's not like worse hasn't been said about Republicans (and politicians in general). He'll have to try alot harder to insult me.
Well, I'm not the one here advocating torture, now am I?
For the record (again, plz keep up), I'm not advocating its use so much as making provisions for it when it is rarely applicable in times of war. I'm not for nuclear proliferation either, but it was proven the nuking of mainland Japan saved an estimated 1 million American casualities prospectively. Lesser of 2 evils is what I'm saying, and war is definetly evil but often necessary. Same w/ our current election.
It can work (though it doesn't always...alot like political debate ;) ), but only after exhausting all other venues of information extraction and/or research. That is my position. I can't put it any clearer than that.
No one is saying use it at the drop of a hat, that's unethical like the practice itself, but warfare isn't known as a humanitarian institution. You're ex-military, yes? I figured you might be able to understand, not necessarilly agree w/, the compare/contrast, but I was apparently mistaken. Sorry.
I will try and not make any more assumptions concerning your political, military, or social acumen as it's been clearly illustrated in your rapport w/ the other posters here. For what it's worth, you might want to pull back a little in yoru vehemance cuz' it's getting kinda' ugly in here, you know? ie)you can say what you gotta' say w/out resorting to low brow tactics.
However, this particular administration has done more to allow the torture of its own citizens than any previous. Also, I seriously doubt that previous administrations had the Pres/VP/SecDef/SecState personally meet on torture programs and personally advocate many brutal forms of torture, as it's been shown that this administration has.
Truly. There's another reason there's such a high turnover rate in military command and political authority in the Bush administration. Not defending it, why beat a dead horse anyway? He's a lame duck president and poor Cmnd in Chief.
And as for your doubt concerning previous admins meeting for this sort of thing, I'd say it's probably safe to say WWII, Viet Nam and the like, you know, actual real wars (450k+ [WWII] casualties vs. 4k+ [now]), had some unpublicized backroom meets. It's not the same comparison IMO.
But here we are in the information age; everything is documented, every word is scrutinized, everything dissected for good or ill (and largely misconstrued in the process ;) ). This is the same stuff that's always been happening. Actually we were torturing more ppl in the 60's in South & Central America, Viet Nam, and so on. McCarthyism, another injustice prior didn't help either. We're just hearing about it more now because of the super high degree of connectivity and flow of info. If anything, I'd venture there is probably less torture knowing there are better avenues of intelligence gathering and we're so terribly suspect these days.
But it matters as to what you consider torture and a military action vs. a police action. I'll leave that to the Geneva Convention I guess.
Obama is just a better front man than McCain, IMO. He voted for FISA, i.e., allowing the President to declare any entity exempt from all laws indefinitely.
Damn, really? That's kinda' scary to me. Not shocking, but here we are...
Torture does not provide reliable information.
This is not always true. Many many times troop positions, relative strength, anticipated attacks and so on have been garnered through its use. Not saying it's right, but it can work at times. I want the option available, albeit, a final one though. Not 100%, but nothing is. If other options don't work, and lives are at stake, more importantly, people you know in love, what would you do? I guess it's how close to home you like to get.
You will admit to anything under torture, even if it isn't true, and probably won't even provide the real information if you have it, since it's easier to just agree with whatever your torturer is accusing you of.
This is false. There are a million variables you have conveniently left out, namely the skill of the torturer, the implements thereof (psychological, verbal, physical), medical aid, the known/unknown intel that will guide the interrogation process, what's at stake, perceived threat vs. a real one, etc. Only when you have taken stock of the entirety of the situation, moral implications, personel, and so on can you then make even remotely accurate assumptions concerning any action, torture or otherwise.
To paraphrase Nice Guy Eddy, "If you beat on him long enough he'll tell you he started the Chicago fire..." Yeah, you'll say anything sometimes. These guys (Resevoire Dogs) weren't exactly skilled artists of information extraction now, were they? They were thugs, desperate, and undisciplined. That's a formula for a bad session that goes nowhere.
It's a science these days, not like the hot brands & iron maidens of yore. W/ enough sodium penathol and removing enough protein from your diet I could probably get what I wanted from you w/out breaking any bones...if I have enough time. If I don't, a gun to the head might work. It might not, but you don't know if you don't try, right? It's all relative, much like pain. Immoral, yes, but relative. If you want results, you do it right, not 1/2 assed.
Torture is torture is torture. The redefinition of certain forms of it for political purposes does not make it "not torture" despite what you might think. Keep in mind, people were hung (by the US gov) for much less than what they are currently using.
Is that like "war is war is war"? Plz remember, nuclear, biological, chemical, psychological, conventional, civil, and so on. Some are more humane than others. Like many methods of information retrieval and/or torture. It isn't all blood and gore despite the sensationalism of today to levy uninformed opinions, both pro and con on.
Your willingness to pigeonhole a moral issue into the simplest of terms robs it of the credibility that it needs. You can't just say "this" or "that". It doesn't work that way. Well, not in real world anyway. There is alot of grey area in this evil here. Polarizing isn't helping it so much as one's ego in an "I'm right, you're wrong" scenario, which is, in itself, self-indulgent.
Less evil still equals evil. It is unethical to advocate this in any form, regardless. Again with the specious argument that has been debunked countless times by intelligence officials themselves. Torture does not provide reliable intel. There are MUCH better ways of getting intel than torture.
Again...
Yes, it's unenthical, I'm not arguing that. Most combat and war is though. And if it were wholly debunked, they wouldn't waste military resources on doing it then. Why risk a media debacle and loss of face for nothing? It can work, it's just not always the best way of getting the intel you want. I never said otherwise, do not claim to speak for me, I don't for you.
This is why I kept pushing the bolstering of the intelligence community. If we have the ways and means of acquiring political, tactical, and other sensitive intel before hand through espionage, satellite photos, whatever, then we are less likely to have to use torture as a last resort to get it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I agree. However, your implication that "Oh if they had just TORTURED MORE PEOPLE it never would have happened!" is also inherently flawed and (no offense) retarded. By your own admission, they already possessed the required intel and ignored it. Torturing someone would not have changed this fact.
Again, you keep missing the boat...one of these days, you're gonna' drown.
I NEVER said i"f they just tortured more people"...or even implied it. You did and I find that offensive, not your (no offense) shot at mental retardation. I'd quit w/ the invisible proclamations or at least digest the material first.
Maybe they should have made a habit of not ignoring the intel they received. Again, what does this have to do with your message of "YAY FOR TORTURE! TORTURE EVERYONE!"
I didn't say that (your knack for inventing falsehoods makes me sad). I said, many times now, if you have a properly funded and managed intelligence community, you won't need torture or harsh interrogation methods, or at lesat as often. I'm not pro torture, I'm pro intelligence. But when you hamstring your intelligence resources they'll resort to torture more often to pick up the slack. Pay attention, stop making sh-t up that was never said. Fabrications are not helping your position, they only hurt your credibility.
I'm not sure if Zarkhawi is the guy, but at least one of the supposed "high level" people they were torturing was shown by (either the FBI or CIA, I forget which, I think it was FBI) to be a complete LOON and to really have had nothing much to do with most inner workings of what was going on.
Great, 1 guy. When you have a larger population of jihadist murderers, not soldiers mind you, get back to me or forward the reply to the Pentagon...
It's alot like busting drug rings. You catch a small fish, put enough pressure on him, he rolls over, and work your way up the food chain, hence Zarkhawi, several Taliban top aids, and a Hell of alot of insurgents in the Iraqi theatre. Many of these are seriously depraved kilers, hijacking a perfectly good religion under political ulterior motives, and sowing chaos among their own ppl.
You torture someone, and they will tell you whatever you want to hear, not real info. If you torture some guy and tell him "We know you're the Queen of England" he's eventually going to agree to that and admit it. The same thing applies with "Tell us where the terrorists are!" or "We know you work with Al-Qaeda!" That doesn't mean his admission is factual.
This was covered previously. Reiterating an opinion doesn't negate a faslehood necessarilly. Right tool for the right job. You don't just beat a man and expect answers. You can torture w/ trickery and honeyed words too, not just some grunt in the field w/ an axe to grind. Many flavors thereof.
Seriously, go look it up. Our own agencies and the ones you mention below all note that they receive very little to NO reliable intel from torture.
Then you won't mind supplying us w/ some relevant data then, yes?
I hear alot of big talk here, but I'm not seeing much, save for bluster. I tend to cast my lot w/ the experts on the matter, namely the Dept. of Defense and mililtary history at large. True, it won't always yield the results you want, but it depends on your MO, the subject, what you want, etc. If it never worked, they wouldn't have refined it or continue it's use in the modern world.
The reason torture is being pushed by this administration (onto US citizens no less) has very little to do with intel and very much to do with their ideology and repressing dissent WITHIN the country.
Wow...tell me about the moon landing next or Bigfoot.
I'd say media manipulation/propaganda has more sway at repressing dissent than randomly torturing US citizens as you say. The American people would never stand for the torture of their own citizenry. The notion is laughable.
I suppose since you agree with torture, you probably also agree with the concept of using civilians of the embattled country as "comfort women"? Because that's just as despicable as the position you're advocating.
You're really struggling here aren't you.
And no, don't make any more far fetched implications to suit your fledgling arguement. I'm well versed in what happened to the Ainu of Japan, Chinese, and so forth. Barbaric to be sure. What's your point? I don't agree w/ torture, simply understand it better than you and the methodology. This has nothing to do w/ it; I find it odd you can find a link that isn't even related to my OPINION drawn from a pie-in-the-sky hunch to assassinate my character (dick move by the way, reported) and provide no links to the meat and potatos of the argument. Nothing from Amnesty International, POW links, nothing. I mean, damn...it's not lookin' too good, you know?
I'd argue that any administration that is willing to kill untold thousands and bankrupt their own country definitely qualify as terrorists. Also, terrorists don't necessarily have to be usurpers.
That's like every country on earth that's ever been in a large scale war. We were already in debt (beyond broke) too. Narrow your search pattern, you're not hitting upon anything relevant here.
Oh, but according to the directly above, if they aren't "stateless" and were elected (like Hezbollah was) they can't be terrorists. Stop contradicting yourself.
Wtf are you talking about? I simply postulated a few posts back most terrorist organizations were stateless. This being the case and lacking the full resources and extraterritoriality of a sovereign nation, they typically break w/ the Geneva Convention and fight on their terms.
I'm sorry dude, but this is just stupid. Please do yourself a favor and actually educate yourself on this, instead of swallowing the government line of "Torture allows us to make the scary terrasts go away!"
Okay, "dude"
...I could only stress education on your end as well, or at least a modicum of civility and etiquette as your posts and other members suggest you are lacking.
No one ever said, "Torture allows us to make the scary terrasts go away!" You attempt at simplifying and arguement to elevate your own needs polishing. Either that or stop lying...your choice.
Wtf are you talking about? I simply postulated a few posts back most terrorist organizations were stateless. This being the case and lacking the full resources and extraterritoriality of a sovereign nation, they typically break w/ the Geneva Convention and fight on their terms.
If they are stateless and not covered under the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't international and national Civil law be appropriate? I don't recall the American system of justice having torture as a tool for interrogating prisoners.
Just because an enemy doesn't belong to a country that signed the Geneva Conventions doesn't mean we as a nation should just disregard them. It's called morality. If we accord them the same dignity and respect that we expect for our own people or the soldiers of a nation that we are at war with, then we've held to the principles and morals that do make this a great nation.
The mere fact that we're having this discussion means that terrorists have indeed altered our way of life through their actions. Now, the question is, do you feel that it's made us better or worse?
Also, this.
In my opinion, the Maine-Nebraska method would give more meaning to my vote than just a simple direct popular vote. *Shrugs*
I do see your point regarding representation. I was viewing this from a "States Rights" point of view, which I think is becoming less of a real issue in the modern era. But it is a good point about being heard by the presidential candidates if their focus changed to the highest population density in a popular vote.
I would like all states to adopt the proportional electoral vote method, though. In the past when I have found myself agreeing with a non-Democratic candidate I feel my vote is wasted. It is disheartening and gives me very little reason to want to get out to the polls.
It does make it a little easier for me to vote independant since I know I won't be stealing a vote away in a closely contested race.
I think the proportional method would be a could compromise between the electoral college and a popular vote.
For the record (again, plz keep up), I'm not advocating its use so much as making provisions for it when it is rarely applicable in times of war. I'm not for nuclear proliferation either, but it was proven the nuking of mainland Japan saved an estimated 1 million American casualities prospectively. Lesser of 2 evils is what I'm saying, and war is definetly evil but often necessary. Same w/ our current election.
Excuse me, proven? By whom? Many historians may "prove" that the USSR operations in Asia were the reason the Japanese were so keen to surrender to the US.There are probably other opinions as well. Unless someone has been able to mind-read the Japanese government and general staff, what you are stating is a theory - likely, but also convenient and thus widely circulated. Oh, and that estimated million came from Truman, who after the war said he was advised that an invasion may have cause casualties between 250 thousand and a million. Possible - but considering the part Truman played in the bombing and the post-war realization of just WHAT a nuke could do, it doesn't make him a very objective source.
As for the rewriting of the Geneva Conventions, all the stuff about "enemy combatants" is a ton of bull imo. Just because you are a civilian and commit crimes - especially against an army - does not mean you are off the hook. Terrorism, maraudery, and abuse of the populace are all crimes for which BOTH PoWs and civilians can be punished, including by death. The only qualifications are that their crimes need to be proven objectively and neither should be punished arbitrarily. You'd have thought that that would be pretty obvious, you know, and I bet something to this effect is probably written in the US military code anyway. The fact that people spent years in Gitmo and elsewhere not even being officially accused is something that should - and does - shame everyone involved.
As for torture, I'd hazard a guess - it was often used not so much for military intelligence, but for statements that supported a certain policy. I believe some of the "intelligence" used to justify the Iraq war was collected like that. The only thing it saves was the bums of a few people higher up and their lackeys. Bringing it all back to McCain, his opposition to torture (if conditional) was one of the reasons I had a measure of respect for him as a politician - before he sold out what principles he had to get a few more votes.
It can work (though it doesn't always...alot like political debate ;) ), but only after exhausting all other venues of information extraction and/or research. That is my position. I can't put it any clearer than that.
OK, Lets assume that torture does work, (it doesn't but lets run with it anyway.)
There are lots of things that work to solve a situation, but leave you in a worse place. A shotgun will cure your headache; amputation will cure bunions; murder can cure your alimony payments; and a lobotomy will cure your mindless yap flappin'. I can only recommend 3 of these 4 solutions.
Can you see why perchance even if torture were proven to work with 100% effectiveness, we might still want to avoid it?
OK, Lets assume that torture does work, (it doesn't but lets run with it anyway.)
Limited torture has been shown to work in immediate situations, where you're trying to get direct-action information. Sustained torture and trying to get more 'long term' information has been shown to generally fail.
Limited torture has been shown to work in immediate situations, where you're trying to get direct-action information. Sustained torture and trying to get more 'long term' information has been shown to generally fail.
Can you expand on this please? I don't totally understand. Give a couple of examples if necessary. From my understanding, torture has been shown to be ineffective to the point of being undesirable. There are better methods available. I also think that we may need to define a bit what constitutes torture so I can understand where you are coming from a bit more.
He's done it!
Raloc has become the most wrong person on the internet!
Who would have thought that the event would be here on our own WoTC forums?! Who would have believed that this rookie would rise to such prominence!
Ladies and gentlemen, a huge round of applause for Raloc!
If you think Raloc is the "most wrong person on the internet," then clearly you are a n00b to the internet.
-1 internets for you.
Can you expand on this please? I don't totally understand. Give a couple of examples if necessary. From my understanding, torture has been shown to be ineffective to the point of being undesirable. There are better methods available. I also think that we may need to define a bit what constitutes torture so I can understand where you are coming from a bit more.
Immediate torture would be like, you've grabbed a guy in the 'hot zone' and knock him around abit to get him to tell you where the bombs he planted are. That is likely to work, since the torture, threat, and type of information desired is immediate. Generally, in this case, you're looking for immediate tactical information.
Anything past that, and it starts to fail rapidly. Prolonged torture shows the victim will simply have the victim say 'anything' to get a temporary cessation of the torture. Also, the farther removed from the immediate threat, the less useful even ACCURATE information would be. This has been used for either strategic or political information/propoganda, and is generally considered useless.
It's not inconsistent at all. Democrats aren't pro-abortion in the sense that Republicans are pro-killing convicted criminals. Democrats simply feel that it's something that should always be an option..
And republicans feel execution should always be an option. Thus they are pro-death penalty, and Dems remain pro-Abortion.
Nobody's going around handing out pills and telling mothers they should be killing every fetus. But if abortion isn't an option in the cases where it's needed, then we as a society have failed..
Actually I saw a billboard near the town I live for "women's health clinic" that was showed an image of a frightened pregnant teenager and said "you have options". This was clearly an advertisment for an abortion, since the place in question doesn't ahndle adoptions.
Why have we failed if abortion isn't an option? What is wrong with not allowing mothers to kill their babies? We don't let people kill themselves, so why should a women be able to kill something inside of her body?
Abortion means sex without consquences. In life if you have sex you should be the one to foot the bill. We have laws in place that force men to pay child support when they have sex and produce a child. But we allow women to evade responsibility by having an abortion. This is a life. A woman has no right to kill life, even if it is life she nurtures inside her.
"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." - Bill Clinton...
Rare? There were estimated to be over one million abortions in the US in 2003 alone. And 20% of all pregnancies are estimated to end in abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf).
"Dems aren't actively pushing for more abortions, they're just trying to maintain a woman's right to be more than an ovary with legs. They should have control over whether they should have a child. Period.
People don't have the right to kill. Only in self defense do we allow people to kill another human being. A woman is not an ovary with legs, this is true, but by the same token a baby is more than just a gestating parasite. It is a life that deserves equal protection under the law. One good thing that came of the fiasco that was the Bush white house, is we may see the end of Roe V Wade thanks to the judges he put on the bench.
One good thing that came of the fiasco that was the Bush white house, is we may see the end of Roe V Wade thanks to the judges he put on the bench.
No, you won't. The decision was made, case closed. That's how the supreme court works, you don't get another shot, once you blow it in the high court, you have no other court to appeal to. The Supreme court is just that, Supreme, there is no higher court to appeal a case to.
And get this, Roe vs Wade is the benchmark that future legislation on the issue will be judged by, so it's unlikely that future laws will slide through because of the slime the current occupant of the white smeared on the Supreme court.
Immediate torture would be like, you've grabbed a guy in the 'hot zone' and knock him around abit to get him to tell you where the bombs he planted are. That is likely to work, since the torture, threat, and type of information desired is immediate. Generally, in this case, you're looking for immediate tactical information.
Anything past that, and it starts to fail rapidly. Prolonged torture shows the victim will simply have the victim say 'anything' to get a temporary cessation of the torture. Also, the farther removed from the immediate threat, the less useful even ACCURATE information would be. This has been used for either strategic or political information/propoganda, and is generally considered useless.
I thought that's what you meant but I wasn't sure. I think the type of person being tortured also plays a role. Someone who is willing to blow himself up is probably not worried about being threatened. He's probably going to paradise either way.
No, you won't. The decision was made, case closed. That's how the supreme court works, you don't get another shot, once you blow it in the high court, you have no other court to appeal to. The Supreme court is just that, Supreme, there is no higher court to appeal a case to.
And get this, Roe vs Wade is the benchmark that future legislation on the issue will be judged by, so it's unlikely that future laws will slide through because of the slime the current occupant of the white smeared on the Supreme court.
Wrong.
The Supreme Court may be the highest court, but it has rejudged cases before, and will again.
I thought that's what you meant but I wasn't sure. I think the type of person being tortured also plays a role. Someone who is willing to blow himself up is probably not worried about being threatened. He's probably going to paradise either way.
Not really true, oddly enough. A lot of these 'suicidal terrorists', when captured before they can commit their act, have proven to be decidedly cowardly. I think they're so fixated on their 'martyrdom' that anything else just scares the crap out of them.
And republicans feel execution should always be an option. Thus they are pro-death penalty, and Dems remain pro-Abortion.
I don't know any democrats that are pro-abortion. All the ones I know of are pro-choice. I know many of them would rather the mother look at other options before jumping to abortion. I don't know of any that believe abortion should be the first and only option.
That's different from many republicans (and democrats for that matter) who feel that the death penalty is the only choice in some cases. The evidence is in that the death penalty simply does not do anything other than exact revenge. It isn't cheaper. It doesn't curb capital crimes. Worse, innocent people have been convicted. Supporting the death penalty and supporting a woman's right to choose are not really comparable.
Actually I saw a billboard near the town I live for "women's health clinic" that was showed an image of a frightened pregnant teenager and said "you have options". This was clearly an advertisment for an abortion, since the place in question doesn't ahndle adoptions.
That doesn't mean that the staff doesn't discuss adoption before going to abortion. The staff may actually discuss options on how to care for the child. Nothing in that billboard suggests that they start with abortion. Remember that the term is Pro-Choice. There are options.
Why have we failed if abortion isn't an option? What is wrong with not allowing mothers to kill their babies? We don't let people kill themselves, so why should a women be able to kill something inside of her body?
First, during the period when they would normally have the abortion it's not a baby yet. Second, we try to intervene when people attempt suicide because they feel they are out of options (there's that term again). There is a difference between a developed human and a zygote or embryo.
Abortion means sex without consquences. In life if you have sex you should be the one to foot the bill. We have laws in place that force men to pay child support when they have sex and produce a child. But we allow women to evade responsibility by having an abortion. This is a life. A woman has no right to kill life, even if it is life she nurtures inside her.
So you are saying that the woman should carry the child to term even if she can't afford to care for that child. She should give birth even though she isn't ready to be a parent. There is a significant difference between being old enough to do the deed and being old enough to provide emotionally and financially for a child. It would be nice if teenagers made 100% informed decisions but honestly we know better. We can't even get adults to do that. What about cases where the woman didn't have a choice? What about cases where the woman realizes that she made a mistake? Why should one mistake control the rest of her life when she has a choice? Why should the man, who may not want the child either, be subject to pay for it? What if he was under the assumption that she was on the pill and he used protection as well but something went wrong? What about all those teenagers that think there are other forms of birth control (mountain dew, or these 10 myths). I'm sure you have heard plenty in your day as well. Many of these are taught by abstinence only programs. So people who have been given wrong information should then be subject to having to pay for it the rest of their lives?
Rare? There were estimated to be over one million abortions in the US in 2003 alone. And 20% of all pregnancies are estimated to end in abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf).
According to AGI it's closer to 15% which is higher than the CDC reports. You can find plenty of information here. I agree that 15% isn't rare either though. I don't know where the cut off is for "rare" but I'm willing to bet it's much lower than 15-20%.
People don't have the right to kill. Only in self defense do we allow people to kill another human being. A woman is not an ovary with legs, this is true, but by the same token a baby is more than just a gestating parasite. It is a life that deserves equal protection under the law. One good thing that came of the fiasco that was the Bush white house, is we may see the end of Roe V Wade thanks to the judges he put on the bench.
It is highly unlikely that we will see Roe v Wade overturned. The few times it has been reviewed the Supreme Court maintained its decision. Their current decision is pretty well informed and it is unlikely that there will be new medical information anytime soon. The Supreme Court tries to avoid legislating morality. Medically, there is nothing wrong with abortion when done in the first 20 or so weeks with professional medical assistance.
No, you won't. The decision was made, case closed. That's how the supreme court works, you don't get another shot, once you blow it in the high court, you have no other court to appeal to. The Supreme court is just that, Supreme, there is no higher court to appeal a case to.
And get this, Roe vs Wade is the benchmark that future legislation on the issue will be judged by, so it's unlikely that future laws will slide through because of the slime the current occupant of the white smeared on the Supreme court.
The Supreme Court has revisited cases before. Check out the death penalty for a great, controversial example.
Not really true, oddly enough. A lot of these 'suicidal terrorists', when captured before they can commit their act, have proven to be decidedly cowardly. I think they're so fixated on their 'martyrdom' that anything else just scares the crap out of them.
Maybe. I have a hard time justifying torture in any case. Its even worse when we are torturing someone for information when we haven't even proved that he or she is even connected to the crime. From what I understand, not everyone in Guantanamo Bay is known to be guilty (we've even let some go because we couldn't determine their guilt) and yet they have still been subject to things I would consider torture (waterboarding for example).
It is highly unlikely that we will see Roe v Wade overturned. The few times it has been reviewed the Supreme Court maintained its decision. Their current decision is pretty well informed and it is unlikely that there will be new medical information anytime soon. The Supreme Court tries to avoid legislating morality. Medically, there is nothing wrong with abortion when done in the first 20 or so weeks with professional medical assistance.
Actually, the Surpreme Court has never actually reaffirmed Roe V Wade, but has instead 'punted' on the cases that would invoke it. It's a hot-button issue that even that court is afraid to touch. (Nevermind that RVW also gave extra-judiciary power to the judiciary...)
It does seem more and more likely that when the court does rehear it, it will get overturned. But it won't be for the reasons that anyone honestly expects. Roe V Wade is actually just bad law (remember, Supreme Court cases are Constitutionally based), and was blatantly politically motivated.
Now, when RVW is overturned, what would actually happen? States would handle it on a state-to-state basis. I don't think this is going to be nearly as dramatic as has been made out. There will be some states that will outlaw abortions, but I think most will look at more reasonable restrictions and find more rational approaches to the issues involved.
Roe V Wade is actually just bad law (remember, Supreme Court cases are Constitutionally based), and was blatantly politically motivated.
Explain.
Limited torture has been shown to work in immediate situations, where you're trying to get direct-action information. Sustained torture and trying to get more 'long term' information has been shown to generally fail.
So what kind of torture were they using at Gitmo? Abu-Grahib? Rendition sites?
Also, you just ignored the rest of the argument that even if it is effective it is maybe something we shouldn't do.
Anyway, serious question here. Where have we used this "immediate torture", and when has it been proven effective? And how do we know that torture is what made the interrogation successful?
Maybe. I have a hard time justifying torture in any case. Its even worse when we are torturing someone for information when we haven't even proved that he or she is even connected to the crime. From what I understand, not everyone in Guantanamo Bay is known to be guilty (we've even let some go because we couldn't determine their guilt) and yet they have still been subject to things I would consider torture (waterboarding for example).
Well, keep in mind that the demonization of Gitmo has very little to do with what actually occurs there and more just 'Anti-Bush Derangement Syndrome'. The UN continually watches over Gitmo, and everything there is documented. There were few cases of waterboarding done there, and were done within the 'tactical period' that I described above.
Remember too that Gitmo contains battlefield detainees, not civilian-style criminals. It's a difference that's been overly downplayed time and time again, but it's a KEY difference. These were not guys picked up randomly in the streets of Kabul. These were guys picked up among enemy positions during live firefights.
Now, is it right or wrong? Tougher call. Waterboarding doesn't actually harm the suspect, so the definition of 'torture' in that case is iffy at best. But it is something that has ethical issues, particularly if it's used in cases that are clearly just malicious. So far, with the world literally watching, this doesn't seem to have been the case.
Explain.
Okay. Roe V Wade is based around a 'right to privacy' precedent. That is, it's based around the idea that the Constitution grants an expected right to privacy that trumps criminal law. There is no such clause, of course, in the Constitution. So how did RVW come to use this?
Roe V Wade was actually based on a previous sodomy case, whose name that I forget (unfortunately), where it was determined that the Texas legislature had no innate right to criminilize the act of sodomy between consenting adults. The court decided again that a 'right to privacy' trumped criminal law.
That's why it's bad law, since no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, which is key here, would say that a 'right to privacy' could override a state's criminal statutes. If challenged on the merits of that decision, then RVW very quickly falls apart.
So what kind of torture were they using at Gitmo? Abu-Grahib? Rendition sites?
There was no evidence ever found of actual torture at Gitmo. Documents revealed only a handful of instances of waterboarding.
Abu-Garhib was criminal, and there were many convictions accordingly, though I personally believe that the people responsible for the torture there (and yes, it WAS torture) should have been executed by firing squad. Those stunts cost us two years on the battlefield due to the political backfire, and many lives.
Anyway, serious question here. Where have we used this "immediate torture", and when has it been proven effective? And how do we know that torture is what made the interrogation successful?
Again, you confuse my explanation for it as carte blanche acceptance of it. I never granted that. I said only that in some limited cases a small amount of torture could result in immediate results. I do not feel, barring an extreme circumstance, that it's usually justified.
The UN continually watches over Gitmo, and everything there is documented.
Ok, that one I want to see real-life documentation. Not some blog from the Free Republic.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the UN is not allowed on US military bases without explicit permission. Those prisoners are not POWs from a war and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, therefore do not have to have access to a UN representative as outlined in the Geneva Conventions. They are not criminals and therefore do not have the same rights as accused criminals under intrnational law. The closest description that you could apply would be political prisoner and those aren't covered by the UN.
Go check with Amnesty International, I'm sure they have every possible bit of documentation that you'll be looking for. Well, any that exists. When it comes to Gitmo, that's not so much something the government is too willing to give out.
That's why it's bad law, since no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, which is key here, would say that a 'right to privacy' could override a state's criminal statutes. If challenged on the merits of that decision, then RVW very quickly falls apart.
First, "reasonable" is subjective. I personally can't find a "reasonable" interpretation of the Constitution that allows for control of a woman's uterus to be subverted by the state.
Second, the right to privacy is an implicit protection afforded to Americans by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st, 4th and tangentially the 9th amendments. The government has no right to censor or restrict speech, belief or thought, and monitoring those things carries with it an implied threat of restriction. Thereby, the government has no right to enter houses without warning, spy on it's citizens or require declaration of pregnancy.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the UN is not allowed on US military bases without explicit permission.
They were granted explicit permission from the US Congress two years ago, bub. That's what you haven't heard crap about Gitmo since then. The UN couldn't back the Kossack narrative.
Go check with Amnesty International, I'm sure they have every possible bit of documentation that you'll be looking for. Well, any that exists. When it comes to Gitmo, that's not so much something the government is too willing to give out.
Amnesty International exists primarily to bash Jews. I give them no ear.
It is highly unlikely that we will see Roe v Wade overturned. The few times it has been reviewed the Supreme Court maintained its decision. Their current decision is pretty well informed and it is unlikely that there will be new medical information anytime soon. The Supreme Court tries to avoid legislating morality. Medically, there is nothing wrong with abortion when done in the first 20 or so weeks with professional medical assistance.
Given the current occupants of the supreme court. I would say it is likely, especially if John McCain wins.
A 20 week old fetus is basically a baby.
First, "reasonable" is subjective. I personally can't find a "reasonable" interpretation of the Constitution that allows for control of a woman's uterus to be subverted by the state.
Except that at some point the uterus is carrying another person? That's the whole debate about abortion, after all.
Second, the right to privacy is an implicit protection afforded to Americans by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st, 4th and tangentially the 9th amendments.
Actually, the 1st amendment is the direct opposite of privacy since it explicitly protects public expression. The forth amendment requires probabe cause for warrants against search and seizure, which is a stretch about privacy and doesn't apply here. The ninth amendment is open-ended to recognize rights in general are not curtailed simply because they're not mentioned.
So.. yes.. it's bad law. Whether or not you agree with the intention of the law, it is not constitutionally based.
Well, keep in mind that the demonization of Gitmo has very little to do with what actually occurs there and more just 'Anti-Bush Derangement Syndrome'. The UN continually watches over Gitmo, and everything there is documented. There were few cases of waterboarding done there, and were done within the 'tactical period' that I described above.
Remember too that Gitmo contains battlefield detainees, not civilian-style criminals. It's a difference that's been overly downplayed time and time again, but it's a KEY difference. These were not guys picked up randomly in the streets of Kabul. These were guys picked up among enemy positions during live firefights.
Now, is it right or wrong? Tougher call. Waterboarding doesn't actually harm the suspect, so the definition of 'torture' in that case is iffy at best. But it is something that has ethical issues, particularly if it's used in cases that are clearly just malicious. So far, with the world literally watching, this doesn't seem to have been the case.
Bullhockeypucks. Yes some of them were picked up on the battlefield and meant us nast harm, but far too many of the Gitmo prisoners were picked up in Afghanistan 'cause they let their goats graze in their neighbor yard, and that neighbor wanted revenge with a side of cash payment in American dollars. I mean seriously, even the US Military is releasing folks from Gitmo in droves. But it took the Supreme Court and lots of brave people to stand up to this crime. And when they did all of a sudden people were no longer "enemy combatants." Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Since the beginning of the current war in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge, with only one prisoner, David Hicks, being convicted of a crime.[9] As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[10] More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers. Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. On February 9, 2008, it was reported that 6 of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility would be tried for conspiracy in the September 11, 2001 attacks.[11] In May 2008, the Pentagon claimed that 36 former Guantanamo inmates were "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism"[12]
And please do not dismiss the issues someone has with Gitmo or torture as 'Anti-Bush'. You can say it all you want but it is just a disingenuous marketing sound byte, that makes you look like a rubber-stamping automaton Bush yes man. And is a ham handed attempt to draw the argument away from the real issue. If a person has a real defense to the criticisms you surely don't need to sulk and claim that everyone is out to get you? This issue stands or falls on its own, not on anyones opinion of Bush.
Call me an idealist, I still believe in the freedoms this country was founded on. This is what angers me about Gitmo. It is not some knee jerk reaction to Bush (as God awful as he is.) Gitmo is an unamerican travesty that will blight our nation for generations. When we were challenged, in what could have been our finest hour, we reverted to base instincts and bullying. And in doing so, we lost the support of the world, and played right into the terrorist hands.
Again, you confuse my explanation for it as carte blanche acceptance of it. I never granted that. I said only that in some limited cases a small amount of torture could result in immediate results. I do not feel, barring an extreme circumstance, that it's usually justified.
No I have done no such thing. I am merely insisting that extraordinary measures require extraordinary proof of efficacy as well as little to no long term consequences. And I don't believe that torture can ever reach those standards - but I am open to seeing some proof - extraordinary proof with specific documented examples. If you can't be objective about the cost benefit analysis, and the act has dire consequences, then the default should be to not do that act. (Here's the great irony, as a conservative myself, I am always amazed at how I have to reiterate this core tenant of conservatism to those who claim to be conservative.)
TFVanguard on a roll,
I have to agree. He is going full steam.
Bullhockeypucks. Yes some of them were picked up on the battlefield and meant us nast harm, but far too many of the Gitmo prisoners were picked up in Afghanistan 'cause they let their goats graze in their neighbor yard, and that neighbor wanted revenge with a side of cash payment in American dollars.
Actually, no. If that were true then Cuba would have a majority Muslim population. Most of the 'reported taliban' arrests were kept in Afghanistan. All of the detainees at Gitmo were either found on the battlefield, or were explicitly leaders of Taliban forces.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
And surprise, many of those turned over and released were arrested or killed on the battlefield later. Oops! Looks like maybe those 'innocent people' weren't nearly so innocent. Funny, that.
So, are we just going to go in circles on this issue? It will save me a lot of time and effort if you just say "I hate Bush, and won't believe anything that isn't absolutely negative about the United States while he's President."
Because, frankly, that's how your posts look.
Call me an idealist, I still believe in the freedoms this country was founded on.
Did you miss the point where I called for the death penalty for the perpitrators of Abu Gharib for the ultimate violation of those freedoms?
I have to agree. He is going full steam.
Straight into a brick wall, apparently.
Straight into a brick wall, apparently.
How so?
Did you miss the point where I called for the death penalty for the perpitrators of Abu Gharib for the ultimate violation of those freedoms?
I believe "let the punishment fit the crime" would apply. The death penalty is too harsh for what they've done. They didn't kill anyone, but some form of punishment is appropriate. I believe depriving someone of their civil rights carries a ten (10) year sentence in the US.
I believe "let the punishment fit the crime" would apply. The death penalty is too harsh for what they've done. They didn't kill anyone, but some form of punishment is appropriate. I believe depriving someone of their civil rights carries a ten (10) year sentence in the US.
I cannot speak for him, but want's wrong with feeling strongly about taking away someones freedom? Although I do agree, that may be a bit harsh.
I believe "let the punishment fit the crime" would apply. The death penalty is too harsh for what they've done. They didn't kill anyone, but some form of punishment is appropriate. I believe depriving someone of their civil rights carries a ten (10) year sentence in the US.
In isolation as a civilian thing, maybe. But their actions, including sending photographs to relatives to brag about it, in order to get sexual gratification from their captives... I dunno, seems to me that multiple counts of sexual assault, along with exploitation... My threshold for the death penalty is pretty high, but they passed it for me.
To say nothing that their actions undermined the entire war effort (Abu Gharib marked the end of the war's popular support both here and with Iraqi citizens) and cost us two years of effort, and all the lives therein.
It may sound extreme, but I still think that a firing squad for those involved and their pathetic commander would have been just. At the very least, it would have shown Iraq how serious we were about our own sense of justice.
Excuse me, proven? By whom? Many historians may "prove" that the USSR operations in Asia were the reason the Japanese were so keen to surrender to the US.There are probably other opinions as well. Unless someone has been able to mind-read the Japanese government and general staff, what you are stating is a theory - likely, but also convenient and thus widely circulated. Oh, and that estimated million came from Truman, who after the war said he was advised that an invasion may have cause casualties between 250 thousand and a million. Possible - but considering the part Truman played in the bombing and the post-war realization of just WHAT a nuke could do, it doesn't make him a very objective source.
My suspicion is that nukes were dropped in Japan more as a warning to the USSR against further expansion in Europe rather than as a way to end the war with Japan. We most likely never would have to have invaded Japan, but could instead have maintained an embargo against them until they surrendered. I think Truman used the invasion estimates as a realpolitik justification for showing the USSR just what we were capable of and willing to do to stop them from advancing further.
Faelar
My suspicion is that nukes were dropped in Japan more as a warning to the USSR against further expansion in Europe rather than as a way to end the war with Japan. We most likely never would have to have invaded Japan, but could instead have maintained an embargo against them until they surrendered. I think Truman used the invasion estimates as a realpolitik justification for showing the USSR just what we were capable of and willing to do to stop them from advancing further.
You're only partially right. Remember that the USSR declared war on Japan and started taking the islands to the north as well as lands in north China. Japan was still defiant about surrender, but it was an imperitive that the Soviet Union not take any more Japanese land.
The A-Bombs were a deseperate ploy not just to get the Japanese to surrender with minimal American (and, for that matter, Japanese) lives lost, to to make sure that Japan surrendered to US while relatively intact, and not have the Soviets turn the Japanese frontier into another Iron Curtain.
All of the detainees at Gitmo were either found on the battlefield, or were explicitly leaders of Taliban forces.
Then why is the Military letting most of them go? Sounds like you otta be screaming on the interweb about the Military releasing such dangerous terrorists into the general population then. You are missing your calling here. Go now! Your country needs you!
It will save me a lot of time and effort if you just say "I hate Bush, and won't believe anything that isn't absolutely negative about the United States while he's President."
Because, frankly, that's how your posts look.
Seriously, you got nothing do ya? Again I point out if you can argue on facts you don't need to throw out this petty stuff. Get some substance then come back. I'll give you another run at it. There are some things I agree with Bush on (few, but he does get some stuff right) but this is not about if I like him or hate him, and you know it. You just have nothing of substance to support your arguments here. Your a twinkie at a steakhouse.
To quote "It will save me a lot of time and effort if you just say "I a completely brainwashed, and won't say nay to any policy endorsed by Bush, no matter how unconstitutional or ill fated while he's President."
Because, frankly, that's how your posts look."
Do you really believe that Gitmo is such a high water mark for our country? How it has proven that America still beleives in freedom even in the face of cowardly terrorist attacks? How we stood tall and didn't abandon what makes us a different kind of country 'cause we got a little scared?
While your at it, you are also still avoiding the arguments on terrorism.
Did you miss the point where I called for the death penalty for the perpitrators of Abu Gharib for the ultimate violation of those freedoms?
Nope - I just agree with it. Now if only we could arrest those who are responsible for "he ultimate violation of those freedoms"
Then why is the Military letting most of them go?
Congressional and Judicial political pressure. This is well documented. I do think it's a mistake to let them out for the time being, and I do think we should do a better job of quantifying their legal status. These would involve political risks all around, though, and one thing we DO lack in our government is that kind of political leadership.
Do you really believe that Gitmo is such a high water mark for our country?
No. I just don't believe that it compares to Nuremberg, either.
It may sound extreme, but I still think that a firing squad for those involved and their pathetic commander would have been just. At the very least, it would have shown Iraq how serious we were about our own sense of justice.
I was thinking a ten year sentence in an Iraqi prison, myself. But considering that there aren't any and they were US servicemen at the time of the offense, the UCMJ wouldn't allow it.
Congressional and Judicial political pressure. This is well documented. I do think it's a mistake to let them out for the time being, and I do think we should do a better job of quantifying their legal status. These would involve political risks all around, though, and one thing we DO lack in our government is that kind of political leadership.
Yes, it was congressional and judicial pressure that forced their hand, but that statement says nothing on the merits of these supposed terrorists guilt or complicity. You don't think that we simply rolled over and released folks we have proof were terrorists, just 'cause the Supreme Court told us to do you? I reckon that if the military could keep them they would have fought tooth and nail to keep them. ESPECIALLY if they thought that person were a terrorist, or that they might be giving actionable intelligence. The US case against David Hicks seems to bear this out. If they had something on the prisoner, they used it. AND I AM FOR THAT! It shouldn't be too much to ask. How can you claim you are even getting good intelligence IF YOU AREN'T EVEN VETTING THE PRISONERS YOU GOT? The mind boggles.
I point you again to the Wiki entry I posted.
Since the beginning of the current war in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge, with only one prisoner, David Hicks, being convicted of a crime.[9] As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[10] More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers. Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. On February 9, 2008, it was reported that 6 of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility would be tried for conspiracy in the September 11, 2001 attacks.[11] In May 2008, the Pentagon claimed that 36 former Guantanamo inmates were "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism"[12]
So really, being nice, they had a 20% success rate on their arrests. And conservatively, they were at 10%. (let me also point out the way fishy statement - "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism". Ummmhmmm, returned. You never really confirmed they were in terrorism BEFORE you captured them, so you don't know if they returned to terrorism, do you. You sure you didn't just set up a MeetUp for disgruntled muslims, then give them a damn good reason to be horked off at us?) Point is they didn't know who they had. Why the frak not? What possible logic would make anyone think that torturing everyone in the van who happened to be on the street corner during the round up would tell us where Bin-Laden was hiding?
I think the military higher-ups were caught with their pants down on this one. They were likely assured that they would never have to release anyone. So they kicked back and did nothing towards making a real determination to who they had captured, and if they should be there. But the Neo-Con leaning SCotUS fooled 'em, and so in the mad scramble they went to far in the other direction. Which is my point. They should have been vetting these prisoners from the get go.
No. I just don't believe that it compares to Nuremberg, either.
I never made any comparisons. I will say this though, if the crap is wrong, it is wrong, and we should therefore call it out as such. Especially when it is done in our names. Splitting hairs and calling it the lesser of two evils buys us nothing but a smaller feeling of guilt. Thing is - we had other options. We didn't need to snatch people off the street and send them to torture camps in the Middle-East. We didn't need to pile everyone from a village into a plane and fly them to Gitmo and deny them rights that have been in place for almost 700 years and protect our soldiers and citizens. Its not good, not good at all what we did.
It would have been far better if we has got those folks over here and tried to convert them. First off, get some rigorous tests in place to see if they are a legit combatant, if not, send them home with a nice cash payout. The rest; set them up like kings (with limited access mind you), and see who would flip. Make TRUE converts out of them, and give the terrorist nothing that they can point to and say see - they are just the same as us. Now would this approach cheese off the US citizens. Likely so. We wanted blood and guts and veins in our teeth. And our fury, I think, blinded us from the best possible options to really getting through this war as a great nation.
Bottom line, what has Gitmo bought us. No real actionable intelligence, no PR or propaganda battles won, no converts, no sleeper agents, no better understanding of the culture we so desperately need to infiltrate. Certainly it made the folks back home feel like they were doing something, but that is really of not much worth to us in the long run.
Congressional and Judicial political pressure. This is well documented. I do think it's a mistake to let them out for the time being, and I do think we should do a better job of quantifying their legal status. These would involve political risks all around, though, and one thing we DO lack in our government is that kind of political leadership.
As if. They weren't exactly rushed, were they?. Look what happened - after several years, several freaking years, a handful were actually accused of something. The rest didn't even get that far - for all that talk about how they were terrorists, war criminals, etc no one seemed exactly willing to show it and prove it the way it should be - in an honest trial There wouldn't be half this indignation over Gitmo if they at least got around to properly sentencing them.
Apart from being practically illegal, it looks incredibly sloppy. The only conclusion one could draw from it was that no one bothered about whether these men were guilty or not.
Apart from being practically illegal, it looks incredibly sloppy. The only conclusion one could draw from it was that no one bothered about whether these men were guilty or not.
They weren't criminals in a civilian jail waiting for their episode of CSI, they were battlefield prisoners. And unfortunately the enemy likes to dress up as civies, making it impossible to tell them apart unless you see them firing at you.
They weren't criminals in a civilian jail waiting for their episode of CSI, they were battlefield prisoners. And unfortunately the enemy likes to dress up as civies, making it impossible to tell them apart unless you see them firing at you.
Again you dance away from the point at hand while spouting pithy bon-mots. I'll accept that they may have rounded up far more than they needed to in the heat of the battle. I find little fault in that type of error. But THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are talking about folks who were caught in the net, but never released. And we are talking about a really shoddy net (1 or 2 in 10 accuracy). We are highly skeptical that if there is no vetting process, how can we possibly begin to sort through the results of interrogation.
You are telling me that in the course of 8 years we can't figure out if they are an al-Quaeda high up or a goat herder?
"We ask them "Are you Charlie" and if they say "Yes" we shoot them."
You are telling me that in the course of 8 years we can't figure out if they are an al-Quaeda high up or a goat herder?
Can you? It's not like they have a name tag or carry a membership card.
Hey, I got an idea. Let's create an Al Qaeda professional basketball team and see who root for them. :evillaugh
Given the current occupants of the supreme court. I would say it is likely, especially if John McCain wins.
A 20 week old fetus is basically a baby.
First, please stop posting the pictures. They aren't necessary. I have access to Google and medical books. I'm not going to get into the viability of a fetus at any stage. I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on the internet (I might in my own rec room ;)).
Second, regardless of who becomes president the case still needs to be brought to the court and then needs to be accepted. If the case doesn't warrant going before the court they can simply throw it back to a lower court or say that the lower court ruling stands. The Supreme Court does not seek out cases.
We've heard over and over again that this Republican or that Republican will find a way to overturn Roe v Wade but it never comes to light. Cases are not being taken by the Supreme Court that would even hint that there is any concerning abortion.
And, how, prey tell, would YOU tell the difference?
"We ask them "Are you Charlie" and if they say "Yes" we shoot them."
That's fricking hilarious. I disagree with most of what you are saying about Gitmo and the death penalty but I haven't heard that line in a long time. I wish Robin Williams would do more movies like that one.
First, please stop posting the pictures. They aren't necessary. I have access to Google and medical books. I'm not going to get into the viability of a fetus at any stage. I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on the internet (I might in my own rec room ;))..
I think posting a pictures of what we are talking about is perfectly fine. Especially when someone tries to hand wave the problems of aborting a 20 week old fetus. This image was to show that we are talking about something that is basically a baby.
Second, regardless of who becomes president the case still needs to be brought to the court and then needs to be accepted. If the case doesn't warrant going before the court they can simply throw it back to a lower court or say that the lower court ruling stands. The Supreme Court does not seek out cases.;))..
Trust me. The pro-life movement has been waiting for this. It will go to court.
We've heard over and over again that this Republican or that Republican will find a way to overturn Roe v Wade but it never comes to light. Cases are not being taken by the Supreme Court that would even hint that there is any concerning abortion.
At the state level a numer of laws restricting abortion have been enacted, and there are cases challenging Roe V wade floating around at the lower courts. There is an army of people tyring to overturn it. It will be brought before the supreme court within the next ten years. You can bronze this post and quote me later if I am wrong.
Can you? It's not like they have a name tag or carry a membership card.
Actually membership cards are standard in most Muslim Militias these days:
Oh, wait a second, That is the AARP.
I think posting a pictures of what we are talking about is perfectly fine. Especially when someone tries to hand wave the problems of aborting a 20 week old fetus. This image was to show that we are talking about something that is basically a baby.
Image isn't everything though. The "baby" is still not developed enough. However I can see why some people would have a problem with abortion at this stage. Note that most abortions do not take place half way through the pregnancy.
Trust me. The pro-life movement has been waiting for this. It will go to court.
The Supreme Court still needs to accept the case. Regardless of how long they have waited if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case then nothing will happen. I remember hearing about this when Reagen ran. I heard about with Bush Sr. I heard about it with Bush II. I'm simply not convinced.
At the state level a numer of laws restricting abortion have been enacted, and there are cases challenging Roe V wade floating around at the lower courts. There is an army of people tyring to overturn it. It will be brought before the supreme court within the next ten years. You can bronze this post and quote me later if I am wrong.
I have no problem with restricting abortion. I would like to see the AMA get involved for any legislation though. Lawyers should not be doing this without seeking expert advice. I do not feel that abortion should be a first line of defense. It should never be considered primary birth control. There's also an army of people trying to stop it from being overturned. It seems unlikely that the case will be heard anytime soon.
Seeing as these were war prisoners and we were/are busy fighting, it isn't hard to see why they were left in jail. That said, since things 'hit the air', the US has been trying to gather evidence and make cases. It's not easy and many people who shouldn't be, will be released.
They are not war prisoners. They are enemy combatants. As war prisoners they would have different rights. By using the synonymous term we can do whatever we want to them. I hate semantics. Either we are at war and they are prisoners or we get our military out of combat. I don't see how we can have it both ways.
Can you? It's not like they have a name tag or carry a membership card.
Hey, I got an idea. Let's create an Al Qaeda professional basketball team and see who root for them. :evillaugh
Nope, I sure can't. But then again its not my job. I deliberately took a job where the future of our country's security doesn't lie on my shoulders. I know where my responsibilities lie.
I mean seriously - again with the sound bytes, and ad hominem attacks. Get some substance here guys. You can quote Robin Williams or make jokes about basketball teams all you want. But it doesn't help your argument in any way.
Again I submit to you: if they can't tell the difference after 8 years of imprisonment, what the hell has our intelligence agencies been doing? If they can, then what the hell has our intelligence agencies been doing?
I for one am not overly concerned about McCain’s comments regarding gamers. It just shows how closed minded the staff writer in question was that wrote it and how closed minded McCain is for thinking it was okay to repeat.
Regarding Obama and Rev. Wright. Obama has never repeated what Rev. Wright has said or expressed consent with it like John McCain did with the DnD comment. In fact, Obama has repeatedly denounced Rev. Wright’s comments several times look on the internet and under keys like Oh, “Obama denounces Rev. Wright” and you will find plenty of links. Obama has also several times talked about his philosophy on race and how all Americans need to work together etc, in fact he has even been attacked by some African Americans for not being Black enough and supported Black causes. This was publicized several times. I find it hard to believe you didn’t see it. Here I’ll even throw on in a link for you featuring an article where Obama denounces Wright:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/obama_denounces_wright.php
He sure did, he only denounced Rev. Wright after his inflammatory comments, Why would he do that? Maybe because it showed how Obama’s mentor, spiritual and moral guide was a racist and there is no way he would have instilled those values upon Obama. Please. If it came out that any white candidate was associated with a racist, that is all you would here until the day that person died.
Furthermore in terms of McCain and religion McCain did openly seek out the endorsement of several far right ministers, including those with doctrines of intolerability oincluding John Hagee. Although, McCain did later distance himself from Hagee like Obama did with Rev. Wright. We could go deeper into Christian Rights philosophy like how many universities founded by right wing ministers don’t allow interracial dating at all (dating within race is allowed although you may have to be chaperoned etc, or very recently just started allowing it like Bob Jones university. We could talk about how religious leader and former Louisiana lawmaker Chris Perkins may quote Dr. King now, but how in 1996 he gave a check for over $80,000 dollars to the head of the Ku Klux Klan (David Duke) to acquire his phone bank list to rally support against Woody Jenkins, or how Mr. Perkins as late as 2001 gave a public speech at a fundraiser for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that has called African Americans "A retrograde species of humanity." Viewed from this perspective, and considering the history of Christianity being used to justify the Trans Atlantic slave trade via the "Hamidic curse" (this was a philosopy espoused by early American slavers that stated Blacks were the descendants of Ham and since Ham was cursed to bear the burdens of his brothers and work for them Blacks were designed by God to be slaves), and the pillaging oAmerica from the Indians (via drawing parallels to the Hebrews invading the land of Canaan and taking the land away from the Canaanites because they were unrighteous idolaters) I can at least understand the rationale behind Black Liberation Theology as wanting to give Black Christians a means of espousing their faith without endorsing slavery upon themselves.
Wow could you get any more off topic, McCain was never affiliated with a racist church so what ever you writing is great for another debate, I suppose. So let’s go back; McCain did not say anything that requires this much debate or scrutiny. Obama on the other hand has said quite a few that are making rational people scratch there head and say “Hmm is that right”. But as for your statement again I’m not sure which subject you are debating.
This is not, however to say that I endorse or condone Black Liberation theology or Racism in any form from Blacks, Whites, or whomever. Even James Cones himself seems to have moved beyond his original radical manifestos stating that being "black" has nothing to do with Race but rather with state of mind of being a dispossessed person therefore it is possible for a White person to be Black. Since you mentioned Mr. Cones I looked him up and pulled up some of his other quotes besides the ones you listed:
"I think the time has come for black theologians and church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world...For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups." (James Cones)
"Being black in America has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are." (James, Cones, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 151)
Hordern: To paraphrase a question put to Jesus, who then can become black?
Cone: I contend that if a white-skinned person is authentically black, then there is no need to assure him of his authenticity. For to be black is to know the ambiguity of the black experience, and this is true for one who is literally black. The certainty of a person’s affirmation of blackness is bound up with the struggle for liberation, and that experience has its own ambiguities. I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community. I see no reason why I should spend time giving him personal counsel on how to be black. -Dialogue on Black Theology, An Interview with James Cone, By William Hordern
Nothing racist there.
P.S. I also looked up this diabolical Black Values System you mentioned Barak Obama subscribing to. I found a copy of them in the Illinois Review. They are as follows:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System
Heres the link to the IR:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2006/12/obamas_black_va.html
Wow you thinks it diabolical: Appropriate to a devil, especially in degree of wickedness or cruelty. I just thought it was racist : The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. If you don’t think so put the word White for Black and I bet you could outline a clan member. Also “Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclass ness" what do you think that means? I can only guess at yours and others interpretations.
I never made the call to have him fired. I think that it's something I should keep in mind when I cast my vote though.
Fair enough.
Obama didn't follow everything Rev Wright taught. I know many people who disagree with their pastors on spiritual matters. I don't see why Obama should be compared to Rev Wright. The two men are very different from each other.
How do you or I know that for a fact. We don’t because we know very little of whom Barack Obama really is and quite frankly I don’t want to find out the hard way.
It doesn't matter if the statement hurt the general populace or not. The fact that they feel it's ok to insult any of the voting public shows me that they do not feel that we are all equal. How can I vote for a president that doesn't want to treat everyone the same? Why should I vote for a president that makes disparaging comments about the very people he is supposed to lead? This isn't the first or even second time the McCain camp has made these types of statements. It's been reported that McCain said "People who make under $80,000 are too stupid to understand taxes anyway." .
That non-sourced McCain quote about “stupid people” is now on 7 sites (according to Google), all of them equally non-sourced. So once again McCain’s staffer made the statement not McCain.
None of them are actually Obama's views though. Those quotes aren't even from his staff members.
Your right his staff members were not his mentor or spiritual and moral guide.
I am not convinced that Obama went to a racist church. From what I can tell the media selectively showed clips that made it look like there was racism. I'm sure there is quite a bit of black pride but I don't think that this is the Black Panthers' younger brother. If the person running for president was racist then I would feel the same way. I look at the individual as much as possible.
If you cannot look at what Rev. Wright and the church stand for and see a pro-black agenda then there is nothing more to say. Most churches don’t see God as Black or White. Why do they?
I got that interpretation because there is nothing racist in there at all. Not a single thing. The fact that it mentions blacks instead of everyone is only a sign that the church was predominately black and supports the black community.
Yup that’s not racist, they don’t sound like White nationalists “White nationalists say every nationality feels a natural affection for its own kind. Thus they believe in a common identity, common interests, and common political action for white people. This identity is valid for the entire white population, but not an obligation for others.
I guess you see nothing wrong with that right?
Nothing in there even hints that rights of non-blacks were going to be taken away.
I never knew that was a prerequisite for racism.
Then there is no need to comment on it anymore.
I guess that one slipped right by you.
I support Obama because I think he'd be a better president than McCain. I find McCain to be a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality. He can't stay on topic and has no intention on discussing issues. Instead he intentionally lies and takes remarks out of context. He seems to think that being a POW somehow qualifies him to be President.
Tell me how you really feel. You see I look at which candidate is best for America, who has not been going to a pro-black church for 20 years and who’s Reverend married Obama is also pro-black and someone Obama has personally known and sought counsel with for 20 years. If you lie with dogs you are bound to get fleas.
Obama has taken a few plays out of McCain's book. Recently Obama made a jab ot how McCain looks down when he's talking about drilling for oil. It's a stupid remark that avoids the issue and takes a stab at the individual. Obama is far from perfect. I just think McCain is farther.
Actually you said “I find McCain to be a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality.” Sounds a little harsh to me, but I don’t support McCain. I think he’s just as much as a liberal as John Kerry of whom he actual asked to be his VP and is good friends with Lieberman who was Al Gores running mate.
I would be writing about it the same way if it was someone in Obama's camp that posted the same thing on Obama's site.
Sorry but the disparaging comments you made about McCain make me beg to differ.
Nope, I sure can't. But then again its not my job. I deliberately took a job where the future of our country's security doesn't lie on my shoulders. I know where my responsibilities lie.
And yet you see fit to criticize about other's jobs? Worry about your own.
They are not war prisoners. They are enemy combatants. As war prisoners they would have different rights. By using the synonymous term we can do whatever we want to them. I hate semantics. Either we are at war and they are prisoners or we get our military out of combat. I don't see how we can have it both ways.
Emphasis mine.
I noticed that the word unlawful got dropped there. Could that be because if you call them "unlawful enemy combatants" that makes them criminals and therefore the constitution and it's whole right to a "speedy trial" and "right to face your accuser" come into play?
I just thought it was racist : The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. If you don’t think so put the word White for Black and I bet you could outline a clan member.
As much as I hate having to do it, I have to agree. That is indeed overt racism.
Personally, I think you're going to see some degree of racism from all sides during this political season. But having said that, I have to say I'd be surprised if it didn't come more from Obama's camp. I can understand the frustrations that prompt it. So to a degree I can understand it's apearance. I mean we are talking about the first serious non-white candidate for president of the United States. Certainly Jackson threw his hat in the ring, but Obama's got a pretty fair shot at winning and that's going to really draw out the agitators from both sides.
He sure did, he only denounced Rev. Wright after his inflammatory comments, Why would he do that? Maybe because it showed how Obama’s mentor, spiritual and moral guide was a racist and there is no way he would have instilled those values upon Obama. Please. If it came out that any white candidate was associated with a racist, that is all you would here until the day that person died.
Just like John McCain only disavowed Rev. Hagee after his beliefs came out and even then he took his time in doing it. I see you conveniently didn’t address that point. I’m assuming John McCain disassociated himself with Hagee for much the same reasons that Obama disassociated himself with Wright.
Wow could you get any more off topic, McCain was never affiliated with a racist church so what ever you writing is great for another debate, I suppose. So let’s go back; McCain did not say anything that requires this much debate or scrutiny. Obama on the other hand has said quite a few that are making rational people scratch there head and say “Hmm is that right”. But as for your statement again I’m not sure which subject you are debating.
McCain and the neo-cons have actively courted the Christian Denominationist whose many of whoms ideals are racist, sexist, and homophobic, and just generally intolerant in general of anyone who doesn't adhere to their idealogys via labeling them "UnAmerican, unpatriotic" etc. Try to follow a line of reasoning and compare and contrast not lash out with emotions.
Hordern: To paraphrase a question put to Jesus, who then can become black?
Cone: I contend that if a white-skinned person is authentically black, then there is no need to assure him of his authenticity. For to be black is to know the ambiguity of the black experience, and this is true for one who is literally black. The certainty of a person’s affirmation of blackness is bound up with the struggle for liberation, and that experience has its own ambiguities. I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community. I see no reason why I should spend time giving him personal counsel on how to be black. -Dialogue on Black Theology, An Interview with James Cone, By William Hordern
Nothing racist there.
1. Well, first I stated several times in my post I don’t condone Black Liberation Theology, which by the way Barak Obama himself does not subscribe to so regarding your statement above about “arguing off-topic” since Obama doesn’t subscribe to this philosophy, and never admitted to it while going to Wright’s church I don’t see why we are debating it.
2. When the statement above is broken down into the sum of its parts here is what the speaker is saying: A) Christianity as a religion has traditionally not concerned itself with the plight of Black people (or people) of color in general for that matter and in fact was used to promote the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the taking of the lands from the Amerindians. This is true. B)Black/African American people have been involved/are involved in a struggle(s) for liberation. This is also true in both American History and African history illustrates C) The speaker doesn’t feel any need to spend time giving personal council on how to be Black. Broken down into the sum of what the statement is saying I see nothing racist in that statement. I’m sure Cone has said some racist stuff, but in this one statement I can’t find it. The only part that I can see off the top as being a racial issue is when the author/speaker says, “I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community” but then again that falls under part A above regarding the history of Christianity. The only reason I brought it up at all is because nowadays I think most Conservative Christians that I have met of any race are nothing but a bunch of self-centered hypocrites. The only other thing I noted about the paragraph is that the author made Jesus Black? If the author wishes to view Jesus as Black I don't see how that is racist...that is his opinion/belief, and in fact Jesus probably did look more "Black" than the way he is normally portrayed. I have heard people say what color God or Jesus is shouldn't matter, and while as a non-interested person I would say this probably true, I do have to note with irony that the vast majority of people who say that often look closer to the way Jesus is normally depicted than those who say it does matter.
Wow you thinks it diabolical: Appropriate to a devil, especially in degree of wickedness or cruelty. I just thought it was racist : The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. If you don’t think so put the word White for Black and I bet you could outline a clan member. Also “Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclass ness" what do you think that means? I can only guess at yours and others interpretations.
In regards to being “diabolical” irony is evidently lost on you. Secondly sure me where in those values listed above it as you put it states, “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” Because I read the values and posted them in my previous post and I don’t see that in there anywhere. As regarding the statement, ““Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclass ness” I have to confess I am not certain what the author means, however just off the top when I think about what I interpret that to mean is being a part of a social structure that is not concerned with a greater socially collective consciousness i.e, improving the environment, bringing about racial and harmony, bridging the gender divide, giving civil rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation, making sure everyone has healthcare, not being caught up in the pursuit of corporate idealogy and rampant materialism that is evident in a society based up hyper consumption etc…things that a lot of the middle class don’t think about because they only want a tax cut. I’m pretty sure that statement means something along those lines.
Peace,
Fallstorm
P.S. okay I had to know for certain what the statement meant so I found a link to a PDF of the “Black Value System” http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf
The first part commitment to the commitment to God talks about being soldiers of God to make humanity better for everybody/all human kind….hardly racist, and the “Disavowal of Middleclassness” bit pretty much comes in line with what I posted above with the excecption, if I read correctly, that the author feels that the corporate system has made it a goal to keep Blacks focused on rampant materialism, which creates a state of division vs. Unity but from what I read the author is not attacking White people but American Capitalism/Corporatism as a whole being a Greener I can understand that.
As much as I hate having to do it, I have to agree. That is indeed overt racism.
I would agree to...if that is what was said but that isn't what was said.
Personally, I think you're going to see some degree of racism from all sides during this political season. But having said that, I have to say I'd be surprised if it didn't come more from Obama's camp.
I don't know about that I mean you got Fox News that referred to Michelle Obama as as "Barak's Baby Mama" if that is racist I don't know what is. Not too mention as I stated before that while it may not always be racist the Christian Rightwing that has come to be the voice of the Republican party has many ideals that are just as facist as anything Rev. Wright has said in both a racist scope and otherwise but no one really has been wanting to challenge them on it until recenty. Luckily in addition, to politicians starting to question them you do have people (including former Conservatives)who have been pushed out of the party starting to right books and question the movement. Just off the top of my head books on the Christian Right Wing that come to mind are:
American Facists: The Christian Right Wing and the War on America by Chris Hedges which became a best-seller
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
Why the Christian Right Is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future by Robin Meyers
As well as movies like the documentary Jesus Camp, which offered to me a chilling view straight on what America would be like under a Right Wing Theocracy, not that I was all that suprised having read Rushdoony, the father of the Dominionist movement's book Institutes of Biblical Law.
So, yeah I think it is wrong to sit here and bring up something that Obama's former minister said. A minister that he disavowed himself from but not discuss John McCain seeking out Hagee and the courting of the Christian Right Wing, and not just McCain but Bush and the neo-con movement as a whole, a movement that drove a good number of traditional Republicans pretty much underground or out of the party.
Peace,
Fallstorm
How do you or I know that for a fact. We don’t because we know very little of whom Barack Obama really is and quite frankly I don’t want to find out the hard way.
It's rather simple. Obama is a human being and and individual. He is not a preprogrammed robot. He is able to make his own decisions. In fact Obama has spoken out against Rev. Wright many times. Obama's voting record seems to demonstrate that he is not a racist. The bills he has written or sponsored do not focus on the black community. They focus on Americans. His actions are very different from Rev Wright's. It's not hard to get to know Obama. He has two books out that he has written. He has a voting record that is very consistent. His actions match with his words most of the time. Unfortunately it's difficult to know exactly why someone votes for or against a bill. It's pretty difficult understanding exactly what the bill (and its riders) are trying to accomplish sometimes.
That non-sourced McCain quote about “stupid people” is now on 7 sites (according to Google), all of them equally non-sourced. So once again McCain’s staffer made the statement not McCain.
I have been trying to find a source as well. That's why I said "reported." I didn't want to pass it off as fact yet. The only thing I can find says it was McCain that said it. Not very compelling without some video or audio to back it up though. It does seem in line with how he acts and what he says though.
If you cannot look at what Rev. Wright and the church stand for and see a pro-black agenda then there is nothing more to say. Most churches don’t see God as Black or White. Why do they?
Ever since I was a child I remember seeing pictures of god or Jesus depicted as white. It doesn't really matter what color people see him as though. Pro-black agenda does not mean anti-all-other-race-agenda. Like I said before, I don't see them as the Black Panthers.
Yup that’s not racist, they don’t sound like White nationalists “White nationalists say every nationality feels a natural affection for its own kind. Thus they believe in a common identity, common interests, and common political action for white people. This identity is valid for the entire white population, but not an obligation for others.
I guess you see nothing wrong with that right?
To be honest, no. I see a problem when they try to take away the rights of others based on race. White Supremacists want to do just that. They want special rights as well. There is nothing in that document that even hints that blacks should be treated as special and non-blacks should be treated as inferior.
I never knew that was a prerequisite for racism.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
So yes, I do think that in order for them to be racist they need to be focused on the superiority/inferiority of races. That document does not push that agenda.
I guess that one slipped right by you.
I had intended on stopping with that final quote. I stopped where you had made the statement.
Tell me how you really feel. You see I look at which candidate is best for America, who has not been going to a pro-black church for 20 years and who’s Reverend married Obama is also pro-black and someone Obama has personally known and sought counsel with for 20 years. If you lie with dogs you are bound to get fleas.
It is entirely possible to be pro-black and still be pro-American. Just because someone sees the plight of a particular race does not mean that he wants to bring the other races down a notch while putting his own on a pedestal. Without knowing exactly what he sought counsel on and what was said I can't comment on that. I can say that I have sought counsel many times from people I don't fully agree with. Some have been racist. Some have been criminals. Some have done some very horrible things. I seek their counseling on areas that I need. I don't push racist or criminal agendas. I have sought counsel from very religious people who support many things I disagree with. As an atheist it seems odd that I would seek counsel from a pastor but sometimes that is what I need.
Actually you said “I find McCain to be a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality.” Sounds a little harsh to me, but I don’t support McCain. I think he’s just as much as a liberal as John Kerry of whom he actual asked to be his VP and is good friends with Lieberman who was Al Gores running mate.
McCain is a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality. He blames Obama for being a celebrity while enjoying is own celebrity status. He attacks Obama for having "presidential" speeches over seas when he has done the same thing and even sent an envoy over to Georgia to deal with the Russians. He attacks Obama for not voting on the exact same bills that he himself did not vote on. He says Obama is an elitist who's out of touch with the common people but can't remember how many houses he has and wears designer shoes that cost more than some people make in a week. He thinks that Trickle-Down Economics will work when it has failed the last several times it's been tried. Every time he complains that the media is focused on Obama, he forgets that his ads are played for free more often than Obama's on CNN. He is a whiny old man who has lost touch with reality.
Sorry but the disparaging comments you made about McCain make me beg to differ.
Beg to differ all you want. Find me a quote from Obama or one of his staff members that is an attack on voters and I'll be glad to complain about that as well. At work I was just complaining that part of his 10-year energy plan is to put one million energy efficient cars on the road. Wow, 25% of the population of Seattle. I'm not impressed in the slightest. I don't think Obama is perfect. I feel that he is just saying what he feels American want to hear and so uses misleading numbers to support his points (just like every other politician). He just doesn't feel the need to insult Americans (or any others either). McCain has referred to Vietnamese as gooks as recently as 2000. Yes he apologized eventually but the point is that McCain has actually made racist remarks. He uses terms like Tar Baby. McCain uses terms like this all time and it appears that some of it is documented. Find some Obama quotes that are similar. I can't find any.
Considering that many of people were sought for and arrested for something (I guess US soldiers don't do it all just for kicks), then yes, they can prove it or at least provide the evidence on which they acted. If the they raided some house, they most probably didn't look into their crystal balls to choose it. They probably got a tip from someone that so-and-so was aiding the Taleban, or smuggling hashish, or whatever. But if you are a soldier - insurgent or other - you will have weapons. If you are a drug smuggler, you will have drug - or something that may lead to your contacts. If none of these is found, and there is no other evidence to point of their complicity, the people there are to be presumed innocent and not troubled further.
If they are detained, they should be detained for a reason - if it turns out there was no proof, one would assume they were innocent and thus should be freed (if nothing else, they can be kept under surveillance and used as "live bait" so to speak). If they were imprisoned (effectively) for several years - by which time any information they have would most likely be outdated and useless - then there should be a good enough reason to have them imprisoned. Yet most of those detained were released without a trial, which amounts to admission of their innocence - either that or that the US military does not consider terrorism or support of terrorism (the reasons they were detained for) a crime. Take your pick, really - I'd say "admission of innocence" is the easier one.
Of course, this all presumes that the US army and whoever was running those prisons was acting in accordance to the principles of military and/or civilian law. I would presume that they did; if they didn't it would be a whole different (and no better) ********
Of course, there were probably a few that were captured on a battlefield, but in that case evidence should not be very hard to find, you know ;)
@Ranger REG: "Can you? It's not like they have a name tag or carry a membership card."
Considering that many of people were sought for and arrested for something (I guess US soldiers don't do it all just for kicks), then yes, they can prove it or at least provide the evidence on which they acted. If the they raided some house, they most probably didn't look into their crystal balls to choose it. They probably got a tip from someone that so-and-so was aiding the Taleban, or smuggling hashish, or whatever. But if you are a soldier - insurgent or other - you will have weapons. If you are a drug smuggler, you will have drug - or something that may lead to your contacts. If none of these is found, and there is no other evidence to point of their complicity, the people there are to be presumed innocent and not troubled further.
That assume we're looking for dumb criminals.
And yet you see fit to criticize about other's jobs? Worry about your own.
Still got nothing except name calling and excuses. Ladies and Gentlemen - the soul of a Neo-Con. Unable to take responsibility for their destructive actions, and constantly putting the blame on others.
I say it again. If you have legitimate defenses for Gitmo, Rendition and Abu-Grahb, then you should use them. But somehow I doubt I will see any legitimate defense here.
Let me go big picture on you. I am (and you too) responsible for the actions of my government. While I may not be able to do the specific job required, any actions the govt takes is done in my (and your) name. So while I may not be able to step in and fill the pot hole, that does not mean I can't state loud and long that the situation has to change, and define what I think the end goals are.
Let me put it to you another way. Does your arbitrary prohibition on criticizing govt employees extend to those in the IRS. How about the welfare office? Congress? I call bull. You just want a free pass.
That assume we're looking for dumb criminals.
WAAAHAAHAHAAAAHHHHHH! We have to fight smart people. Look, dumb or smart, who cares. Point is we have to be smarter. We have to be able to tell the difference OR OUR INTEL IS GOING TO SUCK. Whats not to get here. Blanket waterboarding everyone we caught out after curfew is not getting us good intel. Hell, I would question the logic of interrogating anyone who had been in Gitmo for 8 years. But do you think the interrogations have stopped. I doubt it.
You suggest that because I can not parse detainees, that I am therefore out of line to suggest that we hire somebody who can. Ludicrous! I mean, its our national security at stake here. Why are you so weak on shoring up our nation's defense?
Right now the situation is that the vast majority of the people whose cases were processed were released without even being put before a court of some sort. Right, and do you expect us to believe all that time was spent looking for evidence?
If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.
--Michael Goldfarb
Did you see his apology:
If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.
--Michael Goldfarb
Of course his most recent jab at D&D players was AFTER he made this "apology." Even the apology is a jab at D&D players.
Of course his most recent jab at D&D players was AFTER he made this "apology." Even the apology is a jab at D&D players.
Yeah, a cheap shot at the tail end of an apology. That'll confuse and confound us poor, misguided gamers. Not like there were many of us planning to vote for him anyway.
Yeah, a cheap shot at the tail end of an apology. That'll confuse and confound us poor, misguided gamers. Not like there were many of us planning to vote for him anyway.
Umm...Michael Goldfarb isn't up for election. :D
I know who you meant, but I still refuse to attribute Michael Goldfarb's trollish rantings against D&D players to John McCain. I don't plan to vote for McCain, but I wouldn't speak for others. I would hope people vote based on more important matters than a crass joke made by the campaign's blogger.
I don't plan to vote for McCain, but I wouldn't speak for others. I would hope people vote based on more important matters than a crass joke made by the campaign's blogger.
I have a whole list of other grievances that will keep me from casting my lot for McCain. His choice of employees is just one of them.
Umm...Michael Goldfarb isn't up for election. :D
True, but it would make McCain look bad because he still have him on his campaign staff, much like Karl Rove is on Bush's. He should fire the guy, don't give him time and dignity to resign.
True, but it would make McCain look bad because he still have him on his campaign staff, much like Karl Rove is on Bush's. He should fire the guy, don't give him time and dignity to resign.
I would consider Goldfarb's comments to be less than important and McCain making an issue out of random campaign site blogging would probably make him look bad in the public eye for overreacting to something the majority of voters don't even think is an issue.
Although now that a Hasbro exec has put this to pen and focused on the military aspect it may reach a level of enough importance for McCain to actually act upon Goldfarb's comments. Maybe.
- The war(s)
- The housing market
- Unemployment
- The drooping dollar
- Illegal alien rights
- Soaring oil costs (as the weather turns colder, no less)
- D&D
Now, which one of these doesn't belong? ;)
I'm just trying to say "keep it in perspective".
The government loves them because they do not do Tax Returns. To much money to be made in that area. Especially take into account that many illegals get probation and other fines over deportation.
The part I took offense to was the insinuation that D&D players are all pro-Obama. I for one am a Libertarian and am voting for Bob Barr. It kills me that no matter what some people can't help using stereotypes. I guess it's true that it 's just too easy to do so...in fact its so easy a cavema...uh..nah I won't go there. ;)
I'm a registered Libertarian too, but I'm not voting Barr. Ive read Obama's platform, not all of it is that bad. With any luck, Biden will be able to point out the bits that need some work. Personally I'd rather see it Biden/Obama but Obama/Biden will work if it's the will of the people.
I honestly would think it would be a awesome idea if the VP was the second runner up for the presidency.
The two party system has wrecked that idea. It ain't coming back.
The two party system has wrecked that idea. It ain't coming back.
No doubt...sadly though American politics suck.
No doubt...sadly though American politics suck.
Truer words were never spoken.
I wish their was some secure way to enable direct democracy from home phones, internet, something rather than maintain electoral, but I've been told w/ varying degrees of wisdom it's not always good to get everyone voting.
That is, the ones that vote usually care and are educated, or more precisely, have a better grasp of what's at stake. Making it veyr easy and accessible also puts national leadership in the hands of the commonfolk, whom tend to not always be well versed on teh subject(s) and swayed easilly by media sensationalism and fair weather POVs.
Direct democracy is suicide.. because an ever-dwindling majority will constantly shut out the minorities of all their rights.
Wow - you just basically stated how it works now. Majority plus one I think is how George W. Bush articulated it. And the genius of Rove (and really Gingrich came up the the roots of the idea) is such that he realized that you only need the slim majority of a slim majority. And if you can get that majority of a majority to vote automatically on just one issue, then you really got a thing going. Now you have free reign on all the other issues because you agreed to stick on on issue that this majority of a majority will never vote differently on.
Wow - you just basically stated how it works now.
How did it work before?
Direct democracy is suicide.. because an ever-dwindling majority will constantly shut out the minorities of all their rights.
That's oversimplifying the majority vs. the minorities. All Americans have viewpoints and will share some and disagree on others. There is no singular majority in this country. It seems that way because those with money and power hang onto control within the two party system, but as individuals we each have our own mind.
The minority (rich people with power) are actually in control now, because they are the ones who decide who will make a bid for their party. A "common person" such as myself could never become a realistic contender for president without the backing of those truly in power.
It is an illusion of choice and majority rules.
The minority (rich people with power) are actually in control now, because they are the ones who decide who will make a bid for their party.
Who was in control before?
Who was in control before?
I feel like we're playing the "Questions Only" game on Who's Line Is It Anyway. :D
The rich and powerful have always kept control and they are afraid to give it up. This is why a system like the Electoral College will stay in place. It is another obstacle in the way of electing a grass roots candidate.
How did it work before?
Before Gingrich? Well the corruption was more personal and less institutionalized. My biggest beef with the Democrats is how they never ever call the Neo-Cons on their corruption machine. My great fear is that they want to nuzzle up to that teat, and are afraid to spoil the milk before they get their taste. This is why I didn't go for Hillary, and why I am so very dissappointed in McCain's shift to using the Neo-Con machine. This is why I am mostly against McCain and Clinton's vast experience.
But I'm cynical like that.
I feel like we're playing the "Questions Only" game on Who's Line Is It Anyway. :D
The rich and powerful have always kept control and they are afraid to give it up. This is why a system like the Electoral College will stay in place. It is another obstacle in the way of electing a grass roots candidate.
You used the term "now" meaning there must have been a "before", I just wanted clarification.
You used the term "now" meaning there must have been a "before", I just wanted clarification.
You'll have to excuse me, I'm a Midwesterner, we add unneeded words whereever and whenever we feel like it. :P :D
"Before" the aristocracy were blatantly in control, "Now" they try to hide it behind Democracy.
Before Gingrich?
Because God knows neither Johnson or Kennedy had no corruption in their ranks. And certainly none in the ballot boxes, either!
And that, of course, doesn't even touch Nixon.
I'm going to say this seriously, JWT. Please, for the love of God, do some research about political issues on your own. You're parroting every anti-Bush and anti-Republican screed I've ever heard, but you've only got the rhetoric, and you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
To flatly state that there was no 'instutional corruption' before Gingrich? That's a rediculously stupid assertion. I'm actually ashamed of you.
That's oversimplifying the majority vs. the minorities.
No really. People just forget why we have minorty rights protected by the constituion. True 'direct vote' deomcracies last up until the groups vote their rights away, like in Afghanistan, Iran, or South Africa. Democracy fails the moment you can 'vote away' the rights of dissenters.
So what you get is a constant 'culling' of dissenters, an issue at a time, perhaps, but it happens. Eventually, you get a tyranny again because the 'majority' has taken so much power than, at some point, they realize they don't even need the vote anymore. Sadly, the best historical example of this would Godwin the thread.
Because God knows neither Johnson or Kennedy had no corruption in their ranks. And certainly none in the ballot boxes, either!
And that, of course, doesn't even touch Nixon.
I'm going to say this seriously, JWT. Please, for the love of God, do some research about political issues on your own. You're parroting every anti-Bush and anti-Republican screed I've ever heard, but you've only got the rhetoric, and you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
To flatly state that there was no 'instutional corruption' before Gingrich? That's a rediculously stupid assertion. I'm actually ashamed of you.
Que? What I said was "Well the corruption was more personal and less institutionalized." I made no absolute statement like you said above. So I guess if you are going to put words in my mouth then you are actually ashamed of yourself. I am not surprised, frankly. When you realize half the things you have said in these foums your gonna be pretty embarrassed!
And you also conveniently ignore the fact that I think that the Clinton machine worked that same system that Gingrich invented. (Thank the heavens that they had a Republican Congress to keep the excesses down.) But that statement didn't support your baseless accusations did it? Oh well, just trundle over what was said then. If you don't quote it its like it was never said.....
Let me put a fine point on it. I really don't think that Gingrich meant for the Contract for America to become what it was. But dammed if he didn't lay the groundwork for a system that has really and truly twisted the heart of American politics. (And look out all you other countries - we are in the process of exporting this corrupting and corruptible system) Was it perfect before - no. I certainly make no claim to that, despite your spin to the contrary. But do you really feel that corruption has decreased over the last few years. Countless examples point to the institutionalizing of lobbyists writing bills, cronyism, partisanship in traditionally party neutral jobs, exclusion of the press, using congressional rules to manipulate votes, gerrymandering to garner a razor thin majority, restricting access to bills to other parties, need I go on. These things are wrong for America, and wrong for its people. I don't care who enacted such claptrap, I will call it as I see it.
We all know that existed to a some extent before, but over the last 8 -12 years it has become endemic, entrenched and institutionalized like never before. I am sad that so many people are like you and can't see it. Look, even if you support the thoughts behind such changes, by supporting such changes you run the risk of the other guys getting in power. And then we are all screwed, because once the opposition gets a taste, then no one is gonna stand up and say what is bullpoop and what isn't. The ends don't justify the means. This is what I mean that Clinton and McCain had the wrong experience. They embrace the flawed politics of a post "Contract with America". And I see no inclination on either of their parts to disassociate with that mess.
Besides, who cares about what any political maneuvering a president before Regan did. Their relevance is wholly historical now; that is to say what they did has effects in the here and now, yes - but their strategies and tactics have little to no relevance anymore. You and Kursk bring it up old Democrats constantly like its some sort of ace in the hole. But it just speaks to your need to scapegoat, a seeming obsession with the cold war, and a lack of perspective on the reality of the modern media and politics. You call for a sense of history, but then ignore the seismic shift in the structure of both parties under the leadership of their two big leaders Reagan and Clinton. You simply can not compare the two parties before these two political icons with what came after.
The Vietnam era is over, and the hippies lost, mainly because their starry eyed idealism was shredded by reality. Stop trying to re-fight the battle that no one cares about anymore. The world has turned, and you guys need to catch the heck up. You know who the spiritual inheritors of the hippies are, the rank and file Neo-Cons. They both deal solely in absolutes, and have no sense of reality - also they like to form cults. As for the leaders of the Neo-Cons - they are using you because you have let yourself be reduced to a one vote hot button.
Not to mention the fact that what kind of argument is it to say "These people did some bad stuff, so you can't say anything about the bad stuff the guy I like is doing." Pretty damned bogus, and its shows the now empty soul of a party I was once proud to call my own.
No really. People just forget why we have minorty rights protected by the constituion. True 'direct vote' deomcracies last up until the groups vote their rights away, like in Afghanistan, Iran, or South Africa. Democracy fails the moment you can 'vote away' the rights of dissenters.
So what you get is a constant 'culling' of dissenters, an issue at a time, perhaps, but it happens. Eventually, you get a tyranny again because the 'majority' has taken so much power than, at some point, they realize they don't even need the vote anymore. Sadly, the best historical example of this would Godwin the thread.
I'm not asking for a direct vote on all topics. I fine with our current system of voting in representatives. And the system of checks and balances to prevent our country from becoming a monarchy is a good thing, IMO. I just don't feel properly represented by the small minority of those with money and power. They do not understand what it is to be middle class or poor. They keep the status quo and put more money in their pockets and keep the power away from the common folk.
The true minority issues aren't race, gender, religion in this country, IMO. Those are contrived to keep people from understanding the true minority gap, which is wealthy vs. non-wealthy.
The true minority issues aren't race, gender, religion in this country, IMO. Those are contrived to keep people from understanding the true minority gap, which is wealthy vs. non-wealthy.
I think that you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy on that one since the bulk of our poor are the envy of most of the world. This isn't to say that we're without problems, but a lot of the hyperbolic comments (There was no corruption before evil Ginrich and his GOP!) make the basic arguments patently rediculous.
What you're really seeing is the last, desperate grabs of power from the 'Vietnam' generation, which largely used 'identity-politics' to defined themselves. Though that's largely passe, you can see how strong it resonates within certain groups just by looking at this election.
(There was no corruption before evil Ginrich and his GOP!)
Who said that crazy statement! Are you making crap up again? Shame on you!
I love how you progress your restatements of other people words. Its like your original misquotations weren't outlandish enough. Are you trying to see how far you can push the institution memory of this list? 'Cause we can look back in the thread you know.
So I come back to this again with you. If you have something of substance to support your ideas, then lets have 'em. I can respect different opinions. But dancing a little sidestep is boring, and beneath us all.
I think that you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy on that one since the bulk of our poor are the envy of most of the world.
Just because the poor in other countries are worse off doesn't mean there aren't inequities in our own politics.
I for one believe that most of the problems in our world are caused by greedy people in power. Here and in other countries.
Poverty - Discounting the direct effect on impoverished people, the theft of disposable income from the middle class effects charity greatly. The middle class are the largest donators. Why? Because each of us giving a dollar to charity far outweighs one rich guy very publicly giving away $1M. The middle class is very generous when they don't have to worry about making next month's mortgage payment.
Economy - Who are the biggest spenders? The rich? No. They have money for one important reason - they hoard it. Again, the middle class is the true spending powerhouse. But when the rich (i.e. corporation) try to snow-job us into thinking their record profits are somehow normal and not gouging the average consumer, that gives us less money to spend on the stupid crap we spend it on. But that stupid crap we buy also helps drive the economy.
It goes on and on. A very small group of "elites" drive the rest of the world down for their own short-term benefit.
And, you know the dirty little secret about 'companies' and 'corporations'? Most in the United States are small, up to five men shops, and don't make their first million in a year, EVER. They're solidly middle-class people, but just happen to run their own business rather than depend on someone else.
So be very careful about where and how you want to lay down the blame. What you're aspousing would destroy the middle class sooner than any 'rich miserly elites' would EVER do.
But.. you SKIPPED the rest of my post...
And, you know the dirty little secret about 'companies' and 'corporations'? Most in the United States are small, up to five men shops, and don't make their first million in a year, EVER. They're solidly middle-class people, but just happen to run their own business rather than depend on someone else.
So be very careful about where and how you want to lay down the blame. What you're aspousing would destroy the middle class sooner than any 'rich miserly elites' would EVER do.
I didn't skip it. I read it and had no response.
I do agree with you. When I said "corporations" I meant Corporations, not corporations. :D
I meant the large corporations with enough power to have political influence. I really didn't make myself clear there.
I meant the large corporations with enough power to have political influence. I really didn't make myself clear there.
But large corporations are beholden to HUNDREDS of people, maybe THOUSANDS depending on which one. Who's politics are they supposed to support? :P
But large corporations are beholden to HUNDREDS of people, maybe THOUSANDS depending on which one. Who's politics are they supposed to support? :P
Whoever's politics will net their major shareholders the most money.
And that, of course, doesn't even touch Nixon.
You know, I'm really torn on Nixon. I don't think he was particularly bad as a president. His poor luck in being involved in some dirty dealings really screwed him. I'm certain that there's quite a bit of truth about his involvement but I doubt that he was the first president and probably won't be the last to go around the law if it serves their purposes. I'd be willing to wager that he might have even been the most honest of the presidents in our history.
You know, I'm really torn on Nixon. I don't think he was particularly bad as a president. His poor luck in being involved in some dirty dealings really screwed him. I'm certain that there's quite a bit of truth about his involvement but I doubt that he was the first president and probably won't be the last to go around the law if it serves their purposes. I'd be willing to wager that he might have even been the most honest of the presidents in our history.
Nixon's a bit strange. He actually got a peace treaty in Vietnam and was beginning out pullout (before his resignation), he went to China and got the accords. He started Detente after some of the worst periods of the cold war.
The Watergate scandal really seemed to not have much to do with him except that he tried to keep the cover up away from him... and he, like Clinton, was just surrounded by corrupt people (like Agnew). It's really hard to imagine that Nixon didn't have some of the stink himself, considering how much poop was all around him.
Lincoln, too, comes to mind, God, what a Maloxx moment that must've been for that poor guy to make the decision all the other Northern interests wanted that he was unsure of. Bloodiest war of our history. Look how harshly it aged him.
These modern days, same thing w/ Bush Sr. (not 'W').
He shrewdly played ball unlike his son, but shouldn't have had to to such a insanely political degree militarilly; Gulf War, Kuwaitis were begging us to quickly intervene as their country was being destroyed (just like the Iranians 2 years prior) basically. We saw it coming, knew it was going to happen, and were so concerned w/ world opinion of us, we did nothing until...
Alot of the world expected us to wait and wait and wait until finally all the T's were crossed, I's dotted, and then and only then could we engage...by the time we geared up and were allowed to go, the worst environmental disaster ever was well under way (sabotage of Kuwaiti oil fields), their banks gutted like fish, mass executions & civilians rapes, and God knows what else.
"War for oil" is what they called it. Yes, we wanted it, but like Vietnam, a smaller, more vulnerable country was being bullied and petitioned for help.
What's sad is we wanted to push further along up "The Highway of Death" into Baghdad and remove "the problem" (Saddam), but again, sensitive interests said, "No, too much." (namely French & Russians that had lucrative weapons and oil contracts w/ Iraq) even though many Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Jordan, Saudis, etc) said, "God please, yes, we couldn't, you can."
I can't help but wonder if he had we wouldn't be in the problem we're in now. There woudn't have been this contrived (lie) pretense for invasion and additional billions in waste that we see now. We knew he was a butcher and all of his neighbors feared him (this is why the Saudis let us stage thousands of troops there despite Islamic edicts about "infidels on Muslim soil") given his bloody track record; Iran from '80-'88 w/ WMDs (see Karbala, '88), the Kurds, his own people, even attacked the USS Stark ('86 w/ a French made Exosite ["carrier killer"] missle) in the Gulf. We just said, "Oh, that's okay, you're fighting Iran and we're still mad at them since The Islamic Revolution in '79."
And the real kicker...after we kow towed to the rest of the planet and the Kuwaitis said "thanks" gratefully, we brokered this 1/2 ass peace deal w/ Saddam. Namely the "No Fly Zone". In our ignorance (didn't heed military advice, alot like the Clinton admin pre 9/11) and Iraqi delight, this only covered fixed-wing aircraft, not rotorcraft. So, that meant after the Gulf War, alot of Hind gunships (helis) massacred remaining Kurdish rebels up North whom we had previously propped up to support during the Gulf War as they hated the Bathists too. But it was completely legal by the accord and we let it happen by accident. This is why they were really skeptical about helping out this time (Iraq '03) since we pretty much betrayed them to a figure that had no problem killing them w/ conventional and chemical weapons...though we didn't find any this time
. The Watergate scandal really seemed to not have much to do with him except that he tried to keep the cover up away from him... and he, like Clinton, was just surrounded by corrupt people (like Agnew). It's really hard to imagine that Nixon didn't have some of the stink himself, considering how much poop was all around him.
True, so sad. It's not like every president didn't have their collective fingers in alot of pies, diddling mistresses, or brokering back room deals. He gets us out of Vietnam and does a ton of other positive stuff, but soon as you say Watergate, ppl pull out the stops and say, "Oh, what a horrible president."
This is what baffled me about Bush Sr. Scapegoated for the economy unfairly. Odd, right? Isn't there a period of economic growth after war in most circumstances? I don't think he was soley responsible, but we love to point the finger.
He performed admirably as a Cmndr in Chief (the 1st & most important duty of a pres), but you gotta' remember he had extensive intel background (CIA) and 2 previous terms under Reagan during some nasty Cold War era stuff. He had the XP to do what needed doing militarilly speaking, but his son, God...a failed oilman that was given the world's most powerful arsenal at his disposal, look how he's bungled it under direction from Rumsfeld & Cheyney.
But look how that went. Still, as was mentioned prior, you could be gold, but surrounded w/ enough morally questionable ppl (see below), well...
Wiki: Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 — his fourth term — to serve in the Nixon administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969–1970); named Counselor to the President in December 1970, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program; and member of the President's Cabinet (1971–1972).
In 1971 Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld "at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."
Who knew Kissenger, Rice, and Bush Sr. hated him, 3 widely hailed to be alot more savvy than he in foreign diplomacy. Who knew he would advise Bush Jr. to disband the Iraqi army and get no-bid contracts for Halliburton in addition to other bone head moves that cost lives and billions of dollars.
Wonder if Nixon's outcome would've been different w/out guys like this. With friends like these and bla bla bla.
Sorry for the wall of text...
He did that during the primaries. It's old news now. ;)
Yep, that's what campaign staff and surrogates do.
I do find it jarring that he's decrying the hobby of a pretty large chunk of our country's military men and women, while at the same time trying to position himself as being the one who's in touch with them and their needs.
On the other hand when Obama was making nice with the guys who said people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter he was sitting in front of the San Fran lefties who think the USMC are invaders in their city and he certainly didn't call them out for that. He certainly didn't have a problem with standing side by side with a man who has no regrets about committing terrorist acts and trampling the American flag. I think those trump stupid things about D&D.
On the other hand when Obama was making nice with the guys who said people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter he was sitting in front of the San Fran lefties who think the USMC are invaders in their city and he certainly didn't call them out for that. He certainly didn't have a problem with standing side by side with a man who has no regrets about committing terrorist acts and trampling the American flag. I think those trump stupid things about D&D.
When you are on the left and your candidate associates with unsavory people, you have to find everything you can to smear the opposition. I guess that includes staffers making references to D&D players. It just tells you how incongruent the left is to rational indignation to what the populace cares about in America.
When you are on the left and your candidate associates with unsavory people, you have to find everything you can to smear the opposition. I guess that includes staffers making references to D&D players. It just tells you how incongruent the left is to rational indignation to what the populace cares about in America.
The conservatives are just as bad. No one can take the high road in politics. I hope one day that people start evaluating actions based on the individual rather than party affiliation. Too many people think that this party or that one is better for America when the reality is that both parties have strong points and weak points. Sometimes their platforms are improperly implemented causing more harm than good.
McCain has been known to associate with unsavory people as well. It's part and parcel of politics. It's not the associates we should be concerned with but the character of the man we are voting into office.
The conservatives are just as bad. No one can take the high road in politics. I hope one day that people start evaluating actions based on the individual rather than party affiliation. Too many people think that this party or that one is better for America when the reality is that both parties have strong points and weak points. Sometimes their platforms are improperly implemented causing more harm than good.
McCain has been known to associate with unsavory people as well. It's part and parcel of politics. It's not the associates we should be concerned with but the character of the man we are voting into office.
That's fair, I concur.
The conservatives are just as bad. No one can take the high road in politics.
Yeah, no one is safe. If you're apart of the system, chances are you're beholden to someone, some interest, something apart from your initial ideology that made you so fresh and attractive to begin w/. Capaign money is changing hands just to make you a known figure and that money is never strings free ever. No one gets out clean and unscathed really. If there were a way to inform the people of THEIR CHOICES w/out the trade, that would be something, truly, but what?
Seriously, thoughts, ideas?
Best venue of information on canidate 'x' through 'z' I've found is The League of Women Voters as they seem to be fairly impartial and analytic, but most John Does just watch popular media outlets which aren't exactly unbiased these days.
I hope one day that people start evaluating actions based on the individual rather than party affiliation. Too many people think that this party or that one is better for America when the reality is that both parties have strong points and weak points. Sometimes their platforms are improperly implemented causing more harm than good.
I feel you. It sucks in a big way. And there are no red & blue states. Just people, but the polarizing notion supporting bipartisanship is what D.C. wants.
Most of my family typically votes Republican and I can identify w/ alot of the truisms & so forth, but the older I get, the more disenchanted I seem to become w/ the political machine in this country...world really. And sadly, you can vote dem/GOP, but w/ all their infighting, little gets done. It's like you have to have a majority of one or the other to get the ball rolling, it's just the direction it rolls isn't necessarilly what you want so much as what "they" want.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Ben Franklin. This is indicative of all parties ever. Still, despite the moral decar in our own political structure, you should see China, Russia, etc. Thick as thieves.
Of course my dad was fond of saying, "If you're under 40 and don't vote Democrat, you don't have a heart. If you're over 40 and don't vote Republican, you don't have a brain."
Either way you're screwed which seems to be the mantra of the nation now. The lesser of 2 evils rather than a good guy/gal you can get behind and feel good about. No such thing anymore. Those good guys/gals are not marketable & malleable to a system of parties that needs them to be less goodly & idealistic and more ambitious and assertive. Of course, the speeches they write for them (a science really) make incredible overtures of goodwill and nobility, but the next 4 years speak volumes better than any microphone and image consultant.
I wonder if he knows about all the men and women who have served in the armed forces who also have played Dungeons & Dragons in the past and present?
Maybe I'm wrong in my comment.. I dunno, I'm kind of left speachless right now.
No your right on, there are several military members who play D&D.
Now as to the statements by the "McCain" party morron. Even if McCain himself had made the statement, one must look at the mans gerneration and realize even my grandmother still thinks that D&D players are hoodlems in traing, but I don't hold that against her. As such I wouldn't be able to hold it aginst McCain either, everyone has their misconceptions, and unfortunately for some they think that most people share that out look on gamer community.
That generation of folks just simply belives that the age of playing cops and robbers (because in its deepest essence that is what we are doing) ends around the age 10. In truth our generation, or rather our parents generation for a lot of us, just found a way to keep the game going.
Unfortunately, the phrase "plays D&D" IS still, after 30+ years, an insult. And no, as a gamer, I do not appreciate the negative stereotype of the insult. Does it sway my vote? No. Am I going to get righteous-indignant about it? No. Is it irritating? Yes.
Some people think all Democrats are godless, amoral baby-killers.
Some people think all Democrats are godless, amoral baby-killers.
And Some people think all Republicans are Are “bitter”, and “cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because of “frustrations”.
Some people think all Democrats are godless, amoral baby-killers.
Wait... you're saying they aren't?
Dammit! How could I have been so wrong?
And Some people think all Republicans are Are “bitter”, and “cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because of “frustrations”.
Even more people think that Neo-Cons distort and even outright lie about what people say in order to land cheap political points. To whit, no one stated these things about Republicans - point of fact many of the folks referred to in that quote are likely to be Democrats. Reagan Democrats to be sure, but Democrats none the less.
As my NRA member cubicle neighbor said, "Well I don't like the man, and he could have said it better, but he ain't far wrong."
Oh, I'm liberal too, and support her 100%.
And the real kicker...after we kow towed to the rest of the planet and the Kuwaitis said "thanks" gratefully, we brokered this 1/2 ass peace deal w/ Saddam. Namely the "No Fly Zone". In our ignorance (didn't heed military advice, alot like the Clinton admin pre 9/11) and Iraqi delight, this only covered fixed-wing aircraft, not rotorcraft. So, that meant after the Gulf War, alot of Hind gunships (helis) massacred remaining Kurdish rebels up North whom we had previously propped up to support during the Gulf War as they hated the Bathists too. But it was completely legal by the accord and we let it happen by accident. This is why they were really skeptical about helping out this time (Iraq '03) since we pretty much betrayed them to a figure that had no problem killing them w/ conventional and chemical weapons...though we didn't find any this time
Yeah I remember Bush Snr appearing on TV and promising that if the Iraqi people and Kurd rose against Saddam that he would support them. They rose up and he let Saddam murder them.
Note also that Saddam Hussein never went on trial for the murder of the Kurds and Shiias. The US Administration pushed for his execution before he stood trial for those (his worst) atrocities. Not surprising as they supplied the weapons (and the US paid $2 billion dollars to cover Iraq's defaulted loans). http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm
Even more people think that Neo-Cons distort and even outright lie about what people say in order to land cheap political points. To whit, no one stated these things about Republicans - point of fact many of the folks referred to in that quote are likely to be Democrats. Reagan Democrats to be sure, but Democrats none the less.
As my NRA member cubicle neighbor said, "Well I don't like the man, and he could have said it better, but he ain't far wrong."
I thought Regan Democrats were social liberal but fiscally conservative democrats.
I thought Regan Democrats were social liberal but fiscally conservative democrats.
I am pretty sure they are registered Democrats who voted for Reagan.
I am pretty sure they are registered Democrats who voted for Reagan.
So why do they call people "Reagan Democrats" that never voted for Reagan? Keep in mind the youngest possible R.D. would be 42 and voter turn out among 18-24 year olds were only 36% of the voters in 1984.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7D91530F931A25750C0A96F948260
Remember, John McCain thinks all of us are LOSERS!!! And that we support Obama.
So get out there tomorrow and let him know that using our passtime to define us as people who life in our mother's basements is unacceptable!
For more on the candidates, check the link in my sig!