posted
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...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that liberals in this case are in fact defending many things that are currently the status quo from attack.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware of that, fugu. But a 9 state majority hardly makes the issue one of conservatives for, liberals against.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
Thread, too much... changing back into Conservative Republican Eating Werewolf.... must try to stay in contr........ARRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! *drools* *bears fangs* ARRRRUUUUUUUUUU!!!!! Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Seriously. I'd like to hear about all the things she's done above and beyond what other Senators do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
