Extreme opposites of that spectrum in that respect, which is exactly what I was getting at. My use of 'extreme' was in reference to that spectrum, to where a position can be placed on a scale of political positions, not that they hold extreme views in a judgemental way. All I really said about Palin is that she is less moderate than McCain, but that is still in reference to the spectrum.Jason Rees wrote:I'm still puzzling over how Palin is supposed to be 'extreme.' Her position on abortion, for example, is no more extreme than Obama's, it's just on the other end of the spectrum.
McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska
Moderator: Available
Glenn
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
Cool beansGlenn wrote: My use of 'extreme' was in reference to that spectrum, to where a position can be placed on a scale of political positions, not that they hold extreme views in a judgemental way. All I really said about Palin is that she is less moderate than McCain, but that is still in reference to the spectrum.
Interesting mention of the possibility of abortion being "completely outlawed" in the United States. That is pretty unlikely to happen. Doctors have something of a lobby going and are already somewhat upset that legislators decided to negate their medical judgement and the SCOTUS upheld the thinking with the last major abortion decision. Seriously, we had a bunch of lawmakers claiming they knew more about the necessity of abortion techniques than the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the SCOTUS agreeing. Interesting. Anyway, abortion wouldn't be "completely outlawed" nationally because only in an evangelical theocracy would that occur.
What can happen is that R v W would be overturned and the issue would be returned to the states, and abortion would be outlawed in a lot of red states. What people could afford to do so would then travel to blue states for abortions (and their gay marriages) and the remainder will have unwanted children (pray that social services are ramped up in preparation), give them up for adoption (why don't more do this? hmm? unfortunate) or have back alley abortions. Abortion is already practically unobtainable in many regions where there is substantial pressure against the practice and say, one elderly practitioner in the whole state. Again I can't say I think elective abortion is a good thing, and I think any debate for or against abortion that doesn't focus on prevention efforts first is morally flawed, but, I find the idea of forcing a woman to give up her medical care or subject to unwanted medical care just because she can get pregnant is untenable. Citizens of our nation should be able to choose their own healthcare and when health issues require abortion, then so be it--that's a minimum standard I hope is only violated in literary versions of possible future American dystopias, or current day Talibans.
Minor: It was GWB's appointees I was saying were loyal mirrors.
What can happen is that R v W would be overturned and the issue would be returned to the states, and abortion would be outlawed in a lot of red states. What people could afford to do so would then travel to blue states for abortions (and their gay marriages) and the remainder will have unwanted children (pray that social services are ramped up in preparation), give them up for adoption (why don't more do this? hmm? unfortunate) or have back alley abortions. Abortion is already practically unobtainable in many regions where there is substantial pressure against the practice and say, one elderly practitioner in the whole state. Again I can't say I think elective abortion is a good thing, and I think any debate for or against abortion that doesn't focus on prevention efforts first is morally flawed, but, I find the idea of forcing a woman to give up her medical care or subject to unwanted medical care just because she can get pregnant is untenable. Citizens of our nation should be able to choose their own healthcare and when health issues require abortion, then so be it--that's a minimum standard I hope is only violated in literary versions of possible future American dystopias, or current day Talibans.
Minor: It was GWB's appointees I was saying were loyal mirrors.
--Ian
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
"Minor: It was GWB's appointees I was saying were loyal mirrors."
People like Woodard, who have come out slamming Bush on various issues after leaving office make me think that's not such a valid criticism. Colin Powell can hardly be said to have been a 'Yes-man.' Condi Rice has obviously been a great contributor, and she reportedly engaged in some combative diplomacy within the cabinet to get her own point of view across. I reserve comment on D. Rumsfeld or Tom Ridge.
People like Woodard, who have come out slamming Bush on various issues after leaving office make me think that's not such a valid criticism. Colin Powell can hardly be said to have been a 'Yes-man.' Condi Rice has obviously been a great contributor, and she reportedly engaged in some combative diplomacy within the cabinet to get her own point of view across. I reserve comment on D. Rumsfeld or Tom Ridge.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
-
Rising Star
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: Townsend, MA
- Contact:
wWth regard to Roe v Wade, an issues that I know many are fretting over. The history of SCOTUS is that once the Court has made a decision, unless something substantial is different, they don't overturn it - stare decisis, is the "legal term" - the matter has been decided. Sure, it is a rally point for any side to say that candidate A or candidate B will appoint SCOTUS judges that will change XYZ decision.
Unlikely.
Lets look at the candidates on their merits/promises/platforms (and we know these are going to change anyway) and go from there. (In reference to one of Van's recent threads I think I used 'there' and their' correctly!
)
John
Unlikely.
Lets look at the candidates on their merits/promises/platforms (and we know these are going to change anyway) and go from there. (In reference to one of Van's recent threads I think I used 'there' and their' correctly!
)John
It's what we do!
Stare Decisis is supposed mean to mean that these things are settled. From the perspective of Thomas and Scalia, and I would not be surprised, Alito and Roberts, things wrongly decided shouldn't be doomed to remain so. I have to admit that if you believe it's bad law, why not want it overturned? We have some precedent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
The SCOTUS also heard a Virginia case and sided with eugenic forced sterilization, and it turns out their test case was an above average student then woman who was sent away for having the misfortune of getting pregnant by a family member's sexual assault. ...Oops, SCOTUS?
So I don't think R v W is permanent. Ideally the Congress would formally address the issue. Sometimes controversial stuff doesn't get settled by legislators unless they're forced (eg, by a court telling them they have to). Things they don't have to address they don't, like, I dunno, a 426 billion dollar deficit.
Organizations get pretty politicized left AND right, as we all know. Opposite NOW we have pro-life organizations who firmly believe abortion is an ongoing holocaust (with members who support their execution to halt the slaughter) accepting into their ranks and promoting former abortionists who are quite sorry and converted now, thank you very much. It's as if B'nai Brith had welcomed a reformed Josef Mengele as their keynote speaker. Not likely!
I have heard about Bush's enthusiasm for debateless confirmation on many occasions from many sources, including Bob Woodward's series, "The Emerald City", Scott McClellan, other news stories and personal accounts from people that worked with him, and in multiple contexts. If some people are disillusioned after working with him, I'm not shocked. Colin Powell has been able to explain the war with a straightforwardness and apparent honesty and conviction that struck me as completely out of place among people (I use the term loosely) like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Condi's half impressed me but when I've heard her testimony she sounded a bit more of an instrument of the administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
The SCOTUS also heard a Virginia case and sided with eugenic forced sterilization, and it turns out their test case was an above average student then woman who was sent away for having the misfortune of getting pregnant by a family member's sexual assault. ...Oops, SCOTUS?
So I don't think R v W is permanent. Ideally the Congress would formally address the issue. Sometimes controversial stuff doesn't get settled by legislators unless they're forced (eg, by a court telling them they have to). Things they don't have to address they don't, like, I dunno, a 426 billion dollar deficit.
Organizations get pretty politicized left AND right, as we all know. Opposite NOW we have pro-life organizations who firmly believe abortion is an ongoing holocaust (with members who support their execution to halt the slaughter) accepting into their ranks and promoting former abortionists who are quite sorry and converted now, thank you very much. It's as if B'nai Brith had welcomed a reformed Josef Mengele as their keynote speaker. Not likely!
I have heard about Bush's enthusiasm for debateless confirmation on many occasions from many sources, including Bob Woodward's series, "The Emerald City", Scott McClellan, other news stories and personal accounts from people that worked with him, and in multiple contexts. If some people are disillusioned after working with him, I'm not shocked. Colin Powell has been able to explain the war with a straightforwardness and apparent honesty and conviction that struck me as completely out of place among people (I use the term loosely) like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Condi's half impressed me but when I've heard her testimony she sounded a bit more of an instrument of the administration.
--Ian
One of the most disturbing aspects of Palin (aside from the blatant lying, which I suspect is due more to her PR guys) is that she believes fighting in Iraq is god's plan. That's about as extremist as you can get.Jason Rees wrote:I'm still puzzling over how Palin is supposed to be 'extreme.' Her position on abortion, for example, is no more extreme than Obama's, it's just on the other end of the spectrum. Alaska's schools don't teach Creationism. They don't have state-mandated prayer... all this fear-mongering by Democrats borders on psychotic.
Anybody notice that when it comes to stuff like abortion people want to invoke Stare Decisis--but when it comes to things like gun control its no-where nearly such a "fundamental" postion. 
Just to put all the cards on the table---I'm in favor of a womens right to chose a safe and legal option.
I just find it amusing, well...."amusing" in a serious fashion that political parties can be so flexible about things---"Stare Decisis" when its abortion......."an evolving standard of decency" when its capitiol punishment........all the reasons why its not a matter of "Stare Decisis" when its gun rights........the Consitution is a "living document" that must change with the times---but not if the "change" is something something we don't like---then its "Stare Decisis."
Just to put all the cards on the table---I'm in favor of a womens right to chose a safe and legal option.
I just find it amusing, well...."amusing" in a serious fashion that political parties can be so flexible about things---"Stare Decisis" when its abortion......."an evolving standard of decency" when its capitiol punishment........all the reasons why its not a matter of "Stare Decisis" when its gun rights........the Consitution is a "living document" that must change with the times---but not if the "change" is something something we don't like---then its "Stare Decisis."
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
TSD
I see no real evidence of "lying" about much at all....besides, if your going to get all upset over politicos "lying" to people......then I suggest that the line forms well before Palin.......sadly the "norm."
What I find interesting is that the guy fronting for the Mullahs in Iran is seriously into the idea of bringing about Paradise by ending the world.....the branch of the religion he belongs to is so extreme that even the orthodox Komanei suppressed it BTW......has made very public speechs about the destruction of Israel and the end of the USA....and is working hard to build a nuke.
Yet we see far more coverage of Palins relgion and specualtion as to what it "might" mean than somebody is likely to touch off a nuclear situation.
More "sound and fury" from a media that once again is telling the wrong story in the wrong place about the wrong person.
There are serious problems afoot in the world.....problems vastly more dangerous then Palins personal religious beliefs....the relgious beliefs of a member of an cult of that belives they can bring back their savior IF they can cause enough death, destruction and terror and is working hard to get a nuke for example.
I see no real evidence of "lying" about much at all....besides, if your going to get all upset over politicos "lying" to people......then I suggest that the line forms well before Palin.......sadly the "norm."
What I find interesting is that the guy fronting for the Mullahs in Iran is seriously into the idea of bringing about Paradise by ending the world.....the branch of the religion he belongs to is so extreme that even the orthodox Komanei suppressed it BTW......has made very public speechs about the destruction of Israel and the end of the USA....and is working hard to build a nuke.
Yet we see far more coverage of Palins relgion and specualtion as to what it "might" mean than somebody is likely to touch off a nuclear situation.
More "sound and fury" from a media that once again is telling the wrong story in the wrong place about the wrong person.
There are serious problems afoot in the world.....problems vastly more dangerous then Palins personal religious beliefs....the relgious beliefs of a member of an cult of that belives they can bring back their savior IF they can cause enough death, destruction and terror and is working hard to get a nuke for example.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
To be fair, there are christians who believe the same thing, some are 'pro-isreal' for no other reason then the fact that they believe that Isreal is vital for the second coming, not because of any other ethical/political reasoning. Their the pastors that sit in their congregations and tell worshipers why it's gods will being done that a city in Iraq is being carpet bombed.cxt wrote:
There are serious problems afoot in the world.....problems vastly more dangerous then Palins personal religious beliefs....the relgious beliefs of a member of an cult of that belives they can bring back their savior IF they can cause enough death, destruction and terror and is working hard to get a nuke for example.
Yes, Palin MIGHT not be as bad as 'apocalyptic' followers, but just because she may not be as bad as a bunch of extremist apocalyptic Christians/Muslims around the other side of the globe, doesn't mean she's not extreme enough to make things worse then they are. Remember, the Iranian revolution came about because The pro-american shah of Iran wasn't exactly the nicest men to his people, they rebelled, and in his place put in Khomeini, and other extremism got mainstream support.
Palin has indicated she would love to trample over other countries in the middle east other then Iraq.
Want to keep troops in Iraq? Not a problem, finish the job, leaving Iraq would be the same mistake as leaving Afghanistan after kicking out the Russians. Look what happened to afganistan when U.S. troops pulled out, Chaos, then from the Chaos, the Taliban came into power. Had the U.S. stayed, Afganistan would be very different today.
But invading Iran? Man, Iranians are some of the most secular people within the Muslim world, they all love Oprah, and pop music, they tend to have a large, educated middle class that dispises the theocracy. There are 300 000 christians living in Iran, most of them Converts.
Thing is though, they are FIERCELY nationalistic, despite religious disillisionment. My english professor was an Iranian muslim apostate, she was an athiest. Thing is though, she would get very defensive toward any critique of Iran. I had Iranian friends who cared nothing of Religion, but would get very fired up talking about Iran. They are proud of their history and the persian empire.
Remember "300" most Muslims did not care, but IRANIANS did, because of how PERSIANS were being portrayed, nothing else. It was all about persians being shown as supe uber evil.
Invading Iran would take a population that despises it's government and unify them against what would be perceived as an enemy. Oprah would go from being loved to being hated. A small group of Apoclypic arseholes would become a lot larger, or atleast get some mainstream support from people who ordinarily would not support them.
Do we really want to make things worse? These problems stem from the fact that every time western meddling was done in the middle east, extremists grew in power, but were ignored, until 9/11. Had we gone after the extremists before hand(Clinton's fault to be honest, he was well aware of Osama bin laden's growing influence) things would have been different, but now it's gone from a small group of people and has grown greatly since 9/11(no not in the millions as some people would have you believe, but still a schit load) isolationist policy is the best solution.
SOme will say thats what was done before 9/11.
But really, look at the democrats. How often have they gone in while the republicans pooh poohed it? Hell didn't bush criticize the dems in teh 2000 election for being to meddlesome?
....so maybe there are worse extremists running around then what Sarah palin may believe, but the fact is, even if there are worse extremists, they would get alot stronger if a 'lesser' extremist were to become president, because that would be pouring gas on a bonfire.
Kill the rationale for extremists, and you kill their recruitment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4&NR=1
Are you SERIOUS?!!! I'm assuming you're not serious. I HOPE you're not serious. If you REALLY didn't see the about 3000 lies she's spewed out the one time we saw her, I'll be more than happy to enlighten you, but I honestly don't think you didn't see it and are playing some sort of reverse psychology game.cxt wrote:TSD
I see no real evidence of "lying" about much at all....besides, if your going to get all upset over politicos "lying" to people......then I suggest that the line forms well before Palin.......sadly the "norm."
*leaves in complete and utter shock*
