posted
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.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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?
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 . . .
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.
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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."
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
