A friend of mine the other day wrote a nice, long article in his blog about his hatred of the Religious Right, conservatives in general, and the miserable state of this country because of George W. etc., ect., ad nauseum.
I began to wonder, with all the complaining by many who hate Bush & Co and fear the Religious Right's influence on American society, what is the real threat? How has average society been directly hurt by their existence? I mean:
1. Abortion is legal;
2. Prayer is absent in schools, and any attempts to display religious icons in public institutions are quickly forced out;
3. Gay marriage continues to gain ground throughout the country, adultery is rarely punished, and divorce has lost much of its social stigma;
4. Sodomy laws aren't enforced;
5. Mass media, by far, reflects a more secular philosophy, often rampant with sex and violence (when compared to, say, a half century ago);
...and so on.
NOW, before people start firing exceptions (they always exist) I want to better understand how opponents of the current administration and those who fear the Right's influence (both Religious and otherwise) are personally affected today. I always read about this cultural divide but, really, what's being lost? What would be different in our society (not Iraq, but here at home) if, let's say, Gore had won?
I'm not on any pulpit here, just looking for illumination.
Thanks in advance...
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I really cannot answer your question. I'm mostly liberal, but moderate, really. In other words, I am registered as a Democrat but feel rather apathetic to politics and society, I hate both.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
estavares,
I hate to be cantankerous about rigorously defined terms, but you'd really have to define these labels well.
Presuming you want an honest answer.
Could you please define what it means to be "conservative"? For example, you don't mean to imply that a conservationist is conservative, do you?
You might try that a "conservative" is a "traditionalist"? Seems promising.
[edit: I do mean to be pedantic.]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Very quick (and severely influenced by high doses of antihistamines, decongestants, and prescription cough syrup, thank you Toxic Mold Death Plague v2.0) responses:
1. Abortion is legal, but there are plenty of people who are trying to make it not so, which is a huge fear.
2. I don't know; I went to private school, and we had a school prayer, and if you didn't want to say it, you just didn't have to, or if you only wanted to say part of it, you could.
3. I really don't think that gay marriage, adultery, and divorce belong in the same subject.
4. Well, that's good.
5. Would you rather the media preached to us about how wonderful God is?
Now I go to slip into unconsciousness while watching the Law and Order dvds I purchased today.
-pH
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
1. What pH said
2. Bush has injected religion into the federal government as few modern presidents have. 2 big examples are faith-based initiatives and the clumsy approach to stem-cell research
3. Are you serious? Gay marriage was officially banned by several states in 2004. In fact, I think every state that had a vote on it banned in some way. It's hardly gaining ground politically.
Adultury and divorce were de-stigmatized in our parents and grand-parents time. Bush and the modern RR have nothing to do with that.
4. Thank God. The government has no business in our bedrooms.
5. The FCC is trying much harder to put the brakes on sex in mass media, via dramatically increased fines, forcing cable companies to offer ala carte programming, and other measures. Violence is okey-dokey with them.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
clod, I noticed you were arguing about defining terms on another thread (an ID topic?)
Just go with the flow, dude. Everybody defines terms subjectively anyhoo.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Estavares:
Like others here no doubt, I am more concerned by your conception of the "agenda" of the average liberal. Though all your points are well known party platforms, they are not "the guiding principles" of liberalism.
I find it funny that the media has convinced so many that the average person is really consumed with worry and angst about his or her right to practice sodomy, have a gay marriage, abort a fetus, or not pray in school. I find it particularly funny that to be liberal is sometimes seen as synonymous with approving of hardcore sex on television (not YOUR contention, but a common claim?).
To understand "what a liberal is missing," you HAVE to go deeper than these surface issues. Truth is these issues you mentioned are surface topics which have a political head of steam; though they are important and worthy topics, none of them effect the daily lives of most people, liberal or conservative.
I think we see these superficial surface issues taking the place of the truly deep seated worries of the average liberal. For example, I don't want to go out and wantonly abort fetuses for fun, and in fact I find the practice of abortion distasteful. However, in light of the consequences of NOT allowing the practice to go on, I choose to allow it to continue. I would rather see the rights of an individual adult be upheld, although it bothers me that a child may be involved too.
Aside from that whole argument, I personally believe that the religious right attempt to campaign for one agenda while ultimately pushing another. Prime example: the religious right condemns all forms of abortion, however studies have proven that birth control pills and the morning after pill do NOT CAUSE ABORTION. Unlike RU486, which does cause abortion, common perscription birth control prevents ovulation, which prevents conception from ever occuring. Yet the religious right often lumps birth control in with abortion. Besides that, the religious right also ignores the IUD (inter-uterine device) which also prohibits implantation of a fetus (essentially causing an early abortion). They ignore it because it is favored only by adults who are in stable relationships. The real agenda is this: the religious right doesn't beleive kids should have sex. That's a fine belief, but I feel lied to when people claim that ortho-trycyclin is the "same thing" as RU486. It isn't... it just is not.
The religion thing: I think liberals worry most not about the act of praying in school, but about the insistance by some to mandate the practice and "make it official." Basically I think many liberals fear that the religious right is trying to wed itself to the political establishment, giving it added power in our lives. Liberals fear that churches seek too much influence, and I find these fears justified; prayer in school is an example among many I could choose.
I agree with morbo on gay marriage, "significant progress" is the opposite of the terms I would use. I remember only two years ago, the voters of California effectively banning gay marriage here. This issue does not effect strait liberals at all, and certainly most liberals are not gay... so obviously the issue is REPRESENTATIVE of a trend. Liberals mostly feel that the government is not needed to regulate the love lives of private individuals, and that the attempt to do so is dangerous. Many but not all liberals also believe that homosexuality is involuntary and should not be a cause for discrimination against gays.
As to divorce: this is not a political issue. If you think that divorce is in some what a "liberal" idea, then your quite mistaken IMO. People have been divorcing and seperating since marriage was invented, and I seriously doubt that a ;iberal is more likely or less likely to divorce than a conservative. Once again, stopping divorce would be an unbearable intrusion on the lives of Americans, and conservatives and liberals almost all agree on that.
You ask: How would your life have been affected if Gore had been elected. BIG difference #1: I simply do not believe that we would be engaged in a useless, bloody, expensive, and depressing war in the middle east. We might have been attacked, we might have fought, but we wouldn't plunged ourselves into THIS. Not that it matters now, the past is gone, and we can only think about now and the future. I believe that Bush and Co want "what's best" for America, however I also believe that their version of what America is an should be is not the same as mine, and their version, in some ways horrifies me. Not that the "liberal" platform doesn't equally astonish me often enough for its absolute lack of logical forethought.
So estavares I am going to say this: forget about what the politcal parties say are the important issues. The truth is that 95 percent of what kids grow up believing comes directly from mom and dad, we just spend 95 percent of our energy arguing over who's 5% the kids will get an earful of at school! Rather than looking at party platforms, look at what lies beneath those battles: simpler issues about what power is and who should have how much of it.
Clod, I once again agree with Morbo, take what the person is asking you and at least attempt to understand how that person is using the term, then answer under those terms and not your own preconceptions of the same arugment. I have an an initial reaction similar to yours, however I try to just let the person "see the light" by appealing to what they already undestan, not by frustratedly pounding my head against a wall saying: you don't know what these words mean to ME ME ME! Try and see what the words mean to them, and appeal to THAT definition. As we all know, our own brains are quite fond of working off of their own perameters, so its best not to try and make others THINK the way you do, in order to converse with them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm a liberal.
I'm missing one of the bumps that holds the tendon on my middle finger, left hand in place. When I bend my finger, it goes to one side. I put people's fingers lightly on it and tell them to close their eyes while I bend my knuckle, and it freaks them out. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Something tells me you're not a liberal yourself, estavares. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
For you conspiracy fans, Rolling Stone has a recent article and Harper's has one from 2003 about a shadowy group that styles itself "The Family" or "The Fellowship." They use tactics of revolution (dividing groups into cells, for one), and are dead serious about taking over the US, and the world, in the name of Jesus. Many of the nation's most important politicians are members. One wag from another website called their message "the gospel according to Genghis Khan."
So estavares, there is good reason to fear the religious right. Pat Robertson draws ridicule--but perhaps they keep him around as a lightning rod.
But the fight goes on, and recent appointments to the Supreme Court may change this. Here, as in all of these cases, I think the extremes of both sides are dangerous. I don't want abortion made illegal, but neither do I like the trend of using abortion as a casual, after-the-fact birth control. I think that everyone should work to keep abortion safe, legal, and very rare.
2. Prayer is absent in schools, and any attempts to display religious icons in public institutions are quickly forced out
Organized prayer is absent in schools, and that's good. I don't like the drive to push religion back into school (especially the science class) but I'm also annoyed at the virulent anti-religion witchhunt that pops up whenever someone sees a Bible on a teacher's bookshelf. The Ten Commandments, for example, are a part of our heritage and should be displayed, along with the other sources of ethics and law in our history. Groups that want them prominently featured and groups that want them banned entirely are both missing the point.
3. Gay marriage continues to gain ground throughout the country, adultery is rarely punished, and divorce has lost much of its social stigma
As stated, conflating these items is wrong. Gay marriage is gaining ground amongst the small minority of people who enjoy media time. In the heartland, and in every state that's had an amendment come to ban it, gay marriage is not gonna happen any time soon, and that's sad. However, I am very bothered by the increasingly casual stance towards adultery and I don't think divorce should be as easy. Divorce should be available, especially for spouses in abusive relationships, but I think the no-fault divorce has damaged society much more than the threat of gay marriage. We shouldn't be stressing the rights of the individual (I can marry/sleep with/divorce anyone I want, whenever I want) so much. Instead, I'd like to see more emphasis on commitment: Gays should be able to marry, people shouldn't break their vows, and marriages mean hard work and greater rewards.
4. Sodomy laws aren't enforced
Sodomy laws are, in fact, illegal after the Supreme Court's ruling. And good. But sex toys are still banned in Alabama and zoning for strip clubs remains a problem in many cities.
5. Mass media, by far, reflects a more secular philosophy, often rampant with sex and violence (when compared to, say, a half century ago)
Compared to the 40's and 50's, yes. Compared to nearly any other time in history, no. Read Aristophanes some time, or Shakespeare. We have always had our taste for the erotic and the violent. However, sex and violence are more easily accessible than at any other time in history and it's become harder and harder to avoid it. I don't see this as a plus. While I think we should have the freedom to enjoy the entertainment we want, I also think we should have the freedom to avoid any we don't. This isn't as easy, anymore.
What our society has become is a mishmash of extremes. Advocates push the envelope and opponents shove back just as far in the opposite direction, and I'd guess most of us would really be more comfortable in the middle.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Anne, it's not missing tendon bumps that define liberals. They're missing the head bumps that define a love of the status quo. And the ones that show practicality and realism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that liberals in this case are in fact defending many things that are currently the status quo from attack.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pat Robertson draws ridicule--but perhaps they keep him around as a lightning rod.
Pat Robertson also heads the largest Christian broadcasting network existing, and Karl Rove calls him personally. You may hear him on a newscast and laugh but many many people believe what he says.
By the way, the list also left out other traditionally liberal causes such as help for the poor, fair education funding, fewer tax cuts for the rich, fair voting practices, fewer loopholes for the powerful, environmental conservation, comprehensive sex education, science without agenda, the avoidance of unnecessary wars, corporate influence in legislation, and a government open to the people with checks and balances in place. Your list picked the hotbutton issues but ignored the ones that really change our society and the country we live in, and those are the ones in which this adminsitration has made the most difference.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You might also ask what conservatives are missing, such as a balanced budget, a smaller, less intrusive government, accountability and responsibility in government and legislation, a commitment to reduce foreign debt, a legislation that works to benefit the country for decades to come instead of just the voters next fall, and a foreign policy that relies on diplomacy and cooperation. Also missing from this adminstration.
The either-or assumption of liberal/conservative doesn't apply here: The conservatives are not in power now, no matter what they call themselves.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That's true, Robertson does have some believers--the more fool they. Robertson is a poor excuse for a Christian, his hate-filled message is just sad.
quote: One of the little-known strengths of the Christian right lies in its adoption of the "cell" -- the building block historically used by small but determined groups to impose their will on the majority. Seventy years ago, an evangelist named Abraham Vereide founded a network of "God-led" cells comprising senators and generals, corporate executives and preachers. Vereide believed that the cells -- God's chosen, appointed to power -- could construct a Kingdom of God on earth with Washington as its capital. They would do so "behind the scenes," lest they be accused of pride or a hunger for power, and "beyond the din of vox populi," which is to say, outside the bounds of democracy. To insiders, the cells were known as the Family, or the Fellowship. To most outsiders, they were not known at all.
"Communists use cells as their basic structure," declares a confidential Fellowship document titled "Thoughts on a Core Group." "The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four-man squad. Hitler, Lenin and many others understood the power of a small group of people." Under Reagan, Fellowship cells quietly arranged meetings between administration officials and leaders of Salvadoran death squads, and helped funnel military support to Siad Barre, the brutal dictator of Somalia, who belonged to a prayer cell of American senators and generals.
from the Rolling Stone article. They have also been in bed with other dictators.
later in the article:
quote: They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls "Jesus plus nothing" -- a government led by Christ's will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything -- sex and taxes, war and the price of oil -- will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It's a good old boy's club blessed by God.
Creepy people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's true, Robertson does have some believers--the more fool they. Robertson is a poor excuse for a Christian, his hate-filled message is just sad.
No, it's frightening. He heads the most powerful religious channel. He started one of the most influential political organizations in American politics (The Christian Coalition). He's written three books, each of which was the top-selling religious book the year of their publication.
Do not skip past him on Sunday morning and assume no one watches that stuff just because you don't, or because pundits mock his outrageous statements. The biggest mistake nonChristians can make is to forget how many Christians there are, and the biggest mistake all of us, Christians and others alike, can make is to forget how many dangerous and powerful cranks are out there.
Personally, it scares the crap out of me that the Left Behind series is so popular.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You have religious channels? I mean, I've heard of televangelists, but entire channels? Assumably, each would be bias towards one particular belief system, no? On that logic, how in blue blazers do they get an entire channel for that?
Oh wait, I've watched Brigham Young Televison. Well... that's different. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
cheiros...
We have digital cable throughout most of the US, plus satellite, plus regular cable (almost) everywhere else.
Assuming someone wants TV in their home, it's almost impossible to avoid having at least 30 +/- channels piped in. And if they really like TV, there's the opportunity for something 238 channels (last time I checked, heck it could be triple that by now).
I can't remember the last time I didn't have at least one all-religion channel in my basic cable subscription. Living in Central Florida (arguable still part of the Bible Belt), I had 3 English-language channels and one Spanish language channel completely devoted to religious programming.
Plus, on Sundays many of the other channels broadcast paid religious programming.
As for the questions by estavares...I'm sort of wondering if liking things the way they are is EVER a reason to stop worrying about those who wish to change them. As long as there is more than one direction we could go in the future, there will be cause for fretting, argument, and posturing.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Great info.
The risk I take in asking such a question, and offering terms of any kind or focusing on certain issues means that most people will A) take some kind of offense because I left something in, out, or associated one issue with another and B) misunderstand because of my use of the term "liberal" (a very general term here) and C) presume my intentions in directions not intended.
I agree that these are "hot button" issues that don't have as specific an effect on your average person. So what does? Chris Bridges brought up some great points--could you elaborate?
As much as we might suspect insidious plots by these people to ursurp the world, it doesn't appear to be happening. Let's be honest––we might fear the FCC and their influence, but there's more nudity, language and violence on TV since its inception. We might think gay marriage is failing politically, but the fact it has been accepted AT ALL is a sharp difference from, say, even a decade ago. (And the amendment attempt against it failed.) We all know abortion won't become illegal again anytime soon, but RU486 is currently available, isn't it?
It was a risk to include divorce/adultery (not like, somehow, liberals "defend" or "advocate" such practices) but I included them again to show that people decry this so-called Right Wing influence to force so-called "Family Values" on the nation but is anyone really being "forced" or unduly influenced? Heck, I think most of these Religious Right kooks and their bully pulpits are downright silly. But do we really FEAR them? Have they really made any progress at all?
Many of you nailed it by the idea that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" really are not the same anymore. When a society changes, are those seeking to change it further now the "liberals" and those seeking to defend the status quo "conservatives"? So would an anti-abortion platform be considered "liberal" since it seeks to change the status quo?
Thanks again for your insightful answers...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Many of you nailed it by the idea that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" really are not the same anymore. When a society changes, are those seeking to change it further now the "liberals" and those seeking to defend the status quo "conservatives"? So would an anti-abortion platform be considered "liberal" since it seeks to change the status quo?
I'll take a stab at this by saying that if the terms are no longer "meaningful," what difference does it make, other than curiosity. Originally, Republicans were the party that freed the slaves, now they are the party that sides with business over labor, generally speaking, and aren't nearly as concerned with personal freedom as they are with security.
Whatever.
The questions you asked are interesting, but the least interesting aspect of them is the appropriate application of over-broad labels.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: We might think gay marriage is failing politically, but the fact it has been accepted AT ALL is a sharp difference from, say, even a decade ago. (And the amendment attempt against it failed.) We all know abortion won't become illegal again anytime soon, but RU486 is currently available, isn't it?
So by your logic, a minor victory is cause to halt the progression of the cause? I mean, sure, some people are okay with gay marriage, Brokeback Mountain was shown on movie screens without riots forming, but who are you trying to kid? More than a dozen states have changed their CONSTITUTION to illegalize gay marriage. Just because a national amendment failed doesn't mean that 50 smaller ones can't in effect mean the same thing. One state has legalized marriage, and yes, that is progress, but that's only 1/50 of the goal. That's one tiny step in a LONG war.
You think African Americans should have just given up after they got the right to vote? They still had a long way to go, and so does the gay rights movement.
As for abortion. The status quo is what most liberals want to keep, but being complacent isn't going to keep it. The pro-lifers are fighting just as hard as they are to CHANGE the status quo.
I sort of see what you are saying and I might agree with some parts of it, but your overall argument, which I take to boil down to "We've got what we want, so let's sit back and relax" makes no sense to me at all.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I get the idea of remaining vigilant; but it's more than that. People are really pissed off. Why?
I tend to be in the middle on many subjects, leaning one way or the other on some, and there are a few subjects on a broad scale that rankle me. But I know a number of people who feel such hatred for the Right it makes me wonder––has my neighbor been adversely affected? Am I missing something? Is there something more than preserving the status quo?
I'll avoid the gay marriage issue for a whole slew of reasons, and that's one issue I understand causes a lot of emotion. But I'm talking about more broad, across-the-board issues. Sometimes all I hear are the "hot button" issues; I'd love to go deeper, to better understand the source of such anger.
This idea of "labels" is so true, because we often find ourselves fighting over semantics when core issues are ignored. It makes me wonder if national discourse is more an issue of debating (and getting emotional about) conceptual values rather than real, tangible issues. I think we spend more time arguing about gay marriage and less time wondering why we haven't solved the homeless problem by now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...we fought a war and our currently stuck in a very diffuclt situation based on the either outright lies or at best severe dishonesty of our President. We're holding people, including American citizens, for an indefinite period time without charging them with any crime. We're torturing people. The President thinks he can spy on whoever he wants without any sort of oversight. The people who disagree with these things are dismissed and labelled anti-American.
We've got a a ballooning national decifit that basically every economist not directly part of the Republic party thinks is a really big and scary thing. Our environmental standards are being ignored and/or turned back. In a time of a multitude of enormous scandals involving immoral and illegal business dealings, we're severely dialing back regulation. The proposed and current programs for many social programs, such as Medicare and possible Social Security seem more about giving hunks of cash to the various industries than it does about making good use of the money or servingthe public interest.
Instead of focusing on fixing our poor educational system and other public services, we're having to fend off Christians trying, often dishonestly, to impose their values and religion on others.
That's just off the top of my head.
edit: I forgot to add all the various scandals involving Republican politicians. For example when the Bush administration, it seems likely it was the Vice-President, decided to get back at someone for calling them on their dishonesty by seriously compromising CIA operations. And then the White House has lied about it pretty much since.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
America has been like that for awhile now estaves. You can't get to a core issue without one side or the other, or at least the loudest elements of both sides, pointing out how this is only a symptom of a larger problem.
Helping the homeless brings about arguments over welfare. Getting them off the streets and into homes either means massive economic upturn, so everyone has a job and this income to find a dwelling. Or it means a massive influx of cash into a social engineering programs that buys places to live for them. Congress will never even get to figuring out which is better, because they will spend all their time over arguing the right or wrongness of an American nation that spends all its money on social engineering and welfare.
Every core subject falls under the umbrella of a larger philosophical argument, and often, if its not a specific hot button issue, that's what will be discussed.
As far as the political scandals, don't forget about the gerrymandering thing in Texas that might be called illegal and overturned, or the Jack Abramoff scandal, and whatever Tom Delay is in trouble for. All Republican scandals. But thank GOD none of them cheated on their wives, that would have been SERIOUS!
I don't think everything is the Repblican's fault, but I think there is plenty wrong with the direction of the country for the "Liberals" (whatever that even means now) to be plenty upset and noisy about.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Morbo,
I know. Just think of it as lobbying for more concise postings.
clod
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
orincoro,
quote:As we all know, our own brains are quite fond of working off of their own perameters, so its best not to try and make others THINK the way you do, in order to converse with them.
I don't think that way at all, as we all know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Am I missing something?
Here's this closet libertarian's personal opinion: when the federal government has its fingers in every pie like it does today, people who would normally just want to live their lives and get on with their business find themselves forced to fight, tooth and nail, against people with opposing ideals that they don't know or understand particularly well. When this stuff was local, it was still just as passionate -- but moderated to some degree by personal knowledge of the issues. Now people just get national-level soundbytes fed to them by a national-level media, and the whole idea of a "grassroots" movement has been completely subverted by the equivalent of political franchises, chain restaurants of the mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The President thinks he can spy on whoever he wants without any sort of oversight.
-----------
If anyone thinks it's conservatives alone attacking gay marriage, they've got another thing coming. Unless, somehow, all the states that currently prohibit homosexual marriage are magically conservative Republicans which makes one wonder at the demographics of Congress.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: keep in mind that the majority of states are Republican, its just several of the biggest states commonly go Democrat. 21 out of 51 locations (DC included) voted Democrat, a nine-state majority Republican.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When this stuff was local, it was still just as passionate -- but moderated to some degree by personal knowledge of the issues. Now people just get national-level soundbytes fed to them by a national-level media, and the whole idea of a "grassroots" movement has been completely subverted by the equivalent of political franchises, chain restaurants of the mind. [/QB]
Wow tom. That is exactly what I wish I had thought to say. So right on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm aware of that, fugu. But a 9 state majority hardly makes the issue one of conservatives for, liberals against.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:RU486 is currently available, isn't it?
Not as far as I know. And I wish it was.
But I also think the morning-after pill should be more readily available, too. I mean, not everybody can afford to go to the ER, and Planned Parenthood is only open Monday through Friday (at least, that's the way it is around here). So what do you do if something happens on a Friday night? Cross your fingers and wait until Monday?
-pH
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Thread, too much... changing back into Conservative Republican Eating Werewolf.... must try to stay in contr........ARRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! *drools* *bears fangs* ARRRRUUUUUUUUUU!!!!! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
RU486 IS available in the U.S. but not every state.
The availability of birth control is also variable from state to state. The morning after pill, a form of the birth control pill, NOT RU486 (because it prevents conception, doesn't cause abortion if conception has occurred), is also available over the counter in many states, and perscription elsewhere.
I can't stress this enough too: RU486 is the abortion pill. Morning after is a TOTALLY different thing, and doesn't cause abortion at all, the FDA is now positive about this fact.
You should not have to go to the ER for these medications, how embarassing if you do have to.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: RU486 IS available in the U.S. but not every state.
The availability of birth control is also variable from state to state. The morning after pill, a form of the birth control pill, NOT RU486 (because it prevents conception, doesn't cause abortion if conception has occurred), is also available over the counter in many states, and perscription elsewhere.
I can't stress this enough too: RU486 is the abortion pill. Morning after is a TOTALLY different thing, and doesn't cause abortion at all, the FDA is now positive about this fact.
You should not have to go to the ER for these medications, how embarassing if you do have to.
I'm perfectly aware that they're two different things. I'm full of random knowledge about birth control and whatnot. I was not, however, aware that the abortion pill was available in any states. Do you know which ones they are? My old roommate once told me that she got an abortion by injection, and I think that was in Texas, and I don't think that kind of thing would be legal there.
Also, yes, a lot people DO have to go to the ER because Planned Parenthood is closed. It happened to one of my friends freshman year; she and her boyfriend had to go to the ER. I don't remember how she explained it to her parents, since I'm sure it cost a fortune. She was embarassed, but the staff at the ER were all very supportive and told her that she was being very responsible, from what I hear.
-pH
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Instead of focusing on fixing our poor educational system and other public services, we're having to fend off Christians trying, often dishonestly, to impose their values and religion on others.
This is a bit of what I'm talking about. Based on our society today, are people really buying this? Have they really made any headway? How has your life changed because others tried to "impose" their beliefs, especially since you're aware of such tactics?
The more I thought about it, I tried to think of anyone on the Left who really, REALLY pisses me off. I think that goes to Hilary Clinton––and it's more of an attitude, I think, a superiority complex in her rhetoric, when really there's nothing about her or what she does that affects me directly in the least.
Tom's answer makes a lot of sense; it's funny we get so angry at people we've never met, who have done nothing directly against us, and whose choices have no direct influence over our lives except that they offend our values or personal sensibilities.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it's funny we get so angry at people we've never met, who have done nothing directly against us, and whose choices have no direct influence over our lives except that they offend our values or personal sensibilities
There's another component to my answer, though, which is that the federal government's interference in these matters means that these choices DO have some direct influence over our lives.
If, for example, I believe that people should be required to pray in school, or gay people should be able to marry, the opinions of total strangers suddenly become relevant to me -- as long as these issues continue to be "settled" at a national level.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: The more I thought about it, I tried to think of anyone on the Left who really, REALLY pisses me off. I think that goes to Hilary Clinton––and it's more of an attitude, I think, a superiority complex in her rhetoric, when really there's nothing about her or what she does that affects me directly in the least.
Seriously? That bugs you, but Bush treating everyone like an idiot and a traitor if they don't agree with him doesn't? Seems a bit flipped there if you ask me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...but Bush treating everyone like an idiot and a traitor if they don't agree with him doesn't?
Truly, the GOP is the party of hate-filled intolerance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Neither side is great, but it just strikes me as EXTREMELY odd to single out Hillary for that specific offense when Bush, and especially Cheney, do the exact same thing and are a lot less careful or nice about it.
Quite frankly Dean bothers me a lot more than Hillary. Dean spouts off gibberish about EVERYTHING no matter what, his first reaction is to fly off the handle and go aggressive. It's like he has roid rage, and I don't get it, because he struck me as the most reasoned energetic candidate during the democratic primary. And now he's all rhetoric, angry rhetoric.
Rakeesh -
The extreme wings of both parties are both the icons of hate filled intolerance. Hillary is incorrectly labeled as being in the far left wing of her party though. A lot of it is people playing off the image the Republicans crafted around her, she's often not being judged on her merits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...what merits?
Seriously. I'd like to hear about all the things she's done above and beyond what other Senators do.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: If, for example, I believe that people should be required to pray in school, or gay people should be able to marry, the opinions of total strangers suddenly become relevant to me -- as long as these issues continue to be "settled" at a national level.
That's exactly what I'm talking about...but there is a difference between "believing" things should be a certain way (by far, IMHO, the motivation for much of our political opinions) and actually "experiencing" a status quo that meets or does not meet with our beliefs.
This goes back to my original idea where my friend hates the Right, albeit the "far" Right and those religious goofs who preach politics form their pulpits, but he enjoys living under a system of laws that allows everything these guys preach against. These guys are paper tigers––why waste your anger on them?
I totally agree that we should be vigilant on issues that MAY change, and THAT's what I'm looking for––examples of policies, laws and issues that have a real threat of being changed because the Right is advocating it, rather than simply hating someone's belief system.
quote: Seriously? That bugs you, but Bush treating everyone like an idiot and a traitor if they don't agree with him doesn't? Seems a bit flipped there if you ask me.
That is standard circular-argument rhetoric (never said Bush doesn't bug me either)––and my point. I despise her smirky, self-centered, arrogant pontification that tries to grab headlines, and I strongly disagree with almost everything she advocates, so I dislike her while I'll accept someone else just as arrogant whose belief system matches my own. (Like McCain.)
Ah, irrational beings are we...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
What are liberals really missing?
*shrugs*
A sense of humor?
*ducks and grins*
Carry on . . .
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
estavares,
I thought for a while as to how to answer your question, and, following Morbo's advice, trying not to be too rigid. But, I can't. I haven't got the slightest clue what your initial post was asking for. The title of your post doesn't seem to have a lot to do with it's contents, nor your follow-ups.
maybe I'm just slow. I think T.D. has given some well-thought answers to a poorly-asked question.
*pulls up and shoots at fleeing duckling*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See, its funny. Guess who's teaming up with Hillary to work on health care, of all things. Newt Gingrich!
Hillary's politics are actually pretty centrist; she's been long cast as a liberal's liberal, but this has never really been borne out by inconvenient things like facts.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
you missed! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...what merits?
Seriously. I'd like to hear about all the things she's done above and beyond what other Senators do.
You're missing my point. What has she done, above and beyond what other senators have done, to earn the ire of every liberal hater in the nation? Like Fugu said, she's actually fairly centrist in her policies. You don't see Ted Kennedy talking about abortion the way she does.
I'm not saying she's the best senator ever, I'm just saying that she's really done nothing to earn her negative reputation as a SENATOR. And that her policies are widely misrepresented by others.
She worked with Charles Schumer to get over 20 billion dollars in recovery money and aid to the cleanup and families of firefighters following 9/11, this after Bush's Administration and Republicans controlled congress failed to appropriate so much as enough money to replace the firetrucks they lost in the disaster.
She's been very centrist over Bush's foreign wars. She wholeheartedly supported the Afghanistan war, and has called many parts of the Iraq War a success, disagreeing with the majority of Democrats who call it a failure across the board, to the point where liberal democrats have protested outside her speech giving venues. And she's called for an improvement in the treatment and benefits for veterans of the military, and voted for an increase in the size of the regular army.
She doesn't fall on the party line like most people on BOTH sides do, I'd say that right there should make her stand out positively above most of her colleagues.
She joined with Bill Frist to modernize medical records, and Newt Gingrich to try and tackle universal health care, something both sides have stayed away from. Hell, she'll even be challenged by others from inside the Democratic base for the nomination to win her seat in New York this year. Which doesn't really matter, she can afford to run as an independent if she misses the nomination.
I do however congratulate right wing Republicans on having slandered her name so well to the point where everyone automatically assumes "Hillary" means "die hard left wing liberal" when in reality the real die hard left wing liberals are pissed at her. It's a nice fiction they've woven that most seem to buy into.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because hatred for her built up during the Whitewater days, because she tried to float a health care plan, and because she keeps getting caught looking disgusted when Bush is making speeches. That's pretty much it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know what, I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it. I'm not missing anything.
Well, except my tonsils.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
This is a real shame, I think, on the american political landscape.
I'll give the dems a point for loyalty, though. There's lotsa folks who've worked and are still working for her campaign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She's that vilified for not recognizing etiquette at political functions? Hell I don't blame her given what Republicans did to her husband. I'd say they're nowhere near even yet. I should say, what they did to her husband AND to her during the Clinton presidency.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Clod:
Gee, I thought my question was pretty simplistic, almost trite. Let's try it again.
People complain about the Right (and especially the Far Right) imposing their belief system on the world, but why? You can have an abortion, you can be gay and, in some areas, get legal recognition of your partnership. You can find anything you want on TV regardless of so-called "tighter" controls on our media. You don't have to be bothered by anyone's religious preference in school.
Let's be honest; most of those values liberals advocate (using broad terms here, so let's not split hairs) are available to everyone today. Is there really a serious threat in losing any of these privileges?
Most of those who spew such hatred––what are they missing? What does the Right deprive them or having or doing? Tom's answer makes sense, and I see it in myself, but even my own strong opinions aren't based on anything personal. I may despise Hillary Clinton, but she hasn't done anything that affects me in a real sense. She just annoys the heck out of me.
Does that help?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, as I said, in most places, gay unions still aren't recognized. AND there are plenty of people who are trying to make abortion illegal. So what, people should just sit around until it becomes illegal again and then start lobbying to legalize it?
-pH
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
The Liberal battle cry is value diversity is it not? Yet if anyone doesn't agree with their overzealous value, or lack thereof, system, they are looked down upon as backward cavemen grunting in some mudpit. If someone wants to be a stupid biased bigot, what makes it your right to tell them not to? Where does anyone get the authority to impose their value system on anyone?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Where does anyone get the authority to impose their value system on anyone?
That's an astonishingly liberal position, Shepherd.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have zero sympathy for Pres. Clinton when it comes to what those awful Republicans did to him during his presidency. He literally brought it on himself. Had he been able to show the same level of self-restraint we expect out of husbands everywhere, those awful Republicans wouldn't have been able to land a punch.
Then there's the whole lying to everyone's face thing, a lie that is far and away more clear cut (though obviously the subject matter is less severe) than the ones Bush is routinely accused of making.
Edit: Insofar as how President Clinton was apparently 'victimized' by Republicans in response to his sex scandals.
Remember, kids: sexual harrassment isn't as serious when a Democrat does it!
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She's that vilified for not recognizing etiquette at political functions? Hell I don't blame her given what Republicans did to her husband. I'd say they're nowhere near even yet. I should say, what they did to her husband AND to her during the Clinton presidency.
It's the "good 'ole boy thing," I'd say -- men can verbally attack the current president, using a public funeral/memorial as their podium -- but she can't "look" disgusted . . .
*sigh*
IMHO, of course.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Again, as I said, in most places, gay unions still aren't recognized AND there are plenty of people who are trying to make abortion illegal. So what, people should just sit around until it becomes illegal again and then start lobbying to legalize it?
It may be tough for gays to be married (though there's more of an opportunity than just a few years ago, regardless), but we're dealing with a small minority here who get a lot of press. I get that argument, and how someone might be directly affected. But most of those against the "Right" aren't gay, so such policies have no direct bearing on them.
Do you really think abortion will become illegal again in our lifetime? Have opponents made such dramatic advances that there's a real chance? I see the efforts, but no real progress.
[ February 20, 2006, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But let's be honest––do you really think abortion will become illegal again in our lifetime?
I predict abortion will become illegal in 40 states within the next ten years.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Tom:
Really? What's your basis for such a claim?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Where does anyone get the authority to impose their value system on anyone?
Again, back to my question: where is the imposition? Talking a lot and shouting doesn't impose anything and, honestly, EVERYONE tries to impose their belief system on everyone else. No one side holds claim to that title.
I think people get upset but, if you think about it, few can impose anything on most people that has any real lasting harm. If they have, I'm anxious to hear it.
I don't necessarily think overwhelming philosophical opinions against one's own value system is considered a "harm." It's annoying, sure, but we still get up and shop on Ebay and watch movies and live our lives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Really? What's your basis for such a claim?
It's not going to hold up in the Supreme Court for another four years. Once it's down, most states don't have the votes in the legislature to keep it going.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thirteen million children 18 and under below the poverty line.
Forty-five million people without health insurance.
Six hundred thousand people homeless, 40% of whom have a job and still can't afford housing and 37% of which are families with children.
This "liberal" is much more concerned with these figures than with whether or not she can watch sex on TV.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: It's not going to hold up in the Supreme Court for another four years. Once it's down, most states don't have the votes in the legislature to keep it going.
I wonder. It seems such a decision would be political suicide, and become the kind of cause that could shift political power in the Left's favor.
If it did shift to the states, will we see a growing trend where such "hot" topics are decided state-wide, rather than nationally? I wonder what kind of divisions between the states could develop in the long term?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wonder what kind of growing division between the states could develop in the long term?
Back when that WAS the law of the land, there wasn't as much hostility between states as there is TODAY. Today, a single powerful state can control the populations in OTHER states just by influencing the federal legislature; this creates resentment more rapidly than the alternative.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The supreme court can't be political suicide, since the judges are appointed for life.
Which is the point of an independent judiciary.
Gay marriage, working okay here in MA, has been banned (and then some) in 15+ states... And even here in MA, on a _sports talk radio_ show (the station is the top rated in the state, and the highest rated sports station in the nation), there are ads from an advocacy group to get support to impeach the chief justice on the MA supreme court, in the hopes that a justice will be appointed that will reject the earlier decision.
The fear is that there is a fair chance will lose what "advances" we feel have been made. Which may just be the nature of things *shrug*
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not going to hold up in the Supreme Court for another four years. Once it's down, most states don't have the votes in the legislature to keep it going.
I'm skeptical. At least one more justice has to resign before the Casey majority swings the other way (it was 6-3). And that's assuming Alito and Roberts vote to strike Casey down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:At least one more justice has to resign before the Casey majority swings the other way (it was 6-3).
Keep in mind that I'm still anticipating a Republican victory in 2008, unless the Dems manage to find a spine.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: The supreme court can't be political suicide, since the judges are appointed for life.
Obviously, but it's suicide for anyone remotely associated with such a decision, and as people tend to group people together, they'll blame anyone who used the words "anti-" and "abortion" ever in the same paragraph.
I just don't see the legal justification for reversing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just don't see the legal justification for reversing it.
IMO, there was never really any sensible legal justification for making it a "right." There are a lot of people out there who dislike Roe -- and, for that matter, Brown -- for purely legalistic reasons. I'm hardly a strict constructionist, but I think both those decisions laid the groundwork for what has become a really, really dangerous federal judiciary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see the legal justification for deciding it originally.
Further, Roe and Casey are woefully misunderstood - the majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe - even though it was partially overturned in Casey. The majority of Americans also favor a set of abortion restrictions that contravene Roe/Casey.
This means at least a significant minority doesn't know what they want.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Thirteen million children 18 and under below the poverty line.
Forty-five million people without health insurance.
Six hundred thousand people homeless, 40% of whom have a job and still can't afford housing and 37% of which are families with children.
This "liberal" is much more concerned with these figures than with whether or not she can watch sex on TV.
Amen to that, dkw.
Our country's leaders and communities' inability to look honestly and seriously at fixing issues like this, in a united, non-partisan fashion, is both sad and frightening.
Efforts on either side of the political divide seem to get stonewalled, derailed, ignored, sluffed off . . . and never really addressed. Just band-aided, with the band-aid frequently being ripped abruptly off to fund some other "catch-phrase/newsworthy" issue.
*shakes head*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:But most of those against the "Right" aren't gay, so such policies have no direct bearing on them.
So opinions are only valid if they're on something that has a direct bearing on the individual giving the opinion?
Well men, guess you can't weigh in on the abortion issue until you start growing uteri(uteruses?).
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well men, guess you can't weigh in on the abortion issue until you start growing uteri(uteruses?).
Or until we start playing a part in the creation of fetuses.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy. Since the only opinions that count concerning gay marriage are those people who are "directly affected."
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was once in a uterus, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:you don't have to go through the pregnancy.
I certainly went through something. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*thwaps mph*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Sorry. My last pregnancy, at this point, my doctor was apologizing to me on behalf of all men ever born for being male.
I guess I get a little scary... )
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Thirteen million children 18 and under below the poverty line.
Forty-five million people without health insurance.
Six hundred thousand people homeless, 40% of whom have a job and still can't afford housing and 37% of which are families with children.
This "liberal" is much more concerned with these figures than with whether or not she can watch sex on TV.
Agreed... Pity neither party seems to be interested in engaging those issues.
Erm, if one asked why the conservatives were so incensed when one can buy a gun, a heterosexual marriage is recognized in all fifty states, religious institutions pay no taxes, and so on... Would that be reasonable? And there are certainly people who consider such things to be under attack.
It's never pleasant to feel that your elected officials see their position, their mandate, demands that they represent only a portion of their constituency. And I've never felt that as strongly before.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
pH:
Oh, I get disagreeing with something on a value basis. I'm asking for those things that DO have a direct influence. I'm just curious if anger is based on simply a values debate and, if so, since much of so-called "liberal" social values are free and available (or gradually becoming available) to everyone anyway, I wonder why vigilance becomes hatred.
quote: Erm, if one asked why the conservatives were so incensed when one can buy a gun, a heterosexual marriage is recognized in all fifty states, religious institutions pay no taxes, and so on... Would that be reasonable? And there are certainly people who consider such things to be under attack.
Great question. I have to ask myself why certain hot button issues get me riled when, in reality, they'll never directly affect me. Only when I feel it will weaken something that affects everyone (like certain social institutions), then I realize I have an obligation to be conscience to fight back.
But to get so angry because of someone's opinion? I dunno...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I was once in a uterus, though.
I was once a gay guy's fake girlfriend for two years. I spent several nights a week hanging out at the gay coffeehouse or going on dates with my "boyfriend."
My point isn't that men shouldn't have a say in abortion. I think, in ideal circumstances, both the man and the woman should have a say in whether or not they decide to have children OR, if they have decided previously not to have children, they should both have a say in whether or not to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
My point is that it's silly to say that people shouldn't fight for gay unions to be recognized just because they themselves aren't gay. I think you guys knew that already.
-pH
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
My very first post... How exciting.
What scares me about the Bush administration has very little to do with abortion or gay marraige, and nothing at all to do with sex or violence on TV.
My Uncle, who has been a registered Republican since before I was born, put it best before the last election: "We're voting for Kerry, not because we agree with anything he has to say, but because we can't afford to have Bush in office any longer."
I disagree strongly with everything Bush is and represents. His vision for America terrifies me. The system of checks and balances was put in place for a reason, and Bush has stomped all over every law that should apply to a president of the USA. But beyond all that, what really effects me in my day to day life is what he's done to our economy.
I can't afford to have Bush in office any longer. That's what this liberal is missing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Mirrored Shades. Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I'm missing about 3/4" from my right leg, and aside from walking around in wide circles if I'm not paying attention, other than that I think I'm pretty well covered.
Oh, and you forgot to add that Hillary was in favor of a Palestinian state way before the current bunch of Republicans embraced the concept. (That was back before democracy brought us Hamas in power...but that's for another time).
And I do wish that someone would please compare the Whitewater scandal (and how much the Republicans spent persecuting/prosecuting the Clintoins over it) with any of the current Republican fiascos. Similarly, I'd love to see some comparison with Bill Clinton's sexual infidelities in office vs. the current administrations financial and wartime foul-ups. Specifically--how many were killed!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Thirteen million children 18 and under below the poverty line.
Forty-five million people without health insurance.
Six hundred thousand people homeless, 40% of whom have a job and still can't afford housing and 37% of which are families with children.
This "liberal" is much more concerned with these figures than with whether or not she can watch sex on TV.
Agreed... Pity neither party seems to be interested in engaging those issues.
Yes. We are. Interested in engaging those issues. If you paid attention, you will have noticed that in the 2004 election, we liberals tried to address those issues all the time. Did you listen to John Edwards? Sadly, the Republicans were able to center the debate around fear of terrorism and "family values". This may be why you think that watching sex on TV is all that interests us.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My point is that it's silly to say that people shouldn't fight for gay unions to be recognized just because they themselves aren't gay. I think you guys knew that already.
We did. Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:It may be tough for gays to be married (though there's more of an opportunity than just a few years ago, regardless), but we're dealing with a small minority here who get a lot of press. I get that argument, and how someone might be directly affected. But most of those against the "Right" aren't gay, so such policies have no direct bearing on them.
Somehow, it does not surprise me that you have no gay friends, but some of us do. The lack of gay marriage is a significant influence on the way homosexual relationships are defined. (Hint: entirely too often, there is no such thing as commitment.) Maybe you have never stayed up all night listening to your friend despair of ever finding that special someone. Maybe you have never heard him tell you that most cocaine overdoses are intentional ways of committing suicide and making it look accidental, and probably you have no reference to agree or disagree with that statement. (I agree.) I am sick and f*cking tired of worrying about whether my friend will still be alive in three years. Gay marriage would do much to alleviate that.
So yes, the ban of gay marriage does directly affect this straight man's life. FOAD.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Oh yes, you can be gay now, but in 2000 such was not the case in most states. Hell, even straight oral sex was illegal in some. Why should blacks have worried about Jim Crow? At least they were not slaves anymore.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes. We are. Interested in engaging those issues. If you paid attention, you will have noticed that in the 2004 election, we liberals tried to address those issues all the time. Did you listen to John Edwards? Sadly, the Republicans were able to center the debate around fear of terrorism and "family values". This may be why you think that watching sex on TV is all that interests us.
Well, first, I'm a liberal. So, no, I don't remotely think that watching sex on tv is all that interests us. I think, as was said, that issues of health care and poverty and social justice are, as they should be, the priorities.
And yes, I did listen to John Edwards, and I thought that some of what he said about "two nations" put very eloquently some things that I'd been thinking for some time.
I think when you get past the use of "liberal" as an epithet and a sound bite to eliminate the need to engage issues, most of the "liberals" stand for things a lot of people might agree with, if they were allowed to see more than sound bites.
That's the liberals. But the Democrats?...
I couldn't help but notice that Edwards got a lot quieter about social justice when he became part of Kerry's ticket. And don't get me wrong, I voted for Kerry, I liked a lot of what Kerry had to say... But the Democrats needed someone who, when Bush accused him of being a liberal during the debates, to point to things like ENRON lobbyists writing energy policy and the rush to war before solid information was available, and say "This is what the conservatives have brought America. Why should I be insulted to be called a liberal? Why shouldn't I be proud to be opposed to your establishment, given what it has wrought?" Kerry didn't want to offend, and he didn't want to risk talking above anyone's head, and it cost him.
And then there's that proud Democrat Zell Miller, who called Kerry a friend not so long before stabbing him in the back on nationwide television.
And there's people like Clinton and Lieberman, who sign onto things like punishments for retailers selling violent video games and anti-flag burning bills, to the point where you almost can hear the people whispering in their ear, "No one of consequence is going to speak in favor of these things, and the "mom and apple pie" crowd will eat it up..." Damn the Bill of Rights, full speed ahead, keep your eye on the polls.
As Tom Davidson said, the Democrats need a spine. Until they stop trying to stand for what some study says people want to hear and get aggressive on what they feel is important and right... Well, I'm not enough into futility to join, say, the Greens, but I can't say the Democratic party fills me with joy and hope. Given current events, I almost- almost- feel like we're likely to see liberal Republicans before we see a resurgance of liberal democrats.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Somehow, it does not surprise me that you have no gay friends, but some of us do.
Please spare me your personal agenda, especially in insulting me with knee-jerk presumptions. I live and work with plenty of gay people, many of them good friends, and I'm fully aware of the importance of the issue to them. I've already addressed this.
Like it or not, it's still a minority, and I doubt that's the leading issue that angers most of so-called "left" or liberal-thinking democrats. I'm looking for more.
I'm dying to say a good deal more about your lousy post, but I'm in no mood.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: As Tom Davidson said, the Democrats need a spine. Until they stop trying to stand for what some study says people want to hear and get aggressive on what they feel is important and right... Well, I'm not enough into futility to join, say, the Greens, but I can't say the Democratic party fills me with joy and hope. Given current events, I almost- almost- feel like we're likely to see liberal Republicans before we see a resurgance of liberal democrats.
I agree. I would actually VOTE Democrat if there was a sane voice that lead the charge. But they tend to be far more mean-spirited and snarky, IMHO, instead of standing up with a genuine, alternate plan to solve the issues we face. I'd love to hear one.
I wonder with the availability of information today (to access everyone's point-of-view on issues), that the party system is even needed anymore. Is it an outdated construct?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
No.
And yes.
It (the two-party system) is meaningful for those making money off of it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Well men, guess you can't weigh in on the abortion issue until you start growing uteri(uteruses?).
Or until we start playing a part in the creation of fetuses.
Good luck hunting all those storks.
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I was once in a uterus, though.
Braggart.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares:
quote: As Tom Davidson said, the Democrats need a spine. Until they stop trying to stand for what some study says people want to hear and get aggressive on what they feel is important and right... Well, I'm not enough into futility to join, say, the Greens, but I can't say the Democratic party fills me with joy and hope. Given current events, I almost- almost- feel like we're likely to see liberal Republicans before we see a resurgance of liberal democrats.
I agree. I would actually VOTE Democrat if there was a sane voice that lead the charge. But they tend to be far more mean-spirited and snarky, IMHO, instead of standing up with a genuine, alternate plan to solve the issues we face. I'd love to hear one.
I wonder with the availability of information today (to access everyone's point-of-view on issues), that the party system is even needed anymore. Is it an outdated construct?
See, the Republicans were just as snarky prior to gaining power, starting in 1994, IMO. Whoever is in power has the advantage of doing something, simply because they are the only one's who can actually do anything. Which isn't to say that the Dems need a more constructive party platform, but they are at a natural disadvantage.
-Bok
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
claudia?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Bok:
Ha ha. Totally true. We can't act, so we b*tch and moan. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I'm Liberal. For most of my life I have been glad that I was born in a free country where expressing my opinion is not a liability. I marched for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam war. If I did something similar now I could end up on a 'watch' list in Washington. To me that is not conservatism, but instead borders on emergent Fascism.
I believe many of us (me included) are missing the right to vote, knowing that our vote was counted.
I voted against Bush twice, but I will never know if my vote was really counted either time.
Our ballot box (here in Florida) is now electronic and without a paper trail. These machines have been proven to be at least fallible. These machines were manufactured/programed by conservative Republicans who vowed to get their man in office. Well, in two close controversial elections, Bush "won" according to those machines.
As for the Gay Marriage Issue, the focus SHOULD be on the civil rights of the people involved, as far as I am concerned. Religious prejudice has no place in the law. Adult humans, no matter what their color or sexual preference, should be able to live normal lives. Committed relationships are part of normal adult life. The choice to have those protections and rights that come with a legal marriage should not be denied to a committed partnership, simply because those partners are of the same sex.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I did listen to John Edwards, and I thought that some of what he said about "two nations" put very eloquently some things that I'd been thinking for some time.
I think when you get past the use of "liberal" as an epithet and a sound bite to eliminate the need to engage issues, most of the "liberals" stand for things a lot of people might agree with, if they were allowed to see more than sound bites.
Well said, and I agree.
quote:"No one of consequence is going to speak in favor of these things, and the "mom and apple pie" crowd will eat it up..." Damn the Bill of Rights, full speed ahead, keep your eye on the polls.
As Tom Davidson said, the Democrats need a spine. Until they stop trying to stand for what some study says people want to hear and get aggressive on what they feel is important and right... Well, I'm not enough into futility to join, say, the Greens, but I can't say the Democratic party fills me with joy and hope. Given current events, I almost- almost- feel like we're likely to see liberal Republicans before we see a resurgance of liberal democrats.
I'd love to see someone emerge who has the backbone to stand up and speak honestly, instead of cater to the polls. Unfortunately in order to get to the national position that would allow them to run for President, the politicians play the Poll game, and say whatever they/their staff believe will get them elected. You never know what the newly elected President is really thinking, until they start nominating Supremes, or writing EOs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: I marched for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam war. If I did something similar now I could end up on a 'watch' list in Washington. To me that is not conservatism, but instead borders on emergent Fascism.
Uh...what?
Is the government organized enough to spend time and money to do something so goofy? I seriously doubt such a claim has any basis in fact. And man, I'm not even going to touch the voting machine conspiracy theory, which is just as silly.
I think we believe too much of the media hype, frankly. I always think of the "X-Files" movie and how they implied that FEMA was the "shadowy" organiztion that would get emergency powers during a crisis and, subsequently, would usher in our country's enslavement to aliens. Then New Orleans came along and the real FEMA blew a rod in front of everyone.
I guess "Trust No One" was good advice. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then New Orleans came along and the real FEMA blew a rod in front of everyone.
That's what they WANT you to think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sterling, I absolutely agree. We absolutely need a spine and an electorate that is willing and able to pay attention. The only way we are going to get that is to let our elected represnsetives know that we are paying attention and that they will be held accountable. I am somewhat more optimistic because I live in Evanston, Illinois and am blessed with two pretty great senators and I couldn't be prouder of my congresswoman.
I campaigned in Wisconsin (very little need to campaign here). What I heard from folks voting for President Bush was a lot of fear. Fear of terrorists and fear of liberals (and gays) corrupting the culture. It always strikes me as bizarre that folks in rural towns in Wisconsin and Indiana are more afraid of terrorists and gays than folks in New York, Chicago and LA. Also, kind of funny that the most obviously religious folks I talked to - a convent full of nuns - were all voting Democrat.
I also heard a lot of people say that, even though they didn't agree with the President, it was unpatriotic to change presidents in the middle of a war. Great way to stay in power, that!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Again, you've entirely missed the point of what I said. I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that that is a valid argument. I stated it so that YOU GUYS would see how MORONIC it is to claim that because gay marriage does not "directly affect" people who are not gay, it's silly that people who aren't gay still want it to be accepted.
I'm going to resist being deliberately insulting right now and just end this post.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You'd think I'd be used to it by now. After all, I did have to leave my home, the place I was born and raised and move 2000 miles away because of that kind of attitude...
But I really hate it when conservatives, christians and even democrats rip on the idea that gay people love just as well as straight people. That some how if gay people get married it will corrupt society and doom us all.
I vote republican even though I'm pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. Heck, I've been used as an example of an Arch-Conservative by jatraqueros on at least 3 different boards. (yay ego-surfing.)
But when conservatives start talking about the gays I hear the hate in their voice and I feel that hate directed at me. The daggers of people I otherwise agree with slipping into this little bi girl's back.
*miserable sigh*
Pix
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I believe many of us (me included) are missing the right to vote, knowing that our vote was counted.
Dude. The vote to which you're referring was counted. More than once.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I believe many of us (me included) are missing the right to vote, knowing that our vote was counted.
Dude. The vote to which you're referring was counted. More than once.
I was told that - can you prove it?
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Then New Orleans came along and the real FEMA blew a rod in front of everyone.
That's what they WANT you to think.
Hurricane Katrina Investigation, written by a House subcommitte which was ENTIRLY Republican:
quote:Republicans' Report on Katrina Assails Administration Response
By Eric Lipton Published: February 13, 2006 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina. A draft of the report, to be issued by an 11-member, all-Republican committee, says the Bush administration was informed on the day Hurricane Katrina hit that the levees had been breached, even though the president and other top administration officials earlier said that they had learned of the breach the next day. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/politics/13katrina.html
quote:Katrina Report Spreads Blame Homeland Security, Chertoff Singled Out
By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 12, 2006
Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings of the threat to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that would have saved lives, according to a blistering report by House investigators http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101409.html
quote: Weather Warning Investigators have concluded that the federal government, even when it saw this dire warning from the National Weather Service, did not act as if it knew that local authorities would not be able to fend for themselves. Here is the warning, which was issued on the afternoon of Sunday, Aug. 28. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/national/nationalspecial/10katrina-docs.html?8dpc
information and links copied and pasted from another thread... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Silkie,
If you're referring to the 2000 Presidential election and you're not one of the people who found their way onto a convicted felons list and thus was disenfranchised wrongly (and obviously that particular process needed to be much more careful than it was), I don't think I have to prove it.
You do remember the swarms and swarms of reports and coverage about recounts, and the controversy over specifically when to stop the recount, not to have them at all? Not to mention many recounts done independantly by news organizations after the election...many of whom using the most lenient and Democrat-friendly recounting standards, still turned up a victory for Dubya?
Are you seriously suggesting you have some grounds to think your vote wasn't counted? Seeing as how that is by far the exception and not the rule, I invite you to prove your outlandish, possibly-paranoid claim rather than my having to prove what most of us regard as self-evident.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Now if there was report about strange swarms of bees flying form cornfields attacking people, and alien organisms gestating in thse who've been stung, then I'd wonder if New Orleans was just a big front to...
(gasp)
...hide the real threat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"It's not the votes that count, it's about who counts the vote."
I think that when the provider of the voting machines resists examination of the machines by a third party, resists providing a paper ballot/receipt and has stated publicly that he would do anything is his power to see Bush re-elected, it is common sense rather than paranoia that prompts Silkie's concern. And mine.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:
quote:Instead of focusing on fixing our poor educational system and other public services, we're having to fend off Christians trying, often dishonestly, to impose their values and religion on others.
This is a bit of what I'm talking about. Based on our society today, are people really buying this? Have they really made any headway? How has your life changed because others tried to "impose" their beliefs, especially since you're aware of such tactics?
Err...I'm sorry, are you denying the spread of the ID movement and it's effects on American society and schooling? I was referencing real things like the Dover PA school district there. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that these things didn't happen or just that I shouldn't be upset about them.
Also, as I've said before, I'm always amazed how so many anti-gay people recapitulate anti-civil rights arguments. It's not a big problem and people shouldn't care because it affects a minority? Do you think that white people shouldn't have cared about the struggle for civil rights as well?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's my understanding that Silkie was speaking of something that happened in the past, not present and future concerns about electronic voting machines, which should obviously have massive third-party independant oversight as well as paper-trails.
Had I known he was speaking about that and not having his vote stolen (and incidentally, Republicans do not hold sole power in determining how voting is done, btw) in the present and future, my response might have been different.
So...no, that dog ain't gonna hunt. Silkie was referring specifically to the 2000 Presidential vote and said his vote wasn't counted, and asked me to prove it. As if I or anyone could possibly do that.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Now if there was report about strange swarms of bees flying form cornfields attacking people, and alien organisms gestating in thse who've been stung, then I'd wonder if New Orleans was just a big front to...
(gasp)
...hide the real threat.
FEMA only PRETENDS to be utterly incompetent. In reality, every FEMA debit card is dusted with a mind-altering virus that makes the recipient completely subservient to the will of the REAL, dark, evil FEMA.
And my vote wasn't counted in the 2004 election.
-pH
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, Rakeesh, she was conflating the two a bit. In the case of the voting machines, that was clearly a reference to 2004.
At least, that's how I understood her. However earlier she did mix the two, and could be where the ambiguity lies.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, it's not directly affecting YOUR body or YOUR life, really, since you don't have to go through the pregnancy.."
-pH
What happens to a man's child doesn't directly affect his life? Unless you're suggesting that the majority of fathers out there abandon their unborn children, in which case I'd like to see some proof of that.
I've always found this argument rather insulting.
Again, you've entirely missed the point of what I said. I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that that is a valid argument. I stated it so that YOU GUYS would see how MORONIC it is to claim that because gay marriage does not "directly affect" people who are not gay, it's silly that people who aren't gay still want it to be accepted.
I'm going to resist being deliberately insulting right now and just end this post.
-pH
Again? Which was the first point that I missed?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Do you think that white people shouldn't have cared about the struggle for civil rights as well?
You misunderstand the purpose of this thread. I get fighting for causes that may not have direct effect on us personally; that covers much of why we feel one way or the other in politics. I was curious about the direct effects which, it seems, is few and far between for most people. I'm not reading a lot of examples.
I don't think ID is making any headway. Our society is too secular on the whole, and such seedlings will be isolated incidents, rather than affecting you or most anyone else on this board or in the nation. It's no threat at all, IMHO.
My whole point is fishing for concrete examples of how the Evil Right has really done anything to hurt anyone; we've covered gay marriage, so I get that, so what else?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Thirteen million children 18 and under below the poverty line.
Forty-five million people without health insurance.
Six hundred thousand people homeless, 40% of whom have a job and still can't afford housing and 37% of which are families with children.
This "liberal" is much more concerned with these figures than with whether or not she can watch sex on TV.
Did you miss this post?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Our society is too secular on the whole....
What basis do you have for believing that?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Again? Which was the first point that I missed?
I said:
quote:My point isn't that men shouldn't have a say in abortion. I think, in ideal circumstances, both the man and the woman should have a say in whether or not they decide to have children OR, if they have decided previously not to have children, they should both have a say in whether or not to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
My point is that it's silly to say that people shouldn't fight for gay unions to be recognized just because they themselves aren't gay. I think you guys knew that already.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh. Yeah, I didn't miss the point on that one, I just didn't read that post.
Probably should have, that would've eliminated the misunderstanding.
Tee hee.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lyrhawn.
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Whether or not there was malfeasance committed with regard to electronic voting in 2004, all sides ought to have a vested stake in making sure that the vote and the voting system appear fair and transparent to all. That, having won, this administration doesn't seem to care about others' concerns regarding the voting process, is just one more example where I feel they represent only certain people, and don't owe the rest nuthin'. Given the 2000 brouhaha, there was a unique opportunity to establish a fair and transparent system; an opportunity which was, to my mind, blown.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's the big problem with a paper trail for electronic voting? You push a button the vote is electronically recorded, and then a printer pops out a little slip with the voting information on it and some ID number for the voter that can be manually counted later if necessary to backup the report from the computer.
Is that really so hard?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, yes. I don't think it's a reason not to do it, and it's certainly doable, but it's best not to underestimate the difficulties.
Printers are notoriously unreliable - they jam, they run out of ink, they run out of paper. The signals that detect such things are also less than perfectly reliable. This means that there must be mechanisms to monitor the printer without monitoring what's written on the paper.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't imagine it's that big a problem so long as someone is there to actually check on them and is qualified to fix any potential problems. I work in a restaurant that has about 20 printers going almost non stop all day long and there are rarely printer jams, and this after years of going day in and day out. Having someone on hand to change the ink ribbon and the paper roll can't be that big a deal.
Pain in the butt? Sure. Worth it? Certainly.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
There have been a lot of interesting side points brought up since the begining of this thread, but I'm going to try and answer the initial question before addressing anything else.
quote: I began to wonder, with all the complaining by many who hate Bush & Co and fear the Religious Right's influence on American society, what is the real threat? How has average society been directly hurt by their existence?
What is the real threat? That is the crux of the issue, and a good question.
All of those points - abortion, seperation of church and state, gay marriage, inhibiting sex laws, and censoring the media - are hot button issues because they represent a level of freedom that has either been won or is being withheld. Freedom to make your own decisions about your body and your life. That is what it all boils down to. # 2 is, I guess, a little more complicated, because it involves other peoples rights to express themselves. However, as far as I know, voluntary praying in school by STUDENTS is not prohibited, and teachers are only prohibited from leading prayers, not praying themselves. And the restrictions are in place to keep seperate our secular educational centers and our religious ones. I cant imagine being in a school where this wasnt the case. I remember, when I was a kid, I refused to say the pledge of allegiance because it had the words "One nation, under God". I didnt believe that this was right, and wanted nothing to do with it. So, I'd stand up out of respect, but I wouldnt put my hand over my heart, and I wouldnt say the words. I never got in trouble over this, but in a school where pray is mandatory, I most certainly would have.
Anyways, what I'm saying is that a lot of the anger people feel towards the so called "Religious Right" and GWs administration has to do with the fact that they feel these freedoms are being quite seriously threatened. Just for an example, people who are vehemently opposed to abortion are being manipulated into positions of power. The Supreme Court has just agreed to go back over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that GW signed into law in 2003. This law has been deemed unconstitutional by 6 federal courts because it lacks a stipulation allowing for the health of the pregnant woman. Our new justices Alito and Roberts have BOTH expressed marked anti-abortion leanings. How is this NOT threatening? Full article here.
All right, so, why do these issues make people so angry? Because, unless you live in a very well insulated bubble, it is impossible not to see the long lasting effects that allowing freedoms to be taken away and allowing religion to dictate state policy has had on EVERY society in the world at one point or another. Liberals are angry because they arent short sighted. They look into the future, and into the past, and they see that the path WE are merrily skipping down as a country right now has been tread by countless feet before us, and the destination sucks. I do realize that I am probably giving most liberals alot more credit than they are due. Not everyone who is angry has a well thought out reason for it. But, in general, the people who are the most vocal opponents of what is happening in our government today are well educated, coherent, and right. Or so say I .
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Well said foundling.
I meant both of Bush's elections, sorry if I was unclear.
I live in Florida. In Dubya's first election we voted on paper ballots that were processed through a scanner. I witnessed a black woman who was in line ahead of me get the 3rd degree when she checked in to vote. I was basically waived through.
Why you ask? I am a white fifty-something grandmother, and I was wearing business attire.
Well, I am not good at keeping my mouth shut in such situations. I asked the poll workers why MY I.D. wasn't checked and why this black lady had been questioned so strongly. I was polite but I did cause a bit of embarrassment for them. My husband and I discussed it that evening, and he had a similar thing happen in front of him.
At the next election in that precinct my name was not on the rolls anymore. A coincidence, of course. I insisted on voting that day, and did, at least I think I did, though notes were made on the voting records.
We have touch screen systems now, and the machines don't print a receipt. Our Governor (Bush's brother)had a unique method of dealing with the impossibility of a recount with these Touch Screen systems: He and the legislature wrote a law making it illegal to request a recount when Touch Screen systems are used.
These same touch screen systems have now been outlawed in Miami because it was proven by multiple security checks that the software can be hacked. The totals in the 'accounting' software can be easily hacked and changed.
So why do I question whether my vote was counted - hmmmm, I wonder.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: FEMA only PRETENDS to be utterly incompetent. In reality, every FEMA debit card is dusted with a mind-altering virus that makes the recipient completely subservient to the will of the REAL, dark, evil FEMA.
-pH
*applause*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can't imagine it's that big a problem so long as someone is there to actually check on them and is qualified to fix any potential problems. I work in a restaurant that has about 20 printers going almost non stop all day long and there are rarely printer jams, and this after years of going day in and day out. Having someone on hand to change the ink ribbon and the paper roll can't be that big a deal. Pain in the butt? Sure. Worth it? Certainly.
Remember the purpose of the printer in the voting machines: to make a record that can't be tampered with.
Giving people access to that record - and any access for clearing jams, changing ink, and adding paper would almost certainly give some access - goes against the idea of a secure transaction.
Further, printer errors are sometimes nondetectable short of looking at the paper. For example, I've seen printers that return no error but print gibberish. And we don't want people looking at the paper, because it allows people to see who voted for whom.
As I said, it's possible and worth doing. But it ain't easy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
True enough, I agree with you there.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Are you seriously suggesting you have some grounds to think your vote wasn't counted? Seeing as how that is by far the exception and not the rule, I invite you to prove your outlandish, possibly-paranoid claim rather than my having to prove what most of us regard as self-evident.
Oh here is another 'interesting' thing that happened here during the 2000 election mess. It only made the local news.
A Poll Worker took home a large stack (hundreds) of Absentee ballots, and he was filmed doing it. And of course the ballots were returned to the Elections office, where they were eventually counted. That nice man certainly wouldn't have altered those ballots - or would he?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Foundling,
quote:But, in general, the people who are the most vocal opponents of what is happening in our government today are well educated, coherent, and right.
Actually, we're well educated, coherent, and left.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Perhaps we should note that there are well educated, coherent people on both the right and the left.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
You're right, Belle. Well educated and coherent.
I can not in good conscience, however, include in that concession right. Cause that would be wrong. And I'm not right, so I cant be wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Silkie,
quote:Oh here is another 'interesting' thing that happened here during the 2000 election mess. It only made the local news.
OK, so your fears are based entirely on largely unreported speculation (founded on legitimate concerns), and in exactly one half of the cases you were complaining of, your points about electronic voting was irrelevant.
You're really not doing yourself or your cause or your party (I'm presuming you're a Democrat, but I could be mistaken) by stating as a near-fact this kind of thing going on based on speculation and fears. See, I already think there are serious problems with the way voting is handled in America, from the local way straight up to the top. I already think there needs to be serious reform. I already dislike the idea of people getting turned away from the polls or even persuaded away for anything short of triple-checked guaranteed violation resulting in exclusion.
The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
We have VERY few registered Independents in FL. If I was registered as an Independent I would be unable to vote for anyone except Independents in our primaries. I am one of those often mentioned 'swing' voters. I usually vote Democrat - though at times I have voted for people who happen to be Republicans or Independents. I find it frustrating to have to choose a party, but when forced to choose I chose Democrat when I registered.
I PERSONALLY witnessed those 'irregularities' detailed in my post above. That's not speculation. The "largely unreported speculation" about that Poll worker who took home the ballots was never disputed by the Republican Supervisor of Elections in that town. There was enough local outcry that the Supervisor of Elections was investigated. She had also allowed another irregularity: Republican volunteers were allowed to call Republicans whose Absentee Ballots would have been rejected (for various reasons), to verify and 'fix' the ballots. She would not allow Democrats to do the same thing, which is how she got caught. As I said - it was never denied.
The ballots the old gentleman took home were quietly put back with the other ballots, even though the 'tampering' should have disqualified them. I think that's significant in an election that was won (or lost) by less than a thousand votes. I've looked for a link in local news about that, and so far haven't been able to find one. So it is from my memory. Believe it, or don't.
I think we might agree on a few things, Rakeesh:
quote:I already think there are serious problems with the way voting is handled in America, from the local way straight up to the top. I already think there needs to be serious reform. I already dislike the idea of people getting turned away from the polls or even persuaded away for anything short of triple-checked guaranteed violation resulting in exclusion.
I certainly agree with that. It is now simpler and easier to fix an election through these unverifiable Touch Screen systems.
Is it my emotional argument that turns you off? If it is, I'm sorry - that's me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Silkie, you are my favorite.
-pH
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
-pH Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am aware of my diminished political power by remaining a registered Independant...but damnit, I'm just not signing on with either of those bunch of selfish, smug, self-important bunch of jackasses, period. I know it costs me a chunk of my franchise, but since I figure the other method is outright cynical surrender.
As for what you saw...with all due respect, just coming from a single individual, it's still speculation as far as I'm concerned. Just because there's no backing for it, for this specific thing, the black lady getting turned away. I know it has actually happened, so why not link to a news story about it, or mention some coverage? I tend not to place much stock in anecdotal 'evidence', especially in politics.
What turns me off is not your emotional arguing style, what turns me off is its ineffectiveness in persuading those who most need to be persuaded. See, when you point out irregularities that happened in favor of Republicans and ignore irregularities that happened in favor of Democrats, Republicans turn off their ears and stop listening-and are thus unpersuaded, and the entire issue of irregularities and the need for stricter and more uniform oversight remains what it was when you started: a partisan issue that never budges.
I think you'll find you have much more success, for instance, in simply saying, "There are and have been serious problems with the way Florida elections and vote counts are handled. For instance, there is a documented case of a man taking home absentee ballots, and double-standards in how and when absentee voters are contacted about any irregularities. Don't you think we should stop that sort of thing, make the law apply uniformly to everyone?"
I can tell you from experience that this argument actually works on someone who voted for Bush, whereas your style of victimized Democrats does not. And I'm not saying it convinced me, either-I believed what I've been saying since well before 2000.
The kind of emotional, blatantly partisan arguing you constantly engage in has less to do with persuading people who have any internal leeway than it does with thumping your own chest and trumpeting your grievance. That is certainly understandable...but frankly not useful at all as a persuasive tool to change people's minds. I'm sure you noticed that the people who agree with you agreed with you from the start.
In fact, I can say that with the same degree of certainty that I can about KoM's not really being interested in persuading people towards atheism: because I recognize you as an intelligent person, capable of understanding which methods work and which don't. And if after recognizing that, you continue to utilize methods that don't work, I have to wonder: what's your goal?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: one of the nice things about Indiana is anyone can vote in any primary regardless of registration, you just can only vote in one of the primaries.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush. [/QB]
This statement caught my eye so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I don't think that it is possible anymore to change anybody's mind (in most cases), no matter how reasonable or thought-out the argument is. National politics have become way too polarized. Nobody is really willing to change their mind and even mild disagreement with "the party line" on either side can cause people to start leveling accusations. I guess my main point is that there seems to be very little dialogue even when people don't resort to "the evil Bushies stole the election" or "democrats love terrorists" type of talk.
(this is only in my experience, of course)No matter how mildly I phrase criticism of a Bush policy (and no matter that I avoid conspiracy theories), some of my friends launch into tirades about how unpatriotic I am, how I hate America, and how dare I not support the president while we're at war. However, whenever I express disgust with elements of the democrats' agenda, other friends say that I have no right to call myself a REAL liberal/environmentalist/feminist/American and that how dare I not support the opposition to the Bush administration.
So maybe other people have more reasonable friends than I do, but I think my group of friends are probably a microcosm of what's going on nationally. I don't like the Bush administration. I think they do scary things. But I shudder to think that the Washington democrats are our only hope.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It seems silly to make a system that forces you to register for one party and then doesn't allow you to vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, regardless of party. I'm surprised that system is still in place anywhere.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: most states only allow voting in the primary of the party you're registered for, iirc. At least for the two major parties, I know some states let independents vote in either primary even when Dems and Republicans can only vote in their primaries
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think you should be able to vote in both primaries, that wouldn't necessarily be fair. But you should be able to vote in either, whichever you happen to think has the best candidate that you want to support.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Yeah, that would be nice.
Unfortunately, both parties have challenged the legality and/or constitutionality of such primary systems (where one could vote in the primary of one's choice) where they have existed.
Bless their pointy little heads.
If one party has reason to think the other has engaged in election tampering, the party to whom the question is put would do well to work towards putting those questions to rest rather than ignoring them and rendering the legitimacy of their election in question. To do otherwise is despicable. They can snarl about partisanship until the cows go home, but the question remains, and the questions about the refusal to answer that question build. (If I can put it obliquely...) Indignation just adds to the appearance of obfuscation.
I really don't know if in the current climate it's a matter of convincing anyone. It's too easy for those in power just to stonewall until the majority eventually thinks the objectors are crackpots because "they're still at it?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stasia,
I assure you it's possible. I've done it before, and sometimes from the same people, no less, who I have previously heard ranting about unAmerican liberals and whatnot. Obviously there are going to be many people who are unpersuadable in a one-time shot, though.
Fugu,
Yeah, I've heard there are a few states that do that. Some even that let registered members of one party vote in the other party's primaries. One concern I've heard about that is that it can be used as an attempt to sabotage the other party's primaries, voting for a weaker candidate for whom your party's candidate will eventually run.
I'm not sure how widepsread it is, but if it was, it could be a problem. On the other hand, you only get to vote the once (actually, I'm not sure how often primary votes are made within one primary-is it just once? I've never voted in one, b/c I'm an Independant, obviously) so maybe any sabotage is mitigated that way. If it happens a lot at all.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Thank you for your input Rakeesh. I value criticism which is intended to help, like yours. And I know I copped out when I chose to register as a Democrat. In my 'old age' I am becoming a bit cynical, but I don't consider it surrender. I consider it practical.
quote:Originally posted by Stasia: --- So maybe other people have more reasonable friends than I do, but I think my group of friends are probably a microcosm of what's going on nationally. I don't like the Bush administration. I think they do scary things. But I shudder to think that the Washington democrats are our only hope.
That says what I mean in a way I was not able to express. My votes for Gore and for Kerry were choosing the lesser of two evils. Even then, we were cheated of the 'anyone but Bush' alternatives. On a National level the 'lesser of two evils' is often our only choice as voters.
I would have voted for Minnie Mouse if she was the alternative to Bush that would win! I wrote Minnie in as a candidate in an unopposed local reelection, for someone I considered a poor (but well connected) choice.
Lately I have begun to respect Gore more. I have liked his lectures about Global Warming/environmental issues, and the way he is 'coming out' politically against the excesses of the current administration are refreshing. Maybe losing so painfully close helped him grow more whole and honest in his approach. He says he is not running for office, and I hope that's true. I think he's more effective as an environmental advocate needling any current administration, than as a politician.
I know this will seem smart a*s, but what the heck... I honestly wish there was 'None of the Above' on every ballot. And if "None of the Above" wins, then make it the rule that ALL other candidates must step aside, in favor of a new election and new candidates. It would cost more initially, but in the end we would be better served.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think you should be able to vote in both primaries, that wouldn't necessarily be fair. But you should be able to vote in either, whichever you happen to think has the best candidate that you want to support.
I wish that was the case too. Partisan politics serve no one but the special interests and the politicians.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stasia:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush.
This statement caught my eye so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I don't think that it is possible anymore to change anybody's mind (in most cases), no matter how reasonable or thought-out the argument is. National politics have become way too polarized. Nobody is really willing to change their mind and even mild disagreement with "the party line" on either side can cause people to start leveling accusations. I guess my main point is that there seems to be very little dialogue even when people don't resort to "the evil Bushies stole the election" or "democrats love terrorists" type of talk.
I agree - I know I won't change anyone's closed mind, but it certainly feels better to vent a bit. And an open mind might think about it.
I try my best to do that: to think, and learn.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I am registered Florida Independent. Just sayin'.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I am registered Florida Independent. Just sayin'.
Me, too. So is my mother.
My father and brother are registered Republican.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem with this type of appeal on an issue like this is that the open minds have already thought about it, and usually reached their own conclusions before you came along and began warning them of the wretched evils of __________ (insert party name here).
This is old news. The troubles with voting procedures, verification, manufacturing new machines, all of it, has been widely documented. The majority of people simply don't care at all, and care only a bit when it's a presidential election year. As for the rest, many of them are simply going to toe the party line and it will be good or bad depending on whether or not their party benefits.
And of the minority of people in America that actually have open minds on issues of party politics...they had open minds, and probably have made their decisions back when this news was news. This is why I am frustrated with your method, Silkie. It feels good, but accomplishes nothing beyond what was already going on: people who agreed with you before will agree with you when you were done speaking.
What I'm about to say may sound insulting, but I promise you I'm mentioning it only for its relevance. Have you ever read the story called Hatchet by Gary Paulsen? It's a coming-of-age story about a young teenager who becomes stranded in the northern Canadian wilderness after the plane he's traveling in crashes, and he has basically the clothes on his back and the hatchet his mother gave him as a present.
The beginning is pretty rough. He's a city boy and doesn't know squat about living in the wilderness, and it's a minor miracle that he doesn't die many times from simple ignorance. Naturally he cries several times after realizing that a rescue is unlikely bordering on impossible.
The turning point for him is his realization that self-pity doesn't solve anything. He was cold, hungry, hurting, scared and lonely before he had his cry and when it was over, all of that was the same, except it was a bit closer to dark and mosquito swarms.
I was just re-reading that story this morning, so that thought struck me just now when I was thinking about this thread. I am not suggesting you are engaged in self-pity, or that you're behaving adolescently, or you're crying, or anything like that. I brought it up only because the situations seem similar in the type of realization Brian has: that the activity doesn't change anything. Nothing is gained, nothing is changed. That's the kind of realization I've had when it comes to talking about American politics.
Most people are already convinced, very few people have open minds, not much is actually news and if you want to achieve results, framing your persuasive attempts in partisan language just isn't going to work. A way must be found to sidestep that issue, to leave people no room for disagreement.
If you really want to persuade people, then, you're not going to get anywhere by pointing out to them all the awful things Republicans have done. They've got a framework all ready to ignite in response to that. I have had much more worthwhile conversations with people when I speak in hypotheticals and leave out party names and political individuals.
In this case, for instance, I think you'll find in your own experience that if you were to point out the things you've read, heard, and seen for yourself as far as voting irregularities are concerned but left out mentioning who exactly was the culprit, your target may well end up agreeing with you that such things are wrong and should be addressed by the government...and after they realize that the perpetrator was a member of their own party, what can they say? Few people indeed have the outright pig-headedness to directly that something they just agreed was wrong is right because their party is the one doing it. Not when you force them to face it on those terms. It's like something Tom Davidson said awhile back: people are usually very moral indeed when it comes to straightforward choices. Few people would steal money from an open cash-register at a convenience store. Many more people, on the other hand, would haze a little on their taxes or milk the clock at work a bit.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Have you ever read the story called Hatchet by Gary Paulsen?
*********
I have had much more worthwhile conversations with people when I speak in hypotheticals and leave out party names and political individuals.
*********
Few people indeed have the outright pig-headedness to directly that something they just agreed was wrong is right because their party is the one doing it. Not when you force them to face it on those terms.
1. I LOVE that book. It probably is one of my favorite books of all time. Oooh. Now I have to go find it and read it again.
2. I agree with you about having more worthwhile conversations with people without mentioning names or parties. I try to keep my political discussions with people on this level because once you mention a political party, all bets are off.
3. Now this could mean that I just need more reasonable friends, but I've had a few conversations where a person agrees that something is wrong when the *insert party name* does it but not when *insert other party name* does it.
What usually happens is they'll disagree with something on principle (gerrymandering, foreign policy, nation building, financial issues, government intrusions into private lives) but then immediately make an excuse for why it's not an issue when their party does it because their party does it better than the other one or because their party has pure motives. I've had this happen to me from people on both sides.
I just wish we had a multi-party system. I can't get excited about either side. Every election all I do is vote for the person who is less vile than the other one. And sometimes I can't even figure out which one that is!
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
This whole shift in the conversation is exactly one of the reasons why I started this thread––there is a big difference between what we HAVE and what we WANT. We are far more inclined to vote based on our value system rather than what actually affects us personally.
It's amazing how much two people can have wildly different takes on the same subject. I think of the phrase "As different as night and day," but, if you think about it, the only difference is the amount of light. It may be perceived differently, but, in reality, everything you see by day is there at night, and visa versa. We simply view the moment in a totally different way.
I guess I don't get why there is so much hatred when values vary. (Not anger, but real loathing). It is a response to fear? A fear of things changing? I have strong feelings on subjects, and I have the right to stand up and oppose something, but I can reasonably say I have never hated anyone, regardless of their belief system.
Well, except for Hillary Clinton. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I vote almost entirely based on issues rather than values. Values matter to me, but I'm far more concerned about what a candidate's position on an issue is.
Not that that really matters either, Bush went back on a large portion of his campaign promises, and flat flipflopped on several key positions. But not everyone is like that.
Values are nice, but I'd still rather vote for B. Clinton over Bush. Sex scandals don't affect me in the slighest, they don't really affect anyone other than the media who somehow think it really has an affect on children, or whoever they think it's impacting.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Yes, but if "sex scandals don't affect (you) in the slightest," then what does affect you? Why does one issue have no merit while another gets you riled?
Edit: I never responded to Tom's earlier question on why I think we're getting more secular. Overall church attendance is declining (only about 20% of Americans attend church weekly these days, apparently), and if we were so religious––wouldn't public policy be moving toward more traditional religious values, rather than away from them?
Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws––dying or dead. Pornography is rampant, abortions are a dime a dozen, we have social programs out the wazoo, we can't drill in ANWR and movies about gay cowboys will win for Best Picture.
So what's the big deal? Doesn't seem like the "Religious Right" is making any headway at all.
[ February 23, 2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Yes, but if "sex scandals don't affect (you) in the slightest," then what does affect you? Why does one issue have no merit while another gets you riled?
Edit: I never responded to Tom's earlier question on why I think we're getting more secular. Overall church attendance is declining (only about 20% of Americans attend church weekly these days, apparently), and if we were so religious––wouldn't public policy be moving toward more traditional religious values, rather than away from them?
Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws––dying or dead. Pornography is rampant, abortions are a dime a dozen, we have social programs out the wazoo, we can't drill in ANWR and movies about gay cowboys will win for Best Picture.
So what's the big deal? Doesn't seem like the "Religious Right" is making any headway at all.
You have a point Rakeesh. I'll think about that.
estavares, I think your answer might boil down to 'Who votes?'
An upstanding "Religious Right" church goer is more likely to show up at the polls to vote. Even more likely when s/he is urged to do so from the pulpit, citing reasons intrinsic to those "traditional religious values." Abortion, for instance.
So, even though the majority of people in the US may not favor a "traditional religious values" agenda, the slim majority of people who vote favor the "traditional religious values agenda."
The rest of the people (often not voting) support the freedom of choice to have:
quote:dying or dead Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws–– Pornography, freedom of choice in abortion, social programs to take care of the less fortunate, NOT drilling in ANWR and movies about whatever floats your boat, including gay cowboys.
Perhaps that is why there was an effort in the last few years to make it more difficult to vote on impulse and a crack down on nontraditional voter registration in some swing states. So many people just DON'T vote.
Oprah had a show about voting. She chose people fromr her audience who had never voted, and interviewed them. Most of those people that had never voted said the same thing, or something similar: 'My vote wouldn't matter.'
A lot of people feel powerless in that way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To answer your question about what gets me riled. Mostly energy/environmental policy and the budget. These 2/3 (depending on how you look at it) issues are the most important for the nation I believe at this moment, and they will most likely determine who I will vote for in the next election.
As for what does and doesn't get me riled. Sex scandals have nothing to do with the way the nation is run. They have nothing to do with how well the president is governing the nation, and it has nothing to do with pending legislation. Rising health care costs concern me, social security concerns me, foriegn policy concerns me, energy concerns me, all because these are things that personally effect me and are possible dangers to my nation, so I deem them important enough to get riled up over.
By the way, I resent that you assert pornography is a liberal issue, where the hell did you get that from?
Abortions aren't a dime a dozen, and your apparent nemesis, Hillary, said she wants to make abortions as rare as possible, not exactly your average baby killing liberal talk is it? Besides, the supreme court is reviewing abortion, and South Dakota is passing a law that outlaws it, so tell me that the status quo isn't under assault, and they shouldn't be standing up for what they believe in.
ANWR drilling is going to be tacked onto the next budget bill, it's still an issue. Everything you are bringing up is an issue that is currently being fought over because someone is trying to change the status quo, and someone else is trying to keep the status quo, which, while given a slight advantage, can be just as difficult.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I am registered Florida Independent. Just sayin'.
I admire your principals Chris (and pH). I did what was right for me. I want to vote in the Primaries. I still can't vote for ANYONE I choose to vote for in the Primaries, but I do have more choices.
I think that the party system (and the political schism we are witness to) is perpetuated by these rules that force you to choose a party.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
::blinks::
estavares, did you just say that social programs = moving away from traditional religious values?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Silkie:
Fascinating thought. Something to think on further...
Lyrhawn:
You have got to relax. I wish there was a "tongue in cheek" smiley. I was being facetious, and you read waaaaaay too much into my posts.
I never said pornography is a liberal issue. I said that clearly the Religious Right ain't getting as much done as people think they are. I read post after post of all these general concerns and the usual by the Left and, frankly, real examples are few and far between. It's all values rhetoric, and not the scope of my question.
I'm not arguing against voting for one's values––I'm just curious to hear the day-to-day, average American experience that has been directly impacted (for the negative) by the current administration and the so-called Religious Right.
Where is the Right directly responsible for real reverses in policies that directly affect you every day?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Day to day?
The only thing that has affected me, via my mom, is the law that was recently passed that forces credit card companies to raise the amount they make their customers pay, so people will pay off their bills faster and pay less interest over time. My mom, who was struggling to get by before, is in trouble now that her credit card bills (which aren't that big, but sometimes a small stone can tip the balance) were all doubled more or less.
Also, the Republicans and Bush just created and passed legislation that cuts student loans and drastically raises the interest rate on all future student loans, so that too affects me.
As far as the rest, narrowing the scope to how it affects your every day life. Wanting to live in a country that is a certain way does affect your every day life. Flip that around though, and why does the religious right want to outlaw abortion? It doesn't affect them at all if they can simply choose not to.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
When you look at their actions and not their words (or votes), it doesn’t appear that that majority of American people really agree with the religious right’s agenda. After all, a whole lot of people aren’t going to church or even bothering to teach their kids about religion. And tons of people are getting abortions, looking at porn, playing violent video games, and watching sex and violence on TV. So why worry about the religious right if it doesn’t currently affect my life or the lives of the majority of Americans?
I feel uneasy that the religious right has attempted to marry itself to public policy.*** I do not like the idea of a set of stated moral values that are supposed to represent everybody in the country. I feel like the small intrusions in other peoples’ lives today could become major intrusions on my life tomorrow. Maybe this is an unfounded fear. Maybe people will always mouth the words “morals and values” and vote for people who mouth the same words but never fundamentally change how our government and religion interact.
Ultimately, the religious right doesn’t creep me out because I oppose any one of its ideas (I mean abortions as birth control are bad, teen pregnancy is bad, community is good, religion absolutely holds a place in the lives of many people, etc); it creeps me out because the entire agenda when taken as a whole is one of repression of individual freedoms (unless you conform to a specific brand of religion).
**Policies that come to mind include funding to religious abstinence-only sex ed. in schools, federal money to faith-based AIDS health groups in Africa that don’t pass out condoms, and pressure on welfare or drug rehab recipients to join whatever religion was passing out state money. (I’m too tired to dig around for individual citations for each. I found information for all of these on www.theocracywatch.org. I’m aware that the site has an agenda and should thus probably be taken with a grain of salt. However, I mentioned only the things I could find talked about in actual newspaper articles on the site…I stayed away from op-ed pieces and conjecture). It's true that a lot of these programs have been modified or discontinued, but not all of them. This scares me because Pat Robertson seems to think he's right and he doesn't seem likely to give up just because a couple of programs didn't work out (I just visited the Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson websites.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Concern for the poor is a religious value!
I am a liberal because of my religion. I believe that a society where the rich get richer and the poor are forgotten is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where people are marginalized because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or class is contrary to my religion. I believe a society where there are folks hanging on to life by a thread and we don't even see them until disaster strikes is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where, instead of remembering that everything we have is a gift from God, we somehow think we deserve more than our neighbor is contrary to my religion.
Stop. Now. Stop defining "religious" as "concerned about sexual morality". If you are talking about the Christian religion and you are really paying attention, you should know better.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Tom may be prophetic...or at least tuned in a litte deeper to the pulse of the nation based on what I read about South Dakota possibly making abortion illegal again.
(Rubs chin thoughtfully.)
Interesting. I'll be curious to see if it holds any water. I think it fascinating that the states are deciding these "hot button" issues since the national forum won't touch them with a ten-foot pole.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
You know, estavares, you keep on saying that nobody is providing concrete examples of the issues your question addresses. And yet, when people have made the effort to clearly define exactly what they are talking about, you seem to be ignoring it. One might begin to think that instead of actually wanting to learn from the answers to your question, you are trying to push a personal agenda. I, personally, would appreciate it if you chose to respond to the posts above (not just Toms) that specifically answer your question.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmb,
As long as you realize (I guess you do) that concern for the poor is not just a religious value. It's a secular one, as well.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I don't want to go out and wantonly abort fetuses for fun, and in fact I find the practice of abortion distasteful. However, in light of the consequences of NOT allowing the practice to go on, I choose to allow it to continue. I would rather see the rights of an individual adult be upheld, although it bothers me that a child may be involved too.
Onicro said that
Not that i want to center this thread around this one topic, but i can't help but think that you, Onicro (and other "pro-choicers") need to get your priorities straight. It "bothers you that a child MAY be involved?". In every case, a child is getting an axe to the head. In every case besides that which could endanger the life of the mother, the CHILD is being KILLED so that the mother can avoid an INCONVIENENCE. A huge inconvienience, but still that.
If you think that civil rights are being infringed by not letting a person have an abortion, than consider this: A persons genetic makeup is exactly the same upon conception as when they are 50 years old. Therefore you are infringing on a persons right to CHOOSE to live.
Consider also this, unless a woman was raped, she has willingly engaged in activity that could produce a child. Deal with it. Don't shirk your responsabillaties because your "not ready". wah.
If a woman was raped, then killing the child still doesn't solve anything. It helps you deny the reality of the situation. It is a horrible thing to go through, being raped ( I know people who have been), and I don't by any means want to trivialize the horror that rape victims go through. However once you are pregnant it becomes a matter of responsabillity to put things into perspective. Any baby, regardless of how it was concieved is a beutifull person. Why take the only blessing in a horrible situation and through it out the window. (If a girl is so young that pregnancy/birth may permanently harm her or her reproductive system is a different case that falls under risk to the mother).
If you think that it would be better for the world or the baby to kill it the it than to let it grow up in a foster home, then ask yourself these two questions: 1) Since when did the world get to decide it can kill innocent people on the grounds that they MIGHT make the world worse? 2) Are you willing to go ask even the most misserable and detramental, instatutionalized thug, if he wants to die, and if you can kill him. Kiling him then is the same as killing him inuetero, so if your his mom, go off him. It's your right choose, even if he may be involved. A little.
Again please forgive the bluntness i feel I have to use to get my point across. If you have been the victim a rape, I am sincerely sorry, and I hope you realize that you are beutifull person who deserves to be loved, and in no way did you diserve the tragedy that has befallen you. And in no way do you deserve to keep suffering.
Neither does an innocent child deserve to die, because of the same tragedy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[deleted for snark factor -- I really should behave better]
[Edited to add: kmboots, that was a beautiful paean to religion. You and keep a spark of faith alive in me. ]
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Concern for the poor is a religious value!
I am a liberal because of my religion. I believe that a society where the rich get richer and the poor are forgotten is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where people are marginalized because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or class is contrary to my religion. I believe a society where there are folks hanging on to life by a thread and we don't even see them until disaster strikes is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where, instead of remembering that everything we have is a gift from God, we somehow think we deserve more than our neighbor is contrary to my religion.
Stop. Now. Stop defining "religious" as "concerned about sexual morality". If you are talking about the Christian religion and you are really paying attention, you should know better.
Well said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Doing that would constitute an endorsement of a particular religion, and make the law faith based. Our law must make the judgement of when a fetus becomes human on scientific facts, and the scientific fact is that unless a 'baby' is viable outside the womb, it is not a person yet, by scientific judgement.
I deleted a whole bunch of stuff to focus solely on this question: How on earth does "scientific judgment" demonstrate that a baby isn't a person until he or she is viable outside the womb?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're doing some serious misrepresentation of your opposition when it comes to abortion, Silkie. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but it's there.
quote:While some abortions are certainly for convenience, many are for good reasons related either to the Mother's health, or due to an unhealthy or malformed fetus.
Is this really a position you'd like to stick to? That abortions for convenience aren't a massive chunk of the total abortions? And that abortions in the case of unhealthy fetuses or health-of-mother cases are frequently much less problematic, if problematic at all, for pro-lifers?
quote:While I respect your right to your own opinion about whether (or not) a fetus is a child, it is important to remember that many people do not share the faith based idea that conception makes a collection of undifferentiated cells into a person. There are many religions, and different Religions have different beliefs about such things.
The idea that a fetus might be a true human being is by no means a solely religious idea. That it is often a religious idea is not remotely the same thing.
It is an item of faith that a fetus is a worthless lump of tissue, to be discarded at whim. You mentioned science, which apparently you have great faith in. So tell me: what does science say about when exactly human life begins? It's certainly some time before actual birth.
So...when? Oh, right. When viable outside the womb. So...you can link me to the World Council of All Scientists to view their statement on this, of course? No?
I'd be careful up on that soapbox. It's not very sturdy.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Kmbboots:
Well said. It's funny how the concept of religion is often considered only a value of the "Right." I hate how national debate waters things down into soundbytes...
Foundling:
Sorry it seems that way. I don't take the time to respond to every example, and a few have been very helpful (I try to acknowledge as best I can). A good example is Lyrhawn, who spent a lot of time getting offended––then came up with some real concrete examples. I hadn't been at the computer since to acknowledge my appreciation.
Of course I have a personal agenda. I don't get people––many of them on this board––who spew such hatred for the Right for no reason other than it offends their sensibilities. They can do whatever they dang well please. They can believe and act and buy and live and say anything. They're not at a loss for anything. And many who responded said the same old thing––and none of it has any direct impact on them whatsoever.
I get disagreeing with values. I get voting for what you believe. But I wanted to see if all this fear and anger about losing rights or the Right "imposing" their will on society (especially the Religious Right) wasn't just a values debate––but had real examples that affect real people. If you read these posts, there's not a heck of a lot. Maybe three or four posters have done it.
I want to better understand this issue. I don't want the usual rhetoric. I have no plans to disagree with any of them; just to better see things from their POV.
[Edited for clarification.]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
Your reasoning is basically why I'm a liberal in many things at home. I believe that it is more Christlike to be concerned with poverty and human suffering ahead of who's having sex with whom.
That said, I do think who is having sex with whom is a religious issue too, just not as important of an issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: A good example is Lyrhawn, who spent a lot of time getting offended––then came up with some real concrete examples.
I wasn't aware that a single sentence constituted a "lot of time getting offended" but I suppose we're all allowed to define time in our own manner. But personally I'd say I was actually a bad example, seeing as how all my posts here, except for the one sentence of one post haven't been me being offended.
Further, you're being a little hypocritical here. You're saying that liberals shouldn't be all up in arms about what the right is trying to change because these are things that don't directly affect them. Alright, the "religious right" is hellbent on outlawing abortion. Tell me, how does the legalization of abortion affect the people of the right in their everyday lives?
The "religious right" wants a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, tell me, how does gay marriage affect the every day life of someone part of the "religious right"?
The right in general is the party that is always pushing a federal ban on flag burning, explain to me how does someone burning a flag affect the every day life of someone on the right?
If you're going to set the parameters for the debate, you have to answer to the problems of the other side too.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
No, actually, I don't. This isn't a debate.
Consistently putting words in my mouth is dishonest––I never said "liberals shouldn't be up in arms about what the right is trying to change." I said that they are angry, yet it seems social and public policy consistently goes their way...so I want examples.
This is what I've read so far:
1. Homosexuals can't get legally married in most places, and that leads to sadness, drug use and possible suicide;
2. Abortion may be made illegal again, thus denying women the right to abort pregnancies as desired;
3. Voting practices are denying people the chance for fair and equal representation, the Right might be unduly influencing results;
4. More of the Right actually vote, thus leading to possible changes in policy that goes contrary to the Left's value stance;
5. Credit card rates are rising;
5. Student loans are harder to get and cost more.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: in my state, a Democratic government thinks that solving transportation problems means throwing money at building more roads, rather than mass transit like Light Rail and more buses. This means it takes me 60-90 minutes to travel 35 miles, twice a day. This means I pay double the cost of gasoline as I idle in traffic.
It may not be the Democrats' fault, but I'd like to think the Republicans' plan to vastly change the infrastructure to include Light Rail would help reduce the amount of traffic and save commuters a lot of money.
THAT is a direct result, not a values-issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Here's an example of what I'm talking about: in my state, a Democratic government thinks that solving transportation problems means throwing money at building more roads, rather than mass transit like Light Rail and more buses.
I think you'll find that whichever government you happen to elect into the majority will wind up building more roads.
Why?
Because at the end of the day, road expansions and repairs function as disguised welfare programs.
There is very little political support -- EVER -- for light rail, except (quite conveniently) from whichever party happens to be in the minority at any given moment. Once they get power, any promises of light rail will be almost immediately forgotten.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Nevermind. I removed my post about abortion.
I don't want to get into this can of worms.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
estavares, I don't think you really care about the answer to the question you originally asked. You've misread or ignored what I've said, and have either ignored what others have said, or changed the scope of the discussion when what is being discussed doesn't fit your agenda. Plus the very basis of your question is hypocritical if you refuse to look at it from the other side, which you seem to support, but apparently don't need to answer for.
I'll no longer contribute to this thread.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Thank goodness. I was weary of my words getting taken out of context and misread over and over and over again.
Tom:
You are probably right. The only time I've seen Light Rail get ushered in with little to no complaint was in Salt Lake City––suddeny a big issue when they won the 2002 Winter Olympics. Suddenly a project no one could fund "magically" managed to get made.
Here in Seattle the subject is pathetic, but we're dealing even more with a populace who don't want to be inconvenienced or have to pay for any additional work.
I find that, with all the party blowhards on either side, it's still the public that makes the final decision. We get exactly what we vote for.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Thank goodness. I was weary of my words getting taken out of context and misread over and over and over again.
Alright, I'll pop back in just to say this:
Watch how often you use hyperbole here, people are going to catch you, and you are going to lose arguments because of it, and you will the respect of others, if you ever manage to earn it to begin with. Especially if you are just doing it to be offensive on purpose.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
No hyperbole at all, actually.
You have been dishonest by twisting my words into motives that don't exist. There was no argument in this thread. I was looking for answers, and I got a good many of them––including your own––and have been enlightened thereby.
What part of "I want to understand the other point of view" don't you GET?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really?
Show me where I have taken your words out of context "over and over and over again" and where I "read way to much into all" your posts. And show me where I spent "a lot of time getting offended."
All of that is hyperbole.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Allrighty, let's begin:
quote:I sort of see what you are saying and I might agree with some parts of it, but your overall argument, which I take to boil down to "We've got what we want, so let's sit back and relax" makes no sense to me at all.
Never said anything of the kind, and your summary is flat wrong. When I tried to clarify my initial objectives, you continued to type the same general, values-driven reasons that was beyond the scope of my question.
quote: Seriously? That bugs you, but Bush treating everyone like an idiot and a traitor if they don't agree with him doesn't?
Who's hyperboling now?
quote: By the way, I resent that you assert pornography is a liberal issue, where the hell did you get that from?
Again, where did I assert that? I didn't. I said it's increasing, so the so-called "Right" obviously doesn't have the influence people think they do. However, when I read opinions like this one, I begin to wonder if maybe the Left IS partially responsible.
quote: You've misread or ignored what I've said, and have either ignored what others have said, or changed the scope of the discussion when what is being discussed doesn't fit your agenda. Plus the very basis of your question is hypocritical if you refuse to look at it from the other side, which you seem to support, but apparently don't need to answer for.
This is flat-out dishonest and manipulative. My scope has always been the same––I'll have to reread my posts and see what I'm saying that appears I am changing things, ignoring issues, or pushing some kind of agenda.
I thought I was being objective, but apparently I'm being misunderstood...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The majority of my arguments weren't values driven though, which I specifically mentioned in this thread. You're contention is that if it doesn't directly affect you, then it's a values debate. Am I wrong about that?
I'm a little surprised that you are surprised that I got this: "We've got what we want, so let's sit back and relax" out of your words. You keep saying that liberals already have everything they want in the status quo, this to me suggests that they shouldn't be upset about anything since they already hold the high ground. Are you really that surprised someone might get thet argument from what you've said?
And I don't think my comment about Bush was really that much hyperbole. I'm sure you remember the whole "you're with us or against us" speeches he used to make all the time.
Further, you said something along the lines (in a thread about complaining liberals), that pornography is rampant, along with a slew of issues that are generally considered liberal issues, so you can see how someone might considered that lumping together to be your way of insinuating that you see it as a liberal issue.
As for my last quote on that, the one that starts "you've misread or ignored.." I guess in hindsight I take some of that back. There's a basic disagreement between us on what constitutes values and what directly affects us. Which is where your "question" lies.
And by the way, what, since we're talking SPECIFICS here, bothers you so much about Hillary Clinton? Her policies I mean.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I guess I'm not getting where we're getting confused. I believe that most of what you stated throughout this thread IS values-driven, because––other than the difficulty of getting student loans––I don't see how anything affects you directly.
There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just looking for specifics. And I'm not disagreeing with anything brought up (unless I think the facts are wrong). Seriously.
I'm looking back on my posts and trying to understand where the communication is breaking down––I'm not ignoring opinions, but those examples that are values-driven. To me, it feels like people DON'T have an answer, that they DON'T have a good reason to hate the Right other than the Right's values (as threatening as they might be) are not their own.
As for Hillary, this is what I wrote earlier:
quote: I despise her smirky, self-centered, arrogant pontification that tries to grab headlines, and I strongly disagree with almost everything she advocates.
Mostly it's her hypocrisy on the Iraq War. But even more mostly it's just that she bugs the heck out of me. Perfect example where there isn't a decent enough reason, other than I have never liked her from Day One. Someone like McCain can act the same way and I don't care; go figure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well. Two things.
1. Value oriented issues (to me), are ones where a personal belief affects the way you decide on something. Whether or not I believe abortion or gay marriage to be right or wrong are values, in the same sense that the belief in the rightness of segretaion is a value I suppose. The death penalty is something that will almost definitely never affect me, barring some freak circumstance, and thus my position on it will be directly related to my personal values. But issues like the complete lack of fiscal responsibility that the right has shown in the last eight years directly affect me. They are spending money that I will have to pay back in the future. Other things that I mentioned earlier like the environment and energy and what not, those aren't values issues either. Neither is healthcare. They effect my life, and my future life in very real ways.
I think you're seeing "direct impact" as something that has to be immediate, whereas I see what might happen down the road as something that WILL directly impact me, and thus voting on such an issue is not a value vote, it's a substantive vote that directly effects me, just not yet.
Granted, when I brought up gay marriage and abortion earlier, those are values arguments, though if you ask me that's still a substantive reason to not like the right. Sometimes an argument of values vs. values is just as important as what you're asking for. The difference is the left, as of late, always seems to be fighting to protect the right of someone to do something that has nothing to do with the right, while the right spends much of its time trying to impose its own sense of morality on others. That alone, from a philosophical point of view is reason enough to have severe disdain and dislike for them, if they are the party of imposition.
I personally don't have much of a pathological hatred of the right. I think they are wrong about more things than not, and that some of them are on a hellbent crusade to remake the US according to their values system. And I also think that is wrong, and unAmerican in many ways. This nation was formed on a basis of majority rule with respect of minority rights, not about majority rule and the others can just deal with it.
I also think they are running the government wrong. They are spending too much, and at the same time are giving tax cuts to the uber wealthy. They aren't asking the citizens of this nation to do anything to help themselves really, which is the opposite message of what they should be giving. They are ignoring, or purposefully damaging the environment, which will imperil the future health and safety of this nation. They are corrupt as all hell, which isn't to say that the left isn't, but it's the right that is getting caught red handed all over the place lately. They are smug, and superior, and dismissive of other points of view (yes, that counts as less of a "direct affect" argument, but like your Hillary argument, it annoys the hell out of me).
And if you think the majority of what I just said is a values argument, then we've reached the crux of our disagreement. Those are all things that directly effect my personal health and safety, but those effects may not be seen for several years, or maybe even decades. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned now for my future, that's just silly.
2. Really a minor point. But so far as Hillary and the Iraq War, I don't get it. She's one of the staunchest supporters of the military in the Democratic party, was, and is the biggest Democratic supporter of the Afghanistan War, and was totally in favor of the Iraq War. What you call hypocrisy, I call common sense. She's mad, as many, even many on the right were, that Bush went in without seeking any further diplomatic solutions. She's mad that the war has been badly bungled on many fronts, and this isn't just her laymens opinion. Many inside the Republican establishment have admitted there have been problems, hell, virtually everyone has admitted, even the military, that things were poorly planned and Iraq was misjudged. Even BUSH said they were wrong, wrong, wrong about a lot. So how is it hypocrisy to vote for something, then change your mind when you realize things aren't exactly as they originally seemed when you first formed your opinion?
I guess that's what bugs me most about Hillary haters. Like your confusion on why people hate the right, I really don't understand why there is such emnity towards Hillary, especially when most of her policies are even handed and moderate, and she pisses off the left wing liberal establishment so often.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
See, my contention is that most of what constitues "imposing" one's will is whole lot of nothing, especially when there's little proof anything's been imposed at all. On the contrary, the "line" of social policy is firmly entrenched in the Left and won't be moving back over anytime soon.
This thread has guided me to a few issues that DO seem to be growing in strength, and that's fascinating.
I think most of what you said about the Right applies to the Left. I personally think political parties are in need of a major overhaul, as the divide between the American people and how they are being represented in government is widening.
As for Hillary...
I just can't stand her. Sorry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh?
I agree to disagree about some of this. I am curious as to what I "said about the Right applies to the Left" Because if you're trying to say that the Left is the one imposing their views on the Right, then we really have a major disagreement between us, and I challenge you to prove it, if that is in fact what you are saying.
Take on of the bigger "Left" issues, gay marriage. I don't see how you can say the Left really has any traction on the issue. ONE out of fifty states has legal protection for gay marriage. And DOZENS of other states have made constitutional amendments to their constitutions to make it ILLEGAL for gays to marry. That is a major imposition of the Right's will upon others. How is that little proof? It might not matter much to me, a hetero, or you, if you are, but to a gay guy/girl it matters a lot, and their rights have been trampled on by the Right. How do you dispute that?
What do you mean by the "'line' of social policy is firmly entrenched in the Left"? And what have I said about the Right is applicable to the Left?
I agree that parties need an overhaul. My wish is for the moderates of the nation to form a massive party and leave the extreme Right and Left out in the cold.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I mean, I've heard of televangelists, but entire channels? Assumably, each would be bias towards one particular belief system, no? On that logic, how in blue blazers do they get an entire channel for that?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Lyrhawn.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Me, too. So is my mother.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)