You know, I rather enjoy people calling one of my posts disingenuous or accusing me of deluding myself... all the while demonstrating that they are not thinking the whole matter through fully.
While it is true that members of a party tend to decide who leads the party or represents them within it... just like in the American electoral and political system, it's not always a direct system, nor are representatives bound to go the way those that put them there would necessarily want.
In the case of Scozzafava, she was given the nomination not by the local voters, or even state voters, but by party leadership in the state and while there are pockets of strong Republicanism/Conservativism in the state of New York, the larger party in that state is not one of them, so they selected someone they thought would best represent their 'moderate' views, rather than an actual conservative as the voters in the 23rd wanted both in past and in future (given the rapid movement towards support of Hoffman).
You heard me... just as say... Hillary Clinton likely wanted Obama to loose in 2008 so that she could run again in 2012 without having to fight an incumbent of her own party in a primary race.
You need to look at the numbers.
In the end Scozzafava got 6,976 votes despite having dropped out of the race, which is a few more than the 4,593 vote margin between Owens and Hoffman.
Given that NY-23 like plenty of other districts have the option for some forms of early voting (absentee being the most common)... more than a few votes would have been cast for Scozzafava before her withdrawing, votes that very likely would have gone to Hoffman.
More so remember that Hoffman was fighting a major uphill battle against two far more well known and better funded opponents... and rose from relative obscurity to claim 45.2% of the vote in only about a month (of being known)... with a bit more time and/or Scozzafava never being on the ballot for the general (as would have happened had there been a primary), Hoffman almost certainly would have done far far better and be a Congressmen today.
Actually at the end of the day NY-23 was actually a strategic win for the Republicans, despite what is perceived as a tactical loss.
Don't forget that because an actual Democrat (in name and in beliefs) now has that seat, he will be far easier to beat by an actual conservative in 2010 than a 'Republican' (in name but not in beliefs) such as Scozzafava would have been.
Don't like the candidates who end up on the general election? Work to campaign for some leading up to the primaries. Not happy with the choices you have in the primaries, run yourself.
Not happy with the options with your local ISPs? Start your own!
Quit crying that you don't like the outcome when you don't try to change it legitimately within the system while not forcing people to do what you want with the authority of law.
In your mind perhaps... but nowhere else I fear, not even in this later defensive reply.
Thankfully the need for me to fully reply has been negated by the wonderful comments from a few others here who understand the framing game you are falling into.
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
... and I wasn't even looking for anything related to abortion.
And note... this is all being said by a guy who generally sits out the abortion debate because I think there are a couple of larger issues that need to be dealt with before I'll focus on a side... and it is these issues which tends to tick off both sides fairly equally.
You are falling into he same trap as the original replier to my comment above... you are attempting to use specific framing words that are deemed 'safe' so as to try to move change the focus of the issue... after, no one opposes choice in general... right? The anti-abortion folks do the same thing figuring that no one is actually against life in general either.
This is why one should be clear in what they are saying.
Now... if someone who normally would say 'pro-choice' were instead to themselves 'pro-choice towards having the right to choose an abortion or not'... that would be another matter... unfortunately the only word you hear repeated is 'choice' from the left and 'life' from the right.
Congratulations, you now have zero credibility. Drop the incendiary rhetoric and maybe (rational, moderate) people will be interested in what you have to say.
... says the man who accuses another of using "incendiary rhetoric" while claiming I suddenly now have "zero credibility" without naming specifics. Or are we all to know not only where this magical power of yours to declare ones credibility as zeroed out and its underlying basis?
FYI: I refuse to use the poll tested terms of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'... I could use 'incendiary rhetoric' and call the opponents of given views 'anti-choice' and 'anti-life' as both sides tend to do about each other... however I've never been a big fan of framing words used in politics... so I call it what it is. Abortion. Those who are in favor of easy access to it, are pro-abortion, those who are against easy access to it are anti-abortion.
Remember... most people passionate about this issue are in favor of both choice, and life... it's just abortion they can't agree on.
Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.
So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?
One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.
So you really want to limit free speech to those who are sufficiently eloquent or well spoken... because if there is a cause I really believe in, but am not really good at speaking on, you want to prohibit me from getting together with a group of like minded people and throwing our support behind a person or two who can do the best job of making a case for what we believe.
> Corporations should not have a right to free speech, but people should.
In fairness... which other groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech and lobbying? Unions? Trade associations? Interest groups? Groups of more than 5?
What about Windows Small Business Server? Granted... the OEM price is roughly the same as a standard OEM copy of Server 2008... only it comes with a heck of a lot more in the box (Exchange, SQL, etc).
So like so many here, rather than debate you start with a bit of namecalling? Very nice.
Restate your opening argument without such and you may receive a response.
>Here's a compelling State interest: equal rights to all human beings.
FYI: Mantras are not a compelling state interest. Support the ideas of the mantra clearly, don't rely on it to be self describing.
And yet... that's not what is being advocated for by your own words... children are human beings and are largely unable to marry, married people are human beings and unable to marry (again, prior to termination of the previous one), human beings without sufficient vaccinations for certain diseases are generally unable to marry, most mentally infirm human beings are not able to marry, close blood adult relative human beings are not able to marry.
I thought you were advocating for equal rights for all adults... and yet I do not see any of the above groups being represented by this push for 'equal rights for all human beings' or from you. Strange that.
If you want to expand rights to another group... that's fine and dandy, but why they and only they, why not other groups? Anytime you change a line of demarcation, one must be very careful to know that they are moving it just far enough and that it is not likely to be moved again in future... otherwise the meaningfulness of the line is lost.
>OK, your implied "compelling interest" is children. Not that this hasn't been countered to death, but maybe you'll be the first person in human history to provide a cogent argument.
I was going to... only you went on another personal attack thus rendering your point moot. You are again welcome to restate it without the attack and may receive a response.
>I'm sure I could go on all day. So yeah, so far it seems the only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is bigotry. Feel free to craft a real argument, but please skip the slurry of hate and nonsense.
I always so entertaining how those who are so quick to claim that others are engaging in bigotry, hate, etc are the ones in fact using such tactics personally against those they disagree with.
I hate to break it to you... but intolerance of perceived bigotry (true or not)... is still bigotry... and while you are free to label me however you like (especially when clearly not understanding my stance)... by doing so and vilifying them as you do, you reveal yourself to be no better than they you are so hateful of.
Btw... the above was strike three for you, you are free to reply to this post however you will not get a response given your continued inability to maintain a civil tone.
>Is there some kind of conservative playbook that teaches you to throw a collection of information into a bottle, shake it, and then present whatever garbage that comes out as the truth? Or is just a side effect of having an underdeveloped cerebral cortex?
So rather than discuss you get into labeling, and in a pejorative way no less while engaging in personal attacks? You must be pretty dang confident in your stance when you spend so little time supporting it.
>Hold onto your seat, because I'm about to blow your fucking mind. Washington already has domestic partnerships. Right now in Washington, there are many families led by two men and they are raising children. I know, must be terrifying.
I know... I live in Washington. What's your point?
>So no, it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence to further their cause. I can't say I blame them though.
You say (correctly) that it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence... but then condone the threat or use of it by some? How noble of you, in fact, you deserve a peace prize for your courageous stand!
>These people have declare war on their existence and are determined to make sure they are treated as less than human.
These people? Who are 'these people'? More so, how exactly have 'these people' they declared war on anyone's existence?
If say... homosexuality was a genetic trait that was passed from parent to child the way skin or hair color is and many homosexuals were reproducing in relationships so as to continue AND they were somehow suddenly banned from reproducing (so as to cause the death of the trait/group/etc)... you might have a case... however given none of the preceding paragraph is true... there isn't as much to fear, and unlike your statement, the preceding is actually based on a reasonable argument.
>It's completely unreasonable to expect that homosexuals won't fight back.
There are degrees of fighting, some acceptable, others not and with your implicit support of violence (or threats of violence), you are effectively endorsing (by your own logic) the violence and threats of violence from those who are against gay marriage in the first place.
> She got what she deserved for blindly following her religion.
What evidence do you have that she was "blindly following her religion"?
For all you know she was following her religion with eyes wide open and full understanding of what she believed and did.
Chances are I know no more on the subject of her than you... the difference though is that unlike you I am not making specific (bigoted) accusations on the subject.
He was wrong on that part... however you are missing the key underlying point that like it or not, on the whole all adults in this country have the same 'right' to marry as the rest of them, be they gay, straight or otherwise.
What is not liked by the proponents of gay marriage is that this 'right' isn't something that they can as readily take advantage of given their preference for a mate runs counter to what current law allows in most states (ie the right to marry a member of the opposite sex).
>The issue is simple: Homosexual couples wish to have the exact same rights as straight couples: A legal marriage with all that legally comes along with it (eg, related to inheritance, hospital visitation, etc).
I think you need to ask yourself a very important question... what is the compelling state interest (look it up) in supporting/endorsing marriage? And no... it's not taxes, clearer inheritance law or hospital visitation. Once you understand this answer, you may just understand better why most states have not enacted specific provisions allowing same sex marriage. Btw... the answer is not "homophobia", "bigotry" or "intolerance" either.
>My favorite part of your rant is where you claim that equal rights are "unconstitutional", while implying that passing laws that explicitly deny these rights is not only legal but also moral.
You know... you are doing much what the CA Supreme Court did when they made their ruling which lead to Prop 8... inventing things they wanted to see out of whole cloth... but that's ok, with the cherry picking you did above it's no wonder.
>The ones fighting for freedom here are those trying to stop these bigoted, constraining laws.
So... one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist?
> Attempting to use the legal system to take away the rights of a minority is the worst kind of violence.
Would you please be so kind so as to point out these 'rights' you speak of... which according to my reading of the law (and that of most other legal scholars and judges)... they already have the same rights, just not all avail themselves of them (understandably).
What is being sought in Washington, like California was/is additional (ie new) rights, not the same rights.
More so it is sad that you try to find a moral equivalence between physical violence and rather non-violent legislation.
>I have no sympathy for people who are doing that or their apologists.
So you have no sympathy for yourself? I'm very sorry to hear you think so little of yourself.
If you are going to come up with an example about banning something, you really should pick something that is not a specific enumerated right under not only the federal constitution, but the majority of state constitutions as well.
Sadly for you... only a constitutional amendment can ban them in the US (even if just for hunting).
FYI: The 'forgiveness' only kicks in if you are working in certain 'public service' areas... an area I’d wager your average/.er does not... and again, only on federal loans (only ~2/5ths of my student loans are federal for example).
>I thought the wiki link was too obvious to elaborate on.
Obviously not given it doesn't address the points you attempted to raise previous or here.
>Those with the most money and power are associated with being on the Right.
That is the common belief yes... however I haven't seen a George Soros of the right as of late, nor seen oodles of wall street bankers donating to the GOP in the amount that they do the DNC.
>If you're far enough to the right, even speaking out against the established order is considered revolutionary.
Same goes for any extremes... we saw that above where a person who is apparently so far to the left that he wants to have those who disagree with him be forced into their own country/ghetto. What's your point?
>Historically the nobles did not grant freedom of the press to the proletariat, at least not without a fight.
More so... very good trying to turn this into a class based struggle, Marx and Alinsky would be proud!
Seriously though... you are comparing... former monarchies to... the United States and its media today? My we are grasping for straws aren't we?
Do you recall that the express purpose of the first amendment is to guarantee the freedom of the press? And even then it was not a right 'granted' by the nobles or even the government... but a recognition by the framers that we had those rights to begin with (you know the whole endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights) and being explicit that the federal government did not have the authority to act as you seem to be suggesting.
>What I just don't fathom about the Right these days is how middle and lower-middle class folks can be so supportive of big corporate dominance in every aspect of our lives, from politics and the economy to the hoarding of 23% of America's wealth by 1% of the population. At what point do corporations need the same checks and balances as government?
We are not corporatists... we are for liberty... for all... and that means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail without undue influence from the government.
Also would you be so kind as to name a single company (or even group) that exerts more influence on people's lives than any level (or combination of governments)?
Remember... while the evil corporations might have a policy or product you don't like... you have the freedom to go elsewhere for it. The government though has the ability to make decisions and then force them on everyone else. Want a high-flow toilet? Sorry, they are illegal. Want a good ole cheap and non-toxic screw in light bulb? Best stock up, they will soon be illegal. How about standing in front of the white line on a bus while it is in motion? Nope, that too is illegal says the feds.
More so... that evil 1% of the population that has 23% of America's wealth (interesting how you put the possessive on America and not say 'the wealth in America'... seeming to claim that the money actually belongs to the country as a whole but has been taken by that 1%). How exactly do you propose taking that money from them? I hear so much from the left about freedom and equality... and yet any means you use to explicitly target those people would be a violation of their freedoms .
>If you guys get your way we'll all be working for health care and low wages while a few execs take home billions. Oh wait... Doh!
Actually we'd be requiring people to be responsible for themselves and work get employers out of the welfare business by eliminating the tax differences between employer provided insurance and individually purchased (caused by government involvement in the first place)... as well as breaking illegal stranglehold the states have on insurance plans in general and allow people to buy plans that fit their needs from out of state.... all the while maintaining a system that rewards hard work and creativity which allows for a kind of economic mobility that really exists in no other country on earth.
>Nowhere else in the world, or at least nowhere that anyone wants to live, would most of the "left leaning media" that you describe be considered "left leaning".
Sadly much of Europe has skewed pretty far to the left over the years (but parts are showing promise)... so yes by comparison the bulk of our media is fairly 'centrist' by comparison... granted I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a non state run media as compliant and supportive of given government as we have in this country today... take Charlie Gibson for example, a given unemployment rate is bad under Reagan... but good under Obama?
>The only way to make them appear "left leaning" is for you to stand extremely far to the right.
Sadly correct... as many on the left in this country like to remind us when a conservative or right-ish government is elected over there... their conservative is more like one of our classical liberals.
>Heck if you're all the way to The Right then even "Freedom of the Press" becomes a rebellious liberal idea.
You'll have to provide a citation or example better than a whole Wikipedia entry that has not a single instance of the word 'press' or even 'media' within the article itself (excluding the notes section and footer).
So how long until things become his fault/problem?
>inheriting a cratering economy, failing banking sector, automotive sector and a health care crisis.
It's good to see that you have mastered repeating the talking points from the White House... bravo.
>I think he's done damn job with what he was given to work with.
So... nearly 10% unemployment is a 'damn good job' when he was promising it wouldn't go over 8 if we passed the stimulus bill right now now now? Such a good job getting all of those shovel ready projects going (which were a myth to begin with (if they were shovel ready funding would already exist for them)) and getting the other money out into the country... we are at what? 8% spent now?
>You don't change direction in a bureaucracy like DHS overnight.
Really? When the executive says "We will start doing X"... things don't change? How long do you expect things to be turned around that do not require the buyoff of congress? 1 year? 4? 8? More on that later...
>Besides, as soon as he starts looking at it or proposing changes, you'll be screaming about how Obama is leaving the country open to attack.
Depends on what the changes are⦠and frankly I haven't heard all that many with regards to changing how one gets into the country just yet... other than the occasional hints at comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty).
>Pathetic AND predictable.
Good to see you are again repeating existing phrases.
>Maybe you noticed it was people from outside the US raising this issue? No? That's not surprising.
I did... but then it's one man's opinion... and unfortunate given the platitudes the President was promising with regards to making the Olympic guests feel welcome.
I guess this means that no matter how bad things might have been due to last 8 years of Republican rule (and I'm of course being generous with the length)... you seem to be saying that the IOC didn't think that President Obama could turn things around in 8 years.
But you are absolutely right, it's all the fault of the Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the neo-cons, Blackwater (did I miss anyone?) and everyone else who isn't a good little progressive... right?
>Nothing but criticism and negativity.
Compared to the delusional comments from you of "I think he's done damn job with what he was given to work with"... I'd rather negative and critical... or as it is properly defined in this context... realistic.
Like it or not... things in this country have gotten far far worse since the President took office. Yes... he has taken some steps to try to improve things... and you'll notice that most of those programs were kicked off during the previous administration. Do I credit Bush with them? Heck no, most of them were mistakes and too have made this recession deeper and longer than it would have been had the govt played it hands off... or at least cut taxes as a stimulus instead of creating even greater debt (this is where you will no doubt throw in Iraq).
In fact the only real 'win' for him thus far has been the credit card bill of rights bit... which was largely a joke given what was promised and what it actually does for those who are so irresponsible that they cannot monitor their own bills.
>I'm sick of it, sick of you.
I'm sorry to hear you say that, there is a flu running about I hear.
>This country would be farther ahead if we carved off a section and let you have your own space. I'd be all for that.
So is this the much touted liberal tolerance I've been preached about for so long? What's more interesting is you expect us to go off into our own little place... when it is us and those like us (you know, freedom loving people) who founded this country.
Remember... the line was:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created eq
What I think is astounding is the pure gall of the conservatives, blaming president Obama for not getting the Olympics when it was their crap ass policies and politics that put in place the anal probe, 3rd world border treatment afforded our guests these days. Like we're going to forget who was behind it all. But that's been the pattern right along. Absolving themselves from any accountability by trying to pin it on someone else. Pathetic.
Actually the pathetic thing is you doing just what you are accusing conservatives of doing... blaming someone else.
Were US entry policies to blame... perhaps. Has President Obama done anything to make things easier? Not really.
The President does get a fair bit of blame for spending something on the order of $1.2 million dollars for the quick day trip involving several planes (why can't he and the wife carpool anyway?), obviously contributing to global warming along the way while spending millions of US tax payer dollars for transportation and security (in the middle of a recession when unemployment continues to rise) and trying to leverage his much touted international appeal... all to an embarrassing end.
Had the President been as experienced as some like to think he would know that one does not lend his stature to negotiation of this type, instead only appearing when the deal was done and lending his stature to the final successful closing of it... because anything else is a waste of his time and credibility.
Face it... the President failed at something he decided to inject himself into. Do other parties and other reasons share some blame? Perhaps. However that does not change the fact that the President of the United States decided to inject himself into yet another issue that he had no direct responsibility to (as his is pattern), and once again failed miserably to deliver.
Say... how's that Gitmo closing thing going? Or the economy? Iran? Jobs? I'm sorry friend, but the past 9.5 months have not exactly been a bunch of wins for this new administration... and the sooner you realize the actual cause of many of these things, the easier you will sleep at night because HopeNChange... have failed.
2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
Given some of the footage I've seen... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?
>That's a lie that you just made up.
Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.
For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.
>I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".
Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).
Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?
>What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.
Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.
Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.
Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.
>So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.
And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.
>It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.
Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!
>They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.
It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.
I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).
If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.
>If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.
You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...
So rather than research the issue yourself... you take the talking points from the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader... you could at least make it less easy to make it clear where you got your talking points from (Bing, Google).
That being said... from that list (assuming they are the worst offenders given the source of the material)... how many have the kind of lasting change and massive regulation that the heath care... err sorry, health insurance reform would be. How many of those effectively nationalized 1/6th to 1/5th of our economy.
I'll tell ya a lil secret... when the republicans used this move to do something (other than break an unconstitutional filibuster on a court nominee)... it was wrong... and pointing to wrong behavior in order to justify behavior that is wrong and orders of magnitude more massive does not make it ok.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I rather enjoy people calling one of my posts disingenuous or accusing me of deluding myself... all the while demonstrating that they are not thinking the whole matter through fully.
While it is true that members of a party tend to decide who leads the party or represents them within it... just like in the American electoral and political system, it's not always a direct system, nor are representatives bound to go the way those that put them there would necessarily want.
In the case of Scozzafava, she was given the nomination not by the local voters, or even state voters, but by party leadership in the state and while there are pockets of strong Republicanism/Conservativism in the state of New York, the larger party in that state is not one of them, so they selected someone they thought would best represent their 'moderate' views, rather than an actual conservative as the voters in the 23rd wanted both in past and in future (given the rapid movement towards support of Hoffman).
You heard me... just as say... Hillary Clinton likely wanted Obama to loose in 2008 so that she could run again in 2012 without having to fight an incumbent of her own party in a primary race.
You need to look at the numbers.
In the end Scozzafava got 6,976 votes despite having dropped out of the race, which is a few more than the 4,593 vote margin between Owens and Hoffman.
Given that NY-23 like plenty of other districts have the option for some forms of early voting (absentee being the most common)... more than a few votes would have been cast for Scozzafava before her withdrawing, votes that very likely would have gone to Hoffman.
More so remember that Hoffman was fighting a major uphill battle against two far more well known and better funded opponents... and rose from relative obscurity to claim 45.2% of the vote in only about a month (of being known)... with a bit more time and/or Scozzafava never being on the ballot for the general (as would have happened had there been a primary), Hoffman almost certainly would have done far far better and be a Congressmen today.
Actually at the end of the day NY-23 was actually a strategic win for the Republicans, despite what is perceived as a tactical loss.
Don't forget that because an actual Democrat (in name and in beliefs) now has that seat, he will be far easier to beat by an actual conservative in 2010 than a 'Republican' (in name but not in beliefs) such as Scozzafava would have been.
Then get more directly involved.
Don't like the candidates who end up on the general election? Work to campaign for some leading up to the primaries. Not happy with the choices you have in the primaries, run yourself.
Not happy with the options with your local ISPs? Start your own!
Quit crying that you don't like the outcome when you don't try to change it legitimately within the system while not forcing people to do what you want with the authority of law.
In your mind perhaps... but nowhere else I fear, not even in this later defensive reply.
Thankfully the need for me to fully reply has been negated by the wonderful comments from a few others here who understand the framing game you are falling into.
Really? "not the case for anyone"?
Funny you should say that given just a few min ago I ran across this story which said in part:
And note... this is all being said by a guy who generally sits out the abortion debate because I think there are a couple of larger issues that need to be dealt with before I'll focus on a side... and it is these issues which tends to tick off both sides fairly equally.
You are falling into he same trap as the original replier to my comment above... you are attempting to use specific framing words that are deemed 'safe' so as to try to move change the focus of the issue... after, no one opposes choice in general... right? The anti-abortion folks do the same thing figuring that no one is actually against life in general either.
This is why one should be clear in what they are saying.
Now... if someone who normally would say 'pro-choice' were instead to themselves 'pro-choice towards having the right to choose an abortion or not'... that would be another matter... unfortunately the only word you hear repeated is 'choice' from the left and 'life' from the right.
FYI: I refuse to use the poll tested terms of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'... I could use 'incendiary rhetoric' and call the opponents of given views 'anti-choice' and 'anti-life' as both sides tend to do about each other... however I've never been a big fan of framing words used in politics... so I call it what it is. Abortion. Those who are in favor of easy access to it, are pro-abortion, those who are against easy access to it are anti-abortion.
Remember... most people passionate about this issue are in favor of both choice, and life... it's just abortion they can't agree on.
I know... so hate filled and incendiary of me.
Actually the opposition to her comes more from her being pro-stimulus and pro-cardcheck and generally being more aligned with the Democrat party than it does from those who are "rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled" as you put it... but no doubt her pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stance didn't help her with the republicans.
So which is it? Is she really more of a Democrat who happens to anti-gun control... or more of a Republican who is pro-card check, pro-same sex marriage, pro-stimulus, and pro-abortion?
One is far easier to believe than the other personally... but mostly because I've known more of the latter than the prior over the years.
So you really want to limit free speech to those who are sufficiently eloquent or well spoken... because if there is a cause I really believe in, but am not really good at speaking on, you want to prohibit me from getting together with a group of like minded people and throwing our support behind a person or two who can do the best job of making a case for what we believe.
> Corporations should not have a right to free speech, but people should.
In fairness... which other groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech and lobbying? Unions? Trade associations? Interest groups? Groups of more than 5?
What about Windows Small Business Server? Granted... the OEM price is roughly the same as a standard OEM copy of Server 2008... only it comes with a heck of a lot more in the box (Exchange, SQL, etc).
One wonders what will come of Windows Foundation Server and it's pricing.
>Here's why you're a hateful bigot:
So like so many here, rather than debate you start with a bit of namecalling? Very nice.
Restate your opening argument without such and you may receive a response.
>Here's a compelling State interest: equal rights to all human beings.
FYI: Mantras are not a compelling state interest. Support the ideas of the mantra clearly, don't rely on it to be self describing.
And yet... that's not what is being advocated for by your own words... children are human beings and are largely unable to marry, married people are human beings and unable to marry (again, prior to termination of the previous one), human beings without sufficient vaccinations for certain diseases are generally unable to marry, most mentally infirm human beings are not able to marry, close blood adult relative human beings are not able to marry.
I thought you were advocating for equal rights for all adults... and yet I do not see any of the above groups being represented by this push for 'equal rights for all human beings' or from you. Strange that.
If you want to expand rights to another group... that's fine and dandy, but why they and only they, why not other groups? Anytime you change a line of demarcation, one must be very careful to know that they are moving it just far enough and that it is not likely to be moved again in future... otherwise the meaningfulness of the line is lost.
>OK, your implied "compelling interest" is children. Not that this hasn't been countered to death, but maybe you'll be the first person in human history to provide a cogent argument.
I was going to... only you went on another personal attack thus rendering your point moot. You are again welcome to restate it without the attack and may receive a response.
>I'm sure I could go on all day. So yeah, so far it seems the only reason to oppose homosexual marriage is bigotry. Feel free to craft a real argument, but please skip the slurry of hate and nonsense.
I always so entertaining how those who are so quick to claim that others are engaging in bigotry, hate, etc are the ones in fact using such tactics personally against those they disagree with.
I hate to break it to you... but intolerance of perceived bigotry (true or not)... is still bigotry... and while you are free to label me however you like (especially when clearly not understanding my stance)... by doing so and vilifying them as you do, you reveal yourself to be no better than they you are so hateful of.
Btw... the above was strike three for you, you are free to reply to this post however you will not get a response given your continued inability to maintain a civil tone.
>Is there some kind of conservative playbook that teaches you to throw a collection of information into a bottle, shake it, and then present whatever garbage that comes out as the truth? Or is just a side effect of having an underdeveloped cerebral cortex?
So rather than discuss you get into labeling, and in a pejorative way no less while engaging in personal attacks? You must be pretty dang confident in your stance when you spend so little time supporting it.
>Hold onto your seat, because I'm about to blow your fucking mind. Washington already has domestic partnerships. Right now in Washington, there are many families led by two men and they are raising children. I know, must be terrifying.
I know... I live in Washington. What's your point?
>So no, it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence to further their cause. I can't say I blame them though.
You say (correctly) that it's not OK for gays to use violence or threats of violence... but then condone the threat or use of it by some? How noble of you, in fact, you deserve a peace prize for your courageous stand!
>These people have declare war on their existence and are determined to make sure they are treated as less than human.
These people? Who are 'these people'? More so, how exactly have 'these people' they declared war on anyone's existence?
If say... homosexuality was a genetic trait that was passed from parent to child the way skin or hair color is and many homosexuals were reproducing in relationships so as to continue AND they were somehow suddenly banned from reproducing (so as to cause the death of the trait/group/etc)... you might have a case... however given none of the preceding paragraph is true... there isn't as much to fear, and unlike your statement, the preceding is actually based on a reasonable argument.
>It's completely unreasonable to expect that homosexuals won't fight back.
There are degrees of fighting, some acceptable, others not and with your implicit support of violence (or threats of violence), you are effectively endorsing (by your own logic) the violence and threats of violence from those who are against gay marriage in the first place.
It's called tit for tat.
> She got what she deserved for blindly following her religion.
What evidence do you have that she was "blindly following her religion"?
For all you know she was following her religion with eyes wide open and full understanding of what she believed and did.
Chances are I know no more on the subject of her than you... the difference though is that unlike you I am not making specific (bigoted) accusations on the subject.
>And using the law to control how other people live is NOT intimidation?
You mean being simply being gay or being involved in a same sex relationship has been outlawed in California or Washington?
I must have missed that story on the news.
He was wrong on that part... however you are missing the key underlying point that like it or not, on the whole all adults in this country have the same 'right' to marry as the rest of them, be they gay, straight or otherwise.
What is not liked by the proponents of gay marriage is that this 'right' isn't something that they can as readily take advantage of given their preference for a mate runs counter to what current law allows in most states (ie the right to marry a member of the opposite sex).
>The issue is simple: Homosexual couples wish to have the exact same rights as straight couples: A legal marriage with all that legally comes along with it (eg, related to inheritance, hospital visitation, etc).
I think you need to ask yourself a very important question... what is the compelling state interest (look it up) in supporting/endorsing marriage? And no... it's not taxes, clearer inheritance law or hospital visitation. Once you understand this answer, you may just understand better why most states have not enacted specific provisions allowing same sex marriage. Btw... the answer is not "homophobia", "bigotry" or "intolerance" either.
>My favorite part of your rant is where you claim that equal rights are "unconstitutional", while implying that passing laws that explicitly deny these rights is not only legal but also moral.
You know... you are doing much what the CA Supreme Court did when they made their ruling which lead to Prop 8... inventing things they wanted to see out of whole cloth... but that's ok, with the cherry picking you did above it's no wonder.
> Uh, you seem to be confused.
Actually... you are clearly the one who is that.
>The ones fighting for freedom here are those trying to stop these bigoted, constraining laws.
So... one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist?
> Attempting to use the legal system to take away the rights of a minority is the worst kind of violence.
Would you please be so kind so as to point out these 'rights' you speak of... which according to my reading of the law (and that of most other legal scholars and judges)... they already have the same rights, just not all avail themselves of them (understandably).
What is being sought in Washington, like California was/is additional (ie new) rights, not the same rights.
More so it is sad that you try to find a moral equivalence between physical violence and rather non-violent legislation.
>I have no sympathy for people who are doing that or their apologists.
So you have no sympathy for yourself? I'm very sorry to hear you think so little of yourself.
If you are going to come up with an example about banning something, you really should pick something that is not a specific enumerated right under not only the federal constitution, but the majority of state constitutions as well.
Sadly for you... only a constitutional amendment can ban them in the US (even if just for hunting).
FYI: The 'forgiveness' only kicks in if you are working in certain 'public service' areas... an area I’d wager your average /.er does not... and again, only on federal loans (only ~2/5ths of my student loans are federal for example).
>I thought the wiki link was too obvious to elaborate on.
Obviously not given it doesn't address the points you attempted to raise previous or here.
>Those with the most money and power are associated with being on the Right.
That is the common belief yes... however I haven't seen a George Soros of the right as of late, nor seen oodles of wall street bankers donating to the GOP in the amount that they do the DNC.
>If you're far enough to the right, even speaking out against the established order is considered revolutionary.
Same goes for any extremes... we saw that above where a person who is apparently so far to the left that he wants to have those who disagree with him be forced into their own country/ghetto. What's your point?
>Historically the nobles did not grant freedom of the press to the proletariat, at least not without a fight.
More so... very good trying to turn this into a class based struggle, Marx and Alinsky would be proud!
Seriously though... you are comparing... former monarchies to... the United States and its media today? My we are grasping for straws aren't we?
Do you recall that the express purpose of the first amendment is to guarantee the freedom of the press? And even then it was not a right 'granted' by the nobles or even the government... but a recognition by the framers that we had those rights to begin with (you know the whole endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights) and being explicit that the federal government did not have the authority to act as you seem to be suggesting.
>What I just don't fathom about the Right these days is how middle and lower-middle class folks can be so supportive of big corporate dominance in every aspect of our lives, from politics and the economy to the hoarding of 23% of America's wealth by 1% of the population. At what point do corporations need the same checks and balances as government?
We are not corporatists... we are for liberty... for all... and that means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail without undue influence from the government.
Also would you be so kind as to name a single company (or even group) that exerts more influence on people's lives than any level (or combination of governments)?
Remember... while the evil corporations might have a policy or product you don't like... you have the freedom to go elsewhere for it. The government though has the ability to make decisions and then force them on everyone else. Want a high-flow toilet? Sorry, they are illegal. Want a good ole cheap and non-toxic screw in light bulb? Best stock up, they will soon be illegal. How about standing in front of the white line on a bus while it is in motion? Nope, that too is illegal says the feds.
More so... that evil 1% of the population that has 23% of America's wealth (interesting how you put the possessive on America and not say 'the wealth in America'... seeming to claim that the money actually belongs to the country as a whole but has been taken by that 1%). How exactly do you propose taking that money from them? I hear so much from the left about freedom and equality... and yet any means you use to explicitly target those people would be a violation of their freedoms .
>If you guys get your way we'll all be working for health care and low wages while a few execs take home billions. Oh wait... Doh!
Actually we'd be requiring people to be responsible for themselves and work get employers out of the welfare business by eliminating the tax differences between employer provided insurance and individually purchased (caused by government involvement in the first place)... as well as breaking illegal stranglehold the states have on insurance plans in general and allow people to buy plans that fit their needs from out of state.... all the while maintaining a system that rewards hard work and creativity which allows for a kind of economic mobility that really exists in no other country on earth.
>Nowhere else in the world, or at least nowhere that anyone wants to live, would most of the "left leaning media" that you describe be considered "left leaning".
Sadly much of Europe has skewed pretty far to the left over the years (but parts are showing promise)... so yes by comparison the bulk of our media is fairly 'centrist' by comparison... granted I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a non state run media as compliant and supportive of given government as we have in this country today... take Charlie Gibson for example, a given unemployment rate is bad under Reagan... but good under Obama?
>The only way to make them appear "left leaning" is for you to stand extremely far to the right.
Sadly correct... as many on the left in this country like to remind us when a conservative or right-ish government is elected over there... their conservative is more like one of our classical liberals.
>Heck if you're all the way to The Right then even "Freedom of the Press" becomes a rebellious liberal idea.
You'll have to provide a citation or example better than a whole Wikipedia entry that has not a single instance of the word 'press' or even 'media' within the article itself (excluding the notes section and footer).
>He's had 9 months,
So how long until things become his fault/problem?
>inheriting a cratering economy, failing banking sector, automotive sector and a health care crisis.
It's good to see that you have mastered repeating the talking points from the White House... bravo.
>I think he's done damn job with what he was given to work with.
So... nearly 10% unemployment is a 'damn good job' when he was promising it wouldn't go over 8 if we passed the stimulus bill right now now now? Such a good job getting all of those shovel ready projects going (which were a myth to begin with (if they were shovel ready funding would already exist for them)) and getting the other money out into the country... we are at what? 8% spent now?
>You don't change direction in a bureaucracy like DHS overnight.
Really? When the executive says "We will start doing X"... things don't change? How long do you expect things to be turned around that do not require the buyoff of congress? 1 year? 4? 8? More on that later...
>Besides, as soon as he starts looking at it or proposing changes, you'll be screaming about how Obama is leaving the country open to attack.
Depends on what the changes are⦠and frankly I haven't heard all that many with regards to changing how one gets into the country just yet... other than the occasional hints at comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty).
>Pathetic AND predictable.
Good to see you are again repeating existing phrases.
>Maybe you noticed it was people from outside the US raising this issue? No? That's not surprising.
I did... but then it's one man's opinion... and unfortunate given the platitudes the President was promising with regards to making the Olympic guests feel welcome.
I guess this means that no matter how bad things might have been due to last 8 years of Republican rule (and I'm of course being generous with the length)... you seem to be saying that the IOC didn't think that President Obama could turn things around in 8 years.
But you are absolutely right, it's all the fault of the Republicans, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the neo-cons, Blackwater (did I miss anyone?) and everyone else who isn't a good little progressive... right?
>Nothing but criticism and negativity.
Compared to the delusional comments from you of "I think he's done damn job with what he was given to work with"... I'd rather negative and critical... or as it is properly defined in this context... realistic.
Like it or not... things in this country have gotten far far worse since the President took office. Yes... he has taken some steps to try to improve things... and you'll notice that most of those programs were kicked off during the previous administration. Do I credit Bush with them? Heck no, most of them were mistakes and too have made this recession deeper and longer than it would have been had the govt played it hands off... or at least cut taxes as a stimulus instead of creating even greater debt (this is where you will no doubt throw in Iraq).
In fact the only real 'win' for him thus far has been the credit card bill of rights bit... which was largely a joke given what was promised and what it actually does for those who are so irresponsible that they cannot monitor their own bills.
>I'm sick of it, sick of you.
I'm sorry to hear you say that, there is a flu running about I hear.
>This country would be farther ahead if we carved off a section and let you have your own space. I'd be all for that.
So is this the much touted liberal tolerance I've been preached about for so long? What's more interesting is you expect us to go off into our own little place... when it is us and those like us (you know, freedom loving people) who founded this country.
Remember... the line was:
What I think is astounding is the pure gall of the conservatives, blaming president Obama for not getting the Olympics when it was their crap ass policies and politics that put in place the anal probe, 3rd world border treatment afforded our guests these days. Like we're going to forget who was behind it all. But that's been the pattern right along. Absolving themselves from any accountability by trying to pin it on someone else. Pathetic.
Actually the pathetic thing is you doing just what you are accusing conservatives of doing... blaming someone else.
Were US entry policies to blame... perhaps. Has President Obama done anything to make things easier? Not really.
The President does get a fair bit of blame for spending something on the order of $1.2 million dollars for the quick day trip involving several planes (why can't he and the wife carpool anyway?), obviously contributing to global warming along the way while spending millions of US tax payer dollars for transportation and security (in the middle of a recession when unemployment continues to rise) and trying to leverage his much touted international appeal... all to an embarrassing end.
Had the President been as experienced as some like to think he would know that one does not lend his stature to negotiation of this type, instead only appearing when the deal was done and lending his stature to the final successful closing of it... because anything else is a waste of his time and credibility.
Face it... the President failed at something he decided to inject himself into. Do other parties and other reasons share some blame? Perhaps. However that does not change the fact that the President of the United States decided to inject himself into yet another issue that he had no direct responsibility to (as his is pattern), and once again failed miserably to deliver.
Say... how's that Gitmo closing thing going? Or the economy? Iran? Jobs? I'm sorry friend, but the past 9.5 months have not exactly been a bunch of wins for this new administration... and the sooner you realize the actual cause of many of these things, the easier you will sleep at night because HopeNChange... have failed.
How your trash got modded insightful is beyond me.
>Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist.
Didn't you get the memo? Calling those you disagree with facist is so 2001-2008... now you are supposed to call them racist, get with it man!
>No one is rioting.
Depends on your definition of rioting, Merriam-Webster defines it in part as:
Given some of the footage I've seen... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?
>That's a lie that you just made up.
Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.
For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.
>I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".
Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).
Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?
>What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.
Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.
Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.
Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.
>So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.
And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.
>It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.
Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!
>They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.
It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.
I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).
If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.
>If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.
You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...
So rather than research the issue yourself... you take the talking points from the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader... you could at least make it less easy to make it clear where you got your talking points from (Bing, Google).
That being said... from that list (assuming they are the worst offenders given the source of the material)... how many have the kind of lasting change and massive regulation that the heath care... err sorry, health insurance reform would be. How many of those effectively nationalized 1/6th to 1/5th of our economy.
I'll tell ya a lil secret... when the republicans used this move to do something (other than break an unconstitutional filibuster on a court nominee)... it was wrong... and pointing to wrong behavior in order to justify behavior that is wrong and orders of magnitude more massive does not make it ok.