homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread (Page 94)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  ...  109  110  111 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for the question you raise, my position is that I want abortions to be not only rare, but non-existent. I know that may be Utopian, but there it is. In the meantime, I want to decrease the number of abortions; however, I cannot lose sight of the final goal - i.e, no abortions. Since I cannot lose sight of that goal I cannot support Obama. McCain may only pay lip service, but Obama doesn't even do that!

NY, the point Josephine and others are trying to make is this. The only way to make abortions non-existent* is to address the sources of unwanted pregnancies. It has nothing to do with making it illegal.

Criminalizing the act will lead to any of the many futures suggested on this thread, but it will not make abortion non-existent. There's a chance it may not even decrease abortions.

*Of course, abortions to save the life of the mother or possibly in the case of rape may always be exceptions to this rule.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason I. Am:

Criminalizing the act will lead to any of the many futures suggested on this thread, but it will not make abortion non-existent. There's a chance it may not even decrease abortions.

Surely you can't mean this!! Look how well the criminalization of drugs has worked.

Oh...wait.......never mind.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post 
The criminalization of "sodomy" and alcohol consumption were also smashing successes.

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post 
Incomprehensible as it may seem today, prior to Griswold v. Connecticut, sister case to Roe v. Wade, even the use of condoms was criminalized. If Roe falls, will Griswold be next?

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
From over here, European side of the pond, now that Colin Powell has endorsed Obbama, Pallin has turned out to be a neocon plant and the reps could loose the senate the house and the white house, is it possible that the GOP may split.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of a 2 party system?

I know American politics isn't as party orientated as our system but if candidates from the other side are attracting support from your party its usually a sign of huge internal devision.

I think there's a fair chance of the Republican Party splitting along the fault line between social conservatives and economic conservatives. How that would affect the overall system is anybody's guess. When something similar happened to the Democrats in the 1960s, the Dixiecrat wing just defected to the Republicans, leaving the progressive wing (defined at that time by labor and civil rights issues) to carry on by itself. If the GOP began to seem like a truly hopeless case, the economic conservatives might go Libertarian in large enough numbers to make a difference to the overall system. Another possibility is that the extreme religious right social conservatives will come to be seen as the albatross they are and effectively purged as the economic conservatives try to bring back Eisenhower-style Republicanism. Then they might split off and form their own party.

More likely the Republicans will limp along until the pendulum swings back.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Hmmm, dead equine teritory seems to be beckoning... but in the meantime, to lighten the mood, I thought all u fellow politics junkies would appreciate this (lots of in-jokes)

Homer Simpson voting

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
On a different note, what effect will Obama's suspension of his campaign to visit his ill grandmother make? Will it help or hinder? It is certainly not a stunt, as he would not risk the loss of campaigning at this stage unless it was important.

He hasn't suspended his campaign -- all his surrogates will make their scheduled appearances, his ads will keep running, his offices will be open, his volunteers will knock on doors, his robocalls will be made, his mass emails will go out. He's going to leave the campaign trail for about 36 hours, but everything else will keep going.

It's hard to say what effect his trip to Hawaii will have. He might pick up in sympathy what he loses from not campaigning. I can't recall a candidate leaving the campaign, however briefly, less than two weeks before the election. Can anyone think of a precedent for this?

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I thought all u fellow politics junkies would appreciate this (lots of in-jokes)

That seems way to good to be a fan parody - is it from a real episode? Or has Obama paid for the Simpsons characters to do a commercial?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I thought all u fellow politics junkies would appreciate this (lots of in-jokes)

That seems way to good to be a fan parody - is it from a real episode? Or has Obama paid for the Simpsons characters to do a commercial?
Sorry, don't know. I found it earlier today when looking for something else on YouTube. I agree it looks genuine. I suspect it was made and released by the Simpsons team as a special one-off. They have always been relatively free in their political commentary (despite being broadcast on Fox). I don't know if any of our American brethren can tell us if it's in a recent episode as we are years behind in the UK. (Those of us who don't have Sky that is).

AFZ

[ 21. October 2008, 20:10: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Izzybee
Shipmate
# 10931

 - Posted      Profile for Izzybee   Author's homepage   Email Izzybee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I thought all u fellow politics junkies would appreciate this (lots of in-jokes)

That seems way to good to be a fan parody - is it from a real episode? Or has Obama paid for the Simpsons characters to do a commercial?
It has the "treehouse of horror" music in it, so maybe it's this week's upcoming episode? I cetrainly haven't seen it yet, but I do so hope they broadcast it...

--------------------
Hate filled bitch musings...

Posts: 1336 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
On a different note, what effect will Obama's suspension of his campaign to visit his ill grandmother make? Will it help or hinder? It is certainly not a stunt, as he would not risk the loss of campaigning at this stage unless it was important.

He hasn't suspended his campaign -- all his surrogates will make their scheduled appearances, his ads will keep running, his offices will be open, his volunteers will knock on doors, his robocalls will be made, his mass emails will go out. He's going to leave the campaign trail for about 36 hours, but everything else will keep going.

It's hard to say what effect his trip to Hawaii will have. He might pick up in sympathy what he loses from not campaigning. I can't recall a candidate leaving the campaign, however briefly, less than two weeks before the election. Can anyone think of a precedent for this?

I don't know of anyone else, but this won't hurt him with the family values crowd will it?

It also shows he's human, not a vote-mongering lawyer. If my Gran were sick, I would move heaven and earth to be with her.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The family values crowd hate him because he won't say the political Jesus Prayers mark I and II: "If it were up to me, I would make abortion illegal" and "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Given that, nothing he does a propos family values matters a rat's ass to that crowd.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think it may well help him, however, with the crowd that has felt he seems a little "cold". This makes him much more "human", whatever that is supposed to mean in politics. The people who want a warm fuzzy president will be able to melt over the man who rushes to the side of his grandmother.

All of that is rather bogus, of course, but I have learned not to underestimate the human interest angle. It allows people to identify with him, and it is important to lots of voters that they feel they have a president who understands their kind of life.

After the last eight years, I rather feel that tug myself.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
New Yorker, you seem to have avoided commenting on all the posts about it before, so I'll bring it up again. Given that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Ceausescu's Romania (and many others, but let's stick with these three for now) were all rabidly anti-abortion, would those be your choice of government leaders given the option?

Or would you prefer a government that was less anti-abortion, but actually gave a dman about human rights?

I don't think we've thread drifted, eh? I mean we are not discussing abortion itself but whether we can vote for a pro-abortion candidate in this election. If that is thread drift, I apologize.

Anyway, let's look at it this way. And I intend for these to be hypothetical.

Election 1 - USA 2008 Candidate A is pro-abortion; B is pro-life. Vote for B.

Election 2 - Germany 1933 Candidate A is pro-abortion; B is pro-life. Vote for B.

Election 3 - Germany 1933 A is pro-abortion; B is pro-life for Germans only but has mass murder in mind for others, but voter has no indication of any of that. Vote for B. (I don't think this was the case in reality.)

Election 4 - Germany 1933. A is pro-abortion; B is pro-life for Germans only and everyone knows he wants to slaughter millions, vote for neither and actively work against B.

I am not a moral theologian, but this is how I would rationalize it. Subject to correction from the Magisterium of course. The USSR and Communist Romania don't really matter - they were not democracies. Germany was at least for the 1933 election.

Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?

Should the CEO of, say, Lehman Brothers spread the wealth that he gained by the Bush Tax Cuts around? As money trickles up, less is there for consumer spending, and it's consumer spending that drives our economy. We were heading into recession before Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failed, in part for this very reason. Why did Bush and the Bushites want to spread the wealth upwards? Beats me. Spreading it down makes more sense. Either way THE WEALTH IS SPREAD AROUND. It's not a question of whether, but how.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
This makes him much more "human", whatever that is supposed to mean in politics. The people who want a warm fuzzy president will be able to melt over the man who rushes to the side of his grandmother.

To the extent that this event is covered, it will also surprise some voters (so one reads) to discover that this grandmother is white.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?

Why?

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
It has the "treehouse of horror" music in it, so maybe it's this week's upcoming episode? I cetrainly haven't seen it yet, but I do so hope they broadcast it...

Ah! It's a leaked trailer for a Halloween episode. That kind of explains it - the Halloween ones are often a bit unusual.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
New Yorker, I'm surprised (but delighted) to see you in favour of socialist solutions to election funding. [Big Grin]

(Thanks for your answer to my question on abortion, btw.)

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
is it possible that the GOP may split.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of a 2 party system?

I doubt it. People who make this prediction don't understand the historic symbiosis between plutocrats and moralistic clergy.

Besides, I'm afraid that Americans tend to be fickle people with short memories.

Furthermore, whoever is elected President will have so many intractable problems on his plate from day 1 that there is an argument for voting for the guy we don't like.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Re abortion, New Yorker seems to be more captured by the slogan than the outcome.

So, if you think abortion is wrong in any circumstance:

Scenario 1) In an election between A and B, if you know the outcome of voting for B is less abortions - who do you vote for ? B, obviously.

Scenario 2) In an election between A and B, if you know B states they think abortion should be illegal and A does not - who do you vote for ? B, probably, in the absence of other information.

Scenario 3) In an election between A and B, if you know the outcome of voting for B is less abortions and B states they think abortion should be illegal and A does not - who do you vote for ? B, obviously.

Scenario 4) In an election between A and B, if you know the outcome of voting for A is less abortions but B states they think abortion should be illegal and A does not - who do you vote for ? A, you'd think.

Problem is, people describe their arguments as if they were scenario 1 or 2. New Yorker actually appears to think we are in scenario 3, and many on the thread think we are in scenario 4.

[ 21. October 2008, 22:10: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason I. Am:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for the question you raise, my position is that I want abortions to be not only rare, but non-existent. I know that may be Utopian, but there it is. In the meantime, I want to decrease the number of abortions; however, I cannot lose sight of the final goal - i.e, no abortions. Since I cannot lose sight of that goal I cannot support Obama. McCain may only pay lip service, but Obama doesn't even do that!

NY, the point Josephine and others are trying to make is this. The only way to make abortions non-existent* is to address the sources of unwanted pregnancies. It has nothing to do with making it illegal.

Criminalizing the act will lead to any of the many futures suggested on this thread, but it will not make abortion non-existent. There's a chance it may not even decrease abortions.

And may well result in pregnant women dying as a result of backstreet abortions.

I really don't get this 'abortion is the only issue that matters approach'. It's less common this side of the pond, but my recent experience of standing for council shows that there are some who take this line as probably the majority of spoilt ballots said 'no pro-life candidate'. Given that local councillors have no say on anything that effects abortion (not even planning permission for an abortion clinic according to a friend who is a councillor), I struggle to see why this issue matters at that level!

Carys (who thinks abortion is not good, but recognises that it may be the lesser of two evils* and also thinks implantation is more important than conception in these questions so does not oppose the morning-after pill)

*Mother's life being in danger is the clearest -- abortion and mother lives is better than no abortion but mother dies along with her unborn child. Rape also has a strong case. I'm highly dubious about 'a woman's right to choose' in that I think that in choosing to have sex with a man, a woman has to be aware that pregnancy maybe a result. Thus rape is a different case, because the rapist has denied her right to chose at that point.

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Thus rape is a different case, because the rapist has denied her right to chose at that point.
Double that when the "woman" in question is a 90lb twelve year old child...(the average age of menarche in the US).

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for the question you raise, my position is that I want abortions to be not only rare, but non-existent. I know that may be Utopian, but there it is. In the meantime, I want to decrease the number of abortions; however, I cannot lose sight of the final goal - i.e, no abortions. Since I cannot lose sight of that goal I cannot support Obama. McCain may only pay lip service, but Obama doesn't even do that!

Let me see if i have this straight.

So country A may be fascist, treat the citizenry in general like s*** with no rights they feel they have to respect, a country that gives greedy megacorporations free reign to ride roughshod over folks just trying to survive, a country that wreaks unjustified death and destruction on other, mostly innocent, people of other countries -- and bases its murderous acts on lies, a country that doesn't care if people are made destitute by falling ill, but a country that absolutely prohibits abortions ...

is, in your opinion, better than ...

country B, which treats its citizens as if they were citizens worthy of decent human respect, that -- whether adherents of a particular religion or not -- recognizes a responsibility to its citizens that may be having hard times, a country whose concern for life extends to those who have actually been born, in short, a country who's ethics more closely jibe with Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25:31-46 than, say, the U.S.A. of today -- but which reluctantly allows abortions.

With all due respect, your utopia sounds dystopian to me.

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The difference seems to be a higher regard for purity of philosophy than for actual results.

Purity of philosophy is not nothing; there are questions of individual and collective responsibility for the outcomes to consider that are not trivial.

Given that a nation without abortions is essentially impossible, New Yorker seems to believe that if abortions are to occur, it is most important that the general populace not be in anyway individually or collectively responsible for the results.

This is an entirely different question than how many abortions occur, even if the steps taken to address one question or the other have implications for the companion question.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I might even buy that, choirboy, except when the anti-choice folks start to propagandizing, the sheer number of abortions since RvW is near the top of their propaganda sheet. Umpty Billion! Murdered! They certainly act as if the numbers matter when they're bloviating. Just not when they're voting.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?

Why?
Lead by example? To avoid the NIMBY appearance or avoid the do as I say but not as I do charge?

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
As money trickles up, less is there for consumer spending, and it's consumer spending that drives our economy.

Yes! It's consumer spending not government spending. So no tax increases. Keep the money in the taxpayer's hands and not the government's.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
We don't increase taxes to increase spending, we increase taxes to pay for services like hospitals, roads, food inspection, and so on. But you've missed the entire point. Somebody has to be taxed. Who should it be? By and large, the rich because they have the money to give more than we peons living from paycheck to paycheck.

And when one rich person gets $1,000,000 they don't spend as much of it as when 100 peons get $10,000 each. If the money has to be somewhere, it's better for the economy -- and ultimately for the rich who sell goods and services and thus need peons to buy them -- for the money to be in the hands of the peons.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I might even buy that, choirboy, except when the anti-choice folks start to propagandizing, the sheer number of abortions since RvW is near the top of their propaganda sheet. Umpty Billion! Murdered! They certainly act as if the numbers matter when they're bloviating. Just not when they're voting.

I agree, in general. But in the case of New Yorker, I haven't seen this. His position strikes me more as a 'not on my conscience or my dime' approach.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
A thought: Obama has raised, what, $150 million last month? Well, should he not be required to spread that wealth around and give half to McCain or maybe 1/4 to McCain and 1/4 to pay Hillary's debts?
To do so would violate his fiduciary responsibility to the donars, and would probably be illegal. As one of the thousands of Americans who donated a small portion of that 150 million, my donation was specifically earmarked for a particular candidate with a particular platform and agenda. To subvert it to another purpose would be to misuse the funds.

It is interesting that, even as Obama has broken records in the amounts raised, he has more signicantly broken all records in the percentage of his funds coming from very small donations. Rather than a few huge donations as has been the norm in past campaigns, the vast majority of that $150 mil. has come from small donars, presumably lower income, giving $10, $20, $50. Impressive-- and goes against the conventional wisdom of the McCain/Palin PR machine.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
New Yorker writes:

I appreciate your point, but my point is that we are not dealing in some hypothetical situation. We are facing a very real situation with a luke-warm pro-life McCain and a rabid abortion rights Obama. Given the real situation, I and I think any sane person cannot vote for Obama.

...Uh, no. We heard this parable not too many Sundays ago. For your comparison to hold up Obama would have to now be working to end abortion. Has he changed his position?

You and I must have very different understandings of what constitutes "rabid abortion rights".

Obama is working to reduce abortion. He has not changed his position-- he's been up front about it all along.

Obama favors a ban on all late term (not just partial birth) abortions, as long as there is an exception for the life of the mother. The only time he has voted against such a ban is when there was no such provision.

Obama has consistently laid out a very clear and specific plan with several detailed proposals of precisely what he would do to reduce the rate of abortion-- things with a proven track record from the Clinton years (the only time in which the rate of abortions in the US significantly declined). He has gone on the record, beginning in the Saddleback forum, in the subsequent debates and stump speeches, with this plan. He changed the Dem. platform to include reducing abortion as a goal.

That is more than ANY presidential candidate OR president of EITHER party has done in 30 years.

So the parable is an apt comparison-- do you vote for the guy who says he'll do the work of the kingdom, then sits on his a** for 8 years doing absolutely nothing about abortion-- as every GOP president in the last 30 years has done? Or do we vote for the guy who doesn't mouth the words you want to hear, but will actually DO something to reduce the rate of abortion?

Do you care more about "sounding right" or doing the right thing?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
fyi: Here is the CDC website, scroll down to figure 1. You'll see a steady increase in the rate of abortions in the US from 1973-1990, sharp decline through the 1990s, leveling off around 2000:

CDC website

IMHO, this suggests that the economic an social policies of the Clinton administration are far more effective in actually reducing the rate of abortions than the moral grandstanding of 3 decades of GOP blowhards.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Amazing Grace

High Church Protestant
# 95

 - Posted      Profile for Amazing Grace   Email Amazing Grace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Meanwhile, back at the campaign ... [Biased]

I read on electoral-vote.com that there are reports by CNN that McCain is pulling out of New Mexico, Colorado*, and Iowa. There is an additional story that activity has gone way down in Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

If these reports are true, I'm thinking one of two things:

1) "Psych-out" move to lull Obama supporters into non-voting complacency, thus improving R chances

2) Campaign is really putting most of its eggs in a basket called "Pennsylvania". Because otherwise I'm not seeing a realistic way to get to 270 EVs. (PA was in Kerry's column last time so it would be a flip.)

* Palin's been there recently though, in "base" strongholds.

One answer I've heard to "why Pennsylvania?" is "no early voting".

Thoughts on this, anyone?

Charlotte

--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play

Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Orb

Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256

 - Posted      Profile for Orb   Author's homepage   Email Orb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Thoughts on this, anyone?

Yeah. It's not going to be that they're banking on Pennsylvania (in my view). You may be onto something with the early voting. But realistically, they're just trying to save face now. They know the game's up so it's worth framing your guesswork around that.

Re: abortion. I thought the best Democrat on abortion leading up to the primaries was Kucinich. Although he mentioned the word "healer" (a bit too much, Dennis), he recognised that the issue divides the nation and used the phrase "we can do BOTH" - reduce abortions but still respect women's rights. Obama has come close to Kucinich's patter, but not quite hit the mark for me. He looked seriously embarrassed and stutter-y at the Saddleback thing...and McCain told them EXACTLY what they wanted to hear in the least number of words possible. I hated that whole thing.

Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Obama has come close to Kucinich's patter, but not quite hit the mark for me. He looked seriously embarrassed and stutter-y at the Saddleback thing...and McCain told them EXACTLY what they wanted to hear in the least number of words possible. I hated that whole thing.
Least number of words is precisely the thing. At the 1 minute mark, McCain was indeed the clear winner for the pro-life crowd and Obama's vague "above my pay grade" was a head scratcher at best (trying for humility? unclear). But by the 5 min. mark, again, Obama had given three or four clear specific things he would do to reduce abortion, while McCain was simply grinning about having got the "right" answer w/ no specifics, no plan.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Originally posted by Jason I. Am:
I really don't get this 'abortion is the only issue that matters approach'. It's less common this side of the pond,

They are told that by their clergy etc. that it's the only issue that matters. The logic is that it's silly to worry about anything else when millions of people in your society are literally getting away with murder. It makes perfect sense if one accepts the premise.

Perhaps this is as good time as any to introduce an article in DailyKos, one of several, about church cells and their coercive, cultish implications. This is a popular organizational model in Assembly of God congregations (such as Ms. Palin's) as well as some American mega-churches. I couldn't locate the specific article that I saw yesterday, although it is on this same site. The author explains that three Myers-Briggs personality types dominate the populations involved in this model and that the coercive forces in these cells can succeed in changing all other personalities into one of these three. Dominionist influences are also rife.

I first heard of church cells in the early 1970s from the provost of Coventry Cathedral, where they were used. (Are they still?) They sounded like a good idea coming from him, and at least I always had to admire the dedication of folk who faithfully attend a weekly cell meeting as well as Sunday worship. But apparently they lend themselves to emotional and spiritual abuse if that is how a leader wishes to use them. Under such circumstances it is easy to understand how people can be directed to obsess over one issue to the exclusion of all others in politics.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134

 - Posted      Profile for Foaming Draught   Email Foaming Draught   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Here's a bit of trivia in the "Tell me something I don't already know" bracket.

FD

Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Orb

Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256

 - Posted      Profile for Orb   Author's homepage   Email Orb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Here's a bit of trivia in the "Tell me something I don't already know" bracket.

I wonder how that will change after the first item on the foreign policy list is taken care of...

--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed

Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Article:
quote:
In four close US partners in Asia, including Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, residents came out clearly in favour of Senator Obama.
Australia is part of Asia? [Ultra confused]

I thought Australia was, well, Australia- both country and continent.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Article:
quote:
In four close US partners in Asia, including Australia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea, residents came out clearly in favour of Senator Obama.
Australia is part of Asia? [Ultra confused]

I thought Australia was, well, Australia- both country and continent.

Japan isn't really "Asia" either. Asia used to be some where around India, and what is now "Asia" used to be "South East Asia". Locally we normally get called part of the "South Pacific" or "Oceania". But given our economic dealings you may as well call us "Asia" (Nguyễn is the 7th most common family name in Australia).

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Amazing Grace,

Here in New Mexico people are standing in line for over two hours to vote early so I don't think it's dissuading anyone. I think NM is going to Obama. I know many people who supported Bush last time who are voting Obama. Ms. Palin was well regarded here at first, especially among Latinas but her hate mongering and race baiting has changed their minds. McCain, apparently doesn't realize that most Latinos are bi-lingual had pro-Latino ads in Spanish and anti-Latino ads in English running at the same time. Ha.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Amazing Grace

High Church Protestant
# 95

 - Posted      Profile for Amazing Grace   Email Amazing Grace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Amazing Grace,

Here in New Mexico people are standing in line for over two hours to vote early so I don't think it's dissuading anyone. I think NM is going to Obama. I know many people who supported Bush last time who are voting Obama. Ms. Palin was well regarded here at first, especially among Latinas but her hate mongering and race baiting has changed their minds. McCain, apparently doesn't realize that most Latinos are bi-lingual had pro-Latino ads in Spanish and anti-Latino ads in English running at the same time. Ha.

*boggle*

Oh no they didn't!

Okay, that's funny, in a trainwreck sort of way. I gotta wonder about the campaign strategists - are they deliberately trying to throw McCain under the Straight Talk Bus? And what has taken over his mind that he agreed to that strategy? I mean, he's from Arizona, he should know way better. If Obama wins big, expect a public catfight with weeping and gnashing of teeth on the other side.

And thank you for your early voting report from New and Improved Mexico! I'm glad that people are out in force. I hope your pollworkers and your technology have smooth sailing.

I'm probably going to camp out in the county office this weekend to cast my own vote ("in person absentee"). I am going to bring my bills and checkbook and a book because I remember the line for 2004 weekend voting and this will be double.

Charlotte

--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play

Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The Hill newspaper has just released an article stating that police across the country have been quietly preparing for the possibility of race riots after the election.

Since I live in a partly-gentrifying neigborhood and a block where rioters burned down buildings 40-some years ago, I have been concerned about this very thing ever since Barack Obama got the nomination. I'm praying for a cold snap that day -- freezing rain even better.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Originally posted by Art Dunce:

quote:
McCain, apparently doesn't realize that most Latinos are bi-lingual had pro-Latino ads in Spanish and anti-Latino ads in English running at the same time. Ha.
Bloody. Hell.

Perhaps Bush has told him that things are even more fucked than they look and he's trying to throw the election.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Franco-American:
The Hill newspaper has just released an article stating that police across the country have been quietly preparing for the possibility of race riots after the election.

They seem to be discussing about plain old riots, not specifically race riots. I'd not be entirely surprised to see violence after the result, particually if Obama maintains his lead to the polls but then McCain suddenly wins. There'd be huge anger, and many people would (perhaps rightly?) blame the electronic voting system.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Perhaps Bush has told him that things are even more fucked than they look and he's trying to throw the election.
That's occurred to me too. The Republicans are preparing to leave the Augean stables for the Democrats to clean out, and then come back smelling like roses in 2012, with a shiny new candidate and everything forgiven and forgotten.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196

 - Posted      Profile for Foolhearty   Email Foolhearty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I've been wondering if McCain was trying deliberately to lose the election ever since he postponed the the beginning of the GOP convention and then selected Palin as his running mate.

--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.

Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Franco-American:
The Hill newspaper has just released an article stating that police across the country have been quietly preparing for the possibility of race riots after the election.

They seem to be discussing about plain old riots, not specifically race riots. I'd not be entirely surprised to see violence after the result, particually if Obama maintains his lead to the polls but then McCain suddenly wins. There'd be huge anger, and many people would (perhaps rightly?) blame the electronic voting system.
Franco-American has linked to page 2 of that article. If you look at the first page, you'll see that the fear that black people will riot if Obama loses and there appears to be foul play is expressed up front. You'll also see that the cities mentioned as ones preparing for possible rioting are cities that have in recent years seen rioting after major sports events, which makes sense.

People engaged in voter suppression are playing a dangerous game, and let's face it, that has mostly been a Republican tactic of late. Americans' faith in the system was rocked in 2000, and there is good reason to believe the 2004 election was stolen. All those people in Florida and Ohio who got fucked over in the last two elections are not going to be happy if Obama loses and it doesn't look like he lost fair and square. Not to mention the rest of us who want the election to be fair. We have come to take the largely peaceful handover of power for granted, as we've had it for over 200 years, but we need to recognize that those peaceful handovers depend on the electorate believing in the fairness of the system.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Race riots? Oh you mean like white people angry at seeing a POC elected president looting the Starbucks and the Trader Joes? Should be interesting.

I just returned from a very long temporary assignment in Europe and so many people said to me when I talked about the lack of support for Bush and his agenda, "Then why didn't (don't) more people protest? We waited to see what the American people would do and you did very little". Ouch.

While I do not condone violence in any way, shape or form (riots) I certainly think that we could (should) be more vocal and less complacent when faced with injustice, fraud, dangerous policies etc.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  ...  109  110  111 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools