quote:The misconception on your part is that samurai would try a toe-to-toe approach with a heavily armored opponent. No, they'd be dodging, weaving, tripping, and kicking his lower body, until the big overarmored lumbering oaf overbalanced and fell on his overconfident tuchus. At that point, he becomes human sushi, because he can't get up, and he's too heavy and overarmored to effectively fight from the ground.
Thank you for going out of your way to make it clear you know next to nothing about the way feudal European knights were actually equipped and armored.
You're at least as ignorant about feudal European military skills, methods, and equipment as you insist everyone disagreeing with you is about Asian methods.
Seriously, are you going to even read the link I posted, or just dig your cranium further into your rectum?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, you're absolutely right. It is ridiculous. But, hey, it's fun! And apparently, we're amusing other people, too, so all the better.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama could take the West with the help of the Mormon vote
quote:As one blog contributor noted recently, this election was never about the Mormons supporting Evangelicals, as they have done so in record numbers in the past; Rather, this was about turn around and fair play. Mormons expected that as the Republican Evangelical base in the southwestern portion of the United States, would accept a Mormon candidate on values, despite religious differences. In other words, Mormons incorrectly assumed that where common values prevailed over theology, Evangelicals would allow the past dedication of the Mormons to Evangelical causes and candidates to permit a courtesy in return in supporting an LDS candidate -- who was in all other respects prepared as a leading conservative nominee.
Sadly, the Mormons have been soundly rebuked and the results will have an important impact in the presidential election. The most significant result will be the defection of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Mormons for Obama, a Democrat. Obama has appealed directly to Mormons, expressing the need to place religious and racial differences aside for the best interest of the country. His message is being heard loud and clear by those who have been subjected to the narrow-minded thinking of Southern Evangelicals, both on race and on religion.
My dad - my very conservative, Mormon, capitalist, independent, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, "unwed parents are irresponsible," doesn't-believe-in-giving-money-to-his-adult-children-much-less-non-related-adults, "failure is a choice" father - is considering voting for Obama over McCain if it comes down to it.
That has to mean something.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother, who just got back from a year in Afghanistan, is voting for Obama.
I'm kind of puzzled by the whole thing, since it seemed pretty obvious to me from the get go that evangelicals would reject Romney, which was why I backed McCain against Giuliani in the first place. But with Giuliani out of the picture and probably Clinton as well, I can got back to my initial impressions of Obama, which were that he did remind me of Ronald Reagan more than any of the Republicans.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican party has had a stranglehold on Mormons of decades. I'm fascinated to see if this election cycle breaks it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reagan certainly had his flaws, but the fire he was able to light under people was his love of the idea of America, which takes us back to the party's roots with Abraham Lincoln -- and that's what Obama seems to understand.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you can say that Clinton is probably out of the picture. It's anyone's game still, though Obama seems to have the edge...for the moment. Remember Clinton had the edge a few months ago, and we still have a few months to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm seeing you as a person who is just imagining things at convenience."
I'm not making a blanket statement about samurai. I said that I can't draw an absolute conclusion, because they're not here today.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That did not in any way stop you from creating a fully implausible conceptualization of both
1. the difference between chinese and american barfights
and
2. the silly overconfident oaf knight becoming human sushi after he falls down and cannot get back up
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shh, shh, don't bring that up! Don't you see? We're ignoring statements like that and pretending they were never made in the first place, instead of actually responding to rebuttals!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Agreed. This has been the most identity politic primary that has ever existed on both sides. I wrote a post here about it recently that was ignored or rejected. Yet, exit polls are proving there is a huge rift forming in the United States that even the MSM recognizes and exploits. You have Huckster with the evangelical vote, you have Romney with the Mormon vote, you have Hillary with the women vote, you have Obama with the black vote.
It really makes me wonder what this means for a country that is supposed to be a melting pot. Perhaps it is that we all feel like underdogs and want some group power. Even atheists have gotten in the act "screaming" they want a president that openly doesn't believe in God. We don't want freedom, we want power and respect.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're wrong in your analysis about Obama and Hillary. Hillary doesn't have a lock on women and Obama appeals to more than just black americans.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And plenty of Mormons had problems with Romney.
quote:Remember Clinton had the edge a few months ago, and we still have a few months to go.
No, Clinton was the presumptive nominee a few months ago, and she's done nothing but slip since actual voting began. I believe that in states with open primaries, Romney's withdrawal will boost Obama almost as much as Edwards' did. The talk show hosts who hate McCain and make me tear my hair out also compare Obama to Reagan.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Obama is making in roads with women, has split the white vote by 50/50 in many places, and even beating her in others. He also has the youth vote, which seems to transcend race and gender, and he's captured the church going crowd in most states as well. Clinton is strong with older voters, working class voters, and latinos as well. Defining them by what they are is lazy, they have draw that far exceeds the fact that one is a women and the other is black.
pooka -
Despite her slip, she's still ahead of Obama in actual delegates, she's polling ahead in two of the three remaining big delegate states (Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), though admittedly, data in Ohio is sketch and pre-Edwards drop out. My point is that things could just as easily swing wildly back to Clinton, who, though it appears is floundering, is not out of it. The fact that she just changed campaign managers though isn't awe inspiring.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I'm saying is Obama won a blue state (WA), a red state (NE) and a swing state (LA) this weekend, and he should take two blues and a magenta state tomorrow. He only has to run close in the blues, because he buries her in the reds.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another reason to want Obama - he could be the president of places like Kansas and Nebraska instead of just pretending they don't exist like the democratic party has been doing. We could start to get away from the whole red/blue ideology.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be really wonderful if as a side line to this election, Mormon's end up more evenly distributed between the two parties but I'm far from confident it will happen.
My sense is that many LDS republicans have never really considered many political issues. They've never been challenged to think about whether or not republican values outside the abortion and gay marriage issues line up with their values. Many have no idea what issues are important to progressive left politics beyond the stereotypes promulgated by right wing talk show hosts.
I'd really like to see more LDS people recognize that poverty and medical care are moral issues too.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit they may recognize that poverty and medical care are moral issues. But they may not agree with you about what to do about them.
I'm willing to forgo my desire to see abortion end in order to get someone into the executive office who I feel will invigorate the populace and challenge cynicism in politics. Obama is pro-abortion; at this moment, I think the healing he's capable of bringing to other issues is MORE important than the disgust I feel on learning he supported partial-birth abortion rights in October 2007.
Just because someone disagrees with me-- giving greater weight to abortion-- doesn't mean that they haven't thought things out as much as I have. It doesn't mean that they don't see other problems as being moral problems.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because someone disagrees with me-- giving greater weight to abortion-- doesn't mean that they haven't thought things out as much as I have. It doesn't mean that they don't see other problems as being moral problems.
My conclusion that many LDS people haven't thought much about alot of issues is not based on the fact that they disagree with me but rather on many discussions with those individuals.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of partial-abortion rights did he support? Abortion isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray.
kmb - Just to throw my two cents in, it's not just the Democrats who ignore the places they can't win. But I don't blame the Democrats or the Republicans, I blame the electoral college.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What part of partial-abortion rights did he support? Abortion isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray.
kmb - Just to throw my two cents in, it's not just the Democrats who ignore the places they can't win. But I don't blame the Democrats or the Republicans, I blame the electoral college.
Absolutely, the electoral college system actually encourages candidates to focus all their efforts on swing states. Its a grossly undemocratic system.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does mean that in Illinois we haven't seen an ad for the presidential race in quite some time. Which is kind of nice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have got to agree with Rabbit on this one. A lot of LDS have a very shallow view of politics, not all, but many. Of course, this is based only on my conversations with them, not some polling or anything.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks scholar. I should add that I don't think that Mormon's are particularly different than a lot of other Americans in this regard. Growing up in a republican strong hold, I found that the few democrats I knew had generally thought harder about the issues than most people. Then I moved to Seattle where liberals were a strong majority and found that shallow thingk was more a feature of majority politics rather and not specific to one branch or another.
When all ones friends hold the same opinion, its easy to accept those opinions as facts without giving them serious consideration.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Even if it's only 1% of abortions performed, it's still a death that doesn't need to happen.
I dislike his stand on abortion; but I don't think he's going to do anything to make it worse, from my point of view. And I think he will be able to do things better in other areas that are important to me.
quote:this is based only on my conversations with them, not some polling or anything.
posted
Just a guess but, I think he's referring there to a case where the life of the mother is in danger, which is something I personally fully support, even as I have a personal disdain for partial birth abortion, and really for most abortion in general.
I'd have to see the actual text of the bills he voted on, but I'd be surprised if he actually supported partial birth and it wasn't just because of no amendment being there for the life of the mother, which is where a lot of Democrats in Congress get tripped up.
If you have more information on it on hand I'd gladly read it, but if not I can go looking myself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to have to agree with Rabbit. But in political science classes at UVU it's better in some ways, and worse then you can imagine in others.
You have these staunch Republicans who claim to be equally staunch Mormons. They have to negotiate a veritable obstacle course of chaos to marry the two together sometimes but somehow they've done it. They scream about the evils of socialism and the virtues of capitalism and when you point out that social security is socialism and that even Mormons believe a type of theocratic socialism is GOING to be practiced sometime in the future they look at you like they missed every single one of those Sunday school classes. It's almost as if they have been trained to believe that we don't really have any socialistic elements in Mormonism or in our Republic, neither of which is true.
To their credit some of the smart ones see some of the hypocrisy of the past 8 years, what with record deficit spending, bigger government, and virtually no moral legislation getting passed.
Fortunately we get tons of Californians, and a smattering of other states who come here and add a touch of flavor to the debates. A few of us can even raise our hands and say we support Obama at this point and nobody sneers.
But I think Rabbit is right in that political ignorance is endemic to no particular place. I myself must admit that being raised conservtive have been forced to reevaluate my take on things in the face of increasing knowledge.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd have to see the actual text of the bills he voted on, but I'd be surprised if he actually supported partial birth and it wasn't just because of no amendment being there for the life of the mother, which is where a lot of Democrats in Congress get tripped up.
Typically, the argument is over the inclusion of health of the mother.
I was pretty young when I sorted out most of my conservative and not conservative issues. The problem is the evolution towards neoconservatism and how few people have woken up to that. If it weren't for his willfully ignorant attacks on Mormonism and his disrespect for the constitution, I'd agree with Mike Huckabee on a lot of issues, I think.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if it's only 1% of abortions performed, it's still a death that doesn't need to happen.
But the partial birth abortion ban doesn't ban the abortion, just the method that is used to do it. I suspect it hasn't stopped even one abortion, instead they just use a method that is less safe for the mother.
Most states already have bans on late term abortions except in cases of medical necessity. I'm not sure what the partial birth abortion adds to those bans.
I personally think that the partial birth abortion ban is highly misguided. It depended on sensational descriptions of the method to rouse public sentiment but ignored the big issue.
Abortions aren't wrong because of how they are done. They are wrong because of why they are done.
I largely agree with Obama's stand on abortion because I believe, as the Mormon church teaches, that their are some cases where abortion is a morally acceptable choice.
Although I don't believe most abortions are chosen for morally acceptable reasons, I believe that once a woman has chosen to have an abortion the method should be chosen based on medical grounds not political. If a friend or family member of mine needed an abortion for medical reasons, I would want the doctors to have every possible option available for her treatment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think abortion is wrong only because of the motives? Why, specifically, is wrong about it? Do you feel the same way giving up chlidren for adoption?
What is the "why", specifically, in abortion that you feel is morally wrong? Do you feel the same way about birth control? If so, how do you reconcile with the LDS church's stance?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'd think after almost 9 years of abortion threads that I've seen (and many more before that I'm sure), we've at least agreed to use some common terminology.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with partial birth abortion is that unless the baby has birth defects (which is another issue) the baby could be born instead of aborted and survive. However, it is not optimal for the baby to be born early. So in order to avoid an unethical treatment that endangers the fetus, they kill it. It's not just the gruesomeness of the procedure. It's a real ethical conundrum.
Unless you factor in the concept of the woman not wanting to have born a child and have it adopted and be hers but be out there somewhere. That is such a stupid argument I can't really fathom it.
For the record, I don't agree with aborting for birth defects either, but I can somewhat see some points of view on that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even with the law, a woman can get an abortion at that stage in pregnancy. They just can't use the safest procedure. In the Supreme Court decision, that was specifically pointed out (that the law would not actually stop any one from getting an abortion). I also was under the understanding that women who get abortions that late in the game almost never do it for elective or convenience issues.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think abortion is wrong only because of the motives?
You added an only there which was not in my original statement. I think that there are cases where an abortion is a moral choice. The thing that distinguishes those cases is not how the abortion is performed but why.
And yes I think the same is true for birth control.
In fact, I think the same is true for killing another person.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I largely agree with Obama's stand on abortion because I believe, as the Mormon church teaches, that their are some cases where abortion is a morally acceptable choice.
I don't think that the Mormon church has ever viewed abortion as a morally acceptable choice. No, not even in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.
They've very carefully delineated that in those very rare cases, it's a REGRETTABLE choice that can be made without sin on the part of the mother or doctor performing the procedure.
That's not the same, IMO, as saying it's "morally acceptable."
quote:I think he's referring there to a case where the life of the mother is in danger,
If he is, that isn't clear from the context. Obama DID vote against a bill that was designed to illegalize partial birth abortion procedures-- I can't say why he didn't vote for it, but at the time, lots of Dems said they voted it down because it contained no provision for the health of the mother.
In the bit I quoted, he does not give reasons, other than 'Mother knows best.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:They've very carefully delineated that in those very rare cases, it's a REGRETTABLE choice that can be made without sin on the part of the mother or doctor performing the procedure.
That's not the same, IMO, as saying it's "morally acceptable."
How is "without sin" different from "morally acceptable"?
In my mind, they aren't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I'm saying is Obama won a blue state (WA), a red state (NE) and a swing state (LA) this weekend, and he should take two blues and a magenta state tomorrow.
Incidentally, how well is he polling with tope, burgundy, and mauve?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. "The only exceptions are when--
1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; 2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or 3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
"Even in these cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop [or branch president] and receiving divine confirmation through prayer"
I have a hard time believing that one could receive divine confirmation for any choice that wasn't "morally acceptable".
I can't imagine how difficult it would to be for a righteous woman to be in one of those 3 situations. I can only begin to imagine how agonizing it would be to make that choice even if you received divine confirmation that it was the right choice.
What I would find morally unacceptable would be any law that would make that decision more difficult by placing restrictions on the abortion that might endanger the mother.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't weigh all forms of abortion as being one type of act, and that's what the partial birth abortion is about. If you see an abortion at 35 weeks as being the same as a menstrual extraction at 5, we've got nothing to talk about.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
