But why debate when life begins if you agree? It makes no difference it is about choice
and the right to choose.
No, it's about laws pertaining to abortion, which is why the debate persists.
So when Science is able to save and sustain life outside the womb much earlier,
which will happen, then the laws will change as to when life begins?
And if in the future, granted far future,
it is found that life begins at conception then abortion will not be allowed?
or will the debate be a matter of a women's choice, alone?
as in my opinion it should be.
But why debate when life begins if you agree? It makes no difference it is about choice
and the right to choose.
No, it's about laws pertaining to abortion, which is why the debate persists.
So when Science is able to save and sustain life outside the womb much earlier,
which will happen, then the laws will change as to when life begins?
And if in the future, granted far future,
it is found that life begins at conception then abortion will not be allowed?
or will the debate be a matter of a women's choice, alone?
as in my opinion it should be.
I don't see why that would be the case... just because you can keep a fetus alive in a jar doesn't mean it would mean the laws would change as to when you can have abortions.... In fact, I'm sure you could probably do that now, but no one wants to.
What do you mean if they find out life begins at conception? There is no argument that life begins at conception. It's viable life that is the issue.
The debate will never be a matter of a woman's choice alone... At least, I don't have that much faith in American law or politics....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:
"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.
S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.
First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.
Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.
Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.
Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.
The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.
The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."
Sounds reasonable to me.
Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.
I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.
I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:
"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.
S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.
First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.
Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.
Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.
Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.
The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.
The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."
Sounds reasonable to me.
Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.
I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.
I personally didn't respond to it because I think it's a load of crap. Just the same old excuses IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It's not only the deaths that bother people it's the lies the administration told to try and cover this up.....you know Obama's great transparency policy, or lack of......
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.
I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.
i am not going to support anybody from the party that has not just been wrong, but absolutely-dead-fucking-wrong on every major issue whether foreign, domestic, social, or economic, in the last 20 years.
just sayin'..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It's not only the deaths that bother people it's the lies the administration told to try and cover this up.....you know Obama's great transparency policy, or lack of......
oh please.....
because "saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction and can deploy them in 45 minutes and is an immediate threat to the united states" was just so true... :nono:
:roll:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
It's not only the deaths that bother people it's the lies the administration told to try and cover this up.....you know Obama's great transparency policy, or lack of......
and because "obama is a muslim and a socialist who hates america" is just so true :nono:
because "obama is going to take your guns away" is just so true
because "women don't get pregnant from rape" was just so true...
etc
etc
etc..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
These are the "leaders" of this country - Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid. And that's not even counting the "greatness" of Nancy Pelosi while she was the Speaker.
The above is quite sad and pathetic with the state this country is in. $17 trillion in debt and still rolling....with a President who clearly could care less about the spending and the economy.
Bristow, VA - 5.13.10
East Troy, WI - 9.3.11
East Troy, WI - 9.4.11
Atlanta, GA - 9.22.12
Las Vegas, NV - 10.31.12 (EV)
Las Vegas, NV - 11.1.12 (EV)
Chicago, IL - 7.19.13
Dallas, TX - 11.15.13
Oklahoma City, OK - 11.16.13
Seattle, WA - 12.6.13
Lincoln, NE - 10.9.14
Moline, IL - 10.17.14
St. Paul, MN - 10.19.14
Milwaukee, WI - 10.20.14
New York, NY - 5.1.16
New York, NY - 5.2.16
Boston, MA - 8.5.16
Boston, MA - 8.7.16
Chicago, IL - 8.20.16
These are the "leaders" of this country - Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid. And that's not even counting the "greatness" of Nancy Pelosi while she was the Speaker.
The above is quite sad and pathetic with the state this country is in. $17 trillion in debt and still rolling....with a President who clearly could care less about the spending and the economy.
i believe that you are forgetting that obama has slowed spending to the slowest pace since eisenhower....
Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.
I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.
i am not going to support anybody from the party that has not just been wrong, but absolutely-dead-fucking-wrong on every major issue whether foreign, domestic, social, or economic, in the last 20 years.
just sayin'..
So no matter how reasonable a point someone makes, you are just going to dismiss them because they are republican? How about putting aside what party someone is and having a good debate over this issue?
Now, I'm not going to defend most of what the republicans have done since GWB came into office, but on this issue I will stand with them. And because he does make a good point, I think its a little out of line to label them as women haters.
Just like if you didn't support the Patriot Bill, you were un-American.
Let's also not forget the 100,000+ Iraqi lives lost as well. But why would Americans care about them. As long as we think we are protecting our freedoms.
So no matter how reasonable a point someone makes, you are just going to dismiss them because they are republican? How about putting aside what party someone is and having a good debate over this issue?
Now, I'm not going to defend most of what the republicans have done since GWB came into office, but on this issue I will stand with them. And because he does make a good point, I think its a little out of line to label them as women haters.
Just like if you didn't support the Patriot Bill, you were un-American.
i think the point has been clearly proven in this thread that the gop has an issue with women. they might not all me "woman haters" but their party platform is certainly regressive with regard to women's rights and gay rights. it is also regressive with regard to the poor and those that need "entitlements". the platform is posted in this thread, so if you don't believe me feel free to consult that platform.
and i can easily dismiss someone in the republican party based on what that party platform says. it is regressive and it is not good for the majority of the people in this country. as i stated earlier. the republicans have been dead-fucking-wrong on all of the major foreign, domestic, social, and economic issues in the last 20 years. what makes anybody think that they are going to get out front of an issue and take the right position now? until they prove that they can consistently do that they are going to be a divided, minority party just as they are now.
interesting that you bring up the patriot act. in 2002 if you did not support it you were told to leave the country, nowadays the people on the right oppose it just as much as the lefties. but obama can not not renew it because of something were to happen he would be blamed. it is not just obama, no future president wants to take the risk of not renewing it because if another 9/11 happens that will be that president's legacy, no matter what good he/she did as president, THAT one event will be their legacy. i hate that that fucking law passed, and now we can't get rid of it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i am not going to support anybody from the party that has not just been wrong, but absolutely-dead-fucking-wrong on every major issue whether foreign, domestic, social, or economic, in the last 20 years.
just sayin'..
Yeah... you're not brainwashed. This is literally impossible. Especially since the party you support is the greater of two evils.
If you really believe this, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your opinions, because they are not healthy.
I said "I think human life in the context of abortion" starts at 20 weeks. That is completely different from what you're saying. OBVIOUSLY life exists down to single cell organisms. Since we kill those pretty much just by moving, I think talking about this in the context of when human life in the womb becomes something we need to protect by virtue of its development and viability is the whole point, don't you??
I think my fish comment is completely relevant, because a fetus without a functional nervous system is life that logically warrants no more protection than the life of a fish (even less so - fish and all the other animals we eat DO have functioning nervous systems).... not to say there isn't a difference emotionally. But that really isn't the point.
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
Which choice are you referring to... The choice of the mother/father to engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy? The choice of the mother/father to use the dirt cheap contraceptives out there?
There are times that people didn't choose to put themselves in a situation, if the pregnancy causes health issues or is a result of rape. But ~95% of all pregnancies are a result of choices the parents have made.
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
Which choice are you referring to... The choice of the mother/father to engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy? The choice of the mother/father to use the dirt cheap contraceptives out there?
There are times that people didn't choose to put themselves in a situation, if the pregnancy causes health issues or is a result of rape. But ~95% of all pregnancies are a result of choices the parents have made.
I was referring to the miracle of life. Carrying a child, giving birth,
this can change perspective on abortion and when life begins.
It may not change though one's belief to the right for a women to choose to
carry a child to term. For me any abortion debate is based solely on that.
The right to choose to have an abortion within the law for your own body.
I do not see the point in debating when life begins. I feel science will continue
to make progress sustaining life outside the womb and abortion laws will change
in balance with this.
I don't see why that would be the case... just because you can keep a fetus alive in a jar doesn't mean it would mean the laws would change as to when you can have abortions.... In fact, I'm sure you could probably do that now, but no one wants to.
What do you mean if they find out life begins at conception? There is no argument that life begins at conception. It's viable life that is the issue.
The debate will never be a matter of a woman's choice alone... At least, I don't have that much faith in American law or politics....
I was speaking of the neonatal facilities where lives are being saved.
Advances will be made in this science as well. Yes growing life begins at conception.
Respecting this is an important part of choice. Viability will change as will the laws
governing abortion as it does. The debate lies in choice alone. Here is where abortion education,
other options to abortion can become the norm. Less abortion should be the goal for the future.
So far this year, our Republican President has let taxes increase on the working class by 2% and has overseen budget cuts to critical programs such as education.
The Republican Party has embarked on an effort to re-brand itself to a more diverse set of voters, but one GOP congressman apparently did not get the memo.
Rep. Don Young (Alaska) referred to Latinos using the racial slur "wetbacks" in an interview with public radio station KRBD that was published on Thursday.
Young, 79, used the term when discussing how automation in industry has taken away jobs from working-class individuals.
"I used to own -- my father had a ranch. We used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," he said. "You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now."
Young's use of the derogatory term for Mexican migrant workers could not have come at a worse time for his party.
The Republican National Committee released a post-election report that called on the party to present a friendlier face to voters from different racial and ethnic groups, so that it can compete for their votes. And a number of Republicans have jumped on board with an immigration reform effort underway in Congress.
"If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," the report reads. "It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies."
In a statement, Young did not apologize for his use of the term but he explained that it came from his time growing up in a bygone era. Young also called on Congress to address immigration reform, since migrant workers "play an important role in America's workforce."
"I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California," he said. "I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).
And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.
Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.
The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.
Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.
Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).
And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.
Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.
The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.
Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.
This article is doing exactly what it is trying to criticize.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).
And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.
Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.
The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.
Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.
This article is doing exactly what it is trying to criticize.
To an extent, sure. But I think anytime we get:
But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
and
The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
and
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power.
it is worth noting. Given the state of the GOP as a whole this is what passes for positive.
Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).
And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.
Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.
The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.
Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.
Make your own thread if you want to talk about in-touch republicans. This is not the place for it.
The Minnesota lawmaker alienates independents, moderates, and young voters — and she's not going anywhere
Attention GOP: Your rebranding attempts are being undercut by a segment of your party getting big headlines and lots of air time — a segment symbolized by the Minnesota quote-machine, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Due to a series of gaffes, she is again on the receiving end of criticism, including from Fox News powerhouse Bill O'Reilly. The Congresswoman is also, as reported by The Daily Beast's John Avlon, "embroiled in a litany of legal proceedings related to her rolling disaster of a presidential campaign — including an Office of Congressional Ethics investigation into campaign improprieties." It's almost as if Bachmann is a Democratic mole embedded in the Republican Party with the purpose of chasing away a wide range of voters.
Her latest sound-bite-producing comment, this time on ObamaCare, begged for audio accompaniment of the Twilight Zone theme. Try to imagine it: "Let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let's not do that. Let's love people. Let's care about people. Let's repeal it now while we can."
While some Republicans have distanced themselves from Bachmann — or fled altogether, as Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins did from her ill-fated presidential campaign last year — she is still popular with GOPers who condone the paranoia-tinged political rhetoric that alienates independents, centrists, moderates, and many young people. Such rhetoric is in full display in too-out-there-for-Fox Glenn Beck's theory that the real reason Bachmann is being investigated is because a faction of "radical Islam" embedded in the U.S. government is out to get her.
But, no, it's not what "they" are doing to Bachmann but, once again, what Bachmann is doing to herself.
Her name has repeatedly been splashed in headlines because of her sensationalist statements that destroy her credibility. Many pundits considered her a conservative extremist when she entered the 2012 presidential race, yet (with Rollins' help) she eventually took the lead. But when it came time to broaden her appeal, she wasn't able to ditch the primary-speak to appeal to anyone but the Tea Party and other Republicans who are fond of the talk-show circuit. Thus, the majority of Republican primary voters decided she was not a viable national candidate.
"Bachmann committed no major gaffe to lose that lead, no revelation of old affairs, like Herman Cain, or inability to debate well, like Rick Perry," says Joel Mathis at the Philly Post. "Instead, what seemed to put off GOP supporters was the same thing that's always alarmed the rest of us about Michele Bachmann: She seemed just a little crazy."
Aaron Astor, an associate professor of history at Maryville College, has seen a major shift in how generations communicate — which does not bode well for Bachmann or the Tea Party-flavored Republican Party.
"People under the age of 40 thrive on irony," he told me. "That's why Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are so popular. The Fox News/talk show world is decidedly un-ironic. Once upon a time it had a certain mocking humor and edge to it — mostly in the late 1980s when conservative comedy was still somewhat edgy. But Hannity is pure smarm and has zero appeal to younger people, regardless of ideology. Preachy, soap-box hollering is the stuff of Baby Boomer politics."
Andrew Sullivan also once asserted that "the bitter, brutal tone of American politics comes from... the Baby Boomers. The divide is still — amazingly — between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn't, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all."
Many baby boomer media and politicos remain hopelessly mired in those 1960s and 1970s resentments. And Bachmann, born in 1956, is most decidedly a baby boomer — and perhaps even a caricature of one. She speaks in apocalyptic terms about President Obama and Democrats. She has never met an inaccuracy or exaggeration she didn't like in her thirst to negatively define the other side. (Factcheckers following her speeches may soon have to seek workmen's compensation.) Even her way of speaking seems to resemble the late Gilda Radner playing Rosanne Rosannadanna on Saturday Night Live.
As The Daily Beast's Avlon sees it, the ethics investigation "adds an additional indignity to the self-inflicted disasters of her political career. Demagoguery eventually brings dishonor. And her most passionate supporters ought to consider what it means when the people who know Bachmann best respect her the least."
Does all this mean Bachmann won't get re-elected? No it doesn't. The way her district is set up, she has nothing to worry about. Bachmann will likely be around for a while, maybe even for another doomed presidential bid. She'll get the sound bites and make headlines. Voters that the GOP needs will continue to see her and be reminded of the party's lack of inclusiveness. And many will decide to steer clear of the GOP — and its off-putting sideshow.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
if there ever was a poster child for out of touch republican it is Bachmann. Fucking crazy eye in that one...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
And why the republicans are so completely out of touch.
which will happen, then the laws will change as to when life begins?
And if in the future, granted far future,
it is found that life begins at conception then abortion will not be allowed?
or will the debate be a matter of a women's choice, alone?
as in my opinion it should be.
What do you mean if they find out life begins at conception? There is no argument that life begins at conception. It's viable life that is the issue.
The debate will never be a matter of a woman's choice alone... At least, I don't have that much faith in American law or politics....
Go figure, someone makes a reasonable response and it gets lost in an abortion debate.
I guess it can't be reasonable because all Republicans are out of touch and they all hate women.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's not only the deaths that bother people it's the lies the administration told to try and cover this up.....you know Obama's great transparency policy, or lack of......
just sayin'..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
because "saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction and can deploy them in 45 minutes and is an immediate threat to the united states" was just so true... :nono:
:roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
because "obama is going to take your guns away" is just so true
because "women don't get pregnant from rape" was just so true...
etc
etc
etc..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The above is quite sad and pathetic with the state this country is in. $17 trillion in debt and still rolling....with a President who clearly could care less about the spending and the economy.
East Troy, WI - 9.3.11
East Troy, WI - 9.4.11
Atlanta, GA - 9.22.12
Las Vegas, NV - 10.31.12 (EV)
Las Vegas, NV - 11.1.12 (EV)
Chicago, IL - 7.19.13
Dallas, TX - 11.15.13
Oklahoma City, OK - 11.16.13
Seattle, WA - 12.6.13
Lincoln, NE - 10.9.14
Moline, IL - 10.17.14
St. Paul, MN - 10.19.14
Milwaukee, WI - 10.20.14
New York, NY - 5.1.16
New York, NY - 5.2.16
Boston, MA - 8.5.16
Boston, MA - 8.7.16
Chicago, IL - 8.20.16
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/
also,
everything obama has tried to do to help the economy was either filibustered in the senate, or not allowed to even be voted on in the house.
remember the jobs bill in the house? not even brought to a vote by boehner.
these are facts.
it is not my fault that the facts to not jive with your version of reality.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So no matter how reasonable a point someone makes, you are just going to dismiss them because they are republican? How about putting aside what party someone is and having a good debate over this issue?
Now, I'm not going to defend most of what the republicans have done since GWB came into office, but on this issue I will stand with them. And because he does make a good point, I think its a little out of line to label them as women haters.
Just like if you didn't support the Patriot Bill, you were un-American.
This is why I loathe neo-con Republicans.
Let's also not forget the 100,000+ Iraqi lives lost as well. But why would Americans care about them. As long as we think we are protecting our freedoms.
and i can easily dismiss someone in the republican party based on what that party platform says. it is regressive and it is not good for the majority of the people in this country. as i stated earlier. the republicans have been dead-fucking-wrong on all of the major foreign, domestic, social, and economic issues in the last 20 years. what makes anybody think that they are going to get out front of an issue and take the right position now? until they prove that they can consistently do that they are going to be a divided, minority party just as they are now.
interesting that you bring up the patriot act. in 2002 if you did not support it you were told to leave the country, nowadays the people on the right oppose it just as much as the lefties. but obama can not not renew it because of something were to happen he would be blamed. it is not just obama, no future president wants to take the risk of not renewing it because if another 9/11 happens that will be that president's legacy, no matter what good he/she did as president, THAT one event will be their legacy. i hate that that fucking law passed, and now we can't get rid of it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah... you're not brainwashed. This is literally impossible. Especially since the party you support is the greater of two evils.
If you really believe this, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your opinions, because they are not healthy.
Life has no context.
I don't eat live fish.
It appears you agree that life begins at conception, so abortion is one human ending another human's life. I believe they call that murder.
Which choice are you referring to... The choice of the mother/father to engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy? The choice of the mother/father to use the dirt cheap contraceptives out there?
There are times that people didn't choose to put themselves in a situation, if the pregnancy causes health issues or is a result of rape. But ~95% of all pregnancies are a result of choices the parents have made.
this can change perspective on abortion and when life begins.
It may not change though one's belief to the right for a women to choose to
carry a child to term. For me any abortion debate is based solely on that.
The right to choose to have an abortion within the law for your own body.
I do not see the point in debating when life begins. I feel science will continue
to make progress sustaining life outside the womb and abortion laws will change
in balance with this.
Advances will be made in this science as well. Yes growing life begins at conception.
Respecting this is an important part of choice. Viability will change as will the laws
governing abortion as it does. The debate lies in choice alone. Here is where abortion education,
other options to abortion can become the norm. Less abortion should be the goal for the future.
For shame ....
seriously, wtf?
Republican Congressman Refers to Latinos as "Wetbacks"
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-congre ... itics.html
The Republican Party has embarked on an effort to re-brand itself to a more diverse set of voters, but one GOP congressman apparently did not get the memo.
Rep. Don Young (Alaska) referred to Latinos using the racial slur "wetbacks" in an interview with public radio station KRBD that was published on Thursday.
Young, 79, used the term when discussing how automation in industry has taken away jobs from working-class individuals.
"I used to own -- my father had a ranch. We used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," he said. "You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now."
Young's use of the derogatory term for Mexican migrant workers could not have come at a worse time for his party.
The Republican National Committee released a post-election report that called on the party to present a friendlier face to voters from different racial and ethnic groups, so that it can compete for their votes. And a number of Republicans have jumped on board with an immigration reform effort underway in Congress.
"If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," the report reads. "It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies."
In a statement, Young did not apologize for his use of the term but he explained that it came from his time growing up in a bygone era. Young also called on Congress to address immigration reform, since migrant workers "play an important role in America's workforce."
"I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California," he said. "I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... t-serious/
Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.
The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).
And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.
Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.
It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.
The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.
Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
To an extent, sure. But I think anytime we get:
and
and
it is worth noting. Given the state of the GOP as a whole this is what passes for positive.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Make your own thread if you want to talk about in-touch republicans. This is not the place for it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The Michele Bachmann sideshow is hurting the GOP
http://news.yahoo.com/michele-bachmann- ... 00373.html
The Minnesota lawmaker alienates independents, moderates, and young voters — and she's not going anywhere
Attention GOP: Your rebranding attempts are being undercut by a segment of your party getting big headlines and lots of air time — a segment symbolized by the Minnesota quote-machine, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Due to a series of gaffes, she is again on the receiving end of criticism, including from Fox News powerhouse Bill O'Reilly. The Congresswoman is also, as reported by The Daily Beast's John Avlon, "embroiled in a litany of legal proceedings related to her rolling disaster of a presidential campaign — including an Office of Congressional Ethics investigation into campaign improprieties." It's almost as if Bachmann is a Democratic mole embedded in the Republican Party with the purpose of chasing away a wide range of voters.
Her latest sound-bite-producing comment, this time on ObamaCare, begged for audio accompaniment of the Twilight Zone theme. Try to imagine it: "Let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let's not do that. Let's love people. Let's care about people. Let's repeal it now while we can."
While some Republicans have distanced themselves from Bachmann — or fled altogether, as Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins did from her ill-fated presidential campaign last year — she is still popular with GOPers who condone the paranoia-tinged political rhetoric that alienates independents, centrists, moderates, and many young people. Such rhetoric is in full display in too-out-there-for-Fox Glenn Beck's theory that the real reason Bachmann is being investigated is because a faction of "radical Islam" embedded in the U.S. government is out to get her.
But, no, it's not what "they" are doing to Bachmann but, once again, what Bachmann is doing to herself.
Her name has repeatedly been splashed in headlines because of her sensationalist statements that destroy her credibility. Many pundits considered her a conservative extremist when she entered the 2012 presidential race, yet (with Rollins' help) she eventually took the lead. But when it came time to broaden her appeal, she wasn't able to ditch the primary-speak to appeal to anyone but the Tea Party and other Republicans who are fond of the talk-show circuit. Thus, the majority of Republican primary voters decided she was not a viable national candidate.
"Bachmann committed no major gaffe to lose that lead, no revelation of old affairs, like Herman Cain, or inability to debate well, like Rick Perry," says Joel Mathis at the Philly Post. "Instead, what seemed to put off GOP supporters was the same thing that's always alarmed the rest of us about Michele Bachmann: She seemed just a little crazy."
Aaron Astor, an associate professor of history at Maryville College, has seen a major shift in how generations communicate — which does not bode well for Bachmann or the Tea Party-flavored Republican Party.
"People under the age of 40 thrive on irony," he told me. "That's why Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are so popular. The Fox News/talk show world is decidedly un-ironic. Once upon a time it had a certain mocking humor and edge to it — mostly in the late 1980s when conservative comedy was still somewhat edgy. But Hannity is pure smarm and has zero appeal to younger people, regardless of ideology. Preachy, soap-box hollering is the stuff of Baby Boomer politics."
Andrew Sullivan also once asserted that "the bitter, brutal tone of American politics comes from... the Baby Boomers. The divide is still — amazingly — between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn't, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all."
Many baby boomer media and politicos remain hopelessly mired in those 1960s and 1970s resentments. And Bachmann, born in 1956, is most decidedly a baby boomer — and perhaps even a caricature of one. She speaks in apocalyptic terms about President Obama and Democrats. She has never met an inaccuracy or exaggeration she didn't like in her thirst to negatively define the other side. (Factcheckers following her speeches may soon have to seek workmen's compensation.) Even her way of speaking seems to resemble the late Gilda Radner playing Rosanne Rosannadanna on Saturday Night Live.
As The Daily Beast's Avlon sees it, the ethics investigation "adds an additional indignity to the self-inflicted disasters of her political career. Demagoguery eventually brings dishonor. And her most passionate supporters ought to consider what it means when the people who know Bachmann best respect her the least."
Does all this mean Bachmann won't get re-elected? No it doesn't. The way her district is set up, she has nothing to worry about. Bachmann will likely be around for a while, maybe even for another doomed presidential bid. She'll get the sound bites and make headlines. Voters that the GOP needs will continue to see her and be reminded of the party's lack of inclusiveness. And many will decide to steer clear of the GOP — and its off-putting sideshow.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan