happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 15, 2013 14:20:37 GMT -5
This is where you and I will never agree. Biologically, a mammal is a mammal when it survives outside the womb, apart from it's mother.
So to answer your question, yes I would absolutely try to rescue the drowning man, because he is an actual human being.
My own personal opinion of abortion is I wish it didn't exist, it goes against my religious beliefs, and I would never have one myself, unless it could be proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it might kill me to carry the baby to term, or if the fetus was nonviable outside the womb.
However, I also believe that here in this land of liberty, a person's medical decisions, decisions about family size, about finances, about her decision to take on a certain level of risk (death in childbirth still happens, especially to moms with existing medical issues) - all those decisions are intensely private and must be made by the woman, her partner and her doctor.
Not by a committee of men in Washington.
And I think instead of debating at what point a zygote becomes a human being we should be focusing our efforts on encouraging adoption, promoting the use of contraceptions (free condoms at the schools, bars, restaurants and movies!) and educating young adults safe sex, which includes contraception, and creating ways for help mom care for their babies, even single unwed moms.
Unfortunately in my neck of the rural South, I would get stoned to death for advocating all those things, except adoption.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 15, 2013 14:48:04 GMT -5
happyhoix - I totally respect that position, which is why I made a point of acknowledging the basis of mine. I'm a foster parent myself, about to become an adoptive one, as part of an infertile couple. It gives me a different perspective on the issue than I had as a single male.
I also don't think my position is so objectively correct I'd cite it in enforcing a restriction on someone else's decision in this very personal area. I'd object to a law requiring me to save drowning men in rivers, too.
dj - I appreciate the consistency of your view, as well. It seems to me that the rational basis for the pro-choice position has to rest on a hierarchy of personhood: either the unborn fetus isn't a person at all, or it's a person in a very much lesser sense that justifies ignoring the rights it would accrue as a full person. I'm not personally comfortable with three-fifths compromises, but they're necessary for the orderly functioning of the body politic.
Most opposition over this issue arises from where we place an unborn fetus on a notional continuum between a newborn child and a sloughed skin cell. That's a matter of interpretation, of course. I can't imagine many pro-lifers having a problem with surgeries to remove cancerous tumors, for example, or many pro-choicers supporting infanticide.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 15, 2013 18:50:09 GMT -5
I am 100%, uncompromisingly pro-life-- however, I have stated many times here that I'm a pragmatist and willing to do anything that moves the ball in the right direction towards the goal posts, even if it means compromising. Many ardent pro-lifers like myself I think are right to worry about a kind of 'Dred Scott' decision regarding the unborn-- HOWEVER, I think in a Constitutional Republic such as ours which begins and ends with a healthy respect for the rights of the individual, I am actually OPEN to the idea that one human being ought not be compelled to serve another- even if that means the poor die without welfare, er, um, I mean even if an unborn child dies. That being said, I do feel that:
1. We MUST establish a deadline for a woman to make her 'decision'. There needs to be a point of no return. After which the full- and legitimate- force of the government should be brought to bear defending the life of that child just as they would justly defend any other life. After all, we all agree that my belief that one human being ought not be compelled to service the needs of another doesn't mean getting rid of child neglect laws. I believe that at a point certain in the development of an unborn child, a woman has taken on the responsibility. I do not believe that the responsibility doesn't hold a week, or a second before birth.
2. Doctors who perform elective abortions should be regulated just as any other doctor would be.
3. Elective abortions are not the responsibility of taxpayers, nor should insurance carriers be compelled to fund abortions. This is a freedom of conscience issue- a freedom of religion issue. I would not compromise on this at all.
I think someday abortion will all but end in the US- especially as a means of birth control- and we will look back on the barbaric procedure in the same way that we look at the holocaust and slavery with a kind of horrific wonderment at how we could ever have gotten to this point?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 15, 2013 22:13:33 GMT -5
happyhoix - I totally respect that position, which is why I made a point of acknowledging the basis of mine. I'm a foster parent myself, about to become an adoptive one, as part of an infertile couple. It gives me a different perspective on the issue than I had as a single male. I also don't think my position is so objectively correct I'd cite it in enforcing a restriction on someone else's decision in this very personal area. I'd object to a law requiring me to save drowning men in rivers, too. dj - I appreciate the consistency of your view, as well. It seems to me that the rational basis for the pro-choice position has to rest on a hierarchy of personhood: either the unborn fetus isn't a person at all, or it's a person in a very much lesser sense that justifies ignoring the rights it would accrue as a full person. I'm not personally comfortable with three-fifths compromises, but they're necessary for the orderly functioning of the body politic. for the record, neither am i. do you know the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?Most opposition over this issue arises from where we place an unborn fetus on a notional continuum between a newborn child and a sloughed skin cell. That's a matter of interpretation, of course. I can't imagine many pro-lifers having a problem with surgeries to remove cancerous tumors, for example, or many pro-choicers supporting infanticide. the latter logic is completely coherent, imo. i have considered it often and with enough thought to imagine a Swiftian argument (horrifying) on this basis. this is, in fact, why i am opposed to viable fetuses being aborted. that puts me in the majority, i believe.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 16, 2013 0:44:57 GMT -5
Gotta love the conservatives on this- They could give a shit about some child unless it hasn't been born yet or is eligible for military service. I think it all goes back to their fascination and will to control women and their sexuality- but I am good with a point- and I though we already had one ...... So what is the new point?--- Oh- I got it- conception! That's the point they want- a law so stupid even backwards ass Mississippi didn't have enough beaten women to vote for it
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 16, 2013 12:35:06 GMT -5
Recapitulation theory? I do, and I'm enough of a pseudoscientist and fan of self-similarity to find it interesting. I don't see the relevance of it here, so I'm not sure what point I'm missing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 16:27:19 GMT -5
Is he running again? Go Walker!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 16, 2013 17:07:00 GMT -5
Recapitulation theory? I do, and I'm enough of a pseudoscientist and fan of self-similarity to find it interesting. I don't see the relevance of it here, so I'm not sure what point I'm missing. i am not sure how relevant it is either. just askin.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 18, 2013 8:29:52 GMT -5
I have to say I was appalled when some of the very far right talking heads (like Limbaugh) started calling women who liked the ACA because it requires employers to cover birth control 'sluts.'
Are they seriously thinking women want BC so they can go to bars and pick up strangers to have sex with?
I and something like 90% of the other American married women (including Catholics) use BC because we couldn't afford to have 6 or 8 or 10 kids. Fathered by our HUSBANDS. Not because we want to sleep with every man that comes along.
This is why the Republican party is increasingly being viewed as anti-women. If you use BC you're a slut, if you get an abortion you're a murderer, if you have a kid you can't afford you're a leech on society.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 9:18:43 GMT -5
Who, other than Rush, employed that spectacularly ill-advised terminology? Who, other than Sandra Fluke, was so characterized? ... because Rush Limbaugh is presumed to speak for them? Do I get to adopt Bill Maher as the voice of the modern left? Please? There's Bill - I mean Democrats - extolling the brave 9/11 terrorists and condemning the cowards who are dying in the Middle East on Obama's orders. There's Bill - I mean Democrats - likening disabled children to animals. There's Bill - I mean Democrats - demonstrating a vibrant patriotism allied with a compassionate understanding of the voting public.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 11:22:09 GMT -5
There's Bill - I mean Democrats - demonstrating a vibrant patriotism allied with a compassionate understanding of the voting public. i would suggest that this (in quotations) is actually the prevailing view in our republican form of government. the populist view is very much a minority one.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 11:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 13:27:30 GMT -5
Given the retention of Democrats in the Senate and White House, and the characterization of the Republicans in the House, I'd agree it prevails without thereby thinking it any less a Democratic frame. i used the small "r" there, meaning ALL parties that participate.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 13:32:30 GMT -5
Yes, and I explicitly reject the assertion that "oh, they all think everybody is stupid, it's not just the Dems."
I'm well aware of what you were saying. That's why I expressed disagreement. You are normatizing a left-wing elitist frame, and it's intellectually fraudulent to do so in my opinion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 13:45:07 GMT -5
Yes, and I explicitly reject the assertion that "oh, they all think everybody is stupid, it's not just the Dems." why? it is pretty much a fact. there are two visions of a democratic replublic. one is top down, and the other is bottom up. i would assert that the prevailing view in DC is the top down one: that they are the smart guys, and they are there to protect us from ourselves. how this POV manifests in the two parties is totally different, but the commonality of that view is very widespread. I'm well aware of what you were saying. That's why I expressed disagreement. You are normatizing a left-wing elitist frame, and it's intellectually fraudulent to do so in my opinion. no, sir. i am not. what i am saying is not an expression left wing elitism at all. it is paternalism, and it is VERY common in both parties. in fact, it is the prevailing view, imo. i will cite one obvious example, and you can reflect on the myriad of others: social conservatism. the whole purpose of social conservatism is to advocate for the passage of laws that will "prevent" the moral decay of society, or to undo those laws (ie RvW) that they perceive as engendering it. that is a very paternalistic view, but it is not at all a liberal one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 14:17:26 GMT -5
phoenix- just to be clear, since we OFTEN get off on the wrong foot.
i am making a distinction between paternalism and elitism, and you might not agree that there is any distinction to be made, so here is how i see the difference between those terms:
elitism is the justification of PRIVILEGE on the basis of wealth, education, etc. it basically says that "i SHOULD make more than you, because i am better than you". like ALL "isms" it depends on separation based on some arbitrary boundary that is defined by the powerful, and subjugates the powerless to the other slot.
paternalism is not there to preserve the rights or privileges of the purveyor. it DOES, however, look down upon others as "lessers", in the same sense that elitism does. therefore, it may PRESENT similarly, but it does not have the same goals. paternalists are "looking out for" (please make them stop) the "best interests" of the "little people"- the "subject class".
elected representatives are sometimes elitists, but i would argue that they are more often paternalistic- holding the view that they know better what is good for us that we do. it may also be true that they SERVE elites (they often do), but that does not make them elitist, unless they gain privilege by doing so, and feel they deserve it.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:45:19 GMT -5
Actually, the codification of personal moral judgements into law, and their imposition on everybody regardless of sincere convictions to the contrary, is entirely a left-wing concept.
I don't think of social conservatism as right-wing. I really don't. I see nothing inherently right-wing in either the statist underpinnings or the interventionist methods of the Religious Right agenda. Imagine the world a hundred years from now: there will still be convicted individuals who reject the notion that gay couples should be recognized and legitimized by the state. The socially conservative majority in that world will seek to retain, through defense of law, the prevailing codified moral judgements.
The right-wing argument against abortion, say, or gay marriage, doesn't properly hinge on a moral judgement of those acts; it hinges on a moral judgement of the practice of codifying moral judgements into universal laws - and on the notion that only what is expressly permitted by laws can be done in society, rather than the minarchist and libertarian formation that only what is expressly proscribed by laws is not to be done in society.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 18, 2013 17:18:30 GMT -5
Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, Michelle Malkin, and Representative Steve Stockman. www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/15/got_insurance_obamacare_ad_outrages_rush_limbaugh_and_crew_who_call_women.htmlNo, because of all the OTHER conservatives who work to make abortions harder to obtain, including the object of this thread, Scott Walker, who signed a bill to tighten abortion restrictions. At least 58 U.S. abortion clinics -- almost 1 in 10 -- have shut or stopped providing the procedure since 2011 as access vanishes faster than ever amid a Republican-led push to legislate the industry out of existence.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-03/abortion-clinics-close-at-record-pace-after-states-tighten-rules.htmlBelieve or not, there are (or used to be) pro-choice women who voted the Republican ticket. I was one of them. Since it seems the Republican party is dead set on shutting off access to abortions, since they can't get Roe vs Wade tossed out, I doubt I'm the only woman who is now much less likely to vote for a Republican candidate.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 18, 2013 17:22:26 GMT -5
Well, you can think whatever you like, but if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 17:35:11 GMT -5
Actually, the codification of personal moral judgements into law, and their imposition on everybody regardless of sincere convictions to the contrary, is entirely a left-wing concept. left-wing politics (those that are primarily Marxist) are not part of the liberal continuum. if we are to continue this discussion, you will have to NOTE that i don't consider these terms in any way synonymous. there are many many socialists that are not liberals, and many many liberals that are not socialist in any way.I don't think of social conservatism as right-wing. I really don't. I see nothing inherently right-wing in either the statist underpinnings or the interventionist methods of the Religious Right agenda. that's fine. so you think that rightism and statism are mutually exclusive? that is a unique perspective. i think that political spectra are two dimensional, tho. here is another way of expressing that. it is simplistic, but less simplistic than the linear idea that the typical board discussion revolves around:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Political_spectrum_graphic.svg
on this graph, i generally tend toward libertarian centrism, a bit North of "Social Liberalism".
Imagine the world a hundred years from now: there will still be convicted individuals who reject the notion that gay couples should be recognized and legitimized by the state. The socially conservative majority in that world will seek to retain, through defense of law, the prevailing codified moral judgements. The right-wing argument against abortion, say, or gay marriage, doesn't properly hinge on a moral judgement of those acts; it hinges on a moral judgement of the practice of codifying moral judgements into universal laws - and on the notion that only what is expressly permitted by laws can be done in society, rather than the minarchist and libertarian formation that only what is expressly proscribed by laws is not to be done in society. let me take a few reads of that last paragraph before i reply to it......
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 9:27:28 GMT -5
hoix #52 - I personally deplore the slut/stud double standard. I'm very strongly pro-contraception precisely because I find the act of aborting a developing fetus abhorrent. I have no moral problem with morning-after "abortifacients" either; once it reaches the point where the woman using it is passing something recognizably human, I think she's in a position she should never have to be in. It's not that I don't believe she has a right to her own body - I do, my notion of property rights begins with that one, since all property is acquired by the willed disposition of the body - it's that I believe she takes on a responsibility for the developing child inside her. I don't think it's fair to say this happens at conception; assuming ready availability of a Plan B abortifacient, I think it is fair to say it happens at implantation. Those situations in which a woman finds herself pregnant after sexual activity of which she was unaware and to which she did not consent are covered properly under rape and incest exceptions, which again strike me as reasonable. I am aware that many GOP mouthpieces are more hardline than this, and I consider them wrong.
I'm willing to be wrong, too. As I've said, I'd be very reluctant to make my opinion into law. I just try to find a balance that respects the woman's freedoms without minimizing the fetus' existence. I accept that the SCOTUS has adopted a viability standard, but I know that was modified by Casey and I think there's a peculiar and unscientific logic behind the Court's recognition of the State's "compelling interest" in Roe. I cautiously support measures that ensure a woman understands what she is permitting to be done when she has an abortion, on the understanding these are minimally invasive and not unduly burdensome in themselves. I think it should be a woman's informed choice, and I think - this is a more nuanced point - society should recognize that informed choices are made properly with consideration not only of the rights we claim for ourselves but the responsibilities we have toward others. I don't think there should be as many abortions performed in this country as there are; to me, it symbolizes a lack of information and a lack of resources, particularly for women who find themselves pregnant and unable to support the child. I don't think abortion advocacy on the basis that women should be able to unilaterally snuff out an unborn child's life constitutes a sufficient burden of information, particularly not when it misrepresents what is actually done. But all that's just my opinion.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 9:28:05 GMT -5
hoix #53 - That's the thing, though. Social conservatism doesn't act like a right-wing frame. The political right isn't defined by a superficial gainsaying of the political left, although in a two-party state both parties stand to gain by perpetuating the fiction that it is - this is how we end up with two parties that do the same thing in power as one another, but make fusses about different token issues to mask that. The fact that a social conservative wants to override the protections of the First Amendment - rewrite the Constitution to reflect their personal morality - is profoundly contrary to a right-wing ethos. The right-wing is anti-statist, actually minarchist. "Social conservatism" is simply bigotry, and bigotry - the assumption that people wearing this label are morally superior to people wearing that one - is properly anathema to a right-wing understanding of civic rights. Identity politics and conflict perspectives are the province of the left wing, for whom collectivist frames trump individualist ones: for the left-wing, defense of individual rights stems from the individual's membership in a protected class (and, in fact, identity with that protected class manifests in part as a peer pressure to accept the protection: women who want to be homemakers, and they do exist, can find themselves branded traitors because they are undermining the cause of "women's rights" by asserting their own individual desires).
An unfortunate by-product of the civil rights movement being framed in a left-wing paradigm of 'protected classes' is that it institutionalizes bigotry. Those not protected are assumed to be unfairly advantaged; the actual inequality of unequal protection afforded different arbitrary classes of citizen is justified by the "compelling interest" of redressing the supposed inequality of prejudicial discrimination against those classes absent the special protections of the State. This has the effect of legitimizing the bigotry of those who are aware only of the, to them, unfair advantages of e.g. affirmative action, and blind to the unfair disadvantages of e.g. redlining. There is no mechanism within the class-conflict perspective for synthesis (a stark example is the Communist Manifesto, which weakly hopes that the bourgeoisie will wither away after making an excellent case for its inevitable rise to power in a productive society). There is only a conflict that resolves when one class surrenders to the other, at which point people have swapped hats but the situation remains. We are at a ludicrous point now where white males, as the largest subset of the population and clearly disproportionately powerful, influential, and wealthy, can make speciously convincing arguments that they are being oppressed by the legislative regime under which they live. "Social conservatism," embodying the worst prejudices of the white male subset, is a counterblast against the class proteections of the leftist civil-rights frame, but that doesn't make it right-wing: it exists in and because of left-wing conceptions of social identity, freedom, and responsibility.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 9:44:10 GMT -5
Yes, I do. I'm well aware I'm at odds with the notionally right-wing party in our two-party state here, although not with all of its members and certainly not all of its voters.
Actually 'mutually exclusive' may be a little strong. My anarchist sympathies are strongly tempered by a highly jaundiced view of my fellow man's rationality and altruism; I accept, after Hobbes, the need for a Leviathan to quell the bellum omnium contra omnes. Because I understand that Leviathan to be made up of my fellow men, and my opinion of them certainly isn't heightened when they are elevated to positions of authority, I accept the more keenly Montesquieu's arguments for a division of powers and a system of checks and balances. I'm a strong federalist, on the principle that the closer your government is, the more accountable it is. I see my town mayor in Walmart, at the park, in church. If he's doing something I disagree with, I can physically tell him so pretty much any time I like. I don't have that level of access to my Congressman, and I certainly don't to my President. Also, at the local level, the fact that my Congressman is a Democrat matters less than that he is representative of a vulnerable district that's a top target for the GOP in 2014 - and the more local politics gets, the more that becomes the case.
There's actually no reason in the 21st Century why Congress has to physically convene in Washington at all; why representatives and Senators can't remain in their constituencies and vote remotely by videoconfernece. It would, in my view, make whipping much more difficult and democracy much more representative. It would also disempower the two-party state to a small but noticeable degree.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 9:48:32 GMT -5
Have you heard of Eysenck's R- and T-factors? I can't pull up your graphic link, for some reason, on this computer.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 19, 2013 10:08:10 GMT -5
... There's actually no reason in the 21st Century why Congress has to physically convene in Washington at all; ... Made me think of this: McCain 2008 presidential campaign suspended so he could fly back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis: Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.’’ thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/back-in-town-but-not-on-capitol-hill/
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 10:29:40 GMT -5
LOL billis, that was one of the more disastrous moves by a candidate in electoral history. It was really sad to see the collapse of the McCain campaign, even if it was also entirely unsurprising.
The capacity of the GOP to select dismal candidates for President is remarkable.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 19, 2013 10:47:13 GMT -5
The way that we select candidates to be the nominees for the major parties is totally absurd. I wish that I had a great finish to the sentence, "The way we should do it is ...". But I don't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 10:56:28 GMT -5
Yes, I do. I'm well aware I'm at odds with the notionally right-wing party in our two-party state here, although not with all of its members and certainly not all of its voters. forgive me for saying so, but i think you are being defensive. it is the same reaction that one gets when you suggest to someone who identifies as left wing that there are SOME left wing authoritarians out there. there is left wing authoritarianism there is left wing libertarianism there is right wing authoritarianism there is right wing libertarianism all strains of politics have their bastards. even the one you identify with.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 10:58:30 GMT -5
Have you heard of Eysenck's R- and T-factors? I can't pull up your graphic link, for some reason, on this computer. no, i have not heard of them, and i agree with the rest of your post (previous to this one).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 10:59:07 GMT -5
LOL billis, that was one of the more disastrous moves by a candidate in electoral history. It was really sad to see the collapse of the McCain campaign, even if it was also entirely unsurprising. The capacity of the GOP to select dismal candidates for President is remarkable. and looking ahead to 2016, i am not seeing much to improve that record.
|
|